Who do you think will be elected President of the United States first: an openly LGBT person or an open atheist?
It will happen decades before we get a GOOD president.
As science gets better and better, less people tend to believe less in god. In the last decade alone, the % of people who are athiests grew a considerable amount. There will eventually be so many athiests that people will have to elect an athiest
There are more atheists, statistically it's more likely.
Neither of these should be a barrier to becoming president
Not trying to be prejudice, but I don't know many religious LGBT people.
Hillary Clinton: both!
We may have already had a gay president, James Buchanan, although we may never know for sure. , see James W Loewen's "Lies Across America".
The Dems and Libs would wet themselves over electing a gay whatever. Regardless of experience or abilities.
On the other hand I don't see an Atheist ever getting the vote in the US.
Me; I Do NOT Care. I am looking for a Qualified & Able Person.
Once upon a time they thought a black man would never get the vote either.
Unfortunately, we still have NOT had a qualified black President.
You said you don't see an atheist ever getting the vote. I simply noted that as time passes, attitudes and tolerance levels change.
Agreed but this country remains (hopelessly) intertwined w/ the Good Book. Believe or Not it will be some time till the good 'ol Boys would elect a Non-Believer.....(such as myself).
Again. I am simply open to a Qualified and Passionate Candidate.
As am I.
But remember, Europe was once fiercely religious. See all the religious wars. Now Europe is incredibly secular. It can happen. Not in our lifetime perhaps, but eventually.
Which will come first? The end of racism and prejudice? Or the end of categorizing others and judging each other based off of the others categories? Oh, wait... Those two are the same things...
Racism and prejudice aren't the same thing.
An atheist will not be elected for a long long time. People seem to have a misguided view that atheists are at there core, terrible people. I am sure that there are a few atheists in politics. But they most certainly are not open about it.
How about someone who is agnostic?
Or those that dont quite care
You know im not sure. I really could go ether way.
It is against the constitution for a president to be an atheist, there is no law preventing a LGBT person from being President.
No it's not. It is, however, illegal to discriminate based on religion. Atheism is the way of the 21st century -- come join the cause.
"It is against the constitution for a president to be an atheist,"
Oh really? Cite your source.
Guys.... Do you remember which state it was that rewrote history books to fit a conservative agenda?
We already elected one who doesn't believe in God.
And he's gay.
So a secret gay atheist Muslim? Do we see an issue with this??
That neither of the three are true and would be insignificant even if they were?
Ready for a mindfucker, how long until the first LGBT atheist president? Woah, just blew your mind didn't I?
Atheism is pretty irrelevant now, but like with a black president it would be the shock factor of electing a gay president.
We already have a gay president.
Gorge Washington was said to be a GODLY man. I say GODLY in caps because we are talking about the Living GOD. And without Gorge we would not have won the fights for this Country. Surely we wouldn't elect a man who is against a GOD. Where is humility?
perfect example of Association Fallacy. let's associate all the bad things that religious people do to this argument. "Bob Christian killed his wife & kids cuz God told him to, therefor If you are a Christian you will probably kill your wife & kids.
Way to try and make Christians look like idiots. You act as if we make moral choices without using logic? We are not fools, and read the bottom of a dollar bill. What does it say? "In God We Trust" which doesn't mean we through logic out.
First it says in god we trust. And second that was added in the 50s
So you mean to say it was added by what people call the greatest generation?
LGBT is more fashionable than atheism, so probably LGBT
Our first transsexual First Lady has already been elected!
I don't get it...
There's a wack job right-wing conspiracy that Barack Obama and Michele Obama were genetically from engineered in a test tube and were supposed to be DNA replicas of Akinaten (sp?) and Annukis (Sp?), but Michele Obama's went wrong or something.
Bio likes those, but I think he's kidding. Regardless test tube technology wasn't around when Obama was born.
He may also be referring to the conspiracy theory that Obama is the anti-Christ and Michelle is his male lover. Which is also wacky.
If you look at some pics of Michelle, you could see why a drunk could possible think she's a dude. It's undeniable that she has some pretty manly qualities
Nah I'm referring to the Alex jones clip where he refers to "Michael Obama" it's actually pretty funny.
But seriously, I don't think that I kinda think Michelle is hot for a 45 year old and I think black girls are hot so I don't think she's a trang
Haha, that's right I actually remember that now. Lol, nothin like some good ol Alex Jones
I think black girls in general have a tougher look to them which is why I like them
Overall probably a gay president. But such personal characteristics should be irrelevant when considering a candidate for president. Sadly people put too much stock in their personal lives while simultaneously saying their life is none of your biz.
Atheists wouldn't be elected as much because they claim that religion is pointless. Half of the American population is Christian alone, so LGBT presidents are great.
I just realized what LGBT stands for, so an atheist would win. I thought it meant "legit."
You just realized? What are you 10?
HAHAHAHAHA OH GOD TOO FUNNY
Wasn't trying to be, asshole.
I know. That's the best part xD
Made my day!
Thepoll is so serious!
Yeah I am.
He's an angsty child.
Just shut up, congressman. At least I know I what I'm talking about.
Lol, that was cute
тнαт нιgн gυу, ʝυѕт ριѕѕ σff
Haha, calm down and go do your chores
Lol he thinks he knows what he's talking about. Didn't you pretend to be a 20 year old?
ωну ∂σи'т уσυ αℓℓ gσ тσ нєℓℓ αи∂ ʝυѕт gσ ωσяк уσυя мιиιмυм ωαgє ѕнιт ωнιℓє уσυ ℓινє ιи уσυя мσмѕ вαѕємєит?
I'm not going to respond to your childish comment, but I would like to know the reasoning behind changing the font
congressmen, haha me?
Not you. Polltaker, which is a hilarious gay euphemism!
нα нα gαу єυρнємιѕм, ι ¢нαиgє∂ тнє fσит ¢αυѕє ι ¢αи.
Wow, your parents must be pretty oppressive if that is what gets you off, just stop kiddo
тнαт нιgн gυу, кι∂∂σ???? яєαℓℓу?!
Well, we are a nation under God...
Lol no we sent.
Well, congressman, our money says we are. In God we trust.
LOL YES BECAUSE ITS PRINTED ON MONEY IT MUST BE TRUE! You are beyond stupid. I NEVER call people stupid. But you are STUPID.
Well, we are a nation with religious freedom...
Some seem to think we aren't
Yea and on one of our coins we also print 'in god we trust' next to someone who thought the bible was bs and didn't believe in Yahweh(abrahamic god).
Already had a gay president: James Buchanan.
He wasn't openly gay; privately, he probably was.
Lincoln had sex with men as well (most likely) being gay wasn't the same thing back then as it was today
We already have an atheist, sort of. Obama believes he is God, but he isn't.
Abe Lincoln actually.
came here for the overreaching ridiculous homophobic and overarching religious affirmations - wasn't disappointed. sigh...back to ignoring public polls...
No one here is afraid of gays lol
In addition to fear, "-phobic" also refers to extreme dislike or disgust, so homophobia can fit quite well for people who express dislike or disgust for homosexuality. I don't use the word myself, expressly because many people don't realize that,
and immediately go off on a tangent about how they're not afraid of gays. Any rational conversation about homosexuality or related civil rights gets derailed.
This is a stupid question as if we should elect a President based on what we consider the next deprived or minority person is rather than their qualifications.
That's exactly the point. We shouldn't, but most people do - they focus on personal lives more than political ability. Which is why we end up with the politicians we have.
The question isn't asking which we think *should* be elected first, but which we think *will* be elected first. The question examines our perceptions of how atheists and homosexuals are currently viewed by society and how that relates to
electability. Not really a stupid question at all.
I'd say a gay man first, but if we're all being honest, we've definitely had atheists and homosexual men as president.
Hopefully not an atheist that feels the need to tell everyone he's atheist
Or a Christian who tells everyone he's a Christian
Telling people about your faith is different than telling everyone their faith is dumb
So by saying I'm an atheist it means I'm saying all other faiths are dumb? I've heard more militant Christians say that than atheist.
Im referring to anti theists mainly. Anti theism runs rampant across through Internet
But that was not the question, your original comment, or my comment. As I said, and is apparent on this app, militant Christians spend more time criticizing the beliefs of others than atheist.
Maybe on this app but that's not what I've experienced
Bullshit. It's pretty much even. I see someone quoting the gospel or sneering about a "sky daddy "
You're a prime example of one of the dícks
Me? I was talking about this app.
Oh ok, this reply system sucks
I misread this thread. I let my mouth (finger) get ahead of me. As usual. I agree.
Obama's already been elected. He says he's Christian but all actions show otherwise.
I pray that I die before such a day comes.
Me too. That way you won't have a vote.
We've already had both. And both were closeted. And the country still stands.
It really should not matter. These days people are too stupid to vote for a politician for their actual political views and instead focus on their petty personal lives that have nothing to with their ability to be a politician.
I'm not sure, but considering our culture, if it was an LGBT person, it would be a white gay (and probably Protestant) male, and if it was an atheist, he would be white, male, and straight.
Overthrow the hetero-patriarchy! Just kidding it doesn't exist
Boy someone sure hates men... Not hit on enough in high school sweetie? Oh no I'm being misogynist!
they're basically the same thing, yo.
Not at all.
Except for, yeah.. They are. Christ-based faiths do not allow for homosexuality and def not trans, so anyone professing to be both is even further confused. Kinda like you.
To say they are the same thing would mean that you think all atheists are LGBT, and of course they aren't.
And I believe you're incorrect about Christianity not "allowing for" homosexuality.
I believe they're the same thing from a Christian perspective. Not much for the critical thinking are you? And what YOU think God's take is doesn't affect what God's take is. btw.
My critical thinking says that calling them the same is utter bullshit.
And some of the "Christ-like faiths" (your original statement) *do* accept homosexuality as existing, so they "allow for it." Most of them don't approve of homosexual
sex acts, but that's a different thing. And some Christian sexts are way more accepting of homosexuality than that.
Insulting people, as you've done a couple of times in this thread, doesn't help your argument & just makes you look silly.
Many of the largest Christian denominations in the country not only support but sanction same-sex marriage including the Evangelical Lutheran Church and The Presbyterian Church USA. Welcome to tomorrow.
Thanks, grifter. I thought that some of them did, but I wasn't sure which ones.
(And let me take this opportunity to correct my misspelling above; *sects, not sexts. Slightly ironic.)
I've attended a Christian service where the LGBT community is welcome and thriving. The amount of ignorance some people show never fails to amaze me. Saying atheism and homosexuality are the same is a horribly inaccurate statement.
I'm thinking perhaps what Dhawgg meant by "the same thing" was lumping them into a general category of undesirable, or something like that. Clearly it doesn't mean even "non Christian."
Dhawgg meant exactly what Dhawgg said. Christianity has no place for either, as they are, obvs. Does God welcome all? Of course. But you got to come willing to change, if I may speak colloquially.
Some churches gave in - that doesn't prove that God did. Pick your faith based on what makes you feel good, and when the truth makes u mad, just find another truth? that's retarded. the truth is the truth, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
Good thing we don't live in a theocracy then, right Dwahhg? I love when people start speaking in third person.
The topic wasn't about our type of govt, brainiac. It's easy to make yourself feel right when you change the point of the conversation. And the 3rd person talk was clearly sarcasm, but I see it was lost on you.
Then it shouldn't matter if a candidate is either or both, should it?
"basically the same thing, yo".
someone get a Darwin Award ready for 2016. I think we're going to need it.
of course it matters because it speaks to their character, and character is important.
wow, thelowend... name calling: an excellent and exceedingly cerebral retort. *slow clap*
Oh, please... Look who's commenting about name calling.
True! But mine is at least attached to an actual point.
def. Presumably young and incompetent white male, trying to present himself as a "cool" guy, i.e. "a gangsta nigga". Although rare in the day-to-day world, these are known to plague the internet at unfathomable numbers.
Actually, grownup white guy, definitely not cool, and I have no nigga aspirations, but thanks for nouning me, nonetheless.
Im convinced it will be an LGTB individual. I mean an atheist could occupy the White House, but not openly. Think of Barney Frank, he was open about his sexuality but waited until after he resigned to discuss his non-theism. In this article where he
talks about that, it is also mentioned that atheist are polled as the least electable demographic.
Atheists because there are more in sheer numbers.
Neither would make any sense.
Close minded much?
Nah, we just aren't sexual deviants or heathens.
I beg to differ tx. Wanna talk sex scandals? No body has more sex scandals than politicians. They invented sexually deviance.
Tough one! I would think a LBG (not a T as that would be overboard) But one with traditional values/upbringing, Christian over a straight-up atheist. The U.S. still leans conservative when it comes to being "marketable" to a large segment of voters.
That's tough. Bible Belt won't vote for the LGBT or Atheist person, but gay marriage states and Libertarians would vote for LGBT.
Blacks and Christian Democrats wouldn't vote for the atheist due to the fact that many of them are religious. LGBT.
This libertarian would vote atheist.
What's your reasons? I'm just curious.
Keep it as gay/bi only. No openly trans person would be elected. Also look at the stats for how culturally accepted Gay folks are over atheists.
If the candidates were exactly the same except one is LGBD and one is atheist, I'd pick the atheist because I think atheism is still less tolerated.
20% of the country are atheists so that does give them a major advantage over an LGBT person.
Hmmm. I'm confused by the reasoning, but I guess it's your personal reasons then, Reuters, and I respect it.
Oh, sorry. Atheism isn't tolerated as much as LGBT by people in my mind, so i think having an atheist in office would result in an overall greater leap for people to be more socially liberal. If a LGBT person were voted in, it would be more "normal".
Ahhhh now I see your reasoning, Reuters. Fair point.
Tough one. I really don't know. Both would have a rough time. I'm thinking a LGBT person, because we've had open Atheists forever and the tolerance for them doesn't see to have gotten much better; on the other hand recently, the LGBT community has...
gained rapid tolerance and acceptance, leading me to believe someone of the LGBT community will be elected first.
Either way, their religious or sexual orientation isn't going to sway my vote for or against them. If they appear competent to hold office, go for it.
Don't know. Don't care. Both of these thing are completely irrelevant to running the country, IMO.
We have a gay president now.
Bacos, please stop being a colossal asshat and shut up. fine, you don't like him. Doesn't mean you have to turn into a pre-pubescent child in the process.
No my ass this guy bites the headboard. He is sucking dick in the Oval Office. Look at the guy, queer as hell.
And he doubles down and being an asshat. Here, ladies and gentlemen, is a moron. Marvel at his intolerant rhetoric and imbecilic rants
More collectivist bullshit.
How about we elect an individual who will fight for individual liberties.
It's funny how more than 50% of atheists said LGBT
I'm one of them. Christians would elect a Muslim before they elected an atheist
Christians won't even accept other religions (e.g. some use the false narrative of Obama being a Muslim like its a bad thing), us atheists are just being realistic knowing that there's no way a predominantly Christian nation will be that accepting.
Religion's faltering with the newest generation though. In a 100 years or so I'll bet atheists will outnumber christians
I hope so.
That's because we're not saying how WE would vote, but how we expect the nation to vote.
That because we operate in the real world and not in make believe land where if you believe it, it must be true.
I would say LGBT. Atheism is still seen in a negative light. I'm more interested in finding a good president than one with irrelevant traits.
I said LGBT because religion has been an issue since the 1800 election when Adams accused Jefferson of being a Deist. My kids and their friends don't understand why LGBT is even an issue, I am thinking their kids it will pretty much have disappeared.
Of course, if religion has not figured out how to become relevant to our children, it will have pretty much disappeared by then too.
We have a practicing atheist in the White House at the moment.
Ultra-conservatives really need to get together & decide if the fantasy story is Muslim or atheist.
uBake ... only the foaming-at-the-mouth leftists are blind to the hypocrisy of a man who professes to be Christian yet makes choices that are so opposed to those beliefs. From his constant lies to his support of late term abortions and more.
I hate to break it to you but your interpretation of a book isn't *the* interpretation of a book. People who share your religion don't have to share 100% of your beliefs. But please, continue demonstrating that non-Christian judgment!
uBake ... there's no non-Christian judgement here! You're clearly confused. You see judging MrO would be to say he should be destroyed for his heinous actions. Discerning that he's failed as a leader is the responsibility we accept as citizens.
uBake ... it's humorous when leftists --like you -- attempt to use the beauty of Christianity to silence Christians. However, you often completely miss the intent of the Gospel.
We can give to Caesar his due without embracing or becoming him!
"...the hypocrisy of a man who professes to be Christian yet makes choices that are so opposed to those beliefs."
That's judgment. Before you judge the beliefs of others, you might want to tone down your own hypocrisy.
uBake ... You clearly don't understand "judgement".
Leftists look for ways to silence critique of their horrible positions. We are called to discern, to differentiate between good and evil. MrO will be judged one day by He who is worthy.
uBake ... you leftists can't silence Christians by your feeble attempt to misinterpret the Scriptures.
Sorry, we won't be silenced, as it is our responsibility to distinguish between good and evil. To embrace good and shun evil by discernment.
"Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things."
"Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge...
"...There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"
"Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven"
uBake ... I recognize that it's difficult to accept when your paradigm is shattered, but admonish you to reread what I said.
Let's try to help you break thru ... what are the actions of a judge?
"Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God."
"For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
uBake ... those scriptures are beautiful. I have a personal conviction of the importance of them.
In your zeal to search for Scriptures on "judgement", you failed to answer my question.
Instead of admiring them from afar, maybe you should try to live by them.
Think, you are the epitome of the problems with modern Christianity. The teachings of Jesus mean nothing to you as you are basically a Pharisee, trying to enforce your narrow view of right/wrong. Please, stop giving Christians a bad name and shut up!
uBake ... I'm sill waiting for the answer to my simple question.
It is curious that by your definition of "judgement" that you are in fact judging me!
A practicing atheist? WTF?
Esha ... what evidence do you have to the contrary?
li1 ... where do you get off? Please explain!
And what leads YOU to claim he is not, Think? Why do YOU get to measure his Christianity? That sounds a hell of a lot like judgement to me. Hmm... Exactly what the Pharisees did.
Christ fought against everything you are portraying. He railed against the Pharisees and their imposition of deciding who was religious enough and who was not. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! Claiming Obama is an atheist from your viewpoint is the ultimate sin
li1 ... we must discern between good and evil. Recognizing the evil in this president is relatively easy. As mentioned, his works -- and the fruits of those works -- are quite easy to see.
Think, my question for you is, if a candidate is on your side w/ 90% of the issues but does not reveal their religion, only casually professes a belief in God, would vote for them? Or do they have to pass some sort of personal litmus test.
No, it is not your job to determine good and evil. It is your responsibility to live your life as you see fit.Measuring the worth of others is judgement and it is reserved, I am sure you would agree, with God.Usurping that authority is sin and wrong
Think, you determine Obama is evil. Didn't the Pharisees think Christ was, basically, evil? Would you come down on the side of Christ or the Pharisees? Labeling him as such is deification of yourself and that is abjectly against Christian doctrine
Per usual, it's someone from Idaho that wins the moronic comment of the day award. Man I'm glad I don't live in that state.
intakes is sounding a lot more Christian than Think imo.
Spirit ... yes, I would.
uBake, NYG & Alex ... it's fascinatingly sad that by your definition of judging, you have NO problem "judging" me, but call me out for "judging" the liar in chief!
I am still waiting for uBake to answer my question.
Think, if you take a minute & actually think about this, you'll notice I'm calling you out on being judgmental. I'm not judging you. You, on the other hand, judge people like it's your job. Maybe you think of yourself as a god, but you aren't.
Alexanderj is right; I do sound much more like a Christian than you, Think. Interesting, isn't it?
uBake ... ha ha ... by YOUR definition you're a hypocrite! How dare you "judge" me!
I am still waiting for your answer to my question.
il1 ... are you really prepared to talk about the Pharisees? Are you really attempting to draw a parallel to the heinously hypocritical MrO and Jesus?
Let's start with the Pharisees unjust accused Jesus, with MrO there's ample proof of his lies.
Think, you might want to read and/or think. Just because you're acting paranoid doesn't mean I'm judging you. 😘 Your own original comment requires judgment. I merely had to read it to see that you're full of judgment.
Think, you forget that the Pharisees spoke not only of Jesus, but of all others who did not fit into their impression of religiosity. Those are the lies you should be concerned about, rather than perpetuating them as you have done here.
uBake ... ha ... now I'm paranoid? Your entire rant is based on your paranoid infatuation with this failed president!
I await your response to my question!
And also remember: while we say the Pharisees unjustly accused Christ, they saw it as proper and just. You claim your judgement here is proper and just too... Be careful, I think you might be slipping down the slope there...
"Your entire rant is based on your paranoid infatuation with this failed president!"
I'm not even all that fond of President Obama, though I think he's done well for the circumstances (& data agrees). But thanks for judging more, & extra paranoia!
lu1 ... wait ... now you're changing your tune. You suggested that the Pharisees' attack on Jesus is parallel to my conclusions about this failed president.
Now you say it's not about it. Please pick one and stick to it.
uBake ... it's now clear that you've gotten yourself so twisted that you're unable to see which end is up.
It's also clear that you recognize that answering my question will expose the fallacy of your position.
NYG ... please know that Idahoans are likewise greatful that arrogant NY'ers stay far away!
Jesus objected to the Pharisees portrayal of all people. They just became more pointed toward him because he called them out on it. And I continue to claim you are nothing short of a Pharisee, perpetuating their narrow and misguided views
il1 ... You obviously agree that your statement comparing MrO to Jesus was a mistake as you attempt to reposition your argument.
il1 ... I maintain that you misunderstand the admonition about judgement.
At the same time, I observed that by your faulty definition of judgement that you are unjustly and hypocritically judging me! Just like uBake!
I'm sorry that there are multiple people currently embarrassing you, but that doesn't mean I've lost my way. It means you're still lost, and still judgmental. Your behavioral is unfortunate, and I hope one day you're able to act in a Christian way.
uBake ... after all this bluster, you still cowardly refuse to answer the question that exposes your misinterpretation of judgement.
I feel sorry for you.
Think, it is unfortunate that you are not able to deal appropriately with opposing views or being challenged and criticized. I never claimed you evil or bad, but questioned your views and highlighted parallels with those in biblical history.
I have answered your question, you're just too busy being judgmental & acting paranoid to practice any sort of reading comprehension. Feel free to review this comment thread if you're still confused.
No Think I feel sorry for you.
uBake ... now you've lied! Unfortunate for you, those that are willing to sift thru your nonsense will see it!
And you have never stated how Obama is an atheist or the lies he has told. You dwell on supposition and false information, spun to manipulate you. I would expect more from a supposed man of God
li1 ... I welcome honest opposing views. When you're ready to admit that you attempted to compare MrO to Jesus we can continue.
But shouldn't all men attempt to fulfill their image as seen by God, which epitome would be Christ? Isn't that part of the reason for WWJD?
Stop embarrassing yourself, Think. My answer is right above. Now you just look foolish. The person above is right, you make Christians look extremely bad. Sad.
uBake ... I'm sorry that you're unable to admit failure. Yesterday at 10am MDT I asked ... what are the actions of a judge?
You've still not answered that question!
li1 ... you're attempting to distract rather than face your mistake.
"I'm going to false accuse someone of something that I'm currently doing." - Think, foolishly.
uBake ... don't you realize that everyone can read the thread and as they do they'll see that you lied and now attempt to distract when the lie is in your face?
You should try reading. I've addressed your question. The only person concerned about an audience seems to be you, I'm sorry that your confidence is wavering enough that your immediate reaction is what others will think.
uBake I'm notation all worried! Just share the date and time of the entry where you answered my question.
For the millionth time: you can review the thread if you are still confused. If you're bored, why don't you answer the questions you've been asked & are avoiding by accusing the user of trying to change the topic. Bye.
uBake ... thanks for admitting that you lied! When you said that you'd answered my question, I initially believed you and reread the thread only to find that you lied!
You can run, but you can't hide from the truth!
No, I definitely didn't lie. You seem to be master at hiding from the truth, maybe you can give me some pointers once you're done being unbelievably judgmental.
uNake ... you maintain that you didn't lie when you said you answered my question yet you're incapable of pointing to the post where you answered my simple question ... hmmm ... that sounds dishonest.
It's not dishonest, it's indicative of my lack of support for your laziness. You're lacking intellectual integrity big time right now, I don't have patience for people who don't even try. Stop wasting everyone's time.
Uh, think, that is what YOU are doing. You are amazing at avoiding questions you cant handle or don't like the answers to. All you have said in this thread is "you don't understand judgement" and "you are wrong". That is very inadequate
I ask again: what less you to believe Obama is atheist? What lies has he told that are so heinous as to require him to be called "evil"?
Lol like anybody would want to be in that trash state anyway. Nothing but farms and highways.
uBake ... you can't poon to your answer because it doesn't exist. It appears you're the one wasting time with your lies and distractions.
No wonder you and MrO get along so well!
Think is trying to set a hypocrisy record in this thread hahaha. Your username truly is the most ironic on this app, Think. The amusement never gets old.
uBake ... So you lied again? You said you didn't care about what others say, yet you address them about me? How pathetic!
uBake ... Athens real irony is this thread is so long as you've tried to out Obama the president with lies, distortion and distractions.
You've STILL not answered my question!
Once again your reading comprehension is failing. I told you I don't care about an audience, even if you dwell on spectators because you're insecure. I personally don't care, I don't need reaffirmation.
For the millionth time: I've addressed your question. You on be other hand are ignoring the existence of the person who has directly asked you questions. Your hypocrisy is almost as amusing as the username "Think" when it's obvious you don't think.
At least he acknowledges your questions, ibakes. He just ignores mine since answering them would expose his ineptitude and idiocy.
I actually don't think either will ever really be elected, but no question it would be LGBT first if either did happen. We had to have a black guy first, next we are supposed to have a white woman, then they want a Latino, then a Jew, then LGBT.....
Too bad we don't elect president based on competency anymore....
JW ... you meant to say the first Melato with MrO. We don't "have" to have a woman next. There are no quotas!
Let's focus on having a qualified president next, as we can see the HORRIBLE results we get when we focus solely on quotas (we get MrO)!
Think - "melato" isn't a word. Quit making an ads of yourself and your supposed religion.
Oh Snap ... Auto-correct got me again! I meant to say Mulatto!
My comments are a reelection of me, and me alone. As are yours!
... reflection ... not reelection.
We don't need atheists running this place
Yeah we do
Esha ... it shouldn't matter because a qualified president should recognize that even if an atheist needs to keep their religion out of their government.
We need to regroup thus country on good Christian morals
@bluerum: non christians should not have to live by christian morals
Jane ... should Christians be forced to live by non-Christian morals?
Christian morals are things meant to be good for all. We have to care more about everyone and not just ourselves
does it really matter as long as he/she is qualified, honest and performs the job by the rules outlined in the American Constitution and threats every American equally.
You do know how like in every presidential speech the words "God bless America" are said
America is too Christian for an atheist president
There's no state above your name