"I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation" -Ben Carson

JDGreen said:
I agree. I do my best to be objective. To vote for who will be a strong influence of benefit to the most people, and primarily my family and myself. I am a conservative. Ive supported democrats. I usually, 75%+, support republicans . But i support Ben because hes real, hes genuine, and has proven his worth to this country. I dont judge any person on one thing they say. I believe a muslim that supports the efforts and constitution of this country, which does conflict with sharia law, can b president and may b wat the country actually needs. But Ben Carsons assertion is reasonable and I almost guarantee he clarifies and likely apologizes to anyone who.may think that he believes islam is a dignified disqualification for president.
Click to expand...
I do realize there is subjectiveness to my decision
 
bluntmassa1 said:
I wouldn't advocate a Christian to run the country it goes against science and reality to move forward we need more spending on science than this stupid holy war we are creating. We have the technology to stop starvation but war's are where the money goes and nobody complains cause they all hate Muslims even though I can't find a cheaper place to buy beer than a Paki store. :bigjoint:
Click to expand...
 
Uncle Ben said:
That is hilarious, what an oxymoron. :grin: "stupid brain surgeon" Whew.......

And you're a brilliant troll.
Click to expand...
Actually I'm not trolling. Ben Carson is even dumber than you. I rewatched the last debate last night. He contradicts himself everytime he tries to answer a question.
It's either brain damage or drugs. There is a reason he doesn't practice medicine anymore
 
ChesusRice said:
Actually I'm not trolling. Ben Carson is even dumber than you. I rewatched the last debate last night. He contradicts himself everytime he tries to answer a question.
It's either brain damage or drugs. There is a reason he doesn't practice medicine anymore
Click to expand...


At least he's not a thief!
 
MuyLocoNC said:
I don't have any more of a problem with his personal aversion to a Muslim as President than I do to the millions of libs who wouldn't vote for a Christian or the millions of Repubs that wouldn't vote for an atheist.

If you fall into any of those categories, personally, I think you're an idiot. If the candidate's policy and political philosophy line up best with your own, what difference does it make which "sky cake" distributor they do or don't pray towards?

As an anti-theist conservative, I would severely limit my choices if I only voted for atheists.
Click to expand...

most of us libs voted for Obama, a Christian
 
McCain has more class than most of these jokers, and that's saying something on someone who completely reversed their views on "enhanced interrogation (*cough*torture*cough*)" for a shot at the GOP candidacy.
 
Ben Carson is welcome to his opinion, and I agree with him. Islam is not compatible with a secular country with a secular legal framework.

No devout Muslim would not be acceptable to me for the same reason that Huckaby is not acceptable.

Which Muslim would you want running the country, Pada? One of the Iranian Ayetollahs, maybe?
 
Islam is more of a political entity than a religion. Sharia law is in direct conflict with our US constitution, and that is a reason why the majority of American's agree with Ben
 
Mindmelted said:
How is it a involuntary government when the people voted for it long ago.
Click to expand...

Let's use the USA as an example.

Nobody alive today agreed to the form of government used today, they were simply born into it. Also, the form of government today is entirely different from the form of government used hundreds of years of ago.

Not many people alive 240 odd years ago really gave their INDIVIDUAL consent to the form of government either, elite land owners told them they were the new bosses. Most people of any race or gender were not involved and certainly no women or non white men had any say. This is a topic most people fail to consider, I could expand a great deal on it, but for brevity won't here.

When a group of people vote, and within that vote it is assumed that the people who didn't vote at all or weren't allowed to vote, or voted in a direction different than the prevailing vote indicates are somehow held to the vote...

...the results of the vote is involuntary to THOSE people.

Yet many of THOSE people never agreed to the process in the first place. Often the number of people that didn't vote combined with the number of people that voted for something else or would have if it was an option is greater than the number of people that voted for the "winner".

A majority vote, assumes a majority will, and often that is not the case. First, it erroneously assumes that the final "choice" between shit sandwich and turd salad is an actual choice, when it is a kind of false dichotomy, it doesn't represent ALL the choices. Many people make a choice based on voting for somebody not because they like them, because they hate the other douche more.

I could go on....
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy said:
Let's use the USA as an example.

Nobody alive today agreed to the form of government used today, they were simply born into it. Also, the form of government today is entirely different from the form of government used hundreds of years of ago.

Not many people alive 240 odd years ago really gave their INDIVIDUAL consent to the form of government either, elite land owners told them they were the new bosses. Most people of any race or gender were not involved and certainly no women or non white men had any say. This is a topic most people fail to consider, I could expand a great deal on it, but for brevity won't here.

When a group of people vote, and within that vote it is assumed that the people who didn't vote at all or weren't allowed to vote, or voted in a direction different than the prevailing vote indicates are somehow held to the vote...

...the results of the vote is involuntary to THOSE people. Yet many of THOSE people never agreed to the process in the first place. Often the number of people that didn't vote combined with the number of people that voted for something else or would have if it was an option is greater than the number of people that voted for the "winner".

A majority vote, assumes a majority will, and often that is not the case. First, if it assumed that the final "choice" between shit sandwich and turd salad is an actual choice, when it is a kind of false dichotomy, it doesn't represent ALL the choices. Many people make a choice based on voting for somebody not because they like them, because they hate the other douche more.

I could go on....
Click to expand...


Please don't!
It is all a big Fantasy that you have in your head.
Should make a book about it called Neverland.
 
Mindmelted said:
The Fantasy is that YOU think man can exist without being governed.
Which in itself is total Fantasy.
Click to expand...

So, you are not refuting my post above which at least partially answered your question on why the present government isn't really "voluntary" ? Instead you would rather talk about what you think I believe? Okay.

As far as what I think, I think man would be better off if human interactions were not involuntary. Championing a systemically involuntary political system and calling it the best option is also a self fulfilling error as it fails to consider ALL the possibilities.
 
Mindmelted said:
The Fantasy is that YOU think man can exist without being governed.
Which in itself is total Fantasy.
Click to expand...
Man existed for tens of thousands of years with no official form of government..unless you want to consider group hierarchy an established, active form of government. If that's the case then all animals have an established form of government..

Explain to me how i can't live on a piece of land, grow/raise my own food and build my own shelter without govt. assistance.
 
WeedFreak78 said:
Man existed for tens of thousands of years with no official form of government..unless you want to consider group hierarchy an established, active form of government. If that's the case then all animals have an established form of government..
Click to expand...


Panarchy is another possibility that has merit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Friendly_Grower
Lindsey Graham is leading a National Abortion Ban.
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
7K
DIY-HP-LED
DIY-HP-LED
printer
Impeachment proceedings against Biden.
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
printer
printer
Offmymeds
The America First foreign policy was a disaster.
Replies
0
Views
364
Offmymeds
Offmymeds
AcquMagister
Legalization USD/lb, the Cali electric bill & the US electric grid, are we done for?
Replies
4
Views
2K
VaSmile
V
BodegaBud
Plant hermied should I pull?
2
Replies
23
Views
680
BodegaBud
BodegaBud
Back
Top