Do Presidential Candidates talk to God?

OG_slinger wrote:

Huckabee interviewed on Life Today, a TV program produced by LIFE Outreach International which is a "Christian organization dedicated to sharing the transforming truth of God's love in word and deed."

I can't see this, but I liked his interview on the Daily Show, mostly because Stewart ripped into him for hanging out with Ted Nugent while blasting Beyonce as a toxic influence... and because he clearly misses all the jokes Stewart is trying to make.

OG_slinger wrote:

Huckabee interviewed on Life Today, a TV program produced by LIFE Outreach International which is a "Christian organization dedicated to sharing the transforming truth of God's love in word and deed."

"Secular theocracy"?

Can we buy this man a dictionary?

Jonman, he's a nut job who believe that atheists control this country with their religious atheism. Given that there's never been an atheist President, and I don't know that we've even had that many Congresscritters, I kind of feel like this level of paranoia and delusion should preclude you from being allowed into politics in the first place, much less be President.

Demosthenes wrote:

Jonman, he's a nut job who believe that atheists control this country with their religious atheism. Given that there's never been an atheist President, and I don't know that we've even had that many Congresscritters, I kind of feel like this level of paranoia and delusion should preclude you from being allowed into politics in the first place, much less be President.

No, I know he's a nutjob, I'm just pointing out that he's a nutjob with a tenuous grasp on the english language.

Jonman wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Jonman, he's a nut job who believe that atheists control this country with their religious atheism. Given that there's never been an atheist President, and I don't know that we've even had that many Congresscritters, I kind of feel like this level of paranoia and delusion should preclude you from being allowed into politics in the first place, much less be President.

No, I know he's a nutjob, I'm just pointing out that he's a nutjob with a tenuous grasp on the english language.

I would normally agree, but in this case, I think he actually does think secularism is basically a fanactic religious belief that all religions (or at least Christianity) are bad and should not be a part of the government... and that that group basically does function like a religious organization enough to call it controlling the US a theocracy. It's stupid, but it's on an even more stupid level than you might think at first glance.

Jonman wrote:

"Secular theocracy"?

Can we buy this man a dictionary?

I agree.

That part bugged me, but not as much as him saying pretty much in the same breath that we "needed to become, once again, a god-centered nation" and that "our laws don't come from man, they come from god," while claiming he wasn't trying to establish a theocracy.

That's actually the very definition of a theocracy.

theocracy
[thee-ok-ruh-see]

noun, plural theocracies.
1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

Again, I ask, you mean the same Mike Huckabee that sihtcanned a local prosecutor because he wouldn't make the case against his dog torturing son go away?

Nothing quite like the Christian values in abuse of power.

Paleocon wrote:

Again, I ask, you mean the same Mike Huckabee that sihtcanned a local prosecutor because he wouldn't make the case against his dog torturing son go away?

Nothing quite like the Christian values in abuse of power.

Hey hey there. One man's dog is another man's varmint!

Sometimes Twitter is worth it:

@clarkekant wrote:

Rick Perry is like the actor cast to play George W. Bush in a porno.

Jayhawker wrote:

Sometimes Twitter is worth it:

@clarkekant wrote:

Rick Perry is like the actor cast to play George W. Bush in a porno.

In depressing Citizens United-related news, Charles and David Koch announced at their Freedom Partner summit yesterday that their network of 17 allied PACs is budgeting nearly $900 million for the 2016 election cycle, more than double what they spent in 2012.

For a sense of perspective, the 2012 presidential and congressional elections--the most expensive at the time--cost $7 billion. So the Koch's network is planning on ponying up nearly 13% of all the spending that will happen during the 2016 races.

So who are all the people backing these organizations and what are their goals? Beside the Koch's, no one knows. That's because all the PACs were purposefully designed to hide their donor's identities.

Ain't democracy grand?

OG_slinger wrote:

In depressing Citizens United-related news, Charles and David Koch announced at their Freedom Partner summit yesterday that their network of 17 allied PACs is budgeting nearly $900 million for the 2016 election cycle, more than double what they spent in 2012.

For a sense of perspective, the 2012 presidential and congressional elections--the most expensive at the time--cost $7 billion. So the Koch's network is planning on ponying up nearly 13% of all the spending that will happen during the 2016 races.

So who are all the people backing these organizations and what are their goals? Beside the Koch's, no one knows. That's because all the PACs were purposefully designed to hide their donor's identities.

Ain't democracy grand?

So given that funds like that do a lot of things like pay for venues and advertising and the like, they are sort of just giving a nearly 1 billion dollar stimulus package to the United States economy.

/s

Man that sucks.

Robear wrote:

"For that kind of money, you could *buy* yourself a president... Oh, right, that's the idea..." - Mark Mackinnon, GOP political operative, commenting on the Koch plan.

Wait, that is an actual quote?

Rallick wrote:
Robear wrote:

"For that kind of money, you could *buy* yourself a president... Oh, right, that's the idea..." - Mark Mackinnon, GOP political operative, commenting on the Koch plan.

Wait, that is an actual quote?

Would that really surprise you?

Demosthenes wrote:
Rallick wrote:
Robear wrote:

"For that kind of money, you could *buy* yourself a president... Oh, right, that's the idea..." - Mark Mackinnon, GOP political operative, commenting on the Koch plan.

Wait, that is an actual quote?

Would that really surprise you?

It would surprise me that they're being so candid about it, yes.

After Mitt-bot straight up said "Corporations are people, my friend {END STATEMENT AWAIT FURTHER INPUT}," all bets have been off.

Rallick wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Rallick wrote:
Robear wrote:

"For that kind of money, you could *buy* yourself a president... Oh, right, that's the idea..." - Mark Mackinnon, GOP political operative, commenting on the Koch plan.

Wait, that is an actual quote?

Would that really surprise you?

It would surprise me that they're being so candid about it, yes. :-P

After another GOP strategist noted that anti-ballot fraud measures were more about voter suppression and Mitt's statements about how he doesn't HAVE to care about half the population, it's hard for me to be surprised by any level of unfortunate truths from GOP politicians and strategists lately.

"For that kind of money, you could *buy* yourself a president... Oh, right, that's the idea..." - Mark Mckinnon, GOP political operative, commenting on the Koch plan.

I had his last name wrong, but yeah, it's a real quote from Mark Mckinnon, who was a media advisor for both Bush and McCain, and is a prominent strategist for the GOP.

Huckabee: having to accept gay marriage is like telling Jews to serve 'bacon-wrapped shrimp'

Republican 2016 hopeful:

‘We make sure we don’t offend certain religions, but act like Christians can’t have the convictions they have had for over 2,000 years’

We’re not going to do that,” he said, adding: “We’re not going to ask a Muslim to serve up, ah, something that is offensive to him, to have dogs in his backyard."

Dogs are offensive to Muslims?

clover wrote:

Huckabee: having to accept gay marriage is like telling Jews to serve 'bacon-wrapped shrimp'

Republican 2016 hopeful:

‘We make sure we don’t offend certain religions, but act like Christians can’t have the convictions they have had for over 2,000 years’

We’re not going to do that,” he said, adding: “We’re not going to ask a Muslim to serve up, ah, something that is offensive to him, to have dogs in his backyard."

Could his analogy be more flawed? You would think for all his faith in a book full of metaphors and allegory that he'd be better at creating his own.

Nevin73 wrote:

Dogs are offensive to Muslims?

Yes. Sure worked a treat when door-to-door searches of homes in Iraq were done with German shepherds. Hearts and minds, and all that...

I want to see the ADL pushing to ban bacon wrapped shrimp at the state and federal level.

I've shared meals with my fair share of the people of the covenant, and they've never objected to any bacon cheeseburgers, or plates of seafood lacking fins and scales that I've eaten. What I'm trying to say is shut your fat ass mouth, Huckabee, you're an idiot.

Apparently God decided Jeb Bush needed to make Michael Schiavo's life a living hell
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...

I remember this story but was too distanced from politics in the US to fully grok what was going on. Not that I would have voted for him before, but now I would absolutely vote against him if I could.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Dogs are offensive to Muslims?

Yes. Sure worked a treat when door-to-door searches of homes in Iraq were done with German shepherds. Hearts and minds, and all that...

Yep, they're unclean. Even if they keep a dog for security they never pet them or allow them in the house.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Dogs are offensive to Muslims?

Yes. Sure worked a treat when door-to-door searches of homes in Iraq were done with German shepherds. Hearts and minds, and all that...

Yep, they're unclean. Even if they keep a dog for security they never pet them or allow them in the house.

Huh, learn something new every day.

Not a presidential candidate, but another instance of a legislator basing his decisions on his interpretation of God's will:

"Texas Tea Party Lawmaker Wants to Legalize Pot Because of God"

As a Christian, I recognize the innate goodness of everything God made and humanity’s charge to be stewards of the same. In fact, it’s for this reason that I’m especially cautious when it comes to laws banning plants. I don’t believe that when God made marijuana he made a mistake that government needs to fix.

(Article linked above is a reaction piece on a site that's not usually Republican-friendly. The original essay is here. I declined to read any of the comments in either location.)