McCain-Palin: Stupid is as Stupid Does
66Dare we say it? The McCain-Palin team are two of the least intelligent people who've ever been nominated by major political parties in recent memory. In short, they're stupid.
Look at the way they talk to the media. They are pretentious and simplistic. They've never heard of the color gray. Everything is black or white. Intelligent people know better and won't act that way.
Mighty Mouse Saves the Day!
John McCain is so stupid that he thinks America will buy his ability to "save America" by suspending his campaign, and trying to delay the debate with Obama. He flew to Washington only to attend a meeting that Bush organized for him to star in, during which he said nothing. The pointless photo-op exploded into rage, largely from conservative Republicans who resented McCain and Bush and the cooperating Democrats, all at once. Everyone snuck out side doors to avoid the press, including McCain. The real legislators involved in hammering out a compromise on the bail-out had to calm down and get back to work, now another day or two delayed. When nobody would meet with him or include him in the real legislative meetings going on all over the Capitol, he quickly began to practice for the debate with his advisors and coaches, and then left town without apologizing for his stupid behavior, flying quietly to the debate, reversing his "delay the debate until a bail-out agreement is reached" position from the day before. His erratic, impulsive behavior should outrage us. How blind does McCain think the American voter is? Would a wise, intelligent person have acted this way?
McCain stupidly focuses on the success of the surge in Iraq, even though it is obvious by now that we have killed 4,000 young Americans and wounded 30,000 more, while killing and wounding hundreds of thousands of Iraqis -- needlessly.
Stupid John thinks we are so stupid that we won't remember that he promised a short war in Iraq, that we'd be welcomed as heros. We're still fighting 5 years later, and both religous flavors of Islam fought us bitterly. Now more Americans have died there than died in 9/11's tragic events.
Muddling Through the Real War
John Stupid McCain thinks we won't remember he said we could "just muddle through" the battles in Afghanistan, where the planners and sponsors of world wide terrorism actually live. McCain stupidly thinks Iraq is more important than punishing Osama and his gang of international killers.
McCain has stupidly said we should stay in Iraq a hundred years or more. Can you imagine a smart person saying that?
Other People Don't Need Medical Care
McCain stupidly thinks that it is just fine that 40 million Americans have no health insurance, and never even get annual physicals that could prevent major diseases and cut our total health costs in America by a trillion dollars a year. We spend 2-1/2 trillion bucks a year on health costs, from medicines to hospitalization. Half of this could be avoided if everyone in America had access to medical care like all civilized nations around the world have. Imagine what we could do to solve other problems like developing new energy resources, if we had access to another trillion dollars now going to manage preventable diseases, largely caused by the fact that people don't go to the doctor until their diseases have progressed to the full-blown, very expensive stages. Early detection and treatment could change our world, economically and socially. McCain is too stupid to figure that out.
Veterans Don't Need College Educations or Medical Care
McCain is so stupid that he thinks veterans and all of us would think he is "pro-veteran" simply due to his POW history. Fact is that he has voted against almost every single veteran benefit funding bill to come across his desk in the Senate. McCain has even voted against bills that would help veterans go back to college, as veterans could do after WWII, Korea and Vietnam, but no longer can due to men lke him. McCain has voted against dozens of bills that would have funded medical help for post traumatic stresss disorder PTSD, agent orange, and so on. This man is anything but pro-veteran. But he is so stupid he thinks veterans and Americans won't figure this out.
Sarah McPalin is Smart Enough for the White House
McCain is so stupid that he thinks it's just fine to have Sarah Palin as a running mate, even though it is now plain to everyone that she is even more stupid than he is.
Hobgobblins in High Office
Palin stupidly believes in witches. See the video at YouTube.com. She stupidly believes God talks to her in unknown tongues, thinking gibberish is coming from her God. Oh, she's free to believe any crazy idea she wants in her own life, but not in the White House. Can God by the author of gibberish? Stupid Sarah thinks so.
The Womb is a Federal Zone
Stupid Sarah want the federal government she hates and distrusts to force every woman to take every pregnancy to term, but of course she won't lift a finger to help that woman and her new baby once the birth has happened. Then she doesn't want the government to get into our lives. Huh? How stupid is this, Sarah?
Enough With Chemistry, Biology and Archeology -- Enter 'Eye of Knute, Tongue of Snake' a Witches Brew
Stupid Palin wants something called "creation science" taught in all public schools, along with true sciences like archeology, biology and botany. Exactly WHICH creation story do you want taught, Sarah? The kind where witches were chased out of the Garden of Eden by snakes talking "unknown tongues" gibberish? And, which class would all of this superstitious nonsense replace in curriculums? Physics, mathematics, grammar, American history, geography? Who is to decide exactly what creation science actually is and what it teaches... one of her preachers who talk in tongues and chase witches? We are living in the Twilight Zone these days.
God Has Tunnel Vision -- Sees Only One War at a Time
Stupid Sarah thinks that God sent us to Iraq. One might ask Sarah why her God didn't figure out that sending our troops to Iraq would give Osama and the Taliban time to rebuild their forces in Afganistan and Pakistan. Stupid Sarah obviously thinks that her God is as stupid as she is. Guess Sarah's God was so busy running the 5 year Iraq disaster, that he just didn't have time to tell somebody to pay more attention to Afganistan. Just one little Holy Ghost whisper into Bush's ear might have done the job, but Sarah's own gibberish speaking, witch-hunting version of God could send us to Iraq, but couldn't spare any time to point us at the REAL bad boys over in the northwest mountains of Pakistan and Afganistan. Oh please.
Let's Pretend Foreign Policy
Stupid Sarah thinks WE voters are so stupid that we won't figure out that she doesn't know diddly about Russia, Canada or even the United States. Seeing Russia across 20 miles of ocean gives you foreign policy expertise? That makes perfect sense to people as stupid as Sarah Palin. She keeps telling us this story, because she's too stupid to realize how stupid she looks and sounds by repeating this prattle.
A Road Only Witches Could Love
Sarah Palin is so stupid that she thinks voters would never find out that even though she didn't agree build "the bridge to nowhere", she DID build a "road to nowhere" that went across the wilderness, right to a dead end turn-around located where the infamous bridge would have been built. There's nothing there, Sarah. Not even a picnic table. This shiny new road was built with the money from the bridge-to-nowhere funds not only goes nowhere, there's nobody driving on it. Not a soul, because there's not even a park bench to sit on at the dead end. You just drive down it to the U-turn, and go back where you came from. Cute. How smart is that? And, how stupid do you have to be to brag about NOT building the nowhere bridge, when anyone could figure out that you DID fund the equally stupid nowhere road. Pretty road-to-nowhere stupid.
I won't even go into her stupid, self destructive revenge on her ex-brother-in-law which she stupidly persisted in, even though she risked legal prosecution from officials in Alaska for possible abuse of her Governor's office power.
She Didn't Even Blink!
And, all things considered, Sarah is so stupid that she thinks she is qualified to be Vice President of the United States, and is ready to step into the Presidency in the all-too-likely possibility that McCain may become unable to perform his job due to disease, mental issues or death while in office.
The list of stupidity symptoms could go on and on. These two pinheads barely got through college, and only their maverick label gives them any argument for elective office. But, mavericks or not, these two mini-brains should not be allowed anywhere the White House, unless they are accompanied by a tour guide.
Truth is Unkind to Stupid People Who Want Nuclear Bombs
Is it rude to mention how stupid they are? Well "stupid is as stupid does," as Forest Gump's mother used to say. And with these two, if their actions are any guide to their mental capacities, we've got one whale of a lot of stupid going on.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
No one can deny the fervent passion you have in addressing your feelings on McCain and Palin, and I agree with you to the point that I believe that McCain has done far too much pandering and Palin has done far too much finger pointing and telling far fetched tales. I do have to disagree with you and agree with allshookup on the point that there is only a black and white, not a shade of gray a lot of us would like to believe at times. Now if McCain and Palin want to talk about black and white, I don't see them as being the knights in shining white armor here to save us all. I feel disgraced as a citizen to know that McCain wanted to "suspend" his campaign to address the financial bailout because that was a lie since he was definitely in attendance last night. Thank you for posting the information about this great American "hero" voting against many bills that would assist his fellow veterans. The bottom line, and I'm sure you can agree with me on this is that the time for fun, games and carnival side shows is over with. We as a nation have become so passionate about who we're for and who we're against that we're neglecting the issues and we're neglecting relying more on the facts and less on emotion. This is a good hub in which you've shared your passionate opinion, and now I pray that we as a nation are now prepared to get serious.
Thanks for your input folks. But, it is one thing to believe in the theoretical existence of absolute truth, but entirely another to pretend that we ourselves can fully comprehend it, not to say have the right to force others to believe as we do. As Lincoln said, our rights end at the other person's nose.
If some people want to live in religous communities where other views are outlawed, they violate the fundamental laws of individual freedom on which this country is designed. We all have a right to being crazy if we want. We do NOT have rights to force our views, crazy or not, onto others.
If you want to do that, you have a lot in common with the authors of 9/11, and religious extremists all over the world.
The difference between a democracy and a republic is that in our form of government (which is not the former), we are not permitted to vote on some things. We cannot vote on certain issues, whether or not they may or may not be true. This gives us the freedom to believe and act on that belief as we wish... until we reach another person's nose.
When Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government the founders had created for America, he replied "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." He knew that it wouldn't be long before politicians, special interests, and yes religionists would try to argue that freedom is less important that this or that doctrine, or security, or sharing the public purse.
Until now, we've done a fair job, but not a perffect one, of keeping a republican form of government. If you want a fine example of a democracy, look at Saudi Arabia or Iran. You may argue that they are not "democratic." But their governments are extremely popular. So was Hitler in pre-war Germany. Popular opinion of "right" combined with the power of government is the end of liberty.
I don't think John McCain is stupid, but I do think he is tempermental and brash. In fact, it is a personality trait he seems proud of. He is a bll in a china shop, to be sure. Probably not so hot for diplomacy, but there are worse attributes.
Sarah Palin is honestly just a terrifying prospect. She is honestly one of the most inept, uninformed people I have ever seen. I would think it was funny if the prospect of her with any sort of authority didn't chill me to the bone. She was a transparent ploy, and not a good one. Any high level, elected republican who is a woman (Olympia Snowe of Maine, for one) is more qualified than she is, and frankly they should probably be insulted they were passed over for someone so dim.
Thanks Len Cannon. You're right about women being insulted by McPalin. I've actually had several tell me precisely that, when I had expected them to support her in fact since they were basically conservative business women. Her choice does insult women, even when they agree with many of her positions.
About intelligence and McCain's brashness. I suspect that his behavior over so many years, from youth on up to 72, is in fact an index of his mental capacity to assess and correct his actions.
No ruler in our Democracy can make religious decisions for us. They can have all the narrow views they want, personally, but they cannot, in a free country, come into our bedrooms and living rooms and churches and tell us how to live and believe. As a ruler of a free country, you must rule with a broader view for the good of all, and the right of the individual to be different, is necessary, therefore the government must stay out of the church's business. Doesn't mean we can't govern right and wrong as far as safety, crime, etc is concerned. Of course, we must do that.
If I believe in God and live in a free country, then I must respect and pass laws for the rights of non believers as well as mine.
If God wants to force something, then let HIM. not those on the ground who profess to believe in Him and want to tell me how to live. I am a believer, but I cannot nor should I force my beliefs on others. Korea has narrow views and rules their people accordingly. China's rulers have narrow views and rule their people accordingly. Al Qaeda rulers have narrow views and rule their people accordingly.
Freedom allows people to be wrong, only enforcing the fewest rules to keep people safe.
People who are of a mind set to force us all to be Christians are walking very closely to Al Qaeda philosophy. Freedom to choose a belief is a must, so that we who choose can live peacefully beside those who do not choose to believe.
If anyone in this room,(meaning country) does not understand the basic living law of "your right ends where my nose begins..." please leave the room and do not vote. If you do not accept that one basic rule of living in a free country, you should not vote, but unfortunately I'll have to put up with your vote,(meaning those who think that anyone saying they are believing that the Bible is right and all others are wrong and can be governed to be wrong...) because we are in a free country.
Get it? I can no more deny you (speaking to a generic citizen of the still miraculously free US of A) your right to be stupid and vote, than you can deny me my right to be stupid in your view and vote. Get It? We can all be stupid in a free country, but hopefully most will step out of their personal religion long enough to allow me mine or the lack of as i choose. GET IT yet?
I'm not sure who I'm yelling at, but it could be those who do not understand we cannot elect someone because they call on the name of God. Not good enough, MY FRIENDS. They need to make sure, they're not forcing me or you to call on their God.
My fellow Americans, we need to be very careful we do not sell our rights to the dumbest bidder because of one or two issues. I don't want to lose my right to be a Christian in the way I feel is right, by some radical person who wants to force their brand of belief on me or you.
I know this wasn't about religion soley, Palin's got some serious issues with the freedom of that. Freedom for also involves freedom FROM. It's the "my nose..." issue again. LOL
thanks for allowing me to rant a bit.
As a matter of fact, Christ lived quite often in the gray area. The law may be black and white but Life that he showed and shared was heavily sprinkled with gray, an extention of Mercy. Not everyone who sinned, was punished, He lifted many up and forgave them, continuing to teach them, even in their "sins."
Deliver me from a human on the planet who is giving me the definition on the law of God, without any clear inspiration that I can detect from my own sense of right and wrong and Spirit, and forcing me to live their way, something God, or Christ, never did.
Choice, choice, choice, as long as it doesn't hurt your nose, or mine. Freedom of choice!!!
Absolutely; choices; Sarah Palin’s right of choice, John McCain’s right of choice, and America’s right of choice. That is truly what this country is about. But to call someone “stupid” simply because they don’t think like you or sound like you when you talk; well that is certainly pretentious at the very best and ego maniacally delusional at worst.
I find it both amusing and offensive when Liberal minded folks as yourself talk about tolerance and acceptance of all points of view, then trash talk those who don't think the way you do.
I am not sure if this hub is just a lame attempt to get attention or you are truly a bitter person, but you are obviously short-sighted and grossly uninformed and I doubt anything I have to say will enlighten you; or at the very least help to pry the blinders off your eyes.
You would do well to look at those who disagree with you with a little more objectivity and lose the unnecessary vitriol if you wish to get others to agree with your point of view.
marisue-
Will you please sight for me when or where Palin said she intended to "force" her religious views on you or anyone else? I've not seen or heard that quote.
Truthfully, and you know I like you, your blind passion for Obama scares me more than anything Sarah Palin has said. Barry's arrogance knows no bounds. Doesn't that frighten you just a tick?
You may never admit this, and I am not asking you to, but the fact that Sarah Palin believes in the sanctity of life scares the hell out of you and all the other liberal woman in the electorate. Had she aborted her precious little boy, and encouraged her teenage daughter to do the same because her pregnancy was not “planned,” it would be a new ball game. I know you won’t admit that you agree with me, but I still maintain this is the fact that so many liberal woman, and men for that matter, are filled with such hatred for this woman. It is a shame.
Sorry to dump on you, but you do make a lot of noise about Palin and you do little to back up why you hate this woman so much. If you wish to change my mind, present me with facts, not just DNC talking points.
Oh, and remember, facts do not hold any bias, they are simple- proven items. Is it possible for you, or any other liberal out there to remove the blinders and look at a candidate objectively? I have certainly done so with Obama. And please understand, I am proud of my conservative views and if Mr. Obama were running on the Republican ticket, I would not vote for him either.
Level1diet, if everything is just grey, and there is no black and white, how do you know with such certainty who is stupid?
I'm not supporting any of the major candidates in this election, and I am saddened that Americans often choose the less educated, less polished individual because they mistrust people who are too sophisticated. On the other hand, lots of intelligent, well-educated people do despicable things. Have you ever thought that most voters aren't interested in finding a candidate who is smart? Maybe they're looking for one who is good.
Good? What, would be good? If not, smart? Not talking about IQ, but smart about life, goodness, needs, economy, world, etc. Good is too subjective, Lots of good people, me included, would not be "good" for the country, I think we have to reach a bit higher, than good.
We need knowledge, a good combination of good. I'm not thinking level1diet is talking about black and white not existing, but the necessity to see a bit of grey is healthy, smart, good, and necessary in a leader.
I think it's good to call a spade a spade a times, stupid is not a disgrace, unless it's denied. If I had to perform brain surgery, I'd be thought stupid. But, I know enough to say "I don't know how to do that..." So, that's smart about being stupid.
=)) a little play on words. I walk in gray lanes all the time in life, and most people do too. Those who say they are always black or white, I don't think are accurate.
Aya Katz, we can know with certainty who is stupid by simply challenging them and observing their performance against a desired outcome. We've done this in laboratories for over a hundred years. The results of these tests are not popular, for obvious reasons, since we have found that there are upper limits to human performance, and that the distribution of mental abilities across the population is simply put, unfair. I'm going to discuss this in somewhat more detail in another hub that I'll call "Life is not fair."
As to answering the question "who is good," I have a couple of points: (1) being good is in fact the 2nd most important thing, and is not the first, and (2) being capable is actually the fundamental, the most important thing, and (3) the two cannot be separated.
Character is laid upon a foundation of ability, but as the person develops, they become the same structure. We must have a President that is both capable and good.
BEING MERELY GOOD IS NOT ENOUGH
Any first grade teacher can tell you about the "bad boy or girl" behavior of young children who are challenged well beyond their ability. They often become aggressive, angry, frustrated or withdrawn, depressed and self destructive. There is a range of these behaviors -- sometimes they are merely related to nutrition or biological status; correctable by medical intervention, or changes in diet. But in many cases, we need to modify the rate and the extent to which these children are challenged. We need to slow the rate at which new experiences are presented, and slow the overall pace of the learning program. Further, we may need to restructure the program, by stressing certain skill development that they may not have been able to accomplish in early life, due to either their environment or their native limitations.
Taken into later life, some of these limited people cannot perform well in situations that demand high levels of objective performance. They cannot become a trusted surgeon, a fair minded social leader, an astrophysicist, a rocket engineer or a nuclear reactor operator. They are still "acting out" the dramas of their early years. They are still limited by their native abilities, and now we call them "bad boys" or "bad girls."
Is this fair? No. But the sad fact is that many, if not all, of our "bad" people who often end up in jail or at the edges of society are in fact mentally challenged and disadvantaged from nature, as well as sometimes by nurture.
So, when we're deciding who should lead us, we must look at what they do, how they act, and make a determination of whether they are, by both nature and nurture, intellectually and morally, able to lead us.
At some point, Aya, we should at least try to discover if proposed leaders can actually process all the information to be given them in their future office, and of course whether they will make acceptable decisions once they have gathered and processed this information, based on something we call "character."
Intellectually disadvantaged people can be considered to be of "good character" only as long as they are within the limits of their ability. Once they are given tasks beyond their ability to comprehend, their otherwise good character becomes insignificant.
CONSIDER THE WORLD'S MOST POTENTIALLY DESTRUCTIVE OCCUPATION
Give me a person of previous good character but limited intellectual ability, seated at the control panel for a nuclear reactor. This is the world's single most dangerous device. A reactor core contains radioactive poisons many thousands of times more dangerous than those from a nuclear bomb or even thousands of nuclear bombs, as it works over years, while bombs work only for a few milliseconds. Things are changing rapidly in the reactor, as well across the complex working of the cooling and mechanical systems that support it. The operator must understand and be able to process hundreds of these dynamics at high speed, and to take fast action based on accurate assessment of the ever-changing data stream. Further, the operator must have the character to consistently make the "right" decisions for society, and not be tempted to use the awesome power for evil that has been given into his or her hands.
So, when you're choosing candidates for nuclear reactor operators, the first thing you do is make sure they are NOT demonstrable criminals with a simple background check, then you test their native ability to process information with different kinds of IQ tests. Of course, you don't even consider people for the job unless they have at least a basic educational achievement; either high school or college graduation, depending on the program. You begin an extremely challenging, fast paced education program, followed by a real world training program that lasts several years. During this process, you thoroughly investigate the background of the person being considered. You stress them with test after test after test; of their ability to understand the science, of their ability to make correct decisions in real world emergencies, and their ability to work in the actual operating role day after day after day.
In short, you develop and test both the individual's ability and reliability to handle the job that faces them, the most dangerous job in the world, potentially.
The qualities of ability and reliability, of intelligence and character, cannot be divided when we consider giving people the responsibility to use or not use nuclear destruction, and further to shape not only our immediate world, but to destroy it.
PRESIDENTS ARE EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN NUCLEAR REACTOR OPERATORS
If we give this careful consideration to the thousands of nuclear reactor operators around the world, shouldn't we take at least as much care to decide who is to be given the ultimate responsibility to guide the ship of state in these challenging times?
IS DEMOCRACY THE ONLY WAY TO SELECT PRESIDENTS IN OUR TIMES?
Perhaps the popular vote may not be the BEST way to select presidents, or at least not merely the ONLY way.
We already limit possible presidents to those who are at least 35 years old and native born. It may be time to insert a few more qualifications into the Constitution, other than native citizenship and age.
Considering their power to destroy the human race, perhaps now is time to place certain tested, proven minimal limits to intellectual capacity, then allow the general population to vote among those who meet the intellectual standards.
Can you imagine selecting your brain surgeon, or reactor operators by popular vote? What a picture! Yet we decide who is to be President merely by popular vote, and we have no basic test of their real ability to handle the nuances and complexities of the job.
While the test of character or "goodness" of a candidate could be given by the popular vote among candidates otherwise qualified, perhaps it is time to ensure that our chief executives meet at least some kind of upper-middle level of intellectual ability, as we do nuclear reactor operators and brain surgeons.
Audacious, and you know I like you, but you keep missing my point. I agree with Sarah's passion for life and I don't like abortion...what scares the hell out of me is her passion for enforcing her view as the one we should live by. Not only on that subject but all the others she believes in. The arrogance that scares me is McCain's. He doesn't open his mouth that he isn't lying about all he's done for the country, reminding us of his service in his self-serviing tone of voice. I'm a student of people, but I am not one without conclusions of my observations so far in life. It's ok to call his behavior despicable, HE is the one who should apologize for what he has said, lied about, and done in this campaign, not I for pointing it out...
His record is proof of his lies. He is NOT for the vets, he is a de-regulator, he is not a maverick as he 's supported Bush 90% of the time, 10% difference does not a maverick make,
Audacious, You make a quantum leap to suggest I hate anyone. I do not hate Palin. I hate the fact that she's running on the Republican ticket. I do not hate McCain, I hate his lies. I fear people will vote for her/him despite her own words. I am only judging her own actions and words. I do not want her telling me how to believe in church or in school. Listen to her and tell me she's qualified? Listen to McCain and tell me he's not lying? Are you deaf? (just a little drama there...not insulting you.) Are you even listening to him as he talks about his own record?
He doest not tell the truth. Surely you don't need me to go line by line and tell you where and how? You can flip through any transcript of any speech - line it up with his 26 years of voting and grandstanding, and figure it out. I will charge you if I need to do that for you. =))
A small short example of how "good" is not enough...I am good. I could not push a button to kill anyone, probably, though I've never been challenged in that regard. A "good" leader must be able to weigh the risk of life, and loss of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Remember those words?
I want someone stronger than the good person I am to take care of the nation, and influence the world for "good."
Smart is helpful.
Wow, well said Aya,
if everything is just grey, and there is no black and white, how do you know with such certainty who is stupid?
You didn't answer his question,
He asked if you would please reference any legitimate proof that Mrs. Palin wants to force her views on anybody else. Also, John McCain can’t vote with President Bush 90% of the time, now or ever, George Bush has never cast a vote. It’s kind of stupid to keep trying to make people believe things that are just downright impossible. As for voting with his own party, the highest McCain ever reached was 88%, this year; and that’s because everything voted on has had a hard date for pulling out the troops and John would never be dumb enough to vote for something so deadly to our own wonderful soldiers. John has always helped to care for our veterans, my father fought in World War 1 and the Korean War and he’s been a McCain supporter for thirty years; that’s good enough for me; your word against that of a decorated war hero; yea okay.
Here is the truth:
According to a Project Vote Smart study of Senator Obama’s voting record in the Senate since he has been there, Obama didn’t vote 228 out of 568 times (that amounts to skipping or passing on more than 40% of all his “votes”). But the particular issues he skips gets even more interesting as you’ll see below. I quote from the above referenced Obama2.com article:Based on the Project Vote Smart records, some areas where Obama likes to avoid having an opinion:· Abortion Issues - 75% NV · Agriculture Issues - 86% NV · Budget, Spending and Taxes - 54% NV · Business and Consumers - 47% NV · Civil Liberties and Civil Rights - 44% NV · Defense - 29% NV · Education - 55% NV · Energy Issues - 35% NV · Environmental Issues - 64% NV · Family and Children Issues - 50% NV · Foreign Aid and Policy Issues - 56% NV · Gun Issues - 25% NV · Health Issues - 67% NV · Housing and Property Issues - 100% NV · National Security Issues - 39% NV · Reproductive Issues - 75% NV · Technology and Communication - 33% NV · Trade Issues - 38% NV · Transportation Issues - 63% NV · Veterans Issues - 34% NV · Welfare and Poverty - 64% NV · Women’s Issues - 67% NV So much for Senator Obama showing us he can make the tough decisions that good leadership requires. That’s an appalling record and demonstrates how a Senator can skirt the tough issues that a mayor or a governor cannot by virtue of their executive role. Let’s debate the experience, not-ready-to-lead question some more and see who comes up on top. Hands down the Republican ticket wins this one.As to your black and white world, allshookup, I have little to say that would inform you more effectively than would the act of you yourself looking around you.
Faced with the manifold and wonderful joys of our complex, many textured, colored, and intricately organized universe, as well as the senses with which to observe it, I am profoundly incapable of arguing against those who either choose not to, or are incapable of perceiving it. Usually it is the former.
None is so blind as those who will not see.
blangrehr, I'm so glad you came to this hub and showed us the light on these FACTS. I really appreciate it. It would have made a wonderful hub! Although, I don't know if you want to get into being a zoo keeper from the results of hubs that people wont like, despite the fact that yours would contain facts and not opinions and name-calling. Again, thank you.
level1diet, so because I don't see things like you do, you are calling me blind? I'm blind because I see things in black and white? I do want to say that I am not perfect and make mistakes. I'm human, therefore, I will never be perfect on this earth. But, just because I mess up does not mean those things I do are good. The grey people talk about seem to be the things they do that are questionable, but they don't want people to think bad of them, so they aren't black, they are just grey. I mess up, like I said. So does each and every person breathing. But that does not change the things from black to grey. People who call those things grey do that to ease their conscience. God give us the Bible to see the black and white things. No matter who does the black things, no matter how important they are and how they try to change it, it will always be black. God doesn't change. They are black for me, they are black for every body. I am not the one who decided that, it's in the Bible. When I mess up, I know I've done a 'black' thing, but I never think in my heart that it's grey. And I really think most of those who say they believe in grey really don't, they only want there to be grey. We cannot change God. He was the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. And for those of you who keep saying that Christians force religion down your throat. That's not true from what I have seen on the hubpages. True of Charles Manson, maybe. True of what I've seen here, no. The people I have read here only want to see this country turn around and turn back to God. And they never want to see a person go to hell. So, if we don't try to help the unsaved to see how to be saved, then we are going against what God said for us to do. We only share what the Bible says because we care. You can call me a liar, you can trash me, but inside you know that I'm only telling you what's in the Bible. And I know that. I realize that people who are not saved cannot totally understand what it is to be saved and to have the Holy Spirit in them. But not once have I seen anyone say, ok, if you don't say you're a Christian I'm gonna beat you up. And neither has Sarah Palin said that. Although she's been accused of it numerous times here on hubpages. She only shares what she believes. No one can be MADE to believe or trust anything or anyone. It's a personal decision and God gives us all free will. So, you cannot say anyone forces anything down your throat. If anything goes down your throat, you first have to open your mouth.
Blangrehr, you claimed that "Bush has never cast a vote." Remember that the President proposes, while the Congress disposes? That's why McCain himself characterized his record as having "voted with the President" 90% of the time. That is his own representation of his own record. Ahem.
The point McCain was making was that he was a conservative. He was trying to prove that he was, like Bush, a conservative. Of course, most conservatives around the country do not themselves consider Bush conservative. When this finally sunk into McCain's little brain, he finally began to paint himself PRIMRILY as a "maverick," one who lives in the noman's land somewhere in the middle of every controversy. All things to all people, that the way McCain wants us to see him.
At least this week.
Who knows what McCain will be next week, as he detects the ever-changing directions of the winds, and sees however dimly the shapes of the sand dunes in his ever changing world. McCain the maveric, McCain the hero, McCain the savior.
Is it not necessary to write facts? It looks like to me that this article is so vague, can you write actual facts backing your opinion? When you start spatting the word stupid that tells me that you are writing on emotions and not facts, what is the old saying? "It takes one to know one" lol
Anyways you get a thumbs up on this hub on the emotional aspect of it because you most definately stirred things up to a good debate.
level1diet,
Great hub! You are very pointed and that unfortunately hurts the feelings of the religion voters here on hubpages. Unfortunately people like Blangererer and allshookup only vote based on religion and abortion. No other issue is important to them (Allshookup stated this on one of my hubs). These people don't care that our economy is destroyed, our soldiers are being senselessly killed, and the big lobbies are profiting from our tax dollars.
If you try and point this out to them they just label you as antichristian, elitist, lefty liberal with one eye, and all kinds of other nonesense taken from their Rush Limbaugh dictionaries.
Thanks for posting this hub and proving that America still has some people who use their heads to the think about issues and don't vote based on religion alone. You also prove that many American's still realize that separation of Church and State is an important issue and don't want our country to turn into a McPaulin Theocracy.
Blangrehr, you're certainly correct that Obama is a faulted civil servant. In my own opinion, he was certainly not the best choice for President in 2008 from the field of candidates who sought the nomination from either party or even other parties.
However, we are now faced with only 2 choices. Both of them are faulted. The final choice we make will be not which is the perfect Presidential choice, but which is the better of the two.
We must pick our poison.
It is not an easy choice, for the reasons we have both discussed. In the long run, I chose for the most capable person, in my opinion of course, and the person whose record limited as it might be, indicates that he shares values and an understanding of basic issues and challenges of our time that correspond with my own.
This is the choice we must all make.
I believe John S. McCain has throughout his life demonstated both his limited intellectual capacity and his reckless, cavalier attitudes. Frankly it is the latter that bother me most.
McCain is dangerously impulsive, and often risks life and limb in bizarre behavior. You can see this reflected in his educational experience, his military training and career, and especially in public office.
The prospect of seeing John McCain's risky, impulsive behavior associated with the awesome power at his command as President should give us all reason to fear him occupying the Oval Office.
Even with Obama's faults, I think we've all seen him display grace under fire. Equanimity in the face of opposition, vision and perspective in the face of chaos.
Whether or not Obama WILL do the right thing, only the angels or the Creator may be able to answer.
That Obama CAN do the right thing from his relatively short and recent record, we can answer somewhat more completely, largely in the affirmative.
And yes there is doubt about all of this. At least as to Obama's worthiness for the highest office in the world.
But John McCain's behavior has removed all doubt. His choice of the obviously scared, nervously scatterbrained Sarah Palin to be his Presidential understudy is the first evidence. He failed this most-important test of any Presidential candidate, the choice of Vice President running mate. And, if you need another of the hundreds of examples of his risky behavior, look at the way he responded to the present financial crisis. First, denial, saying that the economy was fundamentally sound. Then refusal to read or comment on the President's and Paulson's bailout proposal for several days. Then suddenly suspending his campaign, rushing off to Washington where he had nothing to do to affect the legislation, nobody to meet with, and nothing to contribute. Then attending a photo-op meeting arranged by the President for his own benefit, where he said nothing. Then upon finally realizing the futility of his situation, dramatically returning to Mississippi to attend the debate which he had earlier said he would NOT attend until an agreement had been reached.
This is head-spinning behavior. The same kind of thing he has exhibited all of his life. The same sort of thing that caused him to crash his training jet off the shores of Corpus Christi in the 1960's, and later to fly so dangerously low in Spain that his jet cut high voltage transmission wires to cause a widespread power failure across that part of the country.
You don't have to look far to see McCain's "maverick" behavior is not only unusual, but dangerous.
With some trepidation, I am audacious enough to HOPE that Obama will perform in office as he has in his Presidential campaign. That he will exhibit an ability to listen, an ability to learn from his mistake, to admit when he is wrong, and to deal well with complex challenges he will face.
Further, I hope that he will continue to be the great visionary, popular world leader that he has become not only in America, but all around the world.
You cannot seperate church and state and since you called me out by name, I'm going to answer the same I did to you before. I will NEVER vote for anyone who is pro-choice (murder). It's not moral or ethical. That tells me the kind of person they are when they say they are pro-life or pro-choice. I have to live with my conscience, therefore I can't vote for a person who thinks it's ok to murder 'mistakes.' Obama's word, not mine. You can talk and quote and copy and paste all you want to about seperation of church and state. There's no such thing except in word. It's not real in practice, as much as people like you would like it to be. We will always be involved in politics. It's our responsiblity. We take it seriously.
Thanks for providing us with your motive, allshookup. I can certainly understand your position on Obama. I too, wish we could live in a world devoid of abortion. However, I do not feel that we should have the government control a woman's fundamental right over a baby while it is yet unable to survive in the outside world. For that reason, I support the general position of the Supreme Court -- namely that a woman has rights over any unborn child during the period prior to its ability to survive, usually during the first two trimesters of existence after conception.
The alternative to that position places the federal government in charge of all unborn children, and permits them (and us) to invade a truly sacrosanct place -- the womb.
As a classical liberal, libertarian and life-long old fashioned conservative who believes in individual liberty and our constitutional republic, I will not cede the womb to the US Federal government.
While I would argue with women who decide to abort their first or second or even third term unborn child, and do so energetically from moral or ethical grounds, I do not want to grant to government the power over her womb. To do so would begin an cascade of ever-increasing power to be given to government that would eventually undermine every personal liberty we enjoy, and destroy the very fabric of liberty we enjoy in America and many other civilized nations around the world.
I tried to read this hub but I couldn't. I read a little and thought to myself, whoever wrote this is obviously ignorant about a few things. THis hub is merely your opinion on McCain and Palin.
It seems to me that they have gone pretty far with being so "STUPID" Have you gone as far as either of them have in life? I do have a suggestion for you. Make sure of what you write before you write it. Make sure that readers know, this hub is YOUR OPINION.
By the way, I do not endorse McCain and Palin, nor do I endorse Obama and Biden.
Levelone, that’s an odd position to take on abortion while at the same time supporting a POTUS candidate like Obama. I would think a true lifelong libertarian would find it impossible to vote for the most liberal candidate to ever seek high office in this country. I know many libertarians that will not even talk about Obama, granted very few of them like McCain, and you are correct in your assessment of Bush and McCain not being conservative. Explain to me please how the Democratic platform for governing this country satisfies the libertarian political ideology. As far as the government and abortion; the Federal government never legalized the act of murder that is abortion. It was done illegally from the high bench. By not protecting life our government has nullified the rule of law. We have given one segment of our population the right to kill based on the premise that they should have sole discretion of their body. Of course that choice only relates to murder of another being; in fact a woman can’t chose to kill herself, that’s against the law and yet it is her body. A woman does not have the choice to ingest, for recreational purposes, illegal drugs, that’s against the law and yet it is her body. It would seem correct to say that it is only murder that a woman should have the right to chose in regards to her body.
Ok, I really did not want to get into an abortion debate but here is one question that I would like to ask...When a child is born who cares for that child? when a child is born it CANNOT survive on it's own, someone has to feed the child in order for it to survive, the child cannot feed themselves, now what happens to a child of 1, 2, 3 or 4 years old when there is no supervision and no one there to feed the child? The child could most likely get hurt and starve, someone has to care for a child, just because a child is born does not mean that the child can survive on it's own, wouldn't these examples be classified as child endangerment? So why is it ok to assume that it is ok that a child in a womb is not alive? The child is relying on the mother to feed the child and help the child grow just like what one would do after the child is born. So why wouldn't that be considered as murder when it would be considered child neglect and in worse cases murder after the child is born?
I want to thank everyone for reading and commenting on this article.
A LITTLE ABOUT MY BACKGROUND
As an ex nuclear reactor operator with just under 9 years honorable service in the US Navy, I've long been interested in matters relating to quality assurance, zero defects, morality, character -- as well as subjects as disparate as intellectual capacity, religion, philosophy and history. In the university for my last 3 years, I pursued two lines of study, nuclear engineering and political science simultaneously -- while on a US Naval Scientific full scholarship. And, my previous two years of college were devoted to studies of the Bible and the history of religion, ethics and philosophy at a very conservative church associated college in Texas -- even though a scholarship in public speaking and debate paid the way. Over my lifetime, I have spent years as a regular Sunday school teacher, an official in the leadership of local congregations, and occasional preacher or speaker at church meetings.
So, while I'm not an expert in any of these fields, I do have a broad background of interest and formal education in them.
My Navy experience in nuclear power taught me to recognize risky behavior when I see it. And, it taught me how important it was and is to avoid giving reckless people power over extremely dangerous systems, whether over people or technology. A President controls both of course.
I cannot imagine a man like John S. McCain sitting at a single nuclear reactor control panel (the RPCP) with his hand on the controls of that incomprehensively dangerous device.
His risky behavior wrecked two planes and he was involved in two more aircraft disasters which may or may not have involved poor judgment, the final one of course for which he is famous as a POW hero. But had he caused two nuclear disasters from behavior as he exhibited while flying off the coast of Texas, or later over Spain, millions could have died.
For that reason, I cannot vote to grant him power as the Commander in Chief of ALL nuclear reactor operators and their systems, and all the other men and women in the service who themselves control other such deadly systems or weapons all around the world.
The Commander in Chief needs to be AT LEAST as reliable as the people who work for him.
As one who has held those controls in his hands, if only for one system at a time, I cannot vote to grant the reckless John McCain control over hundreds of these systems.
He doesn't have the right character for the job. Admiral Rickover would never have graduated him from a nuclear school, had he found a way to be admitted.
Please America, let us not give this man control over our military, the economy and our future.
And you don't think for a minute that Obama would not sell out this country to save himself or his pocket if it came down to that kind of scenario? I would also like to ask the forbidden question about Obama's affiliations with Wright and others, the reason I am asking is because you say that you have somewhat of a religious background, just because someone attends a church for 20 years does not mean that they agree with everything. Do you think that's true?
So, you are a preacher that went to a very conservative chruch that feels that it's ok for the government to take the rights away from an unborn baby (murder babies for the reason of birth control)? That's an oxymoron. Who is going to stand up for the unborn? The government apparently is for their murders. The only ones left to stand for them are us. So, where in Texas is a very conservative church that teaches murdering babies is good, so let the government allow their murders? I don't want to go to that church EVER. I'd hesitate to call that a church.
Thanks for commenting, allshookup. I enjoy reading your thoughts, even though we see things differently.
Hi YellowBurgandy, thanks for commenting. You asked "just because someone attends a church for 20 years does not mean that they agree with everything. Do you think that's true?"
That's certainly true. Nobody can agree with every detail that comes from any pulpit over time. You're right!
Not a pupil, the pastor. If one attends a church that does that kind of preaching would one stay with that church if they do not agree with the pastor?
McCain at Annapolis, c. 1954John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona and presidential nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election.McCain graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958. He became a naval aviator, flying ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers. During the Vietnam War, he nearly lost his life in the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. Later that year while on a bombing mission over North Vietnam, he was shot down, badly injured, and captured as a prisoner of war by the North Vietnamese. He was held from 1967 to 1973, experiencing episodes of torture and refusing an out-of-sequence early repatriation offer; his war wounds left him with lifelong physical limitations.
He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981, moved to Arizona, and entered politics. Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982, he served two terms, and was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986, winning re-election easily in 1992, 1998, and 2004. While generally adhering to conservative principles, McCain at times has had a media reputation as a "maverick" for disagreeing with his party on several key issues. After being investigated and largely exonerated in a political influence scandal of the 1980s as a member of the "Keating Five," he made campaign finance reform one of his signature concerns, which eventually led to the passage of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002. He is also known for his work towards restoring diplomatic relations with Vietnam in the 1990s, and for his belief that the war in Iraq should be fought to a successful conclusion in the 2000s. McCain has chaired the Senate Commerce Committee, has opposed pork barrel spending, and played a key role in alleviating a crisis over judicial nominations.
Wow, you decided that this man is not qualified to be POTUS. Based on your job, and college. Gee I certainly feel better. Gosh I wouldn't want a military hero to be President. I wouldn't want a person with thirty years of service to their country to be President. It would just be terrible to have someone who has dedicated their life to America as President. I think Sir, I'll leave you respectfully with your ego. Have a blessed day.
Not a pupil, the pastor. If one attends a church that does that kind of preaching would one stay with that church if they do not agree with the pastor?
My question for Obama and his followers. Excellent point YellowBurgandy.
Blangrehr, you left out a few details from McCain's spotty biography. How about commenting on his recklesssnesss in Spain, or his crash near Corpus Christi? How about commenting about his undistinguished barely acceptable career at the Naval Academy? How about defending Palin's embarrassing choice for Veep? How about defending his erratic behavior this week in response to the financial crisis?
I'm not running for President, he is. Being a maverick in the Senate is one thing. Suffering the irrational risky behavior of a maverick in the Oval Office is another. McCain does not have the reliability nor the judgement to be Commander in Chief.
That of course is merely my opinion, and I hope will be the final opinion of the American people.
YellowBurgandy, thanks again. You asked "Not a pupil, the pastor. If one attends a church that does that kind of preaching would one stay with that church if they do not agree with the pastor?"
My experience has been that eventually, you quit that particular church congregation, and if necessary, change affiliations entirely.
This process is not easy. You end up walking away from a great many otherwise wonderful friendships, and turn away from at least a few family members and relatives -- not by your own choice in most cases, but simply by the action of not going to meetings with them and so on. In some cases these people actually shun you.
It is for that reason, to avoid this consequence from friends and relatives, that we stay too long in churches which support doctrines with which we personally disagree. I managed to make the change after only a few years. It took Obama many years, and public embarrassment finally, to push him over the brink.
Religious faith is a deeply personal matter. I cannot enter into a man or woman's soul and tell them how to relate to their God and their church. I can discuss different doctrines with them. But, at the end of the day, matters of faith must be decided in private -- within the hidden corridors of the individual's own mind and spirit.
As a result of those deliberations, each person can be held to account for their own actions and beliefs.
That's why I welcome your thoughts and even your disagreements.
We had to walk away from the chruch I went to my entire life. My husband and I were youth leaders, I played the piano and we both taught Sunday School. We had a very wonderful pastor called into the mission field, and they elected another one. One that did not stand by the very conservative views that we hold dear. But, we could not allow our son to go to that church and hear such things. We are responsible for him. That was our first priority. My daddy has been a deacon there since 1975, mother is in the woman's auxilary, but none the less, God called us to leave. Was it hard? Were tears shed? YES! But it was done with MUCH MUCH prayer. We did not lose those friendships. Eventually many left that church, we were just the first ones to go. My parents felt it made them look bad. But, we had to obey God. That church lost 3/4 of it's member ship in the next 4 years. And my parents ended up leaving 3 years into it. Then that man left. We are now back at that church and loving it. We liked the church we spent 4 years at, but it just wasn't home and God led us back to my home church. And while we were gone to the other church, our son was saved. So, I know in my heart God blessed us for making that hard decision. And now it's come full circle and we are back at our church again.
Well see, I think Sarah Palin was agreat Choice.
I thoroughly understand your story. While being troubled by sermons I was hearing from my local pulpits, I would find myself quietly sneaking out to the foyer on some excuse... to get a drink of water, or use the restroom or something. Eventually I found myself walking all the way out to the parking lot for fresh air during the sermon. I'd always return for the final songs and the communion ceremony.
Finally, one of these walks to the parking lot resulted in me driving away without ever going back for communion, after which I never returned to that church again.
This important drama plays out daily all around us among those of us who care to think deeply and follow where the spirit may lead us, as best we can listen to Him. Life is a journey of growth and understanding, or should be. As we grow in our ability to accept inspiration and guidance, and as we ask for it, we are given it.
"So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you." from the Gospel According to Luke, 11:9. This lesson about spiritual growth was so important that it was said 3 different ways, to emphasize its significance and amplify its meaning.
This has been true for all humanity, throughout all time. It is the universal experience in all cultures and religions. It stems from the very nature of life and the workings of awareness.
It is to enable this growth and eternal progress as we walk down the paths of our life that our individual freedoms, especially the intellectual and religious or philosophical freedoms, need the highest priority and protections. If we are not free to think as we wish, we cannot grow.
But, this important issue is not really the point of my piece here, considering the worthiness of Mr. McCain vs. Mr. Obama for the office of President. I do however, as a side note, find it interesting thatit is Mr. Obama who discusses, both in his books and his personal appearances, his faith in God and in the transforming power of faith itself in improving our lives. He credits this faith in making him who he is, and says it guides his day to day life.
Interestingly, Mr. McCain seldom makes any such claims, and in fact rarely attends church services, even if they may be the 'wrong' ones.
I'm not saying that McCain is not religious or lacks faith. That determination is not up to me. I'm merely observing that of the two, it is Obama that seems to give it a larger presence in his life.
level1diet,
Your level of discourse and your strength are really uplifting! There are many people who rant and rave here on hubpages but you are one of the few that speaks to educate (even while ranting!). Thank you for showing me that there are other religious people out there who do not vote based solely on religon issues and instead consider political issues!
Yep, Black Liberation Theology. look it up.
JoeDoe, thanks again for the kudo's. Nice to get the good vibes happnin'.
Obama had to use religion to get past his name, he knew that would be the issue so that is why he brought in the church so strongly in the beginning, it was for his campaign, but what he didn't know is that his plan fell to pieces,(speaking of the wright controversy).
Hi Blangrehr. Yes the huge black church Obama attended for so many years was a black liberation church. Over the decades, I've known a few of these preachers, but of course not those who pastored such large congregations. And I've known even more members of such churches. Their theology is Christian, but involves social gospel considerations that we as white Christians don't quite comprehend, and certainly can't agree with.
Even though I can't share the black male, nor female, experience, I still can't quite force myself to go along with the black liberation gospel. Also, I don't go along with most highly charged versions of Christianity, no matter what the precise doctrines are being espoused.
To me, many of these so-called 'Christian fundamentalists" would not be very comfortable with Jesus of Nazareth. They would find themselves very comfortable with the pretentious and holier-than-thou Pharisees, who were known to be among the most religious of their day, and who Jesus spent much of his ministry condemning.
The sin of the Pharisees was spending a lot of time being concerned about their ranking in the kingdom of God, and very little about understanding and helping the plight of their fellow man.
So, while I sympathize with black liberation's adherents, I cannot endorse it, nor especially endorse those few who may support violence as a means to correct perceived mistreatment. In today's world, it seems to me that the way to correct problems of racism and discrimination in America is to work within the system.
Take a longer view -- while important, the problems posed to America by extremists in black liberation churches pales in comparison to the challenges from other extremist churches, most of them white oriented.
Who blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma City? Who casually condemns most of the human race to a hell that lasts forever, and then often supports racial violence to help send us on our way? Millions of non-black fundamentalists, who outnumber the black extremists many times. All of these people are dangerous, no matter what their color.
And, we don't need to change the essential teachings of Christianity to make room for a proper society.
There is enough there already to provide us with the needed wisdom for guiding our lives... whether we are black, brown, yellow, red or white.
Hi YellowBurgandy. Yes, finding a community for fellowship and blending into an American identity was undoubtedly a reason Obama joined the church. Once he got there, he found the experience itself, encountering the essential doctrines of Christianity, changed his life. Faith transforms and improves us. Once there, he found it difficult to separate himself from it and the community it encompassed. For a long while he rationalized its offensive doctrines, and then finally was forced to admit the truth, and see them for what they actually are. His experience, frankly, is not all that unusual, once you eliminate the details of the offensive doctrines themselves.
level1diet - Reading your comments, I mentally 'rehabilitated' you from the degraded position in which I felt your hub had placed you. I agree entirely with your assessment of the Republican contenders as wholly unsuited to high office, and I like your arguments to that efect in the comments. But the hub, being in the nature of a tirade, seemed counterproductive. At best, preaching to the converted. At worst, discrediting your cause by appearing extreme.
Anyway, it's the first of yours that I've read. I'll look out for more in future.
BTW, on the abortion issue, a strong pro-life activist in the White House wouldn't reduce the number of abortions even by one. Instead it would simply generate more and more illegal and dangerous back street 'clinics' for the poor and create abortion tourists among the rich. If in doubt, look at Eire (Catholic Ireland).
Thanks for your encouraging words, Paraglider. As to whether or not my 'rant' was counterproductive, or preaching to the choir as we used to say in church, please allow me to repeat an old story:
One Saturday on his weekly visit to town for supplies, a wise old farmer was seen loading lumber into the back of his cart. As he finished, he calmly withdrew one long two by four and circled around to the front of the cart, where he confronted his mule. The mule had been minding his own business up there, and had taken to a restful position, sitting on his haunches and blinking in the sun. The farmer took a chew of tobacco, then raised the timber high over his head and swung down hard to smack the mule directly between the eyes, much to the amazement of passers by. One of the bystanders blurted out the obvious question: "Now, why in tarnation did you do that? That mule wasn't doing anything!"
"Well now," replied the farmer, as he slid the two by four back into the rear of the cart, "you see, that's just the point... that derned mule was not about to do anything, either. So, ifn' you want to have him get up off his haunches and haul the cart, you first have to get his attention."
The old farmer climbed up onto the cart, snapped the reigns over the now fully alert mule, and guided the cart out of sight.
Seems to me your old farmer had a screw loose if he first loaded all the timber just to take a piece off the cart again. Where's the forward planning there?
Hey, there's no story I can't misinterpret deliberately if provoked ;)
Paraglider-
Always good to see you and get the opinion of a friend from across the pond.
Your “clothes-hanger” abortion argument is no longer valid. Besides, not one candidate has advocated the abolition of legal murder. And even if, and it is a huge “IF” Roe V. Wade were overturned, I am not convinced abortion would ever become illegal.
If the pro-death organizations here in the states would simply educate young women about ALL their options, rather than encourage abortion, (which is their cash cow) I truly believe that abortion would become legal, safe, and RARE.
The hypocrisy of Planned Parenthood is glaring and offensive.
Marisue-
Ok, just finished an 11 hour trip back home from my parents. Dad had heart surgery and I needed to get up there and take care of things for him and mom so they are ready for another Midwest winter. My two and four year old kept them entertained. Got the yard and house all set for them so I can rest a little easier down here in the muggy south.
You are right. When you go off I do often misinterpret your rants for hatefulness. But if I am having difficulty interpreting your intentions, I can’t imagine what someone who is not familiar with you is going through! :)
I still am not sure why you have adopted the view of Palin that you have. Even if I were a pro-death, tree hugging, gay man from San Francisco, I would not view Palin as a threat. Those that are of your mindset have selectively chosen the parts of Palin and McCain’s past that best suit your side of the debate, rather than look at the entire picture.
I still know Democrats that praise Bill as one of the best presidents ever, yet turn a blind eye to his extremely flawed personal life.
They are also the first to point out his troubled childhood as the contributing factor to his abhorrent behavior. The level of compassion and understanding most Democrats have for him is seldom matched when looking at Republicans and those of us on the conservative side of the issues.
Please understand; I do not hold Bill in contempt for the way he conducted his personal life. “Let He who hath no sin cast the first stone.” I am far from perfect. No, I’ve never used my position of power to coerce an underling half my age to have sex with me. I have not ever cheated on my wife, either.
Ok, ok- back to the point.
I am going to spend some more time today doing my homework and finding everything I can about McCain. I will research his voting record and anything else I can find. I know not all sources of information are reliable, so I will do my best to cut through the clutter and get myself more informed. I know SirDent has already done a good deal of research, so I will look back at a few of his hubs as well.
level1-
You definitely make a much more intelligent argument when you are not in personal attack mode.
Your credentials are impressive and far more diverse than my humble BS in education, so I will come to the table better prepared the next time I open my mouth.
Your adoption of “Grey Theology” is disappointing, but understood. As a man of science, I am sure it is difficult to believe in or take hold of anything that claims to be an “absolute.” I have a few colleagues who are of the same mind as you and they get so frustrated with me because I read the Bible literally rather than try to interpret it in a way to support my own point of view. I allow the Holy Spirit to guide my understanding.
I have come to terms with the fact that it is not possible for me to understand an infinite God with my limited resources.
You talk about Obama talking about his faith and how it guides him. I can name you another person who did the same. Adolf Hitler. Hitler even quoted the Bible in his speeches. Scary huh? His walk doesn't match his talk when it comes to this faith he talks about. He was a declaired muslim until he married Michelle who realized that he couldn't win on a ticket with that belief. So, he changed. Smart political move. Working in phych, I have learned that what a child is taught in their first 8 years is embedded in them for life. Why do you send you child to Sunday School at a young age? To have the truth embedded in their minds for life. Obama went to a muslim school and places of worship in his younger years and kept that into his adult life, until Michelle had him change. If you have watched him talk and really listened to him in the past month, you have heard him say that he is going to be campaign in the 57 United States. He has said this multiple times, but the media and his disciples seem to overlook that. 57 United States. How many states did we have the last time you looked? It wasn't 57 was it? Now, how many muslim states are there? You guessed it. 57. Coincidence? I think not. I feel that it's what's in his heart. He wants to be the leader of our country, but doesn't know how many states we have. He also doesn't take a Biblical stand on abortion (murdering 'mistakes') That is his word, not mine. His walk doesn't match his talk. He can say he's a Christian, then show me something that makes me belive it besides just saying 'my faith leads me everyday.' I believe that, I believe his faith leads him everyday, but it's not Christian faith. It's the faith he's had since childhood. I was never a McCain supporter. I was going to vote for Bob Barr until he came out and announced Palin as his VP choice, now I am voting for her because of her stand on abortion, drilling, family, church, God and country. I don't feel that McCain is conservative, but I do feel she is. I realize that Obama has drawn in people by his great speaking etc, but great speaking does not a quailty president make. He charms people like a snake charmer charms a snake. It's very scary to me that people just take him at his word but don't see what is is really saying and doing. Just because Obama and Hitler claim Christianity doesn't make it so. If I stand in a garage, does that make me a car?
{{Why do you send you child to Sunday School at a young age? To have the truth embedded in their minds for life. }}
Fortunately, it doesn't always work. Some of us learn to think for ourselves and make up our own minds.
I didn't say they couldn't think, I said that things they learn are embedded in them for life. It's in there no matter what you do. You put words in my mouth that I never said. Please don't do that. It's unfair of you.
Paraglider-
Why do Muslims send their children to Madrassas?
Do you mean to say that teaching children to love one another and show kindness is wrong? Your logic is baffling.
That's what children should learn from their families. I believe (though I could be wrong) that by "the truth" allshookup was meaning the "truth" about Christianity. I think such material is actually better encountered when you are old enough to question it. Loving kindness is not the sole preserve of the religious.
“I think such material is actually better encountered when you are old enough to question it. Loving kindness is not the sole preserve of the religious.”
Of course it is incumbent on parents to teach their children about matters of faith, etc. There is no better teacher than the example we set at home. But there is nothing wrong with children gathering together and having the lessons taught at home reinforced once a week in Sunday School.
I have no doubt that my children will be forced to question their faith daily as they go out into the world.
At the risk of putting words in your mouth- you elude to ASU’s desire (and mine for that matter) to take her children to Church as an attempt to indoctrinate. If that is the case, then isn't that what every parent who attempts to teach their child how to behave and what to believe is doing?
this is stupid!
There is individual indoctrination that is healthy as long as you are deciding it, not the government. Indoctrination is not a bad word, unless it's done by the government and ends up injuring your right as an individual to continue your own "pursuit of happiness."
You can do that for yours, but not for others. Freedom for, also involves freedom from...come on people we are not Nazis here. We do not force God thru government. Attend the church of your choice, be glad you can, and don't force others, so that you can keep your freedom to go to the church of your choice.
I've lived right here in America on a private child's ranch, where we were forced to go to a certain church, participate, which meant pray the way they did, and I was extremely uncomfortable. I cut my teeth on the Bible. Christ never forced his way on anyone, in fact he Died because he Refused to prove Himself, rather choosing to sacrifice so people might maintain their choices, even ignorance.
At this other church, living on this Christain Ranch, I was forced thru pressure and keeping my job, to abandon my own Church, and my own way of praying, which was specifically to bow my head, fold my arms, and stand still or sit still, or kneel if the need was there. However, to pray their way, I had to wave my hands in the air, lean in with arms extended and palms up as tho' reaching towards whoever was in the front of the auditorium and murmur Amen every few seconds as they were prayed over. Otherwise, I was not "participating" in the indoctrination of their brand of God, for the kids in my charge.
Right here in America, I was told how to pray, when to pray, and my job depended on it.
Thanks, but no Thanks, American voter. Keep separation of Church and State - this was flavor enough for me to know, you do not want to be dictated to...if you do, then I'm voting for my brand of religion to be your brand and you will be forced or "taught" to comply, after all, according to some, what difference does it make as long as you are calling on the name of God? The difference it makes is the personal style, relationship and desire your love of God dictates for you.
And some people, choose not to pray at all and I will not force them. To do so, could be called stupid.
Stupid is not a bad word, unless the condition of it is denied. Some smart people are stupid if they are acting like they can do all things...especially that which they are not qualified to do. If you do not think so, then please schedule your next surgery with me, and about the time I raise the scapel to you, I bet the word stupid will enter your mind.
Let's be reasonable, Don't ever think you can allow the government to make decidions for us regarding sex in our own home, or God in our own church. You will be miserable for it.
I support Barack Obama and have some very serious concerns about John McCain--many of them are listed in your hub. Thank you for taking the time to write it.
One concern I have is reflected in the comments here, and it's about tolerance. I don't see much tolerance in McCain, and his supporters seem to often express an equally intolerant attitude toward others. For instance, you are a pastor, and here are all these people condemning your religious views on the basis of this one political hub. And you don't even have religious views that are that far outside the mainstream. So what on earth will happen to a person like me should this attitude of intolerance be voted in? Nothing good, I think.
So of course I'm for Obama, because I don't like to be forced to believe things I think are ridiculous. The most valuable indoctrination I received as a child was about how to think critically, for myself. It had nothing to do with religion. So many true believers seem incapable of thinking critically. I think it's a bad trade--certainty in exchange for being able to use your own mind.
Hi to all, sorry to be away for a few hours, but there is something called Life...
Religion as a phenomenon is not really about truth, or the search for it. It is about 'binding the people together', from the Latin root 'ligio' meaning to tie together or bind, as in 'ligation'. A thing called Philsophy is about truth or the love of truth more precisely, as is Science, which is more accuratey about knowledge, something close to truth of course.
I point this out to emphasize that one searches for truth within one's self and arguably directly with Spirit or the Devine, whereas one's religion is by nature a social thing, where one finds community and connections with one's fellow man. When we look to religion to give us truth, we're looking in the wrong place, and perhaps even for the wrong reasons, to enhance our social position or improve our relations with others. While those relationships are essential in our lives, they are not the path leading to truth.
Jesus of Nazareth said, much to the consternation of the religionists of his day, "the Kingdom of God is within you". Now I know the word 'entos' for within could also mean 'among' instead of 'in' or 'inside'. However, if you look at many of the other teachings of the Master, you will see that he always stressed the internal nature of one's relationship with God. He taught us not to go to others, officials in churches or Priests or even prophets or our fellow man, but to go directly to God in prayer. This was revolutionary in his day. Religious officials prayed for the members. The members didn't pray themselves commonly. But Jesus stressed a direct personal connection with the devine throughout his life. He was not alone in this. Hundreds of years earlier, the Buddha taught the same lessons. Perhaps they were both inspired from the same Source? I think so, at least on some levels and some issues.
Our connections with meaning, truth and the Devine can only come from internal realization or what has also been called personal revelation.
And, in order to receive, we must first turn our transmitter off. Hard to hear the Spirit when we're generating all the noise.
Seekers of truth need to periodically turn down the sound in their life. The saying goes "be still and know." In those moments of stillness, the whispers of Spirit can reveal to us Truth.
Should we then avoid religion and its binding rules, constricting ligands, completely? No. We need the social connections with other seekers of truth. And, we need the leadership that may happen when we see examples of others who have walked our path and may be a bit further down the way. We also need the connections with others who are not themselves perhaps as far progressed as we. We need the ability to provide aid to the sick and the needy around us. Church gives us many connections with our fellow man that are helpful for them and us. Even Jesus went to the Temple.
For those who don't listen to Jesus, Buddha also never said we must live in caves all our lives. So, while knowing is good, life is in the living of it. And life must be lived in community. No man came into the world alone, nor should he live in it alone.
PGrudy, thanks for commenting. I certainly agree with your comments about the exclusiveness of some religionists. When we draw a circle to include some around us, the same circle excludes everyone else outside it. This is the nature of religion; while binding some together, it rejects those not binded. It has always been true. A look a the history of religious movements through all time and in all place shows this same problem.
By uniting some, we divide all.
It is not unusual that we find contemporary churches in America doing the same thing churches have done for thousands of years. Great joys can be found in the community we can find in a church. But there is great misery for those outside the circle.
And, then there is this thing called Truth. It has been my experience that to find truth with all its profound personal joys, we must look not to the left or right, in front of us or behind us... but up!
That's pretty hard to do in a loud church meeting, or even a Sunday school session that may be much quieter.
There must be a balance in our life. And, somehow, we need to understand that all the billions of people on Earth are on their own individual journey. Looking around us, we must expand our circle to include those billions in our love.
In every church I've visited, I've seen these people who have done just that. You can see it in their eyes. There is a peace there. An assurance. A connection not only with us, but with the universe itself, and certainly with Spirit. Oddly enough, this happens even when the actual doctrines their church may support are widely divergent from each other. As you go from church to church, temple to temple, you find the same spirit among at least a few in each.
This give us hope.
Oh, by the way, I want to point out that I am not now a preacher and haven't held office in any congregation for many years.
Of course, that doesn't stop me preaching (grin) as anyone who knows me could well testify.
What is all of this speculation on McCains tolerance? Is that all you have on him? It is a copout argument, where are the facts? Man oh man, if you want to talk reteric I have alot to say on Obama.
Black Liberation Theology:
Does this sound like a President for all people?
Black theology is a form of liberation theology that has its center in the theme of oppression of black people by white people.[1] According to James H. Cone, it came out of the "need for black people to define the scope and meaning of black existence in a white society"[citation needed], and emerged in the last two decades in the wave of liberation movements as an expression of "black consciousness". Black theology is focused on the issues that blacks are confronted with on a daily basis.
Beliefs and doctrines
[God; Intricate and largely philosophical views of God are largely ignored in preference for the concerns of the oppressed. White Christian concepts taught to black persons are to be disregarded or ignored. The aspects of God's person, his power and authority, as well as "subtle indications of God's white maleness" are said not to relate to the black experience, to the extent of sometimes being antagonistic. While trinitarian theology is a big concern, Jesus is still considered to be God. The focus is given to God's actions, and his delivering of the oppressed because of his righteousness. Immanence is stressed over transcendence, and as a result God is seen to be "in flux" or "always changing". [1]
[Christ; Jesus is seen as a non-white, social liberator who focused on the emancipation of the poor and of the marginalized, and many parallel are made with the emancipation efforts of black people in the United States. Christ's message is interpreted as encouraging "black power" (Henry). His intrinsic nature and spiritual activity receive little or no attention. Some even deny his role as the atoning sacrifice for the world's sins and provider of eternal life (Shrine).
[Revelation; Black theology is not bound to biblical liberalism, but is of a more pragmatic nature. Only the experience of black oppression is the authoritative standard.
[Salvation; Salvation is freedom from the oppression and pertains to blacks in this life. Proponents of black theology are concerned specifically with the political and theological aspects of salvation more than the spiritual. In other words, salvation is physically liberation from white oppression, or "The white enemy" (Cone) rather than freedom from the sinful nature and acts of each individual person. Presenting heaven as a reward for following Christ is seen as an attempt to dissuade blacks from the goal of real liberation of their whole persons.
[Church; The church is the focus of social expression in the black community where the blacks can express freedom and equality (Cone). Thus the church and politics have formed a cohesion where the theological expression of the desire for social freedom is carried out.
My own assessment of John McCain is based on a review of his character and of his ability to deal with high speed data streams, the flow of fast changing parameters in the complex job of high command. Sen. McCain has never been tasked with command of anything except the single flight training school he commanded for a year or so in Florida after returning from Vietnam. People can be excellent officers, serving well in their specialty within a command structure, but the same person can fall to pieces when given actual command. Command is about taking inputs from your inferiors, and building concensus among them and your men to perform well the orders you end up giving. Politics is the art of compromise. Command or governance is the art of concensus building. There's a bit more to it than that of course. But, anyway the two levels of performance require different talents. Not every person, bright or good character or not, is given the ability to operate well as a commander.
In my own opinion, John McCain does not exhibit the qualities of a potential good Commander in Chief. It is therefore, not surprizing that he has never been a strong leader in the Senate, and is not well respected there in terms of actually leading them. They may SAY they respect him, but he essentially has no followers. You can always tell a leader. They are at the head of a group of disciples.
"There must be a balance in our life. And, somehow, we need to understand that all the billions of people on Earth are on their own individual journey. Looking around us, we must expand our circle to include those billions in our love."
Well said! Everyone is on a journey and none of us are on it alone, but we should be charitable I think, slow to judge others. I pray, and my atheist and Christian friends both find that baffling because I don't belong to a Church and fundamentalism bothers me, but I'm not comfortable calling myself an atheist either. I pray because it works, period. I ask for help, I get it--just like if I flip a light switch, the light comes on. I don't need to be an electrician to turn on a light, and no one would blast me for not being one either.
So I manage to make everyone mad usually. It's a gift. (o:
To my mind, the whole nasty acrimonious cloud floating over religion these days just seems unnecessary. I take your point about inclusion having to exclude by definition, but geez. People used to at least have manners.
Thank you for your post and your thoughtful and inspiring answer.
You're very welcome, PGrundy. Billions do pray, in their own way, if not every day then at least sometimes. A few don't, perhaps. But I know Chinese who pray, Indians who pray, Philipinos who pray, Africans who pray, and so on... none of them Christians, Jews nor Muslims. And of course those 3 groups also pray. I know athiests who meditate to seek wisdom from 'the universe.'
It all works the same -- ask and you shall receive, knock and the door shall be opened.
The laws of the universe are not applicable only to those who believe in them.
There is one little problem. In order to get the right answer, sometimes we have to frame the right question.
That is not easy, no matter who or where we are.
level1diet, I am a bit confused about you. Since this is your hub and you post to respond to our hubs, I read what you post. And some of the things you have said is kinda confusing to me. I wonder if you'd mind unconfusing me, as it were. You said you were a preacher and went to a very conservative church. Even though you are not a preacher anymore, you once were. And you quote Scripture in your posts. But, then you say things like
A few don't, perhaps. But I know Chinese who pray, Indians who pray, Philipinos who pray, Africans who pray, and so on... none of them Christians, Jews nor Muslims. And of course those 3 groups also pray. I know athiests who meditate to seek wisdom from 'the universe.'
So, since you know they pray, yet you say they are not Christian, who are they praying to and why do you feel they reach where they are intended? Do you believe in many gods? Or do you believe in one God? Since you talk about it so much, I felt is safe of me to ask you this. Have you gone against those beliefs you once had and are no longer a Christian?
Hi Blangrehr, thanks for the Wikipedia info on black liberation theology. Didn't know some of that. Of course there's more if anyone is interested over at the Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theo
A couple of minor points about religion: First, you don't have to believe in black liberation theology to turn your religion into a social movement. Religion is already that. It is the nature of the beast. It's social in essence, not merely in one or two expressions, but in all of them. For it not to be social, you'd have to limit the size of a church to only one person, not including even their family. Every religion and every instance of its expression is absolutely and fully a social thing.
So, to call someone's religion 'social' is not to comment about its worth, and fails to comprehend its nature.
See my discussions above about the differences between religion and truth.
So, one needs to criticize the actual beliefs of a religion to find its relative merits, not the fact that they may be aimed at people. All belief systems expressed in religious movements are axiomatically aimed at people.
Allshookup, I will try to answer your question this way: Do you think that Jesus Himself believed that only his followers would 'go to heaven?'
Look carefully at his life, as far as we know it through the cannonical gospels and epistles.
He was roundly criticized for including non-Jews into his ministry. He promised not only membership roles, but in fact 'salvation' to people who were at the lowest rungs of the social ladder, prostitutes, tax collectors and so on. Where these people Christians?
The man on the cross with him was to go with him into Paradise that very day. Was he a Christian? In fact, was Jesus himself a Christian? How about the billions of others who have lived before and after Jesus. Few of them ever heard of Jesus, percentage-wise. Are any of those going to Paradise?
Or, is Paradise reserved only for those few who've been fortunate to have been born where they could hear one particular flavor of Christianity, the one you (or any of us of course) might happen to believe in?
Which kind of world would it be where a Creator could design and build a world into which would be born untold billions of his children, only a small part of which would ever hear of the unique doctrines that would enable them to live forever in glorious communion? And, which would also enable them to avoid coincidentally, eternal pain and anquish?
This is a question for your soul to struggle with.
I'm sure that God did not and would not create such a world. If you believe yours did, then I suspect that you need to reread the story of the Bible. Just a suggestion.
Or, you can go on believing in this rather strange picture of a universe inhabited mostly by beings that never stood a chance to gain eternal rewards and progress: And who will be confined forever in a lake of fire; as "sinners in the hands of an angry God."
Oh me. You said it, 'My god.' That answers so much with those 2 words. You said you were once a preacher. What Bible did you use? Did you use the Holy Bible, maybe KJV or NIV? Something close? If so, you read the one and only way to get to Heaven. It's God's Word, not mine. If you were a preacher, you must have studied at some point, how a person is saved. If someone came to the alter and said they were lost, how did you pray with them? If you believe any part of the Bible, you have to believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven. Again, not my rules. I'm just going by the Book of Instructions. You have to call on Jesus' Name. That Holy, Precious Name. That's the only way.
Allshookup, I will try to answer your question this way: Do you think that Jesus Himself believed that only his followers would 'go to heaven?' Since the Bible says that, then yes I believe it.
This is a question for your soul to struggle with. That's the good thing about having His Word to study from. I don't have to struggle with it. I know the answer. From you saying you were a preacher, I felt you knew it too.
God is no respector of persons. 'Whosoever calleth upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.' Don't matter where you live, your name, your color, nothing. His arms are open to everyone who wants Him. But, He gives us free will to make that decision. Only His followers will go. Why do you think we try to share this message so much? We don't want anyone to go to Hell. So, there is no 'my god' there is only One God. There is one God and one Mediator between God and man, and that is Christ Jesus. One Door. I don't want you to take my word for it at all. Please take your Bible and read; Romans 3:23, Romans, 6:23, Romans 5:8, Romans 9:9&10. John 14:6 No man comes to the Father but by me. He says it Himself. You can't argue with Jesus Christ. Well, you could, but whoever does that is going to be wrong. He is God, you know. And once again, this is not my belief, this is not my opinon, this is God's Word and how He is showing His love for all of us. God doesn't send us to hell, we choose to go there. He came that none should perish. Please read those Scriptures and let Him speak to you.
Walk around the world, over into the far East and into Europe or Africa. Wander into the hills and valleys. Look people in the eyes. Get to know them.
Before you give a nod to beliefs that condemn these infidels to eternal punishment, look them or at least some of them, in the eyes.
I tell you that your interpretation of the teachings of Jesus is not coming through the Spirit.
It is coming from people who have dressed themselves in garments of light, but are wolves among sheep.
Jesus did not mean that people had to have met him or even heard about him. He said that they would come to salvation only through him. That doesn't mean they could not be lead by His spirit having never heard of him.
Even though faith comes through hearing and hearing from the Word, that doesn't mean that the only way we can 'hear' is by a preacher. In the beginning was the Word. Before the world was created, there was the Word. Interesting, huh?
Hearing comes from the Word. The Word was before the world was.
I tell you that the Word can touch each of us, even without preaching. We each of us, no matter where or when we live or have lived, have direct contact with the Word. We are all judged by the standard of our conduct, by the light we have all been given. The light is the Word, which was before the world was.
Read carefully the Bible. Look around you and be still. You will know.
God does not condemn his children who are ignorant of the Bible and Jesus. Eternal rewards are available for everyone, everwhere and throughout all time. Every ear will hear, and every knee will bow. Right?
But not in one of our own little churches. There is a bigger, infinite story going on here. The story of the growth and progress of each and every soul is much bigger than any one religion or church.
Presumed intellect is afraid of faith, or at least those who deem themselves wise cannot abide the true wisdom of God. You will notice this entire post is an exercise in self intellectual grandiose. The elite radical left considers Christians to be ignorant imbeciles. Liberals consider anybody that doesn’t worship at the altar of secular progressive individualism or more accurately describe as moral ambivalence, to be nothing more than uneducated fodder to be ruled and controlled for their own good. You know bitter hopeless average Americans who cling to their God and their guns. To most, or I should say the loudest as not to be overly general, liberals the Bible is just a book full of average stories. They repudiate the living word of God. I’m saying; you are wasting your time here Shook: but I love your witness; thank you.
blangrehr, Sadly, I feel you are right. I do want to thank you for your comments. They mean a lot to me. It's just really sad to me that people choose not to have the joy and peace that we have given to us through the Holy Spirit. But, I never stop praying. Again, thank you for your kind words.
You live in a strangely configured world where you, the very fortunate few, have been blessed with a private Gospel that gives you peace and joy, while billions of your brothers and sisters are condemned by an accident of birth to eternal punishment.
Peace? Joy?
This doctrine is one of darkness, selfishness and evil. It does not come from the Bible. It comes from angels of darkness who desire dominion over the souls of men.
God does not play with us. We are not dice on a gambling table.
Accidents of birth do not control our destiny. Light is given to every man and woman. Jesus said he is the light to the world, not merely to a few.
If you have ears, hear. If you eyes, see.
It is my belief that God will not judge the misinformed or those who do not know, or those that have genuinely not received any knowledge of the bible or Jesus, but I am sure that somehow, someway his word tried to reach an individual at some point in their lives and at that point it is up to the individual to make a decision, whether just coming across it in passing, like something as small as someone you might meet in a store or something as big as walking into a church, and then God will be the only judge.
YellowBurgandy, I think you're on the right track. But, you don't have to actually go this far into speculation. The early Christians knew the explanation, which was revealed to them by the early authorities, the Apostles, their local bishops and priests who had been chosen by those early officials, and even Jesus himself.
You see John deal with it when he began his Gospel this way:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
-- From the King James Version, The Gospel of John, Chapter 1, Verses 1-13.
This is wonderfully clear doctrine. It explains clearly that EVERY man that enters the world, not just some of them, receives the light. And, John adds, even those who believe in Jesus can become the sons of God. Everyone receives him and all who receive him, can become the sons of God, even those who believe in Jesus.
We don't need anything but the Bible to understand that all men everywhere, throughout all time, all who have entered the world, receive the light to enable them to become the sons of God.
Not just those who have heard of Jesus, nor merely those who believe in him, but all men, including those who believe in him.
We each of us receive the light as we enter the world. It is a free gift to each and every person who has ever lived and will ever live, not limited by the accidents of their birth. We are judged by how we respond to this gift.
Note that John points out that if we having been given the Light, reject it and do not follow it, then we are NOT given the power to become the sons of God.
So, we do have choice, all of us. We can choose to follow or 'receive' the light we have all been given, or we can reject it and follow the darkness that does not comprehend the light.
So you see, if your preacher is telling you that people are saved ONLY by his preaching, or even by reading the Bible ONLY, or that his preaching about the Bible is a necessary step in man's salvation, he is in error. Gross error.
He has placed himself in every person's pathway to God and eternal life. This is not following the light. But, it certainly enhances his ability to ask for funds and makes him the center of attention. Be very careful to whom you listen.
Remember John's explanation, that you were given light to follow as you entered the world.
Men may help you, or they may impede your way, but they are not necessary in your path to becoming one of the sons of God.
I can't say it any better than John did.
One other point, for some reason there are popular preachers running around talking about the Word being the Bible. That is NOT true.
The Word was with God and the Word was God and was made flesh and dwelt among men.
The Bible was not made flesh. The Bible did not create the world, nor precede the world. Neither is the Bible the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
The Word was God, the light that is given to each and every soul that enters the world.
While preachers can possibly convey the Word, it is not their sole property. Light is given to all of us, even without preaching, and without the Bible.
Believe this. It is the Good News. We are all of us able to achieve perfection by following the Light that each of us, from the foundations of the world, have received.
Even those who believe in Jesus.
New Age teachings. It is not the Gospel of Christ.
Which part of the Gospel of John do you wish us to reject, SirDent?
Are you saying that the Gospel of John is not the Gospel of Christ?
Personally, I choose to accept all of it. But that's just my own choice. We can all choose to accept or reject the light, as we wish.
level1diet - I wholly support your view that cults (for that is how I see them) that believe they and only they hold the key to eternal life and everyone else is to be tortured, are mere blots on the intellectual and spiritual landscape. Personally I espouse no religion at all and this position leads me to wish for and (within my very limited powers) work for the best for all people in this life. I too have travelled extensively and see common humanity wherever I go. I also travel through history (metaphorically - my time machine isn't working yet!) and see so many coteries with 'the answer' assume a little power, wield it for a time, often cruelly, then fade into oblivion. The only way is inclusion. The three pillars of the Enlightenment were Tolerance, Reason and Humanity. A good starting point.
Thanks Paraglider for your comments. I'm still a Christian. I believe in its inclusiveness, as was expressed so vividly by John the Apostle. I know there has been some controversy about his writing for almost 2,000 years now.
Like the Apostle Paul, he was accused by some in his day or shortly thereafter of trying to include 'Pagan theology' into the teachings of Jesus. The argument continues to this day. Religionists want desperately to have an exclusive angle on truth. Without it, there might be no reason to pay them a nice salary.
But, the fact is that the whole weight of the thoughts and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth demonstrate that he was inclusive, not exclusive. While he remained a Jew until he died, he was certainly a very 'liberal' one.
And, the inculcation of 'logos' into the Gospels of John was a natural fit. It was not at all in conflict with Jesus' other teachings as revealed in the writings of the other disciples.
Together, not ignoring any of the writings of these authorities on early Christianity as revealed in the Bible, there is no reason to assume that any one group has a total lock on eternal life and progress of the soul.
Let's analyze how stupid they are. They're running for the highest office in the land and you're on HubPages...hmmmmm.
Hey, RockinJoe, thanks for commenting. Always enjoy your hubs. You've written some pretty stuff there. I really like the '5 signs your bank will close.' (1) when you open an account, they ask YOU for a toaster... etc. You should be selling these lines to Letterman. Nice to have you here.
ParaGlider, I found a nice site about the Enlightenment at:
http://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2008/05/18/the-ph
Writers of the Enlightenment in a sense produced the United States of America, from the philosophical sense of course. Naturally they did not all agree in the details of their understanding, but inspire us they did. I especially liked the comment written to Voltaire by Diderot in his letter of 1762, "no quarter for the superstitious, for the fanatical, for the ignorant, for the foolish, for the wicked and for the tyrants."
The Enlightenment inspired not only the good in people, it appeared in some to be equally capable of inspiring the worst. Some of the philosophers of the Enlightenment were quoted by, but were not directly involved with, some of the leaders of the worst and most totalitarian, most tyranical regimes in history, including the Stalinists, the Nazis and the Fascists. We find ways to justify whatever we wish to do, no matter how foul.
But I think you do have a point about the religious extremists. These people can live in America and enjoy its protections of their intellectual or religious and spiritual freedoms, while never comprehending the values of the enlightened system that protects them. In fact, these folks are generally antithetical to the tolerance that is the foundation of our society.
They've been here since the beginning of course. But by their nature they could never have constructed this wonderfully tolerant, balanced and inspired government.
>>>it is one thing to believe in the theoretical existence of absolute truth, but entirely another to pretend that we ourselves can fully comprehend it, not to say have the right to force others to believe as we do.<<<
Funny, it seems that is exactly what you are doing and most liberals believe they should do while pointing at those who have a higher moral view with such specious claims.
Specious claims? My only claim here is that we should not condemn the majority of the human race to eternal punishment based on our limited comprehension of truth.
The burden of proof rests on those who condemn and exclude, not on those who refuse to claim a full knowledge of truth and include. Specious claims are being made only by those who assert possession of a full knowledge of truth. Those of us who make no such assertions are making no such claims.
We cannot now FULLY comprehend, as Paul explains in his first letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 13:
1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,
5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,
6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part;
10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.
13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
-- New American Standard Bible. Other versions are available at...
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/
Level1diet, I know this is late in the game and a little off topic, but I'd like to reply to what you said about intelligence and goodness. (This is not an endorsement of any particular candidate nor of any specific "cult".)
Your statement that people behave badly because they are challenged beyond their intellectual ability is a bit simplistic, I'm afraid. Some of the worst behaved children in our classrooms are disrupting the class not because they can't rise to the challenge, but because they are not being challenged enough.
America is known worldwide for the poverty of its education, but the wealth of opportunities that each person has, despite their poor education. In Europe, universal healthcare is the norm, and so is a good education, but people have very few choices about their path through life. People come to America because they can make their dreams come true here, whether it is to pilot a small plane of their own, to bring up a chimpanzee, to own their weapons, raise their children their own way, or to make countless other decisions about their lives that would be made for them someplace else.
The question is not whether a candidate is intelligent or not. The question is: does he have the right answer.
Nicely formulated Aya Katz, as usual. I for one certainly agree with your entire line of proofs and most of your analysis, but not with your conclusions.
I certainly and especially agree with the fact that many children are acting out in class because they are not challenged ENOUGH.
I could go on and on about this problem. John Kenneth Galbraith wrote well on this subject 40 years ago in his excellent book about the American industrially oriented society, "The New Industrial State (1967)," which was an extension and elaboration of his thesis first offered in his earlier work, "The Affluent Society (1958)."
Our schools do entirely too much averaging or norming, and the norm itself appears to be in decline.
The American educational system, even more than those in Europe, is designed largely upon 19th century factories and assembly line organizational schemes that dominated the early 20th century. Older dialog based systems with higher teacher to student ratios such as those used at Oxford, St. John's College and other institutions based on classical systems of instruction are much more efficient in producing well educated students, but of course exact higher costs due to the smaller classroom size. What we've done is lower the standards, and crank out the volume of students for the lowest possible costs. The problem here in America is that few students are ever exposed to systems that permit them to learn at their own pace. Not being stimulated, they end up spending most of their careers K-12 shouting at the daemon filled rooms, instead of expanding their minds. Sad but true.
The factory style rooms are running at a speed that is comfortable for SOME of the slowest, but that fails to adapt to the middle and upper learning capacities in the same room. This is especially true in communities where there is a high proportion of "mult-linqual" instruction. It's a tower of Babel situation.
However, all of this being true, there is still a serious problem with children who are in fact unable to keep up with even the vastly all-too-slow pace of American education. This may be 10% to 20% of the students in some classrooms.
There is a bell shaped curve of intellectual capacity. While those in the upper 80% or so of the distribution CAN accommodate slower learning rates (but should not be asked to of course), the lower 20% simply CANNOT increase their learning rates.
Since those unfortunate pupils cannot accept new data at the rate at which it is offered, they often descend into depression and sometimes progress into rage and aggression. This is a process they have little capacity to avoid, if the system continues to marginalize them. It literally pushes them out of the learning curve.
This is one of the dynamics that yields a large proportion of our secondary students who do not possess even the most rudimentary skills to survive in our economy, by any measure you could choose to examine them. They have dropped out of the system, even though in some cases they did continue to go to classes. Many if not most systems now graduate them, even though they are several years behind objective standards of educational achievement.
"Testing" is resisted by the systems around the country. Teachers and administrators find arguments against the application of any objective standards that might correct the problems, no matter what the specifics of the standards might be. They prefer to teach in the entirely subjective, relative world where anything is progress, and also of course, where they cannot be held to account for educational failures.
BACK TO MCCAIN AND PALIN
But Aya, we are witnessing two people who consistently fail to comprehend the lessons of their own personal histories. They repeatedly make the same errors in judgement, over and over and over again. This is very painful to watch, frankly. While I pity them, and feel compassion for their embarrassed friends and families, I think we need to understand that whether or not they support this or that specific doctrine, they do not appear to have the capacity to perform well in the offices they seek.
This is likely not their own fault. A large minority of America has participated in the process of their selection.
And, because we or most of us may be focused on the goal lines, we lose focus on those who are carrying the ball.
I don't think the world we live in today will treat us well if we place simpletons into high office. It's a cruel world out there.
Putin is not stupid, even if he may be wrong. Neither are many other competing leaders around the world. It's time for the best and the brightest to lead us.
Simpletons?
Are you sure you aren't referring to Obama and Biden? I'll take common sense and morality over a framed piece of paper on the wall any day.
Come on Level1, put aside your bias for a moment and really listen to Obama speak? The man can hardly string together a coherent sentence without Axelrod's assistance.
Please stop trying to hide your bias behind this pathetic argument. You sound just as elitist as the rest of the DNC.
Thanks for contributing Audacious. Obviously we don't agree on this. Our assessments diverge, even though we may be looking at the same dataset. Could be that both of us are basing our views on highly subjective issues relating to preferences and personal histories.
As the Romans said, "De gustibus non disputandum est." This is why it is difficult to resolve these kinds of disputes. I see Obama's slow paced, hesitant way of personal discourse during interviews and some debates as I have seen most of my best professors speak over so many years in university classes and discussions, especially those in the upper divisions and post-grad levels.
However, I also know that this kind of presence on-stage doesn't work well when we're before large public audiences.
Having been for some years in my career declared one of the best "persuasive speaking" orators in American college competitions at national tournaments (ranked 2nd in the country one year and 6th the next), I know at least a little bit about this. I would TRY to coach Obama differently, if given the job.
However, I know also that these skills cannot be well coached if you expect championship type performance, when you get into the "big leagues". Either people already know them by the time they get into the major public events, or they don't. Champion communicators are born, not made.
Further, skill sets are different for interviewing compared to oratory. People who are chosen by consensus to be excellent at one are usually not judged to be great at the other. In my years competing with thousands of university level speech majors around the country, I have never seen a single person who consistently won at BOTH debate and original oratory or persuasive speaking for example, although I have seen an occasional exception in this or that tournament.
The essential skills are completely different, and seldom does any one person have the capacity to employ them well, time after time at what is considered by the judges to be a championship level of performance.
You see a bumbling fool in Obama, while I see a professorial careful thinker. I personally wouldn't perform as he does in interviews or debates. But, I didn't spend years at Harvard or any other Ivy League institution, where his behavior was undoubtedly honed and shaped.
Will his style be appreciated by the American public? We'll see. Perhaps not. Although he appears to be the favorite for the moment.
Overall, he is certainly my choice, even though I don't agree with several of his important positions. I think he will learn and adapt. And I want a man with his intelligence and character leading this country.
This has been an interesting read. I'm English so only get the views of the British media. It's good to see what real Americans think.
Is this truly his style of speaking or merely him stalling to make sure his answer best suites the situation or audience?
No need to bring up the difference in tone and dialect Mr. Obama employees based on which area of the country he is in.
I am not a professional orator and I really loathe public speaking. Therefore, I do not put much stock in the speaking style of any politician, but I find it a bit hypocritical when liberals mock Bush as such a poor public speaker and admire Obama’s stuttering as being a careful thinker. Obama as no fool and I never meant to assert as much. He is very intelligent and very good at adapting his rhetoric to best suite his audience.
I also agree that he is careful- calculated even.
You and I are in the same boat as far as our choices for President. There are things about McCain that drive me crazy, but I still think he will be better than Obama. I think Palin is going to prove wrong everyone who thinks she is unqualified and a “simpleton” (your word) and really shake things up in Washington.
This is without question, the most exciting political year in memory, if not in fact in American history. Hard to go back more than a few generations, of course. Lincoln's election, and Thomas Jefferson vs. Adams comes to mind as two of those which were likely even MORE interesting, Nicolap.
Thanks for commenting. Nice to hear that we're being watched and read overseas. We American's are constantly concerned about what others think of us. We're like teenagers, always scanning the room to see who's looking. Says something about our self confidence, or lack therof.
Audacious, I think we have a lot in common about what we think of these campaigns. Frankly, I would judge Obama a 4-5 for interview performance out of a possible 10, and a 6-7 in oratory.
Interestingly, I know that he would never have made even the octafinals in any of the major speech tournaments for either debate or persuasive speaking that I can remember.
He is not organized enough. There is not enough structure in his speeches, few hooks on which to hang our own thoughts, and our internal considerations of his arguments. This is even true for his orations, in which better organization would be easy to accomplish.
The American political landscape is a very, very forgiving field as far as communication skills go. This is probably because gifted communicators find employment in business, the media and advertising that pays much better than does politics. There is simply no comparison between the pay scales.
Very few young speech champions would go into local or State politics to begin their careers at 50,000 or 20,000 bucks a year or less, when they can get positions in business, the media or religion that pay 2 or 3 times that, right out of school.
I'm talking about people I know who are demonstrably more skilled than anyone we see in politics today. Every single one of them went into business.
Okay, a few DID become preachers, and even a few of those also went into politics from their pulpits. Mike Huckabee comes to mind. Before him, by a few decades, and Dr. William Banowski. And there are others.
And, a very small number stayed in education. I had a friend who was a champion debater who now heads a major communication department in a well known Washington, D.C. university.
Politics is the art of compromise. Many of the best speakers are not good at that, even though they may be highly skilled at yet another art in politics -- building consensus.
Anyway, we shall see what we shall see. We're living a Chinese curse these days... an INTERESTING life.
Interesting indeed, Level1 no question about it.
And may I please add for the benefit of nicolap that not all Americans are concerned with what others think of us.
I know, I know, ugly Americans.
Having been to Europe, (Netherlands and Belgium) I quickly learned that there are just as many ugly-Europeans as there are Americans. Treat others as you wish to be treated and you normally get treated the way you deserve.
Well, unless you are a person that dares to honor the sanctity of life and go to church. :)
And besides, if I constantly worried about what others think of me then I would quickly lose sight of who I am. There is nothing wrong with being who you are.
This isn’t to say that we should ever stop trying to improve and educate ourselves, but I would rather be around people who speak their minds without fear of what others think than try to say what they think I want to hear.
Oh- and I hate political correctness!
Hey Audacious I didn't use the word "ugly", not me, nosireebob! (grin)
And, anyway, about me... "ugly is as ugly does." I try not to do ugly so I won't be thought ugly. Don't know if this works, nor how well I really follow that precept, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
These days, I sometimes find it difficult to really know who I am, and it's even harder to know who others are. When I was 20 I knew exactly who I was. And I also knew exactly who almost everyone else was. By the time I was 30 I began to have a nagging doubt here and there. By the time I was 40 I strongly suspected that I might have changed. By the time I was 50 I knew that I really had changed. Now that I'm 60 I have discovered that everyone else has changed, too. God, I fear what comes next!
Still, that doesn't keep me from writing about things, apparently.
But, I digress.
Level1, "McCain-Palin: Stupid is as Stupid Does" Is all you would have needed. I totally love it. Just that title; It so perfectly says it all that you wouldn't even have need a story to go with.
I vote, for the title alone, that this piece be given a score of 100.
#1 I love freedom of speech. Just love it.
#2 Why the hell do some people try to turn everything into a religious discussion? Black, white, grey, purple, green...what difference does it make? Actually, I thought the black and white part of Christianity ended when Christ was born, and decided to forgive us all the black stuff. Isn't that sort of grey? Why is it that so many Christians seem to forget the New Testament took all that away?
#3 Palin isn't stupid, she's ignorant. Like she said, she didn't have time to get educated or travel the world, because she had to work. I can relate to that. I cannot relate to people who don't know the difference between stupid and ignorant.
Good point, Dafla, really. Unlike stupid, ignorant can be fixed. However, if you're running for Vice President of the United States, isn't ignorant just as dangerous as stupid?
I grew up in a small town, and lived in many small towns where most of the folks had not been far out of the state, much less around the world. No, there's a couple cards missing from this deck.
Wow... my head is spinning from some of the comments I've just read.
level1diet, brilliant hub! I thoroughly enjoyed your lighthearted and entertaining views, and I learned a lot about your character through the grace with which you responded to each comment.
I often find myself becoming so frustrated in my attempts to coverse with those who believe God wrote the bible and is such a psychopathic control freak that s/he developed a set of rules for a rewarding afterlife that would only be shared with a chosen few, while every other soul would be forced to endure fire and brimstone for all of eternity, that my emotions get the best of me--but you have responded to each attack and challenging remark with such a level of respect, tolerance, and open-mindedness that I am truly inspired.
Thank you for reminding me that it's far more valuable to attempt to lovingly open people's eyes to the truth of the world, and nudge them toward greater humanity and understanding, than it is to judge them for their beliefs.
I will go forth and do my best to follow your example.
Obama thought there were 57 states and Biden thought people were watching TV in 1929. People in glass houses...
Thanks for commenting everyone. I appreciate it. Always fun to see the give and take. I hope the guy with the most states and least houses wins! (grin)
Guess we'll all enjoy tonight's VP debate. I predict Palin will pleasantly surprise her supporters tonight. She seems to do better before an audience than she does interviews. Because so little is expected of her, Palin may come out it better than Biden, from whom we expect more. We'll see.
Didn't I tell ya? Sarah demonstrated tonight that she no longer quite meets the stupid test. Whether or not she is right or wrong on the issues, she no longer LOOKS stupid.
You've bailed yourself out, Sarah!
Now, let's get back to what you want:
1) more power for the Vice President, like Dick Cheney.
2) more trickle-down economics, like we've had under Bush
3) more tax benefits for the oil companies and Wall Street, while families wait for whatever the big corporations want to give them
4) endless war in Irag or Iran, while we muddle through Afghanistan
5) more drilling in Alaska, but little money for wind, solar or nuclear
6) no more money for education
7) no more money for repairing our roads, bridges and dams
8) no change or improvement in our relations around the world
9) more of the Bush economic, foreign and other policies
Vote for McCain!
I'm not a US citizen, but strangely enough I always feel embarassed everytime I hear Palin's comments. Look guys ... the lady is a total joke and a plain oxymoron. I can't imagine how in the world a country as great as yours could find a VP nominee as stupid as she is. She's so stupid she makes Dan Quayle look like Einstein. The more she talks the worse McCain's position is going to be. Sorry to say this, but I think she's one of those dumb barbies who looks much better with her mouth shut. If this idiot couple (McCain & Palin) got elected, I believe America would be sunk deeper in the mud and might never recover from this already bad economic condition!
Level1diet, I really enjoy your comments and opinions. Keep up the good work, dude!
level1diet, congradulations! You woke up and realized that Palin is not stupid! It's about time, now, here's some answers to your numbered remarks on your last post.
1. What on earth are you talking about?
2. There is no such thing as trickle down economics.
3. No tax breaks for the oil companies but instead giving the money back to the people.
4. No endless war, just helping them prosper in democracy and freedom with proof of growth.
5. All for oil drilling, wind, solar and nuclear energy.
6. One issue at heart, special needs children and education for all.
7. What on earth are you getting this from? The bridge to nowhere?
8. Why would there need to be change or improvement on relations around the world when countries are saying for America to fix this economic crisis so that our economy can be strong so that we can continue to work for the good in the world like we have for the last 100 years.
9. Don't forget that the democrats were the majority the last two years with members who ignored the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac situation when Bush and McCain confronted this issue, and do not forget some democrat leaders who profited from this while people were losing the shirts off of their backs.
Both parties are thoroughly corrupt. The cancer of greed has spread throughout our bureaucracy, on both sides of the isle.
However, we are faced on one side with a man who is demonstrably on the side of the 1/2 of one percent which owns over 90% of America's wealth, who has said he does not fully understand economics (saying that since he didn't know much about economics, he relies on men around him like Warren Rudman, Jack Kemp, and Phil Gramm - the leaders of deregulation), and who consistently supports laws that deregulate the economy and banking system, favoring the trickle-down theory.
Even were he to be of sound mind and body, this posture would mean that sensible people could not support him.
However, he is not of sound mind, nor body. Are you his "fellow prisoner?" After all his antics over the last years, do you think he really "knows how to fix it?"
This is a nasty, corrupt, evil little man. He has consistently exhibited callous disregard for safety when he was a pilot, and for morality in his marriage, and for charity in his ostentatious and selfish lifestyle. His trickle down economics has been a disaster for America and the world. Further, he does not have a shred of concern for the disadvantaged due to his policies.
His military experience is a history of a protected son of an Admiral, which got him through the many catastrophes that his "maverick" personality defects caused - from the Academy through the very moment of his ejection over Hanoi. He shamed America by confessing to being a war criminal. Despite his protestations to the contrary, not every man who was captured made that confession. We were ordered NOT to, and trained not to if captured. Many men died rather than making that confession. I served with some of them, though I was never faced with the challenge.
John S. McCain is not an American hero, merely because he was shot down over Vietnam and imprisoned for 5 years. He gave up a right to that title when he cooperated with his captors. And, he knows it, and says so. He is right. He's not a hero.
McCain is now and always has been a man who is both a child of money and power, emotionally unstable, and a man who is morally corrupt. He is selfish, greedy and lusts for power to overcome his own internal demons of guilt and insecurity.
John McCain should never have been made an officer. He was and is unfit for command. Many men wearing his uniform who behaved as he did throughout his career were punished or even discharged from the service. His father's rank and family history with the Navy protected him. Now, this cavalier, nasty little man is asking for our vote. He does not deserve it.
John McCain is not morally, emotionally, or intellectually qualified to be President of the United States.
Well said. :)
level1diet, that is just a matter of opinion and just rants about the man's character instead of stating facts, here we go again,lol. In my opinion about his character is that McCain is a strong honest man with good morals and what he says he does, I can trust that he will act upon what he plans to do.
Yellowburgandy -- How many jets does McCain have to crash before you admit that he just MIGHT be a bit careless?
How many wives does McCain have to cheat on before you admit that he just MIGHT be immoral?
How many times does McCain have to sellout to corporate thieves like Keating, before you admit that he is dishonest?
How many times does McCain have to experience sudden changes in position on major issues before you admit that he is erratic?
There is only one position McCain takes that generates your support for him -- the "protected human life begins at conception" anti-abortion issue.
For that reason, a few million people will support him, no matter how unpredictable and how immoral he may be.
This man hasn't changed his personality, since his bizarre behavior resulted in 3 and possibly contributed to 2 more jet crashes.
I wouldn't fly in a plane piloted by this unreliable man, nor ride on a boat captained by him. Heaven forbid that he should ever be made captain of the Ship of State.
Thank God most Americans agree with me.
About the Keating Five:
"Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate; therefore, the Committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator McCain on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry."
You may read the entire article here- http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin04
If we are going to place the candidates under the moral microscope then let’s see some investigative jounalism on Obama’s dealings with Ayers, Rezko, Wright, et al. The media is scarred to death of the repercussions of looking into this guy. Ask Stanley Kurtz.
Then there is the ACORN that didn’t fall far from the tree.
QUESTION? How many times can an ACORN operative register you to vote? Depends on how many times you will sign your name.
We haven’t seen the half of this voter-fraud debacle. Question is, will anyone in the media have the testecular fortitude to look into it?
I don’t condon McCain’s infildelity. Yet, we were told not to consider character when Clinton was “riding dirty” (Rev. Wright’s words, not mine). The doublestandard is glaring, and I am getting a bit tired of it.Would you fly in a jet piloted by McCain, Audacious? Before you answer that question, think carefully and read about his flying record. You're betting that he wouldn't cause another crash. I'm not willing to take that bet.
I will need to do a little research on the flying thing. That said, I am not voting for him to fly Airforce One.
And come on Level1- didn’t you think you were bullet proof back when? I know I did. I still can’t believe I lived through some of the stupid things I did.
And please stop the tired old mantra about “single issue voters.” I will not deny my passion against the killing of innocent children. Unlike the candidate you support, I do not consider them “punishments.” However, if McCain were prodeath and Obama prolife, I would still not cast a vote for Obama.
Actually, I’ve already cast my vote for McCain, so that is a moot point.
I have nothing to say except I agree Audacious. Thank-you.
Level1 you are right man,remember they aren't prejudiced just willfully ignorant,Will Sarah continue to go off the reservation as a McCain spokesman said if they are elected and get us into a war with china and russia? Never mind the narrow minded this country is bigger than that!!!!!!!!!!!
who's seen the palin radio "interview"?
level 1 diet---- Can yu give me an example of politicians that are smart and in what sense of the word are they smart and maybe throw in some examples of smart.
Obama is clever but is he smart.
Maybe stupid is just one of the attributes of a politician?
allshookup says:
16 months ago
If you read the Bible, God gives the guidelines of right and wrong, or in your words, black and white. There is no gray area in the Bible or with God. So, if God only sees black and white, then we should only see black and white. You don't have to take my word for it, just pick up a Bible and see if I'm telling the truth. The fact that you said that only intelligent people see gray, in essence, you are saying God, the Creator of the Universe, is not intelligent. Hmmm....