It has been suggested that non-believers are far more likely to support Barack Obama because it's human nature to have a need to believe in something. So not "God" but God-like in many cases.
"It has been suggested that non-believers are far more likely to support Barack Obama because it's human nature to have a need to believe in something. So not "God" but God-like in many cases. "
Here's Obama's own words when questioned about this.
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.
Only with regards to the economy, oration skills and an ability to create a scapegoat to "go after". In Obama's case, the "rich" and in Hitler's case "Jews".
Both used a depressed economy and their ability at public speaking to ignite the masses against a perceived enemy and both by all accounts were very effective in that regard.
Pages
Save it.
I never even suggested anything remotely close to that. I was commenting on the oration skills.
Forgive me for expecting to find some maturity on a debate board. Well, I've found some anyway.
>>Just because someone disagrees with you they aren't stupid or weak.<<
That's a false statement. They very well may be.
"but rather the comparison of the amount of followers they have."
So, since Obama and McCain are so close in the polls - does that mean that using your thinking, McCain can be compared to Hitler??
"I never even suggested anything remotely close to that."
Actually, you did.
"It has been suggested that non-believers are far more likely to support Barack Obama because it's human nature to have a need to believe in something. So not "God" but God-like in many cases. "
Suggested by whom??
Here's Obama's own words when questioned about this.
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.
Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07
Thanks cl-weberns0 for understanding what I actually said an not trying to turn it into something that I did not say.
It's quite upstanding of you!
Only with regards to the economy, oration skills and an ability to create a scapegoat to "go after". In Obama's case, the "rich" and in Hitler's case "Jews".
Both used a depressed economy and their ability at public speaking to ignite the masses against a perceived enemy and both by all accounts were very effective in that regard.
Pages