Dangerous Retard

[arnie666]

Homosexuality - is - part - of - Satan?!?!? Charming. She's a homophobe and a transphobe. And she should be taken to task on this issue.
Sadly, she has a pretty good shot at winning the nomination. Looking at the field of candidates on the Republican side for president, well, Mitt Romney looks like the best.... Meaning: the least extreme. But I could be wrong.

If Palin enters,she is out.Bachmann is Palin lite. Palin is a bit more moderate on Gay rights as well.That dyke feminist tammy bruce, talk show host is totally pushing her, and a bunch of Gays who supported Hillary claim they will push for Palin instead if she runs.

I think even if Palin doesn't enter Bachmann won't be the nominee.She did well in that first poll because it is bible thumping country. It will end up being between Romney and Perry in my opinion.

[trish]

Bachmann = Palin = brianlite

[Ben]

If Palin enters,she is out.Bachmann is Palin lite. Palin is a bit more moderate on Gay rights as well.That dyke feminist tammy bruce, talk show host is totally pushing her, and a bunch of Gays who supported Hillary claim they will push for Palin instead if she runs.

I think even if Palin doesn't enter Bachmann won't be the nominee.She did well in that first poll because it is bible thumping country. It will end up being between Romney and Perry in my opinion.

I don't think Palin enters the race. I could be wrong.
If it's Mitt Romney (again, probably the least extreme) then he'll pick Perry as his running mate. If it's Perry, well, who knows.
God! The thought of another Texas Republican in the White House makes my skin crawl -- ha ha ha!
Remember, Dwight Eisenhower used to be a member of the Party. What has happened to it? Well, it has been usurped by the crazies.

[onmyknees]

That's your argument? You rest the defense of your views on what may have been a squeaky chair, or Barney Frank passing gas? Hey, just asking. LOL ROTFL AATOSYCTO

And what choir?? I didn't know conservatives were banned from this thread. Oh they aren't. Then nobody, including Nicole, could guarantee conservatives wouldn't read this thread. Consequently Nicole wasn't preaching to the choir. So there you go again OMK, making stupid ass assumptions that are patently ridiculous. And for what? Dramatic effect?

Oh come now Trish....I love to throw that degenerate Barney Frank in your faces no matter what the argument. He never disappoints !


Now into the your question about the "choir". Choir....(an organized group in concert in the same class or to sound in chorus or concert) Get it? This freak show ( and ND has tagged it far worse) called HA ain't exactly what I'd call mainstream America...political or otherwise. ...let's be honest for once. Even Ben acknowledged that the other day. The country is pretty evenly divided politically, although I'd urge you to check any of the polling companies and you'll find Americans who identify themselves as conservative on fiscal issues double those who identify themselves as liberal; or progressive. 70 % of Americans say they pray from time to time or attend services...try mentioning that in here...you'll be shunned as a religious fanatic. You wouldn't know that if you stopped into this shitfest for any length of time. Conversely in here it's 25-1 in favor of progressives. Hey I'm not whining about it....I actually like it that way...just answering your silly question. Silly because you surely knew that. People like to be part of the group think, and it's obvious on here. If you spend any amount of time in here, you might walk away jaded in the belief that the prevailing "wisdom" in here is pretty much the way most of America sees things....and sadly for you...it ain't...and I'm not talking about political affiliation....most Americans are far closer to the political middle than you, or me for that matter, and they're abundantly more fair than you..they may not vote for Palin or Bachmann but they don't think they're the incarnation of Lucifer either. So the violent reaction to Bachmann is because of her religious beliefs...do I have that right?

Well...Once you slash and burn Bachmann as a Nazi, for her religious beliefs, which admittedly are not mine, then you'll turn the long knives on Romney and suddenly his Mormon religion will come under scrutiny. Obama won't do it, after all...how could he point the finger after his dubious religious experience.....but you and the rest of his minions will. Then onto Rick Perry. And astonishingly all this from folks who support a guy that sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years and listened to his hate filled rants on everyone from Hillary to white folks, and when Obama meekly stated that he never heard any of that, you lost your intellectual curiosity along with the press, and simply took his word for it. Seems plausible he never heard any of that ....right? LMAO. Sure it does. Then riddle me this....how come once he became President he ditched the Rev and his worshipping habits faster than a street walker snatching up a tip? Now you can say Obama was smart enough not to get caught on tape espousing similar views to his religious mentor, but he did soak it in for 20 years. Should I post some of those You Tube vids to refresh you memory...lol ?

[trish]

Dum-dum - dum - dum - dum.

[Stavros]

70 % of Americans say they pray from time to time or attend services...try mentioning that in here...you'll be shunned as a religious fanatic (onmyknees)

One of the striking differences in the discourse of American politics when compared to Britain and most of (but not all of) continental Europe [eg Poland], is the need American candidates seem to have to make a public declaration of their faith; and in some cases to link it to social (even economic) policy.

In this country there was once a politician called Enoch Powell who claimed to pray every day and 'thank God for capitalism'; but he was a notorious eccentric. Here, most of the time, it is considered either unnecessary, or more likely a vote loser. Tony Blair was the most 'open' Christian politician in recent years, but even he kept it under wraps for most of his career: his Press Officer, Alastair Campbell once said : We don't do God. Blair was advised not to end a public speech on Iraq with the phrase God Bless You. When Blair on TV, after leaving No 10 said that of his record on Iraq he would be judged by 'a higher authority' most of us -part from squirming with embarrassment- took it as an insult, meaning: I don't care what the British people think of my foreign policy, and anyway they are not fit to judge me.
Blair being told to shut up about God is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...nt-do-God.html

We rarely discuss religion in this segment of HA. As a personal issue I think it would be as nasty as some of the political debate, but possibly just uninteresting; but as a political issue I find it one of the most alarming aspects of America's political discourse. It would not normally matter to me what religion a candidate confesses to, thats his or her business. But if they then try and link their policy agenda to their faith, alarm bells start to ring.

The problem is that religion can shape small things in daily life, but on the basis of shared and absolute values. Religions offer a menu Prix Fixe not a la carte; just one of the many reasons history is on the side of those who separate the two. Politics, because it proceeds in democracies through debate, compromise and one hopes, the review of results which then produce change and amendment, cannot be shaped to absolute values or moral strictures and be consistent with the religion all of the time. Would it mean, for example, that social policy can only be framed in accordance with religious belief, and how would that fit with constitutional law? And, if the law satisfied the Religious demands of legislators but was then shown not to work or be effective, it would have to be because the law was badly implemented, because -and I think this is crucial- the religion cannot be wrong. You end up with laws that conform to the religious beliefs of legislators, regardless of their ability to work in daily life; in other words, bad law; but would, I assume, satisfy religious legislators that they were, nevertheless, doing 'God's work'. As destructive as Shari'a law has been in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, to take three dreadful examples (but with a parallel with a contentious issue such as 'God's law' in the USA).

For these reasons I wonder if this religious stuff is rhetoric, and only rhetoric.

In reality, would a President Bachmann or Romney or Perry would refuse to sign a bill into law because it did not meet his or her Christian requirements as a 'just law'? It would mean that the will of the people expressed in Congress would be nullified by the President's religious beliefs: in theory any Christian President who opposed abortion at any level, or same-sex marriages, could veto the bill for his or her personal religious reasons.

There have been opportunities for Presidents in the past to do this, but as far as I know it hasn't happened. Dick Cheney said the USA invaded Iraq to change the regime because it was 'doable' as well as being politically advantageous to the USA (which in fact it wasn't but lets not get lost in that debate here); Bush is said to have claimed it was because the USA needed to do something about 'Gog and Magog' doing bad things in the Middle East...did Bush really shape his policy on Iraq in accordance with his religious beliefs? He was not the only decision-maker on Iraq, so I don't know how this can be verified one way or the other.

And so, if it really is just rhetoric, why don't they just shut up about it?

[trish]

Rather than taking the Bible as a menu Prix Fixe, our brand of zealot over here pick, choose and interpret to their liking, even the ones who claim to read the Bible literally. The only menu Prix Fixe is the periodic cycle of weekly talking points which you can hear repeated ad nauseum by pundits and politicians all over cable news, the amplitude modulated spectrum and the internet blogs. It's a mystery reams of "God's word" can be happily twisted or ignored, but for some reason we have to stick to the hoary old testament when it comes to homosexuality, evolution, stem cell research (??) and women's rights. The inconsistency here is astounding. Rather than being ruled by the Bible, American Christians are hung up on issues they have yet to deal with and they're using the Bible as an excuse to efface their own confusion.

[hippifried]

Rather than taking the Bible as a menu Prix Fixe, our brand of zealot over here pick, choose and interpret to their liking, even the ones who claim to read the Bible literally. The only menu Prix Fixe is the periodic cycle of weekly talking points which you can hear repeated ad nauseum by pundits and politicians all over cable news, the amplitude modulated spectrum and the internet blogs. It's a mystery reams of "God's word" can be happily twisted or ignored, but for some reason we have to stick to the hoary old testament when it comes to homosexuality, evolution, stem cell research (??) and women's rights. The inconsistency here is astounding. Rather than being ruled by the Bible, American Christians are hung up on issues they have yet to deal with and they're using the Bible as an excuse to efface their own confusion.

Sooooo...
They're all a couple tacos light of a combination plate?

[arnie666]

I don't think Palin enters the race. I could be wrong.
If it's Mitt Romney (again, probably the least extreme) then he'll pick Perry as his running mate. If it's Perry, well, who knows.
God! The thought of another Texas Republican in the White House makes my skin crawl -- ha ha ha!
Remember, Dwight Eisenhower used to be a member of the Party. What has happened to it? Well, it has been usurped by the crazies.

I think what sarah Palin is doing, is not entering the race and watching the media go after those who have declared. And thinning the field out for her. I also thing she is doing this so her rivals spend themselves out . She also unlike some of the other candidates doesn't need to enter early,so the media and member of the public get to know her. She is the most vetted candidate and the most widely talked about candidate for the republican nomination there ever was if she runs.

I personally think Bachmann will be finished before Palin announces. It was a DNC analyst who worked for the Obama campaign who said Palin had the best political instincts he had ever seen and warned the left on some lefty network ,I think it was mscbc that he thinks she will announce nov or dec so money is spent not just by her rivals on others but also that the democratic party machines spends all their money on her rivals. We all know how much money Obama will be putting up for his re-election.She will know this.I think if she gets the nomination she will try and get marco rubio as her VP.

[Helvis2012]

And she's the star of the party.