Carson may have lost me last night
 

I may need to find a new candidate after Carson said he would not have invaded Afghanistan after 09/11. I expect a non-politician to have limited expertise with foreign policy, and that doesn't worry me, if I trust that he will surround himself with qualified experts. But he sounded like a child when he said that, I had trouble believing what I was hearing. It was like listning to Code Pink.

Will also mark the end of Trump as well. People are getting sick of his idiotic remarks.

no one has made more idiotic remarks than Biden and he's still a contender

True, but I'd say Biden comes off as buffoon-ish, where Trump is a jerk. I can't believe he got away with what he said about McCain.

Or Rosie

Or Rand Paul

Or Carly

Or Autism

The list goes on and on.

I could never vote for someone who doesn't believe in evolution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd say about 40% of GOP voters don't believe in evolution either. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

democrats have no candidate that impresses
or is impressed

I am ready for the Donald
Let's start building the wall tomorrow
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agreed. Ask the Israelis whether or not walls work.

Ask yourself what would it be like if there was no religion in the Middle East.

No wall needed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Surface observation often leads to shallow, incomplete, faulty diagnosis. The surface can reveal faults, but may not show root causes.

On the surface, in the Middle East, there appears to be war between religions or between various sects of a religion. It would appear then, that if these religions were removed from the picture, no conflict would exist there. No wall would be needed. If that were true, would we have to assume that the people of the Middle East are different than those in the rest of the world? Are Middle Easterners free of wars between families, or races, or political persuasions? Or of the seemingly eternal war between freedom and slavery--the war between various ruling classes and those who serve them?

Or are we to assume that religion is the root cause, below the surface, of all those, and of all types of war? In a sense, that is true. It is true if we view all doctrinaire patterns of behavior as being forms of religion. ScottW and I, for instance, refer to progressivism as a religion. Ergo any group of humans who insist on a WAY of living with rules or laws to follow (the little book you disparagingly speak of) are, by such reasoning, "religions." And, by such reasoning, even you who makes light of religion seem to desire a more universal kumbaya secular religion that has only two little laws to follow--be cool and don't be a jerk.

But, beyond the persistent wars between various collectives, there is the even more fundamental war between the individual and the collective. And it would be a stretch beyond linguistic elasticity to refer to an individual as a "religion." Though, that can be done, but would dissolve any coherent or usable meaning for the word.

But, I am guessing, religion as you speak of it, is some ritualistic association which follows the dictates of a supernatural God. The wall that The Donald and Jim refer to, however, is not one that is at war with, or keeps out a certain form of religion in the manner which you use the word. But one that tries to stop a war between more abstract and secular religions which consist of material laws and economic ways of life.

And "walls" is also an elastic word, even as how you've used the word "slavery," meant to separate conflicting elements or "religions." As in the example of the "wall" of separation between church and state--church being a God led religion and State being a secular one.

So to say that no walls would be necessary in the Middle East if there were no "religion" would imply that those people are all unaffiliated individuals, which, on the surface, doesn't at all appear to be the case. On the contrary, the people there appear to be far more so regimented into collective WAYS of living which seem to have roots in God religions, but also seem to be dictated by ruling classes, families or otherwise, who build psychological or rather phony "religious" walls of separation for their benefit and continuation of their power. Unfortunately for those ruling classes, their use of "religion" to control their masses has given rise in those people a desire to return to the foundational principles of the very religion used to control them. Or, rather than merely rising in the people, they have been inspired by zealots of either Allah religion or the religion of personal power over the masses. In any case, they don't seem to have the desire, or knowledge, to dilute their religions with a healthy amount of individualism.

Pity, we once had that healthy amount here in America. But more and more of us seem to aspire to more potent forms of the religion of socialism. More willing to bow to the god of State.

The problem in the Middle East is not:

Religion
The USA
The Russians / Soviets
The Germans
The French
The Brittish
The Israelis


It is the Arabs. These problems have existed there for a thousand years before Mohamed showed up.

None of these issues would be happening if saddam was still head of Iraq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, the issues would be happening, but under different names. A Wiki entry states that According to The New York Times, the number of deaths Saddam's regime was responsible for is estimated to be upwards of 2 million. And added to that are an untold number of atrocities and tortures.

These continued throughout his regime, right until his removal. There is no indication that they would not have continued to happen if he had not been removed. The issues would be happening under his name and that of other players including Iran, Al Qaeda, and who knows what other "extremist" group.

As John R said, these issues have existed (in varying degrees and under varying names but mostly by Muslims or Arabs), for over a millennium.

And Saddam's numbers have yet to be reached by the "issues" that have occurred after him. But the current ones seem more horrific because many of the actors have displayed them on videos for the rest of the world to see. Had Saddam made a video for every one of his tortures, mass killings, wars, and genocides, the current issues would be dwarfed in comparison.

And the seeds (Al Qaeda and its precursors) were implanted during Saddam's reign, and were already in active terrorist mode. And growing in influence. And he was not able to stem the growing tide. Today he would be a 78 year old tyrant under pressure from every direction, and it is possible that if the US had not toppled him, some other Muslim extremist organization would have. And it would not have tried to set up a democratic form of government to replace him. Most likely it would have been an Islamic State type of government.

The blood wouldn't have been on our hands though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's changing the subject or "issue" from your post that "None of these issues would be happening if saddam was still head of Iraq."

Sadam could be dead or feeble at this point and worse, one of his sons might have risen to power.

Or there would have been a coup
Or another and different war
Or it could be worse

i think he just lost the muslim vote

You bet he did!

Personally, I'd rather have a true Muslim than a phony Christian (like Obama) or a phony Catholic (like Biden).

Biden is a phony Catholic, why, b/c he is pro-Choice? You disagree with your church on Gay marriage, are you a phony as well? My wife is Catholic (while raised it, I don't associate as a Catholic any longer) but is not devout, she goes to church with the kids, but not every week. She is pro-choice, but would still identify with many of the teachings of the church. Just because someone isn't whole hog, doesn't make them a 'phony', or does it?

according to the pew foundation there R about 0.09% of adult muslims in the U S very small majority....will not hurt Carson over all since most vote democratic anyway....:)

Add that to the Gay, transgender, Mexicans, other minorities, people who thing the Repubs. have become full of hate, etc. and others various candidates have insulted and pretty soon you have real numbers.

Yes, Biden is a phony Catholic because he is pro-abortion (pro-choice is a bullsh*t term, because we aren't talking baout whether women can choose to like the Yanks or the Red Sox, correct?).

The Catholic Church has "binding beliefs" and "non-binding beliefs". Binding beliefs mean just what it says...you cannot disagree with those beliefs and be Catholic. They are stated in the Catechism. For example, you must believe Jesus was the son of God, you must believe you should go to Church on Sunday, and you also must believe that life begins at conception.

Gay marriage (like saying the rosary, and opposing the death penalty) are non-binding beliefs. If the Church makes opposition to gay marriage a binding belief, then I would find another religion, or change my stance I guess.

You cannot be pro-abortion and be a Catholic in good standing. Read that again if you wish. Or ask a bishop, as I have done. Being pro-abortion (unlike being pro gay marriage) is sufficient cause for excommunication. They won't kick you out of mass, but you are not supposed to receive Communion, and priests can (and often do) refuse to give it to you even if you ask for it.

The question is, why would Biden (or Nancy Pelosi) call themselves Catholic, when they disagree with the most fundamental beliefs? Here's the answer - they are unprincipled whores who will say or do anything to get elected, they have no principles whatsoever except the lust to win elections.

Correct, that won't hurt him much, although it will give the democrats a whole new way to attack him if they choose.

I think Carson is done, and I think Trump is on the way down. For God's sake, the Pope insisted the war in Afghanistan was necessary.

I don't know what to think about Carly Fiorina. She got fired from Hewlett-Packard, correct?

Bryan, everyone who sits in the pews on Sunday s flawed, none more than me. Unlike your wife (presumably), and even unlike Biden, I have actually been excommunicated. For reasons of planning and logisticsm when I married my wife, we couldn't do it in a Catholic Church, so we originally got married in a Congragational Church. 3 months later, we had the Catholic ceremony. During those 3 months, I was told I could not receive Communion (our priest at the time was a very strict, old-school guy) because as far as the Chruch was concerned, we were living in sin.

What I mean is, I have no ill will towards normal people who are less-than-perfect, because we all are. But I have a great deal of contempt for politicians of both parties, who talk out of both sides of their mouth, for personal gain. I hate politicians who claim to be Catholic on Sunday so they can get that vote, and then talk about ho wgreta abortion is on Monday, so they can get the Catholic vote. I respect anyone who find sthe time to get their kids to church on Sundays, which isn't easy these days. My contempt is for politicians who will say whatever the given audience wnats to hear, not to people like me or your wife. Sorry if you interpreted it in a way other than it was intended.

Living in sin
Lol
Think about those standards for a while
Makes Jehovah's seem sensible
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree with you Jim, but what annoys me about the Catholics (and I was raised as one and even went to Catholic schoool where I was forced to take theology classes) is that even though the Pope may actually say these things are "non binding" and "welcomes gays" or whatever type of rationality you want to put on it, the doctrine and teaching does not reflect that and the Church certainly isn't going to recognize gay marriage, so in that sense it's not flexible at all. Anyway, this really has nothing to do with the argument, but just an annoyance of mine as the Pope is about to visit!

I guess I disagree, in the sense that I like the fact that the Church isn't going to, for example, say abortion is OK, just because it's popular. There are other religions who change their principles every time a new poll comes out, I like some consistency. And while the Catholic Church won't recognize gay marriage anytime soon, this Pope has said that Catholics should pay a bit more attention to helping the poor, and a bit less attention focusing on telling everyone what they are doing wrong. He's the Pope, he's not going to change the catechism. But he is trying to change the messaging, in a more inclusive way.

Good post, you know how to be respectful, I admire that.

Maybe it is pandering; many politicians do this using religion. Maybe they grew up Catholic, and agree with and believe most of the dogma and teachings of Christ, but disagree on this issue, even though it is binding. I wonder what the honest numbers are among current Catholics and this issue, particularly under 40 y/o. How many actually know it is binding.

Thanks for the lesson, I wasn't aware of the binding vs 'optional'