[Miss Georgie]

it would be.dangerous with islams in charge because arent they supposed to convert everyone according to there bible

you could say ohhhh im a medium one but i don't like religions been anywhere near politics on any way they should serve.people first

people put them there not a god that may or may not exist people are real

[riceuten]

Originally Posted by wappaho

Why wouldn't Islam want America? It's a brilliant bit of land. Islam is the fastest growing religion, including significant numbers of Western converts. Islam is a complete political and economic system with a successful history of rolling out it's regime. Ditto Communism. Why should these regimes think they don't have a better way of running a society than Western Liberal Democracy? After all the West has marched around toting WLD, why shouldn't other regimes do the same?

And so, to do so, they get elected a crypto-Muslim head of state who secretly turns the country into a theocracy ? RIGHT....

[Auld Snody]

Originally Posted by doom&gloom

To be fair there can't be many Christians with the middle name Hussein.

Yep and that Jesus fellow must have been Puerto Rican

[Dave Hawk]

Originally Posted by doom&gloom

To be fair there can't be many Christians with the middle name Hussein.

Its just a name. I know an Egyptian by the name of Hassan and he's not a Muslim. He's a Coptic Christian

[doom&gloom]

I wasn't saying he was a Muslim just offering a reason to the confusion.

I understand his grandfather was a Muslim.

[Canks]

Originally Posted by redhatmatt

Barack Obama is most probably an atheist, however he hides that from the American public, because a significant minority of them (enough to cause loss of an election) are religious bigots. I have no problem with Romney being a muslim, Obama being a muslim or whatever religion the birthers subscribe to him, as long as they do not use the office of the president to force their religious views on others.

Obama hasn't so far, Romney's statements about abortion and gay rights in particular; makes me think he will.

To say he is atheist is calling a liar as in book he writes about his Christian beliefs. I find him sincere.

[Helbore]

Originally Posted by doom&gloom

To be fair there can't be many Christians with the middle name Hussein.

Plus - Obama. Osama. Coincidence?

I think not!

[TelevisionUser]

It's worth providing a link to this open article from the Financial Times which is somewhat critical of Mitt Romney's chances and performance as a candidate: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f404b6b4-d...#axzz22JrZpl15
"Another is Mr Romney’s awfulness as a candidate. It has nothing to do with insight: the UK media are only stating bluntly what is on everyone’s minds."

Notwithstanding the slower than expected economic growth and relatively high unemployment levels by American standards, it looks like Mitt Romney will still face an uphill battle to gain the White House for the Republicans. There is a digest of opinion polls here and, with a few exceptions, they still show a consistent lead for Obama.

[Dunnroamin]

Originally Posted by PrestonAl

in answer to the OP. No it's not, as it's just the people who wouldn't vote for him either being as thick as 2 short planks, conspiracy theorists or just plain lying.

We have the same sort of people in this country. Around 40% of people think labour should be back in government

We haven't had Labour Government for decades, surely you're not suggesting Tony Blair or Gordon Brown's New Labour was anything more than Toryism masquerading as Labour. What one might call a "wolf in sheep's clothing."

[smudges dad]

Originally Posted by Staunchy

Haven't they formed a coalition with the LibDems who got 23% of the vote? So, over 50% of those who voted are being represented by the current government.

as there was no option to vote for the coalition, zero percent voted for the current government

[Staunchy]

Originally Posted by smudges dad

as there was no option to vote for the coalition, zero percent voted for the current government

That's why I said are "over 50% of those who voted are being represented by the current government" and not "over 50% voted for the government".

[smudges dad]

Originally Posted by Staunchy

That's why I said are "over 50% of those who voted are being represented by the current government" and not "over 50% voted for the government".

Absolute rubbish. I voted LD (as I like the local MP) and this apology for a government does not repesent me in any way.

[Staunchy]

Originally Posted by smudges dad

Absolute rubbish. I voted LD (as I like the local MP) and this apology for a government does not repesent me in any way.

I guess you could say that all of the electorate only vote for their own MP instead of the government. I was only (admittedly) nitpicking with a poster who seemed to be of the opinion that this was a Conservative government so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.