republican candidate says US should not have a Muslim president..

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/606895/Republican-candidate-Ben-Carson-fury-Muslim-should-not-be-US-President


Ben Carson said he would "absolutely not agree" with a Muslim becoming leader of the world's most powerful nation.

The retired neurosurgeon, who has been flying in the polls, said that somebody who followed a faith "inconsistent with the values" of the United States should not become President.

He was immediately attacked over the comments, with many people calling for him to pull out of the race for the Republican nomination.

But Dr Carson's team hit back, insisting he was "saying what he believes in" and that he had not meant that Muslims should be banned from running for president completely.

The high-flying candidate had been asked for his views about faith during a TV interview about his bid for the White House.

it's a bit late for that...they already have one and he's not american either....

heavenlyfatheryetagain wrote:http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/606895/Republican-candidate-Ben-Carson-fury-Muslim-should-not-be-US-President


Ben Carson said he would "absolutely not agree" with a Muslim becoming leader of the world's most powerful nation.

The retired neurosurgeon, who has been flying in the polls, said that somebody who followed a faith "inconsistent with the values" of the United States should not become President.

He was immediately attacked over the comments, with many people calling for him to pull out of the race for the Republican nomination.

But Dr Carson's team hit back, insisting he was "saying what he believes in" and that he had not meant that Muslims should be banned from running for president completely.

The high-flying candidate had been asked for his views about faith during a TV interview about his bid for the White House.

it's a bit late for that...they already have one and he's not american either....

He's right.

Meh...what he calls for is unconstitutional under Article Six of the US Constitution. No worries.

I've thought about it for Christians, but I can't get around it.

He's about 8 years to late. ;-)~

I don't get it? is it because Muslims don't like interest on loans?

apart from that Christian America and Fundamentalist Islam have pretty consistent values they basically believe the exact same thing, they just say the other is believing it wrong.

It goes all the way back to Iran, to the hostage crisis of 1979. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

I don't think we should have a president dumb enough to believe in anything on faith, but hey ...

Absolutely, Ben. I'd go further than Carson, and say we shouldn't have a Muslim, a Christian or a Mormon in the office.

Think about it: do you want someone who believes in a man who lives in the sky and lays around all day, as the leader of the greatest nation on the globe? That's what we had with GWB, and look what we got.

We need someone a little more grounded than that.

I think you're all wrong.
There's nothing wrong with religion or people who follow one!!!

I not understand what your problem is, I really don't!

Religions do NOT kill people - Muslim, Christianity, Mormon, Jewish....its PEOPLE that kill PEOPLE.

Original Quill wrote:Absolutely, Ben.  I'd go further than Carson, and say we shouldn't have a Muslim, a Christian or a Mormon in the office.

Think about it: do you want someone who believes in a man who lives in the sky and lays around all day, as the leader of the greatest nation on the globe?  That's what we had with GWB, and look what we got.

We need someone a little more grounded than that.

Good afternoon Quill.

Quill.....I can hardly believe that you wrote such a good post.You see what happens when I come back don't you? You all read my posts which are backed up by pure logic & common sense which in turn rubs off on you lot.

Well done Quill.Great minds think alike.One could almost mistake your contradictory logic as belonging to the mind of a right winger.

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Absolutely, Ben.  I'd go further than Carson, and say we shouldn't have a Muslim, a Christian or a Mormon in the office.

Think about it: do you want someone who believes in a man who lives in the sky and lays around all day, as the leader of the greatest nation on the globe?  That's what we had with GWB, and look what we got.

We need someone a little more grounded than that.

Good afternoon Quill.

Quill.....I can hardly believe that you wrote such a good post.You see what happens when I come back don't you? You all read my posts which are backed up by pure logic & common sense which in turn rubs off on you lot.

Well done Quill.Great minds think alike.One could almost mistake your contradictory logic as belonging to the mind of a right winger.

Hmmm…let’s see. Lying, selfish and inhumane RW bastards vs. humane, wanting what’s best for mankind LW. Tough choice. Guess I’ll go with the latter.

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good afternoon Quill.

Quill.....I can hardly believe that you wrote such a good post.You see what happens when I come back don't you? You all read my posts which are backed up by pure logic & common sense which in turn rubs off on you lot.

Well done Quill.Great minds think alike.One could almost mistake your contradictory logic as belonging to the mind of a right winger.

Hmmm…let’s see.  Lying, selfish and inhumane RW bastards vs. humane, wanting what’s best for mankind LW.  Tough choice.  Guess I’ll go with the latter.

You need to read your post again shipmate because you are contradicting your love of Muslims by opposing their chance of being president.

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Hmmm…let’s see.  Lying, selfish and inhumane RW bastards vs. humane, wanting what’s best for mankind LW.  Tough choice.  Guess I’ll go with the latter.

You need to read your post again shipmate because you are contradicting your love of Muslims by opposing their chance of being president.

Fact is, neither of us can have our druthers. All religion is a foolish child’s fairy tale. I’d rather not see any religion involved in guiding the greatest nation on the globe.

But as between any one of them, I can see no difference. Under the US Constitution, any alliance with a religion is prohibited. That’s where we must stand.

America the greatest nation ???

Is such intolerance towards religious faith left wing then?

Raggamuffin wrote:Is such intolerance towards religious faith left wing then?

The LW is certainly the more intelligent. To that extent, they tend to discount myths and bedtime stories.

Intolerance is a word of elusive meaning. The LW treats religion in the same way they treat the flat-earth theory. They tolerate, but generally reject.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Is such intolerance towards religious faith left wing then?

The LW is certainly the more intelligent.  To that extent, they tend to discount myths and bedtime stories.

Intolerance is a word of elusive meaning.  The LW treats religion in the same way they treat the flat-earth theory.  They tolerate, but generally reject.

Lefties are histrionic and emotional - that's not intelligence. They like to look good to others, so they are narcissistic too.

I have some news for you - some lefties in the UK have religious faith. Please don't faint.

Vicar Of Dibley wrote:America the greatest nation ???

For better or for worse, it is the most powerful nation on earth. Thus, it's control and guidance is much more delicate a matter. It's not child's play anymore.

Is he for real?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The LW is certainly the more intelligent.  To that extent, they tend to discount myths and bedtime stories.

Intolerance is a word of elusive meaning.  The LW treats religion in the same way they treat the flat-earth theory.  They tolerate, but generally reject.

Lefties are histrionic and emotional - that's not intelligence. They like to look good to others, so they are narcissistic too.

I have some news for you - some lefties in the UK have religious faith. Please don't faint.

As I say, religion is tolerated by the LW.

I've never heard of a LWer described as emotional. Certainly not like anti-abortionist Baptists or RW warmongers who use fear (an emotion) to whip up sentiments for their beloved wars.

LWers tend to be cool and calculated. Their intelligence gives them that. "Emotions and histronics" are basically derived from frustration, and as long as you have your wits about you, then you are not frustrated. That's the great value of intelligence.

That's why every highly intelligent person you will ever encounter is a LWer. As John Stuart Mill said: "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative."

nicko wrote:Is he for real?

One wonders ...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lefties are histrionic and emotional - that's not intelligence. They like to look good to others, so they are narcissistic too.

I have some news for you - some lefties in the UK have religious faith. Please don't faint.

As I say, religion is tolerated by the LW.

I've never heard of a LWer described as emotional.  Certainly not like anti-abortionist Baptists or RW warmongers who use fear (an emotion) to whip up sentiments for their beloved wars.

LWers tend to be cool and calculated.  Their intelligence gives them that.  "Emotions and histronics" are basically derived from frustration, and as long as you have your wits about you, then you are not frustrated.  That's the great value of intelligence.

That's why every highly intelligent person you will ever encounter is a LWer.  As John Stuart Mill said: "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative."

Religion isn't tolerated by some lefties - on here anyway.

Did you not understand what I said - some lefties actually have religious faith themselves - they don't just "tolerate" it.

Your claims about lefties being intelligence are of course silly - it's not like you to generalise.

Oh wait ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As I say, religion is tolerated by the LW.

I've never heard of a LWer described as emotional.  Certainly not like anti-abortionist Baptists or RW warmongers who use fear (an emotion) to whip up sentiments for their beloved wars.

LWers tend to be cool and calculated.  Their intelligence gives them that.  "Emotions and histronics" are basically derived from frustration, and as long as you have your wits about you, then you are not frustrated.  That's the great value of intelligence.

That's why every highly intelligent person you will ever encounter is a LWer.  As John Stuart Mill said: "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative."

Religion isn't tolerated by some lefties - on here anyway.

Did you not understand what I said - some lefties actually have religious faith themselves - they don't just "tolerate" it.

Your claims about lefties being intelligence are of course silly - it's not like you to generalise.

Oh wait ...

Well, do you see the word games you are playing with the term toleration?  That's why I think it is better to go directly to the issue.  Christians equate toleration with belief (of their doctrine), and they have no right to do that.  On this board, not only do real thinkers not believe in religious doctrines, but they will argue it.  But to question a doctrine is not failure of toleration.

Religious types demand what is not their's to have: the commitment of others. They only have the right to be allowed to argue their theories.  This one believes in Christianity; that one does not.  Tolerance does not mean capitulation to the ideas of the other.  You have only the right to argue your point.

One more thing...I think that because religion relies, and can only rely on faith, the religious feel that a rejection of an argument of faith, is a rejection of themselves.  Perhaps there is some logic to this...but it is the fault of the religious position, so unfathomable is it.  Yes, religion can be defeated, and when you do you defeat it, you do so absolutely.  But that's the fault of those who accept an argument of faith. You can't blame others just for being reasonable.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Religion isn't tolerated by some lefties - on here anyway.

Did you not understand what I said - some lefties actually have religious faith themselves - they don't just "tolerate" it.

Your claims about lefties being intelligence are of course silly - it's not like you to generalise.

Oh wait ...

Well, do you see the word games you are playing with the term toleration?  That's why I think it is better to go directly to the issue.  Christians equate toleration with belief (of their doctrine), and they have no right to do that.  On this board, not only do real thinkers not believe in religious doctrines, but they will argue it.  But to question a doctrine is not failure of toleration.

Religious types demand what is not their's to have: the commitment of others. They only have the right to be allowed to argue their theories.  This one believes in Christianity; that one does not.  Tolerance does not mean capitulation to the ideas of the other.  You have only the right to argue your point.

One more thing...I think that because religion relies, and can only rely on faith, the religious feel that a rejection of an argument of faith, is a rejection of themselves.  Perhaps there is some logic to this...but it is the fault of the religious position, so unfathomable is it.  Yes, religion can be defeated, and when you do you defeat it, you do so absolutely.  But that's the fault of those who accept an argument of faith.  You can't blame others just for being reasonable.

It's more the way that some on here use religious faith as a stick to beat others with which indicates that they are intolerant.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's more the way that some on here use religious faith as a stick to beat others with which indicates that they are intolerant.

It's a fine line, but the most I've ever heard on this site is good, clean, rational debate.  As I say, if you build a shaky argument, it feels a bit unfair when it all comes tumbling down.  But that's he fault of your argument.

You can't say the other guy is being intolerant just because his logic is compelling. That's the only argument that I can say is invalid, and perhaps a bit unfair. But because the board keeps an open mind, that argument can always be addressed by others.

Raggamuffin wrote:Is such intolerance towards religious faith left wing then?

Nope.

And furthermore, when LW say they want what's best for humanity - they mean the humanity that THEY CHOOSE

Example: refugees over soldiers, non-religious people over religious people

You get my drift

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Is such intolerance towards religious faith left wing then?

Nope.

And furthermore, when LW say they want what's best for humanity - they mean the humanity that THEY CHOOSE

Example: refugees over soldiers, non-religious people over religious people

You get my drift

peaceful over killer, logical over illogical

pretty easy to see why we do that
Ultimately LW is Secular Science combined with kindness/peaceful
SO yeah obviously we side with the Victim over the professional killer, individuals that by choice make war possible.....
what are you saying? we should feel as sorry for a murderer as the murdered

And religious over non-religious?
Well ONE has produced Countless miracles in medicine, communication, knowledge for mankind.
The other Is trying to teach kids a magic sky giant made everything if you don't worship him he will punish you. And that group also want to hurt and deny rights to gays, blacks, women, other religions and non-religious.
Again Pretty easy to see Why the LW side with what they do

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:

Nope.

And furthermore, when LW say they want what's best for humanity - they mean the humanity that THEY CHOOSE

Example: refugees over soldiers, non-religious people over religious people

You get my drift

peaceful over killer, logical over illogical

pretty easy to see why we do that
Ultimately LW is Secular Science combined with kindness/peaceful
SO yeah obviously we side with the Victim over the professional killer, individuals that by choice make war possible.....
what are you saying? we should feel as sorry for a murderer as the murdered

And religious over non-religious?
Well ONE has produced Countless miracles in medicine, communication, knowledge for mankind.
The other Is trying to teach kids a magic sky giant made everything if you don't worship him he will punish you. And that group also want to hurt and deny rights to gays, blacks, women, other religions and non-religious.
Again Pretty easy to see Why the LW side with what they do

Do you mean the pharma companies? You didn't like them before.

Raggamuffin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:

Nope.

And furthermore, when LW say they want what's best for humanity - they mean the humanity that THEY CHOOSE

Example: refugees over soldiers, non-religious people over religious people

You get my drift

peaceful over killer, logical over illogical

pretty easy to see why we do that
Ultimately LW is Secular Science combined with kindness/peaceful
SO yeah obviously we side with the Victim over the professional killer, individuals that by choice make war possible.....
what are you saying? we should feel as sorry for a murderer as the murdered

And religious over non-religious?
Well ONE has produced Countless miracles in medicine, communication, knowledge for mankind.
The other Is trying to teach kids a magic sky giant made everything if you don't worship him he will punish you. And that group also want to hurt and deny rights to gays, blacks, women, other religions and non-religious.
Again Pretty easy to see Why the LW side with what they do

Do you mean the pharma companies? You didn't like them before.

Not really, you really need to look up what they do.
They Profiteer From Medicine they DO NOT Invent most of it Which is STILL invented Primarily by Publicly and Charity funded Research. 
Big Pharma have spent more on Patents and Lawsuits than Research, they restrict the distribution of medicine and knowledge for profit.
Most Privately funded Pharmaceutical research is 'humanity saving' things like 'Hair loss' and 'weight gain' A.k.a. things the Public will NOT donate to BUT will be profitable

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:

Nope.

And furthermore, when LW say they want what's best for humanity - they mean the humanity that THEY CHOOSE

Example: refugees over soldiers, non-religious people over religious people

You get my drift

peaceful over killer, logical over illogical

pretty easy to see why we do that
Ultimately LW is Secular Science combined with kindness/peaceful
SO yeah obviously we side with the Victim over the professional killer, individuals that by choice make war possible.....
what are you saying? we should feel as sorry for a murderer as the murdered

And religious over non-religious?
Well ONE has produced Countless miracles in medicine, communication, knowledge for mankind.
The other Is trying to teach kids a magic sky giant made everything if you don't worship him he will punish you. And that group also want to hurt and deny rights to gays, blacks, women, other religions and non-religious.
Again Pretty easy to see Why the LW side with what they do

Gd points and well-stated.  

Mark Byrnes is Associate Professor of History at Wofford College in Spartanburg, SC. 

When asked on "Meet the Press" whether a candidate's faith should matter, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson replied: "It depends on what that faith is. If it is inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter." He went on to say that he did not believe a Muslim should be elected president, and when directly asked if he believed Islam was consistent with the Constitution he replied: "No, I do not."

Critics understandably began to cite the Constitution's bar against any religious test for office. While this is of course an important point, it is not in fact directly relevant to Carson's comment. He did not say that a Muslim should be barred from running. He said that people should not vote for them, because, in his view, Islam is inconsistent with "the values and principles of America."

In this, Carson's comments evoke the history of anti-Catholic prejudice in America, particularly in the 1850s. The large number of economic refugees from Ireland in particular prompted fears that "Popery" was taking over America. The American Party (better known as the "Know-Nothings") is the most obvious manifestation of that fear. Its platform declared "War to the hilt on political Romanism" and "Hostility to all Papal influence when brought to bear against the Republic." They did not say Catholic immigrants could be barred from running for office. They did however pledge to never vote for anyone not born in the United States.

In both cases, religious belief is transformed into an anti-American, anti-democratic political belief, and all adherents of a faith are tarred with the same brush. After the liberal revolutions of 1848 in Europe, some American Catholic leaders (such as Orestes Brownson and Archbishop John Hughes of New York) denounced the revolutions. In that, they seemed to be following the lead of Pope Pius IX, who affirmed his opposition to "progress, liberalism, and modern civilization." Such sentiments convinced the Know-Nothings that Catholicism per se was incompatible with American values and principles. The Catholic Church, they thought, was itself a monarchy, and all Catholics therefore were suspect in their devotion to republican principles. Catholics owed unquestioning fealty to the anti-liberal Pope, and therefore could not be trusted to uphold the values and principles of America.

Today, of course, most Americans consider such ideas ludicrous. Catholic immigrants assimilated and became dedicated Republicans and Democrats. But in the 1850s, some Americans saw what today would be called "an existential threat" in the large number of Catholics entering the country. They represented an aggressive, anti-American religious faith that sought to convert the United States. In 1850, the Irish-born Archbishop Hughes was not shy about saying that this was, in fact, the goal:

“The object we hope to accomplish is to convert all Pagan nations, and all Protestant nations…. There is no secrecy in this. Our mission is to convert the world—including the inhabitants of the United States—the people of the cities, and the people of the country … the Legislatures, the Senate, the Cabinet, the President, and all!"

Imagine what Ben Carson would say about an American imam who said the same today.

Carson was not betraying an ignorance of the prohibition against a religious test in the Constitution. He was expressing something far worse: a bigoted anti-Muslim sentiment that echoes an earlier--and just as ugly--anti-Catholic bigotry.

---

http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/153670


A candidates religion or non-religion should not matter, as religions should be personal beliefs that have nothing to do with the running of a nation.
So it does not matter what faith or non-faith people are, what matters is they all have an equal right to be elected.

Though you may want to enquire how many Athiest Senators are there?

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Is such intolerance towards religious faith left wing then?

Nope.

And furthermore, when LW say they want what's best for humanity - they mean the humanity that THEY CHOOSE

Example: refugees over soldiers, non-religious people over religious people

You get my drift

peaceful over killer, logical over illogical

pretty easy to see why we do that
Ultimately LW is Secular Science combined with kindness/peaceful
SO yeah obviously we side with the Victim over the professional killer, individuals that by choice make war possible.....
what are you saying? we should feel as sorry for a murderer as the murdered

And religious over non-religious?
Well ONE has produced Countless miracles in medicine, communication, knowledge for mankind.
The other Is trying to teach kids a magic sky giant made everything if you don't worship him he will punish you. And that group also want to hurt and deny rights to gays, blacks, women, other religions and non-religious.
Again Pretty easy to see Why the LW side with what they do

Generalisations.

LW are so guilty of generalising everyone.

And the religion that wants to hurt and deny rights to gays are SOME Muslims - GO ON, you can say it! No one is going to think you've become.....GASP! RACIST!!!!!

Most religious people aren't extremists and by generalising them all - well, you sound like a RW'er!!!!!


OH MY GOD!!!

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Do you mean the pharma companies? You didn't like them before.

Not really, you really need to look up what they do.
They Profiteer From Medicine they DO NOT Invent most of it Which is STILL invented Primarily by Publicly and Charity funded Research. 
Big Pharma have spent more on Patents and Lawsuits than Research, they restrict the distribution of medicine and knowledge for profit.
Most Privately funded Pharmaceutical research is 'humanity saving' things like 'Hair loss' and 'weight gain' A.k.a. things the Public will NOT donate to BUT will be profitable

Are you claiming that all the people who "invent" drugs are left wing? I hope you can back that up.

eddie wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

peaceful over killer, logical over illogical

pretty easy to see why we do that
Ultimately LW is Secular Science combined with kindness/peaceful
SO yeah obviously we side with the Victim over the professional killer, individuals that by choice make war possible.....
what are you saying? we should feel as sorry for a murderer as the murdered

And religious over non-religious?
Well ONE has produced Countless miracles in medicine, communication, knowledge for mankind.
The other Is trying to teach kids a magic sky giant made everything if you don't worship him he will punish you. And that group also want to hurt and deny rights to gays, blacks, women, other religions and non-religious.
Again Pretty easy to see Why the LW side with what they do

Generalisations.

LW are so guilty of generalising everyone.

And the religion that wants to hurt and deny rights to gays are SOME  Muslims - GO ON, you can say it! No one is going to think you've become.....GASP! RACIST!!!!!

Most religious people aren't extremists and by generalising them all - well, you sound like a RW'er!!!!!


OH MY GOD!!!

But many religious people those literal will hold views that are at odds with the well being and equality of others.
That is not a generaliztion but a fact.
There is nothing to stop these same people brainwashing childrens minds with such views either, to ensure another steady group of followers growing up.

I'm loving this concept of some political leaders having no interest in anything other than telling people about God.

Some of you need to have a word with yourselves.

What an irrelevant point and hypocritical again.

Cuchulain wrote:What an irrelevant point and hypocritical again.

You can't counter it can you? Is it Veya you're trying to impress today?

Well ONE has produced Countless miracles in medicine, communication, knowledge for mankind.
The other Is trying to teach kids a magic sky giant made everything if you don't worship him he will punish you.

Talk about generalising.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:What an irrelevant point and hypocritical again.

You can't counter it can you? Is it Veya you're trying to impress today?

Well ONE has produced Countless miracles in medicine, communication, knowledge for mankind.
The other Is trying to teach kids a magic sky giant made everything if you don't worship him he will punish you.

Talk about generalising.

Again yet more irrelevance.
Failing to understand Veyas point
Like I say one dimensional thinking

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You can't counter it can you? Is it Veya you're trying to impress today?



Talk about generalising.

Again yet more irrelevance.
Failing to understand Veyas point
Like I say one dimensional thinking

Haha!

Look in the mirror Didge if you want to see something one-dimensional.

Are you going to chase me around the forum again?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Again yet more irrelevance.
Failing to understand Veyas point
Like I say one dimensional thinking

Haha!

Look in the mirror Didge if you want to see something one-dimensional.

Are you going to chase me around the forum again?

A mirror itself is 3 dimentional
The image from a mirror is two dimentional, so again you prove you are quite the thicky.

Didge is going into meltdown mode.

Didge is loving show how Rags is quite the dummy and its very easy lol

Well everyone else seems to have scarpered. I'll wait for someone with more intelligence than you Didge - shouldn't be too difficult really.

Look its not my fault that you keep coming out with such stupidity, you set yourself up for big falls.

Laters then

correct

Muslim in cheif obama should never have been elected, he is without exception the worst president the US has ever had and possibly the most destablising force on earth at the minute

look at how the world has caught fire under his watchful eye

smelly-bandit wrote:correct

Muslim in cheif obama should never have been elected, he is without exception the worst president the US has ever had and possibly the most destablising force on earth at the minute

look at how the world has caught fire under his watchful eye

The Republicans (Bush and Cheney) left the country in an ugly, purposeless war, on the brink of the next depression, with double-digit unemployment, a $17-trillion deficit and bin Laden still alive and running around.

Obama got the country out of Iraq, saved America from the next Depression, brought unemployment down from 10.5% to 5.1%, overseen the creation of 5-million jobs, overseen the American stock market soar to over $18,000 average in the Dow Jones (highest ever), finally created a highly successful medical care system (despite the sour grapes of Republicans) and he got bin Laden when the Republican administration was completely inept at finding him.

That's a hell of a record. The only reason you don't like him is because of his race. That's your problem. Suck eggs.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:correct

Muslim in cheif obama should never have been elected, he is without exception the worst president the US has ever had and possibly the most destablising force on earth at the minute

look at how the world has caught fire under his watchful eye

The Republicans (Bush and Cheney) left the country in an ugly, purposeless war, on the brink of the next depression, with double-digit unemployment, a $17-trillion deficit and bin Laden still alive and running around.

Obama got the country out of Iraq, saved America from the next Depression, brought unemployment down from 10.5% to 5.1%, overseen the creation of 5-million jobs, overseen the American stock market soar to over $18,000 average in the Dow Jones (highest ever), finally created a highly successful medical care system (despite the sour grapes of Republicans) and he got bin Laden when the Republican administration was completely inept at finding him.

That's a hell of a record.  The only reason you don't like him is because of his race.  That's your problem.  Suck eggs.

So you suddenly don't mind a leader having religious faith. Strange that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Do you mean the pharma companies? You didn't like them before.

Not really, you really need to look up what they do.
They Profiteer From Medicine they DO NOT Invent most of it Which is STILL invented Primarily by Publicly and Charity funded Research. 
Big Pharma have spent more on Patents and Lawsuits than Research, they restrict the distribution of medicine and knowledge for profit.
Most Privately funded Pharmaceutical research is 'humanity saving' things like 'Hair loss' and 'weight gain' A.k.a. things the Public will NOT donate to BUT will be profitable

Are you claiming that all the people who "invent" drugs are left wing? I hope you can back that up.

No but generally they are not big pharmaceutical companies either.
what do you think all those charities are for
it is the public that funds most of the research either through gov't funding or donations

And I never said there shouldn't be leaders with a religion, But I do think that they NEED to be secular to be in charge of a modern western nation.

@ Eddie it is true, as didge said Ultimately if you are theocratic over secular (Some one that says laws should be 'this' because of religious belief) then YES it is always true. Really anyone so dedicated to a religion that they define themselves by it should not be in leader of a nation, they should go an lead their religion since that is what they identity as... 
AND Ultimately I don't want to Belong to a nation where people are going to put there religious group over their secular citizenship. I have no problem with an Australian who is additionally Christian, Muslim, whatever but I don't want Christian, Muslim, whatevers that see that as being More important than their secular citizenship that makes them Aussie.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm loving this concept of some political leaders having no interest in anything other than telling people about God.

Some of you need to have a word with yourselves.

I dont think you get it

Any Political leader against gay marriage is Putting their religious beliefs over secular ideals.
The West Is Supposed to be Better than Nations like Saudi Arabia Because WE DON'T DO THAT.

it is not telling people, it is literally enacting or preventing laws that are going to deny a fellow citizen the full set secular freedoms because of their Personal Religious faith.