Home
2012
Election Results
Election Info
Weblog
Wiki
Search
Email
Site Info
Store
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
Did you miss your
activation email?
May 24, 2013, 07:17:14 pm
News:
Cast your ballot in the 2012 Mock Election!
Atlas Forum
Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
Congressional Elections
(Moderator:
Joe Republic
)
Atheism not a liability in CA-13
« previous
next »
Pages:
[
1
]
Author
Topic: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 (Read 2474 times)
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
YaBB God
Posts: 29160
Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36
Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
on:
February 15, 2009, 01:24:33 am »
Pete Stark's showing in 2008: 76.5-23.5
His previous best showing over his previous 18 elections to Congress: 74.9-25.1
Logged
© Tweed the Younger
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
Posts: 34294
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #1 on:
February 15, 2009, 01:31:32 am »
from the website of Stark's 2008 challenger:
The War on Drugs: I am for the decriminalization of marijuana. Smoking is bad, but so is eating a lot of greasy food. We still live in a free country where you can choose to eat bacon or not to eat bacon.
he also seems to support mass deportation and FairTax... weird dude
Logged
"If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state"
registered somewhere in Georgia AFE
Senator Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
Posts: 12180
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #2 on:
February 15, 2009, 03:20:19 am »
I am so glad this guy was the representative for my high school. If only he represented my whole city.....( not like I have anything against Jerry Mcnerney but I too want an atheist rep)
Logged
Fmr. Emperor PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
Posts: 21523
Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: -4.35
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #3 on:
February 15, 2009, 03:35:05 am »
Quote from: sbane on February 15, 2009, 03:20:19 am
I am so glad this guy was the representative for my high school. If only he represented my whole city.....( not like I have anything against Jerry Mcnerney but I too want an atheist rep)
Yeah, I'd love an Atheist Representative as well.
Logged
Farewell to a legend:
r
(x,y) != <-y,x>
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=103836.0
Tender Branson
Van Der Blub
YaBB God
Posts: 3488
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #4 on:
February 15, 2009, 04:01:57 am »
Quote from: Senator PiT on February 15, 2009, 03:35:05 am
Quote from: sbane on February 15, 2009, 03:20:19 am
I am so glad this guy was the representative for my high school. If only he represented my whole city.....( not like I have anything against Jerry Mcnerney but I too want an atheist rep)
Yeah, I'd love an Atheist Representative as well.
Why? If a person's beliefs shouldn't be an issue, then why the drooling over an atheist congresman? Wow, an atheist. That's so enlightened . . . and cultured, too! I don't think anyone in the history of the world has ever dared to defy the masses and to choose not to believe in God. I mean, that is really, just ... wow. Pete Stark, you brave, brave man.
Logged
All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.
Eraserhead
YaBB God
Posts: 36286
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #5 on:
February 15, 2009, 05:23:49 am »
Pete Stark is an FF. This is good to see.
Logged
Ronnie
YaBB God
Posts: 4833
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #6 on:
February 15, 2009, 06:15:25 pm »
I hate to say this, but I think I agree with Vander Blubb here. What's so special about not believing in God?
Logged
Independent thinker
Fiscally Conservative
Socially Libertarian
Reasonable on foreign policy issues --
"Speak softly and carry a big stick"
I left.
Franzl
YaBB God
Posts: 20473
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #7 on:
February 15, 2009, 06:16:27 pm »
Quote from: Ronnie on February 15, 2009, 06:15:25 pm
I hate to say this, but I think I agree with Vander Blubb here. What's so special about not believing in God?
It's just nice to see a tolerant electorate that's willing to vote for an atheist, nothing more. It's not that I'd necessarily rather have on in office, I seriously don't care.
Logged
I've lost interest in the forum and I've wasted far too much time here.
To those I consider forum friends, it's been nice and I hope to keep contact in some form.
Cheers.
Ronnie
YaBB God
Posts: 4833
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #8 on:
February 15, 2009, 06:18:49 pm »
Quote from: Attorney General Franzl on February 15, 2009, 06:16:27 pm
Quote from: Ronnie on February 15, 2009, 06:15:25 pm
I hate to say this, but I think I agree with Vander Blubb here. What's so special about not believing in God?
It's just nice to see a tolerant electorate that's willing to vote for an atheist, nothing more. It's not that I'd necessarily rather have on in office, I seriously don't care.
I seriously don't care about a politician's religion, as long as their political stances are similar to mine. But to see people say, "I'd love an Atheist Representative" just for the hell of it doesn't make much sense to me.
Logged
Independent thinker
Fiscally Conservative
Socially Libertarian
Reasonable on foreign policy issues --
"Speak softly and carry a big stick"
Holmes
YaBB God
Posts: 6521
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #9 on:
February 15, 2009, 06:21:47 pm »
Quote from: Ronnie on February 15, 2009, 06:18:49 pm
Quote from: Attorney General Franzl on February 15, 2009, 06:16:27 pm
Quote from: Ronnie on February 15, 2009, 06:15:25 pm
I hate to say this, but I think I agree with Vander Blubb here. What's so special about not believing in God?
It's just nice to see a tolerant electorate that's willing to vote for an atheist, nothing more. It's not that I'd necessarily rather have on in office, I seriously don't care.
I seriously don't care about a politician's religion, as long as their political stances are similar to mine. But to see people say, "I'd love an Atheist Representative" just for the hell of it doesn't make much sense to me.
I think you should be frustrated at the people who only vote for people who believe in God instead.
Logged
Ronnie
YaBB God
Posts: 4833
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #10 on:
February 15, 2009, 06:23:29 pm »
Quote from: Holmes on February 15, 2009, 06:21:47 pm
Quote from: Ronnie on February 15, 2009, 06:18:49 pm
Quote from: Attorney General Franzl on February 15, 2009, 06:16:27 pm
Quote from: Ronnie on February 15, 2009, 06:15:25 pm
I hate to say this, but I think I agree with Vander Blubb here. What's so special about not believing in God?
It's just nice to see a tolerant electorate that's willing to vote for an atheist, nothing more. It's not that I'd necessarily rather have on in office, I seriously don't care.
I seriously don't care about a politician's religion, as long as their political stances are similar to mine. But to see people say, "I'd love an Atheist Representative" just for the hell of it doesn't make much sense to me.
I think you should be frustrated at the people who only vote for people who believe in God instead.
Uh, I'd say about 99% of politicians believe in God some way or another.
Logged
Independent thinker
Fiscally Conservative
Socially Libertarian
Reasonable on foreign policy issues --
"Speak softly and carry a big stick"
I left.
Franzl
YaBB God
Posts: 20473
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #11 on:
February 15, 2009, 06:24:15 pm »
Quote from: Ronnie on February 15, 2009, 06:23:29 pm
Quote from: Holmes on February 15, 2009, 06:21:47 pm
Quote from: Ronnie on February 15, 2009, 06:18:49 pm
Quote from: Attorney General Franzl on February 15, 2009, 06:16:27 pm
Quote from: Ronnie on February 15, 2009, 06:15:25 pm
I hate to say this, but I think I agree with Vander Blubb here. What's so special about not believing in God?
It's just nice to see a tolerant electorate that's willing to vote for an atheist, nothing more. It's not that I'd necessarily rather have on in office, I seriously don't care.
I seriously don't care about a politician's religion, as long as their political stances are similar to mine. But to see people say, "I'd love an Atheist Representative" just for the hell of it doesn't make much sense to me.
I think you should be frustrated at the people who only vote for people who believe in God instead.
Uh, I'd say about 99% of politicians believe in God some way or another.
or say so to get elected, because a clear majority of Americans would have a problem voting for an Atheist.
Logged
I've lost interest in the forum and I've wasted far too much time here.
To those I consider forum friends, it's been nice and I hope to keep contact in some form.
Cheers.
Lief
YaBB God
Posts: 27120
Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -6.54
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #12 on:
February 15, 2009, 06:35:10 pm »
I seriously doubt that 99% of American politicians truly believe in God/are religious. Something like 16% of the country is nonreligious, and that percentage is even higher among well-educated, affluent types who are disproportionately politicians.
Logged
Proud Member of the International Posters' Union
I left.
Franzl
YaBB God
Posts: 20473
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #13 on:
February 15, 2009, 06:36:11 pm »
And Ronnie, why aren't you upset with Southern Republicans that would never...ever...consider voting for a non-believer?
Logged
I've lost interest in the forum and I've wasted far too much time here.
To those I consider forum friends, it's been nice and I hope to keep contact in some form.
Cheers.
Ronnie
YaBB God
Posts: 4833
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #14 on:
February 15, 2009, 06:36:43 pm »
When did I say that I accept that?
Logged
Independent thinker
Fiscally Conservative
Socially Libertarian
Reasonable on foreign policy issues --
"Speak softly and carry a big stick"
Rob
Bob
YaBB God
Posts: 6343
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #15 on:
February 15, 2009, 10:27:39 pm »
Pete Stark is a hero of mine. He has the best voting record of anyone in Congress, imo.
Logged
Here’s what Sarah Palin represents: being a fat
fu
cking pig who pins “Country First” buttons on his man titties and chants “U-S-A! U-S-A!” at the top of his lungs while his kids live off credit cards and Saudis buy up all the mortgages in Kansas.
blagohair.com
unempprof
YaBB God
Posts: 2085
Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.70
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #16 on:
February 15, 2009, 10:58:29 pm »
Pete Stark is the man because of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsGaNR9dVPM
The right wing morons of course found his comments outrageous...
Logged
Healthcare is a right, not a moneymaking business
- Bernie Sanders
American Exceptionalism: The only industrialized nation in which health care is not a universal right, but gun ownership is.
Lief
YaBB God
Posts: 27120
Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -6.54
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #17 on:
February 15, 2009, 11:00:42 pm »
If we had an entire party worth of Pete Starks in Congress, this country would be a whole lot better.
Logged
Proud Member of the International Posters' Union
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
Posts: 49393
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #18 on:
February 15, 2009, 11:28:53 pm »
Quote from: unempprof on February 15, 2009, 10:58:29 pm
The right wing morons of course found his comments outrageous...
Being disingenuous usually offends us normals.
Logged
Quote from: Representative Wyodon on May 06, 2013, 04:31:05 pm
And you're a f
u
cking asshole. How about you try actually contributing something to a debate at some point, or are you too busy kissing Rick Santorum's ass?
Senator Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
Posts: 12180
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #19 on:
February 16, 2009, 01:00:43 am »
Quote from: Attorney General Franzl on February 15, 2009, 06:16:27 pm
Quote from: Ronnie on February 15, 2009, 06:15:25 pm
I hate to say this, but I think I agree with Vander Blubb here. What's so special about not believing in God?
It's just nice to see a tolerant electorate that's willing to vote for an atheist, nothing more. It's not that I'd necessarily rather have on in office, I seriously don't care.
^^^^
I am just happy that I lived close to a sane district where people are willing to elect an atheist. Like I said before I have no problems with Mcnerney but I am just saddened when I realize Pete Stark could never be my congressman just because of his religion or lack thereof.
Logged
blagohair.com
unempprof
YaBB God
Posts: 2085
Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.70
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #20 on:
February 16, 2009, 01:44:13 am »
Quote from: Keystone Phil on February 15, 2009, 11:28:53 pm
Quote from: unempprof on February 15, 2009, 10:58:29 pm
The right wing morons of course found his comments outrageous...
Being disingenuous usually offends us normals.
If Stark is disingenuous I wonder what that makes Bush and other republicans.
Logged
Healthcare is a right, not a moneymaking business
- Bernie Sanders
American Exceptionalism: The only industrialized nation in which health care is not a universal right, but gun ownership is.
Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
Posts: 8517
Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -5.22
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #21 on:
February 16, 2009, 02:04:14 am »
Quote from: unempprof on February 16, 2009, 01:44:13 am
Quote from: Keystone Phil on February 15, 2009, 11:28:53 pm
Quote from: unempprof on February 15, 2009, 10:58:29 pm
The right wing morons of course found his comments outrageous...
Being disingenuous usually offends us normals.
If Stark is disingenuous I wonder what that makes Bush and other republicans.
Outright liars.
Logged
Bob Findley
: "You're a real dyed-in-the-wool son-of-a-bitch. Anyone ever told you that?"
Steve Everett
: "Just close friends and family,"
Clint Eastwood's "True Crime", 1999.
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
Posts: 49393
Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13
«
Reply #22 on:
February 16, 2009, 11:49:18 am »
Quote from: unempprof on February 16, 2009, 01:44:13 am
Quote from: Keystone Phil on February 15, 2009, 11:28:53 pm
Quote from: unempprof on February 15, 2009, 10:58:29 pm
The right wing morons of course found his comments outrageous...
Being disingenuous usually offends us normals.
If Stark is disingenuous I wonder what that makes Bush and other republicans.
11:48 AM - I receive my healthy dose of talking points. Thank you. I can now start my day.
Logged
Quote from: Representative Wyodon on May 06, 2013, 04:31:05 pm
And you're a f
u
cking asshole. How about you try actually contributing something to a debate at some point, or are you too busy kissing Rick Santorum's ass?
Pages:
[
1
]
« previous
next »
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
-----------------------------
Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
-----------------------------
=> 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
===> 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
===> 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls
=> U.S. Presidential Election Results
===> 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Results
===> 2008 U.S. Presidential Election Results
===> 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results
===> 2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results
=> Presidential Election Trends
=> Election What-ifs?
===> Past Election What-ifs (US)
===> Alternative Elections
===> International What-ifs
-----------------------------
Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
-----------------------------
=> Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections
===> 2013 & Odd Year Gubernatorial Election Polls
===> 2014 Gubernatorial Election Polls
=> Congressional Elections
===> 2014 Senatorial Election Polls
=> International Elections
=> Election Predictions
-----------------------------
Questions and Answers
-----------------------------
=> Presidential Election Process
===> Electoral Reform
===> Polling
=> The Atlas
===> How To
-----------------------------
General Discussion
-----------------------------
=> Constitution and Law
=> Religion & Philosophy
=> History
===> Alternative History
-----------------------------
General Politics
-----------------------------
=> U.S. General Discussion
=> Political Geography & Demographics
=> International General Discussion
=> Economics
=> Individual Politics
=> Political Debate
===> Political Essays & Deliberation
===> Book Reviews and Discussion
-----------------------------
Election Archive
-----------------------------
=> 2012 Elections
===> 2012 Senatorial Election Polls
===> 2012 House Election Polls
===> 2012 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls
===> 2012 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
===> 2012 Gubernatorial Election Polls
=> 2010 Elections
===> 2010 House Election Polls
===> 2010 Senatorial Election Polls
===> 2010 Gubernatorial Election Polls
=> 2008 Elections
===> 2008 Senatorial Election Polls
===> 2008 Gubernatorial Election Polls
===> 2008 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
===> 2008 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
===> 2008 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls
=> 2004 U.S. Presidential Election
===> 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
===> 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Polls
=> 2006 Elections
===> 2006 Senatorial Election Polls
===> 2006 Gubernatorial Election Polls
-----------------------------
Forum Community
-----------------------------
=> Forum Community
===> Forum Community Election Match-ups
=> Election and History Games
===> Mock Parliment
===> Town Hall
===> Survivor
===> Interactive Timelines
=> Off-topic Board
-----------------------------
Atlas Fantasy Elections
-----------------------------
=> Atlas Fantasy Elections
===> Voting Booth
=> Atlas Fantasy Government
===> Constitutional Convention
===> Regional Governments
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
Login with username, password and session length
Powered by SMF 1.1.18
|
SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Loading...