Tougher Questions for the Candidates.

[Wacky Quacky]

I have no problem eviscerating Alinsky questions and questioners. Besides the Amish and Mohammed Ali, I've never heard of anyone having a problem reconciling their Faith and the US Constitution, accordingly, it's a dumb question

You would not appoint a Muslim or an atheist to the bench! Is that a 'constitutional' position? If so, please cite in the constitution where Muslims and atheists are an excluded class.

See, I might appoint a Muslim but I want to personally review his FBI files first.

As far as atheist, I might also appoint one to the bench but he could not also be a Marxist. He'd have to be sincere and not have a Marxist heart beating inside his atheist beliefs and there's maybe a .0000001% chance of finding one

Ooh, ooh, ooh, pick me! I'll be that 0.0000001% for ya! I'm an atheist AND I'm not a Marxist.

Thank you for your retard post of the day. To suggest that someone is a Marxist just because they're an atheist is one of the stupidist things I've heard today, and that's a damn big accomplishment on this board.

 

[The Rabbi]

So did Obama know how bad the recession was or not? Was he lying at the beginning of his term or is he lying now?

 

[Sallow]

From the NY Times:

1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their faith?
2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates or thinkers whose books they recommend?
3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?” (b) What does that mean in practice?
4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? Has that happened, in your experience?
5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? (b) What about an atheist?
6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates?
7. What do you think of the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth?
8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution? (b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools?
9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools?

Bill Keller Asks Candidates About Religion - NYTimes.com

This needs to happen before the General election.

So let me get this straight. The first question asks if if it's fair to ask about religious backgrounds, and then every other question after that is directed towards their religious backgrounds? Idotic much?

No candadite should be asked about their religion, because trying to discern just how much their religion is an impossible task. I bet you can find a born and bred Catholic that's able to make rational judgments based on facts and not faith. Religion should NEVER be a deciding factor in politics, if it is then you're an idiot.

Past affiliations are a completely different story though. They say a lot about who you are.

If they are going to inject religion into political debates, talk about religion at political rallies, and use religion as a political litmus test for appointments..

It is sure as heck is fair..and actually needed..that they be asked about it.

It's also a great deal more meaningful then the whole "guilt by association" ridiculousness that the conservatives hold up as "important".

 

[Sallow]

So did Obama know how bad the recession was or not? Was he lying at the beginning of his term or is he lying now?

He based his knowledge on information provided by the Bush administration...which was later found to be wrong.

Why was the information provided, incorrect?

Is that something you conservatives do alot? Provide incorrect information?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Reconciliation of information given by antagonists is something I look for in a leader.

 

[Two Thumbs]

1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their faith? Why bother with it? When has the country been dreastically affected by the Pres faith?
2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates or thinkers whose books they recommend? You can judge a man by the company he keeps.
3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?” Seems so. Taking in the census that confirms most are beleivers. (b) What does that mean in practice? ?
4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? go with the Constitution, each and every time. Has that happened, in your experience? That's a good one.
5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? considering what's going on in the world, it would only be prudent to do a deeper search of his background.(b) What about an atheist? who would care?
6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? yes, duh Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates? only if you're a bigot.
7. What do you think of the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth? Only skydancer buys into this bs drama. This is a loaded bs question.
8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution? What does that have to do with the economy, jobs and the debt? nothing but a bs question.(b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools?
9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools? no, but I'm not against giving a moment for people to do so.



Which one agrees with me?

It's either Paul or none of them, I'd imagine.

 

[Avatar4321]

If they are going to inject religion into political debates, talk about religion at political rallies, and use religion as a political litmus test for appointments..

It is sure as heck is fair..and actually needed..that they be asked about it.

It's also a great deal more meaningful then the whole "guilt by association" ridiculousness that the conservatives hold up as "important".

Guilt by association? Barack Obama is the one who told us to judge him by the people he surrounds himself by. Is it really our fault he is surounding himself with marxist revolutionaries? Seriously?

 

[Sallow]

If they are going to inject religion into political debates, talk about religion at political rallies, and use religion as a political litmus test for appointments..

It is sure as heck is fair..and actually needed..that they be asked about it.

It's also a great deal more meaningful then the whole "guilt by association" ridiculousness that the conservatives hold up as "important".

Guilt by association? Barack Obama is the one who told us to judge him by the people he surrounds himself by. Is it really our fault he is surounding himself with marxist revolutionaries? Seriously?

Marxist is the new "black", eh?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh, now you guys are all for vetting?

That's priceless.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Oh, now you guys are all for vetting?

That's priceless.

No

It's the same as always.
The right gets the fine tooth comb, anal cavety search.
The left gets a halo on the cover of Stones mag and calls rasism if you disagree.

please note that hating commis is now the equivalent of hating black people.

 

[Two Thumbs]

If they are going to inject religion into political debates, talk about religion at political rallies, and use religion as a political litmus test for appointments..

It is sure as heck is fair..and actually needed..that they be asked about it.

It's also a great deal more meaningful then the whole "guilt by association" ridiculousness that the conservatives hold up as "important".

Guilt by association? Barack Obama is the one who told us to judge him by the people he surrounds himself by. Is it really our fault he is surounding himself with marxist revolutionaries? Seriously?

Maoist.

Obama hires people that like to follow and quote the teachings of Mao, far more than just Marx

 

[Avatar4321]

1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their faith?

As far as I'm concerned any honest question is allowable.

2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates or thinkers whose books they recommend?

Of course we should ask people questions about that. But moreso, we should listen to their answers and make a determination based on what they say and do and not what others say or do.

3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?”

Only those not truly familiar with Christianity and history can say otherwise. Now are we still a Christian nation? And moreso are we a practicing Christian nation? That I can't say for certain. But the idea that the Gospel of Jesus Christ had no impact whatsoever on the Founding of the nation is ludicrous.

(b) What does that mean in practice? ?

Does anyone really know at this point?

4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it?

The issue has never come up. And my guess is that for most people the issue will never come up. Because part of our faith is the belief that all men should be free to worship as they choose. and If we cannot persuade them to follow the truth in it's fulness, we should be encouraging them to embrace and live as much Truth as they willingly upset. Government has nothing to do with it. Because religion loses it's power when it adds to it the force of government. God wants people to volunteer for service and to obey his commands of their own accord and volition.

5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? (b) What about an atheist?

I would hope that any candidate would have hesitation about appointing anyone they are unsure of to the bench. There is nothing wrong with a muslim or an athiest per se. But considering what's going on in the world and the militarant idealogy that can be involved in these group, caution may be needed more for those than some others.

6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view?

Unless you're defining Christian as "Anyone who agrees with my interpretations" and Non-Christian as "Anyone who disagrees with me and my interpretations", then yes. Last time I checked a Christian was someone who believed that Christ is the Son of God, the Chosen Messiah, and strived to be His disciple. If you believe in the Atonement of Jesus Christ, you are clearly Christian.

Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates?

Depends what your point of view is. As far as I've seen, Mormonism is the only thing going for Huntsman. That and his father's good name. His personal views seem far less impressive.

I would argue that if people look past their perception of Mormonism to what it actually teaches, an active Mormon President would be a fantastic President. And by active mormon i dont mean simply going to church but actually living it.

Look at the principles Mormonism teaches:

Honesty
Hard work and Personal Responsibility
Thrift & living within one's means
Healthy living
Moral cleanliness
Keeping government influence out of religionPersonal Charity

Seems to me if we had a President who practiced the above, regardless of what religion or faith he might be, we would be in good shape as a country for the next 4 years.

7. What do you think of the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth?

No opinion of it. Other than skydancer who saw it around every corner, I dont know anyone who is concerned and I certainly dont know anyone advocating the merger of religion and state. No one running is.

8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution?

Not sure why this is at all relevant to governing a nation. I don't think the President is going to be deciding any evolutionary issues.

(b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools?

I don't see why not. It's one alternative view as to how live has come into being. It doesn't effect faith in God except in the minds of some militants and those who are insecure in their beliefs, whether secular or religious.

Now if you want to teach it as dogma, then I would be against that. Because it may or not be true.

9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools?

I think it's perfectly alright. I'm not afraid of prayer. I dont think it will harm anyone whatsoever. Nor do I think it's bad for students to learn alittle tolerance for the faith of others if they differ from that of the teacher.

If prayer works, then you have nothing to fear from it. It will bless all those who use it.
If it doesn't why worry about it? It won't effect them what bit.

Seems to me that those who oppose prayer so vehemently are indirectly testifying that there is power to prayer.

 

[Avatar4321]

If they are going to inject religion into political debates, talk about religion at political rallies, and use religion as a political litmus test for appointments..

It is sure as heck is fair..and actually needed..that they be asked about it.

It's also a great deal more meaningful then the whole "guilt by association" ridiculousness that the conservatives hold up as "important".

Guilt by association? Barack Obama is the one who told us to judge him by the people he surrounds himself by. Is it really our fault he is surounding himself with marxist revolutionaries? Seriously?

Marxist is the new "black", eh?

What does marxist have to do with black?

Seriously, the way you dismiss these sketchy people in high places is very disturbing.

 

[Two Thumbs]

It's ironic that the party that got us involved in Korea, Viet Nam, and Cuba, all in the name of stopping communism, now take no issue with them being the Presidents right hand.

kinda sad really, since more than a few remeber JFK.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

From the NY Times:



This needs to happen before the General election.

So let me get this straight. The first question asks if if it's fair to ask about religious backgrounds, and then every other question after that is directed towards their religious backgrounds? Idotic much?

No candadite should be asked about their religion, because trying to discern just how much their religion is an impossible task. I bet you can find a born and bred Catholic that's able to make rational judgments based on facts and not faith. Religion should NEVER be a deciding factor in politics, if it is then you're an idiot.

Past affiliations are a completely different story though. They say a lot about who you are.

If they are going to inject religion into political debates, talk about religion at political rallies, and use religion as a political litmus test for appointments..

It is sure as heck is fair..and actually needed..that they be asked about it.

It's also a great deal more meaningful then the whole "guilt by association" ridiculousness that the conservatives hold up as "important".

It's not fair because it's not relevant in any way. You cannot discern how much a person's decisions are influenced by their religion with a few simple-minded questions.

I don't give a shit if the candidate believes that Spock from Star Trek is a god. As long as I'm not forced to wear prosthetic ears then I don't care. I don't care if the candidate is a muslim, as long as they don't force Shariah Law on the country. And I don't care if the candidate is a christian, as long as they don't force their views on homosexuality on the rest of the country.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From the NY Times:

This needs to happen before the General election.

I was waiting for some idiot to post this.

Rick Santorum is a Catholic, we all know how radical Catholics are,
Michelle Bachmann is Lutheran, another group of radicals.
Rick Perry is a Methodist, more radicalism.

I have never seen such a radical group of candidates in history.

Tell me something, why didn't you demand answers to these questions from Obama?

CNN.com - Transcripts

You're a little vague on history..aren't ya?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL7FRNDkELM"]Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency - YouTube[/ame]

I am actually fairly well up on history, which is why I know the NYT essentially ignored Obama's connections to Black Liberation Theology and a man who they thought was a political liability in 2007.

It is hard to imagine, though, how Mr. Obama can truly distance himself from Mr. Wright. The Christianity that Mr. Obama adopted at Trinity has infused not only his life, but also his campaign. He began his presidential announcement with the phrase “Giving all praise and honor to God,” a salutation common in the black church. He titled his second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” after one of Mr. Wright’s sermons, and often talks about biblical underdogs, the mutual interests of religious and secular America, and the centrality of faith in public life

A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith - NYTimes.com

Yet, when the story about Wright saying God damn America broke in Match of 2008 the NYT did not cover it until 6 months later.

Can I ask what your little attempt to school me in history has to do with the questions you endorsed? I specifically asked why you personally did not demand the answers to these questions from Obama. Unless you are now claiming to be Rick Warren you did not demand answers about Obama's faith. In fact, I have repeatedly seen you dismissing it, and all his past associations, as an issue at all. Yet now you want answers from the "radical" Republicans.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By your answers you clearly have a problem with rectifying the constitution with vis-a-vis religious freedom. Why then, did you answer question 4 with "Dumb question."?

And, in my opinion, if candidates trot out social issues and their personal religious views, these questions should be asked and answered. If they stay on the secular path and do not campaign on social issues, these questions should be avoided as they are irrelevant and personally intrusive.

I have no problem eviscerating Alinsky questions and questioners. Besides the Amish and Mohammed Ali, I've never heard of anyone having a problem reconciling their Faith and the US Constitution, accordingly, it's a dumb question

You would not appoint a Muslim or an atheist to the bench! Is that a 'constitutional' position? If so, please cite in the constitution where Muslims and atheists are an excluded class.

I think it falls under the power of the president to appoint his own choices, not those of some random poster on the internet.

 

[Sallow]

Guilt by association? Barack Obama is the one who told us to judge him by the people he surrounds himself by. Is it really our fault he is surounding himself with marxist revolutionaries? Seriously?

Marxist is the new "black", eh?

What does marxist have to do with black?

Seriously, the way you dismiss these sketchy people in high places is very disturbing.

No more distrubing then the hyperbole and conflation you engage in daily.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You would not appoint a Muslim or an atheist to the bench! Is that a 'constitutional' position? If so, please cite in the constitution where Muslims and atheists are an excluded class.

Should you be inspecting toilets rather than misreading posts?
The question was whether he would have a problem appointing a Muslim or atheist. Not whether he thought it was Constitutional or not.
Would you have a problem appointing a Satanist or pedophile to the bench? Can you show i the Constitution where those are prohibited?

A convicted pedophile should not and cannot be appointed to the bench. Satanists have not been an excluded class since Salem 1692.

I just love pointing out the obvious. There is nothing in the Constitution about not appointing convicted pedophiles to any office in the land. That means they can actually be appointed.

That said, would you appoint an unconvicted pedophile?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So did Obama know how bad the recession was or not? Was he lying at the beginning of his term or is he lying now?

He based his knowledge on information provided by the Bush administration...which was later found to be wrong.

Why was the information provided, incorrect?

Is that something you conservatives do alot? Provide incorrect information?

I love the way you blame Bush for everything. Tell me something, is it Obama's fault that the data released about the growth rate being higher than it is now believed to be was wrong, or is it simply the fault of the system?

Binyamin Appelbaum recently highlighted the measurement problems we have with US data. Not only are the data often very slow to arrive, there can be substantial revisions to many series after they are released and the revisions can change the picture of the economy substantially.
As I've written about before, I would like to see resources devoted to improving our ability to understand the state of the economy in (near) real time. The lack of accurate data made it much more difficult to respond to the current recession, e.g. (this was December 2009 and is far from the only example where revisions told a very different story than the initial relase):

Economist's View: Policymakers Need Better Data on the Economy

Personally, I will go with the expert, and blame the fact that we do not yet have a way to accurately track the numbers. Feel free to continue to blame Bush though, it is in the Constitution that you can be an idiot and not get punished.