there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off
Uh huh. And that steel structure has also been peppered with large hunks of high-energy flying debris? You know, like one of the tallest buildings in the world collapsing right next to it? Oh.
I guess that must be over-compensating for having a candidate who cannot remember what car he drives or how many houses he has. Is he really that confused or just senile?
And you're lecturing about ad hominem attacks? Funny. You know perfectly well that McCain wasn't about to go into a long discussion about how the property his family owns is in various trusts or is owned by his wife or adult kids. Should he have gone into a long hairsplitting discussion over the nuances of "ownership" of a given property, and risk getting some particular detail of a deed wrong... or should he have said exactly what he said - that he'll have a staff member provide all the details, as if that really matters in the context of that interview. Would Obama be able to answer, off the cuff in a phone interview, a question about how many shares he has in the investment portfolios that he and his wife have purchased with their millions in income, and know exactly how those portfolios are distributed between family members' names? Is he that forgetful?
sells out all his principals to the religious right
You're kidding, right? I have very little respect for Obama, but even I am surprised at how badly he's twisting himself into knots trying to kiss up to the evangelicals while also appeasing his loopy Liberation Theology roots crowd back Chicago, while also pandering to the not-so-religious types when having more cerebral fund raisers in San Fransisco... it couldn't be more embarassing. I find the religious right to be the most toxic aspect of the Republican party. I wish McCain's old-school tolerance of their presence wasn't so obvious or important. But I find Obama's puppy-like pursuit of the same crowd - at the expense of anything that might pass for intellectual integrity - to be a real indicator of how he thinks, and what he thinks of his financiers on the left.
He wants to immediately allow Georgia to join NATO, thus requiring the US to declare war on Russia under the joint defense clause
Oh, come on. His whole point was that if Georgia had been quickly allowed into NATO when it SHOULD have been allowed in, Russia wouldn't have sent tanks into it in the first place. Are you unable to grasp the utility of a deterrent? There's a reason we never "declared war" on the Soviets.
McCain is visibly uninterested in every aspect of policy other than warfare
You're confusing a natural instinct to have the federal government NOT INVOLVED in every little aspect of your life with being uninterested. Obama shows an interest in things that he thinks needs more federal government involvment, taxation, etc. Of course Obama shows a little more interest in health care. He thinks that taking care of your health is he government's job, not yours.
Why aren't you concerned with how little thoughtful observation time Obama seems to be giving the actual reality on the ground in the middle east, as it relates to what the troops - whom he wants to command - are accomplishing? That actually IS the president's job, and he appears to have primarily scorn for the employees he says he wants to lead. Or (just as likely) he has a very predictable, oily level of disengenuous scorn for the people on the left to whom he's been promising one thing when - of course - he'll "refine" his position, and simply ignore once he gets the job.
suppose Reagan, and Clinton for that matter, were fully experienced and ready to take the helm from the moment they took office
Both were governors of states. Executive positions that require an understanding of command and of relating to a legislative branch and judicial entities that are often at odds with your own policies and goals. State governors have armed people at their disposal and answer for their use. The sign or veto laws, deal with life-and-death situations in immediate circumstances, and have to have a particular sort of relationship with the press and with their counterparts at other levels of government.
We can debate whether or not having that job in California (an economy and government larger than most other other countries) is a different gig than having that job in Arkansas.
Regardless, coming out of the very corrupt Chicago street politics machine and state legislature of Illinois, and moving into a very short-so-far gig as a junior Senator without - during that short tenure - being involved in any long term interaction with the executive branch or the committees that are deeply involved the funding and oversight thereof... that is NOT the same.
when someone becomes elected, they are surrounded by people with all sorts of experience in many different fields
No, they are surrounded by the people that their experience tells them they need around them. Again, lack of worldlieness in that regard is a real factor.
You think because McCain was beaten in Vietnam that he is somehow more qualified to be the President
No, I think proximity to the workings of the executive branch for as long as he's been there provides him with a view that Obama simply doesn't have. His senior role on key committees - especially as they relate to foreign and military affairs - means he's far more familiar with what's in front of him in that regard, and more likely to make good choices than will someone whose main message is that it all needs to be thrown out (Change! Change We Can Believe In! Um, Except For My Vice President!).
You don't need presidential experience to be president. But if you're younger, then you'd better have executive experience. If you're older, then you better have spent many long years involved in the many complex issues involved. Obama simply doesn't have it on either front, and his own vice presidential pick was one of the first people to point that out, repeatedly.
He's a repeat offender. That was a bit of a Google grab-bag link, but it's going to haunt him. Having "addressed" the issue doesn't alter his repeatedly having done the deed. It speaks to his need to always have something (at length!) to say. Couple that with, for example, lecturing someone in front of the Senate for an appointment review along the lines of, "my IQ is higher than yours," and you get a sense of how he relates to the rest of the world.
Even if they high profile guy in question has specifically said that he doesn't think Obama is ready to be president? The inescapable implication is that he (Biden) thinks that only because of his presence can Obama handle the job. Or, that Obama still can't handle the job, but that's OK, because he'll do it for him, etc. This is all just a sign of Obama's awakening to the fact that he's way over his inexperienced head, here.
no scientist of any repute is saying that we're the ONLY cause of climate change
No, but politicians do. Just listen to Al Gore blather on sometime. Every bit of the spin he spouts points to humans causing climate change, and only human action stopping it. Totally over-the-top rhetoric. Then listen to what most school kids take away from what they hear in school. Really, ask one. It's horrific in its total confusion over correlation/causation, and the assurance that only Evil Old People are responsible for unhappy baby polar bears.
most of the world isn't tied up in your silly american bipartisanship
Actually, most of the world is far, far worse.
Not coincidentally, most of the world accepts this science as well.
So that's why little countries like China, with a billion-plus people, fall back on the "well, we're just a developing nation - our polution isn't as evil as Germany's" line of regulation-dodging? That's why that giant swath of humanity that is India doesn't think it needs to act, entities like the EU don't want to be mean and push them on it?
International agreements that let huge, booming economies off the hook are absurd.
You're confusing "denial" over climate change (of course it changes! the Sahara was green thousands of years ago, we used to be in an ice age, etc) with being very wary about the political motivations of many of the more shrill people on the stage. Those who claim that the only reason we're looking at any climate change is because of human activity, and that ceasing human activity would magically restore the dynamic climate back to some idyllic state (um... maybe with a green Sahara, but without the continent-covering glaciers, etc?... they have to nail that part down)... well, it's nonsense. You want cognitive disconnect? Check with the people who are convinced that there are no factors involved except for humans, and in particular the people that aren't in their political party.
Actually, the country is more "run" by congress. That would be Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Of course, Obama is falling all over himself to sound more religious than McCain, and constantly repeats that Jesus runs his show. Yeesh.
Regardless, people in high office in the US who say they're religious don't - a la Iran - ban the use of certain words because they're un-Islamic, or arrest men for not letting their beards get shaggy, etc.
It's certainly been working for Apple, that's for sure. I can't even imagine what all of those "PC Users Are Losers" ads must cost. Now, if they'd just put a little of that cash into making the 3G aspect of their new phone actually work... or make the patch they just released to make it work actually make it work... nah, it's way more fun to make Windows users feel unfashionable.
Seinfeld hasn't been on the air in over 10 years at this point (new episodes at least).
Well, Richard Stallman's been re-running the same damn hippie crap on his channel for at least that long. And over at Apple? Steve Jobs has been wearing that same black turtleneck since 1986. And how about that Penguin? Man, that is fresh!
Actually, I imagine that Seinfeld's "establishment" personality is probably going to work very well in this case. It has the potential to be brilliant, with lots of good humorous irony potential. His AmEx spots have generally been pretty good. We'll see.
Who said anything about race? As a culture, that country seems to be having a little trouble with things like banning the use of the word "pizza" and being willing to arrest men for trimming their beards in a way that The People Of Iran apparently know to be a style that pisses off Allah.
its people
Its people seem to have an odd affection for mullahs that either think it's 800 years ago, or want it to be. Why do its people continue to tolerate the medieval-minded religious monsters that they have running the place? Why do they ship explosives into Iraq so that mentally retarded women can be used to carry them into vegetable markets to kill other women and children? Its people don't seem too inclined to stop that sort of thing.
Which of them would you consider a bull headed idiot?
The one with situational ethics, no firm principles, and who is willing to say anything to anyone in order to get elected. Obama is a bull headed idiot about winning the election, at the expense of having an ethical backbone. I won't complain about someone who - ethics intact - changes his mind or position on a policy that is intersecting with new information or externalities. But Obama's whole claim to fame (since he has zero experience, otherwise) is that he was a "constitutional scholar" and able to identify other people (such as supreme court justices) as inferior thinkers. So, gee, with all of that blazing white-hot intellect and a career that at least spent some time teaching other people about constitutional philosophy, you'd think he could handle questions about basic ethical and philosophical issues without tripping all over himself. Which he cannot. It's why his handlers have him avoiding anything other than puff-piece interviews and questions from the press, and it's why he ends up all over the map on issues like the recent 2nd amendment ruling, or describing the abortion issue as being "above my pay grade."
To a certain extent, I don't care WHAT his positions are on some things. But I do care that he's willing to swap them around at will based on the audience, and that he does so on issues that go far beyond what can be explained by his acquisition of some new information. His world view is a jumble, and that makes him weak as a prospective executive.
which incidentally is between them and the belief, not them and the critic
But that's the problem. It's not just between them. The superstitious, magic-believing types tend to also wind up on school boards, or get involved in discussing whether or not God would want a particular sort of faith-based civic service organization to get or use funding in a certain way, blah blah blah. You can have a brain dead family member on life support in a hospital, with literally no chance of ever functioning again because their brain is actually (measurably, observably) mush, and the people who "get comfort" from their invisible omniscient friends can do things like file injunctions that end up bankrupting your family and keeping that bricked meat computer respirating at several thousand dollars a day. They'd rather see you suffer the prolonged anguish of seeing your former relative's body breath for an indefinite period going into the future than come to terms with the fact that: no brain, no more beloved family member.
Magical thinking people end up making legal and policy decisions that impact other people's lives, often in cruel and dumbing-down ways. Whatever comfort they get in thinking that "they" will still exist even when their synapses stop firing is a steep price to pay for making the rest of the world swallow the built-in irrationality that must come along for the ride with that sort of nonsense.
Just because you believe that there is something out there larger than yourself does not mean you turn your brain off
Just the part that processes things like the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.
the last poll I saw ~80% of the adult population in the US believed in God (not necessarily Jesus but a creator) so why do you find it surprising that the candidates would pander to a group that large?
No, the real question is, why would someone who calls himself the Candidate For Change, and who is proclaimed by all of his media talking point specialists as a staggering intellect, a man of science and reason and "progressive" thinking (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), not use the opportunity of having the public spotlight to actually see about making it less fashionable to proclaim belief in the supernatural? How many of those 80% do you suppose just say that because of peer pressure? I expect it's a huge share of them. Obama says he doesn't like the "old" ways of doing things... but at the same time he says he gets his entire ethical framework from a frequently mis-translated collection of 2000-year-old (and more recently edited, obviously) mythology that includes descriptions of an all-powerful, all-loving God that - oddly - still to this day likes to kill innocent children with lukemia and bolts of lighting.
Everyone has filters that they see the world through. Which set are you using?
Here's an intereting notion: how about seeing it as it actually is, rather than filtering it? You could even consider seeing your candidates that way.
Huh? I'm not registered with either party. I already know where McCain's coming from, religiosity-wise. He really hasn't changed in any way - though it would be nice if he woke up one morning and realized it was silly.
I'm paying more attention to how interesting it is to watch people on the left try to reconcile their mental image of Obama as a cerebral, rational, pillar of tolerance and understanding (and promoter of science and education) even as he loudly proclaims that he's an adherent to all-powerful magic invisible friends and whatnot. That's what's fun to watch.
It is possible to believe in a higher power without it being GOD and it ruling your every decision.
So, he still believes in magic, but only like... friendly elves and whatnot?
Obama seems to me someone that is spiritual and has beliefs in a higher power but that isn't necessarily the Christian God
So... you've got a lot of respect for him, even though you're pretty sure he's lying about what he says is the foundation of his entire world view? He says that his moral framework comes from his belief in the Christian God as spelled out in the bible. He's the one who actually says, over and over again, how that for him, it's all about that one big ol', all-powerful, redeeming God in which one must believe to go to heaven, etc. You're saying that it's possible to believe in magic, just not in God, per se... but obviously you DO think that Obama really does believe in what he says he does, right? So, he actually DOES think that God rules the universe, because he says that he believes in the Christian God. HE says that, not me. Or, are you saying that he doesn't really believe that, and he's just lying so that he can be part of a church so that he can help people, because, gosh, there's not other way to organize a civic group or anything like that. So which is it? He's a hook-line-and-sinker really believes what he says he does guy with an all-powerful invisible friend (something about which you seem to be uncomfortable), or he's lying (which you seem to think is more likely, and is something about which you seem to be fine). Interesting.
DC area. Not every county in the surrounding 'burbs has been so willing to allow more than one cable company, obviously. But it's nice to have to make Comcast work if they want your attention. I don't use them, but I could switch to them, or Verizon's FIOS, or my current provider (RCN - which also does data, TV, and telco as a bundle, and it's fiber into the 'hood).
The difference is that Obama's faith isn't the rigid taking-orders-from-god kind, but rather the kind that's supportive of using logic and rationality to decide issues
Right. Which makes him even worse. Anyone who simultaneously supports logic and reason while spending two decades hanging out (until being outed by YouTube) in a church that spouts some of the most unreasonable and illogical stuff imagineable isn't just a hypocrite, he's either simply not as smart as he's being sold to be by his handlers, or he's a complete charlatan. What exactly is it he's supposed to have faith in if he can just mutate it as needed to avoid it being consistent, and can switch it off if he has to take a vacation from magic when logic is important? That's my point: he's either a fool, or he's lying.
I'm sorry, but you're using a Mac and anything like this is completely impossible. Why do you hate Mac users, that you would say such a disturbing thing? You are mean.
it is (nearly) impossible for a new company to come along and compete (in broadband)
Well... I've got my choice of four options (fiber, DSL, and two different cable providers). One of the companies involved didn't exist ten years ago. My neighborhood (which was developed in the 70's) now has fiber and coax from multiple providers competing for my money. And they do compete. I actually get reps from the companies I'm not using knocking on the door offering swell deals to make me jump ship.
Are you even paying attention? Obama makes more, and more often, of his belief in the supernatural. His churchliness is a far more visible part of his persona (which, obviously, also got him in a lot of hot water when people actually started to pay attention to where, and with whom, he'd been going for 20 years to assert his abiding faith in the supernatural and the people who crazily preach about it). So, which is worse, they guy who people say is old, slow, from another era and believes it, or the guy that's presented by the media as a brilliant, towering intellect... who has such a flawed grip on reality that he still believes it? Or worse... who is smart enough to not believe it, but who is sleazy enough to say he does in order to get votes?
Slashdot Mirror
there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off
Uh huh. And that steel structure has also been peppered with large hunks of high-energy flying debris? You know, like one of the tallest buildings in the world collapsing right next to it? Oh.
I guess that must be over-compensating for having a candidate who cannot remember what car he drives or how many houses he has. Is he really that confused or just senile?
And you're lecturing about ad hominem attacks? Funny. You know perfectly well that McCain wasn't about to go into a long discussion about how the property his family owns is in various trusts or is owned by his wife or adult kids. Should he have gone into a long hairsplitting discussion over the nuances of "ownership" of a given property, and risk getting some particular detail of a deed wrong... or should he have said exactly what he said - that he'll have a staff member provide all the details, as if that really matters in the context of that interview. Would Obama be able to answer, off the cuff in a phone interview, a question about how many shares he has in the investment portfolios that he and his wife have purchased with their millions in income, and know exactly how those portfolios are distributed between family members' names? Is he that forgetful?
sells out all his principals to the religious right
You're kidding, right? I have very little respect for Obama, but even I am surprised at how badly he's twisting himself into knots trying to kiss up to the evangelicals while also appeasing his loopy Liberation Theology roots crowd back Chicago, while also pandering to the not-so-religious types when having more cerebral fund raisers in San Fransisco... it couldn't be more embarassing. I find the religious right to be the most toxic aspect of the Republican party. I wish McCain's old-school tolerance of their presence wasn't so obvious or important. But I find Obama's puppy-like pursuit of the same crowd - at the expense of anything that might pass for intellectual integrity - to be a real indicator of how he thinks, and what he thinks of his financiers on the left.
He wants to immediately allow Georgia to join NATO, thus requiring the US to declare war on Russia under the joint defense clause
Oh, come on. His whole point was that if Georgia had been quickly allowed into NATO when it SHOULD have been allowed in, Russia wouldn't have sent tanks into it in the first place. Are you unable to grasp the utility of a deterrent? There's a reason we never "declared war" on the Soviets.
McCain is visibly uninterested in every aspect of policy other than warfare
You're confusing a natural instinct to have the federal government NOT INVOLVED in every little aspect of your life with being uninterested. Obama shows an interest in things that he thinks needs more federal government involvment, taxation, etc. Of course Obama shows a little more interest in health care. He thinks that taking care of your health is he government's job, not yours.
Why aren't you concerned with how little thoughtful observation time Obama seems to be giving the actual reality on the ground in the middle east, as it relates to what the troops - whom he wants to command - are accomplishing? That actually IS the president's job, and he appears to have primarily scorn for the employees he says he wants to lead. Or (just as likely) he has a very predictable, oily level of disengenuous scorn for the people on the left to whom he's been promising one thing when - of course - he'll "refine" his position, and simply ignore once he gets the job.
suppose Reagan, and Clinton for that matter, were fully experienced and ready to take the helm from the moment they took office
... that is NOT the same.
Both were governors of states. Executive positions that require an understanding of command and of relating to a legislative branch and judicial entities that are often at odds with your own policies and goals. State governors have armed people at their disposal and answer for their use. The sign or veto laws, deal with life-and-death situations in immediate circumstances, and have to have a particular sort of relationship with the press and with their counterparts at other levels of government.
We can debate whether or not having that job in California (an economy and government larger than most other other countries) is a different gig than having that job in Arkansas.
Regardless, coming out of the very corrupt Chicago street politics machine and state legislature of Illinois, and moving into a very short-so-far gig as a junior Senator without - during that short tenure - being involved in any long term interaction with the executive branch or the committees that are deeply involved the funding and oversight thereof
when someone becomes elected, they are surrounded by people with all sorts of experience in many different fields
No, they are surrounded by the people that their experience tells them they need around them. Again, lack of worldlieness in that regard is a real factor.
You think because McCain was beaten in Vietnam that he is somehow more qualified to be the President
No, I think proximity to the workings of the executive branch for as long as he's been there provides him with a view that Obama simply doesn't have. His senior role on key committees - especially as they relate to foreign and military affairs - means he's far more familiar with what's in front of him in that regard, and more likely to make good choices than will someone whose main message is that it all needs to be thrown out (Change! Change We Can Believe In! Um, Except For My Vice President!).
You don't need presidential experience to be president. But if you're younger, then you'd better have executive experience. If you're older, then you better have spent many long years involved in the many complex issues involved. Obama simply doesn't have it on either front, and his own vice presidential pick was one of the first people to point that out, repeatedly.
He's a repeat offender. That was a bit of a Google grab-bag link, but it's going to haunt him. Having "addressed" the issue doesn't alter his repeatedly having done the deed. It speaks to his need to always have something (at length!) to say. Couple that with, for example, lecturing someone in front of the Senate for an appointment review along the lines of, "my IQ is higher than yours," and you get a sense of how he relates to the rest of the world.
the nay-sayers can relax
Even if they high profile guy in question has specifically said that he doesn't think Obama is ready to be president? The inescapable implication is that he (Biden) thinks that only because of his presence can Obama handle the job. Or, that Obama still can't handle the job, but that's OK, because he'll do it for him, etc. This is all just a sign of Obama's awakening to the fact that he's way over his inexperienced head, here.
Well, I suppose that could be his voting record. But it could be someone else's , too.
no scientist of any repute is saying that we're the ONLY cause of climate change
No, but politicians do. Just listen to Al Gore blather on sometime. Every bit of the spin he spouts points to humans causing climate change, and only human action stopping it. Totally over-the-top rhetoric. Then listen to what most school kids take away from what they hear in school. Really, ask one. It's horrific in its total confusion over correlation/causation, and the assurance that only Evil Old People are responsible for unhappy baby polar bears.
most of the world isn't tied up in your silly american bipartisanship
Actually, most of the world is far, far worse.
Not coincidentally, most of the world accepts this science as well.
So that's why little countries like China, with a billion-plus people, fall back on the "well, we're just a developing nation - our polution isn't as evil as Germany's" line of regulation-dodging? That's why that giant swath of humanity that is India doesn't think it needs to act, entities like the EU don't want to be mean and push them on it?
International agreements that let huge, booming economies off the hook are absurd.
Climate change denial
... they have to nail that part down)... well, it's nonsense. You want cognitive disconnect? Check with the people who are convinced that there are no factors involved except for humans, and in particular the people that aren't in their political party.
You're confusing "denial" over climate change (of course it changes! the Sahara was green thousands of years ago, we used to be in an ice age, etc) with being very wary about the political motivations of many of the more shrill people on the stage. Those who claim that the only reason we're looking at any climate change is because of human activity, and that ceasing human activity would magically restore the dynamic climate back to some idyllic state (um... maybe with a green Sahara, but without the continent-covering glaciers, etc?
Actually, the country is more "run" by congress. That would be Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Of course, Obama is falling all over himself to sound more religious than McCain, and constantly repeats that Jesus runs his show. Yeesh. Regardless, people in high office in the US who say they're religious don't - a la Iran - ban the use of certain words because they're un-Islamic, or arrest men for not letting their beards get shaggy, etc.
Money CAN buy you love. Amazing!
It's certainly been working for Apple, that's for sure. I can't even imagine what all of those "PC Users Are Losers" ads must cost. Now, if they'd just put a little of that cash into making the 3G aspect of their new phone actually work... or make the patch they just released to make it work actually make it work... nah, it's way more fun to make Windows users feel unfashionable.
My point is Iran doesn't only contain religious nutbags
No, they just let them run the country and dictate what clothes women can wear, that sort of thing.
Seinfeld hasn't been on the air in over 10 years at this point (new episodes at least).
Well, Richard Stallman's been re-running the same damn hippie crap on his channel for at least that long. And over at Apple? Steve Jobs has been wearing that same black turtleneck since 1986. And how about that Penguin? Man, that is fresh!
Actually, I imagine that Seinfeld's "establishment" personality is probably going to work very well in this case. It has the potential to be brilliant, with lots of good humorous irony potential. His AmEx spots have generally been pretty good. We'll see.
borderline racism
Who said anything about race? As a culture, that country seems to be having a little trouble with things like banning the use of the word "pizza" and being willing to arrest men for trimming their beards in a way that The People Of Iran apparently know to be a style that pisses off Allah.
its people
Its people seem to have an odd affection for mullahs that either think it's 800 years ago, or want it to be. Why do its people continue to tolerate the medieval-minded religious monsters that they have running the place? Why do they ship explosives into Iraq so that mentally retarded women can be used to carry them into vegetable markets to kill other women and children? Its people don't seem too inclined to stop that sort of thing.
Which of them would you consider a bull headed idiot?
The one with situational ethics, no firm principles, and who is willing to say anything to anyone in order to get elected. Obama is a bull headed idiot about winning the election, at the expense of having an ethical backbone. I won't complain about someone who - ethics intact - changes his mind or position on a policy that is intersecting with new information or externalities. But Obama's whole claim to fame (since he has zero experience, otherwise) is that he was a "constitutional scholar" and able to identify other people (such as supreme court justices) as inferior thinkers. So, gee, with all of that blazing white-hot intellect and a career that at least spent some time teaching other people about constitutional philosophy, you'd think he could handle questions about basic ethical and philosophical issues without tripping all over himself. Which he cannot. It's why his handlers have him avoiding anything other than puff-piece interviews and questions from the press, and it's why he ends up all over the map on issues like the recent 2nd amendment ruling, or describing the abortion issue as being "above my pay grade."
To a certain extent, I don't care WHAT his positions are on some things. But I do care that he's willing to swap them around at will based on the audience, and that he does so on issues that go far beyond what can be explained by his acquisition of some new information. His world view is a jumble, and that makes him weak as a prospective executive.
which incidentally is between them and the belief, not them and the critic
But that's the problem. It's not just between them. The superstitious, magic-believing types tend to also wind up on school boards, or get involved in discussing whether or not God would want a particular sort of faith-based civic service organization to get or use funding in a certain way, blah blah blah. You can have a brain dead family member on life support in a hospital, with literally no chance of ever functioning again because their brain is actually (measurably, observably) mush, and the people who "get comfort" from their invisible omniscient friends can do things like file injunctions that end up bankrupting your family and keeping that bricked meat computer respirating at several thousand dollars a day. They'd rather see you suffer the prolonged anguish of seeing your former relative's body breath for an indefinite period going into the future than come to terms with the fact that: no brain, no more beloved family member.
Magical thinking people end up making legal and policy decisions that impact other people's lives, often in cruel and dumbing-down ways. Whatever comfort they get in thinking that "they" will still exist even when their synapses stop firing is a steep price to pay for making the rest of the world swallow the built-in irrationality that must come along for the ride with that sort of nonsense.
Just because you believe that there is something out there larger than yourself does not mean you turn your brain off
Just the part that processes things like the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.
the last poll I saw ~80% of the adult population in the US believed in God (not necessarily Jesus but a creator) so why do you find it surprising that the candidates would pander to a group that large?
No, the real question is, why would someone who calls himself the Candidate For Change, and who is proclaimed by all of his media talking point specialists as a staggering intellect, a man of science and reason and "progressive" thinking (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), not use the opportunity of having the public spotlight to actually see about making it less fashionable to proclaim belief in the supernatural? How many of those 80% do you suppose just say that because of peer pressure? I expect it's a huge share of them. Obama says he doesn't like the "old" ways of doing things... but at the same time he says he gets his entire ethical framework from a frequently mis-translated collection of 2000-year-old (and more recently edited, obviously) mythology that includes descriptions of an all-powerful, all-loving God that - oddly - still to this day likes to kill innocent children with lukemia and bolts of lighting.
Everyone has filters that they see the world through. Which set are you using?
Here's an intereting notion: how about seeing it as it actually is, rather than filtering it? You could even consider seeing your candidates that way.
You guys
Huh? I'm not registered with either party. I already know where McCain's coming from, religiosity-wise. He really hasn't changed in any way - though it would be nice if he woke up one morning and realized it was silly.
I'm paying more attention to how interesting it is to watch people on the left try to reconcile their mental image of Obama as a cerebral, rational, pillar of tolerance and understanding (and promoter of science and education) even as he loudly proclaims that he's an adherent to all-powerful magic invisible friends and whatnot. That's what's fun to watch.
It is possible to believe in a higher power without it being GOD and it ruling your every decision.
So, he still believes in magic, but only like... friendly elves and whatnot?
Obama seems to me someone that is spiritual and has beliefs in a higher power but that isn't necessarily the Christian God
So... you've got a lot of respect for him, even though you're pretty sure he's lying about what he says is the foundation of his entire world view? He says that his moral framework comes from his belief in the Christian God as spelled out in the bible. He's the one who actually says, over and over again, how that for him, it's all about that one big ol', all-powerful, redeeming God in which one must believe to go to heaven, etc. You're saying that it's possible to believe in magic, just not in God, per se... but obviously you DO think that Obama really does believe in what he says he does, right? So, he actually DOES think that God rules the universe, because he says that he believes in the Christian God. HE says that, not me. Or, are you saying that he doesn't really believe that, and he's just lying so that he can be part of a church so that he can help people, because, gosh, there's not other way to organize a civic group or anything like that. So which is it? He's a hook-line-and-sinker really believes what he says he does guy with an all-powerful invisible friend (something about which you seem to be uncomfortable), or he's lying (which you seem to think is more likely, and is something about which you seem to be fine). Interesting.
DC area. Not every county in the surrounding 'burbs has been so willing to allow more than one cable company, obviously. But it's nice to have to make Comcast work if they want your attention. I don't use them, but I could switch to them, or Verizon's FIOS, or my current provider (RCN - which also does data, TV, and telco as a bundle, and it's fiber into the 'hood).
The difference is that Obama's faith isn't the rigid taking-orders-from-god kind, but rather the kind that's supportive of using logic and rationality to decide issues
Right. Which makes him even worse. Anyone who simultaneously supports logic and reason while spending two decades hanging out (until being outed by YouTube) in a church that spouts some of the most unreasonable and illogical stuff imagineable isn't just a hypocrite, he's either simply not as smart as he's being sold to be by his handlers, or he's a complete charlatan. What exactly is it he's supposed to have faith in if he can just mutate it as needed to avoid it being consistent, and can switch it off if he has to take a vacation from magic when logic is important? That's my point: he's either a fool, or he's lying.
confirmed on mac os x 10.5.4
I'm sorry, but you're using a Mac and anything like this is completely impossible. Why do you hate Mac users, that you would say such a disturbing thing? You are mean.
it is (nearly) impossible for a new company to come along and compete (in broadband)
Well... I've got my choice of four options (fiber, DSL, and two different cable providers). One of the companies involved didn't exist ten years ago. My neighborhood (which was developed in the 70's) now has fiber and coax from multiple providers competing for my money. And they do compete. I actually get reps from the companies I'm not using knocking on the door offering swell deals to make me jump ship.
motivations like "faith"
Are you even paying attention? Obama makes more, and more often, of his belief in the supernatural. His churchliness is a far more visible part of his persona (which, obviously, also got him in a lot of hot water when people actually started to pay attention to where, and with whom, he'd been going for 20 years to assert his abiding faith in the supernatural and the people who crazily preach about it). So, which is worse, they guy who people say is old, slow, from another era and believes it, or the guy that's presented by the media as a brilliant, towering intellect... who has such a flawed grip on reality that he still believes it? Or worse... who is smart enough to not believe it, but who is sleazy enough to say he does in order to get votes?
or the ones to come if Bush III(McCain) is elected?
You mean, the even uglier messes we'll be in if Carter II (Obama) is elected?