June Jobs Report: Election implications

#52
#52
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I disagree with most of this, and the fact LG agrees with it makes me feel better about my position. :)

Whether you like Obama or not, you have to admit he is very gifted when delivering a teleprompter message. There is no doubt in my mind that he will be able to "get the vote out". I fail to see how one's religious views prevents them from thinking rationally, unless you are trying to compare Bachmann to members of the Family Radio group.
Click to expand...


Better way to put it is that electorate is suspicious of fundamentalist-types. Whether they should or shouldn't be is open to debate. But reality is that the only people really comfortable with a fundamentalist in charge are other fundamentalists.
 
#53
#53
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I disagree with most of this, and the fact LG agrees with it makes me feel better about my position. :)

Whether you like Obama or not, you have to admit he is very gifted when delivering a teleprompter message. There is no doubt in my mind that he will be able to "get the vote out". I fail to see how one's religious views prevents them from thinking rationally, unless you are trying to compare Bachmann to members of the Family Radio group.
Click to expand...

i don't think being religious in and of itself is a problem. only the "gays are going to hell" crowd isn't presidential material IMO.
 
#54
#54
People think Bachmann is only criticized because she is religious? I guess Palin is only criticized because she has a funny accent.
 
#55
#55
lawgator1 said:
Better way to put it is that electorate is suspicious of fundamentalist-types. Whether they should or shouldn't be is open to debate. But reality is that the only people really comfortable with a fundamentalist in charge are other fundamentalists.
Click to expand...

While I understand your position, and can agree in concept, that is a very broad brush you are painting with.

droski said:
i don't think being religious in and of itself is a problem. only the "gays are going to hell" crowd isn't presidential material IMO.
Click to expand...

I knew her husband had made some fairly outrageous comments, but wasn't aware that Michelle made that statement... a statement I happen to disagree with. That said, we've had plenty of presidents that held beliefs that I may disagree with but that didn't prevent them from being an effective president (e.g. Reagan and some "out there" astrology).
 
#56
#56
lawgator1 said:
Better way to put it is that electorate is suspicious of fundamentalist-types. Whether they should or shouldn't be is open to debate. But reality is that the only people really comfortable with a fundamentalist in charge are other fundamentalists.
Click to expand...

I'm probably closer to a fundamentalist as anyone on this board, and for the most part, anyone that totally plays to that crowd concerns me.
 
#57
#57
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I knew her husband had made some fairly outrageous comments, but wasn't aware that Michelle made that statement... a statement I happen to disagree with. That said, we've had plenty of presidents that held beliefs that I may disagree with but that didn't prevent them from being an effective president (e.g. Reagan and some "out there" astrology).
Click to expand...

considering her comments on other similar issues i very much doubt she disagrees with him. i thought it was nancy who had the astrology stuff? if reagan had come out and said that the stars were telling him what to do i assure you it owuld have hurt his electibility.
 
#58
#58
other than her personal opinion regarding gay marriage, what "fundamentalist" views does Bachmann espouse that are so radical?

that said, the Tea Party (as a whole) is being damaged by allowing itself to now be overrun with social conservatives. The economy should be the only campaign issue, but the SC's are going sabotage the R nomination by demanding a candidate pass some kind of ridiculous purity test.
 
#59
#59
droski said:
considering her comments on other similar issues i very much doubt she disagrees with him. i thought it was nancy who had the astrology stuff? if reagan had come out and said that the stars were telling him what to do i assure you it owuld have hurt his electibility.
Click to expand...

I think both... but it was kept quiet for the reason you mention above.
 
#60
#60
MG1968 said:
other than her personal opinion regarding gay marriage, what "fundamentalist" views does Bachmann espouse that are so radical?

that said, the Tea Party (as a whole) is being damaged by allowing itself to now be overrun with social conservatives. The economy should be the only campaign issue, but the SC's are going sabotage the R nomination by demanding a candidate pass some kind of ridiculous purity test.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. If ever there was a year for a moderate candidate to get elected, this would be the time. If SC's don't want to get out and vote for someone who isn't far right, then they can suffer with another 4 years of the Obama administration.
 
#61
#61
MG1968 said:
other than her personal opinion regarding gay marriage, what "fundamentalist" views does Bachmann espouse that are so radical?

that said, the Tea Party (as a whole) is being damaged by allowing itself to now be overrun with social conservatives. The economy should be the only campaign issue, but the SC's are going sabotage the R nomination by demanding a candidate pass some kind of ridiculous purity test.
Click to expand...

she's anti evolution for one.
 
#62
#62
droski said:
she's anti evolution for one.
Click to expand...

well, if she starts up with the nonsense about the earth being only 6000 years old and dinosaurs are extinct because they couldn't fit on Noah's ark, I'll be concerned. If she's a religious person, I won't fault her for having a religious view on the origin of species. I don't agree with it, but I'm not going to disqualify her for it.
 
#63
#63
MG1968 said:
well, if she starts up with the nonsense about the earth being only 6000 years old and dinosaurs are extinct because they couldn't fit on Noah's ark, I'll be concerned. If she's a religious person, I won't fault her for having a religious view on the origin of species. I don't agree with it, but I'm not going to disqualify her for it.
Click to expand...

Really? Never heard that one. I've heard Christians reconcile carbon dating and God creating the world 8000 years ago (or whatever it is) because they claim God used matter from other worlds to create this one (which also explains Dinosaur fossils). I've never heard somebody dumb enough to claim the flood killed dinosaurs.
 
#64
#64
MG1968 said:
well, if she starts up with the nonsense about the earth being only 6000 years old and dinosaurs are extinct because they couldn't fit on Noah's ark, I'll be concerned. If she's a religious person, I won't fault her for having a religious view on the origin of species. I don't agree with it, but I'm not going to disqualify her for it.
Click to expand...

there are plenty of very religious people and christian sects that have no problem with evolution at all. i find fault in anyone that can ignore that type of evidence. i know some here believe it too, but i wouldn't vote for you guys either. :)
 
#65
#65
MG1968 said:
other than her personal opinion regarding gay marriage, what "fundamentalist" views does Bachmann espouse that are so radical?

that said, the Tea Party (as a whole) is being damaged by allowing itself to now be overrun with social conservatives. The economy should be the only campaign issue, but the SC's are going sabotage the R nomination by demanding a candidate pass some kind of ridiculous purity test.
Click to expand...


We've had this discussion before -- is the TP solely or even just mostly about economic policy? Or does it have at least a major component to it that is focused on social policy? And, can the social policy agenda "trump" the fiscal restraint arm such that the latter is always in some way beholden to the former?

Look, for all my mocking that the TP is all about anti-abortion, Christian fundamentalist, anti-gay, type stuff -- all masquerading as being about government spending, the truth is that the same type of co-option goes on in the left, too.

Look at NOW. For a time they were about gender equality issues, and really quite focused on equal pay type issues. But eventually they got overtaken by the reproductive rights crowd.

The ACLU, although it still from time to time manages to get it right, in my view, very frequently finds itself overrun with people who think that the First Amendment applies only to liberal commentary.

I truly do think the TP has fairly early on in its existence faced an identity crisis. I mean, do you REALLY think that Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann have the credentials to make long term sound fiscal policy? F no, they don't. But as long as they are TP favorites, I'm sorry but the perception is going to be that its not to be taken all that seriously.
 
#66
#66
nbakerld said:
Really? Never heard that one. I've heard Christians reconcile carbon dating and God creating the world 8000 years ago (or whatever it is) because they claim God used matter from other worlds to create this one (which also explains Dinosaur fossils). I've never heard somebody dumb enough to claim the flood killed dinosaurs.
Click to expand...


It was really, really deep.
 
#67
#67
I have a hard time believing Baker has never heard someone claim that dinosaurs died in the flood. That was the original explanation for the fossils.

As for using matter from other worlds... other worlds aren't in the Bible either. That just creates another problem.
 
#68
#68
IPorange said:
I have a hard time believing Baker has never heard someone claim that dinosaurs died in the flood. That was the original explanation for the fossils.

As for using matter from other worlds... other worlds aren't in the Bible either. That just creates another problem.
Click to expand...


So, if I follow you correctly, God has created a problem by creating other worlds that aren't described in the Biblical description of the Creation?
 
#69
#69
4e0a79f05419e.image.jpg
 
#70
#70
lawgator1 said:
So, if I follow you correctly, God has created a problem by creating other worlds that aren't described in the Biblical description of the Creation?
Click to expand...

Let me start from the top:

1. Fossils are found that the Bible has no explanation for or mentioning of.

2. Some creationists say it is due to God using matter form "other worlds" to form the Earth.

3. The Bible has no mentioning or explanation for God creating other worlds, let alone forming the Earth from them.

It's circular reasoning. Pure deflection.
 
#72
#72
IPorange said:
Let me start from the top:

1. Fossils are found that the Bible has no explanation for or mentioning of.

2. Some creationists say it is due to God using matter form "other worlds" to form the Earth.

3. The Bible has no mentioning or explanation for God creating other worlds, let alone forming the Earth from them.

It's circular reasoning. Pure deflection.
Click to expand...

the other argument i've heard is that carbon dating is all BS.
 
#74
#74
droski said:
there are plenty of very religious people and christian sects that have no problem with evolution at all. i find fault in anyone that can ignore that type of evidence. i know some here believe it too, but i wouldn't vote for you guys either. :)
Click to expand...

Are you saying evolution as man came from monkeys?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top