Which of these would be most likely to make you not vote for a candidate

I think I couldn't vote for someone who systematically hired illegal immigrants on a large scale- like a CEO of a construction company or something like that.

it's not only condoning mass violation of the law but it also shows that the person obviously considers the "bottom line" far more valuable then supporting American workers.

it would completely align the candidate against all labor issues in my mind. by hiring illegals in that way he'd basically be telling me that he's against unionization, job safety, minimum wage, corporate transparency and a million other things that labor has fought for.

new coup for you said:

it's not only condoning mass violation of the law

Click to expand...

Mass violation of the law...principled civil disobedience. Potato...po-tah-to.

new coup for you said:

but it also shows that the person obviously considers the "bottom line" far more valuable then supporting American workers.

Click to expand...

What about supporting American CONSUMERS with cheaper goods and services, produced by more efficient workers?

new coup for you said:

it would completely align the candidate against all labor issues in my mind. by hiring illegals in that way he'd basically be telling me that he's against unionization, job safety, minimum wage, corporate transparency and a million other things that labor has fought for.

Click to expand...

If a candidate opposed barriers to the free flow of labor and capital, I'd be much more inclined to vote for him/her. Covering our ears and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is not the way to run a 21st-century economy.

Kandahar said:

Right. But we DO know that the Christian in the poll question would be a nutter.

Click to expand...

So, you are biased against Christians. You can't say you are 'merely' atheist or agnostic or else you would consider the Muslim as much a potential "nutter" as a Christian.

Why? Not ONLY because (Okay, I admit I'm guessing that you are an atheist and consider all religions to be fantasies.), as a Muslim, this candidate would have a different fantasy from Christians but in an atheist's eyes, one religion is just as much a fantasy as any other. But because "the Qu'ran commands Muslims to rest not until Allah is the sole worshiped God."

That alone makes him more of a threat to our freedoms.

So for you to consider the Christy Christian as more frightening than a Muslim candidate bespeaks a serious example of hypocrisy.

There was a song in the 1960's called, The Snake. Here are some excerpts from the lyrics:

The Snake

On her way to work one morning
Down the path along side the lake
A tender hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
"Oh well," she cried, "I'll take you in and I'll take care of you"
"Take me in oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman," sighed the snake
[...]
Now she clutched him to her bosom, "You're so beautiful," she cried
"But if I hadn't brought you in by now you might have died"
Now she stroked his pretty skin and then she kissed and held him tight
But instead of saying thanks, that snake gave her a vicious bite
[...]
"I saved you," cried that woman
"And you've bit me even, why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I'm going to die"
"Oh shut up, silly woman," said the reptile with a grin
"You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in"

"Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman," sighed the snake

Al Wilson - The Snake Lyrics - The Snake - Lyrics On Demand

Click to expand...

Even though we all KNOW that the Koran has what is essentially a "theological mandate of never-ending expansion and dominance... by force if necessary" which would be encouraged with the election of a Muslim president, you would just clutch him and hold him close to your heart and figuratively stroke him and kiss him.

Meanwhile, the "Christy Christian" candidate's religion specifically calls for him to 'give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's' as a suggestion of a separation between Church and state and his religion notably does not call for Christians to expand and impose Christianity over all the world or the USA until Christianity is the leader of mankind. And there is absolutely NOTHING about the "Christy Christian's Christianity" that would ever make any serious person fear he would try to turn America into a religious state.

Every Christian president, even the Christy Carter has been committed to the perpetuation of our Constitutional rights and our system of government.

But any Muslim, by virtue of his religion HAS to be assumed to be more likely to at least tacitly encourage the Islamization of America.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris --car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).
FrontPage Magazine

Click to expand...

Kandahar said:

As it is written in the Bible, Christianity is antithetical to our Constitution too.

Click to expand...

Not really.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

-- from the Declaration of Independence

Click to expand...

The Bible promotes the idea of equality of all men.
Does the Bible support the idea that all men are created equal?

Not so for the Koran. And please note that non-believers can not be equal to believers of Judaism & Christianity.

Lest us return to the issue of equality.

The idea is unacceptable to Islam.

For the non-believer cannot be the equal of the believer.

Even among the believers only those who subscribe to the three so-called Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam ( Ahl el-Kitab) are regarded as fully human.

Here is the hierarchy of human worth in Islam:

At the summit are free male Muslims

Next come Muslim male slaves

Then come free Muslim women

Next come Muslim slave women.

Then come free Jewish and /or Christian men

Then come slave Jewish and/or Christian men

Then come slave Jewish and/or Christian women.

AMIR TAHERI'S REMARKS AT DEBATE "ISLAM IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH DEMOCRACY" - Amir Taheri - Benador Associates

Click to expand...

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.
FrontPage Magazine

Click to expand...

This system is a competing system which says that ONLY Allah can make laws. We want our president to be committed to protecting OUR laws and not overtly, covertly or tacitly encouraging those who are committed to doing away with our Constitution in favor of the Koran.

The literal interpretation of Islam requires that the entire system be applied to the entire world, by deceit, by legal means, peacefully or by force if necessary.

Having a Muslim President would do a lot to advance the goal of Islamizing the USA.

Kandahar said:

It would be fine as long as the Muslim candidate was not a literalist.

Click to expand...

Well, that's an argument we can have another time. But for now the point I'm not understanding is why and how can you assume that a "Christy Christian" is worse than a Muslim candidate without knowing anything more than what info is given in the poll?

obvious Child said:

AlbqOwl, do you realize that McCain and Obama are on virtually the same page, using the same platform, with the same ideas for nuclear weapons?

You could strip the name from the quote and people would have a hard time determining if it was McCain or Obama.

Below is a mix of Obama and McCain on nuclear weapons and proliferation. Good luck sorting then out without a search engine.

"We cannot achieve our nonproliferation goals on our own"

“It is imperative that we build and sustain a truly global effort under an aggressive timeline to secure, consolidate, and reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material to keep them out of the wrong hands. The comprehensive nuclear threat reduction plan required by this provision is an important step in that effort.”

"We must also work with Russia to update and scale back our dangerously outdated Cold War nuclear postures and de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons."

"The truth is we will only address the terrible prospect of the worldwide spread of nuclear arms if we transcend our partisan differences, combine our energies, learn from our past mistakes, and seek practical and effective solutions."

“we should be able to agree with Russia on binding verification measures based on those currently in effect under the Start agreement, to enhance confidence and transparency.”

"The single biggest threat that we face is a nuclear weapon or some weapon of mass destruction. What that means is that we have to be extraordinarily aggressive and vigilant in controlling nuclear proliferation. We have a nuclear proliferation treaty and strategy that has failed. I think it failed in Iran. It also failed in North Korea. That has to be rewritten and renegotiated. And I think that we have to rapidly accelerate the manner in which we are locking down nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. You know, the Lugar-Nunn bill has shown itself to work. Unfortunately, right now it's on a thirteen-year timetable, in which the United States puts in resources to make sure that those resources are secured. I think we can rapidly advance it to the point where we get it down to four years."

"America must lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years"

“It is time for the United States to show the kind of leadership the world expects from us, in the tradition of American presidents who worked to reduce the nuclear threat to mankind.”

Click to expand...

Wouldn't take too long to sort out, but I won't bother to take the time to do so. There difference between the two is one suggests that we unilaterally significantly disarm; the other suggests that we do a better job of managing the problem. I can't imagine McCain suggesting that we do no further R&D on nuclear weaponry.

bhkad said:

So, you are biased against Christians. You can't say you are 'merely' atheist or agnostic or else you would consider the Muslim as much a potential "nutter" as a Christian.

Click to expand...

Except that's not how the poll was presented Bhkad.

The Christian was clearly made to be an EXTREMIST christian, where as the Muslim is just made out to be average, normal jo smo muslim.

Its like saying...

You can either eat this Great Tasting Steak or some chicken. By giving a higher connotation to one thing, the other thing is assumed to be in the average.

Who do you go talk to in a bar? The Incredibly Hot woman, or a guy? Once agian, by giving high connotation to one thing, the other thing is assumed to be average.

Who would you rather watch the game with? The NFL fantatic or a guy at the bar?

The fact is we have had TONS of christian presidents. Putting christian up there would be dumb because history shows people have no issue with it. You would need to take it to an extreme to be able to possibly find people bothered by it. We've never had a muslim president, so putting even just an "ordinary average" one up there could illicite votes, espicially in this climate.

I have no doubt in my mind if we said a "A strict Sha'ria law following Muslim" or "An Islamistic faction muslim", or even "An extremist muslim" or such up there, it'd get a different reaction.

Zyphlin said:

Except that's not how the poll was presented Bhkad.

The Christian was clearly made to be an EXTREMIST christian, where as the Muslim is just made out to be average, normal jo smo muslim.

Its like saying...

You can either eat this Great Tasting Steak or some chicken. By giving a higher connotation to one thing, the other thing is assumed to be in the average.

Who do you go talk to in a bar? The Incredibly Hot woman, or a guy? Once agian, by giving high connotation to one thing, the other thing is assumed to be average.

Who would you rather watch the game with? The NFL fantatic or a guy at the bar?

The fact is we have had TONS of christian presidents. Putting christian up there would be dumb because history shows people have no issue with it. You would need to take it to an extreme to be able to possibly find people bothered by it. We've never had a muslim president, so putting even just an "ordinary average" one up there could illicite votes, espicially in this climate.

I have no doubt in my mind if we said a "A strict Sha'ria law following Muslim" or "An Islamistic faction muslim", or even "An extremist muslim" or such up there, it'd get a different reaction.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...

Why don't we try an interesting exercise used in problem solving called "PMI."

PMI

Weighing the Pros and Cons of a Decision

PMI stands for 'Plus/Minus/Interesting'. It is a valuable improvement to the 'weighing pros and cons' technique used for centuries.

PMI is an important Decision Making tool: the mind tools used so far in this section have focused on selecting a course of action from a range of options. Before you move straight to action on this course of action, it is important to check that it is going to improve the situation (it may actually be best to do nothing!) PMI is a useful tool for doing this.

How to Use the Tool:

In the column underneath 'Plus', write down all the positive results of taking the action. Underneath 'Minus' write down all the negative effects. In the 'Interesting' column write down the implications and possible outcomes of taking the action, whether positive, negative, or uncertain.

By this stage it may already be obvious whether or not you should implement the decision. If it is not, consider each of the points you have written down and assign a positive or negative score to it appropriately. The scores you assign may be quite subjective.

Once you have done this, add up the score. A strongly positive score shows that an action should be taken, a strongly negative score that it should be avoided.

PMI - Plus, Minus and Interesting - Decision Making Tools

Click to expand...

I invite you and any of the other posters who believe that a Muslim candidate would be preferable to a Christy Christian candidate for President of the United States to perform this exercise as a way of looking at this decision objectively.

I will do the same and I will share my results as soon as I have completed the process.

bhkad said:

Hmmm...

Why don't we try an interesting exercise used in problem solving called "PMI."



I invite you and any of the other posters who believe that a Muslim candidate would be preferable to a Christy Christian candidate for President of the United States to perform this exercise as a way of looking at this decision objectively.

I will do the same and I will share my results as soon as I have completed the process.

Click to expand...

Okay here's mine. (You just can't get away from personal bias in these things, however.)

Christian candidate

Plus:
1. Shares at least some values of the large majority of Americans. +5
2. More likely to better understands the fundamental basics of what went into the Constitution and the initial laws governing the land. +10
3. More likely to feel compassion and concern for all people and want the best for everybody. +2
4. More likely to understand the virtues in personal accomplishment, understanding the consequences of the choices we make, and why we must accept responsibility for those choices. +10


Minus:

1. Is likely to offend anyone who is anti-Christian or anti-religious no matter how a point of view is expressed. -2
2. Christian beliefs could prompt an improper judgmentalism but we can’t get away from that no matter what ideology the person holds. -2

Interesting:

1. More likely to have inner strength and calm that comes from a strong belief in the presence of God. +2
2. More likely to see potential and possibilities instead of doom and gloom. +2

Score: +27

Muslim Candidate:

Plus:
1. Might inspire confidence of other Muslim leaders. +3

Minus:
1. Less likely to appreciate the concepts and principles that went into the U.S. Constitution and principle laws that govern the people. -10
2. Less likely to appreciate separation of Church and State. -5
3. Less likely to be emotionally or philosophically independent of pressures of Islamic radicalism. -5

Interesting:

There is always the possibility that somebody will be in sympathy with that minority of Islamic fundamentalist who want to bring down the Great Satan and place it under Sharia Law. -1

Score: - 18

(Note: Couldn’t the same thing be said of Catholicism? There is no modern incident in which the Roman Catholic Church has presumed to weaken or destroy the United States, has declared war on it, or presumed to require all the citizens to be Catholic.)

I'm sorry Bhkad, but your thing is hardly really a good indication of things. it even states:

"The scores you assign may be quite subjective."

Not to mention all the +'s or minus's come from yourself. Everyones will be different.

Like I can look at the above posters:

"2. More likely to better understands the fundamental basics of what went into the Constitution and the initial laws governing the land. +10"

+10 for that, and that even being a fact, is FAR from what I'd be thinking for a heavily christian candidate. An extreme christian would be one who i would think would veto things because it does not agree with the bible, would severly limit religious freedom because "thou shalt have no gods before" him, and other sort of things.

From my experience with immensely religious people to an extreme, they are hardly compassionate to all people, being extremely rude and uncarrying to non-christians that express no desire to be a christian

They give a -5 to the average muslim candidate not being able to seperate church and state...but leaves that completley off the extremist Christian.

In general, I'd be more comfortable with a christian at present then an athiest, than a muslim.

In general, I'd be more comfortable with an athiest or muslim than I would be with an extremist christian

In general I'd not be comfortable with an extremist athiest, muslim, or christian.

Being a true pacifist is the only thing that on that list that would be a deal breaker. I'm not going to vote for somebody who would just sit back and let another country take over the US just because he doesn't like war.

And I grew up in the midwest, and I knew a transvestite. He/she/whatever wasn't insane. He was a pretty nice guy who happened to like dressing up like a woman and having sex with other people dressed as women on his own free time. He wasn't hurting anybody, so who cares.

bhkad said:

I invite you and any of the other posters who believe that a Muslim candidate would be preferable to a Christy Christian candidate for President of the United States to perform this exercise as a way of looking at this decision objectively.

I will do the same and I will share my results as soon as I have completed the process.

Click to expand...

If you really want to understand why those of us who thanked kandahar did so - post another poll and this time include the options in there.

• "christy" Christian
• Mohammedy" Muslim"
• A Christian
• A muslim

I'm willing to bet you'll get very different results. Might even help you understand what Zyphlyin and kandahar are trying to explain to you.