Super Tuesday

[r1v3th3ad]

Please keep your religion out of my politics. Thanks.

/Separation of church and state FTW!

+10

...I know if I ran, I wouldn't have a chance, I'm Pagan...

[Texico]

Please keep your religion out of my politics. Thanks.

/Separation of church and state FTW!

[Devil's Advocate]

*laugh*

I would say something about Separation of Church and State, but instead of me talking about it how 'bout every US citizen on here go reread the Bill of Rights.

[/Devil's Advocate]

I didn't want the conversation on religion to go this far or to even begin in the first place. I just wanted to discern, for myself, whether or not gaia was religious.

[ZenSilk]

You guys can say all you want. Literally every single Mormon, who hapenns to make up most of the Republican Party here, voted for you know who.

Romney got 88% of the Vote here, simply because hes Mormon.

Seperation of Church and State? Nah, i think it just got trampled.

There aren't many people who will vote for the BEST candidate if they can vote for one that has a similarity to them.

Thank God we have a low delegate Number.

And California.... What the fuck do they love about Hillary????

[ahwahoo2006]

There aren't many people who will vote for the BEST candidate if they can vote for one that has a similarity to them.

ding ding ding. Jackpot!

Black voters overwhelmingly support Obama. Female voters tend to prefer Clinton. If you ask many supporters from any party they would be hard pressed to tell you what their candidate ACTUALLY stands for.

[ZenSilk]

There aren't many people who will vote for the BEST candidate if they can vote for one that has a similarity to them.

ding ding ding. Jackpot!

Black voters overwhelmingly support Obama. Female voters tend to prefer Clinton. If you ask many supporters from any party they would be hard pressed to tell you what their candidate ACTUALLY stands for.

BUT, young males support Obama over anyone else.

Ohh and My Mom voted Obama as well. (). As did my girlfriend. Alright! Maybe that's why Hil lost over here.

[r1v3th3ad]

wait, are you in utah??? i thought you're in tibet...

[ZenSilk]

wait, are you in utah??? i thought you're in tibet...

Shhhhhhh.

[gaia.plateau]

Make up your mind, ZenSilk. Are you a magical underpants-wearing space-being, or a monk?

wait, are you in utah??? i thought you're in tibet...

Shhhhhhh.

[Bulldog_916]

Is there a problem with being against religious conservatives? I find that most of them use YOUR faith to THEIR advantage because they know how you are likely to vote...with your religion. That's why some 85% of people who consider themselves Christians or Born-Again are voting for Republicans. Coincidence? I think not. I like to think that IF I were religious, I would be open-minded enough to vote against the majority because I want my country to stand for something more than what Christians want. I can tell you are religious and Christian or Catholic in your use of "His." I understand your feelings because I was religious once, but I saw the light when I matured. I dont know how you voted or why, but if you consider yourself with the majority, then I believe that you did vote Republican.

Hahaha I think you misread my post. I was trying to determine weather or not gaia was religious, as I believe that only religious people can or should interpret the Bible. I don't believe that a non-religious person should even ASSUME to interpret the Bible. If gaia is indeed religious then he has every right to interpret the Bible in his own way and to make his decisions based on said interpretation.

I am not what anyone would call, by any means, a religous person. I just believe that if you are going to try to say what God or Jesus *thinks* (haha that's almost a joke) about a situation then you should have the faith to back it up.

There's a condescending tone in your post. Thank you for supporting my belief that many (not all, and by no means most) non-religious people think that they are better than religious people. A vocal minority can ruin it for a silent majority, but we all know that as part of the hookah community.

Sorry I got all preachy bitchy assumptive. I just dont like when people cant vote outside their general group even if it can save the country and actually change the status quo. I wouldnt vote for the McCain of today because 1. he's a loyal Bushie, 2. the Straight Talk stopped when he wanted the candidacy, 3. he's all over national security but doesnt understand economics and the need for a tax system. I would have voted for the McCain of 2000 though, hands down.

[ZenSilk]

Is there a problem with being against religious conservatives? I find that most of them use YOUR faith to THEIR advantage because they know how you are likely to vote...with your religion. That's why some 85% of people who consider themselves Christians or Born-Again are voting for Republicans. Coincidence? I think not. I like to think that IF I were religious, I would be open-minded enough to vote against the majority because I want my country to stand for something more than what Christians want. I can tell you are religious and Christian or Catholic in your use of "His." I understand your feelings because I was religious once, but I saw the light when I matured. I dont know how you voted or why, but if you consider yourself with the majority, then I believe that you did vote Republican.

Hahaha I think you misread my post. I was trying to determine weather or not gaia was religious, as I believe that only religious people can or should interpret the Bible. I don't believe that a non-religious person should even ASSUME to interpret the Bible. If gaia is indeed religious then he has every right to interpret the Bible in his own way and to make his decisions based on said interpretation.

I am not what anyone would call, by any means, a religous person. I just believe that if you are going to try to say what God or Jesus *thinks* (haha that's almost a joke) about a situation then you should have the faith to back it up.

There's a condescending tone in your post. Thank you for supporting my belief that many (not all, and by no means most) non-religious people think that they are better than religious people. A vocal minority can ruin it for a silent majority, but we all know that as part of the hookah community.

Sorry I got all preachy bitchy assumptive. I just dont like when people cant vote outside their general group even if it can save the country and actually change the status quo. I wouldnt vote for the McCain of today because 1. he's a loyal Bushie, 2. the Straight Talk stopped when he wanted the candidacy, 3. he's all over national security but doesnt understand economics and the need for a tax system. I would have voted for the McCain of 2000 though, hands down.

I understood exactly what Bulldog meant. The largest problem (but not the most sifnificant) is right here where i live. 88% voted for Romney??? That leaves just 12% of the Republicans here actually thinking. This is a major problem.

The fact that Romney would Bar Muslims from his Cabinet should simply be enough to leave his ass in the dust. Yet no one cares about that here, as long as he's Mormon, he's in.

[AKammenzind]

Make up your mind, ZenSilk. Are you a magical underpants-wearing space-being, or a monk?

Lawl @ that

The fact that Romney would Bar Muslims from his Cabinet should simply be enough to leave his ass in the dust. Yet no one cares about that here, as long as he's Mormon, he's in.

I'm not overly worried about Romney's usage of the mormon vote. There aren't that many mormons nationwide. At least not compared to evangelical christians. And we all know who "the most christian candidate" is... *disgust*.

Regardless, it looks like McCain's going to win the primary. So yeah... who wants to bet that if he wins, he's going to pursue terrorism or an oppressive regime somewhere in Southeast Asia? What was that place again? I think it started with a V...

[ZenSilk]

Make up your mind, ZenSilk. Are you a magical underpants-wearing space-being, or a monk?

Lawl @ that

The fact that Romney would Bar Muslims from his Cabinet should simply be enough to leave his ass in the dust. Yet no one cares about that here, as long as he's Mormon, he's in.

I'm not overly worried about Romney's usage of the mormon vote. There aren't that many mormons nationwide. At least not compared to evangelical christians. And we all know who "the most christian candidate" is... *disgust*.

Regardless, it looks like McCain's going to win the primary. So yeah... who wants to bet that if he wins, he's going to pursue terrorism or an oppressive regime somewhere in Southeast Asia? What was that place again? I think it started with a V...

"And we shall break the arms of every Vietnamese Male and stab each on in the groin!". Scary thought. Maybe they shoulda let him hang himself in POW camp....

[AKammenzind]

"And we shall break the arms of every Vietnamese Male and stab each on in the groin!". Scary thought. Maybe they shoulda let him hang himself in POW camp....

While I do respect the guy for what he's been through... it's a cosmically bad idea to have him in charge of the most powerful military in the world, plus a shitload of nukes.

[gaia.plateau]

"And we shall break the arms of every Vietnamese Male and stab each on in the groin!". Scary thought. Maybe they shoulda let him hang himself in POW camp....

While I do respect the guy for what he's been through... it's a cosmically bad idea to have him in charge of the most powerful military in the world, plus a shitload of nukes.

That's been trademarked!

Edited February 8, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[r1v3th3ad]

o well, no need to worry about Mitt, he dropped out...

[St. Goodypants]

The US electoral system really should be changed. These days it serves to discourage voters from going with a third party candidate who might better serve their personal beliefs. And to ENCOURAGE voting for a candidate who "holds true" to the party line.

Any candidate who follows either party's main line isn't going to represent the majority of Americans.

[Bulldog_916]

Then why are so many Americans from both parties interested in Obama?

[AKammenzind]

Then why are so many Americans from both parties interested in Obama?

Because he's black, he gives good (albeit incredibly fluffy) speeches, and he's not a white male so that makes him something fresh and different and better right? Did I mention he's black?

I hear people talking all the time about "how cool it would be to have a black president". Seems kinda stupid to me, I don't care what color the president is... I just want a good one. Ok, I don't want ANY president. I'd like to see the federal government disappear... but they own us and make way too much money from us to let that happen.

[r1v3th3ad]

Because he's black, he gives good (albeit incredibly fluffy) speeches

thanks

[Geiseric]

Erm... Typical manifestation of racism in regards to validity? By god, it couldn't be that he takes a lot of stands that the majority of the younger generation agree with... That would be CRAZY.

I'm not saying I agree with everything he stands for, the border fence is an ethnocentric wet dream, and the fact that he threw away a large faction of the Hispanic vote over the issue strikes me as extremely foolish, but, I am on board with a lot of the things he says he is. Whether or not that means anything at all has yet to be seen.

[gaia.plateau]

I don't think anyone was saying that he lacks validity as a candidate... intentionally, anyway... but the race and religion cards are definitely major reasons for his appeal even in the Republican camp, and with international observers. In an American era that is characterized by fear of angry Muslim extremists who have been proverbially poked with sticks for decades by greedy old white men, Obama is a tonic. It's much harder for the IVOs who resent American foreign policy to focus that resentment on a brown, Muslim president, and many Americans realize this on both sides of the Partisan fence.

Erm... Typical manifestation of racism in regards to validity? By god, it couldn't be that he takes a lot of stands that the majority of the younger generation agree with... That would be CRAZY.

I'm not saying I agree with everything he stands for, the border fence is an ethnocentric wet dream, and the fact that he threw away a large faction of the Hispanic vote over the issue strikes me as extremely foolish, but, I am on board with a lot of the things he says he is. Whether or not that means anything at all has yet to be seen.

Edited February 10, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Bulldog_916]

It's hard to get the hispanic vote as a group unless you basically entertain a policy of inviting illegal aliens over in droves. The second you talk about keeping them out, you lose the hispanic vote. That's what sucks about having to get them on your side, as a democrat, if you talk about strict border control, you're done for.

[St. Goodypants]

I'm not saying that there aren't candidates from the 2 primary parties with good ideas. I'm saying that the US populace would be better served by a larger pool of candidates.

[Texico]

There was a larger pool of candidates; we started last year with a total of sixteen. We, as a country, got rid of them fast. The fact that it was whittled down so quickly only shows that the general populace does not want to make their decision based on the issues of the individual candidates; people don't want a variety of choices. They only want to vote for the person spewing rhetoric most like what they want to hear (and the candidates in their respective parties spew nearly identical rhetoric), and then they go for the candidate who has the most support. People don't realize that candidates make those speaches in order to get those swing votes, but those speaches don't necessarily represent the full extent of the candidates beliefs and policy ideas.

It's good for candidates that the presidential campaign has become a popularity contest. It's not good for the country though.

[jayson]

There was a larger pool of candidates; we started last year with a total of sixteen. We, as a country, got rid of them fast.

We the people didn't. The media did, simply by not paying everyone equal attention. Hell, Ron Paul placed higher than Giuliani in all but one state and Fox didn't even allow him into a debate Giuliani was invited to.

Fact of the matter is, the people don't decide elections, the media does. They had anointed McCain, then Giuliani, then Romney, then Thompson, then Huckabee, then back to McCain.

The fact that it was whittled down so quickly only shows that the general populace does not want to make their decision based on the issues of the individual candidates; people don't want a variety of choices. They only want to vote for the person spewing rhetoric most like what they want to hear (and the candidates in their respective parties spew nearly identical rhetoric), and then they go for the candidate who has the most support.

Very well put! I agree completely. The voters are sheep, let's face it. You would be astounded how many people say, "I like so-and-so's ideas a lot, but he doesn't have a chance, so I am voting for someone I hate but has an R behind his name". Our Republic was never meant to operate this way. We were supposed to vote on principle, not electability.