freeman3 wrote:I don't need to be called hate-filled and a bigot. I was thinking of responding in kind but what good would that do ? Good luck with the site, Brad.

If it's any consolation, most of us have been called worse ... please stay.

freeman3 wrote:I don't need to be called hate-filled and a bigot. I was thinking of responding in kind but what good would that do ? Good luck with the site, Brad.

Fwiw, I don't believe you are a bigot.

We all have blind spots, or areas we are not willing to examine.

I often am accused of having that with regard to Scripture. I understand it. I do. I did not come from a fundamentalist background. I was one who mocked Christianity. It's not like I am caught unaware by the critiques.

I'm not sure what y'all did with your degrees and your time. I spent mine looking at all the arguments you think I know nothing about. I'll let you know when something you say is unknown to me. Until then, I choose not to argue about Scripture with you.

For freeman3, I think he is convinced conservative principles do not and cannot work for the good of minorities, so much so that I don't believe he would change his mind on the matter.

In my opinion, this leads him to discount not only the ideas, but the people who hold them. Maybe he doesn't, but it certainly can appear that way.

One may hold that Dr. Carson is unqualified for President. However, I don't believe we should have ANY kind of religious litmus test. Let's be honest: we've had an atheist President for the last 7 years. To me, that has nothing to do with his qualifications. I think his persona and his capabilities are what disqualify him, but the American voters disagreed with me twice. Why? Because they are masochists. Nevertheless, other than the Constitutional requirements, the term "qualified" is in the eye of the beholder.

Carson's really not my candidate. I don't understand why some are so gung-ho over him. I want someone who is more fluent with the issues and communicates with more passion. But, if it's him or Hillary, I'll low crawl to the polling station, braving live-fire, if necessary.

Maybe a better term is "unsuited." I believe Carson is qualified. I don't believe he is suited for the Presidency. However, of everyone Constitutionally-qualified I can think of no one I would less like to have in the Oval office than Hillary Rodham-Clinton. Even Bernie Sanders or Al Franken would be preferable because I don't believe they would go into office only to enrich themselves. Hillary is first, last, and always about her own interests.

If the GOP candidate died the night before the election, I'd still vote for him/her over Hillary. If our nominee was Elmer Fudd, he'd get my vote.

We cannot afford a second megalomaniac in a row as President.

Well , being called hate-filled and a bigot does not go well with the morning coffee. Those are personal attacks made by someone who really does not like me. You can't be too sensitive and post here--I get that. I have crossed the line probably on religion a few times but I don't attack Brad or DF personally, I think. And DF might get to the border but with the exception of Ricky (and Ricky seems to be to handle it and respond in kind) he shows restraint. You say that others have been attacked worse...but I can't recall anyone being called hate-filled and a bigot. That is an escalation and if Archduke wanted to chill speech he is succeeding.

Anyway, I'll take a break and see. That is my second break recently so maybe I'm not cut out for this anymore.

freeman3 wrote:Well , being called hate-filled and a bigot does not go well with the morning coffee. Those are personal attacks made by someone who really does not like me. You can't be too sensitive and post here--I get that. I have crossed the line probably on religion a few times but I don't attack Brad or DF personally, I think. And DF might get to the border but with the exception of Ricky (and Ricky seems to be to handle it and respond in kind) he shows restraint. You say that others have been attacked worse...but I can't recall anyone being called hate-filled and a bigot. That is an escalation and if Archduke wanted to chill speech he is succeeding.

Anyway, I'll take a break and see. That is my second break recently so maybe I'm not cut out for this anymore.

It's been years now, but I was called a pedophile by someone who no longer posts here. That was charming.

Personally Freeman, I did take offense at the comment you made. To say that the only reason a Republican would support a black person is out of a desire to show inclusiveness is slanderous. I hope you did not mean it that way.

You are an articulate, well thought, normally respectful, individual who can spell and has great grammar.

I hope you stay.

Now I am accused of slander. Definitely time to move on.

Take a few days and then come back would be my advice. I frequently find myself wondering whether the atmosphere in this place is worth sticking with, but having stuck around for so long now I think it would be shame if it were to die. We need a healthy balance of views, and with so few of us it's pretty precarious.

Some of the non-American threads can be pretty informative and reward the effort. It's only the never-ending Hillary threads and other US politics jamborees that are terrible.

Sassenach wrote:Some of the non-American threads can be pretty informative and reward the effort. It's only the never-ending Hillary threads and other US politics jamborees that are terrible.

True, I think for two reasons (there may be more):

1. There is a left/right chasm that has deepened, probably since the Iraq War.

2. Most every topic somehow gets back to the glories of socialized medicine. We could be talking about the intricacies of the filibuster and, suddenly, we're talking about how dumb it is that the Americans don't socialize medicine.

Carson is a kook and if he were white he would have been out of the race long ago. Supporting black candidates for a time makes some Republicans feel good about themselves and their party's inclusiveness.

First off, I am not a Republican. That train left long ago for me...

Secondly, if you do not mean that the reason Carson is doing well is because of White guilt then say so. The inference of your statement above gives that impression.

Perhaps decaf? I know sometimes I run a bit hot as well.

fate

Let's be honest: we've had an atheist President for the last 7 years

.

This is not honest.
You have no evidence for this.

rickyp wrote:fate

Let's be honest: we've had an atheist President for the last 7 years

.

This is not honest.
You have no evidence for this.

Every decision he's made that has moral/Biblical implications, he's gone the other way.

Let me put it another way: if we had an atheist in the White House, what would be different--other than his wording?

The last two leaders of the Labour Party have been avowed atheists, as was the last leader of the Lib Dems (although his replacement is an evangelical Christian).Our current PM says that he's CofE, but in effect that means that he doesn't really believe in God but goes along with it in a token fashion for the sake of political convenience, so you can take it that Cameron is an atheist as well. Atheism seems to have hit the mainstream over here, not that you'd have noticed since it doesn't appear to have altered a damn thing about our politics. With a few exceptions, I suspect the same applies in America. Your politicians feel the need to talk about God a bit more than ours do, but chances are that most of them don't give a damn about religion really.

Sassenach wrote:The last two leaders of the Labour Party have been avowed atheists, as was the last leader of the Lib Dems (although his replacement is an evangelical Christian).Our current PM says that he's CofE, but in effect that means that he doesn't really believe in God but goes along with it in a token fashion for the sake of political convenience, so you can take it that Cameron is an atheist as well. Atheism seems to have hit the mainstream over here, not that you'd have noticed since it doesn't appear to have altered a damn thing about our politics. With a few exceptions, I suspect the same applies in America. Your politicians feel the need to talk about God a bit more than ours do, but chances are that most of them don't give a damn about religion really.

For the most part, I believe you are correct.

Freeman,
I am big enough to apologize if I offended.

I apologize for saying your comments are slanderous.

Fate

Every decision he's made that has moral/Biblical implications, he's gone the other way.

According to ?

James 1:26

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

Mathhew 7.1

“Judge not, that you be not judged.

How are you living your life according to these scriptures when you make these judgments/accusations of Obama?

Fate

1. There is a left/right chasm that has deepened, probably since the Iraq War

Oh for crying out loud.. The deep chasm in America is between religion practiced by fundamentalists and the rest of a secular society.
The fundamental religious mind is capable of ignoring evidence and espousing any unsupported nonsense. (see Carson) And republican politicians have learned, even when they are not religious, that they don't need to produce substantive policies with evidence that backs them up ...because Jesus...
If you audience has no idea how to think critically, then all you need to do is appeal to their emotions, and bias. And yes, bigotry.
You want real evidence of this...watch a republican Presidential debate. They don't even bother engaging in facts... or even in the debate offered them

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... ange.html#

By the way, I'm not an atheist. And I see the benefits that accrue to people who have an abiding faith. Just so long as it doesn't obscure their ability to reason. Just so long as it doesn't mean they ascribe infallibility to scripture that have both changed over time, and which was never intended as what people centuries later claimed..
Fundamental beliefs are at the heart of much human suffering over time. And often deeply at odds with the advancement of mankind. Mostly because it distorts the way the mind should work.