Super Tuesday - Wtf Happened?

[ToothBrushMan]

John McCain came out on top? Was this not the gentleman whose campaign amost fell to pieces a couple of months ago? How did this guy pull together and actually become the frontrunner?

And what about Mitt? He was the projected winner a while back? Did his religion play any part in his less than spectacular performance on Tuesday? (It did in Utah - which he won)

Is Mike Huckabee's reverend title bringing him down? I have heard multiple comments along the lines of "We don't need a PASTOR running our country." Do we? This country was founded on Christian principles, much stricter ones than we have today. Would taking Christianity out of the executive branch be a good thing for the US at this point?

Romney and Huckabee are stayng in the race. Can they still win?

Who's Ron Paul?

And what about Clinton and Obama? They got all tied-like on Tuesday (Clinton slightly on top), but who's going to actually win canidancy? Which will play a bigger role, race or gender?

[Drakim]

At 2/6/08 01:21 PM, ToothBrushMan wrote: John McCain came out on top? Was this not the gentleman whose campaign amost fell to pieces a couple of months ago? How did this guy pull together and actually become the frontrunner?

Yeah, I heard people saying that his campaign was lost, but now he seems to be doing completely okay.

And what about Mitt? He was the projected winner a while back? Did his religion play any part in his less than spectacular performance on Tuesday? (It did in Utah - which he won)

I've seen a lot of critisim against Mitt, but none of them was related to his religion. It's still possible to lose simply because you suck rather than your religion.

Is Mike Huckabee's reverend title bringing him down? I have heard multiple comments along the lines of "We don't need a PASTOR running our country." Do we?

Most people seem to think that you don't.

This country was founded on Christian principles,

False.
What exactly is so Christian about the declaration of independence or the constitution?

And since when did you have to become a pastor to hold Christian principles?

Would taking Christianity out of the executive branch be a good thing for the US at this point?

Romney and Huckabee are stayng in the race. Can they still win?

Doubt it. Especially huckabee, he was pretty much doomed from the start, but he screwed up even more as time went by.

Who's Ron Paul?

lol

And what about Clinton and Obama? They got all tied-like on Tuesday (Clinton slightly on top), but who's going to actually win canidancy? Which will play a bigger role, race or gender?

95% of all the people I see on the net seems to support Obama. :/

[Imperator]

At 2/6/08 01:21 PM, ToothBrushMan wrote: John McCain came out on top? Was this not the gentleman whose campaign amost fell to pieces a couple of months ago? How did this guy pull together and actually become the frontrunner?

Shit happens.

And what about Mitt? He was the projected winner a while back? Did his religion play any part in his less than spectacular performance on Tuesday? (It did in Utah - which he won)

I think his religion played an adamant part in it, which is precisely why he won Utah, and lost a bunch else. Not many Mormons here bub......

Is Mike Huckabee's reverend title bringing him down? I have heard multiple comments along the lines of "We don't need a PASTOR running our country." Do we? This country was founded on Christian principles, much stricter ones than we have today. Would taking Christianity out of the executive branch be a good thing for the US at this point?

1.) Hope so. George Bush has already talked about "Crusades" against Muslim fundamentalists, friggin Constitutional bans on gay marriage, and God telling him to invade Iraq. Fucakbee wants to change the Constituion so that it lines up with "what God wants".

You tell me if we need a friggin pastor in office.....

2.) Country was not founded on Christian principles.

"I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.....Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion?To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world"
~Tomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia.

(to be fair, I actually think this quote is slightly skewed based on my research)

Romney and Huckabee are stayng in the race. Can they still win?

Hope not. McCain's sane at least, those two are nuts. Religious nuts to be exact. Romney's dodging questions about whether he takes the bible literally, and Huckabee wants to put God in the Constitution.

Might as well vote for Ahachoomidad or Bin Laden for that matter. They're equally crazy.

Who's Ron Paul?

4th place baby!

And what about Clinton and Obama? They got all tied-like on Tuesday (Clinton slightly on top), but who's going to actually win canidancy? Which will play a bigger role, race or gender?

The fact that we're talking about that distinction at all pisses me off. Anyone bother paying attention to the friggin platforms anymore? Or have we all become so accepting of politicians who lie that we look at more superficial things like race, gender, and religion to base our choices?

[ToothBrushMan]

Perhaps saying that this country was founded on Christianity is a bit much, but you can't deny that he's snuck into a couple spots of America. It says "In God We Trust" on our quarters (or are you going to say that that can mean any God?). "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegence. And, until recently, the Ten Commandments were in our courthouses. Although these things may be subtle, they are there.

[FadePuff]

Romney needs conservatives to win, and Huckabee is depriving him of those votes. Pretty simple really.

[ThePretenders]

At 2/6/08 04:01 PM, FadePuff wrote: Romney needs conservatives to win, and Huckabee is depriving him of those votes. Pretty simple really.

Huckabee wasn't going to win anyway, so he was there to sabotage Romney's campaign.

BTW, Only Tories are real conservatives and not those Republicans.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 2/6/08 04:06 PM, ThePretenders wrote:

BTW, Only Tories are real conservatives and not those Republicans.

No. Both the Tories and the Republicans, in general, are conservative in nature. They both fit the ' ideology of conservatism' in their policies and principles.

The Tories are the only Conservatives ( note the capitalisation) but both Tories and Republicans are conservative.

[0peth]

At 2/6/08 01:21 PM, ToothBrushMan wrote: John McCain came out on top? Was this not the gentleman whose campaign amost fell to pieces a couple of months ago? How did this guy pull together and actually become the frontrunner?

I don't know, honestly. I suppose he gets democrats and liberal republicans.

And what about Mitt? He was the projected winner a while back? Did his religion play any part in his less than spectacular performance on Tuesday? (It did in Utah - which he won)

I wanted him to be ahead in Super Tuesday (by default after Thompson left). When I said that in a discussion during one of my classes (which was all democrats, political-no-nothings, and liberals), they basically looked at me like I was crazy and one girl even said "ew".

This country was founded on Christian principles, much stricter ones than we have today. Would taking Christianity out of the executive branch be a good thing for the US at this point?

No, it was actually founded by Prodestants.

Romney and Huckabee are stayng in the race. Can they still win?

No damn way. (:<

Who's Ron Paul?

A wacko libertarian who wants to get rid of all federal institutes and allow assault weapons.

And what about Clinton and Obama? They got all tied-like on Tuesday (Clinton slightly on top), but who's going to actually win canidancy? Which will play a bigger role, race or gender?

Younger democrats and politically-inept black people are generally voting for Obama.
Old liberals and feminists are voting for Hillary.

[Imperator]

At 2/6/08 03:55 PM, ToothBrushMan wrote: Perhaps saying that this country was founded on Christianity is a bit much, but you can't deny that he's snuck into a couple spots of America. It says "In God We Trust" on our quarters (or are you going to say that that can mean any God?). "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegence. And, until recently, the Ten Commandments were in our courthouses. Although these things may be subtle, they are there.

Of course he's "snuck in", most people were Puritans or some other Protestant brand. The problem comes when you say it was "founded" on Christianity. You're implying that the government and the laws then are based on said principles, and religious tolerance and freedom are precisely the opposite of this. The country was "founded" against founding it on the principles of a religion.

The fact that we have "God" on our money notwithstanding.

There's also Latin on the dollar, and the Roman goddess Justice outside courthouses. Does that mean we were founded as a Pagan nation?

[0peth]

At 2/6/08 05:09 PM, 0peth wrote:

No, it was actually founded by Prodestants.

Protestant*

[TheMason]

At 2/6/08 02:19 PM, Imperator wrote: Hope not. McCain's sane at least, those two are nuts. Religious nuts to be exact. Romney's dodging questions about whether he takes the bible literally, and Huckabee wants to put God in the Constitution.

To be honest here, you cannot say that Romney is a religious nut. In fact, I think his dodging of how literally he takes the Bible to be a good thing. It is an indicator that he thinks religion is something private and not something to be dissected in a public forum.

Furthermore, it dodges an entire intellectual/theological discussion that we should be hashing out as a qualification for public office.

On the other hand, you have this guy who wants to put God into the Constitution when we have a society that is supposedly founded upon religious freedom.

And as for the idea of putting a God-fearing man back into office, we had that with Carter and Bush...two presidents that 2008 voters are looking at as models NOT to follow...

[Imperator]

At 2/6/08 05:35 PM, TheMason wrote:

To be honest here, you cannot say that Romney is a religious nut. In fact, I think his dodging of how literally he takes the Bible to be a good thing. It is an indicator that he thinks religion is something private and not something to be dissected in a public forum.

Furthermore, it dodges an entire intellectual/theological discussion that we should be hashing out as a qualification for public office.

I'd agree with you, if this wasn't how he handled it.

If he had come out and said, "If and how I believe in the bible is a private matter, as is religion in general. It has no bearing on my politics", I would have stood up and saluted from my couch.

Instead, "I believe it's the word of God."

~So, do you believe every word?

"uh...you know...I...yeah, I believe it's the word of God....."

That to me spells NUT or Idiot. Either way, I see him handling the simplest question like a freakin trained monkey, instead of someone who's running for an office where brainpower is required.

Sorry, but I actually agree with the person who asked the question; it really did tell me everything I needed to know about him.......

[CommanderX1125]

At 2/6/08 06:03 PM, Imperator wrote: Sorry, but I actually agree with the person who asked the question; it really did tell me everything I needed to know about him.......

Well you knew this day would come Imperator, if they win you pack your bags and I'll be sure to send a car to escort you to the airport for Germany. I need a translator......

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 2/6/08 03:55 PM, ToothBrushMan wrote: Perhaps saying that this country was founded on Christianity is a bit much, but you can't deny that he's snuck into a couple spots of America. It says "In God We Trust" on our quarters (or are you going to say that that can mean any God?). "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegence.

Under god was patched onto the pledge in more recent years, long after the founding.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 2/6/08 01:40 PM, Drakim wrote:

And what about Clinton and Obama? They got all tied-like on Tuesday (Clinton slightly on top), but who's going to actually win canidancy? Which will play a bigger role, race or gender?

95% of all the people I see on the net seems to support Obama. :/

Same with paul.

I really wish Mitt would have won... Mccain is going to completely blackmail the Republican party.

And if it was actually because he was a mormon, i am never voting for an evangelical candidate again.

[LadyGrace]

All I know is this election is looking to be as depressing as the last. 4 more years of some asshole only the ignorant masses want, and a position only the rich can afford.

[Bolo]

At 2/6/08 05:09 PM, 0peth wrote:

At 2/6/08 01:21 PM, ToothBrushMan wrote: This country was founded on Christian principles, much stricter ones than we have today. Would taking Christianity out of the executive branch be a good thing for the US at this point?

No, it was actually founded by Prodestants.

Protestants ARE Christians.

But America wasn't founded on Christian principles, anyways.

[LordJaric]

At 2/6/08 01:21 PM, ToothBrushMan wrote: This country was founded on Christian principles, much stricter ones than we have today.

No it wasn't, end of story.

[public-enemy1]

wow Obama has 838, Clinton has 834, super delegates not included.

[ToothBrushMan]

Intelligent responses, but I wanted the thread to focus on the events of Super tuesday and what led up to it or what will come of it, so I ask that those who respond at least answer something from the main topic before pointing out any incorrcet statements that I may have uttered.

[JudgeDredd]

Someone trailling behind trumps up the Terror Card and garners widespread Republican support.

Nothing confusing here. Move along.

[SmilezRoyale]

The Country was founded on enlightenment principals, people could beleive whatever they wanted in terms of religion.

But there is no denying that the founding fathers [If brought from 1777to 2007] Would be rather 'turned off' at some of the things of modern society. They probably wouldn't be too happy about the abortions, the economic control of the government, and the highly Sesational 'Sex sells' notions of Television and Movies.

The fact that they were deists did little to change the fact that they them selfs still shared principals regarding social issues that were liberal for their time, but conservative for ours.

This , however, matters little. People still want to idolize the founding fathers, they will pick and chose which things were good about them and ignore or 'dispose' of things that no longer parallel a contemporary view of the world. I don't mind the change in opinion, but i despise the hypocracy.

What do atheists call it again? A scathing Allegory?

[TheMason]

At 2/6/08 06:03 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 2/6/08 05:35 PM, TheMason wrote:

~So, do you believe every word?

"uh...you know...I...yeah, I believe it's the word of God....."

That to me spells NUT or Idiot. Either way, I see him handling the simplest question like a freakin trained monkey, instead of someone who's running for an office where brainpower is required.

'Cmon my friend, you're a humanities major...quite often it is the questions that seem most simple are the hardest to answer. That is a tricky question that I'd stumble over because that question in a yes or no format can be easily manipulated by either the Left, Right or both and so it is a trick question especially for someone who is Mormon or Catholic and has grown-up hearing their faith attacked by both Evangelicals and anti-religious people.

To me, Huckabee dodged the question by using the terms inspired and revelations.

Sorry, but I actually agree with the person who asked the question; it really did tell me everything I needed to know about him.......

I think the person asking the question was just simply trying to set up as many Republicans as he could by asking a question that does not lend itself to a yes or no question.

[Elfer]

At 2/6/08 01:21 PM, ToothBrushMan wrote: This country was founded on Christian principles, much stricter ones than we have today.

As much as I hate replying to a statement with nothing but a quote...

" I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.....Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world."

- Thomas Jefferson

[ToothBrushMan]

To argue the Jeffersonian point:

"The serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects, to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is ominous." - Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson's is speaking about his thoughts of the Christian leaders in France. How can someone with a suspicion of those involved with Christianity be expected to support Christianity in a country?

[Elfer]

Ah, so the country was founded on Christian principles, with the exception of the founding fathers who didn't intend that it be founded that way.

I see.

[ToothBrushMan]

At 2/6/08 10:38 PM, Elfer wrote: Ah, so the country was founded on Christian principles, with the exception of the founding fathers who didn't intend that it be founded that way.

I see.

Jefferson's ideals changed dramatically from his founding to after his time in France. That quote was from later in his tenure.

[Drakim]

At 2/6/08 03:55 PM, ToothBrushMan wrote: Perhaps saying that this country was founded on Christianity is a bit much, but you can't deny that he's snuck into a couple spots of America. It says "In God We Trust" on our quarters (or are you going to say that that can mean any God?). "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegence. And, until recently, the Ten Commandments were in our courthouses. Although these things may be subtle, they are there.

Still wrong, those "In God we Trust" was added on the money and in the pledge to counter the "godless" communists. It had nothing to do with the founding of America.

[public-enemy1]

At 2/7/08 02:22 AM, Drakim wrote: Still wrong, those "In God we Trust" was added on the money and in the pledge to counter the "godless" communists. It had nothing to do with the founding of America.

wtf?? It has been on coins since the civil war, probably before that.

[Memorize]

At 2/7/08 02:33 AM, public-enemy1 wrote:

At 2/7/08 02:22 AM, Drakim wrote: Still wrong, those "In God we Trust" was added on the money and in the pledge to counter the "godless" communists. It had nothing to do with the founding of America.

wtf?? It has been on coins since the civil war, probably before that.

Yeah.

The only thing added due to the Soviet Union was the "Under God" part of the pledge.