Well, I found it interesting that Olivier5 said it here too. Then I heard it on that podcast. There are some articles being written about it asking the question.
I hope it doesn't become a narrative, not this election cycle.
Well, the conservative is wrong on that. I'm an old catholic turned atheist fifty years ago who was raised around Jews (Hollywood back then was a mix of Jewish and Irish) and, as a grownup later, knew many who had varieties of intensity about their religion, as did we catholics, and we catholics could be rip roaring back in the day or highly doubting, or somewhere in between, getalong, getalong.
Meantime, atheist is a fear word these days, and that in itself is plain old silly, thank you so much, Mr. Dawkins. No matter what Frank ever said on a2k, I take the latin to mean 'sans theism', despite what some noted author said in the 1700s.
I agree with you, maporsche, that this is not a good time to roll this out, but it would show up anyway, sort of like Kenya.
In the caucuses a minority can control the vote. If he can do as well in the primaries where everyone can vote rather than collage age kids looking for a free education than Ill vote for him as president. If he can win the nomination.
Walsingham alleged that Mary Stuart had plotted against Elizabeth's life, so yes, she was executed. Elizabeth a monarch, which is not exactly the same as a politician. Now, what the hell does that have to do with her sensible attitude toward the religious confessions of her subjects? Are you alleging that the execution of Mary Stuart invalidates everything else that Elizabeth ever said? Do you allege that Elizabeth had no right to execute someone plotting against her life? Do you really know anything about the lives of Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart?
I want religion and atheism out of politics. Wont happen for a bunch of years. These things just have emotional appeal that dont belong in politics.
0 Replies
RABEL222
1
Wed 6 Apr, 2016 05:21 pm
@Setanta,
I am comparing her to our politicians of today. Most of them would be more than happy to physically behead their opponets rather than do it in the media. Sorry I dident make myself clear.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Wed 6 Apr, 2016 05:38 pm
Perhaps you should compare candles to electric lights. Perhaps you should compare horses to automobiles. Perhaps you should restrict your comments to things about which you are reasonably well informed.
She did have the right to execute her, but, Mary Stuart was provoked. Didn't she come to her cousin because she got herself in messes due to the men in her life and Elizabeth imprisoner her instead of helping her? England at that time was terrible to the Scotts, Edward 1 was diabolical. Then again I get my history from Historical fiction. Absolutely love those stories of men in kilts...
Edward I died in 1 307, almost 280 years before Mary Stuart was executed. He can hardly be considered a factor in anyone's calculations. Elizabeth had lived in fear of her life since she was a child. Philip II, King of Spain, and widower of Elizabeth's half-sister Mary, insisted that she marry him. In 1588, he would send a huge fleet to the Netherlands, which were in revolt against Spanish rule. One of their tasks was to invade England, which Philip claimed by right of his marriage to Mary Tudor. He, along with most Catholics, considered Elizabeth to be a bastard and a heretic.
Mary Stuart was Elizabeth's nearest living relative. If Elizabeth died for any reason while Mary lived, Mary would have become the Queen of England. Mary was also a Catholic. She was also a very foolish woman, the opposite of Elizabeth. Some historians and biographers have alleged that Mary's part in the Babbington Letter was forged. I doubt that. Walsingham certainly forged numerous letters on behalf of Elizabeth, mostly poison letters attempting to divide the Irish. But Mary Stuart learned to read and write in France as a child, and her style of writing was too unique among the people of Britain to have been easily forged. She had done many foolish things in her life, not the least of which had been to marry Lord Darnley. She soon discovered that he was vain, foolish and unreliable. They became estranged. She had a son by him. Darnley was a direct descendant of James II, and therefore had a claim on the throne of Scotland. Mary was the daughter of James V, who was the son of Margaret Tudor, the sister of Henry VIII. They had a son, who would one day succeed Elizabeth on the throne of England. Darnley was murdered less than a year after his son was born, and richly he deserved it. Political life in Scotland was hard.
Mary fled to England because her very life was in jeopardy. She'd have been better advised to have gone to France, but you couldn't just whistle up a cruise ship. She ended up in England because she really had no choice. She did not go to England for Elizabeth's protection, and she really was an unwelcome guest. It's surprising that she lasted for 18 years there without being murdered or executed.
Hillary Clinton deployed a new attack against Bernie Sanders on Monday that appeared not to be rooted in fact, claiming that the 74-year-old senator’s home state of Vermont is the source of many of the guns used in New York crime.
“She said that it’s going to be coming out in the very near future that many of the catastrophes that have taken human lives in the State of New York have been the product of guns coming over the border from Vermont,” New York State Sen. Tim Kennedy told Capital New York.
Clinton spoke to Democratic lawmakers, lobbyists and other important people during a closed-door meeting in Albany.
Special: Dr. Oz Shocked After Barb Walters Reveals Her Anti-Wrinkle Secret
“That’s the first I heard it,” Kennedy said of Clinton’s connection. “I think it caught everybody’s attention and we’re looking forward to learning more about it.”
It was an obvious ploy: tie Sanders to his home state’s relatively loose gun control laws. It’s a continuation of Clinton’s strategy of painting Sanders as soft on gun control — the one issue on which she can claim to be more progressive than her competitor.
But data compiled by the federal government shows that less than one percent of the guns recovered in New York were initially purchased in Vermont, which borders the Empire State on the northeast.
Special: Barbara Walters Refuses to Return to the View, Due to This Secret
In 2014, out of 7,686 firearms recovered and traced in New York, only 55 were first purchased in Vermont, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
That’s compared to 371 that came from Pennsylvania, 395 that were sourced to Virginia, and 386 from Georgia, government data shows.
In 2013, 61 of the 8,539 guns recovered and traced in New York came from Vermont. That’s compared to 423 that came from Virginia.
A New York Times investigation published last year also found that most of the guns recovered in New York were purchased in southern states. They’re brought to New York via I-95, which has been dubbed “The Iron Pipeline.”
ATF data does show that more guns from Vermont are recovered in other states than are other states’ guns recovered in Vermont. But the numbers are small.
In 2014, 133 guns purchased in Vermont were recovered in other states. Only 42 guns sourced from other states were recovered in Vermont that same year.
Those numbers would not explain the sizable level of gun crime in New York, and it is unclear what data Clinton was relying on to support her claim to the contrary.
Assemblyman Kevin Cahill had the same interpretation of Clinton’s remarks as did Kennedy, the state senator.
“She said that many of the guns that are found to be involved in crimes in this state are found to have their origins in Vermont,” Cahill told Capital New York. “The implication was just that many of the guns that are involved in crimes in this state come from Vermont. That was the implication I got.”
In attacking Sanders on the gun issue, the former New York Senator has cited his support — as a congressman — of a 2005 bill that shielded gun manufacturers and retailers from lawsuits. She has also pointed to his support of bills allowing gun owners to carry firearms in national parks and in carry-on luggage on Amtrak trains. President Obama signed both bills into law.
Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Sanders has since reversed his stance on the lawsuit measure. He also touts a D- rating with the National Rifle Association as evidence that he is tough on gun control.
Clinton’s new claims about Vermont’s place in the illegal gun trade comes as Sanders sneaks within striking distance in New York. A 20-plus point lead that Clinton enjoyed just weeks ago has been halved, according to recent polls.
The two candidates will debate in Brooklyn on April 14. The primary follows on April 19.
Update:
Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook repeated this new line of attack during an interview on CNN early Tuesday.
“I don’t think Senator Sanders is being sincere here in New York, which is facing serious problems with guns being trafficked from Vermont and other states,” he said.
I am not going to pretend to you that I am going to read all that in your posts, I'll take your word for it. I merely brought up Edward 1 as an example of the barbarity and oppression I read about in my books I freely admitted was fiction. It was meant just to be a light hearted post not meant to be taken literally. I am not sure I buy that about the kilts being invented by the English as the tartans colors were represented of the clan colors, but whatever.
Believe what you like, ignorance is a great comfort. I said kilts as we know them.
The comment by Rabel to the effect that candidates would love to see their opponents beheaded was over the top. It deserves contempt.
0 Replies
izzythepush
1
Thu 7 Apr, 2016 01:29 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
Absolutely love those stories of men in kilts...
You should love this then.
0 Replies
Olivier5
0
Thu 7 Apr, 2016 02:42 am
@ossobuco,
Sanders' irreligiosity will be brought up if he keeps up winning states. I don't see it as particularly risky for him. Maybe Hillary could make some hay with that but I doubt it. It would look like SHE brings up religion in a political debate. And if Trump ever tries to bring it up in the general election, Sanders (assuming he gets nominated) would easily fend him off: all he needs to do is show how strongly his pro-poor discourse resonates with the gospels, and how clueless Trump is on religion.
I would welcome a public debate on all the lies spread by the religious right; their hatred of the poor and idolization of the rich included.
Ask yourself: Which one of Trump or Sanders is more "christlike"?
0 Replies
Olivier5
0
Thu 7 Apr, 2016 02:46 am
@RABEL222,
Quote:
collage
It's actually spelt "college". Collage is something else, more surreal... :-)
Supporters of Mr. Sanders decry the processes of the Democratic Party, complain about the super-delegates, and claim the convention is rigged. Apparently, though, it is acceptable for those registered as Independents to change their registration in order to vote for Mr. Sanders. Morality is such a flexible thing.