• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

IMO a HUGE mistake by Paul Ryan. A horrible statement.

Objective-J said:
LMAO maggie maggie maggie

talk about a logic fail

I wonder why in my OP and in my response to you that you choose to omit the parts where i say IF that what he meant, guess you dont think thats important to the argument?

I agree that is clearly a logical fail on your part ;)
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know, maybe it's your post title: IMO a HUGE mistake by Paul Ryan. A horrible statement.

That you qualify your statement with "If that's what he means...." just clouds the issue. You want people to debate that he didn't mean what you made up? I did that in my first post. You just want to be cantankerous this morning. ;)
 
MaggieD said:
Oh, I don't know, maybe it's your post title: IMO a HUGE mistake by Paul Ryan. A horrible statement.

That you qualify your statement with "If that's what he means...." just clouds the issue. You want people to debate that he didn't mean what you made up? I did that in my first post. You just want to be cantankerous this morning. ;)
Click to expand...

WTH!!!???
LMAO

maggie we arent playing scrabble but i give you HUGE points for cantankerous ;) thats like triple word score!!!

anyway, no you are smarter than that, judging my post by the title without taking in to consideration is just as bad as judging an article based on the title without reading it or a court case with out hearing the testimony. I think your lean is showing.


I dont want people to debate that he didnt mean it, I want people to discuss that any politician that honestly thinks that way would be a terrible leader.


in your first post IMO (only you would know and feel free to correct my mistake if im wrong) it seemed as if you were defending a politician to lead that way, their own personal views and religion above others.
 
Objective-J said:
WTH!!!???
LMAO

maggie we arent playing scrabble but i give you HUGE points for cantankerous ;) thats like triple word score!!!

anyway, no you are smarter than that, judging my post by the title without taking in to consideration is just as bad as judging an article based on the title without reading it or a court case with out hearing the testimony. I think your lean is showing.


I dont want people to debate that he didnt mean it, I want people to discuss that any politician that honestly thinks that way would be a terrible leader.

in your first post IMO (only you would know and feel free to correct my mistake if im wrong) it seemed as if you were defending a politician to lead that way, their own personal views and religion above others.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll bite. But only because you gave me a triple word score. ;)

My first post merely pointed out that we are a sum of our parts. To think that a man who goes to church with his family every Sunday isn't going to use his faith as one component of many to help him make some decisions is unrealistic. And to think that a politician intends to subvert the Constitution of the United States because of his faith is equally unrealistic. If we expect our politicians to completely disregard their faith as soon as they take their oath of office, then we'd better start electing atheists.

Damn, that's a good answer. :rofl
 
j-mac said:
I think you are taking it a bit to the extreme here. Most Presidents have said publicly that faith in God was a indeed an asset to doing the job, and that includes demo's as well as repubs. Also not to mention that the Founders recognized God in the very foundations of this country.
Click to expand...

The Founding Fathers do mention God many times in their writting. However, they all viewed God a bit differently and that is why we are not a Christian nation. Our Founding Fathers would not want laws created based on ones belief in God.
 
The crux of this is that Ryan, unlike many politicians doesnt feel he is more then the system.. he feels he is to fullfill his job requirements, and nicely Ryana appears to have a high level of selflesness something many dont,so if his constituents want somehting as a majority that is, something he will support, that its NOT about him, he is just one vote.. that there is no reason to have to seperate the two, its who he is.. he feels his faith guides him to not deviate from interpriting the law to fit his wants..

when a person has that authenticity its beams through.. and Ryan has that.. we all should feel blessed that there are still people of the ilk fo Paul Ryan willing to work hard to do the job correctly..I have no doubt Ryan will respect the law and let society decide what will be its ethos..Biden laughed because Ryan cut thorugh him like a hot knife through artificial butter, and that truly showed the difference of decency, Stupid Joe Biden was like on an electric chair of truth that he couldnt stop reacting to..
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Well, not trying to be difficult here, but that doesn't answer my question, allow me to rephrase a little.....Using a hypothetical let's say that a person is on trial for say beating a pregnant woman to the point where she lives, but the baby dies. Is it murder? Can he be sentenced to death?
Click to expand...

The courts take into consideration that the woman wanted to being the fetus to term. She lost her opportunity to have a child if someone kills the child in the act of a crime against the women. The damage done to the woman physically and mentaly is the damage of the crime, and that is why the person who attacked the woman and killed the fetus is held accountable.
 
Ryan was just playing to the devout and saved, but to the non D&S he was making a case for not voting for Jesus humpers because they can't be trusted.
 
spanky said:
Ryan was just playing to the devout and saved, but to the non D&S he was making a case for not voting for Jesus humpers because they can't be trusted.
Click to expand...

Then I assume you didn't vote for President Obama? He was a Jesus Humper . . . Reverend Wright was his Pope. Now there's something to worry about. ;)
 
MaggieD said:
1.)Okay, I'll bite. But only because you gave me a triple word score. ;)

2.)My first post merely pointed out that we are a sum of our parts.
3.) To think that a man who goes to church with his family every Sunday isn't going to use his faith as one component of many to help him make some decisions is unrealistic.
4.)And to think that a politician intends to subvert the Constitution of the United States because of his faith is equally unrealistic.

5.)If we expect our politicians to completely disregard their faith as soon as they take their oath of office, then we'd better start electing atheists.

6.)Damn, that's a good answer.
Click to expand...


1.) bite or nibble? id prefer a nibble as I dont know you that well yet :D
2.) I agree we are the sum of our parts
3.) ah see this is where you are going way off track, i would never say its not going to be A component, it will be but there should be clear separation and one should easily have the ability to separate them and see how that separation is CRITICAL to lead this nation.
4.) ahhh another wrong turn, I dont think that, I simply wonder what he meant by his statement that could in fact hint that his religion is more important, hence the thread. But im not calling it true only saying that if it is true thats the wrost quality to have for ANY politician.
5.) again nobody said "complete disregard", as a matter of fact many times in this thread and in my op I said:

of course there will always be some bleeding and crosstalk (I hope thats what he meant) between who a person is personally and how they will lead but if they feel its "impossible" that is a HUGE flaw as a politician."

6.) I agree it would be a good answer IF I said any of that and thought that way but I dont ;)


but it did help shed light on where the obvious miscommunication was because you are arguing against a position I dont not have and I would agree with your argument if somebody does have that position.

You seem to be biting me for no reason and I would like you to stop, bite me where i want or the chance to bite you back :D :angel?:
 
Last edited:
Travis007 said:
The crux of this is that Ryan, unlike many politicians doesnt feel he is more then the system.. he feels he is to fullfill his job requirements, and nicely Ryana appears to have a high level of selflesness something many dont,so if his constituents want somehting as a majority that is, something he will support, that its NOT about him, he is just one vote.. that there is no reason to have to seperate the two, its who he is.. he feels his faith guides him to not deviate from interpriting the law to fit his wants..

when a person has that authenticity its beams through.. and Ryan has that.. we all should feel blessed that there are still people of the ilk fo Paul Ryan willing to work hard to do the job correctly..I have no doubt Ryan will respect the law and let society decide what will be its ethos..Biden laughed because Ryan cut thorugh him like a hot knife through artificial butter, and that truly showed the difference of decency, Stupid Joe Biden was like on an electric chair of truth that he couldnt stop reacting to..
Click to expand...

all your silly rhetoric aside

the issue that makes this whole post a failure is that IF his statement was true and means what he actually said its shows the exact opposite of your opening statement.

now like I have said many times though, he could have easily misspoke and not meant it that way. :shrug:

but ANY politician that would feel that way would be unfit for office.
 
Hairytic said:
The courts take into consideration that the woman wanted to being the fetus to term. She lost her opportunity to have a child if someone kills the child in the act of a crime against the women. The damage done to the woman physically and mentaly is the damage of the crime, and that is why the person who attacked the woman and killed the fetus is held accountable.
Click to expand...

Why is it that all of you on the left ignored my question?

Here it is again: when someone kills a pregnant woman he is charged with two counts of murder, why is that if the unborn child is not a person?
 
MaggieD said:
A horrible mistake? By whose naive yardstick?

A politician is the sum of all of his parts. His experiences, his social status, his income, his education, the neighborhood he lives in, his friends, family, religion -- everything. We do not operate, thus make decisions, in vacuums.We elect human beings, not computers. To call it a horrible mistake that Ryan recognizes that is just silly.
Click to expand...

Ryan's mistake was that he didn't make it clear that he will not force his religious views on the people through legislation. He is representing the people in his district. That means, he is supposed to vote based on what is best for the people in his district. I am a person of faith, but I would never force my beliefs on others. I like the way Biden explained it.
 
Objective-J said:
1.) bite or nibble? id prefer a nibble as I dont know you that well yet.
2.) I agree we are the sum of our parts
3.) ah see this is where you are going way off track, i would never say its not going to be A component, it will be but there should be clear separation and one should easily have the ability to separate them and see how that separation is CRITICAL to lead this nation.
4.) ahhh another wrong turn, I dont think that, I wonder what he meant by his statement that could in fact hint that his religion is more important, hence the thread.
5.) again nobody said "complete disregard", as a matter of fact many times in this thread and in my op I said:

of course there will always be some bleeding and crosstalk (I hope thats what he meant) between who a person is personally and how they will lead but if they feel its "impossible" that is a HUGE flaw as a politician."

6.) I agree it would be a good answer IF I said any of that and thought that way but I dont ;)


but it did help shed light on where the obvious miscommunication was because you are arguing against a position I dont not have and I would agree with your argument if somebody does have that position.

You seem to be biting me for no reason and I would like you to stop, bite me where i want or the chance to bite you back :D :angel?:
Click to expand...

Talk about "talking past" one another!!

BTW, did you just say, "Bite me?" :rofl

Another post, Objective-J. I'll wait for one where you actually say what you think. ;) You sure made me smile this morning. !!
 
Hairytic said:
Ryan's mistake was that he didn't make it clear that he will not force his religious views on the people through legislation. He is representing the people in his district. That means, he is supposed to vote based on what is best for the people in his district. I am a person of faith, but I would never force my beliefs on others. I like the way Biden explained it.
Click to expand...

Biden said what he was told to say by Axelrod, just like Amb Rice, and all the other obamabots that lied about Benghazi. Axelrod and Jarrett are running this country. Obama, Biden, Hillary, and the rest are their puppets.
 
MaggieD said:
Talk about "talking past" one another!!

BTW, did you just say, "Bite me?" :rofl

Another post, Objective-J. I'll wait for one where you actually say what you think. ;) You sure made me smile this morning. !!
Click to expand...

Glad I could help and good talk :)

and im not admitting to anything ;)
 
Objective-J said:
I dont have a link but im sure if the debate is anywhere on line it was his opening sentence during the debate when the abortion question was asked.

and who says he has to be a different person to exist? not me :shrug:

but yes to be a good leader IMO he must be able to separate his own religious views and personal views to some point otherwise he could find himself serving his religion and not the country. That is bad for the president of the united states. VERY BAD.

Now like i CLEARLY said in the OP its very possible this is not what he meant or who he is but anybody that cant separate the two is unfit to lead us.
Click to expand...

Very well said. Our elected officials are supposed to be serving the people. Most peope would say that when a poliicians serves a special interest group, that is a bad thing. But when it comes to pro lifers the rules change for some people. They are willing to accept a candidate who wants to force his religious views on the people, as long as his religious views agree with their's. I bet it would be a different story if the religious views of the candidate in question went against their own.
 
Very few politicians are Jesus humpers, they just play one for election day.

The exception that proves the rule is idiot Palin.
 
Bobcat said:
Why is it that all of you on the left ignored my question?

Here it is again: when someone kills a pregnant woman he is charged with two counts of murder, why is that if the unborn child is not a person?
Click to expand...

In those situations how far along was the pregnancy?
 
Bobcat said:
Why is it that all of you on the left ignored my question?

Here it is again: when someone kills a pregnant woman he is charged with two counts of murder, why is that if the unborn child is not a person?
Click to expand...

well this thread isnt about abortion but ill answer anyway

its extra punishment for the criminal just like we do in many many cases and the huge difference is that he doesnt have a right to that choice which has nothing to do with abortion.


and the definition of person you are talking about is a lawful definition, by law the ZEF is not a person I think "all" cases and in some its considered a victium.

also no matter what TV says this is extremely rare

but you may find the info you are looking for here:
Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Hairytic said:
Ryan's mistake was that he didn't make it clear that he will not force his religious views on the people through legislation. He is representing the people in his district. That means, he is supposed to vote based on what is best for the people in his district. I am a person of faith, but I would never force my beliefs on others. I like the way Biden explained it.
Click to expand...

Gads, we sure do look for cockroaches in the woodpile, don't we?

Did you think Bush forced his religious views on the people through legislation?

At the Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony in Washington DC:

"More than 2,000 years ago, a child was born to two faithful travelers who could find rest only in a stable, among the cattle and the sheep. But this was not just any child. Christ's birth made the angels rejoice and attracted shepherds and kings from afar. He was a manifestation of God's love for us.

"And he grew up to become a leader with a servant's heart who taught us a message as simple as it is powerful: that we should love God, and love our neighbor as ourselves. That teaching has come to encircle the globe. No matter who we are, or where we come from, or how we worship, it's a message that can unite all of us on this holiday season."
Click to expand...

An Easter breakfast?

"I wanted to host this breakfast for a simple reason -- because as busy as we are, as many tasks as pile up, during this season, we are reminded that there's something about the resurrection -- something about the resurrection of our savior, Jesus Christ, that puts everything else in perspective.

"We all live in the hustle and bustle of our work. And everybody in this room has weighty responsibilities, from leading churches and denominations, to helping to administer important government programs, to shaping our culture in various ways.
Click to expand...

From a National Prayer Breakfast:

The presidency has a funny way of making a person feel the need to pray.
Click to expand...

Another Easter Prayer Breakfast:

"For even after the passage of 2,000 years, we can still picture the moment in our mind's eye. The young man from Nazareth marched through Jerusalem; object of scorn and derision and abuse and torture by an empire. The agony of crucifixion amid the cries of thieves. The discovery, just three days later, that would forever alter our world -- that the Son of Man was not to be found in his tomb and that Jesus Christ had risen.

"We are awed by the grace he showed even to those who would have killed him...
Click to expand...

“It is that fundamental belief -- I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sisters’ keeper,,,
Click to expand...

*Gasp* This!!

"The grassroots conversations we've held across the country, our landmark evangelical meetings...are helping to change our nation, person by person."
Click to expand...
 
Bobcat said:
Why is it that all of you on the left ignored my question?

Here it is again: when someone kills a pregnant woman he is charged with two counts of murder, why is that if the unborn child is not a person?
Click to expand...

Well, that is a matter of how the state’s view a case were a fetus is killed in the course of a crime. To answer your question would take a lot of research because each state deals with this issue differently. That is why it is not connected to the abortion debate.
In my opinion, abortion is a medical issue that involves the woman's body. If someone kills a fetus in the course of a crime, that is a horse of another color. Our laws allow the taking of a life in many cases, so th circumstances determine the difference between murder and the taking of a life.
 
Biggest mistake by Paul Ryan is he didn't hammer Biden on the first question on the embassy cover up. It strongly appears not only did the Obama administration continually deny pleas from the embassy for more security, but they tried to cover that up and protect the image they have been trying to portray of defeating Al Qaeda by giving false information.
 
Objective Voice said:
Think it through, folks...

Think about it, people....think about it real hard.
Click to expand...

Anytime someone asks me to "think about it" or "think it through" it's usually because they can't.

So I don't.
 
Bobcat said:
Biden said what he was told to say by Axelrod, just like Amb Rice, and all the other obamabots that lied about Benghazi. Axelrod and Jarrett are running this country. Obama, Biden, Hillary, and the rest are their puppets.
Click to expand...

Opinion noted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom