RSS Feed
5 Observations on Last Night's Debate
Hey, Tom Brokaw. Here's an idea: when the candidates speak past their allotted time how about cracking out a kazoo, or dropping confetti and balloons on their heads, or blasting the theme song from Chariots of Fire? Just a thought.
We Don't Debate Religion: It's amazing how few of the debates (I count no less than 40 of them going back to the primaries!) have featured as much as one word about religion. I haven't figured out what this all means, but let me bring the following to your attention: In American presidential politics we often talk about religion but we don't debate religion. Why not?
I remind you that the events devoted specifically to faith issues like The Compassion Forum and the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency were not debates. Instead, they were conversations between one candidate and one interlocutor. But if we are going to play the Faith and Values game in American politics then why not go whole hog? Why not let politicians argue with one another about religion?
Let them get into each other's faces about faith versus works. Let them call each other out on their readings of Leviticus 20:13. Let them wrestle with issues concerning the proper place of religion in American public life.
Who knows, the proceedings might be so unsightly as to remind Americans why some of us are so fond of Church/State separation.
McCain: "Peripatetic is the only world I ever heard that really describes him" *: For much of the debate McCain shambled across the stage, shook hands with former servicemen, and repeatedly wandered into Obama's airspace (often standing right in front of him in each camera frame).
The McCain campaign probably figured that this strategy would assure a winning reaction shot: a woozy Obama helplessly absorbing the Maverick's punishing body blows. This is a risky tactic (just ask Hillary-Clinton-space-invader Rick Lazio) and whatever advantages it might have yielded were neutralized. For the Senator from Illinois' facial expression and physical bearing betrayed not the slightest hint of anger, unctuousness, fear, loathing, etc. Which brings me to. . .
Obama: Looking Presidential: I was struck last night by how Commander-in-Cheifesque Obama appeared. This was rarely seen during the primaries when he was tuning out Mike Gavel or beating back Clinton and Edwards. Nor did I see it in his first joust with McCain where he looked tight and nervous. Yesterday, by contrast, he radiated a statesmanlike countenance.
Where is Mitt Romney when you need him?: No one (?) could have forecast the market meltdown of September 2008. But, with the benefit of hindsight, might not Mitt Romney have been a better choice for vice President? Sure, Governor Palin energized the base. But the White Evangelical base, formidable as it may be, is simply not large enough to hand a Republican the keys to the White House. Had the former governor of Massachusetts (who polled quite respectably among Evangelicals) been selected, his Harvard M.B.A. and experiences as a C.E.O might have come in handy.
Hold on to your hat, Hofstra University: Insofar as I think Obama came out ahead last night, and insofar as he seems to surge half a point each day in the polls, the third and final debate at Hofstra next Wednesday is effectively McCain's last stand. Given McCain's well-known feistiness this may possibly be the most uncivil (and entertaining) encounter yet.
* A lyric from the inimitable Jazz singer and national treasure, Jon Hendricks. I cannot, at this late hour, remember what album it is on.
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
October 7, 2008; 10:08 PM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: The Joe Six-Pack Doctrine |
Next: Palin Wrong to Bring Up Wright Again
Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2008 9:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To Some Readers, Bias on Display
By Deborah Howell
The Washington Post
Sunday, October 12, 2008
_________________________________________
So even other readers are of the opinion there is a strong bias in favor of the Obamas.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 11, 2008 12:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
So Farnaz, if you as an atheist are having a current crisis about the existence of Jesus, that is quite understandable. If I were an atheist like you having a current crisis of the sort, I'd simply stop discussing the topic endlessly uselessly with Christians and others who believe Jesus existed. There is no way you could convince anyway that Jesus didn't exist for there are historical corroborations to his existence.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 11, 2008 12:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Farnaz:
Confused Croissant:
Fake Current crisis:
Realization that the Jews are not god's not chosen people.
www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm
Real Current crisis:
Realize that the Christians, Catholics are not "God's people." Not an issue in Judaism.
Fake Current Crisis:
Moses the "tablet-man" you say....
Real current crisis. Realize that JC NEVER EXISTED.
October 10, 2008 10:22 AM
_______________________________________________
Over two BILLION people are Christians. They believe Jesus existed and is the Messiah.
Around 1.3 BILLION people are Muslims and Jesus is mentioned in the Quran. In Islam Jesus is a Prophet, just like other OT prophets.
Jews believe Jesus existed even though they don't accept Him as Messiah.
Hindus and Buddhists are not concerned with the existence of Jesus anyway. But neither would they go out of their way to say that He *didn't* exist. In fact many Buddhists think of Jesus as a good Bodhisattva, His Sermon on the Mount as the words of a most highly enlightened one; some Hindus are willing to admit Jesus is an Avatar, an Incarnation of God...
Only some atheists have a problem with accepting the existence of Jesus. But then atheists have a problem with ALL religions and religious beliefs.
So, if anyone, only atheists are having a current crisis about the existence of Jesus.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 11, 2008 12:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Concerned The Christian Now Liberated: "So sad, the same old Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist as she again refuses to address the flaws and errors of Islam especially those regarding terror, warmongering and abuse of women as dictated by the Worst Book/SOP Ever Written."
Yo, Concy pussycat! Miss moi much, eh?
What to do....even a religionist living in the third world, an adherent of belief in God, a reader of the so-called "Worst Book/SOP Ever Written", have the sense not to buy into McCainocracy and Palinomics. And McCainomics and Palinocracy. What more Americans well versed with Enlightenment writers.....
Cheers pussycat.
Posted by: Jihadist | October 10, 2008 4:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
So sad, the same old Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist as she again refuses to address the flaws and errors of Islam especially those regarding terror, warmongering and abuse of women as dictated by the Worst Book/SOP Ever Written.
Without said response, the Jihadist shirks her responsibities as a global citizen especially to Muslim women who continually live in fear because of an hallucinating, womanizing, and warmongering long-dead Arab.
Once again we offer her a chance to escape the chains of Islam via our Five Point Program:
To wit:
Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.
"1. Belief in Allah"
"aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to your cleansing neurons.
"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."
Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".
"3. To believe in the existence of angels." (note: The Jihadist does believe in these paranormal spirits which shows the depth of her Islamic brainwash.)
A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.
"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."
Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.
Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.
Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.
"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."
Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | October 10, 2008 3:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Life begins at conception.
No abortion (including in rape and incest cases) unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother.
Abstinence only.
Our war crimes and genocide in Iraq are God’s will.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 10, 2008 3:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello Anonymous,
You : "Jihadist, if you were the VP candidate for the US Democrats, we should not fail to make comparisons between you and Govenor Palin."
- Palin is beyond comparision of anyone, no? She is quite a unique and singular woman in current American politics. But a parka to keep her hair in place is good too :)
Most Indonesian and Malaysian women played netball, field hockey and badminton in school. But there are, of course, soccer mums.
There is no doubt at all we are paying expensively for the inertness and mistakes of our leaders. The Malaysian prime minister has now stated he will no stay longer than next March. And that is a very long time in the unpredictable Malaysian politics and the choice of successor is...????
Yes, I studied economics, politics and philosophy at the undergrad level but focussed on economics at postgrad.
Yes, I started out as a currency trader. Yes, I now earn my living as an Islamic banker. Yes, I still go on the floor to look at markets and move my stocks as necessary to save clients from a financial bloodbath.
And yes, I know too well traders being one myself full time once and now part time so to speak and what drives us.
And yes, I'm not a Republican or Democrat, but I must say that when it comes to social issues, I am closer to the Democratic platform.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hello Anonymous,
On Palin's hair, well, she does look good in whatever hairstyle she adopts. I rather like her windswept look or making a meal tied up hair look rather then her newly controlled hair look. I let my hair fall where they may.
Frankly, I am learning a bit more about Sarah Palin from posters here - for and against. Given her background, she is quite a remarkable woman, but on her domestic and international politics, I can't say if and when she is VP. A VP don't have much say, do they? No clear duties? I always happy to see women bid for political power, but we have our share and they can be as, well, incompetent as some male politicians. But, why not......
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hello Yoyo,
You : "Great idea....throw in Woody Allen, a Mullah or two from Iran, Margaret Chow,the Archbishop of Canterbury, Bill Maher and Billy Graham, Steven Pinker, Stephen Hawking, Pat Robertson and Jon Stewart, Dan Dennett,and the Monty Python gang, and my favorite atheist Pat Condell."
A handful of comedians to discuss on religion? One liners to be responded with long discourses on faith, hope and charity by the religious debaters. Their theological discourses will leave them comics and comedians blubbering or speechless as tried to figure out what was said.
Now, this is a debate I would like to watch too. Chances are, the comedians would look like a bunch of flippant kids to believers. And when the scientists (Hawkings, Dennett et al) speak, the believers would not have a clue of all the scientific jargon used.
Already, I am giving the debaters for religions 10 points for their magnificent apparel and stately bearing and sagely look.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hello Sandalphon,
You : "Jihadist, I have an honest, curious question. Why do you name yourself as such?"
I am into Greater Jihad, i.e. personal striving to better oneself, being imperfect being and all too human person I am.
By the way, Muslims called those who are into armed warfare or armed struggle, the Lesser Jihad, not Jihadist, but Mujahid (singular) and Mujahideen (plural). And Muslims are still arguing what is valid Lesser Jihad. Almost the same debate as the Christian "just war".
And also, it was a dare by a friend to use Jihadist as a handle if I ever posted here. Did not intend to post at all intially, but did....My posts fits with the notion that jihadists are whackos, no? :)
Regards and out of here
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 10, 2008 1:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yo Concy pussycat!
Not quite back. Only in those blogs where I don't have to register for a MyPost ID. I already have a MyKad ID where all my personal details are embossed in a microchip on that ID. Who needs another MyThis, MyThat IDs?
I see that you posted a comparision between the so-called inexperienced of Sarah Palin with that of Harry S Truman. I do know that Harry S Truman did not invoke, "It is God's will" or that he is implementing God's plan or to say it is all part of God's plan when he made the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As for Ayaan Hirsi Ali whom you quoted again here, so why not make a comparision of similarities or differences between both women apart from lipstick.
What is the difference between a born again believer and a newly born atheist?
- A born again believer is said to be extremist, fundamentalist and rabid.
- A newly born atheist is said to be extremist, fundamentalist and rabid.
What is the difference between a fundamentalist believer and a fundamentalist atheist?
- The fundamentalist believer wants to purge all non believers.
- The the fundamentalist atheist wants to purge all beliefs.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hello Colin Nicholas:
But, astrology, numerology, alchemy and palm-reading are still with us.
So are religions. All, in their own ways, express human hopes and desires, and more importantly, faith for a better life, a better world.
I take you point, seeing how religions was abused and manipulated politically over the centuries as tools and enablers to unify peoples and for wars and occupation. In the last century and now, people are more aware of how religions is manipulated by politicians as a means to an end, whether they agree with or otherwise.
As you well know, the so called "culture wars" is plainly a battle between those who uses religion to impose values based on religions, and those who want no specific religion to be the primary and only source of ethics and values.
A few months back, another reader-poster stated or rather, characterised, religions as a virus or a disease that must be eliminated. I cheekily responded that diseases and viruses have a way of mutating to survive, and there continue to be new sects, denominations, interpretations on religions going on in the world.
Theology and philosophy is a continuing human quest to find meaning and stability in life. And religions, more than the Universal Declaration on Human Rights or state laws or civic classes, continue to provide the fundamentals of ethics and values for millions or billions that is not already not part of of one's inherent personality or in one's genes. If there is such a thing as an honesty gene, an ethics gene etc.
Religion is personal and communal. Religion is not just about the invisible "SkyGod", hell and the hereafter, but the very visible us, us and us in our relations with and treatment of others here on earth - as an individual believer, as a community of believers.
Religion has no place in politics, and politics, or rather, politicians, should not invoke religion. It defiled and corrupt both as history has shown, and now again over there and over here. In gist, the politisation of religion gives religion a bad name. Not that it does not give good payback to the manipulators or religion and still does over there and over here.
We still have to live with the fact that a community of believers is not a just particular spiritual group, but a group also projecting and promoting their group interests and values if and when they step out of the mosques, the churches, the temples, the synagogues to take joint action on what they see is wrong with the world. For better or for worse, for right or for wrong in the eyes of those who do not share the same beliefs and values.
To fight religious extremists and manipulators of religions for political ends, one has to go to the religion in question, and argue with them on their own terms of references and other references of the religion they omit at their own convenience and for self-interest.
It does not help nor is it productive to thrash the whole religion. Better to focus on the actions of the adherents of that religion that is contrary to the fundamental principles of the religion.
All in a very long way to say that, better to focus on common concerns rather than differences. Better to have a debate on how faith groups can contribute positively to common problems rather than a debate on "Why is my belief more true, more valid than yours", or, "Your belief is false and a delusion." You know too well that faith groups have no illusions on what they want, and no delusion on how to get it in the public square. After all, relgious groups are the biggest NGOs in the world with already extensive and ready networks (as houses of worships) for community services and actions.
Regards
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 10, 2008 12:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To the bloggers who are deeply worried that Senator Obama must suffer every single day because of the color of his skin:
He was raised in Hawaii post racial conflicts where he was a rare exotic "hapa." He attended an elite private school as one of few non-whites. He got his law degree in the university that is ranked number one in the world. Without support from whites he could never have become the first black editor of the Law Review at Harvard.
Without support and mentoring from whites he could never have entered politics and risen to such a great height so soon. He is adored by whites and non-whites alike both in the US and around the world.
Education, money, social status and power are all great equalizers. Successful blacks or of any other color, tend to think and act like the successful and rich anywhere in the world, regardless of their color. That is true both in the good and bad sense.
The US is long ready for a black American President. There is every indication that Obama will be the one. Senator McCain is a hero in his own right. He need not be ridiculed and put down in order to support Obama-Biden policies. People vote for the politicians who address their own concerns best. People usually give both parties a chance in turns. So it is important not to demonize the party that seems to be a little behind in the polls at any given time.
This On Faith forum should really seek to remain as non-partisan as possible if it is really representing religions and not partisan politics.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 10, 2008 4:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Businessmen, always keen to make profits in any way possible, being handed the administration of hospitals, isn't the wisest thing to do. In places where it has happened medical staff are complaining that the quality of service is declining because the pressure to save money remains paramount.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 10, 2008 1:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The "personally opposed to abortion but mothers should continue to have the "right" to kill their unborn children" mantra by Senators Obama and Biden are nonsensical and non-Christian of course.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 10, 2008 12:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The "personally opposed" mantra on abortion by Senators Obama and Biden are nonsensical and non-Christian of course.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 10, 2008 12:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
A top secret: Obama-Biden policies make more sense to my sense of values (except their "personally opposed" mantra on abortion).
Posted by: Anonymous | October 10, 2008 12:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Another genius on Senator Obama's campaign, David Pflouffe
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 11:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Giving credit where credit is due:
David Axelrod's success story - Senator Obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Axelrod_(political_consultant)
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 11:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
PR Consultant Helped Palin Grab Spotlight
By Kimberly Kindy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 10, 2008
_________________________________________
Compare this with the role of ex-media man, political consultant, and businessman David Axelrod in the political grooming of Senator Obama since 1992, a year after he passed out of Harvard. Compare also the grassroots fund collection and voter recruitment campaign for Obama set up by David Pflouffe, the business partner of David Axelrod.
Hopefully Kimberly Kindy will write her next article highlighting the comparison.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 11:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria,
I have also been given to understand that pro-abortionists consider those who oppose abortion as their mortal enemies. The hard fought and won "right" to kill an unborn child is precious indeed.
So two surprises there.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 11:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
For those who are concerned that Senator Obama's skin color may affect the result of this race: he was not raised in the America when blacks and whites had to sit separately in buses; heroes and heroines like Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Tiger Woods, Winfred Oprah and dozens of others have already paved the way for a black American president. Besides Obama is only half black. He was raised entirely by the white side of his family as an upper middle class elite. The black Americans who say Obama is a white man with a dark skin is more correct than those who mistake him for a black American because of the color of his skin.
Compare policies not the shade of skin of the candidates and VOTE.
That will be all from me for now. Bye, bye.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 11:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria,
I have also been given to understand that pro-abortionists consider those who oppose abortion as their mortal enemies.
So two surprises there.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 11:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria, you are an out and out Democrat. It is a real mystery why you won't support a Republican nominee for VP.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 11:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist, if you were the VP candidate for the US Democrats, we should not fail to make comparisons between you and Govenor Palin.
You said:
Perhaps wearing a hijab is a better way to stop all that hair from falling over the forehead and eyes, no?
Response:
Alaska is not a Muslim state. Christian women (and Governor Palin happens to be one) are allowed to use any method to keep their hair away from their face if they so chose, even a different hairstyle.
You said:
I really would like to see some male politicians who are as good looking and as good a dresser as George Clooney.
Response:
So far we don't know of any Mr Illinois or any Mr any other state who ran for Mayor and Governor and won and then got picked as the VP candidate based on that. Senator Biden did look dashing as a Hollywood star in his younger days, even handsomer than George Clooney, and he is no less charming or dressing any worse than George Clooney now.
You said:
This is terryfying. Now I will have to learn how to fish, how to shot and how to be a hockey mum.
Response:
Remember Governor Palin was being an *ordinary* mom for her part of the world. So you must find out what it is an ordinary Indonesian/Malaysian Muslim woman, daughter of a school teacher does in Malaysia, and do the same.
Merits of Governor Palin as a woman are the following: in spite of being a beauty queen and living in a culture where sleeping around is the norm, she married her high school sweetheart and has remained faithful to him and they are very much in love; she does not use her sexuality as a weapon to manipulate men, she plays tough politics just like men as their equal; she has managed a successful career as a mother of five children; she did not abort her child with Down's Syndrome but loves the child unconditionally as he is; she did not force her 17 year old pregnant daughter to abort her child, but to take responsibility for her actions and bear the child to term, and give the child both parents.
You said:
I too, am young and still making mistakes. But I am not vying for one of the highest office in the country so I can make mistakes while learning on the job and make the country pay for my mistakes.
Response:
Indonesians and Malaysians also pay for the mistakes of their politicians. And not everyone who is at the helm of power in those two countries, ?from where you hail and where you live, have done perfect politics. As to the US, even Senator Obama, as President, not VP mind you, also happens only to promise to learn on the job because his experience at the national level is limited to two years in the Senate.
Am I right in assuming that you studied economics and you earn your money as a trader at the stock exchange? Governor Palin studied political science and journalism, and served as Mayor and Governor of her state before she was *chosen,* as the VP candidate. There are plenty of rich traders on Wall Street, who could make the same kind of mistakes that you could, that Senator McCain could have chosen but for some reason he didn't. Stupid man.
You said:
The similarity between me and Sarah Palin is lipstick.
Response:
I agree.
And by the way I'm no Republican or Democrat.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 10:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Governor Palin's religion has been under attack too. She is an ex-Catholic who joined a Pentacostal church. Pentacostalism is not a single pastor megachurch. They are a large main stream Christian denomination, with churches around the world and have high level of conversions among all age groups, especially the young.
There is a Pentacostal wing within the Catholic Church approved by the Pope and Church hierarchy. It is a thriving spiritual group within the Catholic Church.
Pentacostals do not do magic or vodoo or animal sacrifices or special poojas. They fast and pray. They lay hands on people and pray for them as the Apostles and early Christians did. They have a very emotionally charged way of worshipping, but it is no different from some of the styles of African American worship. What most non-Pentacostals find difficult to understand is the emphasis on the role of the devil in the spiritual life of Pentacostal Christians. They are focussed a bit too much on detecting the devil and driving the devil out. Of course it is not non-Biblical for Jesus and His disciples did cast out demons, but to see demons almost everywhere and in everything, without giving due importance to the role of human free will in evil, makes the good of detecting evil lose its very purpose.
Praying for the gift of the Holy Spirit is another important aspect of the Pentacostal church. And which Christian can dare say that it is wrong?
Governor Palin's religion is her private business. Unless she imposes Pentacostalism on others, it is really unnecessary to make wild conclusions about her church and beliefs. The fact that she is popular in Alaska and it has not been forcibly turned into a Pentacostal state yet, should give everyone who is concerned about her religious practice, peace of mind.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 9:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Anonymous: Governor Sarah Palin does look much better with her new hair style, without having hair fall all over her beautiful forehead and eyes.
- Perhaps wearing a hijab is a better way to stop all that hair from falling over the forehead and eyes, no?
Anonymous : Female politicians are allowed to be their their beautiful best! She can serve as an inspiration to women that way.
- I really would like to see some male politicians who are as good looking and as good a dresser as George Clooney.
Anonymous : As a woman Governor Palin can do so much for women, be a terrific role model, even if she may not make it to the role of VP in this election.
- This is terryfying. Now I will have to learn how to fish, how to shot and how to be a hockey mum.
Anonymous : She (Palin) should use her strengths as a woman in as many ways as she can, not just as a VP candidate. She is so young and she has many years of doing good works left and yes, more political years left too.
- I too, am young and still making mistakes. But I am not vying for one of the highest office in the country so I can make mistakes while learning on the job and make the country pay for my mistakes.
The similarity between me and Sarah Palin is lipstick.
Cheers
J
October 9, 2008 2:25 PM
_____________________________________________
To Jihadist, Victoria et al.
I posted a comment earlier suggesting that it would be good for Gov Palin to get a hair stylist who would recommend a hair style that keeps her straggly hair off her forehead and falling over her eyes, because it made her look less *professional.* Hence my follow up comment about her new hair style with her hair away from her forehead and eyes, which suits her better.
As to her candidacy, I never once mentioned her political experience to be VP yet. Governors of states have been elected as Presidents, so her candidacy for VP is not something that is entirely out of the blue. Most importantly, SHE did not come out and say, "Hey, I'm the best one to be the VP, so choose me as the VP candidate." She was *chosen.* And she *wasn't* chosen because she is a former beauty queen, happily married to her childhood sweetheart for twenty years, mother of five children, did not abort her fifth child with Down's Syndrome and because she hunts moose as her father taught her as a child.
Governor Palin was chosen because she has played tough politics and risen on her own merit from an ordinary background. She does not have an Ivy League degree, rich parents or powerful spouse. She is just an ordinary, unsophisticated woman who played tough politics first becoming the Mayor of her town and then the first woman and the youngest Governor of Alaska. She is very popular among the ordinary people in Alaska and a headache to the corrupt oil bosses...
It is necessary to focus on her political achievements in her time as Mayor of a town and Governor of a state. Remember too, she is only running for VP and happens to be two years younger than Senator Obama. She had not been preparing for her candidacy for four years as Senator Obama has.
If her inexperience is a big hindrance to her VP candidacy, how much more Senator Obama's candidacy for President. Mayors and Governors it is understood have a kind of executive experience that Senators do not have.
It is only fair to list strengths and weaknesses of both candidates equally. Every voter after all is free to vote for anyone they prefer, but it should be possible for all candidates running for the election to be assessed fairly.
I happen to be among those who was shocked by the vitriol written about Gov Sarah Palin the minute Sen McCain announced her as his VP candidate - the lies, the insults, the suggestion her child might actually be her granddaughter through an incestual relationship (which is why she was forced to introduce her pregnant daughter and announce her pregnancy publicly)...The focus was not on her style of politics or her policies, but everything about her. One even went so far as to say Gov Palin was not a woman! It seemed as if Governor Palin's anti-abortion stand and her refusal to abort her own child with Down's Syndrome was a crime!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 9:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Chase;
I agree with your evaluation of the SkyGod - IF He exists that is. I mean if he did exist one would have to conclude he's a loser who never gets anything right.
But ask yourself Chase, isn't it more likely that maybe there is no god. Nobody ever saw him, ever.
he never left any clues, and never did any miracles that any modern person can substantiate. And not everyone believes that Jesus was necessarily a real person. Myths like his were made up even in the Egyptian culture thousands of years before the biblical Jesus existed.
Sure we live in a wonderous world, but that don't mean that some big celestial dude had to make it all first. That is absurd, as atheists like to say.
The clowns who wrote the bible did not have a clue about the real world. Stones were their tools,and the wheelbarrow their finest achievement.
Except for telling stories, which they did all the time, inventing gods for everything...Sungods and Treegods, and Watergods and Windgods, and Cloudgods and Thundergods ad infinitum.
They were all made up. Conclusion, Chase? The current god is also made up. So is Allah, who some say is the same god, others kill to disagree.
It's fair to assume that all the Indian gods, like Shiva and Hanuman and Vishnu, present as they are in the day-to-day culture of India - are also made up. Otherwise what a crazy world we live in with skies full of gods that nobody can see or hear or smell or in any way verify.
That's gods for you. Creatures of the imagination.
Posted by: colinnicholas | October 9, 2008 8:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ConcernedTCNL.
Your quotes from "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali should be read by all commenters here. They are very moving, and show again and again the idiocy and nastiness at the root of religious superstitions.
Religion is having a hard time existing in a post enlightenment world, where we know so much more than our illiterate cavemen ancestors, who invented gods and religion out of mind boggling ignorance, fear and superstition. We know better now.
Science and common sense must bury superstition,
before the religious wackos bomb us all to Hell.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 7:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist;
Selamat malam
Trouble is, when candidates discuss religion they're anything but candid. They will say whatever it takes to get the votes. Both MCCain and Obama could be nonbelievers for all we really know. They will never tell a truth unless its a truth that will get them votes. They are politicians. That's why I say America is not ready for this discussion. The expectation is that good guys believe in God, bad guys don't.
And yes I agree where you say...
"Religion as superstition or otherwise should not be discussed by politicians. Perhaps someone can set up a forum where Harris, Hitchens Dawkins et al can have a debate with the Pope, the Dalai Lama, the Grand Mufti of Egypt etc. can discuss on religions."
Great idea....throw in Woody Allen, a Mullah or two from Iran, Margaret Chow,the Archbishop of Canterbury, Bill Maher and Billy Graham, Steven Pinker, Stephen Hawking, Pat Robertson and Jon Stewart, Dan Dennett,and the Monty Python gang, and my favorite atheist Pat Condell. They should discuss whether or not a god exists, what the evidence is, and what other conclusions could be drawn from the evidence - should there be any.
That's a party I'd like to crash.
Bye
Posted by: yoyo | October 9, 2008 7:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin is a refreshing, committed, experienced candidate who will prove her worth if she is elected. She presents a common (if folksy), conservative audience begging for it in the oh-so-Democratic presidency of the past 8 years.
Samurai brings to light the true nature of these arguments against Ms. Palin. More than anything else, I've seen, misspelled and in all caps, "SHE IS TEH ANTIKRIST@!!%$ SHE MUST BE STOPD OR SEH WIL DESTRY EVRY1*!@" Most of everyone else's arguments seem to try and say the same thing in nicer language. The first attack on Palin was disastrous for the Democrats.
As for Monsieurs Obama and McCain themselves, the Last Samurai raises a good point.
Obama looks angry naturally. I know he's not, but to me it looks that way. I don't see him looking particularly stately or 'leaderly'. He looks young. Personally, any leader in my mind is older and more experienced-looking, but not lacking in fire and enthusiasm. Now McCain doesn't look much better. While he doesn't look angry, he doesn't look happy, either. Both candidates' tones are whiny and sound like someone who's not proving a point so much as trying to toss insults without actually tossing insults. Samurai is corretct: where's the enthusiasm? The passion? The fire not so much to lead as to SERVE this greatest of nations?
"Pro-Choice Catholics"
Sorry. Nonexistent. Go read the Catechism and talk to a true practicing Catholic.
Self-proclaimed "Jihadist", and "Chase":
"I wish the 'powers-that-be' would fire this incompetent God and send us a better one ASAP.One who will actually do something about the mess down here, and maybe answer prayers sometimes. The present one - I will continue to ignore."
You talk like 6-year-olds. "I don't believe in God because I prayed for a new bicycle and didn't get it." How weak.
If God does not directly and provably solve all your problems, He is of no use to you. How arrogant.
So natural disasters and humans' mistakes are God's fault as well? God is responsible for all of your actions now, too? It's God's fault men make mistakes? God's fault people choose incorrectly? God's fault people choose evil over good? How cynical. How selfish. How irresponsible. How naive.
Your friend's theory had me literally laughing out loud. Scientology— rock on!!
"I believe in God. But I can't say I like Him very much. And I take issue with those who think He's such a nice wonderful Guy."
But God is such a nice wonderful guy! He not only created you and me and everybody else, but He loved us so much that he let us choose between obeying Him and not. How many parents do you know who would let their kids do that?Wasn't it God who put Dubya in the White House?
No, that was you (and all those of voting age at the time)
"Wasn't it God who told Dubya to invade Iraq? (Slaughtering millions)"
No, that was the entire United States, angry over the ACTUAL slaughter of countless innocents on 9/11. Don't insult their memory.
About the war: Talk to a soldier, then talk to me.
"And wasn't it God who oversaw the present financial meltdown, without lifting a finger to help out?"
Let's blame God for all our shortcomings again. Woohoo!
Religion will never be extinct. The cynicism I see evident in the minds of everyone, the faithless in particular, ensure religion and faith's perpetuity. Religion is the embodiment of the saying: "Hope springs eternal." Without religion, without faith, there is no hope. There are no morals. Humanity would collapse.
However, this is not the case. Religion has already outlasted those you mentioned as similar to it (which they obviously are no, religion being what it is and they being what they are).
In a world without religion, welcome to We and 1984. No hope. No life. And definitely no freedom.
Jihadist, I have an honest, curious question. Why do you name yourself as such?
Posted by: sandalphon | October 9, 2008 7:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
We seem to have 2 anons here- to the Anon that answered my question about what positive attribute Palin would bring to bear-
as undeniably important fashion and good looks are to leadership-
it's not a very compelling reason for me to support Palin.
Posted by: VICTORIA | October 9, 2008 4:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ahhh, the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist has returned and she still refuses to address the major issues facing Islam, terror, warmongering and the abuse of women, all major elements of the Worst Book/SOP Ever Written.
Again we ask her to address the issues raised by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her autobiography, Infidel, a book she is forbidden to read:
"Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born into a family of desert nomads, circumcised as a child, educated by radical imams in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, taught to believe that if she uncovered her hair, terrible tragedies would ensue. It's a story that, with a few different twists, really could have led to a wretched life and a lonely death, as her grandmother warned. But instead, Hirsi Ali escaped -- and transformed herself into an internationally renowned spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim women."
ref: Washington Post book review.
excerpts:
p. 47 paperback issue:
"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"
p.68:
"The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had castes. The Untouchable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were untouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were touchable: we touched them see? but also horrifying to think of yourself as untouchable, despicable to the human race."
p.309
"Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were killed by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was exaggerating."
p. 347
"The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Brotherhood of Kenya and Somalia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feudal mind-set based on tribal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hyprocricy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam".
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | October 9, 2008 4:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama doesn't have a prayer.
America is too racist to elect a black man for president.
He could be Jesus Christ Himself,
He could even be Morgan Freeman,
but if He's black,
get back boy. dont get uppity.
I would love to eat those words and be wrong.
I would celebrate wildly.
But you know I'm right.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 4:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist;
Hi. Thanks for your response.
My point is that astrology and religion are very similar, and will probably share the same fate - extinction. And for the same reason...they are both irrational superstitions which cannot stand up to the scrutiny the modern world will increasingly demand of institutions that are so influential in world affairs.
If people stopped indoctrinating their children into the SkyGod myth, children would stop believing it. And wouldn't it be wonderful if they did? How free they would be! Free from superstition and dogma. Free to ponder the real world and the wonderful mystery of existence and the cosmos; without the blinkers of faith and dogma.
I believe religion will eventually go the way of astrology,numerology, alchemy and palm-reading.
It's just a matter of time.
Posted by: colinnicholas | October 9, 2008 4:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Chase;
God might be on Uranus.
He sure ain't on mine.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 3:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist,
Here are some new names for CCNL that Farnaz and I cooked up. We had a lot of fun with it - I can't answer for the Croissant.
Confused the Crazy Croissant
Confused the Perplexed Pastry
Confused the Bewildered Bun
Confused the Misguided Muffin
Confused the Ridiculous Roll
Confused the Troublesome Turnover
Confused the Pernicious Pie
Confused the Egotistical Eclair
Confused the Demented Donut
Confused the Baffled Biscuit
...or, most popular, simply the Confused Croissant
Posted by: Arminius | October 9, 2008 2:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Chase : I wish the 'powers-that-be' would fire this incompetent God and send us a better one ASAP.One who will actually do something about the mess down here, and maybe answer prayers sometimes. The present one - I will continue to ignore.
- God heard your prayers and is sending a replacement god come November this year. The new deity's name is either McCain or Obama to clean up the mess or mess up the world further. God and/or the American voter is still deciding on what the new god's name and prefered characteristics will be.
Pick one:
- In McCain we trust
- In Obama we trust
Cheers and out of here.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 9, 2008 2:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous: Governor Sarah Palin does look much better with her new hair style, without having hair fall all over her beautiful forehead and eyes.
- Perhaps wearing a hijab is a better way to stop all that hair from falling over the forehead and eyes, no?
Anonymous : Female politicians are allowed to be at their beautiful best! She can serve as an inspiration to women that way.
- I really would like to see some male politicians who are as good looking and as good a dresser as George Clooney.
Anonymous : As a woman Governor Palin can do so much for women, be a terrific role model, even if she may not make it to the role of VP in this election.
- This is terryfying. Now I will have to learn how to fish, how to shot and how to be a hockey mum.
Anonymous : She (Palin) should use her strengths as a woman in as many ways as she can, not just as a VP candidate. She is so young and she has many years of doing good works left and yes, more political years left too.
- I too, am young and still making mistakes. But I am not vying for one of the highest office in the country so I can make mistakes while learning on the job and make the country pay for my mistakes.
The similarity between me and Sarah Palin is lipstick.
Cheers
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 9, 2008 2:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I believe in God. But I can't say I like Him very much. And I take issue with those who think He's such a nice wonderful Guy.
Wasn't it God who put Dubya in the White House?
Wasn't it God who told Dubya to invade Iraq? (Slaughtering millions)
And wasn't it God who oversaw the present financial meltdown, without lifting a finger to help out?
God is said to be loving and compassionate, and able to do absolutely ANYTHING He wants. Yet the world is a mess, and God doesn't seem to give a damn
He never does.
A friend of mine has a theory that the God we have, here on planet Earth, is a very minor God, sent here for errors he committed whilst in charge of another planet in a Galaxy far, far away.
This could account for all the tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes and other disasters that slaughter millions of us every few years, without any divine intervention or assistance of any kind; not to mention the uncountable wars and holocausts we seem to be prone to, without ever seeing any kind of justice, fairness or retribution.
This God who never shows Himself seems a shy God, and perhaps a lazy and incompetent God. A God who doesn't want to get involved, and isn't fond of this particular planet and would prefer to be somewhere else; on Uranus maybe.
I wish the 'powers-that-be' would fire this incompetent God and send us a better one ASAP.
One who will actually do something about the mess down here, and maybe answer prayers sometimes.
The present one - I will continue to ignore.
Posted by: Chase | October 9, 2008 2:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello ColinNicholas,
You: "Religion is like astrology. Most folk buy into both."
I buy into religion as a believer. I buy into economics as an enonomist. I buy into markets as a trader. I buy into astrology as a harmless entertainment. What is your star sign? Under what Chinese horoscope are you born under? A Scorpio born in the Year of the Snake? Uhhh...:)
Economic forecasting is like astrology. And it created more political, economic and social mess than either astrology or religion because states and/or governments, corporations take it more seriously, never mind the nonsense spouted by some economists, the latter day "astrologers", "prophets" and "messiahs" looking into the "crystal ball" of reams of data to predict the future.
Assume people will save.....
Assume people will spend....
Assume people will make rational choices....
Assume, assume, assume....I'll just get some chicken entrails when I go to the supermarket this weekend. Perhaps more luck there in predicting future consumer spending patterns, eh?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hello Yoyo,
Good to see you here.
Yes, the candidates can't, and should not discuss religion. Unless that assert their stand to ensure seperation of church and state and promise to be impartial to all religious and non-religious group in their stance on public policy.
I humbly beg to differ on your contention that a real discussion of religion must wait for a better time, when more Americans are less superstitious and more open-minded. For this foreigner, it seems that Americans are, in fact, having a most healthy discussion on religion in the personal and public sphere - everything from abortion to seperation of church and state.
I would rather candidates for public office discuss and examine the impact of policies on all and for all affected, rather than specifically those flavoured and influenced by religious or political or ethnic or professional or business sector partisanship and interests.
It is not about "MY" religion is better than yours anymore. It is about "MY" values and ethics is better than yours, including those espoused by atheists, no?
Religion as superstition or otherwise should not be discussed by politicians. Perhaps someone can set up a forum where Harris, Hitchens Dawkins et al can have a debate with the Pope, the Dalai Lama, the Grand Mufti of Egypt etc. can discuss on religions.
Regards
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 9, 2008 1:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Religion is like astrology. Most folk buy into both.
Astrology has little influence today. But in earlier, sillier times, astrologers were important advisers to kings and their governments, and were consulted regularly on matters of state, as well on personal matters - as was religion too,of course.
Today, astrology carries no weight. Although folks check their horoscopes - it is no longer taken seriously.
Religion is headed in the same direction The day is not far off when religion will lose its credibility, and be seen for what it is; superstitious nonsense...no better than astrology.
Posted by: colinnicholas | October 9, 2008 12:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The candidates can't discuss religion. not yet anyhow.
They are compelled to be - or at least pretend to be - religious. Non-believers will never get to first base and so will pretend to be religious, if they really want to be elected.
A real discussion of religion must wait for a better time, when more Americans are less superstitious and more open-minded. Right now everyone must pretend tobe religious whether they are or not.
An intelligent discussion of religion must involve those who doubt its veracity and truthfulness, and involve atheists who are strongly opposed to religion.
A bunch of religious people discussing religion can go nowhere. The real discussion will examine whether or not religion is superstitious nonsense passed down to us by our superstitious ancestors, or whether it has roots in reality; not whether MY religion is better than yours...but whether religion makes sense.
America is not yet ready for this discussion.
Posted by: yoyo | October 9, 2008 12:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr Berlinerblau,
I came back to read the statements left by many. Debate is healthy, but the results in this forum with a small sampling is the reason why I am a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state.
Many were concerned about JFK's religion (Catholisism) and the influence of the Pope on the desisions he makes as President.
This forum proved to me the explosive nature religion could become in politics. Church leaders have no position, when at the pulpit, to influence an election. All people have their right to opinion and discussion of such.
The real concern, because of disparities between religious belief is that, will the elected official represent all, make just decisions, and take action for the betterment of humankind.
I can examine the religious sacrafices made by the Mayan's and see that it helped their cause since their society/system was destroyed by Spanish conquistadors. Their faith didn't protect them.
As I said earlier, I believe in God and have faith, but not in man's twist to subvert people truth into various religions or practices.
I hope you got enough information from this forum for your next book. It will be an interesting read.
Posted by: Jeff | October 9, 2008 10:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
And since the Pentacostal Church has made speaking in tongues a mandatory sign of having received the gift of the Holy Spirit (which the Bible clearly does not endorse), there is every chance many are misled into believing that they have received the gift of tongues from the Holy Spirit, when they are in fact only literally babbling nonsense, for members are encouraged to give free reign to their tongues and let it roll as it pleases with words that makes no sense. Uttering sounds that make no sense is not proof of the Holy Spirit. But on the other hand one could interpret that they shut out their rational minds by uttering nonsensical words, just like one word chants, and thus access a spiritual plain. It is simply a matter of faith in what those words are supposed to be.
The point for others to learn is that Pentacostals have a right to practice their faith in anyway they please as long as they do not harm anyone else with their rituals or forms of prayer.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 5:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius, as a non-Pentacostal Christian, I do not necessarily see eye-to-eye with the Pentacostals in their insistence that every Christian would or should speak in tongues. There are verses in the Bible to prove that speaking in tongues had a purpose in the early Christian Church and it was not something every Christian did. The Pentacostal Church is not being exactly Biblical when it makes speaking in tongues as a mandatory sign of having received the Holy Spirit.
Having said that, it is not right for a Christian to make a mockery of an another Christian denomination, and that too with non-Christians.
I suggest you watch the debate between Rabbi David Wolpe and Sam Harris. Rabbi Wolpe is a Jew but it was impressive how he stood up for all religions in his debate with an anti-theist, Sam Harris. Rabbi Wolpe has much to teach and I have much to learn from him. Maybe you could too. I find him awesome!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 5:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If the Unborn Child is a Person Entitled to Rights, Abortion is Aggression
by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 4:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite
by Thomas L. Johnson
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 4:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
When Do Human Beings Begin?
"Scientific" Myths and Scientific Facts
by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 4:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It is always informative and enjoyable to read non-partisan analysis, but one rarely finds it here.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 3:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It is so terribly disappointing that an On Faith forum is mostly extremely partisan and functions almost like an Obama-Biden campaign link.
Surely, those who are strong believers in whatever religion, can be more objective in their take on politics? Why bother with religion if the political views are so rigid and partisan? Religion serves no purpose whatsoever if it cannot provide guidance and opinions that cuts across party lines, based on religious wisdom.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 3:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,
Still expounding on everything but the important issue of Islam's treatment of women?
No one will take you seriously until you do.
Let us start with some of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali's commentaries in her autobiography, Infidel:
p. 47 paperback issue:
"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"
p.68:
"The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had castes. The Untouchable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were untouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were touchable: we touched them see? but also horrifying to think of yourself as untouchable, despicable to the human race."
p.309
"Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were killed by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was exaggerating."
p. 347
"The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Brotherhood of Kenya and Somalia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feudal mind-set based on tribal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hyprocricy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam".
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | October 9, 2008 3:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Governor Sarah Palin does look much better with her new hair style, without having hair fall all over her beautiful forehead and eyes. She is a gorgeous woman and a hair style that brings out her beauty even more is just right. Female politicians are allowed to be at their beautiful best! She can serve as an inspiration to women that way. To be a beautiful power woman without having to dress in sexually suggestive/provocative fashion, as the commonplace message to the young would suggest, a message that doesn't even seem to spare little children!
As a woman Governor Palin can do so much for women, be a terrific role model, even if she may not make it to the role of VP in this election. She should use her strengths as a woman in as many ways as she can, not just as a VP candidate. She is so young and she has many years of doing good works left and yes, more political years left too.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 3:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Here are some very real reasons I fear Sarah-
These are all taken from Sarah's own issues website- approved by herself.
Neglected Wasilla infrastructure; left with $22M debt. by building a hockey rink which is now empty-
OpEd: Core values defined by political ambition plus church. (Sep 2008)
Decries "politics as usual" of attacking opponents. (Nov 2006)
Has not often expressed views on illegal immigration. (Aug 2008)
OpEd: Palin is sick to death of this immigration nonsense. (Mar 2008)
Proclaim "Loyalty Day" to reaffirm loyalty to America. (Apr 2007)
Fight terrorism to spread democratic ideals in world. (Sep 2008)
Health care must be market-and business-driven. (Jan 2008)
Agrees with Cheney that VP as executive is flexible. (Oct 2008)
Some dictators hate America & what we stand for. (Oct 2008)
Would not second guess Israel if they attack Iran. (Sep 2008)
Sue US government to stop listing polar bear as endangered. (Aug 2008)
Global warming affects Alaska, but is not man-made. (Aug 2008)
Windfall oil profits tax prevents investment. (Aug 2008)
Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools. (Aug 2008)
Supports teaching intelligent design in public schools. (Aug 2008)
Smoked marijuana when it was legal under Alaska law. (Aug 2006)
No special hate-crime laws; all heinous crime is hate-based.
Equal pay for equal work; but not Ledbetter Act. (Sep 2008)
Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples. (Aug 2006)
No spousal benefits for same-sex couples. (Jul 2006)
Opposes embryonic stem cell research. (Aug 2008)
Constitution does offer an inherent right to privacy. (Oct 2008)
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 3:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anon-
I don't look to politicians for religious guidance. I have a strong feeling that Palin's christianity is borne more of a social expediency than a spiritual epiphany.
She is a showboater, and opportunist- fine traits for a politician- but not deep in a self reflective way.
The reason I don't vibe to her is her mean-spiritedness- there seems to be an undercurrent of vicious aggression to her A type personality-
As a christian, she serves her faith poorly- instead of inspiring people to elevate their base natures to love and forgiveness(unless you are prepared to tell me these are not the main message of Jesus- and hence, christianity in it's highest expression)
She uses her abiltiy to sway and her charisma to incite fear- which brings an obedience and servility from the masses, who offer their loyal following of her lead-
but where is she leading them?
To war, to anger, fear, and the lowest common denominator in human nature. She says to the crowd- vent your lowest fears and hatreds of what is foregin and frightening to you- and I will take that insecurity and validate it and make it not only acceptable-= but shine it up real noble by calling you good americans and patriots-
A real servant of Jesus turns people's thoughts inward, and helps them to identify their inner chaos and examine the plank in their own eye first-
Sarah encourages the crowd to direct that inner chaotic impulse outward- toward a focal point-
Where, in the years that we have seens speeches by politicans- have we heard people who have bee whipped to a frenzied pitch of (it ain't love anon) of a mass hypnotic state- where a person can scream out "TREASON! TRAITOR! TERRORIST!!! and the most hysterical lynch mob call of all-"KILL HIM!!!"
Not to mention screaming the N-WORD, at an african american technician who was part of the press corps.
We have only seen such shameful behavior in our darkest moments of inhumanity-
It is not the love of Christ that motivates Sarah- It is the love of power and control-
and she seems to have no conscience about riding the wave of frustrated unexpressed angers, racism, and all the other fear driven demons hidden in the american psyche forced into quiescence by society, but simmering below the surface all the same-
She says to people- your fears are justified and here is why- and them gives them a target to direct those repressed negativities outward- and what relief!
She says to people- you are good, and you are powerful-the best in the world! and they suck it up- not because it is true- but it is what they want to be and hear confirmed-
And she promises them a stake in her power, and a disproportionate voice in the government-
because ~WINK WINK she is a hockey mom with lipstick- just like they are- and if they help her get that power- they can take over the Supreme Court- take christian conservatism "back"
And really dismal dismal reasoning there-
I, am personally opposed to pre-marital sex-
But I am not the sex police, nor od I desire to be.
One can be personally opposed to any thing- feel it strongly for themselves- but still not feel compelled to demand that others share those feelings.
Why don't you elaborate on the reasons that sow what an observant christian Sarah is?
Try a little constructive thinking.
Posted by: VICTORIA | October 9, 2008 2:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"When a human being's life is on the block, a proper legal system gives the benefit of the doubt to life. This is why even advocates of capital punishment call for stringent proof. If individuals accused of felonies get the benefit of such doubt, why not the beings in the womb?
What possible wrongful injuries should be considered? For the pregnant woman, it is a partial and temporary loss of liberty; for her fetus, it is the total and permanent loss of life and therefore liberty as well.
The answer is obvious. The law should give the benefit of the doubt to life."
----Doris Gordon
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 2:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Abortion and Thomson's Violinist: Unplugging a Bad Analogy
Comments on why the prenatal child has the right under individual liberty to be in the mother's womb
by Doris Gordon,
National Coordinator
Libertarians for Life
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 2:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"In politics, unfortunately, people are not notorious for saying what they mean. The formula of "personally opposed" -- whether in its Christian or its secular form -- has become a mantra. One says it with a certain piety, one expresses a certain regret, and no one asks what one actually means.
At its best, the formula is a copout -- one doesn't wish to discuss what one really means; one may not know; or one may not wish to say that one's only guides are random emotions and whatever the political market will bear.
But stated in its Catholic form -- apparently conceding personhood and rights -- the "personally opposed" mantra is far worse than a copout. Taken on its face, it is a threat to everyone, pro-life, abortion-choice, undecided, and practically any variations thereof. It is to say that this innocent person may be killed simply because another person wants to. Period. The "personally opposed" may find such a homicide to be immoral, silly, creepy, or whatever, but it is held to be that other person's "right." All others must not question that "right" and must work to support it.
What are the chances of people asking "personally opposed" politicians what they really mean? I wouldn't bet on it. And if they do, American politicians, even those with PhDs (particularly those with PhDs) are apt to lapse into humble folk what don't know nothin' 'bout them thar high-flown philosophical things (like whether something is homicide or not).
Both pro-lifers and abortion-choicers are more apt to want to discuss other issues. The relatively uninvolved will take the "personally opposed" mantra as one of the current political pieties and go on.
But I suggest that there are those in society who are cheerfully willing to concede that the preborn are indeed persons with rights just as much as anyone else. And they find it "regrettable" that such persons must be killed in order to "benefit" others; but if it would be beneficial, kill them.
And the preborn are not the only ones on their list.
Many of the "personally opposed" may, I hope, say that they have merely slipped into words that might appear to say something like that. We can only hope that if people ask them what they really mean, they will tell us, clearly and plainly, whether or not they think the preborn are persons with rights -- and whether being a person with rights makes any difference..."
"Personally Opposed" to Abortion?
by John Walker
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 1:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court announced itself unable to answer "the difficult question of when life begins." It should have given the benefit of its uncertainty to life. Instead, it arbitrarily ruled that to be a person legally, we must be born.
In effect, Roe trashed the ethical principle of equal unalienable rights as set forth in The Declaration of Independence -- and imposed a two-tiered legal policy on human beings that defines a superior class as persons with rights and an inferior class that does not count. Such a double standard is not only unlibertarian, it puts all of us on a slippery slope. Yet to this day, the Court is unwilling to confront either philosophy or correct human embryology.
Our unalienable rights are pre-political. As Nadine Strossen, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said on C-Span: "We don't need the Ninth Amendment or the Constitution to have rights; we have rights by virtue of the fact we are human beings." I agree. The Declaration of Independence holds that everyone is created -- not born -- equal and "endowed by their Creator" -- not the government -- with certain unalienable rights, among which are life and liberty, and that the purpose of government is to secure these rights..."
A Libertarian Atheist Answers
"Pro-Choice Catholics"
by Doris Gordon
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 1:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why the Statement "A Woman Has the Right to Control Her Own Body" Begs the Basic Question in the Abortion Debate
by by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.
(Dr. Vieira is an attorney practicing constitutional law.)
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 1:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The "Right" of Abortion: A Dogma in Search of a Rationale
by Edwin Vieira, Jr.
(Dr. Vieira is an attorney practicing constitutional law.)
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 1:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anon,
Are you back, my Idolator/Muffinist friend?
How is what you write about moi possible?
Farnaz is an Atheist/Jew/?Muslim.
Could you, perhaps, put this in verse?
Farnaz
Posted by: Farnaz | October 9, 2008 1:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Libertarians for Life
LFL argues that:
1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.
For more
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 1:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria, Arminius knows nothing about the Pentecostal Church. When he who calls himself a Christians, joins with non-Christians in mocking Sarah Palin for her membership in a Christian denomination whose teachings he does not understand, there is nothing exemplary or Christian about it.
It might be his political affiliation with Democrats that drives him to mock Sarah Palin's faith, but he should not call himself a Christian while doing so.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 12:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria, Arminius was once a soldier. He is even old enough to defend himself. So save your fire for someone who really needs your help. How about those people in your own backyard?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 12:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I often ask myself if I'm seeing the same world liberals do, hear the same things. I forcefully disagree w/ Baz's characterization of Rush and Hannity as hate mongers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their medium of discourse is highly monitored by pitbulls like Media Matters to the chagrin of us freedom lovers. But let's suppose that this is what you hear. What I've heard and read about Sarah Palin from the left, the level of vitriol, the intensity of their venom is not only unprintable, it demonstrates the deepest hatred for who we really are somewhere out there in Middle America. Her success has been precisely that so many identify with her, not a politician but a hard working individual interested in participating in shaping and/or altering for the better the direction of her children's future. I give her a lot of credit for not just being a bystander slow to act but quick to jump to judgement and criticism!
I do give you kudos for being
Posted by: Last Samurai | October 9, 2008 12:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
By Jim Trageser
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 12:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
By Nat Hentoff
Not too long ago, he was a pro-lifer. He wrote and spoke about the right to life and attacked advocates of abortion rights. "There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of a higher order than the right to life," he would say. "That was the premise to slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation, because that was private and therefore outside of your right to be concerned." He told the story of how he himself had almost been aborted. A physician had advised his mother to let him go, but she wouldn't. Don't let the pro-choicers convince you that a fetus isn't a human being, he warned: "That's how the whites dehumanized us, by calling us niggers. The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify that which they wanted to do -- and not even feel like they'd done anything wrong."
But as Jesse Jackson decided to run for president in 1984, his fiery pro-life rhetoric suddenly subsided. If being black was a political obstacle, being black and pro-life would raise the odds much too high. Jackson understood that it is hard to be a pro-lifer if you want the support of the left -- or just have friends on the left. The lockstep liberal orthodoxy on abortion is pro-choice, as Bill Clinton's election showed and his presidency will reinforce. Dissenters are not tolerated....
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2008 12:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'd say this was the debate of the living dead, (where is the passion in these two? and I totally disagree w/ u that Monsieur Obama looked presidential, scratch that, he did a little when he stood, but any time he sat, the look in his face was actually a little childish, impatient, reminded me of my kids when they've been caught red-handed and are wondering if I'm going to put them under fire....Anyhow the point I want to make is that Obama gets traction for looks....and nobody sees the socialist re-engineering and spending spree he's selling while McCain is called a creep by the twitter lib bloggers for the way he looks, for his lack of mobility in his arms and there's little or no consideration for his albeit tepid protest about top Congressional Democrats role in the disastrous house bubble burst that brought Main Street and Wall Street to their knees...
I fear our country is on it's way to hell in a handbasket.....
Posted by: Last Samurai | October 9, 2008 12:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry Paganplace, Farnaz and Mr. Mark- that was good, not god thoughts.
Posted by: VICTORIA | October 8, 2008 11:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous-
Charging Armiius with guilt by association? That is the big gun you pull out?
Who are you, Sean Hannity?
There are 2 aspects to posting anon-
One is- the anon gets to vent whatever dark ugly spewings that lurk in their heart- that polite society reviles without manning up and taking credit for that detritus.
So, no responsibility, like an animal or baby is not really held responsible for the effluvium that emanates from them.
By your decision to be purposely anonymous- you have chosen to give up the rights of identity and responsible personhood.
Since you have relinquished your personhood- you have also given license to others to disregard your personhood also- and not respect or honor the unidentifed animal, vegetable or mineral that you are.
Paganplace, Farnaz, Victoria (myself) and Mr. Mark- are all identified personas.
We take credit for our god thoughts and responsibility and the knocks for our bad.
Whose company do you keep, Anon?
Who else hides under the pointy headed sheets of anonymity out of shame for their own impulses and words?
And despicably- it is your choice to join the crowd of the cravenly coward.
I have had some conversations with Arminius- one where we disagreed with acute polarity.
But neither of us ever flung one sharp personal barb at the other, nor mistook the person for the intellectual point.
I have some time, and I'm a little bored.
So, since you are using the slanderous tactics of Sarah Palin- as the attack dog of McCain-
I will call you Sarah.
And, I'll respond as Barack Obama did to the new flurry of sludge hurled at him today by Cindy and Sarah- (by the way- what kind of man and hero gets his women to do his dirty work?)
I will not throw the first punch-
but I will throw the last.
Posted by: VICTORIA | October 8, 2008 11:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Atheists and Agnostics speak out against abortion
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 11:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Atheists and Agnostics against abortion:
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 11:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
AMEN! THE LUCK OF THE IRISH. BIDEN'S MOTHER'S GRANDFATHER CAME FROM IRELAND AS DID BARACK'S GRANDMOTHER'S GRANDFATHER COME FROM IRELAND. YOUR COVERAGE OF THE DEBATE IS RIGHT ON.
Posted by: daniel lynch | October 8, 2008 11:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The mantra remains:
Compare policies, compare policies, compare policies...
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 11:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The people of the US should rest in the confidence that Obama as President will consult widely with experts before making decisions in the best interests of the vast majority of the people and the nation where the US interacts with other nations.
Senator Obama can only prove himself if he is given a chance. Until then it is all speculation, but the trust must be given in advance while casting the vote. If the nation is not happy with his performance in the first term, there is always the power to vote him out. So voting for him now should not cause much concern.
People will vote only their own concerns. The candidate who addresses the concerns of the majority best will get to be elected.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 11:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius, you proved my point. I provided you with a most recent example which you choose you ignore and you can do nothing but call me names and make believe you are a most "virtuous" Christian.
How sad indeed!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 11:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As to Rev Wright, judge all of the man's actions and all his services to his people, not just some of his words said in a particular context. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. For all his wrongs (btw, he did not lead lynch mobs to kill whites or stage anti-white political protests), Rev Wright has done a lot of right for the black American community he served. That should never be forgotten.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 11:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hiding Coward Anonymous,
I asked you for proof of your accusations. You gave none.
I gave you the names of people you could ask about who I had argued with. You did nothing about that.
All you did was continue to make your sad accusations to pump up your sagging ego. No proof. No evidence. Just your puerile ravings.
You are no Christian, you are a pharisee or worse. If Jesus came down now, and tried to talk to you, I know you would be searching for timbers, nails, and a hammer.
God has read your heart. Beware.
He has also read my heart, and I am prepared to accept the consequences. Are you?
This is the end of this pointless argument. I cannot teach a pig to sing.
Posted by: Arminius | October 8, 2008 11:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Senator Obama's greatest strength is that he learns quickly. He has changed with time. For twenty years he was member of a Church with a very narrow view of Christianity, had the pastor, Rev Wright as spiritual mentor. After his break with Rev Wright, Obama soon morphed into the person open to all faiths equally, while maintaining his Christian convictions. Such transitions takes several years in most people, and is a gradual development. Since it happened in a flash in the context of a political campaign for the most powerful office in the world, it should be interpreted simply as the conviction of Caesar to serve people of all faiths equally and not as a spiritual journey.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 10:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius, you proved my point. I provided you with a most recent example which you choose you ignore and you are back at calling me names. How Christian!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 10:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius, there are dozens of Anonymous on this forum and other forums around the world. There is no rule against posting as Anonymous. How much does a handle such as Arminius, Pagaplace, Jihadist, Victoria, Farnaz, CCNL etc etc say? Exactly NOTHING.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 10:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous Liar said:
"Arminius, I don't want to take away the pleasure that would be yours rereading all your posts. I have no pleasure in rereading your rude outbursts directed at Christians of other denominations."
Of COURSE you can't take pleasure in finding any such posts. They are not there. You are a liar and a coward.
Posted by: Arminius | October 8, 2008 10:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius:
Skulking Coward Anonymous -
...
Reload and try once more, you gutless bastard.
October 8, 2008 10:00 PM
____________________________________
Here's one glaring example of bad language and you ignore it Arminius. What is the use of providing others? To have you self-righteously ignore them?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 10:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius, I don't want to take away the pleasure that would be yours rereading all your posts. I have no pleasure in rereading your rude outbursts directed at Christians of other denominations.
Whether you will detect your double standards and self-righteousness is another story, seeing how you call me a liar, among other less laudable names.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 10:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm waiting for your list, liar.....
I expect I'll have a long wait.
Posted by: Arminius | October 8, 2008 10:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous tried again:
"See what I mean? This is the kind of "Christian" tone you have used with Christians of other denominations most of the time. I reserve the right to call you on it."
OK, you sorry liar. So I've made so many badass comments about other Christians? Where are they? You got a friggin' list of 'em, with paths to the site? Huh? Got proof? Show me! If you accuse me of that, then the burden of proof is on you, and a stupid blanket accusation won't hold up in any court.
But I forget... you don't care about that, Mr Pharicee, you just want to shoot blindly to try to justify your own false morality.
Posted by: Arminius | October 8, 2008 10:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius,
Paganplace is a pagan,
Victoria and Jihadist are Muslims,
Mr Mark is a New Atheist,
Farnaz is an Atheist/Jew/?Muslim.
What is your point? Are you trying to confirm what I mentioned?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 10:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius:
Skulking Coward Anonymous -
Of course you can't find them, you have not looked.
Ask Pagenplace, Victoria, Farnaz, and Mr Mark (if he ever shows up).
You missed again. Reload and try once more, you gutless bastard.itan
October 8, 2008 10:00 PM
_____________________________________
See what I mean? This is the kind of "Christian" tone you have used with Christians of other denominations most of the time. I reserve the right to call you on it.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 10:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius, you reserve the right to, "condemn things I find wrong in Christianity because I am most familiar with it. What I criticize is the bigotry and hypocrisy that I find there so often."
Do I have the right to do the same?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 10:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Skulking Coward Anonymous -
Of course you can't find them, you have not looked.
Ask Pagenplace, Victoria, Farnaz, and Mr Mark (if he ever shows up).
You missed again. Reload and try once more, you gutless bastard.
Posted by: Arminius | October 8, 2008 10:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius, many times you have HAD arguments with pagans, Muslims and atheists??????????????????
You must have written those arguments in invisible script for I can't find them.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 9:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius, many times you have heard arguments with pagans, Muslims and atheists??????????????????
You must have written those arguments in invisible script for I can't find them.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 9:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spidey-in-a-shroud,
I condemn things I find wrong in Christianity because I am most familiar with it. What I criticize is the bigotry and hypocrisy that I find there so often. If I find something funny I laugh at it, including my own denomination.
Many times here I have had bitter arguments with Pagans, Muslims, Jews, and non-believers. In each case, I have tried to mend the broken bridges, and usually have succeeded. That goes with Christians as well. With some exceptions....
Why do you hide in the shadows and try to shoot me in the back? Have you no shame?
Posted by: Arminius | October 8, 2008 9:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Senator Obama's greatest strength is that he learns quickly. He has changed with time. From a very Church with a very narrow view of Christianity, Rev Wright, he soon morphed into the person open to all faiths equally. Such transitions takes several years in most people, and is a gradual development.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 9:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As far as his leadership skills go, Senator Obama is more a moderator and consensus builder, than someone with a unique powerful idea of his own that draws people to the idea. People are drawn to his unique story and his pleasant, consensus building personality.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 9:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius, Jesus condemned self-righteous religionists. Very often in your mocking of Christians of other denominations you sound like one.
When was the last time you laughed about any pagan or Muslim or anti-theist take on anything? This forum is full of your mockery of Christians of other denominations.
A real Christian?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 9:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Michael S.F., CA:
With all due respect to all religions, Obama and McCain are not running for the head of the American Church. No, they are running for president of a democracy, not a theocratic state. There is a reason the constitution mentions, in no uncertain terms, that church and state must be separate and that there should be no religious test for public office. Theological debates should be left for church and philosophy class, not a presidential election. Keep your church out of my government and I'll keep my scientists out of your church!
October 8, 2008 1:07 PM
______________________________________________
Religious debates are meant to be among theologians. Make any sense to hear prepared answers on religions by politicians running for public office in a public debate? And to what purpose?
And as to "keeping your scientists out of churches" hopefully you are not referring to the sixty per cent who attend churches of their own free will.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 9:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Some coward under the shroud of 'anonymous' said to me:
"A Christian who consistently joins with anti-theists, pagans and Muslims to mock Christians of other denominations. A real Christian?"
Yes. Jesus sat down and ate with sinners and tax collectors. He went to lepers and outcasts with compassion. He told us all that we are all God's children, and that we must love each other. I seek out goodness in people, and when I find that, I try to make them my friends, regardless of religion or lack of it, regardless of race, ethnic origin, sexual orientation. I do not judge or condemn, unless I find wrongness and evil.
Further, I reserve the right to poke fun of anything that I find absurd. But I do not condemn it because it is simply absurd, I just laugh at it.
Deal with it, whoever you are, lurking in the shadows of your own making.
Posted by: Arminius | October 8, 2008 9:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Pamela:
I noticed that about McCain too. He is almost DISDAINFUL of Obama - yet Obama has shown him nothing but respect. I liked Obama pointing to his upbringing and where he has come from (and Michelle too, for that matter). I don't think we need another spoiled brat, especially one with such a hair-trigger temper, as McCain continuing with the failed policies of the past 30 years.
October 8, 2008 9:13 AM
___________________________________________
Obama, as the only grandson of a vice-president of a bank in Hawaii (his grandmother), one of two children of a woman who got a PhD and was married to a wealthy Indonesian, attended the best private school in Hawaii as a rare non-white student, having no contact with his black father who left his mother when he was still a toddler, and was raised only by his white mother and maternal parents... is an ordinary black bloke?
Michelle's father had a well paying job that allowed her mother to stay home and send both the children to good schools. After her time in Harvard law school she did work first in a high power corporate job. That is where she met Obama when she became his mentor.
Obama was accused of elitism on several occasions, hence the tailoring of biographical details to sound as if he is not from an elite upper middle class background.
It is possible to support Obama based on his policies and personality without having to tweak and rewrite his biography. For instance, although his mother was an atheist and he himself was one until he converted to Christanity only after he returned to Rev Wright's church after Harvard, there is talk of his mother having taken him to Catholic Mass and UCC services! Why????????
There is no rule that says every black skinned person (Obama is only half black) should have a rag-to-riches/ghetto-to-Ivy League-success story to appeal to the masses and get their votes.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 9:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius:
Jihadist,
And Paganplace, if you have not seen it -
Check this link for a great political cartoon about St Sarah speaking in tongues - caused quite a stir. I liked it so much I made it my desktop bckground.
http://www.gocomics.com/patoliphant/2008/09/09
October 8, 2008 3:33 PM
______________________________________________
A Christian who consistently joins with anti-theists, pagans and Muslims to mock Christians of other denominations. A real Christian?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 8:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
OBAMA BIDEN 08!!!
Posted by: NETHERLANDS ANTILLES | October 8, 2008 8:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello Arminius and Paganplace,
Hope we all will not become lamb to the slaughter with St Sarah the Moose Slayer leading us, or leading us on to political, economic and social salvation as she see fit.
Arminius, I take it that "Confused Croissant" is another fond pet name for Concerned the Christian Now Liberated (CCNL) apart from Concy pussycat? A good croissant is deliciously flaky, no?
Back to Palin, a good journalist with an inquiring mind would start with the basics - who, what, when, where, how and why. What did Palin learn and from whom on anything and if anything at all?
And not all Abrahamic faiths' radicals and extremists wants to end the world. Some want to dominate and rule the world - with guns, funds and God.
Thanks for that reminder on "exercise in sheer distraction and cognitive dissonance" and "Roveian tactics of the psychological double-bind." Paganplace. It makes more sense now on the selection of Palin.
I am also aware of the increasing religiousity and clout of some American faith groups and their influence in the American political and social landscape. So, add pandering to the religious right and the religious wrong on politics in her selection. She is Godsend to them.
Got to go
Best regards to you both as always.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 8, 2008 6:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
And, Arminius:
"I know that Christians have, well, 'troubled' you (to make a gross understatement) in the past. Do you know how many of these misguided bastards were right wing or mainstream? I'm curious. But I guess under the circumstances it would be hard to tell. Probably a stupid question on my part."
Not really. Actually, the tensest things have ever gotten is rarely among those who consider themselves radicals... it's those who thought they were moderates until something personal happened and all the stuff the radicals said started pouring out of their mouths.
I used to keep a little mental image of a factory signboard in mind, when working in places most don't work, one of those things you'd see that said, 'Safety Is No Accident,' ...with a little scoreboard that got up to something like 1136 days without a workplace accident.' And to me an 'accident' would be anything coming to blows. Once I knew what I was doing, it was a good record, but it often got close. Most of the nasty stuff wasn't card-carrying fanatics, it was actually folks who considered themselves 'moderates' who were just having a bad day.
And realizing that is *how* you change 'Target' to 'Peacemaker.' When economic times get tougher, you see more 'radical' behavior, cause people look for someone or something to blame. What makes things harder or scarier for people is often a fair bit too complicated or 'nuanced' to want to deal with when you feel your life is falling apart and someone's all too willing to channel your aggression for you into an 'easier' answer.
But I don't think that serves *anyone's* Gods.
I think we ought to say *no* to the radicalism, even if we don't want to believe it's there, ...and I think we ought to focus on what we can all do together.
The most horrible thing about all this is that I even feel these experiences, never mind those of people who've warred in this life about or against or in the name of this sort of manipulation... well.
I'm a pretty perceptive individual, always have been ...to a fault, even.
Saying Palin has a 'Winning Personality,' for instance, ...I'm like, 'Wait a minute, she looks, sounds, and acts like all those people who think they must be smarter than me cause they can dress better. Your Avon ladies who try to make off like you're putting them out if you don't buy what you can't responsibly afford or even want, but only promise, 'You're an idiot, do as I say and you can be entitled to act ignorantly-self-superior, too,''
...they may try to equate her handed-to-her 'success' with 'feminism,' but that's just not what I see, there, in how she looks at us, what she thinks even of we mere dwellers in the Lower Fourty-Eight, ...they spin that as an 'Appealing Middle-America personality.' Even the *accent* isn't Alaskan, it's from much further East than she's ever spent any time.
Fake, and abrasive, that's what I see.
Just repackaged. If she's the only one they could find that still can appear confident in more-of-the-same, even if her own kids can't seem to make 'Abstinence-only-or else'... maybe it's cause she actually *believes* speaking in tongues is a great substitute for reading a newspaper or actually having a clue about the country.
Posted by: Paganplace | October 8, 2008 6:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi, Jihadist,
The sheep that are glorifying St Sarah the Moose Slayer were pre-programmed to receive her. But her personality helped.
You are right - much of America, including some notable conservatives, are very uncertain of her, and cannot fathom why McWorse chose her.
Oh, yes - sometimes it is difficult to tell when you are simply being ironic. I'll work on it.
Here you are back with us, and the Confused Croissant has not emerged.... pity.
Posted by: Arminius | October 8, 2008 5:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi, J.
"So, as Victoria and Paganplace pointed out, Palin was a journalism major. More reason to worry as she may either be master of spin or the master of verbal fuzziness?"
Probably not. 'Journalism' majors in any one college, never mind split up amongst four or five are rarely a program in what it takes to be a good journalist, again, in the old sense.
It's kind of a bit more like 'Restauraunt and Hotel management' isn't really about business or hospitality, just 'how to get a hotel management position.'
"So, Palin's first job was as a talking head sportscaster on a News show. Very telling. A weather person can only predict the weather and still be wrong with all the data in front of her. One can never really predict the forces of nature and which way the wind blows. And the gales coming her way are strong."
Actually, in the television media in America, those who present the weather forecast are rarely actually meteorologists, ...if the weather team doesn't have a personality, they hire a pretty lady to read off what others say.
"So Palin says too, 'Yeah, I read all that stuff'. Stuff, she said? What and which stuff? And to stuff it all even after reading all that stuff as God's will or acts of God?"
Actually, the lesson there is that she has always thought her religiosity was a grand old substitute for informing herself, and she probably never got called on that before.
"Paganplace : "Like I said, 'witchcraft' is no metaphor to Palin."
"Looks to me like she has bewitched quite a number of Americans with her good looks, her certainty, her good vs evil talk, her desire to implement God's work and will on earth."
Well, that's still talking in metaphor as regards what she feels her 'speaking in tongues' church should be allowed to do to 'Witches.'
It's probably not even her fault, apart from a deregulated media needing to make a profit off 'horse race' elections, rather than really say too hard, 'Are you kidding? Palin?'
"By Palin's belief characterisation, there are already at least 4 billion satanic and demonic types then, moi included, here on earth. That is quite a lot of souls to salvage and to save."
That's certainly probably a little much even for a hockey-Mom with a developmentally-disabled kid in an economic, climactic, and geopolitical crisis to manage, even without being beset by 'Satanic Witches,' and pesky old acountability for corruption in state government, yes.
" Indeed, for her, this is, to quote Carl Sagan, "A Demon Haunted World".
Pretty sure that's the one Sagan book I haven't read. Never did seem to lay hands to it.
"Do we need a Vice President or President in waiting (in case McCain has some health problem) who is, for lack of better word, paranoid and deluded on religion in politics?"
Obviously, especially when you add utter ignorance and incompetence, I'd tend to say 'nay,' even if it weren't the GOP that got us into this Charlie Foxtrot in the first place. :)
"Of course, by her belief, if she acted on them, would hasten the Armageddon she wanted - to cleanse the world of sin and all that, and only true believers of the true faith to go to heaven."
Another problem of really, all Abrahamic radicals, ...they kind of tend to think the 'end of the world' is a lot better than the damned queers somehow degrading their marriages by ...getting married...
I mean, I dunno, here, when *I* was a kid, the people trying to extort huge fortunes from the common people and/or end the world were the *bad* guys.
Crazy Pagan I may be. I'm just gonna stick with that, this lifetime.
If no one minds so much.
""Anyone who thinks he or she is facilitating, preparing, hastening, enabling the Second Coming and Armageddon is, well, nuts. Especially those who said, "God wills it" or it is the will of God" or it is "God's will" and we very, very, very clearly knows it is they who are willing it towards that end."
This would seem to be just the *extra-special juicy insult added to injury* these days, wouldn't it?
"As some stated here, not talking about belief or non-belief would really focus our minds on our common concerns and problems - the environment, poverty alleviation, financial crisis......."
This much is true... But that doesn't mean we let religious radicals talk religion as-political-command and then claim 'Oppression' when peole justifiably want to pay atention to who's behind the curtain.
"To borrow a phrase from the Bill Clinton's campaign, "It's the economy, stupid." Or some of us is waiting for manna from heaven, or fishes and loaves to be multiplied."
I like to say, "It's the stupid economy" these past few years, but what did I know, right?
"No, I do not get Palin at all. Nor McCain picking her as running mate."
I think it's an exercise in sheer distraction and cognitive dissonance. Roveian tactics of the psychological double-bind.
Kind of like, 'Screw up government, and then run for power on the anti-government platform on the basis government can't possibly work.'
Posted by: Paganplace | October 8, 2008 5:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous:
'"...we don't debate religion. Why not?" Because it would be boring and pointless.'
You need to educate yourself further on the function of religion. What we don't discuss is which church one should belong to. It would be like comparing the merits of restaurants or filling stations. The subject has no place in serious discussions of government. However, the problem we are having with the influence of churches in our society is caused by the prevailing ignorance about religion. It is ignorant to believe that religion can be captured in the adored text of any particular church. Religion is immensely more complicated than that. I am aware I am calling lots of people throughout the world ignorant, but I can explain what causes it. We refuse to discuss religion. Lots has been written on it, but churches ignore it because it conflicts with their influence. If you want to reduce the influence of churches in our society you must open the debate on religion, an entirely different subject.
Posted by: LKurt Engelhart | October 8, 2008 5:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Paganplace,
I did not speak clearly. What I meant is religion should not have been a factor in the election. But yes, the fact that it is, is certainly a matter of concern.
I know that Christians have, well, 'troubled' you (to make a gross understatement) in the past. Do you know how many of these misguided bastards were right wing or mainstream? I'm curious. But I guess under the circumstances it would be hard to tell. Probably a stupid question on my part.
Posted by: Arminius | October 8, 2008 5:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello Arminius, Paganplace and Victoria,
No doubt, I don't and can't get Palin. Admittedly Paganplace, I was being dry on Palin in irony and sarcasm etc.
Nor do I quite get "speaking in tongues" too, as in that movie, "The Exorcist". We may have some use for people who speaks in tongues such as Palin to decipher ancient texts.
Arminius, thanks for that link on Palin speaking in tongues. It lighten up my dismal days in the marketplace.
So, as Victoria and Paganplace pointed out, Palin was a journalism major. More reason to worry as she may either be master of spin or the master of verbal fuzziness?
So, Palin's first job was as a talking head sportscaster on a News show. Very telling. A weather person can only predict the weather and still be wrong with all the data in front of her. One can never really predict the forces of nature and which way the wind blows. And the gales coming her way are strong.
So Palin says too, 'Yeah, I read all that stuff'. Stuff, she said? What and which stuff? And to stuff it all even after reading all that stuff as God's will or acts of God?
Paganplace : "Like I said, 'witchcraft' is no metaphor to Palin."
Looks to me like she has bewitched quite a number of Americans with her good looks, her certainty, her good vs evil talk, her desire to implement God's work and will on earth.
By Palin's belief characterisation, there are already at least 4 billion satanic and demonic types then, moi included, here on earth. That is quite a lot of souls to salvage and to save. Indeed, for her, this is, to quote Carl Sagan, "A Demon Haunted World".
Do we need a Vice President or President in waiting (in case McCain has some health problem) who is, for lack of better word, paranoid and deluded on religion in politics?
Of course, by her belief, if she acted on them, would hasten the Armageddon she wanted - to cleanse the world of sin and all that, and only true believers of the true faith to go to heaven.
Anyone who thinks he or she is facilitating, preparing, hastening, enabling the Second Coming and Armageddon is, well, nuts. Especially those who said, "God wills it" or it is the will of God" or it is "God's will" and we very, very, very clearly knows it is they who are willing it towards that end.
I share the sentiments of many here - keep religion out of politics, keep politics out of religion. Or more specifically, politicians to keep from invoking God's will or saying they are doing God's work in politics and public affairs. Whose God or gods? In what area and why in multicultural, multiethnic and multireligious societies?
As some stated here, not talking about belief or non-belief would really focus our minds on our common concerns and problems - the environment, poverty alleviation, financial crisis.......
To borrow a phrase from the Bill Clinton's campaign, "It's the economy, stupid." Or some of us is waiting for manna from heaven, or fishes and loaves to be multiplied.
No, I do not get Palin at all. Nor McCain picking her as running mate.
Regards
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 8, 2008 5:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I guess, Arminius, a lot of it is that a lot of mainstream Christians would rather believe there's a 'Pagan Conspiracy' to make Wal-mart issue improper holiday greetings, than actually look at what these kinds of extremists do. They like to think sticking a Jesus on it makes it safe and good.
Even beg for it.
All too willing to look for 'Witches' and scapegoats, in whatever form. Not so much to look at what they or the people they vote for have been, are, and promise to keep *doing,* ...cause they'd have to give up the sense of safety they're told a cross gives them.
I regret to inform I know better. Part of why I'm a little twitchy, these days.
Posted by: Paganplace | October 8, 2008 5:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
No, we're not making too much of this, actually, Arminius. This is in fact alarming. But it goes deeper than, 'Oh, that's weird,' 'It's OK, Family Values!'
Posted by: Paganplace | October 8, 2008 4:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Paganplace,
Fact is, most mainstream Christians view 'speaking in tongues' today with suspicion at best, and are freaked out at worst.
As you said, Acts records the Apostles being visited by the Holy Spirit and receiving the gift of tongues - i.e., languages. The Greek is glossa, tongue or language, as it is in English. Therefore, IMHO, if the pentecostals do not receive a real language, they are babbling and only fooling themselves. As the cartoon illustrates, God is not fooled. So speaking in tongues is certainly foolish, and probably hubris.
Yes, we are all making too much of this.
Posted by: Arminius | October 8, 2008 4:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Come to think of it, I'd just like to try and express how utterly freaked out I am that any expertise about this sort of thing is even a *factor* in an election such as this.
K?
Posted by: Paganplace | October 8, 2008 4:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Well, Arminius, on one hand she seems to want to label alternative religions as 'evil,' and at the same time consider questioning anything she derives from 'speaking in tongues' episodes as people being intolerant of an alternative, if acceptably-Christian *practice,* ....even if her churches and preachers are considered dangerously-heretical ideologically by even the *Assemblies of God.*
...I'm pretty sure, though, that the original notion of the verses on which the 'Speaking In Tongues' practiced was based was supposed to be some idea that true followers of Jesus were supposed to be issued some 'Universal Translator,' ...and that actually working onesself up into spouting nonsense was supposed to be a sign of the very 'Witchcraft' they used to accuse others of.
Personally, as I said, it's not ecstatic or even silly-looking practices that really alarm me, (though, to be honest, I do think it's kind of a mockery of shamanistic practices) ....what alarms me is the propensity of those particular ideologies and dogmas to *take* those experiences and treat them as divine approval of whatever someone takes them to mean... usually in a context of some utter and overriding 'spiritual war' ...and perceptions that the world's all full of 'demons' and other shadows to fight, then of course, ...personify, scapegoat, and expiate.
From a 'magical' point of view, this is highly-irresponsible and dangerous. Mix it with politics, and, watch out.
Not good.
But it's not that it's kind of bizarre. It's that people can't tell the difference.
Posted by: Paganplace | October 8, 2008 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
i hope to hell political campaigns never stoop to the level of talking seriously about religion. religion absolutely does not belong in politics. we've already seen that the more holy roly a person is, the more foolish is his (or her) behavior in power. having said that, candidates do not deserve praise for taking the high and proper road in the debates. they pander to the voters on the stump by claiming their devoutness, but they won't actually discuss it in a debate because they know to do so is to open a can of worms and they are afraid to do that.
Posted by: jumpingelephant | October 8, 2008 4:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The country that always talk about religion at politics, procuced Taliban.
Is this what America want to become?
Posted by: loveandpeace | October 8, 2008 3:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I agree that Obama was more presidential in both appearance and action. You ask why religion has not been a focus. I feel strongly about the separation of religion and state. and am grateful no one tried to inject such talk into the debate. Our country in my opinion supports all religions and until about 60 years ago failed to live up to these ideals by racist and semetic views. I was thinking recently about the birth iof my first child in 1953. The physician I chose to care for him after his birth, (I had not yet learned to drive and needed a doctor I could walk to) was Jewish and not able to come to the hospital where I delivered. Incredible! No one seemed to think this was wrong. My little boy came home with an extremely painful diaper rash because no one was in charge. The African American folks I now cherish as friends would not have been able to meet me freely. So much for Christian outlook and authority. I am in my 70's and want a young, intelligent President who can more effectively direct out way out of the mess we are in. I think Obama can be a very good leader, just look ath the campaign he has had. Joe Biden is from my state and I know him to be a very caring and decent man with a great family.I was raised by a single mother and later began a single Mom myself after a divovce. I was able to return to college and had a long career as a social worker. I should add that I now have a beautiful biracial great grand daughter and I want her to have an equal chance to be whoever and whatever she wants.
So I say, leave religion to the individual. Do not try to make it part of the political debate.
Posted by: pate33 | October 8, 2008 3:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist,
And Paganplace, if you have not seen it -
Check this link for a great political cartoon about St Sarah speaking in tongues - caused quite a stir. I liked it so much I made it my desktop background.
http://www.gocomics.com/patoliphant/2008/09/09
Posted by: Arminius | October 8, 2008 3:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Please, keep your (personal) religion out of our (public) politics.
Thank you,
A concerned citizen.
Posted by: cubbyblue7 | October 8, 2008 3:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"...we don't debate religion. Why not?"
Because it would be boring and pointless.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 3:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Great Point! I would love to see this question asked of every politician and fundy christian in the nation: "You claim to be such a biblical Literalist that you can ignore all cultural context and take at face value the three or four direct condemnations of homosexual behavior and homosexuals. But you immediately and illogically begin INTERPRETING Jesus' direct command that if your hand or eye has caused you to sin, you must maim yourself in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. Do you KNOW the meaning of the word "pharisaism?" And if so, how can you claim to represent the will of God in American politics when you so obviously would put Jesus to death all over again were he incautious enough ever to return?"
Posted by: Michael | October 8, 2008 3:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr Burris can't even spell Moslem/Muslim so no wonder you're too dumb to figure out Obama isn't a worshiper of Islam.
Religion needs to stay out of politics. Ever hear of a word...self righteous? That tends to happen with Bible touting folks. You can't tell them "Jack"!! Right now the majority of political religious people latch on to Republicans. The most racist, intolerant, mean spirited bunch we've seen since before the civil right movement. Why would modern people of faith still goin arms with the racist GOP? I guess it's a southern Bible belt thing. Dixiecrats...and the Moral Majority.
ughhh!!! Thank God of course...that change is coming.
Posted by: kdog | October 8, 2008 3:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
"Hello Paganplace,"
Hi, J. Glad you're back. :)
"Merry meet. So, Palin went to some five schools for her college education. What did she major and minor in anyway? Surely not shortselling American voters on politics."
Well, we don't know how well she did, and actually, it's kind of hard to even verify her presence there, what classes she took, or how she did, as she was hunted around. She is in fact presented as a journalism major, though ending up in beauty pageants and being a sports-newsreader isn't exactly what we'd call a track to 'journalism' in the old-fashioned sense. Though that's another topic, really.
"On Palin her belief and her 'speaking in tongues', she does express her belief in the public square. For those of us not of the same belief as hers, and thus do not quite grasp where she is coming from and why, what she says do sound like gibberish, which is also another meaning of speaking in tongues."
The Pentecostal variety of 'speaking in tongues' is in fact working onesself up into a state and spouting utter gibberish. Makes anything funny *I* do look like 'Inside The Actor's Studio,' let me tell you, but that's not the problem. The problem is that it raises a lot of unfocused hysteria, which is then taken to mean 'The Holy Spirit' must 'command' whatever a preacher contextualizes the ectstasis as a 'Sign' of, be that a pipeline or a stadium boondoggle or a corrupt candidacy.
"With her experience of foreign countries and external affairs, I am sure we will all be trying to make sense of what trips out of her tongue on foreign countries and foreign affairs."
Oh.... Wait, Is it just your sarcasm's gotten a bit to dry for the Net? :)
" It could be a plus if we do not know what she is saying and trying to figure out what she said and what she actually meant."
She can't name a newspaper she reads (though she assures us, 'Yeah, I read all that stuff' (with a dismissive handwave and a look of consternation on her face) ...or a court decision apart from Roe V. Wade.
"As for "witchcraft", in going on the floor and looking at markets, what I do is close enough to "fortune telling" and "witchcraft" never mind the reams of stats at hand."
That doesn't mean it's OK to run around Kenya calling some old lady to blame for a string of car accidents and seeing her run out of her home village with nothing, ...in the name of Jesus, of course.
" We like to call it forecasting and making considered decision based on existing factors and facts. As for the outcome, millions of market wizards and witches putting in their own respective "magic" potions in the marketplace to will it to their own interest makes for a dismal brew as we can now see. Hubble, bubble toil, and trouble......"
Like I said, 'witchcraft' is no metaphor to Palin. Maybe you'll have a little more respect for what people do when they try and 'divine' over social and personal issues, but that's just not what she and her preachers are talking about. They're talking about religious war and accusing opposition of being 'Satanic.'
"Shall we now call Federal Reserve Chairman the Grand Wizard of Finance? Let us see if his spell works. "
False equivalences won't make Palin anywhere near competent, or her Dominionist backers and ideals any more cuddly.
Posted by: Paganplace | October 8, 2008 3:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The reason candidates don't talk about religion is, no one really know if it's legitimate or not. But, by golly, mention you don't believe in a deity, and the majority of Americans think something is wrong with you.
We don't need to hear Leviticus discussed. We need to hear how these candidates will work to keep religion the hell out of government and keep it out. Religious extremists have led to some of the brainless non-science of the Bush administration, and the rack of Liberty University no-brains all over the Bush administration verifies my point.
Posted by: SteveCO | October 8, 2008 2:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reading the comments makes me wonder WWJD ? I have been waiting for years for the Second Coming and the whooshing sound when the Born Again Christians (core supporters of the GOP) ascend to heaven. But,alas,no sign that it is going to take place. Too bad.
Posted by: probashi | October 8, 2008 2:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
if only we could have an entire day without religion! what a relief that would be.
Posted by: hartman_john | October 8, 2008 2:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist- Journalisim was her major.
Her first job was as a talking head sportscaster on a local News show.
I'm watching the Palindrone- and drone she does- on and on and on-
Kitschy catch phrases, slick empty slogans, and appeals to nationalism that border on fascism.
And then back into her box-
I cannot imagine that Jacques question is anything but rhetorical- but I'll have a go.
A debate on religion would necessitate an attack or derogation at some point on the differing faith position debated against-
As proven many times on these blogs- a simply stating only the positives of one's faith seems to be reacted with behement opposition.
That differing faith contains a block of voters.
It is stupid to insult or alienate voters, when one is trying to garner their support.
And voters donot vote FOR something- they vote AGAINST something.
It is downright silly to give voters the invitation to vote against one.
Posted by: VICTORIA | October 8, 2008 2:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I watched you debate (MCDebates) on YouTube and found it interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/profile_video_blog?user=MCDebates&page=1
I'm not an athiest such as yourself, but find man's twist in faith I call religion, just as damaging to people. Religious wars seem to be the norm and such hatred spoke of in the bible.
My belief in God is such: Even if the big bang created our universe, how did the (tiny) mater come into existance in the first place AND cause their attraction to create enmass what we see today. Even scientist are searching for the God atom (Higgs Bosson) at CERN. Even if those scientist find this discovery....still how did we come about?
Men/Women most likely have an innate desire to have the answer to the question why. It's because of this question that the meak can be led by so called leaders of faith into cults, etc. It is this concern that the separation of church and state is paramount. That anyone can have their faith without disrupting anothers.
Decisions of this nation must be made for the betterment, prosparity and security for all. We don't need leaders that take advantage of its people, or in the case of AIG and their stockholders spending $440,000 on an "Executive Retreat" when they and banking industries are bringing the economy to a hault.
All I care about is that the President, Congressman, Senetor, Assembly, Mayor, etc., have the interest of the people, Not the corporations. After all, the LARGEST lobbiest group is the taxpayer.
My final thought: A quote from John Dalberg-Acton: "I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Dalberg-Acton, John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power.
Posted by: Jeff | October 8, 2008 2:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
>>In American presidential politics we often talk about religion but we don't debate religion. Why not?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 2:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I think both candidates know what would happen if a debate were to be about religion. It would be political suicide.
why, because people get very emotional and cannot have a rational debate.
It would get personal.The attacks would be ugly.
There has been a pro active march into our political system since, Reagan.
The support for this movement came from the use of Abortion. The evangelical church grew so large it is now impossible to get a Republican elected, unless they are pro life.
This movement by the base of evangelicals was to get inbedded in our whole system of government, from the bottom up. Local school boards. To supporting only anti abortion candidates, all the way to congress to infiltrate the Republican party. We now have three parties in America, the Republicans, the Democrats and the religious right.
Personally, I believe in the Separation of Church and State. It is important to the survival of our democracy.
On abortion: I think it is a decision most women take seriously. It is a necessity in some situations; especially, where the girl may not be a women, but a child having a child. It is like we are punishing the child and insisting they have a baby to prove a point.
Then there is the other issues, like rape, etc.
If this was a man that could bare children would this still be the common issue of choice?
The issue of abortion is between the women, her family, and her religious beliefs.
God can decide in the end who to judge.
I think the evangelical church that started all this had other agendas, not just abortion.
They want to legislate their views of their religion.
Thou shall not kill, referenced in the bible, covers mankind. Yet we excute people, we kill children in wars, we stand by and watch as people go without food. Choosing life means all life.
Making laws that forbid abortion, is not mentioned in the bible or in the constitution,and the idea that we should make this a crime, punish the mother and anyone that trys to help her is so far to the right as to make it, was it is, Extremist.
So how are the extemist, evangelical church, any different than the religious extremes in other countries? Like throwing rocks until the women is dead because she committed adultry. The male probably has no such decree.
The argument in this country over abortion has shifted our politic and our justice's, decisions. Instead, of dealing with the common good, justice and equal rights issues.
We see this come up in every conversation.
It seems the Republicans and conservatives think GOd is a Republican. Bet God would be surprised to hear that.
In a recent talk it was said, by a Republican that our country is on the side of right.
It is our moral duty to shape others ideas,especially about democracy.
Interesting argument, because our capitalist system is coming apart as we speak.
Our democracy is treatened by our policy of Imperialism.
This country is still trying to keep our elections free from fraud and abuse.
This is vital to fair elections.
We can be a model in the world but I think we have lost some of our basic principles.
We just keep rewriting the constitution and ignoring our laws, as it suits one party or another.
We need to get our country house in order and stop trying to impose religion on the country.
This country is already a nation that believes in our freedom of religion, and God.
We don't need any religious group trying to run over other religions.
The abortion issues needs to be left to the States and not include: prison terms: but come up with solutions to this national crisis.
No one thinks abortion should be a form of birth control: this is a separate issue; and can be dealt with.
With certain inovative ideas, like, the doctor in a poor community that offered, $200 dollars to tie tubes on drug addicted women, in her community, using abortion as a form of birth control, or lack of it.
People in poor countries and in cities in the US need birth control. Some of the religious groups even oppose the use condoms. But have no idea how to stop the millions of unwanted babies.
They think teaching them not to have sex before marriage will take care of this .. Well, I think the only thing that will work is birth control and a broader talk about aids. Starting in middle school.
In the past years we talked about pray in schools and family values, now it is all about abortion even when the country almost bankrupt.
In America the truth is it is all about God, Guns and Sex. We are proccupied with it.
Posted by: crich520@aol.com | October 8, 2008 2:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Religion and politics. Oil and water.I would prefer that candidates embody their beliefs thru their policy action not wear their religion on their sleeves like flag lapel pins. Its much better to walk the walk and leave the talk at home. George Bush is a born again christian and just look at the mess he made. I would prefer a candidate that leaves religion where it belongs: as a strictly personal matter. Religion as a debate subject does not belong. Promulgating humane and moral social agendas, ending poverty, useless war, expanding science should not need a holier than thou debate.
Mickster.
Posted by: mickster | October 8, 2008 2:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Instead of debating religious beliefs or practices, I'd like to pose this question to the candidates, "Why are religious beliefs and practices popular among some people, but rejected by others?"
Posted by: ama | October 8, 2008 2:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello Paganplace,
Merry meet. So, Palin went to some five schools for her college education. What did she major and minor in anyway? Surely not shortselling American voters on politics.
On Palin her belief and her 'speaking in tongues', she does express her belief in the public square. For those of us not of the same belief as hers, and thus do not quite grasp where she is coming from and why, what she says do sound like gibberish, which is also another meaning of speaking in tongues.
With her experience of foreign countries and external affairs, I am sure we will all be trying to make sense of what trips out of her tongue on foreign countries and foreign affairs. It could be a plus if we do not know what she is saying and trying to figure out what she said and what she actually meant.
As for "witchcraft", in going on the floor and looking at markets, what I do is close enough to "fortune telling" and "witchcraft" never mind the reams of stats at hand. We like to call it forecasting and making considered decision based on existing factors and facts. As for the outcome, millions of market wizards and witches putting in their own respective "magic" potions in the marketplace to will it to their own interest makes for a dismal brew as we can now see. Hubble, bubble toil, and trouble......
Shall we now call Federal Reserve Chairman the Grand Wizard of Finance? Let us see if his spell works.
Best regards
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 8, 2008 2:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The only thing harder to understand than the byzantine machinations of Wall Street is the bizarre mythology of religion.
But I guess a debate on religion would tell us how divorced from reality a candidate is - useful bit of knowledge.
Posted by: Enemy Of The State | October 8, 2008 1:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Religion should never be debated in a political forum. What proof does any one of have of our faith and who can prove their beliefs in that faith to be right? The Lord I believe in said that his 'kingdom was not of this world', so none of this political garbage even matters as far as faith is concerned.
Posted by: H. Simon | October 8, 2008 1:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I am vehemently opposed to introducing religion into politics, but this is, I guess, a quaint position. However, I am vigorously in favor of attending to morality in politics -- quite a different matter.
In Dante's "Inferno," sins of the flesh are far less opprobrious than sins of the mind -- such as lying or making deliberately misleading statements. One wonders just how the lady from Alaska, who professes religious belief, squares her conscience with the lies or near-lies she has told so often and keeps on telling, to mention just the Bridge to Nowhere (O goodness me, saith she, I been against it!) and the disgraceful, mendacious claims about Obama's link to a terrorist. Or has she learned from her partner that honesty and consistency just don't pay. After all, not long before he gathered her into his bosom, he turned his back on positions which didn't sit well with his base -- e.g., immigration. Don't tell me this is "just" politics. It's not only politics and it certainly is not just. Look into Dante if you want to learn something about justice.
But I don't think Palin needed to "learn" anything from McCain. It becomes clearer by the day just how cheap a politician she is. During his trial, Sir Thomas More chided a colleague for selling his soul for Wales. Palin has sold hers a lot cheaper.
I support Obama because he is not only intelligent (smart is smart, and McCain has never shown himself to be very smart, nor has Palin) but also thoughtful, prudent, caring, and wise.
Posted by: DiCesare | October 8, 2008 1:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Wait you dont think that any politician or king ever actually believes in any religion do you? LOL.
Marx got a lot wrong but his view on religion is dead on. Its kept around just enough to keep small groups of people in line.
Posted by: Alex35332 | October 8, 2008 1:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yonkers, New York08 October 2008In this essay, Jacques Berlinerbrau asks, and I quote:"But if we are going to play the Faith and Values game in American politics then why not go the whole hog? Why not let politicians argue with one another bout religion?The simple answer is that Democrats and Republicans are as divided as two opposing political parties can ever be, ideologically, on secular issues.Which explains why the present Congress has a lower approval poll rating than George W. Bush's historic low of 24%.Let me remind Mr. Berlinerbrau that it is altogether possible to play the "Values game" outside of the doman of religion. Morality is not the monopoly of relgion; a secular morality can and should do quite well without religion.
If, as Mr. Berlinerbrau suggests, politicians--meaning Barack Obama and John McCain in particular--should argue with one another on religion, that would only immeasurably exacerbate the divisions which now make it impossible for the United States government to deal effectively with pressing domestic and geopolitical problems.
The proper venue for debating about religion is the church, the synagogue, the temple, or the mosque. And the proper people to engage in debates about religion are the rabbis, the Christian bishops, the immams or the ayatollahs.
Politicians should keep their hands off religion because they are not the experts on the subject of religion.
Consistently, rabbis, the Christian bishops, the immams or the ayatollahs should keep their hands off the subject of politics because they are not and cannot be experts in it.
They should all "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's amd to God what is God's."
Mariano PatalinjugMarPatalinjug
Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | October 8, 2008 1:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
we don't debate religion because religion has no place in american politics. unfortunately for the those of the american people who know the meaning of the separation of church and state some of the people in the current administration don't understand what it means or simply don't give a damn.
Posted by: david bloom | October 8, 2008 1:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yonkers, New York08 October 2008
In this essay, Jacques Berlinerbrau asks, and I quote:"But if we are going to play the Faith and Values game in American politics then why not go the whole hog? Why not let politicians argue with one another bout religion?"
The simple answer is that Democrats and Republicans are as divided NOW as two opposing political parties can ever be, ideologically, on secular issues.
Which explains why the present Congress has a lower approval poll rating than George W. Bush's historic low of 24%.
Let me remind Mr. Berlinerbrau that it is altogether possible to play the "Values game" outside of the doman of religion. Morality is not the monopoly of relgion; a secular morality can and should do quite well without religion.
If, as Mr. Berlinerbrau suggests, politicians--meaning Barack Obama and John McCain in particular--should argue with one another on religion, that would SURELY only immeasurably exacerbate the divisions which now make it impossible for the United States government to deal effectively with pressing domestic and geopolitical problems.
The proper venue for debating about religion is the church, the synagogue, the temple, or the mosque. And the proper people to engage in debates about religion are the rabbis, the Christian bishops, the immams or the ayatollahs.
Politicians should keep their hands off religion because they are not the experts on the subject of religion.
Consistently, rabbis, the Christian bishops, the immams or the ayatollahs should keep their hands off the subject of politics because they are not and cannot be experts in it.
They should all "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's amd to God what is God's."
Mariano PatalinjugMarPatalinjug
Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | October 8, 2008 1:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As for the candidates going over time, well, it seemed McCain's tactic was to throw out a lot of false information and characterizations about Obama... things which really did need answering.
It kind of defeats the purpose of a debate if one side decides to make it impossible to answer the challenges in the allotted time.
I didn't see it as a big deal, as long as things of substance were being said. The economy won't be solved by treating everything involved as separate 'issues' and quoteable snippets: it certainly doesn't make sense to complain about how long it takes to substantively-answer allegations McCain heaped on.
Posted by: Paganplace | October 8, 2008 1:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
With all due respect to all religions, Obama and McCain are not running for the head of the American Church. No, they are running for president of a democracy, not a theocratic state. There is a reason the constitution mentions, in no uncertain terms, that church and state must be separate and that there should be no religious test for public office. Theological debates should be left for church and philosophy class, not a presidential election. Keep your church out of my government and I'll keep my scientists out of your church!
Posted by: Michael S.F., CA | October 8, 2008 1:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"As you very well know, Palin speaks in tongues. So, one has room to interpet what she say either literally or metaphorically."
That's not her belief, nor what 'speaking in tongues' is.
"I will, of course, go on a metaphorical take as Palin is a college grad."
Trust me, 'Witchcraft' is no metaphor to these 'spiritual warfare' types, ...and no metaphor to the 'witches' her witch-finder supporter persecuted in Africa. These were real, if doubtless completely 'innocent' people.
And her college education was spread out among five schools of no particular repute, and, funny, but it's hard to get at the records.
Posted by: Paganplace | October 8, 2008 12:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I suspect that John McCain lost any real religion he once had while in captivity in North Vietnam; there may not be any atheists in foxholes, but I've heard many a veteran, including my father, profess to havelost faith by the time the war ended. So I also suspect that any religion McCain may now profess is simply the minimum necessary to be a good, God-fearing Republican.
Obama, on the other hand, is a more complex case. Obama would like to be a good, loving-God Democrat. But how does Obama square how downright vicious and mean the loving God has been on the world's non-white majority, a love that has mainly been expressed historically by war, genocide, slavery and economic exploitation, including the slavery and genocides of God's own chosen people, the Jews?
Posted by: Jon Davis | October 8, 2008 12:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Because simply when you debate religion to a large audience you look like a fool to someone, and no politician wants to look the fool to anyone.
Posted by: Fate | October 8, 2008 12:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I enjoyed the Rick Warren interviews. Warren asked Obama to talk directly to him and not the audience which is what Obama did. Obama showed a great deal of trust in Warren. It felt intimate and sincere. McCain, however, played to the audience and gave canned responses. If McCain was given the same instructions as Obama, he betrayed Warren. It told me a great deal about the differences between the two men.
Posted by: JayCee | October 8, 2008 12:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Burford Holly: "I dunno, I'd rather enjoy hearing Palin explain how she views our daily lives as merely the tip of a supernatural iceberg made of swirling demons, curses, and witches spells, and how the federal government should respond to demons."
As a believer like Palin, albeit with some variations, I am duty bound to explain what Palin said, and what she meant in the supernatural scheme of things and God's will.
As you very well know, Palin speaks in tongues. So, one has room to interpet what she say either literally or metaphorically.
I will, of course, go on a metaphorical take as Palin is a college grad. So I've read. The swirling demons, are of course, those greedy, rapacious, pillaging and plundering Wall Street sorts who got us into this current financial and economic mess. And the witches spells, are, of course, statements invoke by Greenspan such, "irrational exuberance" of the markets in the hope it will cool off the markets, and it did for a few days.
As to how the federal government is responding to demented demons of the markets and corporations, well, not too well thus far. A political and economic exorcism is needed.
Palin is indeed right to explain how our daily lives are the tip of a supernatural iceberg of demons on Wall Streets, the global financial sector, the corporations and in governments and how political, economic and social Doomsday, Armageddon, Judgement Day and what have you
is coming, coming, coming.......to your household eventually in inflation, in unemployment etc.
Burford Holly : "McCain could also explain just what religion he is supposed be. Then they can all discuss whether Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs."
As a believer full of certainty and knowing of everything and having answer for everything, I am absolutely certain that Adam and Eve did not ride on dinosaurs. According to Genesis, God made clothes for Adam and Eve, but there was no mention of God making saddles for Adam and Eve saddles to ride on T Rex or Brontosaurus.
As Palin would say, it is God's will. Nice excuse for human fault and human inaction. Mashaallah (Translation - Oh my God)
Cheers and out of here
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 8, 2008 12:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As a practicing Roman Catholic I'm very nervous when ever I hear politicians bringing God/Jesus to their brand of politics.The GOP or their right wing is good for monopolizing on religion/values and if you are a democrat you will burn in hell for supporting liberal ideas.Althought I question the so called values/religion when as a party we spouse practices that are neither christians nor right.
Posted by: Hipolito Lagares | October 8, 2008 12:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I dunno, I'd rather enjoy hearing Palin explain how she views our daily lives as merely the tip of a supernatural iceberg made of swirling demons, curses, and witches spells, and how the federal government should respond to demons. McCain could also explain just what religion he is supposed be. Then they can all discuss whether Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs.
Posted by: Burford Holly | October 8, 2008 12:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
BAN SHORTSELLING !!
The stock market is shooting downward. Naturally, everybody should be saddened. But NO, not everyone. Who are these people? Who are they who profit from this downturn. It's the SHORTSELLERS. The government should realize that shortselling DEFIES NATURAL SCIENCE. It is an ABNORMALITY. Nobody should be allowed to sell things that are not theirs.
THIS IS THE CANCER THAT IS PLAGUING the stock market. It defies science and anything that defies science is HARMFUL. We are now reaping the bad fruits which SHORTSELLING sowed.
When a house is burning, everybody should grieve. If you see somebody who's overjoyed, Im sure HE/SHE IS THE ARSONIST. Shortsellers are the only people who are overjoyed now.
For as long as the "arsonists" are at large, people's money are NOT safe. LOCK THEM (shortsellers) UP BEFORE MORE HOUSES WOULD BURN. For as long as they are around, our money will not be safe in the bank. LOCK THEM UP SOON OR THE FIRE WON'T STOP.
These bailouts cannot continue forever. These water hoses would soon dry up. Stop the fire from its source -- the SHORTSELLERS.
Posted by: spiderman2 | October 8, 2008 11:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Jacques Berlinerblau,
Thank you for your very entertaining Five Observations and impressions on the latest debate between the Presidential candidates. I did not watch it, but it will not stop anyone and myself from commenting on what you wrote.
I would rather the song "Fanfare for the Common Man" to be played out when both candidates ambled onstage. Soul stirring, eye-misting and all that. The Ennio Morricone's theme song from Chariots of Fire is too New Age and evoke visions of people running on the beach. But, then again, perhaps apt for those running for President.
1. Berlinerblau - We Don't Debate Religion
Talking about religion is not the same as debating about religion? Never mind. Talking about what one's faith means for one do give a feel for the speaker of faith. Palin is accused by many on On Faith of speaking in tongues on religion. That would make her very right to conduct America's foreign relations too, being the multilinguist she is with the ability to speak in tongues.
Debating about religion will show up jingoism and chauvinism about "my" faith is more important, more valid than "yours" and should take precedent above others. It will cause the candidate to lose the election, or start a new religious civil war.
I agree with you the debate on religion will lead to all the more reason to have seperation of church and state. But, not talking about religion, not debating about religion is a suppression of free speech and free will, specifically on the extent and influence of religion in public life, both its positives and negatives.
2. McCain: "Peripatetic is the only world I ever heard that really describes him" *
The AARP will be shocked and dismayed by that decription of McCain. There is no age limit on how old one can be President, only how young one should not be. And surely this is not dismissing the matured in age from contributing towards king and country?
So, McCain shambled across the stage? Because he over 7o years old? He did not casually ambled across the stage? And repeatedly wandering into Obama's airspace is a tactical blotting out of the other candidate in the public eye, no?
3. Obama: Looking Presidential
How Commander-in-Cheifesque Obama appeared has nothing to do with how he will really act as Commander-in-Chief. Should the rest of the world worrry that Obama is going to get elected because he do look like a Commander-in-Chief as imagined or gleaned from movies like the "American President" or that TV series, "Commander in Chief"?
So, Obama radiated a "statesmanlike countenance". Surely someone who warrant being a called a statesman is one who has prove himself to be so as elected leader?
Why so much emphasis on form over substance? Nixon did not look comfortable in his debates with Kennedy. Nixon did not radiate any charisma or commander-in-chiefesque look or statesmanlike countenance, but he did make bold foreign policy initiatives.
4. Where is Mitt Romney when you need him?
The market "meltdown" of September 2008 could have and should have been prevented with concerted monitoring and updated regulations. This much is obvious, this much is certain. There is nothing Mitt Romney could have done and can do without the agreement, consent and cooperation of others. It takes more than one man to move the messy mountain of debt and mop up the losses.
And, surely never to let a former Harvard M.B.A. and C.E.O to clean up the mess caused by M.B.As and C.E.Os? Unless they got burned by the mess and have a personal vested interest to clean it up to save themself too.
5. Hold on to your hat, Hofstra University
Hofstra University? I will have to look it up. And be wary of percentage points in polls as much as percentage points in markets. Markets are fickle and unpredictable. So is public perception. Even an almost non-perceptible shift makes a great differences. After all, a percentage point adds up to millions and billions.
A foreigner like me cannot really tell the differences between Dems and Reps. Only one side wear the cloth coat and the other side, what? Polyester coat? Obama looks cool and hip anyway, no, no matter what he wears. And he says all the things I want to hear.
Thank you and regards
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 8, 2008 11:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
LET THEM BECOME USELESS (Taliban's rifles and land mines)
Obama was complaining why our military were air-raiding the vilages infested with Taliban and suggest that they do the raid by foot.
NO WONDER WE HAVE RISING AMERICAN CASUALTIES IN AFGHANISTAN. Obama and Bush should be held accountable for the rising American casualties.
More Americans could die in Afghanistan if Obama becomes president. Like George Bush, this man is an AMATEUR.
The life of an American soldier is more precious than a hundred taliban sympathizers.
The talibans' shoulder weapons and mines are useless in the face of an air-raid. LET THEM BECOME USELESS. Don't send foot soldiers. ONLY PLANES.
Posted by: spiderman2 | October 8, 2008 11:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Looks like JJ is back, as 'GOP REPUBLICAN FRAUD AGAINST AMERICA'. Longest spam I've ever seen, and it has his trademark repetitions in it.
Posted by: Arminius | October 8, 2008 11:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I would prefer the candidates debating together against two naturalists over the existence of the Ground of Being [Sky Pappy].
Theology is a series of mysteries surrounding the great one that is God, putatively the grand explanation but in reality only the pseudo-answer to Leibniz's pesudo-question, his bieg blunder, why is there something rather than nothing. How could there be nothing whe in accordance with the law of conservation of mass-energy,quantum fluctuation points to eternal Existence. We ignostics find that God in the end is just God will what He wills, so an unimformative tautology = God did it
As Existence is all, there can be no transcendent God. Time and causation presuppose previous times and causes, so again eternal Existence. The infinite regress challenge shows that.
The presumption of naturalism shows that natural causes and explanations are not only efficient but also necessary, primary and sufficient, being the sufficient reason, apposite to what Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz asserts. This neither begs the question nor sandbages theists but is merely the rational demand for evidence as Einstein provided to overcome Newton. We no more need God than we need demons as Richard Swinburne's personal explanation in addition to psychology to explain my schizotypy and depression or gremlins in addition to mechanics to explain mechanical failures!
Google skeptic griggsy,skepticgriggsy, grigggsy, griggs 1947, escepticogriggsy and sceptique griggsy to see adumbration of all this.
Blessings and good fortuen to all!
Obama- Biden for liberty and prosperity!
Posted by: skeptic griggsy [ Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth] | October 8, 2008 11:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
A true debate is a reasoned set of ideas presented in an ordered array, with an opponent having equally reasoned ideas. Since religion is neither reasoned nor orderly, "faith" precluding, or even demanding this lack of reason, what would be the point?
There will come a time when people look back at religion and religious posturing and laugh. They will live in a world, of course, with no wildlife left, hardly any trees, no diversity of life, and be wondering how people "back then" could spend so much time talking about nothing.
Posted by: Dr. Peabody | October 8, 2008 11:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Please, do not encourage the debate of religion in presidential politics. We all know that it won't be a debate at all, but rather a love fest for religion. It would only serve to promote the interests of those who wish to interject more faith into the political dialogue.
Don't you know it's rude to criticize religious belief? What makes you think any candidate would be willing to do so?
Posted by: joshua | October 8, 2008 11:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Candidates for public office should stick to debate topics relevant to the job description - particularly with so many disasters on hand. "At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols." -Aldous Huxley
Posted by: frayedcat | October 8, 2008 11:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why don't we debate religion in politics?
A) Because you will anger more people than you convert, thus guaranteeing electoral failure.
B) Church and State are separate? What do Papal Infallibility, the veneration of saints, or the Immaculate Conception have to do with a financial crisis and the war in Iraq?
C) Because a growing number of American are areligious. They may celebrate Xmas and call themselves Christians, but they don't participate in organized religion on a daily basis. They are more interested in the PTA than in ecumenical struggles.
BTW, Romney would have been a terrible choice because the Evangelicals hate Mormons. Just look at the Georgia GOP Primary for evidence.
Posted by: AxelDC | October 8, 2008 11:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain really screwed up by not choosing Mitt Romney as his running mate.
McCain and Palin seem like a joke incapable of running our country, especially now, while there is so much turmoil in the world and with our economic meltdown.
Posted by: Shelby | October 8, 2008 11:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
We need to grow up and get over the ridiculus racketeering of Christian ministers, priests, bishops, talkers, whathaveyou! Given the 2000 plus versions of the Good Book; basing a religion on the bible is a lot like reading tea leaves...you can make up just about anything you want; and they do! Going to the Christianized Jewish Book of the Tribes of Israel justifying their genocide and mysogyny; their slavery and womanizing kings; their wars of conquest still raging today; is like using Mein Kampf as a reader for Patriotism!
Until Americas abandons these silly superstitions, juvenile reasoning or less; and especially stop following empty charismatic racketeers playing the oldest Con on the scared, the weak, and the uneducated; then we are nothing but a scary mob terrifying the peoples of our planet with our unpredictable, irrational, and destructive actions and behaviors!
Posted by: Chaotician | October 8, 2008 11:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Larryl
The U.S. is very much a Christian country. I am not a Christian, but over 90% of people in this country state a belief in a God, and over 60% of the population is Christian. Those are facts. By the way there is no such thing as a Red or Blue state. That is a media creation.
The vast majority of states are close to evenly divided. Have you ever looked at the election results? A state like Iowa went 50.5% Repub to 49.5% Dem last election. And yet the media labled it a Red state. Ohio may go 50.5 Dem and 49.5 Repub this time and yet be labled a blue state.
Yes there is a divide amoung the people, but it is NOT based on the state they live in.
Posted by: DW | October 8, 2008 11:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mccain siempre en su postura su barato patriotismo siguendo las mismas directivas del actual gobierno para mi entender OBAMA es el futuro presidente.
Posted by: aldo07 | October 8, 2008 11:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mccain siempre en su postura su barato patriotismo siguendo las mismas directivas del actual gobierno para mi entender OBAMA es el futuro presidente.
Posted by: aldo07 | October 8, 2008 11:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hey Spiderman2: You said:
"The life of an American soldier is more precious than a hundred taliban sympathizers".
I think you have a very serious generalization problem here. Just because the Taliban might be hiding in your house does not make you a sympathizer. They move into villages and take over space. They force people to hide them.
And the problem with your thinking? If you kill the people who live there that hate the Taliban, suddenly they think America is the enemy. You cannot assume that everyone there is a Taliban supporter. So stop spouting this crap and try taking a better view of the situation. Don't buy into the rhetoric. There's a lot of information out there you need to see.
Blowing up everyone is not the answer.
Posted by: LarryL | October 8, 2008 11:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hey Jacques,
Here is a quote for you:
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Things are that simple except you wander around looking for a clue. I have handed you one out of pity.
Posted by: Cecil Quick | October 8, 2008 11:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I get really tired of this 'religion in the campaign' insanity. Do Americans know their own history? Do you not know that the founding fathers insisted on the separation of church and state. How can you have freedom if one religious voice is dominating the discussion.
It's all very nice that your treligion is the one true religion. I guarantee that they feel that way too. So you keep it out since it does NOT promote freedom and equality for all.
Why? Why does religion keep entering this arena? Why aren't all Americans insisting that it remain outside the election? America is not a Christian nation despite the red states appearing to think otherwise. This is dangerous territory and I would ask that you look at some of America's enemies to see what happens when religion governs.
Posted by: LarryL | October 8, 2008 11:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Age IS pertinent to the selection of our next President, unlike race. Advanced age of the presidential candidate McCain (along with known health issues) places more importance on the rightness of the vice-presidential candidate. Senseless Sarah as President? Say it isn’t so! Palin doesn't know what a Vice-President does every day (by her own admission), let alone what a President does.
Posted by: Anita from New Hampshire | October 8, 2008 11:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I find the McCain/Palin supporters who have commented here to be so angry. Where is this anger coming from? Are you so devastated that your candidates are behind that you have to behave in such a hateful manner? Palin is almost inciting riots at her events ~ this is frightening.
I am not a religious person ~ just spiritual. I do not religion discussed in politics, as I believe it has no place in politics. Religion is a personal choice and should remain personal. I am a strong advocate of the separation of church and state and, under Bush, those lines have been blurred. This needs to be corrected and religion needs to stay in its place in the minds and hearts of those who need it in their lives, not in my government.
Posted by: Kit Kat | October 8, 2008 11:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
why don't they get in each others faces about faith, belief and religion? are you serious? thats a terrible idea. sure, most people associate themselves with some type of faith, but everyone has their own very specific ideals. thats a personal topic that shouldn't be disscussed between the presidential candidates. how awkward would that be? "i think masturbation is natural", "well my god thinks you'll go to hell for it". the debates are for the people. not a religious personality test.
besides. its too risky for the either candidate to talk in depth about their own religious beliefs because of the risk of loosing voters and turning people off. which would indefinitely happen.
its just too sensative of an issue, and even though we have the right to practice whatever religion we choose, people are still going to judge.
Posted by: cory | October 8, 2008 11:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I have to agree with the other posters who really would not like to see the candidates debating religion in any way. One of the nice things about America is that in general people don't ask you about your religion (or, in polite society, your politics either). But especially established religion is irrelevant to the conduct of public affairs in this country, and has been from the beginning. Some of our founding fathers, notably Jefferson, were at most agnostic, but essentially all of them had been witness to, or schooled in, the disastrous religious wars in Europe. The irrationality and virulence of this human tendency can be seen in the recently cooled off crisis in Ireland, and of course, moving away from Christianity, the truly alarming Islamic extremist movement. God save us from religion in politics. These two do not mix well.
Posted by: troisieme | October 8, 2008 10:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
LET THEM BECOME USELESS (Taliban's rifles and land mines)
Obama was complaining why our military were air-raiding the vilages infested with Taliban and suggest that they do the raid by foot.
NO WONDER WE HAVE RISING AMERICAN CASUALTIES IN AFGHANISTAN. Obama and Bush should be held accountable for the rising American casualties.
More Americans could die in Afghanistan if Obama becomes president. Like George Bush, this man is an AMATEUR.
The life of an American soldier is more precious than a hundred taliban sympathizers.
The talibans' shoulder weapons and mines are useless in the face of an air-raid. LET THEM BECOME USELESS. Don't send foot soldiers. ONLY PLANES.
Posted by: spiderman2 | October 8, 2008 10:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"I thought both candidates were boring and I am getting so tired of Obama going back to last 8 years to blame everthing he could on Bush. I still never here a plan from him and still fear for his lack of experience on global issues."
Maybe you should take your fingers out of your ears and actually listen to what he is saying, instead of relying on whatever the other sheep are telling you to think.
It annoys me when people bash Obama all they can talk about is, "Well, McCain and the Republicans say this and that about him," and when people talk about McCain their only source of information is whatever Obama has said recently.
It's important to hear both sides of the story, so before you talk about how weak either sides' plan is on a subject, learn what that plan is first.
Posted by: LegendaryPunk | October 8, 2008 10:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It really doesn't matter who the next president will be. Our economy is shattered. The government is bankrupt .This means no social programs, take hikes for EVERYONE!!! No more money for ACORN!http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html
Posted by: msz10 | October 8, 2008 10:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
JohnnieB said:
"Baz, you know the hate goes two ways, and if McCain wins in November, you'll have a pretty tough time swallowing that pill, too."
Actually, that's not true. It wasn't true with Bush, either. I never wanted him to fail, nor did anyone I know on the left, want him to fail... as much as the Right always projects this on us.
To me, it's scary the comments I'm hearing at Gov Palin rallies lately... people calling Obama *Terrorist,* or one screaming *kill him.*
The hate is so palpable on the Right, which is fed by the Hannity/Limbaughs, and the GOP mud campaign.
Whoever becomes President, we have to unite behind him... and give him a chance to lead us out of this mess. And for me, if McCain is elected, he'll have my support.
Posted by: Baz | October 8, 2008 10:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I read the "debate religion" as tongue-in-cheek, as long as these two wannabes aren't actually going to say anything worth hearing, as long as their only effort is to pander to the widest audience ... why not debate religion?
Religion is ridiculous, why not debate it along with the other ridiculous nonsense coming out of their mouths?
Posted by: drugdery | October 8, 2008 10:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama is the most effective demagogue who learned from Hitler and Communists that Organizing the troops and running on the Platform of Change can win the elections. It is working, because America stopped paying attention to character and ignores the fact that many of his pals (or atleast the ones that are responsible for his meteoric rise to power) hate American (or atleast hate whites and Jews).
Of course he does not want to talk about religion, is because how else can he explain why he changed his name from Barry to Barack Hussein. Atlest Mohhamed Ali was honest about his reasons. Congratulations, Radicalization of America has began.
are you serious ??? just keep or grasping throw out enough garbage and hope it will stick huh just too funny
Posted by: this is too funny | October 8, 2008 10:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau: enjoyed reading your observations, but I must respectfully disagree on the "debate religion" suggestion. Our country is based on religious diversity & tolerance, and the job of the President is to uphold that premise through Church/State separation. There are too many other, important issues which deserve focus in a debate forum; having presidential candidates debate religion would be a total waste of time (although I can see some people enjoying it from a purely entertainment standpoint.)
Posted by: Gigi, Tampa, FL | October 8, 2008 10:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Peripatetic..." is from "Rambo" from the album "Vocalese" by The Manhattan Transfer featuring the lyrics of Jon Hendricks (1985).
Posted by: Marty | October 8, 2008 10:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Geez, you people are morons! My candidate has a bigger dick than your candidate ... this is the best we can do?
No wonder we're going down the toilet
Posted by: poods | October 8, 2008 10:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why doesn't some one question McCain's
stand on MIA amd prisoners of war from Vietnam when he ordered the destruction of Gov't documents related to this investigation?
How did the escalating prices of oil contribute to this economic meltdown?
Posted by: Jason Weiss | October 8, 2008 10:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain wanted Lieberman
Rove wanted Mitt
Either choice would have made for a good fight
They compromised and brought in Palin who seems to be on her own agenda and is really squashing Mccains power and turning him generally bitter and ineffective
So he made a bad decision. Unfortunately we cannot afford to have a president who gets pressured and makes bad decisions.
Real Mavericks trust their gut, not their advisers.
Posted by: Overseas Voter. | October 8, 2008 10:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
MANHATTAN TRANSFER:
"Peripatetic is the only word
that I have ever heard that people could use
that really describes him"
If we talk about religion, we'll start a civil war. Religion is the root of all evil.
Posted by: DrToonz | October 8, 2008 10:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I like the part where McCain schooled Obama in foreign relations, "Don't announce you are going to attack...talk first"
And where McCain said he wouldn't raise taxes, but Obama would...and then Obama said, yes, that's right. I'll raise taxes if only on 5%.
And the part where McCain said Obama would fine you if you don't have insurance for your kids...and Obama agreed with him, saying kids are cheap to insure. If they are so cheap to insure, why aren't they insured now? ANd how will fining people fix it?
Oh, he means mandated taxes to provide insurance. Now I get it.
I didn't think Obama looked presidential. He was reactive the whole night to McCain's comments. McCain said his record stands. Obama took potshots at McCain's record...because he doesn't have one to stand on.
McCain = President
Obama = Obamistake, Ouchbama, Obamistan
Posted by: HappyRepub | October 8, 2008 10:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
When are people going to get that there is a differnece between religion and faith? It seems that these two words are used interchangeably. We may be able to keep religion out of politics, but faith is something that no one can legislate.
Posted by: Deborah Smith | October 8, 2008 10:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
In my humble the public get exactly what they deserve when electing public leaders. Unfortunately the persons best qualified to lead are smart enough to
never put themselves in the position to have to.
Posted by: Walter Craig | October 8, 2008 9:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why doesn't some one question McCain's
stand on MIA amd prisoners of war from Vietnam when he ordered the destruction of Gov't documents related to this investigation?
How did the escalating prices of oil contribute to this economic meltdown?
Posted by: Jason Weiss | October 8, 2008 9:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"You are so right, Thom. We don't want socialism here. Now kindly promise to give back your present or future social security, medicare and/or medicaid benefits. We wouldn't want to offend you."
OK...but please give me back the money that I have "INVESTED" in these "benefits" for the last 28 or so years...and have the pay stubs to prove it...
I promise not to offend you by charging any interest. I will be "Patriotic" and donate that part back so that it can used to bail out some poor who was duped into buying a house that he never could afford....
Posted by: rukidding | October 8, 2008 9:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The only problem I have with this article is the first point. That's the whole point of the first amendment, separation of church and state. When you start debating those ideals/points/opinions, you start melding the two together, and that's exactly what this country was founded to fight against. That's why our people left Europe, for freedom from religious tyranny.
Posted by: Charlie | October 8, 2008 9:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I am no fan of either of them but I must go with Obama on this election. I consider myself an independent and have voted Rep and Dem according to the candidate I consider more qualified.
With the above, when comparing side to side proposals on the array of issues confronting our nation, I am more comfortable with Obama's proposition on the majority of points.
You see, I do not get scare of people yelling that he is a socialist, weak, inexperience individual. I beleive in a balance of goverment and free market, if you think, the goverment has to be completely hands off you are a lunatic. Regulations and rules are a need, this is not socialism, it is keeping tabs of things for the benefit of ALL of us just not a few. It is not weakness to talk to your enemies, have you ever hear the saying "I keep my friends close but my enemies closer", that in a nut shell is how you run and control the game. Inexperience does not scare me, we are not talking about a 20yr old college grad here, we are talking about a man not a kid. Look around and see how many great minds we have in this country that are "young". McCain scares the hell out of me, I do not want loose rules and regulations, I do not want a trigger happy man at the head of this country, I do not want Palin running the show as it is a fact the McCain would be the oldest president (with known health issues) and I am sure as hell I do not want a 60 and 70's philosophy applied to the white house. Thank you for reading.
Posted by: Dieter | October 8, 2008 9:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Is that the extent of the analysis, M. Berlinerblau? A quick, flashing statement of regret for the absence of religion in debate - and then, what? In the McCain/Obama sections you give away to the reader that you saw the debate as a function of style in lieu of substance; in all candor, M. Berlinerblau, does that do justice to the debate or to your purported intellect? Apart from the exemplary jazz quote that you cited, your recitation of vapid commentary - 'he looked terrible' versus 'oh, he looked so chiefesque' reminds the reader of his/her teenage years. Who is your audience? Who do you want to be your audience? I think if we re-situated your article to a live conversation between high school girls, behind bleachers, discussing members of the football team it might be a little more germane, natural and appropriate. As it is, though, the level of our political debate (aptly portrayed here, as also seen in the nation as a whole) sounds more like a popularity contest than a debate of real issues - one in which you have freely cast your lot and fueled the fire of thoughtless conformity. Democrat, Republican or Independent - your insipid article casts shame on the website and reputation of the Washington Post. Please do try harder next time, Mr. Berlinerblau - apart from the Washinton Post, this throw-away pseudo-analysis casts distaste and ignominy on your own credentials and position at Georgetown as well.
Posted by: CSautter | October 8, 2008 9:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I thought both candidates were boring and I am getting so tired of Obama going back to last 8 years to blame everthing he could on Bush. I still never here a plan from him and still fear for his lack of experience on global issues.
Posted by: anthony cairo | October 8, 2008 9:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Religion is one person meeting with more people who believe the same thing. But it always starts with that one person. Religion means something different to everyone else so why try to make someone else see your side if they dont already get it? the only person you can change is yourself, and if there is no change coming out of debating religion why debate it? It will only give people more reasons to disagree with their neighbors.
Posted by: savannah | October 8, 2008 9:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
DRG: Health care became a RIGHT of citizenship when the rest of the free world embraced it as such, as we have in Canada.
America's much venerated free market is as much of a curse as it is a blessing. The opportunity for individual wealth cannot be denied, but neither can one deny the risk of mass poverty, runaway living expenses, environmental degradation, and yes, a total collapse of the economy every now and then.
So smart countries like Britain and Canada removed health care from this risky system and made it a public institution available to all. It is as natural to have your government provide universal health care as it is to have them keep the roads paved.
We consider America's approach to be barbaric. Catch up, America, if you can still afford to ...
Posted by: Wayne | October 8, 2008 9:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Religion is one person meeting with more people who believe the same thing. But it always starts with that one person. Religion means something different to everyone else so why try to make someone else see your side if they dont already get it? the only person you can change is yourself, and if there is no change coming out of debating religion why debate it? It will only give people more reasons to disagree with their neighbors.
Posted by: savannah | October 8, 2008 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
For what it's worth, I thought both candidates looked pretty reasonable last night. But a big turning point was on the second question, which McCain didn't answer, talked down to the questioner as if he couldn't understand anything, and then called him by the wrong name (using the 1st questioner's name instead). Obama stood up, answered the question, easily refuted the blame that McCain tried to put on him, and then said, "but you probably don't care about the bickering, you want to know how the bailout helps YOU." Obama appeared above the fray and it would have taken the whole rest of the night for McCain to make up his mistake on that question.
Posted by: Franklin | October 8, 2008 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
There is one thing that bothers me the most about Obama, that is the lack of experience in all fronts - foreign and domestic. We have elected a president for two terms who had the same relative experience as Obama. I fear whats going to happen again is that Joe Biden is going to be the democrat version of a Dick Cheney. In the background, Joe Biden is going to be the play maker and decision maker for the next 4-8 years if Obama ticket wins. Biden is like Cheney, neither would ever make it to the big show unless they have a puppet for the popularity contest
Posted by: John | October 8, 2008 9:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Religion is one person meeting with more people who believe the same thing. But it always starts with that one person. Religion means something different to everyone else so why try to make someone else see your side if they dont already get it? the only person you can change is yourself, and if there is no change coming out of debating religion why debate it? It will only give people more reasons to disagree with their neighbors.
Posted by: savannah | October 8, 2008 9:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"but we don't debate religion. Why not?"
We don't debate Santa Clause or the tooth fairy either - if you want to debate religion please join your favorite cult. There is a reason why religious zealots like Palin have to talk in code to their devotees, their beliefs are not compatible with 21st century realities. For example they actually have the power to create Armageddon which brings a paradox: Sarah and her ilk can press the button and have Jesus descend trailing clouds of glory to judge them worthy of eternal paradise. Scary stuff...
Posted by: Pete Peeva | October 8, 2008 9:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I fully agree with your assessment, except for your reference to McCain as "Peripatetic". I know it means "walking about", but the primary definition of this word is, "of or pertaining to Aristotle, who taught philosophy while walking in the Lyceum of ancient Athens." It is absurd to even think of McCain (or Palin) in the same league with Aristotle.
McCain consistently comes across as emotionally immature, contemptuous, cynical, derisive, mocking, sarcastic and completely disrespectful toward his opponent and/or anyone who doesn't agree with his narrow, combative view toward the world. He is a spoiled TWIT (as in "fool or stupid person").
You are spot on that McCain made the WRONG choice for a VP.
Posted by: Arthur Carter | October 8, 2008 9:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thankfully, there is a separation of church and state and it's one subject that is not on the list of hot topics for debate.
I thought Obama won this debate, hands down. McCain was too condescending to both Obama and the audience but maybe a few Joe 6-packs didn't notice that.
McCain was, as usual, not answering the questions and referring back to his military experience...Hello? We are still fighting in Iraq and McCain and his cronies took their eyes off Afghanistan and Pakistan. All this man sees is war, war, war. Don't think we won't have a draft if this man is elected because we don't have enough troops now to go anywhere. One more "my friends" and I'm gonna hurl.
And what about the Keating five? Won't Obama have a field day with that if McCain keeps up his smear campaign.
Did you catch the 25 folks from Ohio who were turning their dials on the ratings at the bottom of your screen? They all were giving Obama the highest ratings but then had the stupidest comments afterwards about the candidates not being more specific. This was a Joe 6-pack crowd if I ever saw one.
Posted by: Marlene | October 8, 2008 9:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
who cares how many homes mccain has? did you say tha about john kerry when he was running for president? do you know how wealthy he is and how many homes he has? One of Obama's mentors growing up was a member of the Hawaii Communist party and a huge influence on his life. Go research Obama's past, the media is ignoring it though. If Obama says one more time "let me be clear ", i'll scream, he's so unready, i'd gladly vote for hillary!
Posted by: tommy again | October 8, 2008 9:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The growth of government led by Pelosi, Obama and Barney Frank gave us the current recession. The unimaginable spending for Katreena disaster, Freddie Mac, FHA, FEMA, SBA, etc. put us in this problem. Now Obama wants to grow the government even more and give more money to his corrupt cronies running these agencies?
Posted by: Kevin | October 8, 2008 9:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama is not corrupt but that doesn't stop so called Christians from lying about him. (Rose!) McCain, on the other hand, has many scandals that stick, including Keating Five, where he was one of 5 senators involved in deregulating the financial markets that caused the 80's Savings and Loan bailout of billions for the taxpayers. Then in March 2008, he pressed for more deregulation AGAIN! (then look what happened in September!!) IT SEEMS THAT IT IS RIGHT ABOUT OLD DOGS NOT BEING ABLE TO LEARN NEW TRICKS when that dog is McSame, who, by the way, doesn't even go to church, so I don't understand his support from Christians. He will say ANYTHING to get elected, but McSame won't do anything for religious people.
Posted by: Jan | October 8, 2008 9:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I think the reason they don't debate religion at presidential debates is because, (and thank god) there is a separation of church and state in this country. Religion does not belong at the debates.
Posted by: Amanda | October 8, 2008 9:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama looked Presidential? You have got to be kdding. He looked to me like the inexperienced self-aggrandizing politician that he is. The thought of Senator Obama becoming President and Commander in Chief terrifies me. His unfounded and untrue accusation that our military air-raided villages is an insight into his lack of respect for them. He threatens to invade our ally Pakistan, showing once again his lack of judgment and grasp of history and world politics. He consistently calls Africa a nation. He is clueless. He advocates change but his record shows no change from the same old Washington politics nor any ability to work with the other side. He has authored virtually no bills in Congress. His judgment? Where - what kinds of people will he appoint as judges and to help him in the Executive Branch? He has shown remarkable lack of judgment in the choice of his pals Wright, Ayers and Rezko. He averages about a million dollars per day in earmarks for every day he has been in Congress. He doesn't seem to understand that corporations are owned by citizens, and that citizens work for corporations, that our corporations already have the highest tax rate in the world. He wants to take our money away, and let Congress spend it for us. Give me a break.
Posted by: J. LaChance | October 8, 2008 9:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Have Politicians talk about Religion?
Seeing Mitt Romney having to his "explain" *his* Christianity to the "real" Christians of his party was perhaps the most uncomfortable political speech I've ever seen. As a Jew, I was wondering when I was going to be required to get my tattoo...
Posted by: South Jersey Woodchipper | October 8, 2008 9:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama is the most effective demagogue who learned from Hitler and Communists that Organizing the troops and running on the Platform of Change can win the elections. It is working, because America stopped paying attention to character and ignores the fact that many of his pals (or atleast the ones that are responsible for his meteoric rise to power) hate American (or atleast hate whites and Jews).
Of course he does not want to talk about religion, is because how else can he explain why he changed his name from Barry to Barack Hussein. Atlest Mohhamed Ali was honest about his reasons. Congratulations, Radicalization of America has began.
Posted by: Alexandra | October 8, 2008 9:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
DRG - Health care does not have to be a right of citizenship. If you believe in social Darwinism and want to live in an uncivilized disease-ridden armpit of a country where most certainly health care is not a right, maybe the US just isn't the place for you anymore.
Posted by: Hilary Smith | October 8, 2008 9:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
BAN SHORTSELLING !!
The stock market is shooting downward. Naturally, everybody should be saddened. But NO, not everyone. Who are these people? Who are they who profit from this downturn. It's the SHORTSELLERS. The government should realize that shortselling DEFIES NATURAL SCIENCE. It is an ABNORMALITY. Nobody should be allowed to sell things that are not theirs.
THIS IS THE CANCER THAT IS PLAGUING the stock market. It defies science and anything that defies science is HARMFUL. We are now reaping the bad fruits which SHORTSELLING sowed.
When a house is burning, everybody should grieve. If you see somebody who's overjoyed, Im sure HE/SHE IS THE ARSONIST. Shortsellers are the only people who are overjoyed now.
For as long as the "arsonists" are at large, people's money are NOT safe. LOCK THEM (shortsellers) UP BEFORE MORE HOUSES WOULD BURN. For as long as they are around, our money will not be safe in the bank. LOCK THEM UP SOON OR THE FIRE WON'T STOP.
These bailouts cannot continue forever. These water hoses would soon dry up. Stop the fire from its source -- the SHORTSELLERS
Posted by: spiderman2 | October 8, 2008 9:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I've just pissed my pants and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Posted by: McCain | October 8, 2008 9:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The George Bush alliance is the something that McCain can not overcome in this Election ,,,,,,IT IS REALLY NOT FAIR FOR McCAIN.........BUSH HAS TAKEN HIS YALE DEGREE AND PLUNGED US INTO A DEPRESSION. McCain has walked hand and hand with Bush to help get us there.....too bad, I really do think that McCain would have been elected had it not been a hand in hand alliance that helped get us where we are today. The senate and congress support is going to dwindle for the Republicans too....not because of "who they are or what they have done" but because of the strong support for Bush in the comgress and senate....there are a lot of good Republicans that will be looking for employment when this is over. I am a 69 year old that has allways vote Republican for president,,,,Bush was just too much and McCain is too closely alligned (ie: at a Republican fund raiser in Texas this year McCain said "Geroge Bush is a great man",,,,,just too much.
Posted by: Tom Gibson | October 8, 2008 9:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
@Tommy, and others questioning Obama's looking like Commander-in-Chief, here's how Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America rate the two candidates:
McCain: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/192&lvl=C&chamber=S
Obama: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/3181&lvl=C&chamber=S
Posted by: baz | October 8, 2008 9:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm sure we can trust a clear Obama supporter to be unbiased, but, hey, who cares, right? It's his opinion, not fact. What I saw of the debate was pretty interesting. I thought McCain was pretty funny (in a good way). He just seems more genuine that way which is really hard to find in politics. I also thought Brokaw was ridiculous. He interrupted them and was flatout rude in some of his comments. One of these men is the next president of the U.S., you don't want to treat them that way.
Posted by: Amy | October 8, 2008 9:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama was great yesterday, he clearly won the debate. He looked presidential, cool , collected and gave clear, thoughtful answers. I thought McCain was gasping for air, what was wrong with him??? As an independent made up my mind to vote for Obama
Posted by: Kelly | October 8, 2008 9:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"But the White Evangelical base, formidable as it may be, is simply not large enough to hand a Republican the keys to the White House."
...I'm a white Evangelical voting for Senator Obama. It is possible for an Evangelical to think outside the box, to recognize that the word "Republican" does not translate to "good Christian." (And that "good Christian" does not always translate to "good President.") We all need to start doing our research and voting with our heads.
Posted by: LindsayDawn | October 8, 2008 9:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"punishing body blows"
Those were more like girly slaps. He was supposed to "take the gloves off" (I just puked in my mouth a little bit), which is NOT Teddy Roosvelt-esque at all. And I couldn't believe the self-comparison, which reminded me of when Quayle comapred himself to RFK, and Bentsen quickly shot him down. Mr. McCain, you sir are no Teddy Roosvelt. You do not speak softly and kindly, and you do not carry a big stick. You're the classic example of an insecure ignorant redneck who peels out of parking lots with their trucks to overcome their insecurity as a man. You speak loudly and with anger (i.e. You called your wife the C word in public), but you do not hit hard at all.
Senator Obama speaks eloquently, and we have yet to see how he punches because he seems to have tremendous self control over his anger. A practice I strongly recommend.
Posted by: Christian Seeber | October 8, 2008 9:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I believe the lord Baby Jesus said something about matters of religion in public life...
Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and render unto God the things that are God's.
nuff said.
Time to shut up about religion in the public sector.
Posted by: duuuude | October 8, 2008 9:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain's repeated lie about Obama's tax policies was annoying. McCain insisted that Obama's refusal to vote for the Bush tax cuts must mean that Obama is against all tax cuts--a really stupid line of reasoning. I know McCain wants to portray Obama as a liar, but instead, McCain portrayed himself as a liar.
The town-hall format was supposed to be where McCain would dominate Obama. Instead, Obama distinguished himself and McCain dominated himself. This election is over.
Posted by: Gray Kane | October 8, 2008 9:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why has this conversation become about who is voting for who? I thought this forum was to respond to the issues written about in the BLOG, not to argue over things no one is going to agree on.
Furthermore, why is it okay to further ageism and call McCain a "crotchety" old man or mention stereotypes like “kids walking on his grass”? It's not okay to be racist toward Obama and being prejudiced against McCain for his age is just the same.
Stick to the issues or don't say anything. It's really easy to bash the blogger, candidates and each other when you have no accountability. You just hide behind a keyboard with nothing better to do.
Posted by: Melissa | October 8, 2008 9:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi Jacques,
RE: "Peripetetic..."
Point well taken on McCain's ramblings, literally and figuratively. He should have squarely kept his ground, as his doddering only heightened the awareness of his advanced age.
This "Peripetetic" lyric is from "Rambo," the second track on the album VOCALESE by Manhattan Transfer (1985).
Religion and jazz--perfect together!
Cheers,
Anita
LYRICS are as follows:
RAMBO
Music by J.J. Johnson - Lyrics by Jon Hendricks
He's got that funny name
An' ramblin' that's his game, that's it
He's Rambo, talkin' bout
Me!
We'll see (Piano)
They call him Rambo 'cause he's travellin'
He don't stay one place
His life's a string he keeps unravellin'
He don't leave no trace
He's got a yen for changin' places
He digs changin' scenes
That way he stays in everybody's good graces
He's happy on the move
He's mobile and free
He wants no strings attached
That's how it's gotta be, see!
He'll keep on ramblin' till the coda
He don't stay one place
Because he's just a ramblin' man
His favorite hobby's hittin' the road
He was a fella livin' solely by the ramblers only code
Some people're born to roam
Fate gave 'em roamin' natures
An' so they wander aroun'
Leavin' people wondrin' when they'll touch the groun'
Hither 'n yon, here 'n beyon'
Wherever they never been before
As soon as you're used t'their face
They're off 'n runnin' again
Gone to another new place
Peripatetic is the only word
that I have ever heard that people could use
that really describes him
There's no other word could do that
Only other word I know that comes
The closest to it is "Gypsy"
An' that don't really fit him at all
"Cause he ain't tellin' fortunes
'N hates bein' dipsy
Everywhere I go they call him Rambo
'Cause he won't stay long
In my ramblin'
I've met a lotta people here 'n there
An' I find they're 'bout the same everywhere
Each with his own little thing
That he uses while he's tryin' to swing
Maybe the look ain't the same
But they play the same game
An' there's quite a bit o' difference
In their outlook, I know
Still 'n yet, their story, lem'me tell you
Is a story that you won't forget
When I was young 'n very green
I felt so stuck with m'present situation
Later, when I got a little older
that was when I discovered I could split
'N find myself another groove
That was all I need
I was on the move
I packed my little sack 'n started ramblin'
To this day I'm a rover who'll always be ramblin'
You git drug stayin' in one place
Depressed an' feelin' low down
Get new kicks movin' roun'
Roamin' the country's educational for you
'N widens your point of view
Tests y' mettle 'n cools y' mind out
'N that's true without a doubt
Y know? I mean y'dig - -
That's Rambo's gig
Rambo is ready to ramble 'n itchin' t'split
Oh yeah, he'll start packin' 'n quit it
Forget it! 'Cause he's done with it
That's Rambo! Travellin' light
Stay too long he'll git uptight
So his motto is "Keep movin'"
You got it! That's his bit!
Nex' time he might leave an address
'Cause the little girl that he met
Las' night
Paid him so much attention
That it got him a bit uptight
We might not have t'call him Rambo
'Cause he jes' might be settlin' down
He's gone the way of all men
Fat, skinny or tall men
It happened to this Rover we know - Rambo
Posted by: Anita from New Hampshire | October 8, 2008 9:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I agree that Obama looks the role. If had the values that I look for, pro-life and good judgment, it would be exciting to see him as President. If we take a look at the current economic crisis, I'm afraid it was his party, the Dems, that got us into this subprime mortgage crisis, during the Clinton administration.
The media has a fantastic ability to blame the Republics for anything that happens while they are in office. However, if the Dems were in office, they would surely find a way to trace the problem back to the last Republican.
The "look" of Obama isn't what is important. Like my mom always said, it's what is underneath that counts.
Posted by: Stephanie | October 8, 2008 9:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The arguing of religion seldom accomplishes any good, as "religion" is a set of beliefs...whether based on truth or a lie...that has become so ingrained in a person that if they have decided in their mind to follow a lie, or partial truths weighted by their compromises needed to justify their life choices, we end ultimately in vain arguments (having no effect). Something to be avoided. A basic truth is that any nation in history that has taken the notion that it can shed innocent blood and survive is not a nation that has paid any attention to history. Those nations who sacrificed their young were destroyed from within with the loss of economic well-being and their enemies gaining power over them due to their internal weakness being a manifest part of their destruction. We are shocked daily by the senseless violence on our streets and the invasion of "gangs" coming in from Mexico and other drug producing nations with no sensibilities of compassion or law...and we seem unable to stop it. The umbrella of protection we used to have has been lifted. No one person is going to resolve that which now faces us and we all have responsibility for it. The next President will likely get one term for not proving to be a miracle worker. And if that President is one who only has "religion" as opposed to faithful relationship choosing to continue on the social path of the last 30 years...things will get worse. Count on it.
Posted by: L. Miller | October 8, 2008 9:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Obama came out ahead", I think not. I must have been watching a different debate.
Posted by: Bill | October 8, 2008 9:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
How many who claim religious belief really understand the origins and history of their faith? I doubt Obama or McCain know much. Palin even less. Religion is so much bound up with centuries of culture that it is an unreflective part of most people. They would be outraged to learn, for instance, that Christianitiy as we know it has little to do with what Jesus actually taught and did. It would be great if religion were debated but it would only show near universal ignorance.
Posted by: norman ravitch | October 8, 2008 9:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Baz, you know the hate goes two ways, and if McCain wins in November, you'll have a pretty tough time swallowing that pill, too.
Posted by: JohnnieB | October 8, 2008 9:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
They are both sickning. We are in trouble.
Posted by: Dennis | October 8, 2008 9:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I like boobies.
Posted by: Joel Seniff | October 8, 2008 9:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
obama looked commander-in-chiefesque? You must be deranged. He never looks that way. That's one reason I cannot vote for him. He looks way to young, he is too young, too inexperienced. When Mccain talks about foreign policy and protecting our nation I sincerely believe in him and I have confidence in him; with Obama it sounds so phony, he doesn't look comfortable when he says it, and when he says he is behind our troops it really sounds insincere. He always sounds robotic, Mccain seems much more passionate about the job ahead.
Posted by: tommy | October 8, 2008 9:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Obvious an Obama supporter. So SAD, it really is.
Posted by: John Roberts | October 8, 2008 9:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
How about just turning off the microphone after a 30-60 second warning? If these candidates can't manage a five minute timeframe and wrap up their thought at some point then perhaps they're not qualified to lead a country of 300 million people. www.LikeSoup.com
Posted by: Jim Campbell | October 8, 2008 9:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I think religious beliefs are a very private matter, and should stay out of politics. One of the main impetus', the Founders had in creating our nation, was to get away from State Religion, despite spin to the contrary by Evangelicals.
It looks like the GOPers are out in force... so, I preface this to them.
Obama is no more a Socialist/Marxist, than you are.
This Country is in quite a mess, right now... two wars; a financial crisis; worldwide opinion of America is at an all-time low; two of our enemies on the cusp of possessing Nukes; high energy prices, a depleted military etc... we need to put America above our Political Parties, and Ideologies.
Whoever becomes President, we need to back off this divisiveness, and work together. If we don't, we're toast.
So, to the GOPers out there, with the growing possibility that Sen Obama, may become President, please cool down already, and if elected give the guy a chance. While we might disagree on how to fix the Nation's problems, we all love this Country, and want it to prosper.
Please just chill with all the hatred already.
Posted by: baz | October 8, 2008 9:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
TOM BROKAW WAS THE WORST MODERATOR - HE WAS NOT IN CONTROL AT ALL. NONE OF THE QUESTIONS WERE NEW OR MADE FOR ANY EXCITING RESPONSES. I WAS ON THE DEBATE TEAM IN HIGH SCHOOL - AND IT WAS NOTHING LIKE I AM SEEING IN THE DEBATES OF TODAY.
Posted by: REBECCA JONES | October 8, 2008 9:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
How many anti-government radicals do you have to "accidentally" know before people believe you're one of them?
He goes to Wright's church (remember "God damn America"?). Works with Ayers on MULTIPLE boards (remember the bombings by Ayers' group?). Sends Annenburg money to Wright, Ayers and Ayers' wife. Oh, and he DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY STOOD FOR?????!!!!!!!!
Please.
Posted by: JohnnieB | October 8, 2008 9:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
this is tight
Posted by: jeremy hankins | October 8, 2008 9:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I enjoyed your comment about Tom Brokaw. In fact, I wish someone would do that in regular meetings where one person goes on and on.
As far as religion issue goes, I think people confuse separation of church and state with being anti-religion. That is simply not true. I think a lot of Americans are more concerned where candidates stand on issues rather than the differences between a Protestant or Catholic presidential candidate (for example). There are so many religions represented in America now that a debate on religion would alienate a lot of people. However, you are right in saying that we shouldn’t be doing things halfway. Debate the issue or don’t.
Finally, I think something interesting about those who are in media fields never seem to have anything positive to say about McCain in any way lately– whether part of the religious right or the politically liberal. I wonder why that is?
Posted by: Melissa | October 8, 2008 9:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
David Axelrod: I would take green behind the ears any day, rather than someone whose head is rotted between his ears, like McSame. People like you said the same thing about Clinton and look what a great president he was!! Peace and prosperity and an Ivy league education (Obama graduated top of his class, like Bill Clinton too!) with real intelligence, that is what we need in a president, especially after the last 8 years of an idiot!! Emotional intelligence is important, too. (judgment.) Plus, Obama has an experienced VP in Biden! Obama Biden 08'
Posted by: Jan | October 8, 2008 9:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I always find it amusing when religious people associate faith and values.
In my experience, people who have faith are no more, and possibly less trustworthy than their atheistic counterparts.
I am an atheist. I live a good and decent life. I do not deny the basic pleasures of life to someone because they have different sexual preferences. I do not spread lies, as I have often seen people of faith do. I have never borne false witness against anyone, which I so often see people of faith do.
In short, my atheism is stronger than their theism.
Why? Because I need no threats of eternal damnation to act in a righteous fashion. I do not perpetrate lies expecting admonishment. I act with respect for all, because I have not been indoctrinated by religious dogma into prejudice.
Posted by: Bill | October 8, 2008 9:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
this is gay
Posted by: pimp | October 8, 2008 9:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
MAN YOU BETTER GO OUT TO THE STREET AND LEARN TO WRITTE ON A BETTER WAY SO NORMAL PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND. STOP USING BULLS..WORD, IT IS A SUGGESTION.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2008 9:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Whats life with out me!
Posted by: Kaboula | October 8, 2008 9:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
We don't debate religion....probably because there are a mountain of issues ahead of it, or maybe it's the whole separation of church and state thing. Personally, I'm glad they haven't, it's just not my thing, but you can't make everyone happy.
"The God Vote" insinuating your candidate I'm sure is closer to God somehow then the other. This is the reason I'm glad they don't discuss it. If there is a God, I'm sure it would stay as far away from American politics as possible.
Posted by: Aaron | October 8, 2008 9:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Are you kidding. I'm tired of hearing about religion and politics. Separation of church and state is a must or we will be no different than Iran and other middle eastern countries. Do you really think the leader of Iran is Ahmadinejad. He is a puppet of their religious leaders.
With regard to Obama, McCain and Tom Brokaw...they are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Regardless of who goes in as president will be influenced by such an organization.
I believe in God but certainly NOT religion. One God and so many interpretations by man makes me sick. Cults, honor killings, etc, yeah seems man has done a good job. The introduction of religion in politics was done by Neo Conservatives. The far Left and Right in politics get the attention because they have the biggest mouths.
What about the people in the middle. Screw you and your rhetoric.
Posted by: Jeff | October 8, 2008 9:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If you want to talk about things not debated, ask about abortion/choice.
Posted by: Tom | October 8, 2008 9:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sure, Commander in Chief, are you a joke? Obama crossed his legs, sat quietly like he was in school, and gleamed admirably at McCain whenever McCain had the floor, and for good reason- McCain actually has something to say. Obama, on the other hand, has nothing in his pretty little head except his chant "we need change, i'm all for change, that's why i'm here, i'm for change, when i'm president it will all change....yada, yada.."
The religious truth of the matter is, if Obama is elected, as soon as he leaves the country, we will be bombed.
Posted by: McCain-Palin | October 8, 2008 9:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Emm:
>>The liberals somehow got it in their heads that nothing religious is allowed out of politician's head anymore.
Has nothing to do with any "liberals." The pols can say anything they want, but they risk losing votes. The majority want to hear about the issues.
Also note: "liberal" is a code word for supporting middle class interests. The Democrats are not liberal enough, but better than the Republicans.
Cindy
Posted by: Cindy | October 8, 2008 9:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I think the whole election is off topic.
Posted by: Kboula | October 8, 2008 9:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I thought I was going to hate this article, but it wasn't bad.
Posted by: Hmmm | October 8, 2008 9:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
That is why church and state are separate... where have you been? Also, you can't debate fantasy and belief, there is no fact so what is there to debate?
Posted by: Claude | October 8, 2008 9:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You are so right, Thom. We don't want socialism here. Now kindly promise to give back your present or future social security, medicare and/or medicaid benefits. We wouldn't want to offend you.
Posted by: Mary | October 8, 2008 9:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If you want to talk about things not debated, ask about abortion/choice.
Posted by: Tom | October 8, 2008 9:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
*The Manhattan Transfer album "Vocalese",
the song "Rambo", lyrics by Jon Hendricks.
Posted by: google | October 8, 2008 9:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama "looking presidential"...if that's all it takes to win, good for him, bad for us.
Brokaw picked the questions...making the debate rather bland. My criticism of McCain is he doesn't press issues with the facts definitivly;
he seems guarded when he should provide more information. Any other candidate with such a dark,questionable and shady past as Obama would be scrutinized more carefully...never in history has a candidate had such bad associations. What's up with that??? Yikes...I'm voting Republican.
Posted by: Rose | October 8, 2008 9:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama - looked Presidential?? He looked like a gawky kid in a new suit! There is such a difference on the delivery of the 2 candidates and the shame of it is that many people will vote for the 'nicer looking guy'. It comes down to who can handle this country, and I don't think Obama comes close. I've had a few fundraisers in my day, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to take over the Jerry's Kids Telethon! I greatly fear the day if Obama is elected President - the country will be in more turmoil than ever! Not now at least, maybe in 4 or 8 years, but not now!
Posted by: LMS | October 8, 2008 9:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
We don't debate any idea on its merits anymore because that would require thinking. This is the reason "sound bites" have become so important. Each side is assigned its views. Question them; you get your mic cut.
Posted by: Hilary Smith | October 8, 2008 9:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama was presidential. McCain was a short, angry old man.
Posted by: ericmiami | October 8, 2008 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I agree with the presidential-esque comments...Barack looked great.
McCain looked like a cratchety old man that comes out of his home to yell at the kids for walking on the grass. And by the way, you are not my friend,and you never will be, though you incessantly repeat it. Also a risky move. Also never touch audience members. Devastating mistakes
Game over...Obama has clinched victory.
Posted by: Benny | October 8, 2008 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Debating Religion has no place in American politics, though discussing faith should be OK.
Posted by: John | October 8, 2008 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
McSAME Said he would "Freeze ALL spending on ALL social programs...EXCEPT MILITARY"
Can anyone say "POLICE STATE" or "MARTIAL LAW"
I would hope....HECK I KNOW FOR A FACT the military would revolt and march on WASHINGTON DC and throw the bum on the gallows...Doesn't the old coot realise that the people in the military have CHILDREN, MOTHERS, FATHERS, AUNTS, UNCLES, GRANDMOTHERS, GRANDFATHERS, BROTHERS, SISTERS, NEIGHBORS, FRIENDS, COWORKERS and thats what the military fights agaisnt is CORRUPT LYING OPPRESSIVE GOV MILITARY REGIMES???????
This is what the neocon nazi's want folks
and I will personally fight them like a true AMERICAN PATRIOT SHOULD!!!
GARY GELORMINO SEVEN HILLS OHIO 44131 (216)447-0081
Posted by: Gary Gelormino Seven Hills Ohio 44131 | October 8, 2008 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Stick a fork in McCain and Palin they are done. Was it just me or was McCain trying to write down the questions on his note pad? The only time it seemed he knew the question was after Obama answered it. After the debate McCain and his wife stayed around for a brief time thanking people, then took off. Where did they go? Why didn't his wife shake anyone's hand? I did see Obama and his wife shakes hands of people remaining in the town hall for over 15 minutes. How can McCain say "he knows how we feel about how we are struggling with our money, when he has 8 houses, 13 cars and a private jet? WOW! McCain nice to know you are having a hard time right now. I have made up my mind on this election after last night and my vote is for Obama.
Posted by: tech3250 | October 8, 2008 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Religion has no place in politics...period.
Posted by: Tree | October 8, 2008 9:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain's entire life consists of about 24 words and phrases that he repeats ad nauseam. Every time he says "my friends", "maverick", "my fellow Americans" or any of his other stock phrases my resolve to vote against him is reinforced. If I had to listen to him prattle on for four years I'll be stark raving mad.
Posted by: Johnny Ringo | October 8, 2008 9:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment
John S. McCain, Sr.
McCain was born in Carroll County, Mississippi, the son of plantation owner John Sidney McCain (b. Mississippi, 1851 – d. 1934) and wife Elizabeth-Ann Young (b. Mississippi, 1855 – d. 1922), who married in 1877. He attended the University of Mississippi and then the United States Naval Academy, which graduated him in 1906.
John S. McCain III claims a royal connection on his campaign website: "McCain’s family roots in Europe are Scotch-Irish. His great-aunt was a descendant of Robert the Bruce, an early Scottish king. McCain's roots in America date to the American Revolution. John Young, an early McCain ancestor, served on Gen. George Washington's staff." John Young's ancestry has been traced to John Lamont, Baron McGorrie (the "red baron of Inverchaolain and Knockdow"; 1540–1583).
John Sidney McCain Sr. (August 9, 1884 – September 6, 1945) was a U.S. Navy Admiral. He held several command assignments during the Pacific campaign of World War II.
Died at age 61.
John Sidney McCain Jr. (January 17, 1911 – March 22, 1981) was a four star admiral in the United States Navy who served in World War II through the Vietnam War.
Died at age 70.
John 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.
Age 72.
Senator McCain's Father and Grandfather did not make it to his age…if McCain our 44th. President then Sarah Palin will be the 45th. President.
Can we afford to vote for an old man with possibly little time to live. If you watched last night's debate...you could see his little tiny steps and movement. I hope he lives to a ripe old age, but historically the males in his family don't last that long.
Vote Obama or for Palin, the smart money is not on John McCain III.
Posted by: Vote Obama or for Palin, the smart money is not on John McCain III. | October 8, 2008 9:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment
All very interesting......and sad. Why is it that there is so little comment about what the candidates have to say regarding their positions? The elections continue to be a circus and are only getting worse.
I think from now on we should just review a resume, do a background check and drug screening, then have a vote based on those criteria. After the election the lucky winner would spend one year training under the outgoing President. This would be a completely powerless position.
Yes....Obama looked "presidential"....so what?
Posted by: Doc John | October 8, 2008 9:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
obama is a no mccain is a yes
Posted by: john sercey | October 8, 2008 9:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The Constitution speaks of protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Life.
Posted by: Adam T | October 8, 2008 9:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I repeat...the Washington Post is asleep...
Posted by: Tree | October 8, 2008 9:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Wow, seriously it's amazing how two people can see the same thing so differently. I felt Obama came off uncertain and distracted.
McCain however was clear and decisive. Where Obama was stand-offish McCain was engaging.
Posted by: Steve Larsen | October 8, 2008 9:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Of course religion wasn't spoken of! Both candidates know better. McCain knows that he has the truly religious right wrapped up with his choice of the zealous Palin for VP, so he would gain no more support by speaking of it. And Obama fears to remind us all of the unfortunate Reverend Wright, and besides: who thinks any of the zealous right will support Obama on anything? They would rather not vote at all if it wasn't for Palin.
Posted by: Jeb | October 8, 2008 9:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Religion isn't brought up in the debates because it shouldn't be. It's as Thomas Jefferson wrote about the 1st Amendment: It creates a separation of church and state.
Posted by: Sedentary Virtuoso | October 8, 2008 9:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
if obama thinks that fannie mae was doing a bad job and he knew about it why did he take so much of thier money?
Posted by: jm | October 8, 2008 9:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I am a religious person but strongly oppose religion being so prominent in our political consciousness. As it used in polities to get elected - nothing more. Politicians should spend time talking about the problems - serious problems we face and their solutions and not their religion. Their ethics as well their religion will come out in their policies.
Posted by: Jack Straw | October 8, 2008 9:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm pretty sure that Mccain DID forecast this meltdown.
I'm pretty sure that breaking the rules that he signed..and being the messiah that he is...isn't very presidential.."now wait a second here..I don't care mr. moderator what you have to say...I wanna talk about this here"
and wrote him off like just another hired hand..who doesn't matter to obama.
Posted by: Steve | October 8, 2008 9:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I feel that Mr. Obama did a job that finally allowed me to see what he would be like as President. He was measured, not reactionary; well voiced and not hesitant; collected and not defensive. He seems well versed on all the subjects and on familiar ground - much unlike Mrs. Palen who finally did well after days of intensive coaching.
Don't get me wrong though: I like McCain and think he is a good man. I just don't think he is the right man for this job. He is a better Senator than a maverick.
Posted by: Ben Allen | October 8, 2008 9:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What I noticed was that Obama very rarely answered the actual question that was asked. He either got caught up responding to McCain or focused in on a keyword and went off on his pre-rehearsed monologue before running out of time.
McCain also went off on pre-rehearsed monologues, but he usually would bring it back at the end to link it to the original question. I don't see how you can call a candidate a "winner" when he didn't answer his questions.
Posted by: Dan | October 8, 2008 9:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama is most certainly a brilliant rising star as was seen last night, however, he did convince me that he is not, at this time, prepared to be the commander-in-chief of the United States. With a bit more expereince - WOW watch that star rise!
Posted by: Mary | October 8, 2008 9:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
When did healthcare become a RIGHT of citizenship?
Posted by: DRG | October 8, 2008 9:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I noticed that about McCain too. He is almost DISDAINFUL of Obama - yet Obama has shown him nothing but respect. I liked Obama pointing to his upbringing and where he has come from (and Michelle too, for that matter). I don't think we need another spoiled brat, especially one with such a hair-trigger temper, as McCain continuing with the failed policies of the past 30 years.
Posted by: Pamela | October 8, 2008 9:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It was clear that McCain has commanding knowledge of foreign issues and is clearly ready to lead now. Obama was, well, his naive self. He looks impressive but falls when he opens his mouth. Obama does not have the experience or knowledge. Good thing for him that most voters know far less than he does.
Posted by: Rick F | October 8, 2008 9:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hands down to Obama who spoke like a statesman, not a robot.
And, thankfully, didn't call us, "my friends."
What a ghastly format that is - debate is precluded
Posted by: Donna Korn | October 8, 2008 9:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
There is no need to debate religion. There is a legal policy of separation of church and state in the USA.
Posted by: Joe | October 8, 2008 9:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Oh no, socialized medicine! That (to the feeble mind) means "we're all communists now! there is no turning back. America = commie for thinking every human deserves healthcare."
What a bunch of lame-ohs.
Posted by: Adam T | October 8, 2008 9:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You guys really are asleep...
Posted by: Tree | October 8, 2008 9:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"In American presidential politics we often talk about religion but we don't debate religion. Why not?"
It'll never happen. The liberals somehow got it in their heads that nothing religious is allowed out of politician's head anymore. They've managed to squash nearly all our Christian principles as a nation that is tolerant of every religion on earth to the point of absurdity.
The idea of debating "religion" itself demeans the individual's faith system and turns it into a right vs. wrong issue. Dangerous ground.
Posted by: Emm | October 8, 2008 9:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I refer all readers to
Phillip Berg v. Obama, DNC, FEC et al
now pending at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of PA Case No. 08-CV-08043.
And, visit www.obamacrimes.com
Posted by: Dr. Theresa Bradley, Psy.D. | October 8, 2008 9:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
McCLAIN NEEDS TO BRING OUT OBAMA OWN WORDS ABOUT BEING FOR THE MOSLENS IF IT CAME DOWN TO IT AND NOT AMERICA...PEOPLE BETTER WAKE UP BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE..
Posted by: ARTHUR BURRIS | October 8, 2008 9:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"He looks so presidential..."
nevermind that he is spewing socialist banter! Your probably singing the Obamasia song too!
Posted by: Thom | October 8, 2008 9:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama is still "green behind the ears."
Posted by: david axelrod | October 8, 2008 9:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The last debate will draw half the viewers (or less) of the first two. You will need a high-end HDTV to perceive any relevancy at that point.
Regardless of the fireworks, more people will be tuning in to the Discovery Channel or ESPN than the debate.
Posted by: MichiganDMH | October 8, 2008 9:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If the candidates had started debating religion last night, I would have turned it off and probably would have decided not to vote at all. Religion has no place in a climate of looming economic disaster, two uncertain wars, etc.
But Berlinerblau is, as usual, just trying to stir up angry debates.
Posted by: Arminius | October 8, 2008 9:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeez, Jacques, so many observations, so many words, to say, "Vote for Barack Obama." You can save all the words, use your "Faith" to gain some courage, and come out with it. It's OK, like all the other yadda yaddda yadda here. We all do care so much to know your preference for president. Yadda yadda yadda.
Posted by: Michael Karg | October 8, 2008 8:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"well-known feistiness" or signature arrogance and rudeness from an older generation of Americans who are above saying "please" and "thank you" to waiters?
Posted by: Roy | October 8, 2008 8:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Farnaz who claims to be an atheist Jew originally from Iran and has strong ties in Pakistan, is keen to prove Jesus didn't exist. When the historian Joseph is mentioned by CCNL, she is keen to prove Josephus didn't exist.
Strange atheist Jew indeed.