scimonster wrote:
Considering how disappointed the public has been with Obama, i'd expect Romney to win this time. How long he'll last? Probably 4 years.
Note that i'm not even pretending to vote.
Obama's had a very tight lead the whole campaign, and it's actually been getting more sizable recently.
Offline
i don't know tbh
of course i don't know the general atmosphere over there
but i sure don't /hope/ that romney wins
Offline
You're implying that Obama is getting even more ahead, correct?
Offline
transparent wrote:
You're implying that Obama is getting even more ahead, correct?
Yes.
Well stating, not implying.
Last edited by soupoftomato (2012-10-09 16:00:11)
Offline
If I could, I'm not sure who I would vote for. I think there are better suited people then both, Obama and Romney.
Offline
when both you do not fully agree with either candidate, you have to choose the lesser of two evils.
It's quite obvious that either Obama OR Romney will win, so there'e no point for voting for anyone else.
Offline
scimonster wrote:
Considering how disappointed the public has been with Obama, i'd expect Romney to win this time. How long he'll last? Probably 4 years.
Note that i'm not even pretending to vote.
Hopefully the public will share the beliefs of Obama and give him another shot.
By the way, does anyone here believe that the Bible says a man and another man or a woman and another woman shouldn't be able to marry each other? If so, can you show me some proof? I've had enough of this argument.
Offline
stevetheipad wrote:
By the way, does anyone here believe that the Bible says a man and another man or a woman and another woman shouldn't be able to marry each other? If so, can you show me some proof? I've had enough of this argument.
^^^ This.
And even if the Bible does say so, there IS supposed to be a seperation of church and state...
Offline
OverPowered wrote:
stevetheipad wrote:
By the way, does anyone here believe that the Bible says a man and another man or a woman and another woman shouldn't be able to marry each other? If so, can you show me some proof? I've had enough of this argument.
^^^ This.
And even if the Bible does say so, there IS supposed to be a seperation of church and state...
Well, people can believe whatever they want, but I'm guessing that it wasn't much of an issue back then. But still, whatever it DOES say, it still applies, and I try to apply it in my life as well as I can.
Last edited by Agg725 (2012-10-09 17:10:03)
Offline
stevetheipad wrote:
scimonster wrote:
Considering how disappointed the public has been with Obama, i'd expect Romney to win this time. How long he'll last? Probably 4 years.
Note that i'm not even pretending to vote.Hopefully the public will share the beliefs of Obama and give him another shot.
By the way, does anyone here believe that the Bible says a man and another man or a woman and another woman shouldn't be able to marry each other? If so, can you show me some proof? I've had enough of this argument.
Due to the nature of the passages, I can only give the verse which you can look up either in your own Bible if you have one, or biblegateway.com
And it seems that it is considered wrong by the Bible. That's not to say it should dictate a government with a freedom of religion.
Romans 1 26-27 and 32
1 Corinthians 6:9
Those are direct quotes from the Christian Bible, but it's often argued that it also has passages on not eating certain meats (still found in Kosher Judaism) (mostly based on the health risks involved with that behavior). What the Bible says on the issue of homosexuality may or may not be similar in that respect.
Last edited by soupoftomato (2012-10-09 17:08:14)
Offline
I like this conversation, but I'm afraid that this fora doesn't allow religious topics.
Offline
transparent wrote:
I like this conversation, but I'm afraid that this fora doesn't allow religious topics.
The political issue of homosexuality is pretty much rooted in religion, and I understand the rules of the forum.
I've been careful to only state facts about what the bible contains so I hope it doesn't cause too much trouble.
Last edited by soupoftomato (2012-10-09 17:17:14)
Offline
Well, I don't mind it, I just think that the others might
I just don't want this topic closed after being deprived of political topics for so long BI
Offline
stevetheipad wrote:
scimonster wrote:
Considering how disappointed the public has been with Obama, i'd expect Romney to win this time. How long he'll last? Probably 4 years.
Note that i'm not even pretending to vote.Hopefully the public will share the beliefs of Obama and give him another shot.
By the way, does anyone here believe that the Bible says a man and another man or a woman and another woman shouldn't be able to marry each other? If so, can you show me some proof? I've had enough of this argument.
Leviticus does state homosexuality as bad but at the same time it forbids flat noses and the mixing of two fabrics at the same time to name some examples
Offline
stevetheipad wrote:
By the way, does anyone here believe that the Bible says a man and another man or a woman and another woman shouldn't be able to marry each other? If so, can you show me some proof? I've had enough of this argument.
Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."
and also:
Leviticus 18:22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
================================================
On a different topic...
OverPowered wrote:
And even if the Bible does say so, there IS supposed to be a seperation of church and state...
No, there is not. Contrary to popular belief, that phrase is not in the Constitution OR Declaration of Independence.
Thomas Jefferson wrote this phrase in a letter to the Danbury Church. The correct phrase is: "a wall of separation between the Church and State."
His intention in writing was that the State was not to interfere with the church, and that government would not establish a national Religion or denomination. The Pilgrims and Puritans feared that Government would force them to believe a certain religion or denomination, which is exactly why they left England.
Source; Source 2
And again, I restate:
Wiki Answers wrote:
The founders did want separation of church and state, but not in the way many people think. They did not want the government to be able to create a national church like there had been in England. By "separation of church and state" they did not mean that the Bible should be removed from public life. Rush and Washington even said that if the Bible was removed, our country would not succeed but would fall. (Source)
Last edited by thebriculator (2012-10-09 17:47:50)
Offline
thebriculator wrote:
stevetheipad wrote:
By the way, does anyone here believe that the Bible says a man and another man or a woman and another woman shouldn't be able to marry each other? If so, can you show me some proof? I've had enough of this argument.
Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."
and also:
Leviticus 18:22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
================================================
On a different topic...OverPowered wrote:
And even if the Bible does say so, there IS supposed to be a seperation of church and state...
No, there is not. Contrary to popular belief, that phrase is not in the Constitution OR Declaration of Independence.
Thomas Jefferson wrote this phrase in a letter to the Danbury Church. The correct phrase is: "a wall of separation between the Church and State."
His intention in writing was that the State was not to interfere with the church, and that government would not establish a national Religion or denomination. The Pilgrims and Puritans feared that Government would force them to believe a certain religion or denomination, which is exactly why they left England.
Source; Source 2
And again, I restate:Wiki Answers wrote:
The founders did want separation of church and state, but not in the way many people think. They did not want the government to be able to create a national church like there had been in England. By "separation of church and state" they did not mean that the Bible should be removed from public life. Rush and Washington even said that if the Bible was removed, our country would not succeed but would fall. (Source)
About this whole thing about separation of church and state...
I am not Christian, so any government-sponsored religious activities (which are almost invariably Christian) offend me. America is a multinational country, and regardless of whether the Constitution or Declaration of Independence says, I think that the government should not handle itself in religion at all. Our country is now many years after George Washington, and the phrase that the bible would keep the country from failing now doesn't apply anymore. In fact, if the bible is kept, then that might cause major problems when people like me get mad at the government for doing religious stuff like starting Congress each day with a prayer (that should be done away with) or people having to swear on a bible in court. It really annoys me that America seems to have become a Christian nation, while it is supposed to be accepting to all religions. All of this religious stuff being done by the government goes actively against it. They are saying that America is a place for all religions, as long as they are Christian. As someone who is Jewish, that offends me greatly.
Another topic semi-related to this is that it also annoys me that some people don't like Romney because he's a Mormon. While I don't like Romney much (because of his political views and ideas, not because of his religion), I thought that the people of America would be mature enough to not get mad at him because of his religion. Seriously, America, we are better than that.
Finally, for everyone who believes Obama is a Muslim, two things:
1. He isn't. He is Christian, and his pastor once actually got in trouble for being too extreme or something like that
2. Even if he were, why does it matter? Like I stated above, America is a country that is supposed to accept all religions. However, if you don't like a person because you think he's a Muslim is absurd. What's even worse is that some people think he can't be president because "he's Muslim". Last time I checked, THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENT WRITTEN ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR BECOMING PRESIDENT!!! The fact that you think a guy can't be president because of his religion is incredibly offensive, and it's scary that they let people like you vote.
Offline
jvvg wrote:
What's even worse is that some people think he can't be president because "he's Muslim". Last time I checked, THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENT WRITTEN ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR BECOMING PRESIDENT!!! The fact that you think a guy can't be president because of his religion is incredibly offensive, and it's scary that they let people like you vote.
>.>
<.<
Who thinks that?
Offline
CheeseMunchy wrote:
jvvg wrote:
What's even worse is that some people think he can't be president because "he's Muslim". Last time I checked, THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENT WRITTEN ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR BECOMING PRESIDENT!!! The fact that you think a guy can't be president because of his religion is incredibly offensive, and it's scary that they let people like you vote.
>.>
<.<
Who thinks that?
Believe it or not, some people I know (including some adults) think Obama can't be president because they think he's Muslim.
Offline
jvvg wrote:
CheeseMunchy wrote:
jvvg wrote:
What's even worse is that some people think he can't be president because "he's Muslim". Last time I checked, THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENT WRITTEN ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR BECOMING PRESIDENT!!! The fact that you think a guy can't be president because of his religion is incredibly offensive, and it's scary that they let people like you vote.
>.>
<.<
Who thinks that?Believe it or not, some people I know (including some adults) think Obama can't be president because they think he's Muslim.
Wow.
Offline
scimonster wrote:
Considering how disappointed the public has been with Obama, i'd expect Romney to win this time. How long he'll last? Probably 4 years.
Note that i'm not even pretending to vote.
people seem to be pretty happy with obama...? what are your sources for the public disappointment with obama as opposed to someone like, oh, i dunno, bush?
Offline
Separation of church and state is really important to me; as long as "god" is included in the pledge of allegiance and religion is taken into laws the United States of America does not separate church and state and fails to maintain a system where religion is not forced and/or suggested at all, which is quite sad to me.
Offline
thebriculator wrote:
On a different topic...
OverPowered wrote:
And even if the Bible does say so, there IS supposed to be a seperation of church and state...
No, there is not. Contrary to popular belief, that phrase is not in the Constitution OR Declaration of Independence.
Thomas Jefferson wrote this phrase in a letter to the Danbury Church. The correct phrase is: "a wall of separation between the Church and State."
His intention in writing was that the State was not to interfere with the church, and that government would not establish a national Religion or denomination. The Pilgrims and Puritans feared that Government would force them to believe a certain religion or denomination, which is exactly why they left England.
Source; Source 2
And again, I restate:Wiki Answers wrote:
The founders did want separation of church and state, but not in the way many people think. They did not want the government to be able to create a national church like there had been in England. By "separation of church and state" they did not mean that the Bible should be removed from public life. Rush and Washington even said that if the Bible was removed, our country would not succeed but would fall. (Source)
what about the treaty of tripoli, from 1797? it specifically states the united states is not in any sense a christian nation. countless supreme court rulings support this, often due to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the constitution.
Offline
jvvg wrote:
16Skittles wrote:
Romney lies about how Obama has signed no free trade agreements, Obama has actually signed six.
[Source]Romney lies about lots of stuff.
Oh really? Give me 5 examples.
Offline
16Skittles wrote:
CN12 wrote:
16Skittles wrote:
Name three cases of mistakes made by the dems that were ignored by the media?
I got one thing that the media went nuts over that the Republicans said: Mitt Romney mentioned cutting PBS, and later that week I was at a Jasons Deli and on the news on the tv, the headline was "Big cuts to Big Bird". I'm sure that if Obama had said that, no one would care.
Your argument is completely invalid and based off of assumptions. It is a part of Mitt Romney's economic plan to cut funding to PBS, 0.01% of the federal budget, and what the Pentagon spends every six hours. [source]
You can't make an assumption about that, because Obama DIDN'T say something stupid like that. Come back when you have a valid case of something a democrat has said (recently) that was ignored by the media.
PBS is a program that people learn from, use, and benefit from every day. Why cut that when we could cut wars in Afghanistan,or some other things on this list and save BILLIONS of dollars each year? For example, the Joint Strike Fighter program is basically an inferior version of the F-22 Raptor, being developed at the same time and using over ten billion dollars each year. And that's small change compared to the wars we're actually fighting - Operation Iraqi Freedom cost over 800 billion dollars. I'm not a big fan of the F-35/F-22, basically a plan to replace the best jets in the world with newer, more expensive best jets in the world, but I wouldn't be opposed to continuing research and development if we were saving that much money from stopping the wars in the middle east. Go after the big programs that aren't important, not the little programs that are actually used.
I give up. I'm not going to try to argue with a Democrat.
Offline
CN12 wrote:
16Skittles wrote:
CN12 wrote:
I got one thing that the media went nuts over that the Republicans said: Mitt Romney mentioned cutting PBS, and later that week I was at a Jasons Deli and on the news on the tv, the headline was "Big cuts to Big Bird". I'm sure that if Obama had said that, no one would care.
Your argument is completely invalid and based off of assumptions. It is a part of Mitt Romney's economic plan to cut funding to PBS, 0.01% of the federal budget, and what the Pentagon spends every six hours. [source]
You can't make an assumption about that, because Obama DIDN'T say something stupid like that. Come back when you have a valid case of something a democrat has said (recently) that was ignored by the media.
PBS is a program that people learn from, use, and benefit from every day. Why cut that when we could cut wars in Afghanistan,or some other things on this list and save BILLIONS of dollars each year? For example, the Joint Strike Fighter program is basically an inferior version of the F-22 Raptor, being developed at the same time and using over ten billion dollars each year. And that's small change compared to the wars we're actually fighting - Operation Iraqi Freedom cost over 800 billion dollars. I'm not a big fan of the F-35/F-22, basically a plan to replace the best jets in the world with newer, more expensive best jets in the world, but I wouldn't be opposed to continuing research and development if we were saving that much money from stopping the wars in the middle east. Go after the big programs that aren't important, not the little programs that are actually used.I give up. I'm not going to try to argue with a Democrat.
that's just offensive and mean-spirited, which isn't what this topic should be about
mr. skittles here is linking to his sources and collecting facts to support his arguments and i don't really see you doing that
i don't really think partisan-ness (whats the word for that??) comes in to this as long as you back up your arguments. thebriculator, a republican, is doing a great job of that.
CN12 wrote:
jvvg wrote:
16Skittles wrote:
Romney lies about how Obama has signed no free trade agreements, Obama has actually signed six.
[Source]Romney lies about lots of stuff.
Oh really? Give me 5 examples.
and like asking this isn't really fair when you wouldn't even back up your argument with one sourced case with skittles and jvvg has one right there.
Last edited by veggieman001 (2012-10-09 19:52:10)
Offline