|
Title: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ 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 Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: © tweed 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 Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: 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)
Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: Associate Justice PiT on February 15, 2009, 03:35:05 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. Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: Eraserhead on February 15, 2009, 05:23:49 AM Pete Stark is an FF. This is good to see.
Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: 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?
Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: Franzl on February 15, 2009, 06:16:27 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. Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: Ronnie on February 15, 2009, 06:18:49 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. Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: Holmes on February 15, 2009, 06:21:47 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. Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: Ronnie on February 15, 2009, 06:23:29 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. Uh, I'd say about 99% of politicians believe in God some way or another. Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: Franzl on February 15, 2009, 06:24:15 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. 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. Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: Lief 🗽 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.
Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: Franzl 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?
Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: Ronnie on February 15, 2009, 06:36:43 PM When did I say that I accept that?
Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: Rob 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.
Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: justfollowingtheelections 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... Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: Lief 🗽 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.
Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: Keystone Phil on February 15, 2009, 11:28:53 PM The right wing morons of course found his comments outrageous... Being disingenuous usually offends us normals. Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: Sbane on February 16, 2009, 01:00:43 AM 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. Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: justfollowingtheelections on February 16, 2009, 01:44:13 AM 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. Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: Landslide Lyndon on February 16, 2009, 02:04:14 AM 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. Title: Re: Atheism not a liability in CA-13 Post by: Keystone Phil on February 16, 2009, 11:49:18 AM 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. ;) |