Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University , Stanford , CA 94305 .

Obama And McCain By Thomas Sowell June 5, 2008





Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober-- if not grim-- assessment of where we are.

Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When Election Day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.

This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world-- Iran-- is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.

The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran 's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb-- and they can make 9/11 look like child's play.

All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand-- however outrageous those demands might be-- or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.

All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.

Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.

They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East .

They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden's threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.

The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s-- and our "leaders" and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the "leaders" and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.

We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River , oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.

What does this have to do with today's presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.

One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear-- or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.

There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West's lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan , nevertheless when all the West's industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively. But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.

Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.

At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure-- at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America .

On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.

Yellow_Flash_Colorz_PDT_20

Michael Savage called it very well.

When Republicans need McCain, he's their best friend. When they don't want him to have the nomination, they hate him to death. If he gets the nomination, they'll love him again.

Ain't that some shit?

Does that mean you're voting McCain?

I am undecided? But leaning towards McCain. I may not vote or I may go Obama in the end. I would so much like to be part of the Obama revolution as it looks glamorous and he speaks so eloquent and it sounds great! But it also looks alot like a fairytale as he does not have the experience and comes off as naive on many issues.

My wife is a die hard Republican and registered me as a republican about 5 years ago when Kerry was making a run at the whitehouse. I had never voted until I was in my thirties. I always thought I was a democrat growing up. I liked the idea of helping everyone (me) with free gov handouts, and protecting the environment and not killing babies and most of the liberal democratic kinds of thinking. That was back when I was like 12 - twenty something.

Then when I grew up and went out into the real world and paid into the system, I realized what these policies represented in the short and long run and things were not so black and white anymore.

It makes me angry when I know a single mother on welfare and many others who are grossly abusing these entitlements. Or when the sanctity of Marraige is put into question when now mixed in with Gay Marraiges in many states. Not that I have any issues with the gay's, just leave god out of it and stick with civil unions. The way I interpret the bible, peepee in the doodoo was not intended.

Let me ask you something, Durango.

When Massachusetts "legalized" gay marriage, did God get pissed and turn your wife in to a man?

If not, why does it matter then?

They way I interpreted the Bible for so many years was that God wanted me to walk with him personally and nudge others in the right direction when I could, but I never saw anything about using him as an excuse to tell another person "No, cut that out. My God says you can't do that so you will not."

God is ranks right up there with the poorest of reasons to pass laws.

If liberty is a God-given right, why do we pass laws because he said so?

Let me ask you something, Durango.

When Massachusetts "legalized" gay marriage, did God get pissed and turn your wife in to a man?

If not, why does it matter then?

They way I interpreted the Bible for so many years was that God wanted me to walk with him personally and nudge others in the right direction when I could, but I never saw anything about using him as an excuse to tell another person "No, cut that out. My God says you can't do that so you will not."

God is ranks right up there with the poorest of reasons to pass laws.

If liberty is a God-given right, why do we pass laws because he said so?[/quote]

Duh, no he/she did not. Why would god punish my wife in Florida for a law passed in Mass? Assuming a god even exist... Zietgiest!

It matters for many reasons. I bet if you think a little bit harder you can come up with a few reasons why, if not I will provide you with some food for thought.

I would contend that most of our laws are derived from religion regardless of what you rank god.

I don't recall the bible/god saying liberty was a right given by him? That was a quote from man, and I do believe the bible does say yes you can do this and no you can't do that. Adam and Eve and the apple is the most known biblical reference to this, but I can think of twenty other examples.

Anymore questions or comments? Yellow_Flash_Colorz_PDT_02

I believe in the separation of church and state. If two faggots want to plow away at each others buttpussy and call it marriage, let them. There is no "sanctity" in marriage. It's a legal binding. The sanctity is in the ceremony.

Agreed, I'm not a very political person myself, but I'm a big advocate for the seperation of Church and State.

There's just too many non-religious things that can be affected by marriage that lead me to believe that it shouldn't be dependent on what one religion states. If you believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman, that's fine, but that doesn't mean you can deny a gay couple the same benefits and happiness that come from a marriage. Hell, this country prides itself on allowing freedom of religion and having a blend of different cultures and beliefs.

Fine, make it a civil union, not a marraige, I could give two shits about gay benefits, let them have tax breaks and medical bene's. So you think gays can be married by a preacher in a church with gods blessing/religious ceremony and it's ok? I don't agree.

sanctity
One entry found.

sanctity




Main Entry: sanc·ti·ty
Pronunciation: \ˈsaŋ(k)-tə-tē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural sanc·ti·ties
Etymology: Middle English saunctite, from Anglo-French sainteté, from Latin sanctitat-, sanctitas, from sanctus sacred
Date: 14th century
1: holiness of life and character : godliness
2 a: the quality or state of being holy or sacred : inviolability bplural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights

I believe this was in reference to a man and woman... not man on man.

But you're assuming everyone believes in the same god you do.

Sanctity holds different meanings for different people. Even the dictionary definition you posted leaves room for that. Your religious views should never cloud your political judgement. You can hate fags getting married, but in the end, it makes no difference in how you live your life. If we force our religious views on the people, then we're no better than the muslim nations. Sure this country was built around Christian values, but we welcome all views from all religions.

God will sort it out in the end.

Wow, sensitive topic. Let me get in here and make someone mad.

First off, I'm not Christian, nor religious in any way, shape, or form. My comments are intended to spark critical thought and conversation. In order to understand where my line of thinking comes from understand that I don't believe in right and wrong but believe in sequence and consequence. I also believe in personal accountability, responsibility, and education.

Yea I'm caught up in the Obama hype, if for anything just to piss conservatives off. How can the United States continue on it's current path of foreign affairs? I'm willing to give Obama 4 years and see what he's got. We already know what we'll get with McCain and seriously how much more protection is McCain going to provide and at what cost? How can Americans really think that brute strength is going to protect us and rid us of terrorism? All we're doing is feeding them what they want and making it easier for them to find recruits. Even though we're the world's only super power left, we're in no position to keep ourselves extended like this for any length of time.

The sanctity of marriage. What's the divorce rate in our country? 49%, 50%? Sorry but in this day in age I don't believe there is anything left sacred in our society. That being said I'm not judging anybody's personal belief. If you believe that marriage is something holy and sacred that's great and I truly hope you and your partner live out your lives in complete happiness. The reality is that marriage is a joke in our country. I blame the liberals and the Catholic Church for that. I also blame conservatives in their belief to hold a marriage together no matter the cost. Both sides have created a society where broken homes are the norm, and it is common if two people remain married there is a high probability that some sort of infidelity has occurred sometime during the marriage.

I don't feel that the federal government or any state government have a right to say gay people cannot be married. If two gay guys, or lesbians, are religious and their beliefs say that they can be married then why should the government be involved in that decision? How many different denominations of Christianity are there? Why can't there be some denominations that accept gay marriages? Their interpretation of the bible, or any other holy book they read, is as justified as anyone else's interpretation.

If you are Christian aren't you suppose to let God judge people for their actions? How many children are in foster care in our country? How many come from broken homes or abusive homes? How many of them are adopted into loving homes? How many are left in a failing system that causes a majority of these foster children to end up like their parents and perpetuate the cycle?

How many abortions occur in this country per year? How many of these mother's who have abortions are Christians? How do they and others rationalize the killing of these unborn children? Their not ready to be mothers and fathers? No shit. The children are better off being killed than given a chance at life? Nice thinking there. So what kind of homes were these mother's and father's raised in? Broken homes? Abusive homes? Loving homes? What kind of parents failed in educating their children about the consequences of their actions? How could anyone think that killing someone who has done absolutely nothing except be conceived deserves to be put to death? As always there are extreme instances in where abortion could be seen as the most passionate course of action.

What possible problems could arise if gay marriages were legal and these people were allowed to adopt children? Many want their own children and thats fine too. However, there are many of them who would adopt children and these children would have a better chance in a loving home than our shitty system or being killed without even given a chance. I'm not saying there won't be instances of problems but that goes without saying.

Our government has more important things to do than worry about gay marriage. How about the state of health of our citizens? Universal healthcare would be great but I'll be damn if I'm paying for some idiot killed his liver by age 30 by getting drunk every night with his friends or some dumbass with the attitude, "I'll never stop smoking, I'm a rebel!! I'm so cool!!" and now he's complaining because his lungs stop working. Screw that. Our government needs to scale back and concentrate on educating our youth and stop this cycle of stupidity.

I think it's possible if there is a change in our government. Our country hasn't always been like this, it's always been messed up but not like this. So I'm going to give Obama a chance. He has 4 years to do something, my gut says he'll be able to do it. If he doesn't, well it'll be back to the same ole shit and I'll be moving to Canada quicker than expected.

None of this matters because on December 21, 2012 something cool is going to happen like the end of the world, or aliens, or major world disasters. What ever happens there's only one almost guarenteed certainty:











I'll be masterbating when it happens.

Well, Durango, Jar and Vision summed it up pretty well while I was at work.

If two gay men or women falling in love and being allowed to call it marriage just like the bond you have with your wife bothers you so much that you feel it necessary to tell the government to not allow it, the problem does not lie in definitions and topicality.

You should really take a hard look in the mirror or a nice long walk and think about why you allow two men plowing each other or two women scissoring while labeled "married" to bother you this much.

Then you can get some Zeitgeist.

Edit:

And for the record, there is no constitutional reference to separation of Church and State. I believe it was Madison who wrote a letter to England regarding Muslims and in the letter he said this to assist with clarification about why our government would not declare a state religion.

The government should be free to allow religious ceremonies of any sort on it's grounds. It should be allowed to display commandments or anything of the sort. It should be allowed to deny the display of any ones it wants. However, it should not be allowed to pass laws based on any given religion.

It is perfectly fine to have a standpoint to regulate from. I encourage it actually. But, the majority of us have evolved a bit and no longer shit ourselves when we see lightning. We have evolved our own morals and values and it is no longer necessary to use religion as a starting point so we don't slaughter each other while grunting and writing on cave walls with our own shit.

This nation was founded by God fearing men and history should remember the founding as such, but those men founded this country because they believed that men should be free to do as they wished as long as it doesn't infringe on the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of other men. God does not need to come in to the equation any further than that.

Hmmm, I really don't think they summed it up at all... And when did you become Dr. Phil? (I'll look in the mirror and walk when you do, fag ;example of how this community uses fag and gay terms constantly to degrade and imply it's not acceptable or honorable) If you read it again you will see the only thing I'm objecting too, is using the terms and ceremonies accustomed to those founded and used by Christianity, being married by a ordained minister and under the guise of one of the many Christian based religions, using the bible and church for this act.

I find it interesting that you feel Jar and Vision hold your exact position on issues and drop thier name like you were just endorsed by them... Not sure about that, especially looking at Vision's long list.

I don't believe the actual term married or marriage bothers me as much as it is a slap in the face to the majority of Christians in this country who believe being gay is a sin and leads to a corrupt and immoral society (Saddam and Gomorra come to mind). We are talking about this country and not a third world Muslim nation, which brings me back to Jars comments about my assumptions. I think I am correct in assuming that the moral majority in this country does believe in the same god we are discussing in this thread. I have my own issues about what god if any I really believe in at this point in time when leveled against the presentation of where god and religion originates in the Zeitgeist movie.

The Holy Bible clearly states that a man should not lay with another man, nor a woman with a woman, and it's a sin. If your asking if I approve or disapprove of being gay that's different.

To say our religious views should never cloud your political judgment is laughable. Our religious views ARE the basis for our political views. Don't you see the Ten Commandments integrated into the laws that govern us as a people? Hell just read you money and pledge to the flag, it's all about god/religion.

Let me be clear, just because I don't agree with being gay for myself, and believe it flys in the face of biblical rules and views etc, does not mean I HATE fags getting "married".
I'm not forcing my views or religious views on anyone, just trying to invoke thought provoking discussion and learn from each other. I do think religion has been forced on society at large based on history, which hunts etc, if you did not conform you would be stoned or burned. Pretty intimidating to try and fight against that, and the thought that you will go to hell without eternal life if you make the wrong choice. And who says the Muslim nations are any worse then us, sounds like you have already judged them. You are correct, god will sort it all out in the end, if you believe in a god and that sort of stuff.

It would take me more time that I have here and now to address all of Visions issues, but I'll take a stab at just one really quick. Your very first statement I believe is incorrect. You may think you are not religious in any way shape or form, but I bet you are actually under the influence whether you agree or not. I know I am because you get kinda brain washed by our environment. Just look at all the terms you use all the time. Oh My God, God Damn It. Holy Shit, Jesus Christ. Go to hell, etc etc etc. In every awards show acceptance speech, at the end of every political speech, the beggining of every sporting event, currency, Music, Literature, TV and on and on, you can't escape it no matter what you want to say and it does and has been influencing your thoughts for as long as you can remember. Unless you grew up on a deserted Island with no exposure and clue about "god" then you are tainted. And the younger the age you are taught/exposed to religion, the deeper ingrained it is in you. Even when I have seen Zeitgeist and pretty much agree, religion was a tool to control people and originated from the egyptians etc, blah blah bah, I still find myself praying for those who need to be lifted up, and wishing god does exist, because a world without a "god" and the form of hope and faith god and religion provides when faced with things like cancer and war and the likes, I see the purpose it provides.

I stopped reading after this line:

"the only thing I'm objecting too, is using the terms and ceremonies accustomed to those founded and used by Christianity, being married by a ordained minister and under the guise of one of the many Christian based religions, using the bible and church for this act. "

Wrong. Your whole debate is invalid. Stop pretending that Christianity is America's official religion. Christians did not come up with the concept of marriage. Do you realize most Americas are not Christian? I've always respected you, DK, but you're starting to sound ignorant. Marriage was around long before Christ ever took a breath on this earth. If you're so worried about fags getting a Christian ceremony, don't let it happen in your church. By banning it, you're forcing your religious views on others. Something a good Christian would never do. It's easy to say "I'm not forcing you to be a Christian" when you're voting for people whose stance is exactly that.

Also, the idea that the "moral majority" is the actual majority is what is truly laughable.

And I stopped reading here.

There's no longer a point in having this debate if anyone is going to go around insulting other people.

We're not having a debate on the merits of where our C*CK go, we're having a debate on the merits of our ideas.

I'm sorry if you misinterpreted anything I said.

And btw, this thread is the exact reason a gaming forum should be anti-politics AND religion. Both are too personal to be wielded in such a free-for all community. Butts will get hurt.

We can agree to disagree without descending to name calling JFOBP. Looks like you read more than you say you did, lawlz.

Prolly didn't want to expand your thinking anyway... Who said I was a Christian? And since when is Christianity not the majority and official religion in this country which was founded on Christianity. I said I'm confused as to what I really believe and am searching for answers. Yes Marriage was around before Christ, as it started with Adam and Eve.

Religion 1990 Est.
Adult Pop. 2001 Est.
ADULT Pop. 2004 Est.
Total Pop. % of U.S. Pop.,
2000 % Change
1990 - 2000
Christianity 151,225,000 159,030,000 224,437,959 76.5% +5%

76.5%

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

God's plan for the male and female sexes is then clearly instituted: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). In joining them as man and wife, the Creator of mankind instituted marriage. In the next verse Adam and Eve are clearly described as a married couple: "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed" (verse 25).

If your interested if the truth and wish not to be ignorant, try reading some more.

http://gnmagazine.org/issues/gn48/samesexmarriage.htm

You can't expand your thinking and understanding if you don't try and debate with others.

I am willing to read, expand my understanding and make adjustments to my thinking, I always have been.

I suppose the pledge of allegiance is not your pledge. One nation under god. Yes the Christian "god" that all politicians are sworn into office with their hand resting on "The Bible".

Not to be condescending, but you are the one sounding ignorant...

ROFL - WOW

I thought you had thicker skin than this. As it stated, I was actually not acting as myself, but as those in this community that use the term loosly. Check my posts and you will not find me calling anyone gay, but if I was to search yours, you would find a butt load of insults.


Edit: If only you had made it past the comma...

I hate to break it to you, but that "Adam and Eve" shit isn't going to fly. It's impossible. The Bible was written thousands of years after the first signs of man, and it was written by men.

Using that book as your source of human history is absurd. You want to expand your thinking? Read a history book.

The Bible's purpose is to guide us on a moral path, there is no arguing that. But to take it word for word like you are doing shows ignorance. I believe in God. I have read the Bible cover to cover. However, I am not a Christian. I am a free thinker. I did my interpretations on my own. I can honestly say reading all that typical hivemind Rush Limbaugh regurgitation that you have spewed in this thread that the only person who needs educated is you.

Claiming to "be confused" then spout bible verses at me like you're on a pulpit? Get the F*CK out of here. And those census numbers are a total joke. Everyone claims to be Christian, but few follow the path, or could tell you what Christianity really is. You don't even know what real Christianity is.

Unfortunately, you felt the needs to address me as a "fag" by using standard English sentence mechanics.

Unfortunately, I did not call you homosexual in any way, shape, or form. If I was intending on calling you names like this was a grade school fight, I would do so directly.

Looking in mirrors and searching your mind to answer questions isn't the same as looking in mirrors and asking yourself if you want to have sex with another dude.

Stop reading further in to what I've said than face value. Stop putting words or hidden meanings that you want to see in my fingers.

I'm not butthurt. Go watch some debates. See how much progress is made after the first insult is slung.

I will not longer be making constructive posts in this thread.

Thank you.