judg·ment: the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, esp. in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion: a man of sound judgment.
For Obama to remain in a church for approximately 20 years where the pastor habitually spewed anti-American hate to a cheering congregation points to an amazing lack of discernment or judgment on his part. To claim he was unaware points to an unbelievable lack of discernment. If he were aware, then it points to an unbelievable lack of judgment to not remove himself from such a church. Which is it?
Now that he is aware, he states that he is remaining in his church because Wright is retiring and he has such strong ties to his church family. This church family is the same congregation that is seen enthusiastically cheering Wright’s hateful racist and anti-American rhetoric in the recently released videos. Can you imagine a Republican staying in a church family made up of a KKK type mindset? About a year ago (April 2007) the following quote by Wright appeared in the NY Times:
“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”
The dots are connected. There is nothing wrong with Obama's discernment. Obama's problem is with judgment, truthfulness, and his world-view. America's problem is to avoid being duped!
NY Times article
Main Blog:
Sweet Jazzy Cat
45 comments:
In Europe we are praying to God (at least, those who believe in him, others simply hope) that the nauseating idiot now in place is indeed replaced by Obama. Second choice Hillary.
Do you speak for everyone in Europe or would Tony Blair speak for some who actually see the danger in extreme Islamic Jihadists?
I think the real idiots in the world today are those who are in favor of appeasing murdering jihadists. I would remind you that Bush did nothing to them that would have provoked 9/11. Some of us here in the states take unkindly to people who take aggressive acts of war against our homeland. If that does not upset you Neville Chamberlain think alikes, then that is your problem.
Maalie,
Since you have not honored the ban placed on you at the Bluecollar team Blog and continue to post inflammatory comments there after being asked four or five times to stay away, I must frankly say that I have very little respect for the content of your character. What you are doing there is nothing short of blog harassment and does not speak well of you being a civil and honorable gentlemen. It is shameful and without excuse.
However, at Jazzycat 2 your
slate is clean and you have not yet been banned, but I doubt seriously that you will be able to hang with me bringing your left wing nonsense! Refrain from mocking Biblical Christianity and you will have some latitude here at Jazzycat 2.
Hello, jazzycat. I stumbled over here from Bluecollar.
I noticed you had Dr Beisner's website on your sidebar and I was wondering if you know him personally. We are privileged to know that family intimately (he teaches our Friday night Bible study) so I just thought it was kinda cool to see his website there.
Tina,
Thanks for the visit. I do not know Dr. Beisner. He was a guest on one of the late Dr. D James Kennedy's programs on global warming hysteria and I linked him for his work on that issue. I might add my priamry blog is Sweet Jazzy Cat where I have by far my most content......
Jazzycat, Tony Blair hasn't been Prime Minister for over a year now. As I understand it, your President went to war with Iraq because he said God told him to. The rationale was to remove the dictator Saddam Hussein and his alleged (but non-existent) weapons of mass destruction. In Europe we do not see a connection between 9th September 2001 and the killing of thousands innocent civilians in Iraq, which I believe you Americans so sweetly call "collateral". I am afraid our credibility for GWB suffered greatly by his gaffs, especially when he confused "foetus" with "faeces" in a discussion on abortion. No British electorate would put up with that for 10 minutes.
And in response to a reporter's question, he had no idea where Iraq was at the point of invasion. It is not cynical to suppose that the real motivation was the pursuit of interests in oil reserves.
As far a Bluecollar is concerned, the term "banning" has little meaning in the blogosphere, please don't preach to me about ethics. A blog is, by its very nature, interactive, and so long as the comments are open and in the public domain, you should expect to receive challenging questions (I do on mine!).
I deny the accusation of "mocking", that is not my point. And I never use abusive language, but stay "on-topic" and invariably ask a straightforward question on clarification or interpretation of something written in the post. I am a professional biologist who has lectured on such topics as anthropology and evolution in a University for some 30 years. One of you (maybe not yourself) described me as "dangerous" which I interpret as a threat to your faith. Maybe you would do better to try to answer my questions. Maybe you are not one of the Americans who have no idea where Australia is (I know there are many who don't) but look at a map: it would take a pair of kangaroos longer to swim from Australia to Asia across the Indian Ocean than the duration of the flood (and then they have to get back, and transport a quantity of their specialised food with them).
As a professional biologist, I need to resolve issues like this before you can expect me to take the bible seriously. And no one has ever attempted to answer my question about what ethnicity were Adam and Eve? Simple first-grade genetics would tell you it would take some three million years for humanity to diversify into the range of ethnic groups we now see on earth. The idea of mythology like Adam and Eve and Noah's flood (and many other myths that some hold to be true) are simply untenable in the 21st century.
JD was right when he implied that the bible would have been written very differently if the authors had been endowed with today's knowledge and understanding. How can you possibly disagree with that?
Apologies, Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair last June, not "over a year ago" as I stated. My mistake, sorry.
Maalie,
As time permits, I will address your errors one by one.........
#1- You said...... As I understand it, your President went to war with Iraq because he said God told him to. The rationale was to remove the dictator Saddam Hussein and his alleged (but non-existent) weapons of mass destruction.
WRONG! God told him to do it was never given as a reason. Saddam had been in non-compliance with UN resolutions for years and Bush told him for several months to comply with these resolutions, disarm or face serious consequences. The United States congress authorized our country to go to war. It was not just Bush. You must look more to facts rather than what the world-wide left-wing dominated media spoon feed you. The actual discovery of WMD's is insignificant. Saddam had them and had used them on his own people before. Re-starting the production could have been done on a moments notice. Many US leaders including the Clintons, Al Gore, etc. had stated publicly that Saddam had WMD's before Bush ever took office. Therefore the claim that he falsified the intelligence is absurd. All of the US Congress that voted to allow our country to go to war were given the opportunity to see our intelligence before they voted. The great majority never bothered. The democratic party in the United States has sold out to the left-wing extremists and changed their position as soon as the polling data allowed them to engage in nothing short of treason. They are beyond contempt in my view.
Saddam was not in compliance with U.N. resolutions and after several months of warnings he did not come into compliance. The serious consequences came and the UK and Britian were with the US from day one.
You should handle your country and their involvement before you start slandering our president and blaming him for this war. Most reasonable people would think that Saddam brought the war on himself.
Maalie,
#2- You said…… In Europe we do not see a connection between 9th September 2001 and the killing of thousands innocent civilians in Iraq, which I believe you Americans so sweetly call "collateral".
Many in Europe and England did not see the dangers Hitler posed in the 1930’s including your very own Neville Chamberlain. If I recall it took Winston Churchill and help from the US to save your bacon then. The big mistake the world made then was not taking action against Hitler sooner. The same mistake is being made against Islamic Jihadists today. The killing of thousands in Iraq was ongoing by Saddam to his own people long before this war. This intervention has brought freedom to Iraq.
What sort of things did Obama's pastor say? Over here we only hear really good reports on Obama, and it is widely hoped that he will be president.
As far as the Iraq war was concerned, Sadam actually did comply with the UN resolutions. He didn't have any WMD to show anyone. So Clinton et.al. were wrong, weren't they.
I know Sadam was an unpleasant,murdering president, but to kill hundreds of thousands of the poor Iraqee people seems excessive.
The war was not generally popular over here. Tony Blair had been very well liked before the war, but went down in everyone's estimation for his involvement. A lot of people felt that he was only inolved the keep George Bush happy.
Surely it is against one of the basic Commandments: thou shalt not kill.
Loren,
For Obama's pastors racist and anti-American comments you can go to you-tube or google to find them. His name is Jeremiah Wright.
The commandment is correctly read Thou shalt not murder. God has authorized capital punishment in many places such as...... Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.
You may also check Romans 13 for authority to go to war.....
Loren,
Murder would be killing the innocent like in abortions.
Maalie,
#3- You said…… I am afraid our credibility for GWB suffered greatly by his gaffs, especially when he confused "foetus" with "faeces" in a discussion on abortion. No British electorate would put up with that for 10 minutes.
It is substance that counts and not the style of giving excellent speeches on how we must exhaust diplomacy in dealing with tyrants. I hate to pick on ole Neville Chamberlain and I am sure he was eloquent and articulate, but his lack of discernment and judgment was disastrous. The UK would have been a lot better off with GWB then than with an appeaser like Neville. Fortunately there was a Churchill waiting in the wings.
Maalie,
#3- You said…. As far a Bluecollar is concerned, the term "banning" has little meaning in the blogosphere, please don't preach to me about ethics. A blog is, by its very nature, interactive, and so long as the comments are open and in the public domain, you should expect to receive challenging questions (I do on mine!).
All words have the same meaning in and outside of the blogosphere (ban means to prohibit, forbid, or bar). Obviously it will do no good to “preach” to you about ethics since the bar for your ethical standards is set very low. You definition of a blog is defective as many blogs have all kinds of rules, and standards that they insist people adhere to and enforce. Most people who have even an average amount of honor and ethical standards honor the requests that bloggers make for their blogs. This includes honoring the request of being banned from comments.
Your questions are not challenging or threatening to me at all. I have an engineering degree and am a former Air Force pilot so I am fairly well qualified to swat away your left-wing atheistic nonsense with little or no problem.
Maalie,
The last one should have been #4
#5- You said…. In Europe we do not see ……
I forgot earlier to make a point about this. You would be amazed at how little American conservatives care about the opinions of Europeans!
Maalie,
#6- You said…. I deny the accusation of "mocking", that is not my point.
Deny it all you want, but the administrators of Bluecollar Blog made that judgment and it is not open for debate.
#7- You said…. Maybe you would do better to try to answer my questions.
Your questions were answered and I could not help but notice that you cut bait and disengaged with Daniel at Bluecollar when he was discussing your flawed theory of evolution. Let me state it bluntly, you ran away from the discussion like a coward running from a bully. I am not going to discuss evolution with you as it is not a big interest, but you can go to Daniel’s blog and invite him over here to take it up again if you can muster the courage to answer his “challenging” questions.
#8- You said…. Simple first-grade genetics would tell you it would take some three million years for humanity to diversify into the range of ethnic groups we now see on earth.
Wow, genetics in the first grade! I am afraid that in America, we are too busy feeding them global warming propaganda than to be teaching genetics in the first grade. Let me give you a simple first grade answer for how many years it would take an all-powerful supernatural supreme being to produce diversified ethnic groups. Answer: one generation! The key word here is supernatural!
While this is certainly hard to comprehend, let us remember that atheistic evolution must make an even greater leap of faith when it explains why there is something instead of nothing. I believe your best answer so far has been that you don’t have a clue!
Well, you would say all that, wouldn't you? Well, I can choose to make my own judgements from the independent reports I have read, and my own experience and the evidence I have witnessed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or I can take the word of a person who believes in inter-continental swimming kangaroos, and refutes the report of the International Panel on Climate Change. It's a no-brainer, really. LOL!
As for Daniel, he is as deluded as you are. I disengaged from him because he was talking gibberish. It was simply a waste of time.
The scientific evidence will never go away, Jazzycat, it will never go away, it is growing by the week...
Actually, I feel quite sorry for you in your delusion. Maybe I will even pray for you (to His Majesty the Sun God, of course).
You said.....Well, you would say all that, wouldn't you?
Well, you would not defend your nonsense, would you!
You said....I disengaged from him because he was talking gibberish. It was simply a waste of time.
Then why do you keep returning and injecting your left-wing political views and atheistic insanity that you cannot back up other than to default to your bible of peer reviewed scientific literature?
Like you I believe that abortion is murder. I also believe that messing with human DNA and animal DNA is highly unethical.
I also believe that slaughtering hundreds and thousands of innocent Iraqees is murder, the firebombing of Dresden by the British RAF is murder, the firebombing of Vietnamese is murder, the slaughter of Palestinians by Israelis is murder, the gassing of the Kurds is murder, the deaths on 9/11 was murder, etc. etc. There can be very few countries that do not have blood on their hands.
As for the Commandments, well it depends which translation you use. My Bible says Thou Shalt Not Kill.
To be fair to Maalie, I must say he is not nearly as left wing as you would imagine. No way near as left wing as I am. I spent a few years as a Methodist, testing the waters as it were, and then went back to the Catholics. One Methodist minister said during one of his sermons 'I don't know how anyone who calls themselves a Christian can vote Conservative'. This caused a bit of a kuffle as you can imagine, but if you really listen to Christ's teaching, I think you have to come out in favour that he was a tad left wing.
You don't really not believe in global warming do you? I think you are just teasing us to get a reaction!
Wayne,
Is it not written that the fool has said in his heart that there is no God? Is it not written that fallen man does not like to retain God in his knowledge?
So...
If one fool teaches evil-lution, and his works are "peer reviewed", meaning other fools go along with him in his folly, does that make him less a fool?
>other than to default to your bible of peer reviewed scientific literature?
Because, my dear Jazzycat, that is hard evidence which is more secure than arguments based on ignorance, ad hominem and personal incredulity that are so beloved of you.
You appear to say something like "I cannot believe the world is as it is without a creator". That is not an argument, that is personal incredulity. The peer-reviewed scientific literature is in the public domain, for all to see, criticise and advance. It isn't anything like the bible because it is not embedded within delusion and doctrine.
So please tell me, Jazzycat, exactly what ethnicity were Adam and Eve, do you suppose? White European? Mongolian? Black African (Ooops, there are several ethnic groups within that); Australian Aborigines? New Zealand Maoris? Indigenous Patagonians? Amazonian Pygmies? Jungle Folk of Indonesia? Eskimos? Laps? Red Indians? Or one of the 30 odd ethnic groups found in China?
C'mon Jazzycat, spill the beans, they must have been something? And then tell me how, starting with just two individuals of your chosen ethnic group, they diversified into what (or whom) we see now, in only a couple of thousand years? Even a foundation biology student would laugh at the idea! Not to mention (again) those inter-continental swimming kangaroos! LOL!
Mark, I suggest you do a little reading.
jazzycat, dear Jazzycat, more recent hominid fossils discovered.
The evidence won't go away Jazzycat. Whilst the bible gets more and more outdated and outmoded, the scientific evidence gets stronger, and stronger, and stronger.... and it won't go away, it just keeps coming...
Perhaps it is time for you to rethink...
Or perhaps it's time for a fool to repent!
Also, in John 8 we see Jesus teach that before you can understand spiritual truth you must believe it. The things of the Bible, its teaching, are understood only when the Spirit of God illuminates the otherwise spiritually dead mind.
Don't shoot the messenger, Mark. I only read the overwhelming evidence presented by some of your brilliant American scientists (and of course, some of ours in Europe too!).
The evidence won't go away, it just get more and more incontrovertible as our understanding and awareness of the natural world improves. (What do you say about that link I put up above?). I felt I was born again and saw the world in a new light when the scales fell from my eyes and emerged from my delusion. I wish the same for you.
Did you know that the Dalai Llama (the spiritual leader of the Buddhists in Tibet) is considered to be a God?
The bible can mean anything you want it to mean.
"The bible can mean anything you want it to mean."
On judgement day it will mean only what God intended it to mean. Where will you stand on that day, Jim?
Mark, maybe you didn't know, but none of your brilliant American scientists (nor those of ours in Europe) - at least those who publish their evidence in the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature, appear to have any evidence for a "judgement day", or for the existence of God. And in my more modest career of research in ecology, I have found none either.
I think the bible was written to explain certain phenomena that could not be explained in any other way. Now, some 2000 years on, our understanding of the processes involved in nature do not require us to consider the supernatural to explain the origins and development of life on earth.
Who would have thought we would be able to write out the whole of the human genome! Wonderful, isn't it?
By the way, Mark, what ethnicity do you think that Adam and Eve were supposed to have had?
I know that Jazzycat thinks I am "mocking" but that is not strictly true. Questions like this (and those damned inter-continental swimming kangaroos) really do bug me. Daniel tried hard to put an explanation, but it seemed to me to be no more than speculation (note, I avoided saying fantasy). To have built a vessel as substantial as the ark is supposed to have been, would place it post-neolithic times. That is incredibly recent in the history of upright man on earth.
Loren,
I most certainly do not believe the hysteria of man made global warming causing doom to planet earth. Check out my links on this blog if you have an open mind. Yes the earth's climate cools and warms and the earth started warming from a little ice age a couple hundred years ago and that is why the glaciers in Glacier Bay receded about 70 miles from late 1700's until around 1870's. This certainly was not caused by fossil fuels although glaciers calving is shown constantly on propaganda T.V. programs as proof of man made global warming. There are also mini-cycles and that is why the media has warned of global cooling and warming in cylcles about 6 times since the late 1800's. The latest was the warning of global cooling in the 1970's by many of the scientific journals that Maalie puts so much stock in. The fact that the sun started burning hotter about ten years ago has also had an effect. By far the largest green house gas we have is water vapor (clouds). The amount of CO2 is insignificant in comparison.
Global cooling would be far more dangerous to the production of food on this planet. Why is assumed that the earth's overall temperature is perfect as it is now? A little warming would increase growing seasons, help people and animals remain warm and move further north. Even the alarmist exaggerated reports show only a four to 12 inch or so rise in the sea level in the long term.
Check out some of my links......
Loren,
Christ was not political. He was not a tad left wing or any other wing.
He came to earth to save his people from their sins. There is no other way to be saved to eternal life other than through faith in Jesus Christ. His kingdom was and still is not of this world. His ethical teachings are about how born again Christians (the only kind) who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit should conduct themselves and pursue holiness and sanctification.
Maalie,
As an atheistic evolution believing humanist you are asking me to beleive the following:
1. matter came from nothing without any cause.
2. this matter exploded (big bang) into chaos and confusion.
3. From this chaos and confusion order happened.
4. From non-life, life happened.
5. From non-intelligence, intelligence happened.
To this scenerio I basically add a supreme being (a self-existent, uncaused cause) and you accuse me of personal incredulity. I give the explanation for the impossible scenerio that you present and you say I am the one that will not believe. Evolution does not answer the question you must answer and in fact have refused to answer. Let me ask it again in Bold face: Where did all the matter/energy of the universe come from????
Lorenzo: Try reading this - the
Report of the International Panel on Climate Change. The world's international top climatologists, glaciologists, geophysicists etc. consider there is a 90% likelihood of anthropogenic global warming (that is, due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions).
As usual, dear Jazzycat thinks he knows better than the world's elite scientists and merely resorts to false arguments like calling evidence "propaganda" (a favourite with deniers of all kinds). And of course, this:
>Wow, genetics in the first grade!
Ignorance!!!
>you ran away from the discussion like a coward running from a bully
Ad hominem!!!
>evolution must make an even greater leap of faith when it explains why there is something instead of nothing.
Personal incredulity!!!
Neither your High School debating society nor mine would have permitted cheap tricks like that. Once again these tricks are take life blood of those who seek to deny and ridicule the evidence.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but it does give a new depth to the meaning of "PATHETIC"!!!
My dear Jazzycat, the evidence won't disappear just because you don't like it; it grows stronger by the month, the week, the day...
C'mon Jazzycat, you can do better than that...
Maalie, I cannot let you get away with your spurious attack on His Holiness the Dalai Lama. (one l if you don't mind. The Buddhist certainly do not think of him as a God, but a very holy and devout man.
I once heard the then Archbishop of Cape Town, the Very Reverent Desmond Tutu say 'I am puzzled which Bible people are reading when people say politics and religion do not mix'. Of course Jesus was political. He fought for the rights of the poor, the meek, the downtrodden, the women, the Samaritons, the ill, the despised etc. etc. It was that that really upset the Romans.
>Where did all the matter/energy of the universe come from????
You have missed a component. There is growing acceptance among cosmologists that there is a time/energy/matter continuum. Frankly, I don;t know, but then your grandfather presumably did not know about computers, moon walking or DNA (let alone the human genome).
To admit that we don't have the answer to something and just to say "It must be God" is just another aspect of personal incredulity. Maybe a time/energy/matter continuum may always have been there. May be our brains are not sufficiently evolved to ever understand it.
It is not my place here to explain scientific processes (e.g. the evolution of intelligence) I have been doing that all my career. It would take a semester of lectures (on top of a foundation course in science). If you are truly interested, try googling, there is plenty out there. But I know you won't because you have already made up your mind from an archaic book. In England we call that prejudice.
Maalie,
This is where you must begin!!!!
Where did all the matter/energy of the universe come from????
Your answer is and I quote, "Frankly, I don't know"
Since you don't know, would one possibility be a self existent supreme being with super intelligence? Would you concede that as a possibility? Such a being could have possibly used evolution and all the other things you assert. While I do not believe it, it is possible that a supreme being could have done that is it not?
Evidently, Christians and cosmologists agree that something must have the power of self-existence in and of itself. If it is matter/energy, then why is it changing? Why is it in a state of becoming rather than in a state of being? Why was the law of inertia violated with the big bang?
Maalie,
I said earlier that I was not going to allow mocking of the Christian religion. Your understanding of Christianity is severely deficient and I an not going to allow you to present it incorrectly in a mocking away.
This is not open for debate
>would one possibility be a self existent supreme being with super intelligence?
Of course that cannot be proved or disproved, so it is really not available for objective discussion. All I would say is that there is no evidence of the existence of such an entity and the probability that it exists is so minuscule as to be out of the frame for consideration.
It is just pushing the argument back one step and is a form of personal incredulity. "Super intelligence"? You mean like Superman or Wonderwoman?
But I repeat, the fact that we don't understand something NOW is not evidence that we won't one day. To attribute it all to a supernatural entity is just another way of saying you don't know either, but it may give you the comfort of an explanation of a sort.
Again, I say unto you, don't shoot the messenger. Take up the discussion with some of your own superb and world respected scientists.
To claim that all human diversity came about, and populated the corners of the world, in just one generation is pure fantasy (I'm afraid I have no option but to use that word now). Evidence is clear that Homo sapiens evolved from Homo erectus in Africa about 3 million years ago and during or after the Pleistocene revolution (tool making) the population grew and was able to migrate out of Africa, north into Europe and Arctic regions, and east into Asia. The remains of their cultures are numerous and have been precisely dated. By geographic isolation they genetically diverged into separate genotypes (much as Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Isles) and the process, accelerated by migrations to, continued. It is also so easy and obvious once you have the appropriate foundation science.
The evidence is there, it is tangible, I have seen it for myself and it's not going to go away.
And a pair of kangaroos didn't swim across the Indian Ocean from Australia to Asia, hop across the Himalayas to the Middle East and back to be saved by Noah. That notion is preposterous!
>Your understanding of Christianity is severely deficient
I think it more likely that I understand it only too well. I was a 'Christian' until I was reborn when as a research student and my eyes were opened.
Also I infiltrated a Christian blog-ring posing as a young mother and I know what they talk about. I know how they home-school to prevent their darlings from the risk of exposure to "dangerous scientists". Is that what you people really want?
Maalie,
You said....As usual, dear Jazzycat thinks he knows better than the world's elite scientists and merely resorts to false arguments like calling evidence "propaganda"
I must insist that your ethical standards (honesty in this case) improve if you want to interact here. I have not called any evidence propaganda, but I have called using visuals of the calving of glaciers as evidence. Glacier calving is not evidence of global warming. It is evidence that glaciers are moving slowly toward the sea. Therefore, when CNN and others show it as evidence, then objective logical thinking people consider that perhaps they are in the business of propaganda rather than an objective presentation of all the opinions on the subject. Go to Glacier Bay National Park website and look at the history of glaciers receding from late 1700's to 1860's.
Jazzycat, I have to go now, I'm not dipping out of the discussion, I will look in again next week. I understand why you deleted the comment, I ought not to have written that, it was not evidence-based.
Cheers.
Maalie,
Point proven. You were never a Christian as Christians never become non-Christians. This is what I mean about your lack of understanding.
Christianity has been instrumental in founding universities and backing scientific research in the United States as well as Europe, and many great scientists past and present were devout Christians. Issac Newton, for example was also a theologian.
Maalie, you are firing blanks. I know you can do better than this.
We have come quite a long way from Obama, and I still don't really understand quite why you dislike him so much. He seems an 'all American' boy to me.
As far as Maalie's question about the ethnicity of Adam and Eve go, I would say they would have to be African, as the Olduvai Gorge in Kenya seems to have been the birthplace of man.
I am relieved that global warming isn't taking place. I have been very worried about it, and trying to do my own little bit about using less petrol, electricity, recycling all my paper, bottles, tins and cardboard. It is a relief to know that I don't have to struggle quite so much.
Loren,
You said...I am relieved that global warming isn't taking place.
The earth is always either cooling or heating. There are natural cycles that are caused by such things as ocean currents that are cycling between cooling and warming. Other things such as the sun burning hotter like it has been doing for about a decade now also have and effect. Volcano eruptions can also pump huge amounts of pollutants into the air. The earth probably has been in a heating cycle for a while and humans may contribute somewhat, but it is insignificant and perhaps has even been a good thing. The natural cycles will change and the earth will cool again. I have no objection to conservation and am all for a clean environment. However, I think it is foolish to spend trillions of dollars and ruin our economy over this hyped global warming hysteria.
Obama has the most liberal voting record in the senate and is basically a closet socialist. Staying in a church for twenty years where a minister preached and taught anti-American and racist principles does not speak well for his discernment, judgment, or character. I reject everything he stands for and unlike so many in America, I know where he stands on many issues.
Is there anything really wrong with being a Socialist? Our own socialist party, (the Labour party) have been responsible for bringing in such things as the National Health Service, a minimum wage, proper working hours, fair pay for work, equal wages for women and a lot more. This is why I am a Socialist. I want to work for a fairer community.
If Obama does become president, how does that fare with your opinion at rulers of a country are God ordained. Will your conscience allow you to follow, respect him and agree that he is the right man?
Thanks for the further comments on global warming. I'm off now to take my dog for a walk before it rains yet again. See you later!
Loren,
I did a post on these questions rather than have a long comment....
Post a Comment