United States Presidential Election, 2012

Assuming the president gets in election after election, we'd essentially have one leader. FDR's presidential terms were out of necessity.
 
But the president doesn't get election after election unless he's a good president.
 
Really, all that matters is that he's better than the competition (imo, Bush should not have received a second term).
 
His first term wasn't bad, considering the War on Terror (which was justified at that point) which was due to a great response to 9/11.

Also, the votes were so close that it's feasibly possible that Al Gore actually won.
 
Ornithologist Mario said:
I'm just wondering... I don't want to sound stupid, but... why is Obama called an "anti-Christian Muslim"?
Click to expand...

Only the fanatical far-right calls him that, and they do it mostly cause they hate and fear muslims, so they think that by calling Obama a muslim they're giving him a terrible insult
 
Dr. Javelin said:
War on Terror (which was justified at that point) which was due to a great response to 9/11.
Click to expand...

Justified in Afghanistan, maybe. I never saw the point of the Iraq war, even back in 2004.
 
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was ruled by a tyrannical dictator with the means and intent to use them.

Nosferatu Man said:
Ornithologist Mario said:
I'm just wondering... I don't want to sound stupid, but... why is Obama called an "anti-Christian Muslim"?
Click to expand...

Only the fanatical far-right calls him that, and they do it mostly cause they hate and fear muslims,
Click to expand...
While I don't think calling Obama an anti-Christian Muslim really achieves anything in terms of logical leverage, the bit about hating and fearing Muslims possibly comes because their holy book specifically states that anyone not adhering to their religious beliefs should be physically killed. I certainly think that acting like Islam is really a peaceful religion at its core is a bit ignorant sounding.
 
Magus said:
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was ruled by a tyrannical dictator with the means and intent to use them.
Click to expand...

Umm.. no.

Maybe that's what Bush and Congress thought, and that's definitely what they said. But there was never any tangible evidence to support it, and Hussein was overthrown in the second year.
 
Magus said:
the bit about hating and fearing Muslims possibly comes because their holy book specifically states that anyone not adhering to their religious beliefs should be physically killed. I certainly think that acting like Islam is really a peaceful religion at its core is a bit ignorant sounding.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the Bible says that anyone not adhering to Christian beliefs will experience unimaginable pain for all eternity.
 
I thought Islam advocated religious tolerance.
 
Uh, no. Most of its adherents do, but the religion itself does not, especially since, like its Judeo-Christian predecessors, it fosters the development of a "holier-than-thou" mentality that has nothing to do with divinity and everything to do with regional human bias.
 
Nosferatu Man said:
Magus said:
the bit about hating and fearing Muslims possibly comes because their holy book specifically states that anyone not adhering to their religious beliefs should be physically killed. I certainly think that acting like Islam is really a peaceful religion at its core is a bit ignorant sounding.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the Bible says that anyone not adhering to Christian beliefs will experience unimaginable pain for all eternity.
Click to expand...
Christians are not called to violently attack people themselves. Christians are technically called to try to peacefully convert as many people as possible and to acknowledge that they aren't perfect. Believing that someone will be eternally tortured and actually doing something you believe will send someone to eternal torture are two different things.
 
How can people be hypocritical and Christian at the same time? Would that mean that they are not Christian by definition? Or do they alter Christian values to fit them?
 
People are hypocritical Christians when they affirm Biblical morals applied to others but refuse to acknowledge when they are violating those morals. Plenty of more liberal Christians believe that the Bible's morals can just be written off as outdated or obsolete and feel free to take a more liberal interpretation of the Bible so it fits their views. This has largely diminished the impact of Christianity in places where it is accepted, including many first-world countries.
 
^ Same goes for pretty much every organized religion.
 
Magus said:
Plenty of more liberal Christians believe that the Bible's morals can just be written off as outdated or obsolete and feel free to take a more liberal interpretation of the Bible so it fits their views.
Click to expand...
Funny, my liberal family does the exact opposite. We consider the church's morals to be obsolete, not the Bible's (though we tend to ignore some of the stuff that actually is outdated). I guess you could call us red-letter.
 
Despite fear of going even further off-topic, I feel that it's really easy to by a hypocrite of any religion. Christianity is probably one of the easiest to be a hypocrite of. Mainly the fact that it's supposed to be so easy to forgive people and for them to forgive you.

So what were we talking about before we got so off-topic?
 
I mentioned how people lambast Obama for being an "anti-Christian Muslim". Then, the conversation went to a related subject.
 
Magus said:
People are hypocritical Christians when they affirm Biblical morals applied to others but refuse to acknowledge when they are violating those morals. Plenty of more liberal Christians believe that the Bible's morals can just be written off as outdated or obsolete and feel free to take a more liberal interpretation of the Bible so it fits their views.
Click to expand...

So the choice is between being a hypocrite or a fanatic?

Look at it like this:

In the Bible's day, women had no rights.

Jesus came along and gave women respect and rights that were utterly unheard-of in the day.

Fast-forward 2000 years later, the Bible's view of women seems sexist, since times have changed and women's rights have advanced so much.

Christianity was extremely progressive for its day. It feels to me like being as progressive as possible is the best way to continue what it started.

Magus said:
This has largely diminished the impact of Christianity in places where it is accepted, including many first-world countries.
Click to expand...

It's really hard for me to complain about that, since if not for people watering down the Bible, gays would have no rights, women would have few rights (see above), and no one would be allowed to eat shrimp.
 
Going on topic, I'm not voting for any Bible thumpers, that's for sure.
 
Romney has won, no surprise, the state of Maryland and D.C.

Now we wait for the results of the biggest race today - Wisconsin.
 
Who do you think has the advantage in this state?
 
Romney has the advantage, no doubt - especially after several major endorsements from Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan. But you can't count Santorum out at all; he has a shot to win Wisconsin, no doubt. Romney's poll numbers have dropped quite a bit in Wisconsin, and Santorum's have gone up.

If Romney wins Wisconsin, then he'll more than likely end up, for sure, being the nominee (unless, somehow, we get a broken convention).

If Santorum wins Wisconsin, then he'll win Pennsylvania on the 24th, and might even have a chance in states like New York and Delaware on the same date.

No matter what happens, though, it'll probably stay a two-person race. Santorum will grab wins here-and-there if he loses Wisconsin, as he'll probably win states like Pennsylvania, Nebraska, and Texas. But Romney will win the majority of the remaining states if he (Romney) wins Wisconsin.

(hope that made sense)
 
Perhaps, but I think Mitt Romney is likely going to be the GOP nominee for president. However, I don't find that relatively important because I'll vote Democrat (if I'm old enough to vote, that is).

I could be wrong about the Republican nominee.
 
Ornithologist Mario said:
Perhaps, but I think Mitt Romney is likely going to be the GOP nominee for president. However, I don't find that relatively important because I'll vote Democrat (if I'm old enough to vote, that is).

I could be wrong about the Republican nominee.
Click to expand...

Romney will probably get it. Santorum appeals solely to the fringe lunatic group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back