Rank the Republican contenders by order of craziness.

[blueblood]

This is nothing but Fox news nonsense. The U.S. government, relative to its population, is actually quite reasonable. If it weren't for the tax cuts they'd have yearly surpluses.

Well, sure. The way things are going Republican will be thumping their desks one day, screaming in rage at the 1% flat tax, and demanding it be reduced to 1/2%. It certainly stands to reason that you can't afford the same kind of government services as all the rest of the western world enjoys when you won't pay taxes.

And U.S. taxes are lower than any other OECD country.

Greece, Italy and Spain had a series of minority governments where the parties fought for the popular vote by offering more and more services. The U.S. doesn't offer anywhere near the kinds of entitlements the Europeans have. On top of that, they mismanaged everything about both their budgets and their economies. They are hardly examples of what happens when you have entitlement programs.

Try to cut social security and the seniors will throw you out of power in a heartbeat. Those programs are far too popular to cut, so the right wing in the US is just going to have to either reconcile itself to tax increases or no military.

It's not fox news nonsense, last time I checked Fareed Zakaria is all CNN/Time, and he isn't the same goofball they have on fox news. If it weren't for excessive spending they'd have surpluses as well....

Why do we need bloated inefficient gov't services, why not let the private sector take on as much as possible. All government does is make things more expensive. We had a USA gov't function long before income taxes were put in place.

USA business taxes are getting to be higher than most countries. Our federal business tax is almost half of what theirs is, our books are in order, why is that? could it be a cut in spending?

Canada had minority governments too, yet we kept our books balanced. Find another scapegoat. The USA also mismanaged everything and as a result of that mismanagement created a lot of entitlement programs that weren't needed and expensive.

There are many tea party republicans who have been elected with one purpose and that is to control govt spending and they could care less about re-election. When the crap hits the fan stuff gets done, and it will involve taking an axe to entitlements and the recipients will basically have to pound sand. Hell the canadian public had to pound sand when Martin axed 20% of spending.

Nope, it will be spending cuts. Jacking up taxes to create funding for these nonsense programs was part of what got them into this mess. Being broke isn't fun and sacrifices have to be made. Party's over and people are starting to realize that. This presidential election will be a referendum on what way the economic mess will be fixed.

[blueblood]

My opinion is if somebody believes that, say, the earth is only 6000 years old, or that we are all the trapped souls of aliens from the planet Gourgamoth (or whatever is that ridiculous nonsense Scientologists believe) then you are unfit for public office. And maybe go retake that high school science class they obviously slept through.

Let me put it like this. If I had a choice between a competent manager who believed the earth was 6000 years old and a bumbling screw up who couldn't manage a hamburger stand, but was following what the mainstream is doing, guess who gets my vote?

And this is why it shouldn't matter, we should be picking who is going to do the best job, not have a referendum on what a candidates beliefs are.

stock well Day is a perfect example of this. He was ultra religious and yet was one of the most competent cabinet ministers in Harpers cabinet. Obviously his religious beliefs had no bearing on how he did the job and I think we should be giving all people running for public office the benefit of the doubt on that. Kids are taught not to judge a book by its cover, why can't grown ups?

I could care less if somebody worshipped cats and had a cat statue in his office and made sacrifices to it, if that person has a track record of solid management, and treats other people with respect, then why can't they get the job if they are most qualified for it? Does discrimination only apply if people are not White/Christian? I think its quite a stretch for some people to think its acceptable to discriminate against christians applying for the job of public office, yet at the same time wave the discrimination flag if someone not Christian gets discriminated against when they apply for a job (rightfully so). It's a two way street.

[kimmy]

What I am going to point out is that in spite of what remains in the Maryland Constitution, it is illegal - per the Supreme Court decision. So I repeat. Atheists are not barred from public office.

Clearly.

So I say go ahead and question anyone's beliefs if they make them public, as in "God spoke to me and said whatever" regarding the office they are running for. Anything they bring to the table is "fair game."

We don't actually disagree about anything.

So we're supposed to have a stock well day type of situation where he can be pretty near persecuted on tv and by political rivals for having religious beliefs? You have opponents saying because he's a religious person and follows his religion very closely, he shouldn't be fit for public office? I find it hypocritical that in Canada if stock well day were to question his opponents religion or lack of it, he would have been skewered by the media.

Well, I feel a little bad for Stockwell because he didn't go around *asking* for people to vote for him because he was a big Jesus guy.

Perry and Bachmann, on the other hand, that's exactly their pitch. Michele Bachmann is running around promoting herself as "a president who will pray", promising that her faith will be part of her decision making process, and declaring that "separation of church and state is a myth." She's flat out telling people that her faith is the reason they should vote for her ...but we're not allowed to talk about her faith?

Perry... enough said.

Cain and Romney are religious men but at least they act like grown-ups about it.

Why should someone get a free pass for questioning Christians and seeing if their beliefs should disqualify them for office yet if a Christian did it, its the second round of the spanish inquisition? Cripes if believing that you should treat others with respect and not be a bad person is grounds for calling someone's candidacy into question, then we have an intolerance problem.

Why should Christians get a free pass from discussion of their religious beliefs when they're the ones making their faith a centerpiece of their campaigns?

And I'm not sure I agree that "believing you should treat others with respect and not be a bad person" is really a defining characteristic of the brand of Christendom that the evangelicals and Southern Baptists are selling these days.

I'm saying you shouldn't question any politicians beliefs no matter what religion. It's as appropriate as questioning someone's sexual orientation! Color, marital status, etc. It's not really anybody's business.

If the candidates were campaigning on the basis of their gayness... "Vote for me, I'm the gayest!" "No, I am clearly gayest!" "Support me, for I am gayer than either of my opponents!" I suspect you'd probably have something to say about it.

Newt said something dumb, and people should judge him for saying something dumb, not for what he believes in.

Don't try and make it sound like it was just a slip of the tongue. From watching the speech it's clear that it wasn't an off the cuff remark. And he's said similar things before. He didn't just say something dumb, he made clear that he believes it in his heart.

Why do some people who label themselves as atheists need to go out and trash people who believe in something, yet expect everyone to accommodate them. For a group that complains about religion being pushed on everyone, a lot feel the need to push their views on other people, hypocrites?

I think it's hilarious when American Christians try and play victim.

-k

[Shady]

I haven't heard much playing victim. Regardless, I don't like it when anyone does.

[blueblood]

Well, I feel a little bad for Stockwell because he didn't go around *asking* for people to vote for him because he was a big Jesus guy.

Perry and Bachmann, on the other hand, that's exactly their pitch. Michele Bachmann is running around promoting herself as "a president who will pray", promising that her faith will be part of her decision making process, and declaring that "separation of church and state is a myth." She's flat out telling people that her faith is the reason they should vote for her ...but we're not allowed to talk about her faith?

Perry... enough said.

Cain and Romney are religious men but at least they act like grown-ups about it.

Why should Christians get a free pass from discussion of their religious beliefs when they're the ones making their faith a centerpiece of their campaigns?

And I'm not sure I agree that "believing you should treat others with respect and not be a bad person" is really a defining characteristic of the brand of Christendom that the evangelicals and Southern Baptists are selling these days.

If the candidates were campaigning on the basis of their gayness... "Vote for me, I'm the gayest!" "No, I am clearly gayest!" "Support me, for I am gayer than either of my opponents!" I suspect you'd probably have something to say about it.

Don't try and make it sound like it was just a slip of the tongue. From watching the speech it's clear that it wasn't an off the cuff remark. And he's said similar things before. He didn't just say something dumb, he made clear that he believes it in his heart.

I think it's hilarious when American Christians try and play victim.

-k

I watched that debate. The only time I heard them bring up the religious schtick was when they were deliberately asked about it in the debate. That doesn't seem centre piece to me. Some did elaborate on it more than others. Just because something garners some attention, doesn't mean its the centerpiece.

I think the problem that you and a lot of people have with the Palin/Perry/Bachman types isn't the fact that they are religious, it's the fact that they have rocks in their head. Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they automatically have rocks in their head. Perry/Bachmann/Palin are stupid because...they're just dumb!

Treating people with respect and not being a bad person is a defining characteristic of generally most of the mainstream religions. However because some evangelicals act like buffoons doesn't mean that's what their religion is all about, that's just people being fools.

I'm happy you brought up gayness. Quite frankly whether a person is gay or not is none of my business and I could care less what team a person plays for. We had that Milk fellow down in San Francisco who was openly gay run for office and won, I don't think he solely campaigned on being gay. I will give you this, if a candidate only talks about how religious they are and doesn't talk about the issues, I wouldn't vote for them because they aren't offering ideas and think they should get in because they are only religious, it's like okay your religious, but what are you going to do that benefits me/society, how good are you at managing things? I don't think we should confuse an incompetent campaign with somebody's belief system.

Newt did say a dumb thing. It wasn't slip of the tongue. He prepared for it, and was wrong. As far as i'm concerned he wasted his time preparing and didn't have the foresight to see that it is probably a bad idea in the long run to say that. As is the theme, blame the person for being an idiot, not what they believe in.

I think the Christians have a point with being a victim. If they did the things to other groups that are being done to them it would be a huge controversy. I mean these days we have PC terms for christmas tree being called the holiday tree. As far as I'm concerned thats like calling the gay pride parade the celebration parade. I think that would be wrong because it takes away from a big part of the gay lifestyle and what they went through to get to that point in the name of political correctness as is the christmas tree being called the holiday tree.

Lesson for the day, idiots come in all shapes and sizes and a person should be judged for being an idiot, not for what they believe in, race, sexual orientation, etc.

Edited October 26, 2011 by blueblood

[Argus]

Oh, and that's completely untrue.

Actually it's completely true. I'd like to know how it is that Germany can have such a powerful economy, including a healthy manufacturing sector with tax rates far, far higher than what American right wingers say would destroy the American economy...

For that matter, the tax rates the US had in the fifties, you know, when life was so good in the US, are far above what the US has now.

[Argus]

It's not fox news nonsense, last time I checked Fareed Zakaria is all CNN/Time, and he isn't the same goofball they have on fox news.

I'm perfectly willing to accept there are goofballs on multiple networks.

Why do we need bloated inefficient gov't services, why not let the private sector take on as much as possibl

e.

You mean like it does health care? The cost of the bureaucracy and red tape, the administration cost, of US private sector health care is multiple times higher than medicare or the Canadian public health care system.

USA business taxes are getting to be higher than most countries.

Our federal business tax is almost half of what theirs is, our books are in order, why is that?

The US business tax rate is deceiving. There are so many tax breaks and write-offs for business that the real tax rate in the US is much lower than what it seems.

Canada had minority governments too, yet we kept our books balanced.

Canada rarely has had minority governments. And every time we have the spending goes up. Plus, our minority governments are nothing like theirs. Over there they have unstable coalition governments made up of five or ten separate parties. It's a mess. And so their spending got to ridiculous levels. You should read up sometime on the retirement age in Greece. Greece allowed all kinds of people to retire at 50 because they're in 'dangerous jobs'. That includes hairdressers and tv and radio personalities. They retire on full government pensions too.

More than 14% of the Greek workforce is covered under those provisions. The rest retire at 61 - though they're now raising that to 63 - which is still too low.

The USA also mismanaged everything and as a result of that mismanagement created a lot of entitlement programs that weren't needed and expensive.

Social Security and Medicare are needed. If you want to look at what's not needed you should look at the subsidies it gives to various industries, especially the agriculture industry. Interestingly, the Republicans have shown no interest whatever in cutting those.

There are many tea party republicans who have been elected with one purpose and that is to control govt spending and they could care less about re-election.

Yeah, like I said. The Teabaggers want to stop the government from taxing them in order to help others. The teabaggers aren't interested in helping others. If old people freeze to death in their unheated apartments that's their own problem, as far as the Teabaggers are concerned.

Praise Jesus!

[guyser]

Actually it's completely true.

Sort of true, close anyway, but not true ...

Ireland, Israel, Mexico , New Zealand and Chile have lower

[Argus]

Sort of true, close anyway, but not true ...

Ireland, Israel, Mexico , New Zealand and Chile have lower

Should we at least agree that third world countries shouldn't count for comparison purposes?

As to the others, I know NZ has a GST that's something like 15%, while Ireland's VAT is something like 20%. So I bet the overall tax rates paid are still higher than in the US.

[Shady]

Actually it's completely true.

Actually, it's not true. It also doesn't take into account the 20 some odd new or higher taxes which Obama has implemented over the last couple of years. These include the indivdual and employer mandate excise taxes, the 3.8 percent surtax on investment income, the "cadillac" tax on health care plans, the medical devices tax, the tanning tax, the hike in medicare payroll tax, and the HSA tax hikes. You'd best revisit your numbers after you've plugged in all of these new fees and hikes.

I'd like to know how it is that Germany can have such a powerful economy

Actually, Germany doesn't have such a powerful economy. It's barely growing.

For that matter, the tax rates the US had in the fifties

Oh yes, the fifties. When it was America vs Europe, and nobody else. My how the times have changed, and the number of competing economies has risen.

Anyways, Italy just made a breakthrough deal to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. Why didn't they just raise taxes Argus? Why don't they know your answers!

[blueblood]

I'm perfectly willing to accept there are goofballs on multiple networks.

You mean like it does health care? The cost of the bureaucracy and red tape, the administration cost, of US private sector health care is multiple times higher than medicare or the Canadian public health care system.

The US business tax rate is deceiving. There are so many tax breaks and write-offs for business that the real tax rate in the US is much lower than what it seems.

Canada rarely has had minority governments. And every time we have the spending goes up. Plus, our minority governments are nothing like theirs. Over there they have unstable coalition governments made up of five or ten separate parties. It's a mess. And so their spending got to ridiculous levels. You should read up sometime on the retirement age in Greece. Greece allowed all kinds of people to retire at 50 because they're in 'dangerous jobs'. That includes hairdressers and tv and radio personalities. They retire on full government pensions too.

More than 14% of the Greek workforce is covered under those provisions. The rest retire at 61 - though they're now raising that to 63 - which is still too low.

Social Security and Medicare are needed. If you want to look at what's not needed you should look at the subsidies it gives to various industries, especially the agriculture industry. Interestingly, the Republicans have shown no interest whatever in cutting those.

Yeah, like I said. The Teabaggers want to stop the government from taxing them in order to help others. The teabaggers aren't interested in helping others. If old people freeze to death in their unheated apartments that's their own problem, as far as the Teabaggers are concerned.

Praise Jesus!

fared Zakaria is a goofball, riiiiiggghhhttt. I'm sure a respected publication like TIme has one of its main contributors as a goofball.

Had the US government not meddled with US healthcare like Nixon "I'm a keynesian now" did, they would not be in this sort of mess as healthcare costs would have been inflated in the first place. Try again.

Hmm, 35% and not all businesses can apply for all the loopholes. Not everyone is the democrat's piggy bank (General Electric).

Yet our minority governments from 2004-2011 kept spending at reasonable levels with deficit spending when not in a recession a political no-no. And then there is our best friend Trudeau with his super majorities, hell we're still paying for his nonsense. So now your saying the Greeks were spending too much money, but not the Americans, yet the US debt to GDP is approaching 100%. Yet the greeks had their high tax regime...

Last time I checked agriculture is on the table and the axe is about to swing there, bye bye 23 billion over 10 yrs. and bye bye 5 billion direct payments. Social security and medicare will get their haircuts too. Why are the republicans putting everything on the table and not the democrats?

Poor people have been freezing before government spending, during government spending, and will after government spending. All that was accomplished was that the USA is now poorer as a whole because of it.

As for the fifties being the most prosporous time ever, well thats easy when Europe was devastated by the war and we had the USSR and China under Mao. The US was the only game in town and wages reflected that. Also the stupidity of gov't spending and high taxes caught up to them in the 1970's, stagflation anyone???

Germany is the same thing, they have a captive market and the EU is one of the worst places to import to because of all the regulations and tariffs and taxes. That only benefitted Germany, oh and how is Europe these days??? If I had a choice between Canada's situation and Germany's situation, I'd take Canada's any day. Oh and we have lower business taxes to boot.

Oh and Chile is not a third world country anymore, it is one of the fastest growing South American countries, curse that business friendly environment!

Praise Jesus indeed!!

Edited October 27, 2011 by blueblood

[guyser]

Should we at least agree that third world countries shouldn't count for comparison purposes?

We probably could, but they are OECD nations.

I am not sure if bs bob will agree that Israel is a third world country.

[kimmy]

I watched that debate. The only time I heard them bring up the religious schtick was when they were deliberately asked about it in the debate. That doesn't seem centre piece to me. Some did elaborate on it more than others. Just because something garners some attention, doesn't mean its the centerpiece.

The subject matter of the debate doesn't necessarily reflect the subject matter of the candidates' campaigns.

I will give you this, if a candidate only talks about how religious they are and doesn't talk about the issues, I wouldn't vote for them because they aren't offering ideas and think they should get in because they are only religious, it's like okay your religious, but what are you going to do that benefits me/society, how good are you at managing things? I don't think we should confuse an incompetent campaign with somebody's belief system.

Some of these clowns are presenting religion as credentials, and there appears to be a significant number of voters who are dumb enough to agree.

Newt did say a dumb thing. It wasn't slip of the tongue. He prepared for it, and was wrong. As far as i'm concerned he wasted his time preparing and didn't have the foresight to see that it is probably a bad idea in the long run to say that. As is the theme, blame the person for being an idiot, not what they believe in.

It probably wasn't dumb at all. It was probably a smart and calculated thing to say. Any Republicans who were offended were probably planning to support Romney anyway. On the other hand, his statement was probably a big hit with a lot of the voters that he and Bachmann and Perry are fighting for.

It wasn't just a Christian bigot saying something dumb. It was a Christian bigot saying something he knew would appeal to a lot of other Christian bigots.

I think the Christians have a point with being a victim. If they did the things to other groups that are being done to them it would be a huge controversy. I mean these days we have PC terms for christmas tree being called the holiday tree. As far as I'm concerned thats like calling the gay pride parade the celebration parade. I think that would be wrong because it takes away from a big part of the gay lifestyle and what they went through to get to that point in the name of political correctness as is the christmas tree being called the holiday tree.

Yeah, the so-called "War Against Christmas", and "we're not allowed to make kids pray in public schools anymore." American Christians sure have it rough.

-k

Edited October 28, 2011 by kimmy

[blueblood]

The subject matter of the debate doesn't necessarily reflect the subject matter of the candidates' campaigns.

Some of these clowns are presenting religion as credentials, and there appears to be a significant number of voters who are dumb enough to agree.

It probably wasn't dumb at all. It was probably a smart and calculated thing to say. Any Republicans who were offended were probably planning to support Romney anyway. On the other hand, his statement was probably a big hit with a lot of the voters that he and Bachmann and Perry are fighting for.

It wasn't just a Christian bigot saying something dumb. It was a Christian bigot saying something he knew would appeal to a lot of other Christian bigots.

Yeah, the so-called "War Against Christmas", and "we're not allowed to make kids pray in public schools anymore." American Christians sure have it rough.

-k

And how would you know what most of the subject matter is of e campaigns? Do you live there? I see the media reporting on the religious part because it's controversial and gets people watching. And maybe you pick that out when watching the media because you may have a problem with religious people running for office. I see the candidates all taking pot shots at Obama, Cain has a plan, Romney is disciplined, Paul is well Paul, and the others are throwing out rhetoric and statements without substance.

And how are those candidates polling numbers doing? People want ideas, not rhetoric. Cain is polling high because he has a legit plan.

No it was still dumb because it hasn't bumped up newt's polling numbers. Cain took all of perry and bachmanns voters with his plan. Why is perry all of a sudden rolling out a plan? Newt is wasting his time playing the religious card.

As for your war on Christians, if Christian kids got the same kind of perks that kids of other religions get in say Toronto, people would be outraged and roll out the pushing of religion bus. How would you feel if a church decided to buy advertising on all the city buses saying praise Jesus? An athiest group got to do it? Why should one group get to push their beliefs free of scorn of society while another gets shamed? Lets see some consistency here.

You have to remember that a significant portion of the USA is christian and believes very strongly in that, don't they get a say?

[Shady]

Exactly. The only people bringing up religion in the debates are the moderators and the media. The candidates have talked almost exclusively about jobs and the economy. But some people only see what they want to see.

[Smallc]

Exactly. The only people bringing up religion in the debates are the moderators and the media. The candidates have talked almost exclusively about jobs and the economy. But some people only see what they want to see.

That is so not true. Or would you have a Muslim in your cabinet?

Edited October 28, 2011 by Smallc

[kimmy]

As for your war on Christians, if Christian kids got the same kind of perks that kids of other religions get in say Toronto, people would be outraged and roll out the pushing of religion bus. How would you feel if a church decided to buy advertising on all the city buses saying praise Jesus? An athiest group got to do it? Why should one group get to push their beliefs free of scorn of society while another gets shamed? Lets see some consistency here.

What? I don't know about where you live, but where I live religions advertise on billboards and buses all the time, while the atheist bus ads were somehow stolen from the buses before the buses even left the locked, secured transit yard. Very mysterious, that. Halifax Transit famously refused to run the atheist bus ads, but last week they ran ads for a Halifax church warning they'd better get Jesus before the world ends on October 21.

How is it that the same people who decided that "You can be good without god" is a controversial and offensive message, didn't see anything wrong with "The world is ending next week so you better get Jesus right now!" I'll leave you to ponder that.

While "they're banning prayer!" is a popular meme among Christians who want to act persecuted, these complaints are almost always in situations where a public school is sanctioning religious activity on school time. While Christians complain that their free speech is being inhibited, I bet they'd see the issue a lot differently if that public school had a Muslim principal who wanted Quran verses recited during assemblies.

You have to remember that a significant portion of the USA is christian and believes very strongly in that, don't they get a say?

A say in what? The First Amendment?

-k

[kimmy]

Exactly. The only people bringing up religion in the debates are the moderators and the media. The candidates have talked almost exclusively about jobs and the economy. But some people only see what they want to see.

So it was media people who brought Michele Bachmann to churches? They tricked her into telling people that she'll be a president who prays?

Newt was somehow coerced into making a movie about fighting secularization?

-k

Edited October 28, 2011 by kimmy

[bush_cheney2004]

A say in what? The First Amendment?

The very thing that protects Perry, Bachmann and Gingrich's right to say as they please on the campaign trail. It does not exclude a very Christian president.

[dre]

Let me put it like this. If I had a choice between a competent manager who believed the earth was 6000 years old and a bumbling screw up who couldn't manage a hamburger stand, but was following what the mainstream is doing, guess who gets my vote?

And this is why it shouldn't matter, we should be picking who is going to do the best job, not have a referendum on what a candidates beliefs are.

I think it does matter. Its a judgement issue. In this case you have a guy that thinks Jesus came to America, and that Americans are the real Israelites, and that Indians have colored skin because they have the mark of the devil over what Kane did to Able or something like. Thats not any nuttier than the rest of the Abrahamic religions, but I think its quite reasonable that a person would question the judgement of a person who has oberved the world around him and come to that conclusion.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Thats not any nuttier than the rest of the Abrahamic religions, but I think its quite reasonable that a person would question the judgement of a person who has oberved the world around him and come to that conclusion.

No, you have answered your own question / assertion. Such candidates are not any "nuttier", and any atheist or other candidate who would challenge a very mainstream religious belief system would be political dead meat in an American election. That would be a far more faulty "judgement".

[dre]

No, you have answered your own question / assertion. Such candidates are not any "nuttier", and any atheist or other candidate who would challenge a very mainstream religious belief system would be political dead meat in an American election. That would be a far more faulty "judgement".

Im not saying it would be smart for a candidate to do that. Im saying that the subject in general should be in play because it speaks to judgement and credibility. I think its good for us to know what these people believe.

[bush_cheney2004]

Im not saying it would be smart for a candidate to do that. Im saying that the subject in general should be in play because it speaks to judgement and credibility. I think its good for us to know what these people believe.

You really have no way of knowing such things...affiliation with any mainstream or even minor religion does not give discrete personal insight, just a sweeping generalization like the one you made. JFK was a Roman Catholic, and he defeated a Quaker....not really important either way.

[blueblood]

What? I don't know about where you live, but where I live religions advertise on billboards and buses all the time, while the atheist bus ads were somehow stolen from the buses before the buses even left the locked, secured transit yard. Very mysterious, that. Halifax Transit famously refused to run the atheist bus ads, but last week they ran ads for a Halifax church warning they'd better get Jesus before the world ends on October 21.

How is it that the same people who decided that "You can be good without god" is a controversial and offensive message, didn't see anything wrong with "The world is ending next week so you better get Jesus right now!" I'll leave you to ponder that.

While "they're banning prayer!" is a popular meme among Christians who want to act persecuted, these complaints are almost always in situations where a public school is sanctioning religious activity on school time. While Christians complain that their free speech is being inhibited, I bet they'd see the issue a lot differently if that public school had a Muslim principal who wanted Quran verses recited during assemblies.

A say in what? The First Amendment?

-k

I don't have buses where I'm from, so I'm not too familiar with how bus advertising works, only what i hear in the media.. I hope I can communicate this clearly for you, I'm not as articulate as others here, but I'll try. I do have those annoying billboards with the right to life slogans with a nun's face on them. THe only frigging billboards in the sticks. Now these people have the right to buy advertising and so on and so forth, but I think they are absolute jerks for buying advertising to force a belief system on somebody, the same as the atheist bus ads. To me buying advertising and putting a message concerning something so polarizing and close to home as concerning a person's belief system is in my opinion shameful, and that goes for all of them.

I think your atheist message is controversial because its like the jerk kid who goes and tells a younger kid that there's no Santa. That's obviously the case, but why take a person's belief system and shatter it. That also goes for some Christians going to athiests and saying if you don't go to church your going to hell or something like that. I mean really, why can't people leave people to believe what they want to believe and not judge them on that or make them feel bad for believing something. I know people who have beat cancer who were religious and used religion as part of dealing with cancer and using positive thinking associated with it to help beat it, why be the jerk and take that away from them by saying its all a hoax and your dumb for believing in it. I'm pretty sure those atheist bus ads were a shot back at the christians for their church slogans on advertising wherever, to me that's petty.

I'm in agreement with you in the banning of prayer in the schools, they either have to have none or let them all in and letting them all in would eat up school's time. I do think there is more and more as time goes on a situation regarding the PC of Christmas time and people getting in a tizzy one way or another. I don't think its fair that Christians have to keep a muzzle on at Christmas time in the media.

I think we both have different lines in how a public figure can display his belief system. I think the public figure should be able to proudly idneftify that he believes in such and such and that should be the end of it. If he/she idenfitifes with a belief system and says mine is better than yours because such and such and you should become like me, then I think that's a problem. I don't know where your line is and I'll let you fill that blank in.

The theme in my debate with you is that yes the republican candidates are religious. So what? I don't think that their religion makes them "crazy" I think they do that on their own. I think there are more metrics to a person's nuttiness than what they believe in. I mean we have dre saying that because Romney is a mormon we should be watching him closely because he may have judgement issues because he follows mormonism. Yah mormonism might be a little out there, but lets look at how Romney's judgement really is; he's worth almost 100 million bucks, runs companies, ran the olympics, and was elected governor in a liberal state; I think that says he has pretty good judgement, and why should I care that he believes Joseph Smith's story? Now we have Newt Gingrich making that statement, I think he made that statement because he's a fool, not because of his religion.

I meant to say that shouldn't the religious people get input on who becomes president? These people have a right to vote in the primaries, and if someone wants a shot at president, they have to accommodate these people.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I meant to say that shouldn't the religious people get input on who becomes president? These people have a right to vote in the primaries, and if someone wants a shot at president, they have to accommodate these people.

Right...they have a constitutional right to bring as much religion as they please to the primaries or general election.

Congress

shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.