• 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!

Is Jindal the new face of the GOP?

Is Bobby Jindal the new face of the GOP?

  • No

    Votes: 8 34.8%

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 11 47.8%
  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .
Hatuey said:
That abortion was not acceptable 100 years ago says about as much about the support for it as homosexuality not being acceptable in Iran. Sure. It might not be acceptable because the people in charge are religious fundamentalists. But that doesn't mean there aren't millions of Iranians who do not care about whether a person is homosexual and thousands of gay Iranians just waiting to get out of the closet.
Click to expand...
Nah, just that the arguement "It should be acceptable because the X amount of people support it" just isn't a logical arguement. A clear majority of Americans support a ban on homosexual marriage, yet I don't see many liberals accepting that arguement. :roll:
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Nah, just that the arguement "It should be acceptable because the X amount of people support it" just isn't a logical arguement. A clear majority of Americans support a ban on homosexual marriage, yet I don't see many liberals accepting that arguement. :roll:
Click to expand...

Who said it should be acceptable because X people support it? Now that it is however legal in all 50 states it would indeed take the support of the American populace to reverse it. Something being legal does not mean it is acceptable however it would take the support of a majority to reverse it. Please stop your straw men?
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Nah, just that the arguement "It should be acceptable because the X amount of people support it" just isn't a logical arguement. A clear majority of Americans support a ban on homosexual marriage, yet I don't see many liberals accepting that arguement. :roll:
Click to expand...

So you support tyranny of the majority?

Just because the majority doesn't accept it doesn't make that lack of acceptance right.
 
RightinNYC said:
I've got no problem with religion and think it's great when people have a strong faith. That's entirely different from someone who hypes creationism and believes that he participated in an exorcism.

It's just a shame that he had to be so public about something that will obviously cast a shadow over any future ambitions he has.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I have a hard time voting for a candidate who thinks the world was created 6,000 years ago. Jindal as the face of the GOP more or less reaffirms that the GOP is diametrically opposed to the whole notion of science sans new ways to kill people.

And it shows that Jindal doesn't quite understand that he has to examine his own positions. YEC rejects the notion of radiometric dating and radioactivity as it based in the premise of extreme time lines. Yet the same principles for radioactivity underlie safe operations of nuclear power not to mention its basic operations. Jindal has called for nuclear power. This is inherently contradictory on his part as he is promoting something his beliefs say should not exist. And he's done much of the same for promoting biosciences in his state yet he rejects evolution never mind the obvious fact that biosciences, particularly bioengineering is based heavily in the theory of evolution. How can he call for enacting, funding and promoting things his belief say are fiction?

The possibility exists that he's using it for social conservative votes and doesn't believe in ID and YEc or he's just ignorant as to what his religious beliefs really are. I can accept the first one. The second is a vote killer.
 
obvious Child said:
Pretty much. I have a hard time voting for a candidate who thinks the world was created 6,000 years ago. Jindal as the face of the GOP more or less reaffirms that the GOP is diametrically opposed to the whole notion of science sans new ways to kill people.

And it shows that Jindal doesn't quite understand that he has to examine his own positions. YEC rejects the notion of radiometric dating and radioactivity as it based in the premise of extreme time lines. Yet the same principles for radioactivity underlie safe operations of nuclear power not to mention its basic operations. Jindal has called for nuclear power. This is inherently contradictory on his part as he is promoting something his beliefs say should not exist. And he's done much of the same for promoting biosciences in his state yet he rejects evolution never mind the obvious fact that biosciences, particularly bioengineering is based heavily in the theory of evolution. How can he call for enacting, funding and promoting things his belief say are fiction?

The possibility exists that he's using it for social conservative votes and doesn't believe in ID and YEc or he's just ignorant as to what his religious beliefs really are. I can accept the first one. The second is a vote killer.
Click to expand...

Could you imagine that an atheist or even a christian who believed in evolution can even make it on the GOP ticket?

I don't think it is possible for a major position like president. That is the main problem with the GOP, the fundamentalists and just the regular Christians have a hard time coming to terms with evolution.
 
obvious Child said:
Pretty much. I have a hard time voting for a candidate who thinks the world was created 6,000 years ago. Jindal as the face of the GOP more or less reaffirms that the GOP is diametrically opposed to the whole notion of science sans new ways to kill people.

And it shows that Jindal doesn't quite understand that he has to examine his own positions. YEC rejects the notion of radiometric dating and radioactivity as it based in the premise of extreme time lines. Yet the same principles for radioactivity underlie safe operations of nuclear power not to mention its basic operations. Jindal has called for nuclear power. This is inherently contradictory on his part as he is promoting something his beliefs say should not exist. And he's done much of the same for promoting biosciences in his state yet he rejects evolution never mind the obvious fact that biosciences, particularly bioengineering is based heavily in the theory of evolution. How can he call for enacting, funding and promoting things his belief say are fiction?

The possibility exists that he's using it for social conservative votes and doesn't believe in ID and YEc or he's just ignorant as to what his religious beliefs really are. I can accept the first one. The second is a vote killer.
Click to expand...


......that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth." -Barak Obama, Audacity of Hope.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
......that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth." -Barak Obama, Audacity of Hope.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but everyone knows that was only for political expedency. ;)
 
obvious Child said:
Wasn't Palin called the "New Face of the GOP?"

It's rather hard to call anyone the new face when the GOP itself doesn't know what it is.
Click to expand...

If Palin is the "new face" of the GOP in 2010, I'm gonna go chris brown on that ****.
 
obvious Child said:
So you support tyranny of the majority?

Just because the majority doesn't accept it doesn't make that lack of acceptance right.
Click to expand...
No, I was just pointing out Hatuey's inconsistency. Clearly he thinks the majority supports Roe vs. wade and somehow that's to bolster his "arguement":roll: I'm just saying that doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Who said it should be acceptable because X people support it? Now that it is however legal in all 50 states it would indeed take the support of the American populace to reverse it. Something being legal does not mean it is acceptable however it would take the support of a majority to reverse it. Please stop your straw men?
Click to expand...
you did started it I'm afraid. Sure, it would take the support of the american populace, you just seem to think "oh well, majority of americans support Roe vs. Wade(though, really, I doubt it) so, the issue doesn't matter anymore". :roll:
 
DarkWizard12 said:
you did started it I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Ummm not really. I stated that Jindal would have a tough time convincing the majority that Roe V. Wade should be overturned. That does not mean abortion is acceptable/unacceptable. What it does mean is that most people either don't care about it enough to overturn it or that they oppose overturning it.

Sure, it would take the support of the american populace, you just seem to think "oh well, majority of americans support Roe vs. Wade(though, really, I doubt it) so, the issue doesn't matter anymore". :roll:
Click to expand...

No. What I do think is that Jindal doesn't have a chance in hell, and neither do any conservatives of overturning Roe v. Wade. The American people do not want to over turn it. And why would they? The religious have as many abortions as the non-religious in this country. They can cry all they want about the sanctity of life but they've benefited from abortion as much as everybody else. You keep quoting me on stuff I never said. Stop your straw men please.

Christians Have as Many Abortions as Everyone Else, Catholics Have More

A new study by The Center For Reason (www.centerforreason.com) finds that Christians have just as many abortions as their non-Christian counterparts. The study concludes that in the year 2000, Christians were responsible for 570,000 abortions. Catholics were found to be the worst offenders, with abortion rates higher than the national average.

San Francisco, Calif. (PRWEB) March 12, 2006 -- With over one million abortions being performed in the US each year, this issue has dominated the political landscape. In recent years the rhetoric has escalated, with the pro-life movement becoming a flagship for Christian morality and ethics. The prevailing Christian doctrine--that abortion is murder--has polarized the issue, firmly placing the vast majority of Christians on the pro-life side of the debate.

Incendiary comments by some of the more outspoken Christian figureheads have sought to portray abortion as an “evil” perpetrated by the non-Christian left. In response to this, The Center For Reason, a private research group, undertook a study to test the premise: “Christians have fewer abortions than non-Christians”. The results disproved the premise.
Click to expand...
 
Hatuey said:
The religious have as many abortions as the non-religious in this country. They can cry all they want about the sanctity of life but they've benefited from abortion as much as everybody else. You keep quoting me on stuff I never said. Stop your straw men please.

Christians Have as Many Abortions as Everyone Else, Catholics Have More
Click to expand...

Uh...did you look at the website of this "private research group" that supposedly "commissioned this report"

www.centerforreason.com

lol
 
Hatuey said:
Are they in Iran? I doubt that.
Click to expand...

Its a strange country rich people can pretty much live lives like people do in the west.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Could you imagine that an atheist or even a christian who believed in evolution can even make it on the GOP ticket?
Click to expand...

Depends what level. On a state level sure. Didn't former Republican Governor of New York, George Pataki accept evolution?

I don't think it is possible for a major position like president. That is the main problem with the GOP, the fundamentalists and just the regular Christians have a hard time coming to terms with evolution.
Click to expand...

Apparently, despite using countless products derived from its sciences on a daily basis. One particular one is how evolution predicts where gas, coal and oil deposits will be based on where specific forms of life existed in the past. Chevron and others use geologists trained in the theory of evolution to find these deposits. Yet evolution deniers use these sources of fuel yet deny the science that helps companies bring energy to them. Doesn't make much sense.

Also, many Christians don't have problems with evolution.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
......that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth." -Barak Obama, Audacity of Hope.
Click to expand...

Trolling as usual?

You do realize that Obama accepts evolution?

And I specifically stated Young Earth Creationists. Nothing I stated actually discusses one's belief in a Christian God. Just one's interpretation of the world's origin and how that contridicts one's lifestyle.

And I didn't vote for Obama.

Good job on epic fail. As usual.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
Uh...did you look at the website of this "private research group" that supposedly "commissioned this report"

www.centerforreason.com

lol
Click to expand...

Eh. The report is 3 years old anyways.

From an anti-abortion website:
Abortion Statistics

"Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.;

Catholic women account for 31.3%,

Jewish women account for 1.3%,

and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions.

18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical"."
 
obvious Child said:
So you support tyranny of the majority?

Just because the majority doesn't accept it doesn't make that lack of acceptance right.
Click to expand...

Yes but the solution to that problem is not the judicial activism of a liberal committee of public safety to bend the constitution, precedent and tradition to create social policy and law to suit libs.

Anyway tyranny of the majority has rarely been solved by giving power to a minority.
 
Wessexman said:
Yes but the solution to that problem is not the judicial activism of a liberal committee of public safety to bend the constitution, precedent and tradition to create social policy and law to suit libs.
Click to expand...

But that depends on how you define "bend." Btw, desegregation and the striking down of bans on interracial marriage, both where the public was against it were indeed what you state. Are you against those?

Just because we don't like it as a majority doesn't make our stance correct.
 
obvious Child said:
But that depends on how you define "bend." Btw, desegregation and the striking down of bans on interracial marriage, both where the public was against it were indeed what you state. Are you against those?
Click to expand...
Dunno, if it was done by bending the constitution then no.

Just because we don't like it as a majority doesn't make our stance correct.
Click to expand...
Yes but that is no excuse for judicial activism.
 
I wonder if his parents were American citizens when he was born in America.
I’d rather see Ron Paul lead the GOP.
 
obvious Child said:
Depends what level. On a state level sure. Didn't former Republican Governor of New York, George Pataki accept evolution?
Click to expand...

That is New York though, very different from the south.


obvious Child said:
Apparently, despite using countless products derived from its sciences on a daily basis. One particular one is how evolution predicts where gas, coal and oil deposits will be based on where specific forms of life existed in the past. Chevron and others use geologists trained in the theory of evolution to find these deposits. Yet evolution deniers use these sources of fuel yet deny the science that helps companies bring energy to them. Doesn't make much sense.

Also, many Christians don't have problems with evolution.
Click to expand...

That is what irks me a lot with my southern brethren. I love this place, I grew up here but they can't accept any form of evolution.
 
obvious Child said:
Eh. The report is 3 years old anyways.

From an anti-abortion website:
Abortion Statistics

"Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.;

Catholic women account for 31.3%,

Jewish women account for 1.3%,

and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions.

18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical"."
Click to expand...

So, if true, what that shows is that non-religious people are disproportionately more likely to have abortions while Christians are disproportionally less likely to do so.

peepnklown said:
I wonder if his parents were American citizens when he was born in America.
Click to expand...

Who cares?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom