Obama is the most liberal senator in the senate? That a just a bullshit "smear" conjured up by the likes of Fox News. The most liberal senator is by far Bernie Sanders of Vermont who is a socialist. Obama doesn't come anywhere close to being in the top 5, not that being liberal is a bad thing, because frankly, I wouldn't mind having Sanders as our president. And foreign policy experience? McCain is running with someone who claims living in the state closest with Russia equates to foreign policy experience. Should something happen to McCain (a 72 year old cancer survivor) this country will be led by someone who thinks being able to see Bumfuck, Russia from Bumfuck, Alaska makes her a foreign policy expert. Also, unless you're making over $200,000 your taxes will be lowered by Obama. And if you are making that much, then you should be taxed more. The Bush tax cuts for the rich, which McCain wants to continue, have not worked. Just look in the mess we're in now.
It's kind of weird how a fair few people seem to be under the impression that Obama is a really far leaning liberal politician, when from what I can tell he isn't.
I got a Feeling that this election Might be Postponed or put on pause in October. Because of the Economy.
[youtube]hk4JBDzlI2Q[/youtube] This was linked in my coven. As a Pagan, I am sick at this. I actually came back to LPA to say that.
It is ridiculous how one crackpot faith always seems to have to attack another. If these people would just get some actual evidence for their claims then idiocy like this wouldn't happen.
Yeah. Infact, I would much rather have them govern under A Religious-free government. Like not blame their pro-choice based on their Faith, rather, based on the majority of the people's votes.
Well, that essentially followed from my post. It is stupid that one group of people are going to attack another person for fortune telling (when she has no evidence she or anyone else can tell fortunes worth a damn) based on a book they say is written by a deity they have no evidence exists. If they needed evidence, all these religions would collapse, and it would be a secular government .
Secular government? They'll make-up a new religion and worship that globally. And then they could get away being a theocracy because they have evidence?
Secular just means not religious lol. And if they have evidence what they believe is true, then I have no problem with them believing it. I just think it is stupid if they all believe stuff which is, to any rational mind, false. To clarify, a religious-free government and a secular government is the same thing.
oh i thought Secular meant religious. Who knows, maybe one of these days, they'll make one up that has a conclusive proof of a "god". Perhaps one like the sky lights up with Everyone's version of Jesus and they slowly over-time combine into one figure and mysteriously happens to make new "proof" that a deity exists. Who knows. And ty to clarafy.
Until that day though, we should just face that our made up sky daddy's and other such fiction is just that- fiction .
It'd be just like those episodes of South Park where Cartman has Butters freeze him and he ends up well into the future. Good times.
There is absolutely no evidence that would happen at all, that is blatant speculation and, while a humorous episode, very sad some people are actually swayed by it as an accurate portrayal of reality. Now, without religion there will still be war, as there will still be other things to fight about. However, there will be one less cause and one less tool of manipulation present, so it can only help. And there is no rational or scientific reason to force the "answer to the great question" onto others, that goes outside the realm of science. Faiths demand their spreading, so it is very different. I do not see how people can argue against taking insanity and unsubstantiated delusion out of, in the very least, the the government and, at the most, everything.
I do believe in separation of church and state and all that, and I wasn't swayed by that episode myself. It's not a bad analogy for something that's entirely possible though. It's just annoying how sanctimonious the really hardline atheists can get sometimes though - you're speculating and making presumptions for a large part as well, really. But anyway, this is OT, not to mention that I've been involved in enough atheists vs religion arguments to last me a lifetime. Last time we came to the conclusion that we're both atheists/agnostic but with markedly different views on certain things regarding that, and I don't know about you with me but I definitely see your point and respect your opinion, as you're obviously not a stupid person, so for now I'd like to leave it at that.
Yeah, I just want to note that atheism hasn't and really cannot be used as a tool for violence the same way religion can and inherently is. That was my only real point .
It should be noted though, that Clinton DID have some troubles with the economy towards the very end of his last term. Either way, we can only hope that we get back to a 'surplus' within the next 10 years like what happened with Clinton. This country really needs to get back on track.