posted on January 31, 2008 09:07:45 AM new
The BBC commentator did not "dislike" Clinton or Obama, he was pointing out that the Europeans find it laughable that either one could run for the Presidency of the most powerful nation on Earth having virtually no experience or training (being married to someone doesn't count). They would not be able to run for dog catcher in Europe.
Cheryl
I'm surprised you're so surprised. The numbers that bow their heads when they hear "Kennedy" is amazing. And not just Teddy. Didn't you ever think it strange that one family could have such a collection of drunks, addicts, bootleggers, murderers, rapists, etc, etc.
Even the "good" ones seem a little off the mark. You hear roars when Ashcroft pursues the enemies of this country FOLLOWING THE LAW, yet Bobby is revered while committing some of the most flagrant rights violations. But of course, he only did it against "bad" people.
JFK jr. was considered by most as nice, but a dolt. His father did very little, but gave a great speech. Not to mention a "secret war" (Vietnam) or a "secret invasion" (Cuba) or two.
Even here, we have an endorsement from of all accounts a very nice woman, who would seemingly be no greater authority than the guy who pumps my gas.
Do not deny the power of the cult.
Squirrels may be crafty and crazy, but they're smarter than cows.
posted on January 31, 2008 09:08:42 AM new
NOW - is a womens organization and of course they would be upset with Kennedy. But this is a country of freedom of speech and I am sure it just rolled off his back. Kennedy is a man that says what he thinks not what others want him to say.
This is about the only time I agreed with him saying he is backing Obama. If I had a choice I would vote for Obama not Hillary. She is the one with to much baggage. I still would if I am not satisfied with the Repuglican Candidate. Time will tell
_________________
posted on January 31, 2008 09:28:16 AM new
Kozersky: Individually, many of the Mormons are "nice" people, good neighbors, etc. But ask your wife about the church's baptism for the dead. About the temple wedding ceremonies. About the character of that church's founder. About the white salamander said to be an angel, talking to Joseph Smith. About the consistent keeping women from equal places in the church.
ABOUT THE SECRECY! Living in Utah for 21 years, it took about 10 of those years before someone put the church in an uproar over a book on the secret ceremonies.
A woman I worked with, a Mormon, asked me how I'd feel if MY church's secrets were revealed. I told her we HAD NO SECRETS. No secret rituals, everything out in the open.
Bill, your wife is lucky to be married to a "gentile." You probably have a more equal marriage.
_____________________
If you were so inclined, you could rake any religion over the coals in a similar manner. But generally members of organized religions have reshaped the original tenets of their religion to a modernized version. The secrecy that you mention for example has acquired a modern explanation that is understandable.
As you probably know, I am not a believer or a member of any religion but I think that it's good to be tolerant of people who do have faith in a God. And of course this tolerance should work both ways so that we will be able to maintain a separation of church and state.
posted on January 31, 2008 12:13:06 PM new
And what is the definition of that tolerance?
I don't care what ANYBODY believes. If you want to worship Satan fine. If you want to fly the Stars and Bars from your pickup truck FINE. If someone has a problem with Satan or the Stars and Bars, that's THEIR problem. But if you think you're going to collect from me to buy flags for pick up truck owners or have a say with what I can watch or read, then I care.
One of the major defects in leftist logic is that freedom is for all, except "bad" people. And they decide who the "bad" people are and which right they can't have.
posted on January 31, 2008 12:14:45 PM new
"The BBC commentator did not "dislike" Clinton or Obama, he was pointing out that the Europeans find it laughable that either one could run for the Presidency of the most powerful nation on Earth having virtually no experience or training (being married to someone doesn't count). They would not be able to run for dog catcher in Europe."
Well, I can see why we would give weight to what Europeans think of our potential leaders. That upstanding French president cavorting all over the world with a model/singer/former girlfriend of Mick Jagger, after dumping his wife, really inspires confidence. And Europeans don't laugh at that?
Did you pay this much attention to European leaders when most of them criticized the US for Iraq?
posted on January 31, 2008 12:31:23 PM new
Oh yeah. One more question: How do you get experience at being President of the U.S. unless you become one?
James Buchanan,known as Mr. Government because he held so many high offices prior to becoming president, failed to head off bloodshed of the Civil War and is now known as one of the worst presidents. An inexperienced Abraham Lincoln,thankfully, turned out better.
Herbert Hoover, one of the most experienced public figures ever to get to the White House, demonstrated dredful judgment in believing the Depression would resolve itself with minimal governmental intervention. We know how that turned out. By contrast, it was FDR who used his judgment and became pro-active in ending the Depression.
"Experience is not irrelevant, but it is no guarantee. Judgment is the decisive presidential virtue."
The above information and the quote was taken from an article by Robert Dallek, Professor of Hisitory, Boston University.
[ edited by coach81938 on Jan 31, 2008 12:32 PM ]
posted on January 31, 2008 12:54:54 PM new
"As to the Froggies, they probably don't care as it has nothing to do with the job at hand." Right---just like Bill Clinton.
Lincoln's experience was mostly at the state level. In any case, Buchanan, Hoover and many other presidents had loads of experience, but it did not help them become great or even good presidents.
posted on January 31, 2008 01:22:38 PM new
Helen, you said "And of course this tolerance should work both ways so that we will be able to maintain a separation of church and state."
That's one of the main problems. The Mormon church in Utah seems not to believe in that tenet. It interferes all the time with legislative matters, and the Mormons in the legislature (about 95% now) are lockstep with the prophet.
_____________________
posted on January 31, 2008 01:24:04 PM new
Of course you like to continuously reference the infasmous bj, and of course it had nothing to do with the bj.
Perjury for a President is kinda like a child molestation conviction for a grammar school teacher. You know, just isn't acceptable
posted on January 31, 2008 02:04:37 PM newNOW - is a womens organization and of course they would be upset with Kennedy
It was only the Mass. chapter that was upset. The national headquarters for the National Organization of Women (or NOW - oh that's what it stands for ) basically said Kennedy has done a lot to support Women's Rights and was free to support whomever he felt like.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on January 31, 2008 02:14:22 PM newOne of the major defects in leftist logic is that freedom is for all, except "bad" people. And they decide who the "bad" people are and which right they can't have.
I have to disagree with you with your term of leftist logic. I would have to say there are many more leftists that are tolerant than there are righties who are tolerant of things that they do not agree.
It is righties that decide what is bad or wrong and which rights they can't have.
You have your head in the sand or have been drinking the neocon kool-aid if you believe what you posted.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on January 31, 2008 02:15:42 PM new
"That's one of the main problems. The Mormon church in Utah seems not to believe in that tenet. It interferes all the time with legislative matters, and the Mormons in the legislature (about 95% now) are lockstep with the prophet."
Since Utah is 65% Mormon, anybody visiting there would be interfering with THEM, not the reverse. Plus all members are forced to tow the line or be shunned Amish style from the community. As in personal, business, or any other contact. Like I said, a wacky CULT.
posted on January 31, 2008 04:01:52 PM new
"Of course you like to continuously reference the infasmous bj, and of course it had nothing to do with the bj."
Before he lied, he was hunted down and persecuted for the same thing the French president is doing and which you say is just okey dokey. Although it does not make it right, how many men or women would lie under the same circumstances? He should not have been asked in the first place,as it "did not have anything to do with the job at hand."
If only Bush's sole indiscretion was lying about a blow job! Instead he lied about weapons of mass destruction to Congress and he lied to all Americans leading to an illegal and never ending war and the deaths of thousands.
In light of that malfeasance, to bring up a politically motivated charge of perjury related to a blow job makes you look like a complete fool.
posted on January 31, 2008 05:35:44 PM new
"How did FDR end the depression?
I thought the war ended the depression."
"Franklin Roosevelt judged traditional strategies for ending the economic downturn inadequate, and instead gave the country a New Deal--a slew of federally sponsored programs including the SEC,FDIC, Social Security and a minimum wage--that continues to make the country more humane and more just." Robert Dallek, Professor of History, Boston University.
posted on January 31, 2008 06:01:21 PM new
And the manufacture and employment opportunities made possible by the war had a tremendous impact on ending the depression.
posted on January 31, 2008 06:28:44 PM new
Who proposed a chicken in each pot?
Now look what we did to chicken,it gets no respect!
*
Lets all stop whining !
posted on January 31, 2008 06:48:35 PM new
"If only Bush's sole indiscretion was lying about a blow job! Instead he lied about weapons of mass destruction to Congress and he lied to all Americans leading to an illegal and never ending war and the deaths of thousands.
In light of that malfeasance, to bring up a politically motivated charge of perjury related to a blow job makes you look like a complete fool"
posted on January 31, 2008 07:23:13 PM new
Funny, but I thought the cause of the war was violating a UN mandate for inspections for things Hussein didn't have. Wow, Mr. Mustache sure was stupid.
posted on January 31, 2008 08:21:57 PM new
Personally, I find George W. Bush's, all Kennedys' and Clintons' personal integrity repugnant. Historically, I see little relationship between party affiliation or character traits of politicians who better our country with personal integrity. Sad, but true. Still, it causes me great pain to vote for candidates without it. Edited to add: I think politicians' wives gain experience and live the politics of their husbands. If personal integrity was a presidential indicator of our country's well-being, I would write-in Rosalynn Carter or Betty Ford.
[ edited by pixiamom on Jan 31, 2008 08:50 PM ]
posted on February 1, 2008 06:43:02 AM newFunny, but I thought the cause of the war was violating a UN mandate for inspections for things Hussein didn't have. Wow, Mr. Mustache sure was stupid.
Believe what you want, but the inspectors were in Iraq before Bush started the war. He was so set on the war that he did not allow the weapons inspectors to do their job.
You are trying to re-write history to agree to any of the 27 reasons that Bush pushed for war in Iraq.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
"You are trying to re-write history to agree to any of the 27 reasons that Bush pushed for war in Iraq."
Thanks for that clarification, Logansdad.
I had dismissed his comment as too ignorant to justify a response. So, dessquirrel whose writing is obviously labored is now attempting to write revisionist history.
Leave it to a squirrel to try everything and succeed at nothing.
posted on February 1, 2008 07:48:16 AM new
As far as Mormons go, I can only comment on what I've seen with my brother. First, if any of his children marry in the Mormon church, I as a non-member would not be allowed to attend. I cannot go into their church. Certainly, this wasn't within the scope of Christ's teachings. I do know, however, that they are very supportive of one another, unlike a lot of religions I've seen. My brother took a job in South Carolina. He was laid off before he even got to start. With a family to support and no money to come back to Ohio, the church supported them until he secured another position. When my nephew was ill with Leukemia, the church helped by providing members to go to the hospital to stay with Ryan so that my niece could have needed time away. The family couldn't do it every time. They also helped (as did many of my friends, one here on Vendio) financially. While I don't agree with their teachings and personally think they are bunk, I nonetheless respect their right to their beliefs.
I don't think there is going to be any winner, right or left, in this election. Both party's candidates are very flawed and all of them carry baggage. They each come with their own hills to climb, whether it be religiously, racially or sex-based.
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Feb 1, 2008 07:49 AM ]
) basically said Kennedy has done a lot to support Women's Rights and was free to support whomever he felt like.