Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I say they are.

No more than the donk party is being taken over by communists.

AZGrizFan wrote:No more than the donk party is being taken over by communists.

But that is not the question now is it? Can you honestly say you love the direction things have been heading for the last few years?

You wouldn't know it with all of the social issues being put on the back burner...see the failures of Perry, Santorum et al.

AZGrizFan wrote:No more than the donk party is being taken over by communists.

you are so full of shit you are brown.

polsongrizz wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:No more than the donk party is being taken over by communists.

But that is not the question now is it? Can you honestly say you love the direction things have been heading for the last few years?

I don't love the direction of EITHER party. But if the party was being "taken over" by churchers, Santorum or Perry would have been the runaway winners in the primaries. Me thinks conspiracy-theorist donks place WAY too much emphasis on the religous beliefs of candidates.

AZGrizFan wrote:

polsongrizz wrote: But that is not the question now is it? Can you honestly say you love the direction things have been heading for the last few years?

I don't love the direction of EITHER party. But if the party was being "taken over" by churchers, Santorum or Perry would have been the runaway winners in the primaries. Me thinks conspiracy-theorist donks place WAY too much emphasis on the religous beliefs of candidates.

I think conspiracy-theorist conks place WAY too much emphasis on the economic beliefs of candidates.

Vidav wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I don't love the direction of EITHER party. But if the party was being "taken over" by churchers, Santorum or Perry would have been the runaway winners in the primaries. Me thinks conspiracy-theorist donks place WAY too much emphasis on the religous beliefs of candidates.

I think conspiracy-theorist conks place WAY too much emphasis on the economic beliefs of candidates.

The spending trends are tangible and measurable. The religious slant, much less so.

They got taken over by the Churchers years ago, today we see them transitioning to being taken over by cultists.

A natural progression one could surmise.

It's a sexier story for the media to sensationalize the most left/right wings of the party. Talking about the other 75% of us is pretty boring.

Can we define "churcher"?
I go to church every Sunday, send my kids to Catholic school, but support same sex marriage, abhor wearing religion on your sleeve and freedom of Islam to practice without interference in America.
What exactly is a "churcher"?
Also a registered "Nonaffiliated" as of 2008 when "Indepentant" became a real political party in Maryland.

If objectivism is a religion, then yes.

The Republican Party is being ruined by the people who want it to be just like the Democratic Party, only a little less so.

andy7171 wrote:Can we define "churcher"?
I go to church every Sunday, send my kids to Catholic school, but support same sex marriage, abhor wearing religion on your sleeve and freedom of Islam to practice without interference in America.

You abhor freedom of Islam to practice without interference in America?

You tried to sneak that in there, didn't you?

I'm telling Mr. Infinity...you're about to be fatwad.

kalm wrote:If objectivism is a religion, then yes.

Did you mean Obstructionism?

polsongrizz wrote:I say they are.

Okey dokey, dback.

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:If objectivism is a religion, then yes.

Did you mean Obstructionism?

Both sides obstruct. But I think Republican politicians are more devout in their worship of Rands rational self interest and Daniel Boonism than Jesus.

kalm wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Did you mean Obstructionism?

Both sides obstruct. But I think Republican politicians are more devout in their worship of Rands rational self interest and Daniel Boonism than Jesus.

Daniel Boone was a man
Yes, a big man
With an eye like an eagle
And as tall as a mountain was he

Daniel Boone was a man
Yes, a big man
He was brave, he was fearless
And as tough as a mighty oak tree

From the coonskin cap on the top of ol' Dan
To the heel of his rawhide shoe
The rippin'-est, roarin'-est, fightin'-est man
The frontier ever knew

Daniel Boone was a man
Yes, a big man
And he fought for America
To make all Americans free

What a boon, what a doer
What a dream come-a-true-er was he




Maybe Wedgie was right.

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:
Both sides obstruct. But I think Republican politicians are more devout in their worship of Rands rational self interest and Daniel Boonism than Jesus.

Daniel Boone was a man
Yes, a big man
With an eye like an eagle
And as tall as a mountain was he

Daniel Boone was a man
Yes, a big man
He was brave, he was fearless
And as tough as a mighty oak tree

From the coonskin cap on the top of ol' Dan
To the heel of his rawhide shoe
The rippin'-est, roarin'-est, fightin'-est man
The frontier ever knew

Daniel Boone was a man
Yes, a big man
And he fought for America
To make all Americans free

What a boon, what a doer
What a dream come-a-true-er was he




Maybe Wedgie was right.

Preach on brotha Cluck!

Me thinks conspiracy-theorist donks place WAY too much emphasis on the religous beliefs of candidates.

Really? Please give an estimate of when we will see the first atheist republican nominee. Hell, has there ever been an atheist republican member of congress?

Taken over by douche bag christians.

Seahawks08 wrote:

Me thinks conspiracy-theorist donks place WAY too much emphasis on the religous beliefs of candidates.

Really? Please give an estimate of when we will see the first atheist democratic nominee. Hell, has there ever been an atheist democratic member of congress?

FIFY
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ess/69010/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which church?

$$$$ is the reason most are going to vote a certain way.

Seahawks08 wrote:

Me thinks conspiracy-theorist donks place WAY too much emphasis on the religous beliefs of candidates.

Really? Please give an estimate of when we will see the first atheist republican nominee. Hell, has there ever been an atheist republican member of congress?

You're hanging your hat on Pete Stark? Gee, the Dems have a 1-0 lead.

andy7171 wrote:Can we define "churcher"?
I go to church every Sunday, send my kids to Catholic school, but support same sex marriage, abhor wearing religion on your sleeve and freedom of Islam to practice without interference in America.
What exactly is a "churcher"?
Also a registered "Nonaffiliated" as of 2008 when "Indepentant" became a real political party in Maryland.

Not much time before I hit the road but I will try. I thought Evangelical would explain it. By "Churcher" I mean the type of people or groups that not only want me to behave like them, believe like them and worship who they do but will also go asa far as trying to pass laws to force me to. Look, I don't give a F U C K who or what you worship, just stop trying to legislate me into believing the same. W/O looking them up we have had right wing churchers trying to pass laws that outlaw Fetus's from being made into food, laws that make it legal to kill a Dr if he has performed an abortion, Utah just banned Happy Hour, bans on Gay everything, laws banning certain religious groups from praying, laws that ban free speech, laws against every and anything they can think of to force people to act the same as they do. That is who I mean by Churchers. These types seem to have taken over the debates of and this party.