After Reflection
Had some time to think on the CNN/Youtube "debate" and one of the primary conclusions I've reached is about CNN rather than any of the candidates. The LA Times said it better than I could. But then again I've referred to CNN as the "Communist News Network" for years. I find it utterly odious that out of 5,000 submissions the "best" 33 questions included a religious fanatic asking about the inerrancy of the King James Version of the Bible. What does that matter? Who cares? They are running for President of the United States, not President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Hell, even most of the SBC permits alternate translations of the Bible (although how one believes in the literal inerrancy of the KJV, the NKJV, the NIV, and the NAS all at the same time baffles me, but this is political post, not theological).
The two main issues that voters are concerned about are Iraq and the Economy, right? At least according to the polls, although that may or may not be accurate. Standard disclaimers apply.
On Iraq, other than Ron Paul (who is a loon, as I will not fail to repeat every time I am forced to mention his odious name) all the candidates are pretty much on the same sheet of music. There were only a few questions on the topic, none of which were nuanced enough to bring out what differences may exist. That is my primary issue, but all that means is that Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat I could ever vote for. Jack Murtha came over to the side of reason for about an hour last week, but Nancy beat him back into Party Line. Haha.
On the economy, few questions were asked. There was a farm subsidy question, a couple related to lowering taxes, and that was is. Nothing much and nothing that differentiated at all between the candidates. They all channeled Ronald Reagan re: taxes, which is a Good Thing in my book. They all talked about getting rid of pork projects to save money, and that;s a standard politician promise which is impossible to stick to because pork is too engrained in the system. Oh, and they all favor farm subsidies.
Not a single question was asked regarding energy policy. Not one. Nada. Zero. Zilch. I have no idea what the energy policies of any candidates are, and have not troubled myself to do that level of research on 8 people. Talk to me after the Holidays. Of course, my energy policy is to build nuclear reactors and lots of them, and drilling for oil regardless of how many caribou are having sex in the vicinity. I figure the marketplace will push alternative technologies as the price of oil rises. But then again, I'm an eternal optimist.
Global Warming is a fraud, and I'm glad they didn't ask about it. Nothing to be said about it anyway. Stay the hell out of Kyoto. The best way to reduce humanity's "carbon footprint" would be to nuke the People's Republic of China, which would also solve our trade imbalance, growing Chinese antagonism on the world stage, overpopulation, the Republic of China question, and would keep unsafe dog-food and lead-painted toys off our shelves as well. It would also amuse me to no end.
/sarcasm.
Health Care is also something that I don't care about, and it's fine with me that they didn't ask about it. The whole point of the Republican Party is to NOT hand over such a large percentage of our economy to socialism and state control. Anyone who thinks differently will likely be cordially invited to go work for Hillary rather than trying to get MY vote. This will be an issue in the election, not the primary season.
The questions that were asked did show some differences between the candidates, and while immigration and gun control are not my top tier issues (Iraq is, and the larger war on terror) they are basic beliefs and a Pres who ignores border control and who appoints judges who will infringe on the 2nd Amendment can do a lot of damage.
As for the sense of it all, this election, should the Democratic Party nominate HRC, will be ours to lose. She has too much history, too much of a past, and too many negatives to actually be elected. She couldn't get a vote in the South if her hair was on fire (well, she might get a couple from guys who thought it was funny), and I believe she will self-destruct brilliantly between the convention and the election.
The two main issues that voters are concerned about are Iraq and the Economy, right? At least according to the polls, although that may or may not be accurate. Standard disclaimers apply.
On Iraq, other than Ron Paul (who is a loon, as I will not fail to repeat every time I am forced to mention his odious name) all the candidates are pretty much on the same sheet of music. There were only a few questions on the topic, none of which were nuanced enough to bring out what differences may exist. That is my primary issue, but all that means is that Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat I could ever vote for. Jack Murtha came over to the side of reason for about an hour last week, but Nancy beat him back into Party Line. Haha.
On the economy, few questions were asked. There was a farm subsidy question, a couple related to lowering taxes, and that was is. Nothing much and nothing that differentiated at all between the candidates. They all channeled Ronald Reagan re: taxes, which is a Good Thing in my book. They all talked about getting rid of pork projects to save money, and that;s a standard politician promise which is impossible to stick to because pork is too engrained in the system. Oh, and they all favor farm subsidies.
Not a single question was asked regarding energy policy. Not one. Nada. Zero. Zilch. I have no idea what the energy policies of any candidates are, and have not troubled myself to do that level of research on 8 people. Talk to me after the Holidays. Of course, my energy policy is to build nuclear reactors and lots of them, and drilling for oil regardless of how many caribou are having sex in the vicinity. I figure the marketplace will push alternative technologies as the price of oil rises. But then again, I'm an eternal optimist.
Global Warming is a fraud, and I'm glad they didn't ask about it. Nothing to be said about it anyway. Stay the hell out of Kyoto. The best way to reduce humanity's "carbon footprint" would be to nuke the People's Republic of China, which would also solve our trade imbalance, growing Chinese antagonism on the world stage, overpopulation, the Republic of China question, and would keep unsafe dog-food and lead-painted toys off our shelves as well. It would also amuse me to no end.
/sarcasm.
Health Care is also something that I don't care about, and it's fine with me that they didn't ask about it. The whole point of the Republican Party is to NOT hand over such a large percentage of our economy to socialism and state control. Anyone who thinks differently will likely be cordially invited to go work for Hillary rather than trying to get MY vote. This will be an issue in the election, not the primary season.
The questions that were asked did show some differences between the candidates, and while immigration and gun control are not my top tier issues (Iraq is, and the larger war on terror) they are basic beliefs and a Pres who ignores border control and who appoints judges who will infringe on the 2nd Amendment can do a lot of damage.
As for the sense of it all, this election, should the Democratic Party nominate HRC, will be ours to lose. She has too much history, too much of a past, and too many negatives to actually be elected. She couldn't get a vote in the South if her hair was on fire (well, she might get a couple from guys who thought it was funny), and I believe she will self-destruct brilliantly between the convention and the election.
posted by Just A Decurion at 12/04/2007 02:13:00 PM
2 Comments:
My understanding is that there isn't a single English translation of the Bible that the Eastern Orthodox are willing to give an unreserved stamp of approval on. Most thinking people that support Biblical innerency say that it it only applies to the original languages.
I like KJV for artistic reasons, but I've also heard some really odd statements coming from pastors based upon a their misunderstandings of 17th century English. Frankly I'm uninterested in getting into the nuances of the theological implications of one translation or another, with the obvious exceptions of the "translations" that play games like saying that instead of Paul calling on Christians to have one wife, he is saying they should only have one "partner" (not even a gender neutral equivelent like spouse) at a time. I'm satisfied with leaving the semantics games to the theologians and linguists.
I'm with Audarastrix wrt Biblical translations. Any person who believes the KJV version is somehow the ONLY reliable version is a loon somewhere outboard of Ron Paul (and that IS outboard). I've heard many screeds on this topic. I can only comment that
The 'inerrancy' argument focuses only on the original Greek/Hebrew texts.
WRT the Dems. I can only hope that they nominate her. It will only show that the Dems are as morally bankrupt as I (and many others) have been claiming for many years. She is shrill, unpleasant and unfocused on anything except her own career. I cannot imagine Mr & Mrs Averate America voting for her in the general election.
Post a Comment
<< Home