If you nominate sanders, you are saying you want a republican to be president. Why would dems want that?
Ag,
Are you related to Vince Foster or one of the McDougals? You have a very unhealthy obsession with Secretary Clinton.
A
ag-man
Guest
A
ag-man
Guest
As NM pointed out in a previous post, Clinton has been in the spotlight for many years. Do you think with all the corruption in her public and private life, a person would have no reason to ADAMANTLY proclaim that this women does not need to lead this country.
C'MON MAN, have you had your head stuck in the sand the last 30 years? It is an embarrassment to the Democratic party and the United States of America that this women not only is running for president, but is the frontrunner for the Dems.
My grandpa and grandma, very staunch democrats, would be rolling in their graves if they knew their party had came to this lowly state.
A
ag-man
Guest
You are totally correct. Trump and Carson have no business leading the Republican field either. There are better choices out there. However, I would much rather have either one of them than Hillary. None of them are good politicians but at least we could believe a word coming out of Trump or Carsons mouth.
It is really a sad testament as to where we are in politics today.
Because Bernie wouldn't have the full support of the party and its financial resources - a must for winning office. He won't set up a SuperPAC, which at this point is something you just have to do.
It's a big reason why Carson and Trump would be terrible candidates as well
I can't believe I'm saying this, but yes, I would vote for Donald Trump 100 times before I would vote for Ben Carson.
Clinton is a lot more prepared to be president than those two. Carson, especially, appears totally unprepared to talk about a number of major issues facing the country.
Carson is the most terrifying candidate in either party because he has no grasp of the world he would be running as President. Laws, economics, foreign policy - you name it, he doesn't have a good understanding of it. I may not want Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders to be President, but I don't feel that way about them. They just have different answers and viewpoints than I do.
Ag I don't believe you have told me what Hillary has been convicted of that tells us she is corrupt. The personal stuff was on Bill, not her. She chose to stick with him as have MANY women that are NOT in politics and MANY of them stick with a guys that not only cheat on them but beat them too.
A
ag-man
Guest
I will not argue Hillary has more experience in politics. I also still stand by my previous comment. None of the 3 need to be president.
A
ag-man
Guest
Actually, the fact that Bill cheated on her is of no interest to me and I was not referring to any of that. My comments were about her personal business dealings and public political life. If you feel she is pure as the driven snow, that is your right. Using your barometer, Bush, Cheney and Hitler for that matter must be stand up guys. After all, they haven't been convicted.http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/
Yep, pure as the driven snow
A
ag-man
Guest
Actually, there is nothing really terrifying about Carsons candidacy, he will not get the Republican nomination, so Carson, even though he is a great guy, will never be president. His lack of political savvy will start his numbers down.
Trump will do something stupid and implode, and my guess, it might be on purpose. The man does not want to be president.
I predict Rubio or Cruz
Rubio and Cruz are up there in terms of likelihood. Rubio is a clear #1 in the betting markets now.
He is the best R candidate in terms of potential and the big money is going to go from Jeb to him.
You can't even compare those people to Hillary Clinton when she has been investigated for 30 years and nothing has come of it. If there was any fire to go with the smoke in her case I'd say somebody would have found something to get her for.Actually, the fact that Bill cheated on her is of no interest to me and I was not referring to any of that. My comments were about her personal business dealings and public political life. If you feel she is pure as the driven snow, that is your right. Using your barometer, Bush, Cheney and Hitler for that matter must be stand up guys. After all, they haven't been convicted.http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/
Yep, pure as the driven snow
A
ag-man
Guest
The sad thing about all of this is Hillary will NEVER stand a chance with the right when she is elected. It will be the same thing as it was with President Obama. It doesn't matter what they do it will be attacked continually.
Hanny, I am going to piggy back off what you say. I agree completely, but I will go a step further in saying that I think they have probably already have a draft of articles of impeachment in a drawer somewhere, for January 21, 2017.
I think Cruz would be a terrifying president. The guy thinks the government should do nothing. He thinks shutting down the government is a viable negotiating strategy. In fact, I think he likes the idea of it. He thinks compromise is weakness. He is the most hated senator in a very long time from both sides of the aisle. I think he would try and cut government spending down the the bare bone, consequences be damned.
I actually agree with this. Rubio was slick last night, but he's not always been that way. In fact, he's publicly been rather clumsy several times. Also, he's going up against a lot of C- to F candidates. May I remind people that the Donald and Ben flipping Carson are currently commanding the republican field?
Hillary has been beaten once in her political life by the guy who was the best example of "right guy, right time" in a really, really long time. There is no one that reminds me of Obama in 08 in this field on either side.
What? Don't you know we only hate Obama because he's black?
A black man who does not know his place. You are fine with a black man who says "Here take back your money. I don't need it to run this government. God will provide for the government. Thank you for seeing fit to let a black man out of cotton fields to see this big white house."
That tweet is amazing unintentional comedy considering Noah's ark is a totally ridiculous story that never ever happened.
Yet I'm sure he just gained 3 points in Iowa with that tweet. Evangelicals eat that crap up.
Carson is clearly the successor to Huckabee and Santorum as the religious conservative who is going to win/almost win Iowa.
A
ag-man
Guest
Since you and cow are obviously very intelligent and hold scientific evidence in the highest esteem, can you actually PROVE Noah's ark never existed?
You would be doing the general populace a great service. I mean, millions of Christians wasting their Sunday morning going to church to hear Gods word, when they could just learn all they need to know here, on mosports.
Think of the fuel savings alone, cow, it could reverse global warming.
It's impossible for that to have happened in the time that humanity existed on earth for a number of reasons:
- the boat it would take to hold all of the animals on earth is absurdly large - it's not like there are just 1,000 types of animals - it would have taken forever to build
- individual pairs of animals would not reproduce in many cases and some would have to be killed by others once they were released, leading to a mass extinction that never happened in the time humanity has existed
- There is zero geological evidence of a worldwide flood occurring in the time humanity existed
- Fresh water fish would have been wiped out yet they were never wiped out by an extinction event
- Animals exist all over the world - you'd have to sail to every place on earth and traverse every single continent. No human being could do that in even 10,000 years - Noah didn't live that long
- You wouldn't just have to get the animals, you would have to get the plants, too, because they are diverse all over the world and have evolved just like animals
Noah's Ark is a fable. It's a very good example why a literal reading of the Old Testament is misguided. Noah's Ark is a folk tale the Jews stole. There's written evidence of where it came from.
A
ag-man
Guest
The burden of proof is always on the party with the positive assertion (saying something happened), not the opposite.
You can prove it is impossible for it to have occurred, yes, and you can prove they stole the story from Babylon based upon written history. They told basically the same story about their lightning God. We can prove the Jews went to Babylon through their archaeological record.
This is the tough thing about defending the Old Testament on a word for word basis when it describes historical events - there's a lot of things that did not occur as was written down. For example, carbon dating shows Jericho was already destroyed at the time when Joshua supposedly walked around its walls.
Especially something that should have left a tremendous amount of physical evidence. It's one thing when we're talking about a miracle like bringing Lazarus back from the dead - that's really, really hard to tell either way. Same with water into wine. But, a global flood? That would leave a very clear geological record and also have a profound effect on the flora and fauna of the world.
heh, I hope no one gets you the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for Christmas
Seriously, the core of Christianity is the New Testament, which doesn't require you to defend all of the creation and history stories the Jews guessed at in the middle of the first and second millenia BC
A
ag-man
Guest
If Jesus has the power to bring people back from the dead, i suppose his father could probably do whatever with the earth and its flora and fauna.
Boils down to rather you believe in God or not.
I cannot prove the ark existed.
You cannot prove it didnt.
Similar threads
