I realize McCain isn't Bush W., but I still fear of what programs and laws Bush enacted during his presidency that McCain will still endorse during his, if he was elected, even if they were failures, such as the No Child Left Behind program. Although McCain's voting record isn't 90-95% along with the rest of his party's agendas (according to a blog I once read), still, being strongly aligned with the same party who voted heavily in Bush W.'s favor of almost any whim he desired still worries me, and for good reason. I wonder exactly what laws and programs did McCain endorse and didn't endorse during Bush W.'s presidency. I've heard that these records could be looked-up, but not sure where and how. I may have to Google it and see. However, I'm not 100% against the Republican party. I would've voted for Ron Paul in heartbeat if he was still in it, and he's under the Republican ticket. He used to be under the Libertarian ticket, but probably realized he would get nowhere in politics being aligned with a party that goes nowhere because the two major parties themselves has such a "monopoly" in our current politics. Choice? I think not, and even the media's to blame. Sure, you may briefly hear about other candidates from other parties, but how often? How often do you see them invited to debates? Very rarely. Did you know that the last time we had someone from a completely different party voted into our presidential office was Millard Fillmore, our 13th president, who was affiliated with the Whig party, and left office in 1853? It's been Republican or Democtatic-affiliated presidents ever since. If we want REAL change for the better, we need someone who's a TRUE moderate working across BOTH sides, or all we'll see is the same continuous power-struggle that that's been going on for the last several decades between Republicans and Democrats. Politicians rarely vote against their own party in fear of causing tensions, even if it's not what's best for the American people as a whole, and this has got to stop. I think we the people should be more involved in our policies until we can get this mess straightened out. Why not let each county vote for what they want and don't want every 4 years, such as alcoholic beverage sales and abortion rights in their county? I know we vote these people in to "represent" us, but how often do they truly do so? It seems that most of them, on both sides, are paid by special interest groups (lobbyists) and only looking for profit themselves. Most politicians get into politics wealthy, only to retire even wealthier.
I haven't done the research in ages, but from what I remember, when you consider the yearly salaries of these people and then observe them retire filthy rich, I can't help but wonder where in the hell did all of this money come from?! It wasn't from their salaries!!! I liked John Edwards just because he seemed "sincere" (unsure how sincere we truly was, though) because he wanted to remove lobbyists from Washington all-together! I loved it when he nailed Hilary Clinton during a Democratic primary debate about her money connections to the healthcare industry! We need to remove lobbyists and special interest groups from politics entirely!!!
I stayed-up watching a special on Fox News until 3am hosted by Sean Hannity (who I can't stand because his interviews are nothing more than him overtalking and yelling at his guests, but looked like an interesting show nonetheless) called "Obama and Friends". I'll admit, it was pretty darn scary, even after you remove Hannity's obsessively repetitive comments (like I didn't hear him the first 10 times). I'd like to see a follow-up show from a different network to see how factual these claims and assumptions were, but doubt that'll ever happen.
Read-up on the "Patriot" Act. I liked what Dennis Kucinich said once during a Democratic primary debate that he didn't vote for the Act because he actually read it. The other candidates stammered and stumbled over their replies to that comment! Made me laugh my ass off! He was another candidate I highly admired like Ron Paul. It always seems the REALLY good and seemingly-genuine candidates always fall to the "wayside" during the primaries.
:-(
Universal Healthcare sounds good to me, in theory, but unsure how it would effect my taxes versus what I'm currently paying to healthcare. I've heard both sides, and from what I've gathered, I wouldn't pay much more or less than what I'm already paying to have my family covered under my current plan. Of course, I've got a REALLY good healthcare plan through my work, but my co-pays and my insurance keep going up every year, and my benefits keep going down. All I know that it's REALLY pissing me off, and I need the money worse than these filthy rich healthcare and insurance companies and CEOs! I'm glad someone's enjoying my hard-earned money, but it's not me! Both industries need some sort of severe reform is a serious way. I doubt universal healthcare is the way to fix this problem, but the laws and loopholes need to be revised so the market is more open and free to choose what I want and where I want. How many businesses can you walk into that don't have to give you any sort of costs upfront before you require their services? None I've ever seen except the healthcare industry! We're REQUIRED at the Geek Squad to give customers ANY costs upfront BEFORE any services are performed! If you need a surgery performed, I feel that you should be able to call around and get quotes from different medical facilities. Can you do that now? Hell no!!! If you try, most likely you'll get the "run-around". And this ain't cool with me in the least bit.
I can say that the reason for my high ethics and morals, being an agnostic, has a lot to do with my upbringing and society, in general. But, when you read on atheistic websites and forums, you'll also see the same sort of mentality towards morals and ethics as I have, even among those who were raised differently than I was, from people in other states and even in different countries. It's been proven both scientifically and historically time-and-time-again that "good and decent behavior" benefit society more-so than selfish and destructive behaviors. It's also just simple "common sense". You have to look at the benefits from the "big picture" and not just how it benefits yourself or your family. "Treat others the way you wish to be treated" expands most beliefs and religions, even if you don't believe in the supernatural.
And as far as the Koran goes, sure it does have very negative passages in there, but so does the Christian Bible. I've even heard my father once say in the pulpit that he could teach hatred and intolerance towards different races and even against women if you only focus on certain Bible verses. He could preach to abuse your wives to "keep them in place" and to kill people of different religions and races, but that's when you only take these verses out of context from the rest of the Bible. Also, who decides what verses in the Bible to take literally or what's a parable, or simply a story? This also applies to the Koran. So much is taken out of context, and so much taken literally to prove how violent it is. Most Muslims view their Koran much like many Christians view their Bible... some passages are taken literally and some aren't. Don't believe me? How many witches have you killed lately? According to a specific verse, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" found in Exodus 22:18, it's a command from God that you're suppose to do so. And I can find many, many other versus found in the Bible that most Christians "choose to ignore". Don't think Muslims do the same with their Koran? Like most Christians do with their Bible, they "pick and choose" what they want to obey and ignore the rest.
Here's some interesting laws ignored by most modern-day Christians:
Polygamy: Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15-16
Appearances: Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 19:27-28, I Corinthians 11:14, Timothy 2:9, 1 Peter 3:3
Weird Laws: Exodus 22:16-17, Exodus 34:26, Leviticus 19:19, Deuteronomy 14:8, Deuteronomy 22:11-12, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Deuteronomy 23:2, Deuteronomy 23:19-20, Deuteronomy 25:5-6, Matthew 6:25-34, Luke 12:22-31, Luke 14:26, 1 Corinthians 6:1
And my personal favorites: Matthew 5:39, Matthew 7:1, Luke 6:37
Albeit, many of these laws are found in the Old Testament, and most Christians adhere mostly to the New Testament, but still follow SOME of the laws in the Old Testament, but only the ones that they "pick and choose" that are usually only "moral laws", if you will. However, the Old Testament contains MANY, MANY laws outside those of morality that are completely ignored by modern-day Christians but are still followed by many devout Jews. What verses do you choose to obey and ignore? Even fundamental Christian websites and forums even admit that almost no modern-day Christian follows EVERY law written in the entire Bible because some of them even goes against our own society's laws, but yet Matthew 5:18-19 (found in the New Testament, mind you) says that Christians are suppose to adhere to ALL of God's laws and commandments until the end of time, even those in the Old Testament. Most Christians don't obey many of the laws set in the verses I mentioned above, nor the 4th Commandment, which is about the Sabbath Day, which has been converted from the last day of the week to the first day of the week. Also, killing is ok, as long as we have "good reason", ignoring the 6th Commandment. So, don't tell me most Christians don't "pick and choose" what laws set by God they follow, and most Muslims do the same with their Koran.
And while I'm on the topic of the Bible that most protestants don't know is that most of the original books of the Bible (called a canon) was actually picked by Eusebius, an advisor to Constantine, who was a converted pagan and the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, at the Council in Nicea. In other words, most protestant Christians are actually using the original Roman Catholic canon (Bible) along with much of their original core doctrines and don't even know it. They even decided at that council meeting that Christ was divine and not just a man (a serious question many churches faced at that time), which changed the course of most Christian faiths and later denominations from that point on, including the Anabaptists and Baptists. In fact, they almost used a different book, the Apocalypse of Peter, instead of the Book of Revelations, written by John! In other words, if they had chosen the Apocalypse of Peter instead of the Book of Revelations, then the Bible you're currently using would've had a completely different ending! The only reason they didn't choose the Apocalypse of Peter was because anyone could wish themselves into heaven in the end, and the newly forming Roman Catholic Church didn't want people to think they could live immoral lives because it wouldn't matter in the end, anyways. Otherwise, your Bible would've ended completely different.
http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Many argue that modern-day Baptists are the descendants of Anabaptists, who has no connection to the Catholic Church, but when you research Christian church denominational histories thoroughly, they're ALL connected to the Protestant/Radical Reformation that happened in the 16th century, including the Anabaptists and Baptists! In other words, from what I can find, ALL Baptist sub-denominations had broken-off from Catholicism at one point in time or another. There's very little or no historical accounts that shows a direct connection of Baptist denominational history and any of the early Christian churches, such as those mentioned by Paul in his writings.
http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Radical_Reformation
King James was also tutored by George Buchanan, who's also Scottish, but not sure if my family's actually directly related to him or not.
;-)
http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/James_I_of_EnglandRegencies
http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/George_Buchanan_(humanist)
Just thought I'd throw that one in there! LOL But anyways, the reason for all of this ranting and raving is to finally point-out that neither the Christian Bible or the Koran is "perfect" (for lack of a batter word) in EVERY way, whether it be doctrinally or historically, and most followers of either book "pick and choose" what laws and commandments they wish to obey.
Just do the research on what cultures and religious faiths have accepted partial birth abortions for the last 2,000 years. I really wish I could say on here without offending certain people.
Ok, so I didn't keep this reply "sweet and simple" as I had originally planned. So sue me.
:-p~
No comments:
Post a Comment