Which is scariest...

[rmcrobertson]

1. Stephen Baldwin on MSNBC, looking stoned out of his mind, announcing that as a born-again Christian he was voting for the candidate who was clearly being guided directly by God;

2. Norman Podhoretz on NPR, announcing that Iraq was just Act II in a five-act play titled, "World War IV," which he expects to last as long as the Cold War...45 years;

3. A writer for "Mother Jones," named Brzezenski, discussing his visits to the Office of Homeland Security, which is apparently a tiny little set of offices on a back alley in DC, despite its 27 billion yearly budget.

 

[bignick]

they're all pretty frightening to me

 

[Mark Weiser]

I have a unique insight in that mindset in reference to Mr. Baldwin. I have been a Ordained Minister for a number of years and I also have ran a few polictical runs.

The Problem is this when you start using "God" guideance as a template or measuring stick to judge a candidate then you are running into a probelm. One Person's "guideance" is subjective to the other person's "guideance"

In the Jewish mindset we have the understanding that God has given us reasoning abilities and wants us to use our minds and our experiences to guide us in our decisions tempered with the Moral Code that God has given us thur the Torah and the Talmud.

Now this is not a Jewish vs Christian debate but I for one have difficulty with someone saying they are going to vote based on whom they think is being led by God. You need to vote whom you think is closest to your polictical views and ideas and will do the best job. Not on ones religious views.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

In the Jewish mindset we have the understanding that God has given us reasoning abilities and wants us to use our minds and our experiences to guide us in our decisions tempered with the Moral Code that God has given us thur the Torah and the Talmud.

Now this is not a Jewish vs Christian debate but I for one have difficulty with someone saying they are going to vote based on whom they think is being led by God. You need to vote whom you think is closest to your polictical views and ideas and will do the best job. Not on ones religious views.

I am an Orthodox Christian, and I concur. (See? No debate! )

I find it appalling that sometimes people *reject* their powers (such as they may be) of reasoning and even common sense sometimes. If Stephen Baldwin really is having a religious experience and perceives Bush (I'm assuming he's talking about Bush, the born-again who is making it harder to give other people down on their luck a second chance) as "guided directly by GOD".... well, wow. He should keep his religious beliefs off of the air, then - it's suppossed to be a newsshow!

That one scares me the most, because of the blind faith and fervor people can have. Piety can be a lovely thing. Believing that Bush is a prophet is a tough one for me to swallow, particularly when looking at the people he considers his "base".

 

[Tgace]

I could care less what Baldwin thinks......what makes some actor/musician/artist's opinion more important or valid than your's or mine?

 

[Makalakumu]

1. Stephen Baldwin on MSNBC, looking stoned out of his mind, announcing that as a born-again Christian he was voting for the candidate who was clearly being guided directly by God;

2. Norman Podhoretz on NPR, announcing that Iraq was just Act II in a five-act play titled, "World War IV," which he expects to last as long as the Cold War...45 years;

3. A writer for "Mother Jones," named Brzezenski, discussing his visits to the Office of Homeland Security, which is apparently a tiny little set of offices on a back alley in DC, despite its 27 billion yearly budget.

Number 2 and 3 are both equally frightening. I could care less about the sheep.

 

[Tgace]

Wait a second....did we just agree????

 

[Makalakumu]

Wait a second....did we just agree????

Maybe we should add number 4? :idunno:

upnorthkyosa :asian:

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Podohertz is whacked. His goal is to get us attacking a number of Middle Eastern states:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm

As I've mentioned elsewhere, he and other Neocons attempted to strongarm Bush into an invasion of Iraq by threatening him with political censure. Of course he had others in the administration pushing for this as well. 9-11 was merely the event they needed to set everything into motion.


Regards,


Steve

 

[shesulsa]

Okay, not that I'm thrilled with Baldwin, but...I think he was poking fun at the "talent on loan from God" thing that Rush did/does and all the bible thumping from the right.

Not trying to be confrontative, just saying.

 

[deadhand31]

I could care less what Baldwin thinks......what makes some actor/musician/artist's opinion more important or valid than your's or mine?

I think Alice Cooper said it best when he said "If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."

I am inclined to agree. %-}

 

[shesulsa]

Yeah - and California's got a foreign ACTOR for a governor...go figure. Watch it - he just might be president someday.

 

[Tgace]

Foreign born...I dont think its possible.

 

[loki09789]

1. Stephen Baldwin on MSNBC, looking stoned out of his mind, announcing that as a born-again Christian he was voting for the candidate who was clearly being guided directly by God;

2. Norman Podhoretz on NPR, announcing that Iraq was just Act II in a five-act play titled, "World War IV," which he expects to last as long as the Cold War...45 years;

3. A writer for "Mother Jones," named Brzezenski, discussing his visits to the Office of Homeland Security, which is apparently a tiny little set of offices on a back alley in DC, despite its 27 billion yearly budget.

1. WHO CARES! Celebrity does not equate to validity, just a bigger range of impact because of media attention...

2. The Iraqi war, policy-wise was linked to this idea of a 'war on terror' that started in Afg first and will continue to operate in other countries because the focus in on terrorism (at least the public presentation says so), I would say welcome to the new "war on....", in the 80's it was drugs but then drugs were linked to terrorists so now there will be a combined justification. Terrorist groups use/own poppy fields and Coca fields to fund their operationations and supply drugs through the same network that they trade guns and information... at least the link has been brought to the public attention so that the 'average joe' who might not understand (even in post 9/11 USA) how terrorism can have an impact on their lives MIGHT see the connections in these and other issues.

3. The Department is new, the office is probably new too. The new department is already being lambasted, what would people say if the work space was being beautified and landscaped instead with that money instead of having it sent to the other departments (actually it's just an administrative change) that will be using it for field work and support. Yes, it is still a problem and yes it is still kind of F*** up, but it is a new thing and will take time to get more organized...

So, in essence: SNAFU to all, question is whether the pace and direction of change is productive in the near and long term future IMO.

 

[shesulsa]

Foreign born...I dont think its possible.

There are murmurs of a constitutional amendment in the works to allow foreign-born citizens to run for candidacy - all because of Ahnold. With the financial power he and his wife hold and the political power his in-laws wield, I'm sure it's just a matter of time.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Tell the truth, I've wondered about the reasons for having that foreign-born rule in the first place. And this was long before Ahnold was anything more than a steroid-pumped action star. The only real reason I can think of is that a domestically-born citizen is far less likely to have any ties to foreign interests that would affect their presidency. If we ever covered the reasons for this rule in high school, I've long since forgotten them.

 

[Mark Weiser]

It is a wise thing to have this clause due to the possiblity of having foregin born people taking the highest office. There is the possiblity of being a Spy or having an motive and dedication to a foregin government.

There have been cases of long term sleepers that have infiltrated government offices and fortune 500's

 

[Flatlander]

It is a wise thing to have this clause due to the possiblity of having foregin born people taking the highest office. There is the possiblity of being a Spy or having an motive and dedication to a foregin government.

There have been cases of long term sleepers that have infiltrated government offices and fortune 500's

Limiting your Presidential candidates to citizens born in the US in order to protect the office is by no means a guarantee of that citizen's loyalty to your country. Remember John Walker Lindh?

 

[loki09789]

Limiting your Presidential candidates to citizens born in the US in order to protect the office is by no means a guarantee of that citizen's loyalty to your country. Remember John Walker Lindh?

You have to draw the line somewhere and the POTUS wears many hats. A native born American citizen as POTUS also reduces the confusion/second guessing and interpretation of policy making and diplomacy in the international community.

Remember too that there is a long Euro/UK tradition of National leaders importing the next hier based on family lines and such.... the Tutor/Germanic tree REALLY swept their German link during WWII because they were.... in England (Hitler, according to his diaries, honestly though that English people would answer the Hoch Deutch blood and ally themselves to his cause because of that link during the beginning of the war). The native born requirement is probably a reaction to such practices of royal families through history.

I think the idea is to have a native son/daughter as the First Embassador of the nation as well. I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Flatlander]

You have to draw the line somewhere and the POTUS wears many hats. A native born American citizen as POTUS also reduces the confusion/second guessing and interpretation of policy making and diplomacy in the international community.

While this is true, and I agree with most of it, after having witnessing the elections that I have, generally any and all noteworthy portions of a candidate's history seem to get looked at critically enough that should there be any 'security threat', I'm sure it would come to light.

Remember too that there is a long Euro/UK tradition of National leaders importing the next hier based on family lines and such.... the Tutor/Germanic tree REALLY swept their German link during WWII because they were.... in England (Hitler, according to his diaries, honestly though that English people would answer the Hoch Deutch blood and ally themselves to his cause because of that link during the beginning of the war). The native born requirement is probably a reaction to such practices of royal families through history.

Perhaps, but this is not a particularly Democratic tradition, and thus isn't really appropriate here.