And why should lack of belief in a sometimes jolly, sometimes ferocious SantaGod make someone less qualified for any office (apart, say, from that of minister/priest/whatever)?

Comment by bernard quatermass — November 28, 2007 @

Absolutely right, bud. I just thought ya’ll preferred athiest since your fellow libs used it in all their posts. You are the first to object. Libs can generally be counted upon to attack a typo, but I guess it’s only when the poster disagrees with them.

I have to agree with you about the unfitness of anyone who believes in “a sometimes jolly, sometimes ferocious SantaGod.” Generally, though, all other things being equal, I would prefer a representative who has faith in the one true God over one who believes everything came from nothing. ;)

It’s “atheist,” not “athiest.”

And why should lack of belief in a sometimes jolly, sometimes ferocious SantaGod make someone less qualified for any office (apart, say, from that of minister/priest/whatever)?

Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 27, 2007 @ 9:58 pm

Sorry, bud, I didn’t realize “Hillary” and “despise” were synonymous. How about if I change it to Barack. See if he’ll campaign on the gay, athiest, drug user ticket. Better? ;)

Comment by dbadass — November 27, 2007 @ 9:52 pm

Right, bud. The majority has no problem with gays, athiests and drug users running the country. That’s why there are so many candidates claiming those traits. Just because I wouldn’t vote for those people doesn’t mean I despise them, bud. It just means I don’t think they would be the best choice for the office. I wouldn’t vote for Kucinich. He’s a bit of a nut. But I don’t despise him. See, it’s possible to recognize a person’s limitations without hating him. ;)

Comment by upright left — November 27, 2007 @ 9:48 pm

Actually, you did, using the standard wingtard code word Hillary. Nice try, but your lies are as transparent as your ignorant bigotry.

Comment by MapleStreet — November 27, 2007 @ 9:39 pm

Rather like all the similarities between progs and osama’s last message. ;)

Comment by dbadass — November 27, 2007 @ 9:31 pm

Despise? Reread my post, bud. I didn’t say that I despise anyone. You wouldn’t be attributing your feelings to others, would ya? ;)

As one overzealous fundie to another, it seems like the neocons and Muslims should have a lot in common to talk about.

I wonder about those people you knowand care about, family, extended family, friends…. Some of them have a lot of personal issues. A bunch have struggled with alcohol and other addictions. Some have anger issues, depressions, demons. More than a few are adulterers Most have weird sexual fantasy. Some are gay. I wonder if they trust you and think that you are family. I wonder how you feel knowing you despise you own. Must be weird

Comment by patooty — November 27, 2007 @ 7:42 pm

Gay athiest drug users, that’s the ticket! See if you can get Hillary to champion that. I’m sure the majority of Americans will be right with ya on that. Yep, progs are good people all right. ;)

Romney’s a racist. Most Republicans are. But I’m not going to take anything that prevaricator says at face value.

1. Romney is shown to be what he is; and

2. Fox New’s Giuliani bias is shown again.

Heh. Can you see your brain-waves? [Radio Frequency/Electro Magnetic Radiation] or the lines of magnetic flux around the earth?
BTW I’m not superstitious.

IT WAS TOTALLY INVISIBLE….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptos

But because we don’t conjure up “Magical Golden Plates”, and “Ghosts” and “only Believers will go to heaven” way of thinking, the Believers think we are evil or something. Well, sorry, if you believe that then, guess what? You are the evil one, go figure.

I don’t like voting for anyone who believes in Magical Invisible Faeries in the Sky, it’s shows that they are not critical thinkers and are superstitious, which is bad.

Example = Bush thinks (or fakes) that God told him to attack Iraq.

How much sense does that make?

Atheists for President.

Buck Fush