| Author |
Message |
dolenzia
Just Arrived


Joined: Jul 25, 2007
Posts: 6
Location: Seattle
|
Posted:
Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:20 am |
|
Since the New Hampshire primary is today, and we have a forum in need of content, I thought I'd ponder which candidates are most open to free thought.
My initial thoughts are on the democratic side in order, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Barack Obama.
On the republican side, Ron Paul seems most libertarian, or course I say that knowing he has some extreme views about a variety of areas.
Another point, will we ever a non-religious president? |
|
|
|
 |
Hurtman2000
Grand Poster



Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 1606
Location: Las Vegas
|
Posted:
Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:28 pm |
|
I really do not know who to vote for either. I better get with the program because they are coming to Nevada soon.
Let's have our own little caucus/primary here. Who would you vote for, and why.
Let's at least predict who will win.
I say Hillary will be our next president. I'm just pulling that one out of my a**. |
_________________ Hear and read gems: http://www.greylodge.org/gpc/?p=60 and
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/thanksgivingsermon.html
<--Computer pic of what Jesus might have looked like. Created from skull of a 1st-century man. (Discovery.com) |
|
|
 |
jkorath
Grand Poster



Joined: Sep 06, 2004
Posts: 2020
Location: Southern California
|
Posted:
Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:27 am |
|
I find it hard to even
imagine
hillary winning.
Well, maybe she can win... after all she's running on her VAST amount of experience
Am I the only one who raises an eyebrow when she says she has 30+ years of experience? I didn't know having been the first lady qualifies you as being full of experience. I can, however, think of something else she's full of Isn't she really just running on a couple years of being a junior senator? She's not any more experienced as Obama, right?
Or am I missing something here? |
|
|
|
 |
Raligan
Post Noob


Joined: Sep 10, 2007
Posts: 55
Location: Almost Texas, but still Oklahoma
|
Posted:
Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:13 am |
|
I don't see what's so hard to imagine about Hillary winning- I can't say that I'm for it, either, but it seems quite likely.
I'm terribly undecided on the whole election- I don't like either Obama or Hillary. I'd love to see a minority or a female in office- just not either of them. I certainly wouldn't credit her with VAST experience, but even as a kibitzer, she did spend 8 years in the White House before serving on the Senate, as well as several years prior on campaigns and being around her husband- I'm not saying it REALLY qualifies her, just that it trumps Obama- and of course pales in comparison to the leading republican, John McCain. More can be found here.
http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/pagenum/1/
That brings me to the pain of looking at the republican candidates. Ron Paul may as well pack his bags and go home- at the debate he looked like the little kid that nobody wants to pick for their baseball team- half the time he looked like he was thinking, "I'm here dammit! Look at me! Value my input!" I hope that idiot Huckabee (What does the president need science for?) packs his bags as well. From what I've seen, and the numbers seem to confirm it, he hasn't made much impression on anyone.
Now McCain and Romney- that's a tough call. I'd rather see McCain, but I don't want another Republican in office.
[sigh] Reggie, I'd vote for you. You're qualified- you're a wartime veteran and you're a celebrity. At least in my book. |
|
|
|
 |
Philosophos
Philosophical Prodigy


Joined: Mar 02, 2004
Posts: 4037
Location: Maryland, USA
|
Posted:
Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:12 am |
|
| jkorath wrote: |
| Am I the only one who raises an eyebrow when she says she has 30+ years of experience? |
No - it pisses me off as well. |
|
|
|
 |
yoshindu
Just Arrived

Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 5
|
Posted:
Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:35 am |
|
Ron Paul is the only candidate without CFR ties, and while this is a positive aspect, it also leaves him with no chance. Barack Obama is a 32nd degree Prince Hall Mason (Freemason) by the way so perhaps you should rethink your "free thought" opinion of him as it is an order with a prerequisite belief in a higher power. |
|
|
|
 |
yoshindu
Just Arrived

Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 5
|
Posted:
Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:43 am |
|
Also, I came across this post by an acquaintance of mine entitled "Obama, JFK, The Mob, Masonry and the Church: Do we *want* another JFK?"
http://divinusmentis.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
 |
MockingGods
Philosophical Prodigy



Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 4005
Location: USA
|
Posted:
Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:58 pm |
|
| dolenzia wrote: |
| Another point, will we ever
have
a non-religious president? |
In the near future... not openly. I find it possible the US has had a closet non-religious president in the past. One could argue that any of the deistic presidents, most remarkably Thomas Jefferson, could certainly have been “non-religious”. |
|
|
|
 |
Raskolnikov
The Learned


Joined: Jan 14, 2008
Posts: 112
Location: Las Vegas
|
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:37 am |
|
Ron Paul! Because he knows how to keep the darkies in place*! (waits for flames) but seriously I am addicted to Ron Paul atm. But my second pick would be Mike Gravel then Dennis Kucinich then Barack Obama.
*check out his 1992 newletter |
_________________ "I did not bow down to you, I bowed down to all the suffering of humanity."
- Fyodor Dostoevsky, "Crime and Punishment" |
|
|
 |
McDuffie_for_Congress
Newbie


Joined: Feb 04, 2008
Posts: 23
|
Posted:
Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:16 am |
|
| dolenzia wrote: |
| Ron Paul seems most libertarian, or course I say that knowing he has some extreme views about a variety of areas. |
I am unaware of any extremist positions of Ron Paul. His view on immigration comes closest to extremism of any.
As far as having a non-religious president, I don't care about the religion of a president so much as I care about views regarding religion and state.
I would be perfectly happy with a president who is, in his personal life an evangelical, but left it out of his politics.
This is all contingent on his (or her) other views. |
|
|
|
 |
flowcool
Just Arrived

Joined: Feb 07, 2008
Posts: 7
Location: Colorado, USA
|
Posted:
Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:36 pm |
|
| dolenzia wrote: |
Since the New Hampshire primary is today, and we have a forum in need of content, I thought I'd ponder which candidates are most open to free thought.
My initial thoughts are on the democratic side in order, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Barack Obama.
On the republican side, Ron Paul seems most libertarian, or course I say that knowing he has some extreme views about a variety of areas.
Another point, will we ever a non-religious president? |
Woot Barack Obama 08'
Yes Jefferson and Lincon were both non-religous. Some say they were atheist but they were agnostics at best. |
|
|
|
 |
Brian37
Master of Logic


Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
|
Posted:
Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:56 pm |
|
What scares me is McCain Fuckabee ticket. It will force the Obama Clinton campains to spend more time in Churches than talking about real issues.
"No religious test" is supposed to be upheld and ALL the canidates should refrain from divisive pulpit politics.
And people like Rush Limbutt! and Ann Cunthead are screaming about McCain being the Republican nominee, which is all an act to sturr up the base to insure a win against the Democrats. |
|
|
|
 |
Jason_Harvestdancer
Graduate Thinker


Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 666
|
Posted:
Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:56 am |
|
| Raskolnikov wrote: |
Ron Paul! Because he knows how to keep the darkies in place*! (waits for flames) but seriously I am addicted to Ron Paul atm. But my second pick would be Mike Gravel then Dennis Kucinich then Barack Obama.
*check out his 1992 newletter |
Try a little research next time. Every thinking person knows Paul's not a racist.
You don't know it, but I didn't include you in that sentence. |
|
|
|
 |
MockingGods
Philosophical Prodigy



Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 4005
Location: USA
|
Posted:
Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:39 am |
|
| Brian37 wrote: |
| "No religious test" is supposed to be upheld and ALL the canidates should refrain from divisive pulpit politics. |
How does “no religious test” equate to “politicians shouldn’t use religion as a political tool”? Honestly, it seems reasonable to expect any good politician to use the most powerful rhetoric possible to get elected. Let’s be honest here, religion is one of the most powerful tools any of them have. If they had to talk about “real” issues most of the voting base would be bored shitless (perhaps that wouldn't be a bad thing). |
|
|
|
 |
Brian37
Master of Logic


Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9384
|
Posted:
Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:11 am |
|
| MockingGods wrote: |
| Brian37 wrote: |
| "No religious test" is supposed to be upheld and ALL the canidates should refrain from divisive pulpit politics. |
How does “no religious test” equate to “politicians shouldn’t use religion as a political tool”? Honestly, it seems reasonable to expect any good politician to use the most powerful rhetoric possible to get elected. Let’s be honest here, religion is one of the most powerful tools any of them have. If they had to talk about “real” issues most of the voting base would be bored shitless (perhaps that wouldn't be a bad thing). |
Yea, thats fine if you want to end up looking like Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion and for government to be free, it must not take sides in that issue. The founders were a variety of beliefs from Freemason, Unitarian to Christian to Deist. BUT all of them understood Jefferson's "wall" and is why Jesus and Christianity are NOT mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|