Protesters at MNF Game

[GG]

 

I would never deny people of faith the ability to govern, that's insane. Every person who's ever run for public office in this country has professed to be of one faith or another. Ironically, Ben Carson himself has said that a Muslim shouldn't be allowed to be president. I don't think that.

 

And yet you instinctively dismiss the man because of his religious view, even though his religious views are not on his campaign platform. But you praise the non-standard religious zealots who are trying to force their views on the rest of the public. Interesting.

[metzelaars_lives]

 

And yet you instinctively dismiss the man because of his religious view, even though his religious views are not on his campaign platform. But you praise the non-standard religious zealots who are trying to force their views on the rest of the public. Interesting.

I what?

[GG]

I what?

 

Who said this:

 

I am not taking a stance as to whether fracking is ultimately good or bad (it certainly has its advantages and it certainly has gone horribly wrong in many instances) but I absolutely respect someone who has the balls to do what those guys did last night. Whether they like granola or not.

 

[DC Tom]

Thanks man. Good talking to you too. It looks as if this thread has run its course. I'm the idiot. Pile on fellas. You and Dwight in Philly- who has claimed in this very thread that fracking is in fact not a complex issue, is rather a very black and white issue, that nothing has or could ever possibly go wrong from an environmental standpoint as a result of fracking- can ride off into the sunset together. I'm just a simple man incapable of rational thought. And yeah I'm sure your Uncle would appreciate you using that word so- wait not haphazardly, that's right- astutely. I'll choose not to use it.

 

With every post you prove my point. Dwight and I have nothing in common (I don't think he's ever posted anything I agreed with), except that you perceive yourself to be the hapless victim of both of us. And despite giving you several attempts to explain precisely why proper religious dogma should be a litmus test for the executive, and giving you a cogent explanation why it shouldn't, you persist in ignoring the very topic you brought up for discussion and bitching that everyone else is treating you poorly. Again...this is why you are the idiot.

 

And don't speak for my uncle. He can represent himself, better than you represent yourself.

 

P.S. And if you want to humor me, you can feel free to respond to my question as to which story is more difficult to believe: the Scientology story (I'm sure we've all seen the HBO documentary) or Noah's Ark. Or how about the apple and the talking snake in the garden for that matter, I'll even give you that. But alas, I'm sure you will not answer my question and come back with incredibly vicious, below-the-belt insults, which you know not to be true but probably help you sleep a little better at night.

 

Why? Aside from being contextually unanswerable, the question's not even relevant. We were discussing a religious litmus test for the presidency, not comparative religion. And I'm not the least bit interested in discussing comparative religion with someone so breathtakingly retarded.

[metzelaars_lives]

 

With every post you prove my point. Dwight and I have nothing in common (I don't think he's ever posted anything I agreed with), except that you perceive yourself to be the hapless victim of both of us. And despite giving you several attempts to explain precisely why proper religious dogma should be a litmus test for the executive, and giving you a cogent explanation why it shouldn't, you persist in ignoring the very topic you brought up for discussion and bitching that everyone else is treating you poorly. Again...this is why you are the idiot.

 

And don't speak for my uncle. He can represent himself, better than you represent yourself.

 

 

Why? Aside from being contextually unanswerable, the question's not even relevant. We were discussing a religious litmus test for the presidency, not comparative religion. And I'm not the least bit interested in discussing comparative religion with someone so breathtakingly retarded.

So your Uncle, who is both developmentally disabled and smarter than me, takes no issue with you using the word "retard" in your everyday vernacular? I don't believe you. But I digress.

 

Back to the subject at hand, it took me just a few hours into my first foray in the world known as PPP to understand exactly what you're all about. You are a textbook example of the emperor with no clothes if I've ever seen one. 1. You fire off insults that are so beyond rude and obnoxious that only one hiding behind a computer would ever even dare dream of hurling. 2. You make a point to tell everyone how smart you are and how dumb anyone who might disagree with you is in every paragraph that you write. 3. You slide in just enough fifty cent words to make the whole thing kind of work. Kudos- those who don't think for themselves and don't actually delve into the content of what you write are very impressed I'm sure.

 

But let's look at what you actually wrote. In your most recent post, amidst the incredible insults, you question my lack of a response to your assertion that "proper religious dogma" should not be a litmus test for the President (or any public office position for that matter). Problem is, I've addressed this. Like three times. On the previous page. I outlined a clear cut distinction between what I would call a token "hey of course I'm a Christian because I have to be" politician and an "I am going to allow my strict adherence to and literal interpretation of the Old Testament to dictate my sociopolitical beliefs" politician. Of which there are many in this country right now (this is incredibly unique to our country amongst modernized, westernized first world nations in 2015). I would happily vote for the former. I would not vote for the latter. I even outlined specific examples of issues that such politicians in this country have taken blind stances on simply because of their faith. Again, I couldn't have stated my case any clearer. So I'm not sure if you have an issue with reading comprehension or, more likely, you simply glossed over what I wrote and dove straight into your insult-laden tirade. Breathtakingly retarded? That's rich. And oh yeah, I love how in my last response to you, I pretty much wrote, "humor me and answer this question but you won't; instead you'll dodge the question and call me a 'retard' again." Which is EXACTLY what you did! I didn't say the question was contextual to anything or even necessarily pertinent to our discussion (it is though because believing that Noah's Ark literally happened would be a fairly good indicator/litmus test as to which type of Christian you profess to be- one I would or would not vote for). Regardless, I specifically said, "humor me." But again, you won't. I'll look forward to waking up and seeing what new, creative way of calling me a retard you were able to come up with. Good night DC Tom.

Edited November 4, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[dwight in philly]

i think everyone has stated their cases very well, all sides. i like a good debate , but we are here ( i am assuming) because of our devotion to a common cause. topics like this does get our minds off our frustration with that common cause.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Today I learned that metzelaars_lives is perfectly comfortable with individuals who lie to people of faith in order to secure their votes, but doesn't believe that actual people of faith have any place in determining the set of laws that we all live under.

[metzelaars_lives]

Today I learned that metzelaars_lives is perfectly comfortable with individuals who lie to people of faith in order to secure their votes, but doesn't believe that actual people of faith have any place in determining the set of laws that we all live under.

I actually agree with Dwight that this one has run its course. But EJ- I mean Tasker, let me make this extremely clear. No, that is not the case. I think you can be a Christian, like I believe Obama (and even a guy like George Bush for that matter) to be for example, and also not say that, sorry I wouldn't bake gay dudes a wedding cake because of what it says in the Old Testament. Everyone draws their line somewhere. Even those who wouldn't bake a couple of gay dudes a wedding cake in Georgia probably eat shellfish even though eating shellfish is called an abomination more times than being gay is in the Old Testament. So yes, I think you can go to church on Sundays, believe in the undeniably positive principles laid forth by JC and try and use his teachings to help the less fortunate and lead a more virtuous life and at the same time, NOT say that you don't believe in climate change because God wouldn't let it happen or that you believe the Earth to be 5,000 years because of a timeline you can trace back by interpreting the Bible literally or to deny Darwin's theory of evolution simply because of the story of the apple and the talking snake in Genesis. I used Noah's Ark as an example and again, I think it's pertinent: I think you can be a good Christian and at the same time understand that a story like Noah's Ark was meant to be allegorical and didn't actually happen. Is that fair?

Edited November 4, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[3rdnlng]

Liberals have a larger propensity to lack morals or to lose true north on their moral compasses. They are ok with just about any tactic as long as it furthers their agenda. They use lies as a tool to get what they want. They march lock step with their masters and never seem to struggle with moral issues. The Christian religion is bad but Islam, abortion, Uncle Sam, gun control, belief in man-made global climate change and a host of other questionable beliefs are acceptable to them. They believe that Snowden, Caitlyn and Castro are heroes but all law enforcement is in some way corrupt or just plain bad. I challenge any liberal on this board to defend the tactics used by their leaders. In case there is any doubt I am referring to Obama, Reid, Clinton and Pelosi. You know, how Obama got his ACA passed, Clinton's lies and cover ups regarding Benghazi and her email server, Reid's intentional lies about Mitt Romney and Pelosi's minimum wage exclusion. I'll be waiting.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I actually agree with Dwight that this one has run its course. But EJ- I mean Tasker, let me make this extremely clear. No, that is not the case. I think you can be a Christian, like I believe Obama (and even a guy like George Bush for that matter) to be for example, and also not say that, sorry I wouldn't bake gay dudes a wedding cake because of what it says in the Old Testament. Everyone draws their line somewhere. Even those who wouldn't bake a couple of gay dudes a wedding cake in Georgia probably eat shellfish even though eating shellfish is called an abomination more times than being gay is in the Old Testament. So yes, I think you can go to church on Sundays, believe in the undeniably positive principles laid forth by JC and try and use his teachings to help the less fortunate and lead a more virtuous life and at the same time, NOT say that you don't believe in climate change because God wouldn't let it happen or that you believe the Earth to be 5,000 years because of a timeline you can trace back by interpreting the Bible literally or to deny Darwin's theory of evolution simply because of the story of the apple and the talking snake in Genesis. I used Noah's Ark as an example and again, I think it's pertinent: I think you can be a good Christian and at the same time understand that a story like Noah's Ark was meant to be allegorical and didn't actually happen. Is that fair?

The larger point still stands: you feel it is appropriate to deny individuals the ability to participate in government because of their faith, which is the antithesis of Constitutional protections of religion.

Edited November 4, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[metzelaars_lives]

The larger point still stands: you feel it is appropriate to deny individuals the ability to participate in government because of their faith, which is the antithesis of Constitutional protections of religion.

No that's not the case. I don't think Ted Cruz should be ineligible to run for public office. I simply wouldn't vote for him. But again, Ben Carson stated that Muslims should be ineligible to run for President, which I myself would not agree with.

[DC Tom]

The larger point still stands: you feel it is appropriate to deny individuals the ability to participate in government because of their faith, which is the antithesis of Constitutional protections of religion.

 

No, just the president. He hasn't precluded all participation in government. And not all faith...just faith that he deems unworthy and incompatible with governance, in the sense of "If you believe in things that I think aren't true, then you can't make good decisions."

 

Of course, he also hasn't managed to explain why that should be so, either.

[metzelaars_lives]

Liberals have a larger propensity to lack morals or to lose true north on their moral compasses. They are ok with just about any tactic as long as it furthers their agenda. They use lies as a tool to get what they want. They march lock step with their masters and never seem to struggle with moral issues. The Christian religion is bad but Islam, abortion, Uncle Sam, gun control, belief in man-made global climate change and a host of other questionable beliefs are acceptable to them. They believe that Snowden, Caitlyn and Castro are heroes but all law enforcement is in some way corrupt or just plain bad. I challenge any liberal on this board to defend the tactics used by their leaders. In case there is any doubt I am referring to Obama, Reid, Clinton and Pelosi. You know, how Obama got his ACA passed, Clinton's lies and cover ups regarding Benghazi and her email server, Reid's intentional lies about Mitt Romney and Pelosi's minimum wage exclusion. I'll be waiting.

Oh God.

 

No, just the president. He hasn't precluded all participation in government. And not all faith...just faith that he deems unworthy and incompatible with governance, in the sense of "If you believe in things that I think aren't true, then you can't make good decisions."

 

Of course, he also hasn't managed to explain why that should be so, either.

Again, if a Biblical literalist won any election, I wouldn't deny the legitimacy of their position; I simply wouldn't vote for them in the first place.

 

And come on man, I've explained it like four times now. I'm really trying to work with you here.

[DC Tom]

No that's not the case. I don't think Ted Cruz should be ineligible to run for public office. I simply wouldn't vote for him. But again, Ben Carson stated that Muslims should be ineligible to run for President, which I myself would not agree with.

 

But you said...

Because in every other modernized, westernized country in the world it would be absolutely insane for that country's leader to not embrace the freaking theory of evolution, that's why.

 

You didn't say "I think a country's leader should embrace the theory of evolution." You said "It is insane for a country's leader not to embrace the theory of evolution." Had you actually said the former, this would have been a reasonable discussion - I would have responded with "Why should that be so?" and expounded on why I think it's not relevant (my previous post that you blithely ignored with your "Answer my question!" nonsense.) You could have explained why you thought it was so. We could have had a reasoned and constructive exchange of opinions.

 

Instead you made an irrational and unsupported declarative statement, and bitched and whined when no one accepted it as an objective fact. And thus made it impossible to discuss anything with you. That is pretty much the definition of "retarded."

[3rdnlng]

Oh God.

 

So, you weren't able to challenge my assertions, eh?

[metzelaars_lives]

 

But you said...

 

You didn't say "I think a country's leader should embrace the theory of evolution." You said "It is insane for a country's leader not to embrace the theory of evolution." Had you actually said the former, this would have been a reasonable discussion - I would have responded with "Why should that be so?" and expounded on why I think it's not relevant (my previous post that you blithely ignored with your "Answer my question!" nonsense.) You could have explained why you thought it was so. We could have had a reasoned and constructive exchange of opinions.

 

Instead you made an irrational and unsupported declarative statement, and bitched and whined when no one accepted it as an objective fact. And thus made it impossible to discuss anything with you. That is pretty much the definition of "retarded."

Listen man, we're all Bills fans and adults here. Can we ease off the "retard" talk? And AGAIN, yes, while I do think it would be INSANE for the leader of a modernized, westernized country in the year 2015 to not embrace Darwin's theory of evolution (there aren't any and there isn't going to be one anytime soon), I wouldn't deny the legitimacy of their position if they won an election fair and square. And I have expounded again and again on why I find that to be an insane notion. Let me ask you this: do you think a creationist is even electable (for president, specifically) in the US in the year 2015? I don't.

So, you weren't able to challenge my assertions, eh?

Dude- just, no.

[Nanker]

No that's not the case. I don't think Ted Cruz should be ineligible to run for public office. I simply wouldn't vote for him. But again, Ben Carson stated that Muslims should be ineligible to run for President, which I myself would not agree with.

I don't think that's exactly what he said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/ben-carson-muslim-comments-reject-islam-213914

He said he would not support putting one in office.

Then clarified that he objects to any religious zealot running for office that wants to fundamentally change America and ignore the Constitution by establishing a theocracy and religious laws, e.g., Sharia.

[metzelaars_lives]

I don't think that's exactly what he said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/ben-carson-muslim-comments-reject-islam-213914

He said he would not support putting one in office.

Then clarified that he objects to any religious zealot running for office that wants to fundamentally change America and ignore the Constitution by establishing a theocracy and religious laws, e.g., Sharia.

Well if that's what he actually said then I'd agree with him. My understanding was that he would be against any Muslim- extremist or not- even being eligible to run for President. I know that he backtracked on his original statement to make it a little more politically correct.

Edited November 4, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[Azalin]

I don't think that's exactly what he said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/ben-carson-muslim-comments-reject-islam-213914

He said he would not support putting one in office.

Then clarified that he objects to any religious zealot running for office that wants to fundamentally change America and ignore the Constitution by establishing a theocracy and religious laws, e.g., Sharia.

 

Exactly. He said that he believes Sharia to be incompatible with our constitutional liberties.

 

Well if that's what he actually said then I'd agree with him. My understanding was that he would be against any Muslim- extremist or not- even being eligible to run for President. I know that he backtracked on his original statement to make it a little more politically correct.

 

I don't believe he backtracked anything, but instead clarified his original point.

[FireChan]

I actually agree with Dwight that this one has run its course. But EJ- I mean Tasker, let me make this extremely clear. No, that is not the case. I think you can be a Christian, like I believe Obama (and even a guy like George Bush for that matter) to be for example, and also not say that, sorry I wouldn't bake gay dudes a wedding cake because of what it says in the Old Testament. Everyone draws their line somewhere. Even those who wouldn't bake a couple of gay dudes a wedding cake in Georgia probably eat shellfish even though eating shellfish is called an abomination more times than being gay is in the Old Testament. So yes, I think you can go to church on Sundays, believe in the undeniably positive principles laid forth by JC and try and use his teachings to help the less fortunate and lead a more virtuous life and at the same time, NOT say that you don't believe in climate change because God wouldn't let it happen or that you believe the Earth to be 5,000 years because of a timeline you can trace back by interpreting the Bible literally or to deny Darwin's theory of evolution simply because of the story of the apple and the talking snake in Genesis. I used Noah's Ark as an example and again, I think it's pertinent: I think you can be a good Christian and at the same time understand that a story like Noah's Ark was meant to be allegorical and didn't actually happen. Is that fair?

Denying Darwin's theory of evolution has no bearing on ability to govern. Who cares? Do we make policy based on what's going to happen a million or 100 million years from now?