Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone been struck by the irony of organizations like CAIR demanding that Carson should withdraw from seeking the nomination because of his statement about excluding Muslims since that is contrary to the constitution?

Of course, they happily ignore the fact that Carson was exercising his first amendment right to express his opinion.

The way one resolves this is for Carson to continue to seek the nomination if he so wishes and those who find his viewpoint objectionable just don't vote for him.

It is the way things work in a democracy.

It's rather interesting to see conservatives embracing identity politics so wholeheartedly. Once the primary is over, you will say "it's the economy, ,stupid" and accuse the Demos of "divisiveness".

Just remember, for the record, which party made this election about Mexicans and blacks and Muslims and gays.

Since you quoted what I said, I assume you are addressing me. It will amuse those who know me to find I am being called conservative. I am pro gay marriage, pro-choice, against capital punishment, etc. I am also against amnesty for illegals and definitely against a pathway to citizenship. I also think affirmative action should be based on socio-economic factors and not race.

No, in fact I am leaving the left as they are destroying this country by lacking any common sense or critical thinking skills!

I'm seriously considering leaving the left too. Our open-door immigration policies have added nothing positive to this nation. And now we've developed such a fear of insulting anyone that we continue to put our national safety at risk. Cue the insults, DCUM, but this life long liberal will probably hold her nose and vote R in the next election. And I'm not alone.

+1

I'm done.

Anonymous wrote:Anthony Weiner was merely exercising his First Amendment right to sext photos of his junk. Were you okay with that as well? What about Jorge Ramos and the guarantee of Freedom of the Press? No doubt you were calling for his deportation or worse.

Actually, I was fine with both instances you cited.

Weiner could stay in office if he so wished until such time he was voted out.

Ramos was entitled to express his views and his questions though in that particular setting he did not have the right to ask questions unless he was called on to do so. When he insisted on doing so, he was escorted out which was also appropriate.

The difference is that although I lean liberal, I am consistent in my positions - at least I try to be. So with regard to Carson, he was wrong in excluding anyone on based on religion but by the same token, he also has the right to continue to seek the nomination and the voters will decide whether he deserves the nomination. CAIR and anyone else can urge people not to vote for Carson. I certainly would not vote for him but that is more because he is not qualified to be president base on his experience.

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone been struck by the irony of organizations like CAIR demanding that Carson should withdraw from seeking the nomination because of his statement about excluding Muslims since that is contrary to the constitution?

Of course, they happily ignore the fact that Carson was exercising his first amendment right to express his opinion.

The way one resolves this is for Carson to continue to seek the nomination if he so wishes and those who find his viewpoint objectionable just don't vote for him.

It is the way things work in a democracy.

It's rather interesting to see conservatives embracing identity politics so wholeheartedly. Once the primary is over, you will say "it's the economy, ,stupid" and accuse the Demos of "divisiveness".

Just remember, for the record, which party made this election about Mexicans and blacks and Muslims and gays.

Anthony Weiner was merely exercising his First Amendment right to sext photos of his junk. Were you okay with that as well? What about Jorge Ramos and the guarantee of Freedom of the Press? No doubt you were calling for his deportation or worse.

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone been struck by the irony of organizations like CAIR demanding that Carson should withdraw from seeking the nomination because of his statement about excluding Muslims since that is contrary to the constitution?

Of course, they happily ignore the fact that Carson was exercising his first amendment right to express his opinion.

The way one resolves this is for Carson to continue to seek the nomination if he so wishes and those who find his viewpoint objectionable just don't vote for him.

It is the way things work in a democracy.

Carson's position is that if your beliefs are inconsistent with the Constitution, you should not be President. Carson's belief that there should be a religious test in order to be President is inconsistent with the Constitution. Therefore, Carson is ineligible to be President based on his own criteria. I can't speak for CAIR, but I think Carson should withdraw in order to show his commitment to his own beliefs. But, in lieu of his withdrawing, I am quite happy to see Carson get stomped in the primary. He has already fallen behind Fiorina.

Has anyone been struck by the irony of organizations like CAIR demanding that Carson should withdraw from seeking the nomination because of his statement about excluding Muslims since that is contrary to the constitution?

Of course, they happily ignore the fact that Carson was exercising his first amendment right to express his opinion.

The way one resolves this is for Carson to continue to seek the nomination if he so wishes and those who find his viewpoint objectionable just don't vote for him.

It is the way things work in a democracy.

Anonymous wrote:and why Jeff, do you need to label anyone and everyone who does not agree with you narrow views a bigot, racist, ignorant, unintelligent etc....that is not being very "PC" you know!

When a poster makes a bigoted statement and even says, "If that makes me a racist, so be it", it is appropriate to call them a bigot. Such posters are quite comfortable with their prejudice. Why are you objecting? I assume the fact that it is "not PC" doesn't bother you either because you are probably proud to demonstrate that you are not PC.

What would you say about people who wrote about other religions the way Islam is being written about here?

Here is a great statement that I came across today:

"It is very important to remember, however, that there are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and to paint them with a single philosophical brush is just as absurd as trying to characterize the diverse thinking of billions of Christians around the world."

That was written by Ben Carson in 2012, before he entered the hate Olympics known as the Republican Primary.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[b]

Anonymous wrote:I personally would not want my daughter or any other little girl seeing a First Lady covered head to toe in black cloth with only a small slit for their eyes.
As women in this country, we have come way too far for that. I also do not want my gay friends and family to find themselves again on the outskirts of society after the recent Supreme Court decision. Islam is not compatible with our constitution and our freedoms. I have no interest in shariah law becoming accepted anywhere in this country. I also find it terribly disturbing that liberal society thinks it is OK to discriminate against women and gays as long as you are Muslim. I am not saying all Muslims are bad people, certainly there are many more good Muslims than bad. But the basis of the religion is anti-woman and anti-gay and I am not OK with that. How anyone can deny the obvious is very disturbing.

+ 1,0000-When in Rome......I doubt Iran or any other Middle Eastern country would let a Jew, or a gay person become their president-the Muslim culture is NOT consistent with western values, and it never will be. That is why having a Muslim president would be a disaster for this country. It is sort of a catch 22-Muslim ideology/president not consistent with constitution-restricting a Muslim from becoming president based on religion is unconstitutional. Do we "hurt" the Muslim candidate by violating the constitution or hurt the entire nation and population in it (well maybe not the American Muslims) by having one in office? and I think having any Muslim in office in this country be it an extremist or one who barely practices, would be a disaster. We need to move forward, not regress back into the dark ages. It just would not work!

The U.S. would not elect an openly gay president either. In fact, every presidential candidate has been a conventional family man with a requisite schedule of church visits. America wouldn't elect an openly atheist president.

I agree with first poster. I'd gladly vote for a gay president but not a Muslim. The religion tolerates & even supports too many ideals that are contrary to what the nation stands for. Anyone associated with any organization that routinely suppresses the rights of woman has no business being involved in our govt in any way. If that makes me a racist, so be it. I voted for Obama twice btw.

Your position makes you a bigot, but that is likely excused by your ignorance. The Republican Party routinely suppresses the rights of women. Do you support a prohibition on Republicans being president?


No, in fact I am leaving the left as they are destroying this country by lacking any common sense or critical thinking skills!

I'm seriously considering leaving the left too. Our open-door immigration policies have added nothing positive to this nation. And now we've developed such a fear of insulting anyone that we continue to put our national safety at risk. Cue the insults, DCUM, but this life long liberal will probably hold her nose and vote R in the next election. And I'm not alone.

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous]Would you people be OK with putting an Orthodox Jew in the White House? Is that OK?
Can you imagine if one of the presidential candidates said they wouldn't want a Jewish president in the White House? Would it be Ok to say that? Would there then be discussion of how people wouldn't want a President to have large sideburns or beards and strange hats in the White House?

Jews are westernized, civilized and do not want to murder an entire population for not agreeing with their beliefs-they are pretty much a peaceful people.