Seriously...what does it say about the Republican base that he gets so little support? He's a consistent conservative with success in business, as a high profile Governor, and in foreign affairs. He offers a slate of intelligent, conservative solutions on all the major issues and he isn't a giant flip flop.
His economic plan was endorsed by the WSJ and he's even got a solid solution to financial reform, whereas the other candidates essentially offer to kill Dodd-Frank and go back to what we had from 2002 - 2008, great idea.
Read up to learn more about the man:
So, why is he so low in the polls? What are Jon Huntsman's problems?
--He is pro-civil union for gay couples
--He is pro-science
--He isn't a religious demagogue
A consistent, successful conservative with an amazing background who offers up strong solutions and ideas is polling in Bachman territory and all I can attribute this to is the fact that he isn't a social conservative flat Earther who thinks Jesus is gonna come back in our lifetimes. What a disgrace.
Am I wrong on this? Are there any other Huntsman fans on here?
i like huntsman a lot, i think that if romney gets elected he would make a GREAT vp or secretary of state.. but romney isnt going to be pull another mormon onto his electorate ticket
I happen to think Huntsman is the best candidate. Unfortunately there are a few reasons he wont' get the GOP nomination, not the least of which is that the media keeps saying that he won't get the GOP nomination.
I predict that Romney is going to choose Snowe as his VP. She would be quite good.
Bloomberg 2016
Or maybe he is not an establish Republican candidate and will get more attention in the 2016 or 2020 election cycle. There isn't any religious issues with this, he is just a fresh face and Republicans tend to get behind candidates that have been on the scene for a while.
And what is with this hatred for religion. Sorry that voters vote for what matters to them and not what matters to you.
I have no idea why you would vote for a candidate based on religion when there are so many more important issues.
I have no idea either, but how many people vote because of dumb shit. Look at Obama's approval rating among certain demographics and tell me people didn't vote for him because of dumb reasons.
More important? More important to who? You? Everybody is different and everyone has a right to vote for the issues they feel important...but just as ANT pointed out above...some issues are deemed 'unimportant' because they don't align with your personal political/religious/fundamental beliefs.
Regards
That about sums up the left.
Regards
I think his lack of prominence within the GOP is what is most sharply hurting his candidacy. When I speak to other young people, many are simply ignorant of any of his positions. Boosters, lobbyists, and key cogs in the GOP machine just aren't behind him because, relative to other candidates, he is unproven.
I do not agree with that phenomenon, but I think that is how the game is played at this point.
Conservatives go with the tried and true candidate.
McCain lost out to Bush when Bush ran against Gore. He put in his time and got the nod in 2008. Mitt lost against McCain in 2008 and will get the nod in 2012. It is about putting your dues in, being an established party candidate and waiting your turn. Huntsman will be an up and coming star, just not right now. This is good exposure for him and will get his name out there.
How is he unproven? I don't get that charge at all. He's got a solid and consistent track record on several fronts. No flip flopping bullshit and no scandals.
Also, ANT, I don't hate religion, I hate ignorance and the idea of basing one's world views and political beliefs on bullshit.
No one can prove or disprove God's existence, so using arcane rules from a contradiction-filled book with no legitimately useful information to determine one's voting preference is retarded.
Unproven in the sense that he is a fresh candidate on the Presidential stage.
Well you just illustrated your disgust for something that many people hold close to their heart.
Attention, Attention. TheKing thinks your beliefs are dumb. Please PM him for instructions on how someone should vote. That is all.
Seems pretty objective to me. Thanks for playing.
Regards
Btw, people CAN vote for whatever reason they like (and they do), but that doesn't mean it isn't retarded.
John 8:7
"And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”
You sit there, and you thump your bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere.
Talk about your psalms, talk about John 8:7.
TheKing 8:7 says I just whooped your ass.
Damn, check out those internet muscles!! So dreamy.
...and tough.
Regards
I hope Jesus saves your soul Mr.King.
Your blasphemy is sinful. The true TheKing died for our sins. Praise Jesus.
no the true king is on a planet somewhere far away from us. praise joseph smith.
Hahaha, I guess you guys didn't like the WWF back in the day. That's a direct quote from Stone Cold Steve Austin talking about Jake "The Snake" Roberts.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/LGM1o8CDLs8
Lighten up, guys.
Clearly that isn't a direct quote.
Regards
The GOP base is basically brain-dead. The fact that buffoons like bachmann, cain, and perry, were frontrunners just show how pathetic the GOP has become. The GOP primary voters do not care about science, data, evidence, or anything that reeks of intellectualism. In their hatred for Obama, they somehow believe that whoever screams the loudest and says the most outlandish statements is the "true" conservative.
I'm a Huntsman supporter, and it's deeply disappointing to see his numbers. Only bright side is that he's now double-digits in new hampshire, but unless he wins that primary outright, he has no shot at the nomination. I think he made a tactical mistake by portraying himself as a moderate at the beginning of his campaign rather than brandishing his conservative bona fides. He is by far the most qualified candidate in the race and easily the most electable.
Well said. My dream would be for Ron Paul to win Iowa followed by Huntsman taking NH. I think the media would literally blow up if it happened.
When you aren't blowing Harvard you can actually come up with a half coherent post. Hats off to you!
I'm going to vote for Bachman! She said she's going to close our embassy in Iran and its about goddamn time someone did that!
Oh, wait...
The fact that Jon Huntsman is now polling dead last, behind Rich Santorum, not to mention Cain, Bachmann, and Perry, shows just how pathetic the Republicans are. Can't they realize that they are being completely off-putting to moderates such as myself that decide elections? If Huntsman is the nomination I'll vote for him, if Romney is the nomination, I'll probably vote for him, if fucking Cain/Perry/Newt is the nomination, I will not think twice before voting for Obama.
Alright, alright. Tl;dr. Let me sum it up:
According to lefties, conservatives =
According to right-wingers, libs =
Now, start round 37105175317931... of the partisan bashing.
The reason Republicans don't like Huntsman: people like me like him. I'm a fiscal moderate, social liberal. AKA a leftist socialist communist marxist atheist anarchist hippy. Also, and this is the real killer... I'm an Obama supporter.
Or he is not an established candidate.
Fiscal moderate and social liberal? What is this milk toast bullshit. Quit trying to fake move to the center. That is pure liberal shit right there.
I just cannot believe how people will talk about politics, but have no interest in the actually work or strategy that goes into it. To criticize the Republicans for not pushing Huntsman more is to fail to understand the conservative game plan.
Ok? I was going based on a scale that I think the majority of American would agree on...not the ANT scale, where anything to the left of a Tea Party god is a socialist.
Conservatives say that they want someone who is conservative AND can beat Obama. By that criteria, Huntsman wins hands down. He has been more consistently conservative than either Romney or Gingrich. The latter is a man who bragged about being a rockefeller republican, supported medicare plan D, and has switched on core issues as much as Romney. As for Perry, Bachmann, Cain, they simply do not pass the threshold for a plausible president.
I agree that Huntsman made some tactical mistakes early on. And he should have been more aggressive in attacking Obama's failures rather than choosing to adopt a measured tone. I think he's learning now; his recent speeches in New Hampshire have been sharp and fiery.
In case you forgot what you actually said?
Also: it's "milquetoast"
1) Democrat's are just as moronic as Republicans.
2) Intelligence doesn't mean results (Obama perfect example).
3) Bachman fizzled fast, as everyone knew she would. Cain had a run and it was well deserved. He will do well on the bench for 4 more years to polish his resume. Perry blew his shot, plain and simple.
Newt would utter destroy Obama in a debate. Mitt is a good candidate who has put in his time. Huntsman will develop into something in the future.
The majority of Americans are center right, so even your definition would not agree with that stat.
Please would you define the politcal spectrum for all of us and let me know where I stand. I'll fill out a policy survey or something if that suits you.
Or you could just shut the fuck up.
Wow, sorry for correcting you. When the majority of Americans classify themselves as conservatives and conservative-moderate and you say how your liberal beliefs are representative of the majority of Americans, the word for that is called WRONG.
Sorry for hurting your feelings.
So semantically, people identify themselves as conservatives. I said I am a moderate (fiscally). I don't stand corrected. You are so far off your right wing rocker that you seriously thing everyone not drinking the Tea Party Koolaid is a bleeding heart liberal. I'm sure there are plenty of fiscal liberals who support raising the SS retirement age, decreasing (or eliminating) student loan and housing subsidies, reducing and simplifying the corporate tax rate...
The only reason I seem like batshit crazy lib is because I am constantly retorting your right wing, talking point, bullshit (socially, I fully admit to being a batshit crazy lib).
1) It is correct wing.
2) You are socially liberal and middle ground fiscally. How is this not left leaning or left? How the hell is that conservative fiscally or socially?
Please illustrate to me how my statement was wrong. You are neither center right or right.
I'm not sure how I feel about the whole "we are a center right" country when over 50% of the country thinks gay marriage / civil unions are ok and something like 80% of the country thinks we should marginally increase taxes on the wealthy.
Not saying we're liberal by any stretch of the word, but I think we're a "center" country.
Agreed. Self identifying with a particular part of the political spectrum doesn't mean anything unless you actually compare your policy stances to others.
@ Duff - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_toast
Milk Toast is a bland food. Milquetoast is a name of a fictional character.
@TheNotTrueKing (only Jesus is TheKing) -
The nation is split on the gay legal union issue.
That increasing tax stat is misleading. It depends on how you ask the question. Either way, I am sure 95% of Americans would support increasing taxes on someone else as long as it doesn't effect them.
Can't tell if you're for real with the Jesus shit. Either way, I laughed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milquetoast
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milquetoast[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_toast
"Milk toast is a breakfast food consisting of toasted bread in warm milk, typically with sugar and butter.1 Salt, pepper, paprika, cinnamon, cocoa, raisins and other ingredients may be added.2 In New England, milk toast refers to toast that has been dipped in a milk-based white sauce.3 Milk toast was a popular food throughout the late 19th century and early 20th century, especially for young children and for the ailing, for whom the food was thought to be soothing and easy to digest.1 Although not as popular today, milk toast is still considered a comfort food.245[6]"
"Milk toast's soft blandness served as inspiration for the name of the timid and ineffectual comic strip character Caspar Milquetoast, drawn by H. T. Webster from 1924 to 1952.7 Thus, the term "milquetoast" entered the language as the label for a timid, shrinking, apologetic person."
The term milquetoast is in reference to a comic character, who was named after the bland food MILK TOAST.
Milk toast came before milquetoast.
Please tell me why a well spoken and successful black business man didn't deserve a run in the polls?
Political favor ebbs and flows. Cains campaign wasn't as polished as it needed to be. Rookie mistake.
First of all I would argue that he is not at all well spoken, in fact I think Bachmann is actually a bit more articulate than Cain is. Also I don't know why it's relevant to include that he's black, does he get extra points for that?
And I don't even know where to begin with why he was an absolute joke candidate but 9-9-9, " I think Alan Greenspan is a model Fed President", his Libya Gaffe, his countless extramarital affairs and harassment allegations, and his confused abortion stance are good places to start.
Maybe emphatic is a better description. And yes, black gets extra points in this political climate.
Alleged affairs and why is it even an issue? You cannot be socially liberal, yet crucify someone for private sexual issues (not directed at you, but in general).
Like I said, his campaign was rookie material and he has died in the polls. This happens on both sides, every election. He made a run, got his name out and will polish himself for the next run. This isn't about 2012, but in developing the bench going forward.
Bachman was the go to radical and we see how little support that segment has. She will be relegated to talking points on Hannity.
I thought it would bring some levity into the conversation.
Huntsman isn't as confident as the others it seems, and he doesn't exude the power I'd expect from a president. I wouldn't vote for him.
If there was ever a candidate that was agnostic I'd vote for them. Anything else shows a lack of logic imho. Sorry if this pisses people off, but I could never get over the, "trust me, this is the way it is. No, really, just trust me. You're not going to believe me? You have to have faith. How can you not have faith? WHAT IS FUCKING WRONG WITH YOU WHERE IS YOUR FAITH YARRRRAGEFACEFTW."
Agree with King on "center", but I also think people don't have a clue as to what they are. The main issue over the next 20 or so years is going to be getting the Republican party more Republican on social issues (ie- government stays the fuck out of the way and everything is fair for everyone). I think as religion becomes less of a huge deal for people (which it has), this will start to happen more. As soon as the evangelical fucks (no offense evangelicals, I just don't like the fact that my gay friends can't marry because you're pushing your beliefs on everyone else) get out of the goddamn way, I think we'll see: legalized weed (at least, hopefully cocaine, shrooms, acid, etc too) and legalized gay marriage (or even better: government striking the word marriage from all legislation and replacing it with civil union), among other things.
Agree 1,000,000% on an agnostic candidate. It's really the most honest position to take since no one knows for sure either way. The religious right sure as shit can't prove a damn thing about their so-called theistic father figure God.
How is this country going to become less religious? Mexicans are pretty devote Catholics. Demographic trends show them increasing in this country, not agnostic, well educated white people.
The internet.
Anti religious folks said that about the written word and science, yet religion prevails. I honestly cannot understand the venom that comes out when religion is discussed. Most religious activities are centered around helping people or coming together. Why people ignore all the good things is beyond me.
I mean what are the big issues with religion. Anti abortion and gay marriage? Wow, I think we can all agree that abortion is something we wish never had to happen and gay marriage is a pretty damn small issue when compared to the grand scheme of things. Government should have nothing to do with marriage. It should be something a church performs. That way two people can be unified legally and churches can decide what to do and what not to do.
Jon Huntsman is a good candidate, but not the best. But the question is to most people...who the fuck is he? He is essentially GWB in my opinion. He essentially is what GWB would call a "compassionate conservative". I don't trust him really though and would rather have someone who was more conservative, with him as a VP.
Liberals hate GWB but at the same time he was pretty liberal. He instituted health care reforms, essentially nationalized education law, funded alternative energy, created the largest ever nature preserve, protected union steel, increased regulation for economic activity the most in 50 years, and enacted more pollution regulations.
I personally dislike GWB because of the Patriot Act, Iraq War, tax cuts, stance on gay marriage and stem cell research, No Child Left Behind (not really a conservative/liberal thing, just poor policy), use of torture and indefinite detainment... I think the biggest difference between Huntsman and Bush was that Huntsman is by no means a neocon, and foreign policy wise I think he would be a way bigger asset than Bush was.
But in the wake of 9/11 I could almost guarantee that the PATRIOT Act would have been passed along with the enhanced interrogation and detainment. Hell, Obama just said that american citizens could be tred by tribunal and killed NCLB was a poor piece of legislation no doubt, but education reform is necessary, and liberals won't touch teachers unions. The tax cuts I see as being necessary in the wake of the tech bubble bursting and the NASDAQ getting decimated.
All of these reactions could be seen now as a necessary evil and a reaction to huge evens. What scares me about Huntsman is what happens when he faces a big event? If he has similar principles to GWB what is to prevent him from following in his mistakes? A grounding in more libertarian policies would make my fears go away, because no true libertarian would accept the huge reduction in freedoms that came with the PATRIOT ACT, detainment, enhanced interrogation, stem cell banning, or banning of gay marriage.
Also, you said Huntsman would be better foreign policy wise, but all the complaints (less Iraq and the GWOT) were domestic policy. Just pointing it out.
Religious bullshit also leads to:
--Pushing bad "science" in schools (i.e. intelligent design) --Trying to stop people from having access to contraception (look at the ballot measure that the right tried to pass in Mississippi) --Anti-gay marriage / gay rights (treating an entire segment of the population as second class citizens is a bad thing)
Among other things. You can go on and on about the "good things religious people do," when in reality there are lots of good people that do lots of good things, organized religion is not necessary for these things to happen.
Are you an advocate of incest as well, or do you agree with treating an entire segment of the population as second class citizens?
Also 'in reality' there are lots of bad people that do lots of bad things, many/most of whom have no affiliation with organized religion. Let's not rehash the facts that those who donate the most time, money and blood all happen to be connected to one of those 'bullshit' organizations you seem to be oh so tolerant towards.
Regards
Just to clarify, are you trying to equate gay marriage with incest here?
After spending a few minutes thinking about this, I suppose it makes sense. The cultural taboo against incest is just as unjust as it is against homosexuality.
Excuse me...are you equating homosexuality to incest? That doesn't even make sense. Fucking bigot.
Oh wait, I can't call you a bigot because you're espousing views you cherry picked from the Bible, so somehow that makes it ok. And I'm sure in your deranged mind, you think that I'm the bigot because I detest and look down upon your religion-based views on homosexuality, which only serves to show that you have no idea what bigotry actually is.
How do you even manage to get through your day to day life?
Marriage is both a religious construct and a civil construct. Libertarians should be against marriages conducted by the state, since it is beyond the scope of the government's powers. Of course, this ideological stance is ignored in favor of a social construct aimed to promote stable families.
LOL @ milk toast milquetoast argument
http://thegrammarexchange.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/340600179/m/380…
Duff-Toast is the new phrase
The Patriot Act took away more freedoms than any other piece of legislation in our lifetimes.
Ant, I have to disagree with you on all Republicans voting for anybody against Obama. I won't be. I'll be writing in. On that note, I am so sick of "conservative" republicans voting for any candidate that their lobbyists put up there. I sure as hell don't! If we keep doing that, they'll continue with the turds we have in office now.
We can agree to disagree friend. I would love someone in the vein of Paul to win, but I don't think he can do it. I would rather satisfice and go for Romney then deal with 4 more years of Obama. The real power is in the Congress and that is more right, when compared to Romney. All that matters is we have someone in the office that will sign legislation when put in front of him.
4 more years of Obama will be useless when the Republicans take the Senate.
100% agree Ant. I want the Senate to be taken from the Dems, especially if Obama gets re-elected!
Oh it will my friend, it will. Senate, House, God willing, the Presidency.
Party of No will become the Party of HELL YES!
Oh fuck, racist post
RACIST POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ugh that pissed me off so much when I saw it
sometimes i am tempted to tune out of politics for good.
what are the most pressing issues as spun by the media? cain's affairs? mitt's religion? gingrich's adultery? vaccinations causing/not causing retardation? at least we're not talking about lipstick on a pig again.
in the meantime:
ron paul is the only candidate addressing these issues head on. gary johnson would have been a good running mate. i refuse to make compromises. fuck compromise. a vote's a vote. i can't be responsible for other people's negligence. even if i have to suffer for it.
+1 ivoteforthatguy! A very sound response indeed!
Agree with txjustin. That post was on point.
Also, good, short article on the Huntsman campaign and the "issues" it's had. I put issues in quotes because they amount to non-sense.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-myth-about-the-huntsman-campaign-201…
Also, how badass does he look in that picture? Makes me want to go out and buy a gun.
Please tell me why incest should somehow be treated differently? Two, legal aged adults can do what they want.
Duff Toast, could you at least try and have an argument. Your sycophantic behavior is sickening.
I honestly can't believe that someone could seriously compare incest to homosexuality with a straight face.
1.) Incest which results in pregnancy can lead to serious genetic disorders for the child, so it is not safe. Whereas two guys / girls fucking can't have the same consequence for obvious reasons.
2.) There is a huge difference between two consenting adults getting together and two related consenting adults.
3.) The argument that homosexuality occurs in nature is used to help explain that it isn't a choice, but rather something you are born with. i.e.) you don't wake up one day and choose to be straight or gay.
Question for you - what the fuck does incest have to do with homosexuality? Incest is completely unrelated, I don't even see how the comparison comes up. I mean, who is to even say that homosexuality and gay marriage is some sort of gateway...maybe straight marriage is the gateway to it all (gay marriage, incest, bestiality, etc.)
So who else should the government be allowed to ban from having kids? I wasn't aware that was a right granted to the government by the Constitution. Please explain.
Can you please list the HUGE difference? Saying that there is one doesn't make it true. I don't see what the related aspect of the equation has to do with anything other than an indication that these two people have an awful lot in common...which almost makes me believe it's more natural.
So are you saying that people involved in incestious relationships are 'normal' one day and then wake up the next and want to bang their family member? Doesn't seem likely. But, even if I was to accept that premise, why is it not okay for them to engage in that act if they are consenting adults?
Incest is not completely unrelated in execution, just different when it comes to politics. I realize support incest doesn't further the GLBT community's agenda so it is swept under the rug, but not for me. I see a small group of people being persecuted for being different...through no fault of their own...and I just don't think it's right.
Regards
I just want to clarify something before this argument continues...
Conservative = fiscally conservative, socially conservative Liberal = fiscally liberal, socially liberal Libertarian = fiscally conservative, socially liberal Fucking insane = fiscally liberal, socially conservative
1) Please show me the research that shows incest increases retardation by a significant amount.
2) Two consenting adults can do whatever they want.
Why are there laws forbidding incest? Why is there not a push for total sexual equality?
Seems to me you think one is disgusting and another is perfectly fine. Unfortunately that argument is crap and not going to fly.
Come back with a real counter. I am waiting.
Who says it is a gateway? That argument is only valid if one considers incest to be worse than gay marriage. Which it isn't.
I support equality for everyone. That is because I am not a bigot.
Fine, let people fuck and marry their sisters. Honestly, I'm personally of the opinion that people should be able to fuck and marry whatever they want, because if someone marries their sister / dog, it will make them a social pariah, so who gives a fuck.
That said, it's more insulting than anything to compare homosexuality to incest. If you don't honestly get that in your core, then I don't know what to tell you.
I honestly don't know why anyone would consider incest being compared to homosexuality to be disgusting. Incest has been around forever. Kings and Queens practiced it.
All I am saying is that we cannot allow public opinions disgust or acceptance to dictate things. A father and his son is just as wholesome and correct as two random duded hooking up.
Acceptance is cathartic.
Huntsman's daughters are uber-hot, that I do know. Either way, I'm voting for Ron Paul, and will be spending a week after Christmas working for the campaign.
This. Ace in the hole.
Yeah, but just so you know, the hottest one is married.
That is why he lost my vote, lol.
Regards
Here's a sample argument for why we should not take any Christian based arguments on morality:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/pS1DeuE615k
Man, TheKing really hates religion. I suppose I would hate something if I only focused on the few bad things while ignoring the countless good things.
OWS?
Edit: If it wasn't clear, I am implying that you actually do this with an annoying false equivalency just to fight fire with fire.
You are right dude. I dislike a radical left wing movement, that breaks the law, resists arrest and destroys shit, but this is only a small part of what the movement was about.
I am STILL waiting for an executable demand from these clowns. Cost cities millions for nothing. Also, the only demands or goals of this group made available, on their website as well as left leaning news sources, were talk about debt forgiveness, punitive taxation, expansion of the government, shutting down of crippling profitable American businesses (that also employ millions).
But yeah, I forgot all the good things.
TheKing is a perfect example of the leftist ideals and the tatics they use. I, more than anyone, am glad he continues to post here. I know I can't change his opinion...frankly, that isn't my objective...but the more he posts and the more illogical responses he leaves the more likely it is someone that is sitting on the fence will realize just how absurd his/the left's line of reasoning is.
They scream that no one should be judged on their sexuality or treated differently because of it but when asked about an extremely analogous situation they cry about how there are differences. Asked about those differences, they can only list one...pregnancy...but most people believe it isn't the government's right to choose who can have babies and who can't. But I guess that is okay with TheKing? What comes next? People with genetic disorders, disease and/or physical abnormalities?
And personally, I don't think people who engage in incest should become social pariahs, so maybe we can get some funding to have outreach programs in schools to show the next generation that the two consenting adults aren't bad people and that they could be great parents. We should also seriously consider editing our national curriculum to include famous people throughout history who've been involved in incest, in an effort to show that they are equally as good as anyone else and that they have contributed to society in a positive manner. I just think everything should be fair.
Regards
ANT / CPH:
Serious question.
Please name one good thing that I could be compelled to do by religion, but not by anything else. In other words, what good works require religion to be done?
I can't think of a single example.
I can, however, think of a few terrible things that religion compels people to do:
--Blowing oneself up to kill "infidels" in the name of religion --Snuffing scientific thought and reason throughout history --Denying two people who love each other the right to marry because of a line in Leviticus --Outlawing the eating of shellfish because of a line in Leviticus (oh wait, that one's ignored)
EDIT
Regards
King, many religious edicts on food were because it caused death and illness. It was a way to keep followers safe. Eating pork used to kill people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis
Same with a lot of things. It kept followers safe.
Denying two people who love each other from marrying? All it says is homosexuality is a sin and not sanctioned by God. Last time I checked gay sex was not illegal and two men could live together. Now if you are talking about tax benefits and a legal certificate, go talk to the government.
Also, don't blame it on religion. A small section of this country would be called devoutly religious. Not enough to keep gay marriage banned. People who don't have a clue about the bible are against it. Ignorance, not the Bible is stopping that shit.
So Islam is a violent religion. That is what you are saying? Holy fuck. So some poor, uneducated and hopeless kid kills himself because he was mentally manipulated and you are going to blame religion?
C'mon dude, you are smarter then that.
Religion is not necessary for this, God is not necessary for this. Knowledge about harmful effects of food is what is necessary. I do not need religion to be compelled to avoid eating things that could hurt or kill me. So, that's not an answer.
Right, but who pushes the anti-gay marriage laws the strongest? Religious zealots. People like Santorum, N.O.W., and others who are explicitly religious in their rationale.
No, I am arguing that religion is not necessary for one to be compelled to do good things, but it clearly compels people to do bad things. I can't think of an agnostic / atheistic argument for blowing oneself up. Nor does a practical one exist for denying gay marriage. There is no non-religious argument to be anti-science and reason. No non-religious argument to snuff out progress (as the Church did throughout history).
Shit, the Bible also compels us to keep slaves. You have done nothing to answer my question. And, do you know why? Because you can't answer it.
The only answer is that religion is not necessary for people to do good things. And to go further, because of this and the fact that no one can prove the existence of God, let alone a theistic father figure god, there is no reason to push one's cherry picked religious morals on others.
No, religious edicts on food, especially those from bible, were the result of bad translations from the original language, Aramaic, to the Romance languages. There are a whole host of things that people believe that aren't even true in the original bible. For example, the story, at least in English, is that Mary was a virgin who gave birth to Jesus when in the original Aramaic, she was a young woman. In the English bible, hell is described as a place where people are burned for the sins, when in the original Aramaic, hell was the place where trash was burned. If someone did bad things, there bodies would have been dumped in the trash, not the bible. Ant, you are correct that pigs and shellfish can make you very, very sick if not cooked thoroughly, but you are wrong about why they are banned. People saw those things as dirty, especially the pigs. Bad translation turns pigs are dirty into, pigs are forbidden/evil.
http://mynorthwest.com/category/local_news_articles/20110303/US-bishops…
I did not set out to write a 20 page essay refuting you man, I just hit on some of your points. No, the bible isn't about watching your back when it comes to bad food. That being said, 2 thousand years ago, don't you think it would be wise and beneficial to people who followed your religion to tell people not to eat pork because people got sick. Think of things on context. You are dealing with illiterate people. Science was available then. You want to keep your followers safe so you tell them not to eat pork. Bang.
How is religion pushing jack shit on you? In fact, I never get preached at by religious people. What I do encounter are the biggest cunts in the world, called atheists, who are the most snide and condescending people I have ever encountered.
Stereotyping yet again, ANT. Yawn.
TheKing, you gotta get your boy under control. This Yogi Bear and Boo Boo routine is killing me.
Duff Toast - The atheists I have encountered have been snide and condescending. Please quote where I have said "every atheist is snide and condescending". That would be a stereotype.
Again, you aren't answering the question. I did not say that religion can't compel someone to do good things, I said that any of the good things that religion could compel a person to do don't require religion. You've simply explained that religion can be used as a tool to manipulate people to do things in general. I'm arguing that religion is not necessary for one to do good things. No concept of a theistic god is required to do good things. However, it seems as though there are many terrible things that religion IS needed for one to be compelled to do them (i.e. suicide bombing, the snuffing out of scientific progress because it goes against a 2,000 year old book that features instructions on slave ownership.)
I'm also glad you didn't write a 20 page report, because it would be 20 pages of non-answers.
Religious groups, such as NOW, the AFA, and others are constantly pushing dogma and (often successfully) influencing politicians to push their crap. Look at the recent push in Mississippi to pass a law which states that life begins at conception. It failed to pass (thankfully), but would have outlawed certain kinds of contraception (not just abortion.) That's not based on science, that's based on twisted dogma.
I also get furious because, despite what you continue to say, I am not an atheist. I'm somewhere between agnostic and pan-deist and I've got a relatively open mind to spiritual views on existence. However, I know that I don't have the answers and am pretty sure that it's silly to put mundane human concerns onto the mind of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who supposedly created the universe when we're just a spec of dust within the context of all of existence.
The subject of "who are the most snide and condescending people I have ever encountered" is the word "atheists". Specifically, the subject wasn't the "biggest cunts in the world', which would have indicated you were only talking about atheists you have encountered.
Duff Toast, here is my entire post.
1) "I never get preached at by religious people" ---- This is me giving a personal experience
2) "What I do encounter are the biggest cunts in the world, called atheists, who are the most snide and condescending people I have ever encountered."
You see that last 4 words? "I have ever encountered"
Yup, of all the preachy atheists I have encountered, they have been cunts and condescending. I did not say all atheists in the world are cunts. I didn't say I met 3 cunt atheists so all are cunts. I said all the ones I have encountered have been cunts.
Try again Boo Boo.
And what is this boner for gay marriage. Every other fucking word is gay marriage. Shit, straight people don't even want to get married.
Maybe the gay community should worry about the massive number of HIV and STD infections among their people. A little condom education would go a long way. But fuck that, lets worry about a gay union certificate and teaching gay topics on schools.
At least organized religion was slick enough to worry about people dying of disease...
Is god required to do good things? Of course not. But that doesn't mean religion does not, now and in the past, inspire people to do good things.
Suck it also. 20 pages of non answers? Oh please. How about 20 pages of answers you don't want to hear. Go out and create an atheist charity and then we can agree that you don't need god to do good work .
Also, before someone retorts about non religious charities being in existence already, that isn't an answer. Many religious people donate time to non religious based charity. I want a charity made up of atheists. No believers allowed.
What religious charities disallow atheists from donating or contributing?
Why would atheists start an organization in the name of atheism anyways (unless it's to bash on religion, which is more of an interest group than a religion)? Atheism, by it's definition, doesn't link people in any meaningful way. Not believing in something that you don't believe exists is not a belief system. Nothing binds one atheist to another.
Here are atheist charities, this took 3 seconds to Google:
http://www.squidoo.com/Atheist-Charities
As to your whole "you can't include secular charities" nonsense, that's such a load of crap. Atheism / agnosticism isn't a religion nor is it a global meeting group, it's a set of individuals, and individuals who wouldn't want to stop anyone (religious or not) from helping them do good things.
Face it, religion is not required to do good things, but often compels people to do terrible things. In the case of snuffing out scientific progress throughout history and blowing oneself up in the name of allah, these are strictly in the realm of religion. No atheist is going to do either such thing. So, again, I can name bad things that religion can exclusively compel someone to do, but no good things that religion can exclusively compel someone to do.
Again, religion can compel people to do good things, but not exclusively. It is simply a particular conduit to doing good things. Whereas, these same good acts can be done with OR without religion.
However, select horrible things can only be done by people when compelled to do so by religion.
Just to add, atheists can do some horrible shit as well. It just isn't in the name of atheism. And please don't bring up Stalin because being anti-religion was only a small tenet of his philosophy (more of a symptom), which was really centered around Communist totalitarianism.
Well I am glad atheists are attempting to do good. Those charities look pretty basic, but hopefully they will grow into something substantial.
You cannot include secular charities because many of those who volunteer in them would classify themselves as religious.
A religious charity has a direct, religious theme about it. A secular charity doesn't, but that doesn't mean religious people do not participate.
Atheists should have the same, which it looks like they do on a small scale. Hopefully it will grow. I mean if religion doesn't cause people to be charitable, charity rates should be the same for atheists as they are for religious followers.
Duff Toast - You see how TheKing articulates an argument, posts materials to support his claim and engages in an argument?
Take note and attempt to repeat it.
So it doesn't suffice to just tell you some stories about "my experience" and then cast blanket statements across entire segments of the population? Good to know. Thanks ANT.
I really can't handle another fanboi bro. Ease off my nuts, k.
If Religion cannot motivate someone to do good things, it can't motivate them to do bad things. You can't have it both way Kingy.
You are knowingly twisting my argument. Again:
--Religion can motivate people to do good things, I have never denied this. However, these good things do not require religious motivations.
--Religion can motivate people to do bad things, and I have provided examples of these bad things that cannot be done out of non-religious motivations. In other words: certain terrible things can only be motivated by religion. Whereas ZERO good deeds require religion for them to be done.
--Religion can motivate people to do bad things (as can non religious reasons). However, these bad things do not require religious motivations.
So blowing yourself up or kill massive amounts of people cannot be done without religion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway
You mean like these guys?
People believe in something. Even if you believe in nothing, your belief in nothingness is a belief in something. So to say that religion causes something that would not be possible if religion didn't exist is to believe that religion is a catalyst in and of itself.
I'm not advocating for every religion or every aspect of religion, but as I've said before, the majority of people that practice religion in this country are good people, that do great things for society. There is an overall benefit from religion in this country, not a consequence.
Are you saying that religious people are the only people that kill others, or are you saying that it's more "terrible" to kill someone for religion than it is for whatever other reason one might use to justify the act? I bet more people have been killed by those that lack a religion than those that do, especially if we are only considering modern times and even more so if we don't include Islam. In fact, I'll go first...World War 2. Okay, that's at least 10mm. Let me know when you get close.
If the science behind this thought you speak of is so sound, then what does it matter are "snuffing" it? The funny thing about science is much of it is based on assumptions that can't be proven and on the basis that those assumptions are absolutes, but that we just haven't found proof yet. Sounds a lot like people's view on religion if you ask me.
As far as "denying two people who love each other the right to marry", you do that yourself and you don't even have a religion based on an ancient text from which you derived your opinion...instead you decided that you don't like it or that it is gross or something.
Dang, after actually seeing that put into text, I have to admit that does sound awfully "terrible".
Bottom line, just go look up the numbers for the amount of time volunteered, the amount of dollars donated and the amount of blood given. Who leads the pack? Those affiliated with religion. Seems to me that all of those things are "good' and those folks must be compelled by their religion since, on average, they give more than you and your non-believing friends.
Regards
CPH:
I'm ignoring you because you are in over your head and not actually addressing my points, just throwing out a bunch of straw men.
Yeah, if only I was on your level. "Uhhh, bad things are done by religion, dar dar dar."
You can ignore me all you like, it only confirms your inability to dispute my points.
People of religious and non-religious backgrounds do good and bad things, but your hatred for religion compels you to come to the internet and make weak arguments.
As to your original points...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_(organization)#Major_A…
Do you have ANY evidence that no one, in the history of the earth has disputed science for non-religious purposes? Aren't people currently arguing over global warming?
I've already pointed out the hypocrisy and discrimination of the homosexual vs. incest stance that many people take.
And I already pointed out that the shellfish thing really isn't 'terrible' and I actually don't eat shellfish and it has nothing to do with my religion. There are also a fair number of people that are allergic to shellfish and that has nothing to do with their stance against eating shellfish.
Regards
http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-are-more-pe… http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm http://current.com/community/92831935_atheists-supply-less-than-1-of-pr…
Just saying these things go both ways.
All those links suck epic balls. I mean I want to be diplomatic, but they just suck.
Literally, I am sitting here, reading through those sites and I just cannot wrap my mind around the shit on there.
Fucking saying Atheists have higher morals than religious people because they have a few percentage points less on divorce rates? How is the a valid conclusion without looking at the reasoning behind the divorces, without comparing the economic situation of each divorce, without looking at how religious the couple was, etc.
The other link is fucking nuts. Comparing atheists in prison to religious people. How about socio economic levels. How about people that got faith in jail? Holy shit.
Atheist nations are peaceful nations? How so? Europe is involved in conflicts around the world. Europe also got destroyed during WW2.
Europe also didn't engage the Communists like the US did, although the benefited from it. Vietnam and Korea were directly related to that.
I mean fuck, find better sources. Those blow.
I don't really care either way. The links I posted are just about as relevant as cph pointing out how much religious people volunteer or donate to charity. Both are fruitless arguments
I'm on the side that religious people can be religious as long as it doesn't affect me. I think there is legitimacy to the idea that religion has had a (strongly) negative impact on human societal development, but I am also willing to acknowledge that contributions do exist. I strongly feel that religion should be kept out of political discourse but don't see any reason it can influence the attitudes of voters, right or wrong. I think atheists posting anti-religious billboards is just as dumb as various religious organizations posting billboards about Jesus being the true path to salvation. I do take issue with the fact that atheists are the most discriminated against minority in the US (I can provide plenty of data on this, should you require). I also take issue with religion when people kill in its name.
There are two kinds of athetists. Those who do not worship any God at all, and those who worship the idea that they do not believe in God. I am the former.
Wow, a fucking actual, coherent, statement.
Yes, please do post those articles. I would like to see the stats on atheists being the most discriminated group. I think blacks and gays might take offense to that statement.
Just a warning, not all of these are "legitimate" sources, but used to illustrate a point. Some are blog posts and others isolated news stories:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm http://www.flickr.com/photos/driggs/6566308/sizes/z/ http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html http://geniusofinsanityworld.blogspot.com/2008/11/whats-wrong-with-bein… http://www.parallelpac.org/murder.htm ** http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-m… http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/… (my home state, this is sad) http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story… http://www.palibandaily.com/2010/02/27/atheists-visit-white-house-relig… http://www.economist.com/node/10277230?story_id=10277230&top_story=1 http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20091208/NEWS01/912080327/Critics-… http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/08/atheist_mistreatment_in_iraq… http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/19/military-backs-off-threat-to-p… ** http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/black_president_more_likely_than_mormo… http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=84436&category=22101 http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/25659 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/us/26atheist.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/us-usa-campaign-religion-surv… **http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2006/UR_RELEASE_MIG_2816.html http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/02/17/Atheist-billboard-vandalized/… http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/dinesh_dsouza_is_a_contempti… http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/atheists-fed-up-b… http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/12/army_declares_atheists_spiri… http://digg.com/news/politics/atheist_activist_and_videographer_assault… ** http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-a… **http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/101/6/1189/ http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/04/12/3188943.htm http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/4/407.short http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=950580 http://natalieangier.com/pdf/confessions_of_a_lonely_atheist.pdf ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#United_Sta… ** http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/downey_24_4.htm ** http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm ** http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050802/2religion.htm ** http://rationalistsblog.net/2010/11/22/are-atheists-the-most-discrimina… (blog post but good info)
Most of these I had bookmarked in Digg. I tried to highlight the ones you would qualify as acceptable sources with **
Edit: If you are looking solely for statistics, the University of Minnesota study is probably the best source.
Summary: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm
I should clarify- atheists are the group most openly discriminated against. I think it would be hard to qualify or quantify subconscious discrimination against different races/religions/disabilities. Open discrimination against atheists is common in the military, state laws, politics, and public opinion polls to a much higher degree than other minorities.
wow this has turned into a shit show. What about Jon Huntsman?
Hot daughters!
He was already a shit show, lol.
Regards
I will admit, you are most likely correct. I haven't had time to go through all of your posts, but I think it is fair to say that atheists are the most openly discriminated against. The political correctness machine hasn't made its way to that topic yet. I am sure in the future we will all be assimilated.
http://ology.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/post-image/111012_hunts…
[quote=ANT]http://ology.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/post-image/111012_hunts…]
One hot daughter!
Yeah, brunette is nice. Blonde in the middle is a beer goggler. Mom is legit.
Huntsman's daughters
vs.
http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4b7db3630000000000205ec7-400-3…
http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4b82b7a3000000000013d61b-400-3…
Paul Tudor Jones' daughters
^ Damnn
WSO is 10X more enjoyable when TheKing and ANT go at it.
Huntsman is my favorite candidate by far, and I don't think it is even close. Governor of a strong growth state, executive at Huntsman Corp, ambassador to China. What more diversity in experience could you want.
what up wso political thread turned into religious discussion part 43243252
This is too rich.
The vast majority of people in the U.S. vote against their best interests consistently. Why should one articulate fairly smart individual (Huntsman) change that? People don't want complex solutions for complex problems, they want sound bites and clearly defined black and white issues.
Idiocracy anyone?
Seriously, its a great country... love the fact people vote on taxes thinking they will be rich some day and not what they make today.
That's funny. I got kicked out of class back in high school for arguing that minorities vote for politicians with policies that will make them worse off. (Increasing entitlements => increasing debt => increasing probability of default / greater cuts => increasing probability of not getting entitlements at all in the future).
That's awesome. Reality.... hurting.... please make it stop.
HUNTSMAN 2012!
Seriously, please GOP voters, vote for Huntsman! He's the only reasonable guy in the field.
Bachman, Santorum, and Perry all out in front of Huntsman by a substantial amount? Fannie Lou Hamer: "I question America."
@a_pad:
Completely agree on the media narrative. The media absolutely creates front runners. As soon as Herman Cain's scandals started, the media started up the "who does this help? How about Newt Gingrich?" meme, which continued until it actually became reality. They constantly create these self-fulfilling prophecies, as opposed to reporting the facts and letting the voters do their own decision making. It's a disgrace.
Think about it. Why do people really think that a guy like Ron Paul is "unelectable?" It's because the media has been pounding that message since 2007. He's always discussed as an afterthought with no chance. So, when low information voters are polled, all they'll think about when they hear about Paul is "well, he's unelectable, they said so on TV." That's just not working as much this year because Paul has raised so much money from die-hards that he's been able to spread his message organically.
I think there is an outside chance that the media could start a "Now that Newt is losing traction because of perceived flip-flops, could Jon Huntsman be the new anti-Romney?" meme. I hope they do, but even if they do, it's still disgusting how the media operates.
+1 TheKing. My thoughts exactly. Unfortunately majority of the voting class has no idea how to think for themselves.
On a side note, I watched Huntsman on Kudlow last night and I liked him. I would never vote for him over RP, but I did like his message.
TheKing, I agree entirely on the power of media meme.
The liberal media does NOT want to face huntsman or romney to a lesser extent. They are literally jizzing over the prospects of Newt nomination and the subsequent hilarity that will ensue when Obama pounds the living daylights out of him.
Newt is going to get nuked. He runs an entirely negative campaign, has massive baggage and the Dems will destroy him. A little, mean, troll looking white guy against Obama. Get real.
And this Lincoln style debate shit. Votes are morons. They want sound bites and smooth talking. This isn't debate club. Obama is never going to engage in an unscripted debate. Newt is taking all the flake and will wall off, allowing Mitt to run against Obama relatively unscathed during the primary.
@TheKing
Paul is unelectable, media bias or not.
20% of the voting block is squarely liberal or progressive. They won't vote for Paul.
The senior citizen block isn't going to vote for him because a lot of the things he says could mean changes to elderly benefit programs. When in doubt, vote for the guy who won't change shit.
He isn't going to get a lot of moderate Democrats who see benefits in government intervention or influence. Paul isn't going to get the Christian conservative vote because of his beliefs.
In the end, Paul will get a good chunk of college students, libertarians and some other stragglers. I would think he would get Nader/Ross Perot numbers. not enough to win the election by any means of the imagination.
What does this say about the USA? People aren't interested in liberty, but in keeping their pet spending projects. Everyone is at fault, but such is life. We can complain about why it sucks, but in reality, you need someone who appeals to both sides. Obama in 2008 did that. Moderate Republicans were shell shocked from Bush, Democrats were invigorated and prepared, Obama was young, passionate and spoke well. He got the college kids and minority vote, along with moderates, liberals and Democrats.
Unfortunately Paul can't do that.
Just doing some electorate math. As much as I would love a guy who would gut government agencies and maximize liberty, I would rather have someone who is electable and does a couple things I like. Satisficing at its core.
@txjustin: Glad to see you liked what you heard out of Huntsman.
@Brady4MVP: The so-called conservative media is pushing the shit out of Newt just as they pumped up Cain. El Rushbo, Hannity and the rest of those clowns are riding Newt's dick like it's going out of style.
@ANT: I hear your point loud and clear. It still doesn't excuse the media at all for the type of coverage they give him and elections in general. Paul is but one example. What about Huntsman? What about Gary Johnson? So on and so forth. They create narratives that become reality. It's a disgusting state of affairs. Why is it up to the media to decide who is and isn't electable for us?
I mean, fuck, Rick Santorum is less electable than anyone in the race and he gets a decent level of coverage relative to Paul / Huntsman and others. Same shit with Bachmann.
Side note: What are the % odds that Santorum jerks it to gay porn? I say 75%.
Rushbo pisses me off. Back in 2008 he was a HUGE Romney fanboy, arguing that Romney was the only candidate who could stop McCain and unite all wings of the Republican coalition. Now he's bashing Romney hard and pumping up Newt, who has been even less consistent than Romney.
Huntsman is Obama's worst nightmare. The liberal media will do its best to ensure that he does not win the nomination. If the GOP voters really cared about beating Obama, they would flock to Huntsman.
Main stream media sucks. I think we can all agree on it. It is great for a quick overview on what is going on, but nothing in depth or informative.
Once again, blame the general public. Most people don't give a shit about researching or making independent decisions. I suppose to be fair to them it is understandable since more personal and pressing issues are at hand. That being said, don't complain about being uninformed when all you do is listen to media sound bites all day.
Paul should throw down the Lincoln style debate gauntlet to Newt. Would love to see those two duke it out.
@Brady: I'm not sure what the "liberal media" has done to ensure that Huntsman won't get the nomination. Huntsman has generally been thrown aside by conservatives and the "conservative media" as per the points in my initial post.
I mean, shit, the NY Times, NY Magazine, and (I think) Esquire had glowing pieces on Huntsman when he first announced his candidacy. If anything, he appeals to moderates and even to liberals on some level because he isn't an anti-science super-religious buffoon.
Hey King, lets stop blaming everything in the world on religious conservatives. This election will be decided base on the economy and unemployment. Religious voters will not swing it one way or another.
TheKing and ANT remind me of Skip and Steven A.
That is all I have to add.
In that order?
Thats a tough call... I think they rotate on the roles.
Lebron fucking sucks. To compare him to Jordan is delusional. Kobe is probably the closest to Jordan. LeBron is great, but nothing more.
6 rings Jordan, 5 rings Kobe, 0 rings LeBron.
I agree 100%.
Does this mean we can be friends?
Skip and Steven A are great friends..... This will decide things how do you two feel about Timmy T
Autem id odit iusto ea asperiores. Qui est aut repellendus vel architecto neque suscipit quaerat. Deleniti qui eligendi excepturi non. Quas id quibusdam corporis numquam aspernatur quasi quisquam. Atque optio natus occaecati quos molestias nobis natus nesciunt.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Et libero inventore repellat quam voluptatem voluptatem hic. Et nemo culpa est autem sit possimus et. Commodi quo dolorem cumque non. Voluptatem ut numquam vero.
Ex error cum quia illum doloribus voluptatem non. Quibusdam ex iure soluta.
Consequatur quo maiores dolorum dolor perspiciatis eaque. Dolor suscipit sed facere deserunt eaque et fugiat. Quia non sunt eos neque dolor voluptatum sit. Ut dolore quo quia hic sint.
Dolor repellat debitis distinctio a accusamus qui. Commodi consequatur velit nostrum placeat consectetur. Ut consectetur nulla officia labore sapiente. Perferendis omnis dolorum dolorem sequi. Iure quas suscipit aliquid a omnis et tempora.
Eaque id inventore et ut vero id consectetur. Sit repudiandae et sequi temporibus repellendus distinctio consequatur. Officia tempora maxime illo facilis voluptatum vitae. Odit beatae et iste aut inventore voluptatem aut. Rem non reprehenderit omnis incidunt laudantium ut.
Vel et quidem aut voluptates inventore dolorem. Dignissimos ut aut occaecati ducimus. Voluptatum voluptas cupiditate unde rem impedit tempore placeat impedit.
Quas saepe fugiat incidunt quam facere eum. Quis facere ducimus voluptatem odio.
Voluptas aliquid praesentium et quisquam cum. Pariatur similique qui enim nihil laboriosam. Odit maiores repellendus eius quia quia quas iste voluptas. Tempora esse mollitia similique. Eos voluptatem porro commodi quisquam impedit facilis rerum mollitia. Hic vel et perspiciatis in pariatur.
Nisi nostrum quos ut harum quia ipsa. Est quidem vitae est debitis quia ab. Consequuntur exercitationem aut nisi deserunt.
Doloribus in laboriosam eveniet laboriosam quaerat. Tenetur quo rerum nam qui animi ut quaerat. Et mollitia enim itaque esse sed. Expedita optio cumque dolores molestiae voluptatibus. Corporis eligendi recusandae quidem dolores animi et voluptas. Voluptas similique fugiat reprehenderit ea distinctio expedita voluptatem.
Asperiores eveniet tenetur ex eos facilis nostrum. Quis nihil quis neque id ut quo alias. Incidunt tempore quas est id dignissimos aperiam.
Vitae beatae dolorem fuga in voluptates labore quaerat. Quod eaque eum architecto qui ad consequatur magnam. Nostrum id hic quia pariatur. Quisquam recusandae est libero rerum non voluptas. Eum quae dolorem explicabo qui debitis pariatur nam.
Nulla quia in nisi id est sed repellendus. Blanditiis et qui corporis molestiae. Vel ratione hic omnis cumque. Dolorum velit aliquam reiciendis qui sint quam sapiente. Laboriosam quis dicta dolore odit.
Iure earum amet ratione enim qui tenetur et. Provident ipsum impedit accusantium eum reprehenderit accusantium. Rerum distinctio est ipsam nulla earum. Mollitia tenetur voluptate omnis aut.
Minima quibusdam reiciendis sit vel architecto. Earum vero autem ipsam. Nesciunt eius veniam maxime ut officia ratione. Mollitia voluptatem iure ex ut placeat earum veritatis.
Consequatur ut officiis non expedita qui. Eaque odit eum id harum dolore expedita. Magnam dolorem possimus quisquam eius quia.
Et ad deleniti est animi repellat dolor dolorum. Quia velit quibusdam voluptatem.
Facere iusto ipsam est totam ad. Repellat in suscipit laborum atque laborum ipsam. Ratione quia ad voluptatem illum minus libero voluptatem. Praesentium ex aperiam consectetur velit corporis ea. Neque mollitia qui rerum perferendis perferendis cum commodi eos.
Doloremque impedit vero maxime. Consequuntur atque consequuntur nisi modi. Sequi illum officia non dolorem provident iure odit. Et iste accusantium veritatis sapiente pariatur.
Optio perspiciatis vitae aut laudantium. Dolorem nemo ut alias ut. Minima aut hic pariatur unde. Ipsam commodi dolorum in voluptatem. Doloremque eius nisi est dicta blanditiis omnis. Eaque magnam ea quia totam.
Eligendi quos temporibus nisi debitis qui fugit. Est consequatur fuga tenetur eveniet maiores. Sit laboriosam saepe enim laboriosam voluptatem autem ex. Animi aut maiores deleniti voluptatem et veniam natus sit.
Consequatur incidunt et minima omnis. Eos rem quis ut laborum nam illo. Minus facere fuga nostrum. Rerum inventore quis iusto quaerat perferendis.
Magnam unde quae deleniti autem nam. Saepe commodi nesciunt velit vitae tempora facere vitae.
Ipsam quibusdam porro nihil fugiat ratione. Quia dolorum est et eos.
Unde et minus quidem est. Odit enim sint ab ratione molestiae ut. Autem cupiditate accusamus a molestias sunt. Temporibus odit animi expedita consequatur omnis quis. Nihil aliquam sint quasi saepe consectetur.
Velit quidem voluptatem dolorum eos facilis sapiente rem. Veniam eaque blanditiis ipsa quam sint qui consequatur. Quisquam et id eos.
Porro repudiandae corrupti dolores nemo id voluptate. Nobis quia id fugit quis accusantium vitae qui sunt. Ut quia quo quo ea soluta. Maiores maxime sed saepe eligendi dolorem cum voluptatem. Non rerum sit consequatur ut.