Republican Debate Questions

[Suff]

I admire the Democrats infiltration.:ThmbUp:

That aside, did you hear the conservative Republican fire off this question?

A typical looking American held up a Bible and said :

"I'm going to ask you a question whose answer will tell us all we need to know about every one of you: do you believe that every single word of this book is true?"


I was stunned when the candidates began answering (deflecting) the query.


Because in my America, and according to the Constitution;


Article.VI. . . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Of course if we polled the whole room, maybe two people would even know of Article 6, and once informed they'd stubbornly justify another weakening of our Constitution.


The Constitution aside, I would have answered :Anyone who believes every word of any book, and pressures others to do also, is in need of Psychiatric care.

But its all in a day in the Republican twisted world. And that's not fringe, that's national TV, mainstream republican thinking.....and not refuted by anyone in that room.

Good luck to us all.

[lsbets]

Hey Suff - that would refer to a test on the part of the government. An individual citizen can use any test they want to evaluate a candidate. Its called freedom, and an individuals right to think for themselves, and if someone wants to use belief in the Bible as a basis for choosing a candidate, good for them. You sound sillier everytime you pop back up to post here.

[Tom]

That was a planted dem who asekd that question.
The point was to try to trap someone.

The dem plant were rather easy to spot - they were so stupid and obvious.
JUst like the dem candidates. This is why they refuse to debate on FOX - they are afraid to face real questions on real topics.

[rastajenk]

I don't think it was a Dem plant that asked the Bible question. Worse: it was a RonPaulian. :faint:

[Tom]

Ron Paul - anyone remember My Favorite Martian?
If he ain't Uncle Martin.....:D

[Suff]

Hey Suff - that would refer to a test on the part of the government. An individual citizen can use any test they want to evaluate a candidate. Its called freedom, and an individuals right to think for themselves, and if someone wants to use belief in the Bible as a basis for choosing a candidate, good for them. You sound sillier everytime you pop back up to post here.

Scroll up and take a second look at my post. What two words do I have underlined for emphasis? Us, infering the Republican party, who at this time run the Government.

[lsbets]

You're really stretching now Suff, but then again you're usually stretching.

[rastajenk]

Yeah, that's really a stretch. There's nothing in the question, the questioner, the format, or the answers that speaks to the concerns of all Republicans and only Republicans.

CNN selected questions that no responsible journalist would ever ask, under the guise of "real people" asking "real questions," when in reality it was neither. Nice try at dodgeball, but the truth is they took a direct hit to the face. Not too ashamed, though, to run repeats of it again this weekend.

[Tom]

I thought the dems were in majority in Cpongress.....don't blame the repubs for anything going on now - the do-nothings are in charge.

[skate]

didn't seem like a 'Test' on the bible.


but it seemed like someone asking for an opinion.


also, the Bible can be considered 'part' of a religion, but i'm not sure "the bible is a Religion".


good debate , i thought.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Let me know when any Repub or Demo candidate is booted out because of a religious test.
I would be more into looking at the party platforms myself. Repubs are about family and Demos are about individuals.

[Gibbon]

Article.VI.... The “religious test” clause is barely a whole sentence in length. The clause itself is a mere after thought. The framers never intended a theocracy for our nation. Nor, anything remotely resembling power mad Church of Rome political architecture.

Once again you’re filtering old text through modern eyes. We must all read a text from the authors point of view NOT superimpose modern worldview. Anyone from the late 1700’s would have instantly recognized the clause for its real intended purpose. Pols should not endorse any one religion. Freedom OF religion does not mean freedom FROM religion. From Washington right though Martin Van Buren; that’s a span of eight presidents, pledging their health, wealth and allegiance to the Christian God.

The Constitution aside, I would have answered :[i]Anyone who believes every word of any book..... The bible is a collection of books under on roof. Seamlessly written over a span of 1500 years by human hands inspired by the creator. An instruction manual NOT an encyclopedia. Some books are written to be studied literally, while others are allegorical, poetic, symbolic, hyperbolic, etc… Proper interpretation is called Biblical hermeneutics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics). All meant for human edification.


Good luck to us all. I was wondering what it would take to bring you out of your Marxist/Leninist hole. You afraid Maria Eva Duarte de Peron can’t simply waltz into my white house? She’ll have to fight for power. What will you say come next spring when the great capitalist, Michael Bloomberg shows her to be the fake, phony, fraud that we all know her to be? Will you and Teddy squander your Massachusetts inheritance {initially a Christian enclave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England)} and move back to France?







___________________________
It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible. ~ George Washington

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. ~ George Washington

[Gibbon]

Repubs are about.... Demos are about.... All Pols have one and only one agenda:
Extort monies from American suckers, I mean taxpayers and
Spend, spend and spend some more. The elites know what’s good
for the ignorant masses.






____________________
Increased government spending can provide a temporary stimulus to demand and output but in the longer run higher levels of government spending crowd out private investment or require higher taxes that weaken growth by reducing incentives to save, invest, innovate, and work. ~ Martin Feldstein

[riskman]

I thought the dems were in majority in Cpongress.....don't blame the repubs for anything going on now - the do-nothings are in charge.


Polls show that a majority of Americans want a withdrawal from Iraq, but none of the leading candidates are calling for a complete pull-out. Three-quarters of Americans oppose a permanent military presence there, yet the same number believe that the United States would not withdraw even if asked by the Iraqi "government." A majority oppose the White House's claim that it can torture whom it likes, but the Democrat-controlled Congress confirmed an attorney general who wouldn't say that water-boarding -- prosecuted as torture by military courts since the Spanish-American War -- is illegal. More Americans think K Street's "trade" deals hurt Americans than believe they help, but among the first acts of the new Congress was to strike a new "grand bargain" with Bush on trade. Voters want to see movement on healthcare, immigration, retirement security and job outsourcing, and on all of these issues the Big Money candidates in both parties, with the possible exception of John Edwards, either stand moot or offer fluffy platitudes about change while ferociously defending the status quo.
In other words, both political parties are do nothings

[riskman]

Ron Paul - anyone remember My Favorite Martian?
If he ain't Uncle Martin.....:D


Paul says that he'd slash the size of government by 40 percent, a dramatic restructuring by any account. People may respond positively to the idea of limited government in the abstract, but when it comes to specifics most Americans love big government and most (though certainly not all) of what it does. They want a government that will educate their children and put out forest fires and make sure that big chemical companies aren't poisoning their water. They expect cheap student loans and meat inspections and smooth highways, and even the lowest of "low information" voters know they're not going to get that stuff from the private sector.

And it's here where Paul deserves some respect, even from his detractors. He does, after all, have the courage of his convictions. In an era when pandering has become the highest of campaign arts, Paul, unlike the rest of his Republican brethren, is straightforward about his desire to roll back much of the 20th century.The reality is: Ron Paul, though crazy, is consistently crazy. He is not trying to hide his ideas, in fact he's running on them. And though they might not understand all of it, people like it.

Many of Paul's supporters are simply disenfranchised nonvoters who have been animated, many for the first time in years, by his campaign, and that's not a bad thing in a nominal democracy where complacency rules.

[Gibbon]

expect cheap student loans...... With college so expensive, every congressman wants his name attached to an education bill. And so it is that the pile of goodies gets bigger and bigger - grants, loans and tax breaks costing in all billions a year. Consider just the tax breaks. To claim one you need to read the government's 80-page handbook, Publication 970. As summarized by Janet Novack, who keeps a cynical eye on tax breaks: “There are 12 breaks for higher education. Six have income ceilings, with five different formulas for the limits, in each case involving two phase-out schedules, one for single filers and one for joint filers. There are eight different definitions of eligible expenses and five different definitions of what types of education are eligible.”

The mental suffering involved in calculating your taxes would be justified if you at least saved some money. But you don't. The paradoxical effect of government aid is that it makes people going to college worse off. Alex Davidson explains what's going on in his article found here (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1112/144.html). College grads, after all, pay the taxes that fund the subsidies, yet they don't save a nickel on tuition because colleges raise prices fast enough to absorb all the government assistance, and then some.

Charge whatever the traffic will bear. They do this by setting a ludicrously high price, then giving discounts {called "scholarships"} to families that can't afford it. No use winning a scholarship from an outside source, since the college will just dock that sum from its own scholarship.

Who wins from this country's bloated system of higher education? Grads? Nope. Their higher lifetime earnings are attributable to their smarts, not their degrees. I can think of only two kinds of winners here: college presidents and tax preparation firms.


Americans love big government As our nation moves increasingly left of center each passing decade, the once revered US Constitution placing limits on govt. is left to the dust bin of history.








____________________________
Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in the world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes. ~ Ben Franklin

[Tom]

CNN is showing it tonight again.
Watch it and tell me Ron Paul is not a kook and Huckabee is not a lying, agenda driven stooge. I do not believe word one he says, and do not trust him a bit. Watch him when he agrues with Romney aver college educations for children of illegals - his body language says it all - he is possessed and is not running to represent the American people.

[The Judge]

I here you Stuff ,it was an unfair question and should not have been answered or attemped to be answered by any canidate. It never should have been asked. We could all ask them of hundereds on inapproperitate questions that are just wrong to ask, and that a person would look foolish no matter how they answered.