[QUOTE=Ponder Stibbons]
The only good thing about him is that he’s drawing away the nutty bigot vote from Romney, thus splitting the fundamentalists and making it all the more unlikely that either will accomplish anything.
[/QUOTE]
Oh good! McCain/Giuiliani in 2008! 
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Why do these religious whackjobs insist on running for office? And why do people even listen to them, much less vote for them?
[/QUOTE]
Because the people that vote for them are also religious whackjobs?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
…And there’s no more evidence for that than there is for God to exist at all.
[/QUOTE]
How would it be possible for something that doesn’t exist to change? I mean, dude?
God moves in mysterious ways. Especially when he doesn’t exist!
Jesus on a fucking dinosaur!
Yikes.
So Supreme Court Justice seats, if any, are likely to open up in the next four to eight years?
Not really. Given how much progress our current president has made in 8 years, I think it would only take a couple more bloodthirsty theocratic Presidents, savvy VPs and soulless Congressmen to turn the US into a de facto theocracy. Now, it certainly wouldn’t happen anywhere near as quickly as the Talibanization of Afghanistan happened, and it would take an assload of idiot voters, a handful of megolomaniac ideologues and more than a couple of hanging chads, but I wouldn’t call that “weird shit”, just an unlikely extension of a series of unfortunate fads.
Did you hear about the college football star who became a Republican Congressman?
He left college as a Tight End, but by the time he left the House he was a Wide Receiver.
In other Huckanews, his newest senior advisor, James Pinkerton, has advocated putting a cop in front of every mosque:
The scarey thing is, I am sure his constituency supports this move. Other Pinkerton gems:
Is not Liberty a pagan goddess, is not her statue on top of the capitol. You could interpret it as: to secure the blessings of the Goddess Liberty, at least metaphorically.
Not the Christian God but the Greek Goddess!
[QUOTE=Icerigger]
Is not Liberty a pagan goddess, is not her statue on top of the capitol. You could interpret it as: to secure the blessings of the Goddess Liberty, at least metaphorically.
Not the Christian God but the Greek Goddess!
[/QUOTE]
You apparently didn’t get the memo. When, in a founding document of the republic, there’s an explicit reference to a pagan deity, it’s obviously a metaphor. When there’s a reference to either just “God” or what might be meant as some aspect of God that makes God look good, it’s a literal description of Yahweh.
Please read your memos more carefully!
Looks like Hucabee’s back-pedaling a little:
Oh, well that makes it much better. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
Looks like Hucabee’s back-pedaling a little:Oh, well that makes it much better. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s exactly the way I interpreted his statement originally, so I don’t think it counts as “back-pedaling”. But you’re right-- it’s still a bit scary. Not just because he’d say such a thing, but because he was stupid enough to say it. Or worse, he figured it was the way most people thought.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Because they come from God.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Or, conversely, you’re utterly wrong.
Oh and my imaginary friend could smite your imaginary friend.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, that’s exactly the way I interpreted his statement originally, so I don’t think it counts as “back-pedaling”. But you’re right-- it’s still a bit scary. Not just because he’d say such a thing, but because he was stupid enough to say it. Or worse, he figured it was the way most people thought.
[/QUOTE]
Well, maybe not “most people”, but maybe 30% of the Republicans who vote in the in South Carolina primary, which would probably be more than enough.
I don’t think Huck or his staff are much concerned with the eventual potential of what he says at this point, they are much more concerned with the immediate effect. They’ll burn that bridge when they come to it.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
There is only one God, Our conceptions and misconceptions about Him don’t change His nature.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Ever read The Age of Reason? Paine specifically says he believes in Natures God (like Jefferson and Madison) but spends a good bit of the book on what a crock of shit Christianity and the Bible is. And I doubt he’d believe in any god if he was alive today.
How do you know his nature isn’t what Jefferson and Paine thought? Or that he has any nature at all?
That statement is turning me around and around. I think in my deepest darkest I want to agree that there is a God, but the first part and the second part seem so contrary to each other.
[QUOTE=stolichnaya]
Well, maybe not “most people”, but maybe 30% of the Republicans who vote in the in South Carolina primary, which would probably be more than enough.
[/quote]
Yeah, I almost added that exact thought on the end of my post.
Could be. They’re probably still reeling a bit over the fact that he’s even remotely viable.
Jefferson chose the word “creator” very carefully. Not “God”, not “Jesus”, not “Yahweh,” not “Allah”, not “Shiva”, not “Zoroaster”—the generic “creator.” The very concept of religious freedom is embodied right there in that one word.
Notice also that he said “THEIR” creator, meaning “the creator they believe in,” not “the” creator, meaning “the official god of America.”
Uh-oh, people! We’ve got the Slippery Slope a’comin!
I seriously want to know what sort of logical progression leads from two consenting adults marrying to an adult marrying a child or an animal, neither of whom can consent (not planning to start an age debate, here).
I mean, I know that their logic is not similar to Earth logic, but someone, somewhere, had to come up with a logical reason that consensual marriages must logically be followed by non-consensual couplings. Right?
Right?
/curls up in a small ball and starts whimpering/
[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
Uh-oh, people! We’ve got the Slippery Slope a’comin!
[/QUOTE]
Man and animal/children? Looks like we got a cousin to Santorum a’comin’!
(Oh, and link? I am SOOOOO going to send that to Savage Love)