How can anyone support Obama?

[DZoolander]

Well, then you and I are kinda on the same page then Romanov.

I also do not believe in a one-day creation of Adam...and...lots of fundies might be offended by this...but I don't believe the Bible is to be interpreted literally. I don't believe there was ever any Adam, nor Eve, nor Eden, nor fruit from the tree of knowledge of good/evil, etc. I think all of that is completely symbolic in nature.

I do, however, believe that there is some kind of guiding force (God). I don't necessarily know what part I believe it played in evolution...nor can I really take a stand on what hand It took in designing everything. There's a huge part of me that sees the miracle of complexity within life as not necessarily something that needed a divine guiding hand - but rather the end result of necessity built upon the countless other iterations that failed.

Ya know?

I think that when it boils down to it - what we'll eventually find is that "life" itself is simply the consumption/conversion of carbon energy. It's simply a chemical reaction. Living creatures (whether it be plants, animals, or whatever) are just variations of a theme which exists to prolong the chemical reaction.

 

[mpok1519]

a boggled mind, someone's name in the sand, is not God evidence.

If I write my name in the snow, its evidence that I, me, wrote my name in the snow; not an inellegent being created the universe.

 

[Gawron]

Going back to the OP question:

"How can anyone support Obama?"

Read Orwell, for one, the answer is there.

 

[xMinionX]

Well, then you and I are kinda on the same page then Romanov.

I also do not believe in a one-day creation of Adam...and...lots of fundies might be offended by this...but I don't believe the Bible is to be interpreted literally. I don't believe there was ever any Adam, nor Eve, nor Eden, nor fruit from the tree of knowledge of good/evil, etc. I think all of that is completely symbolic in nature.

I do, however, believe that there is some kind of guiding force (God). I don't necessarily know what part I believe it played in evolution...nor can I really take a stand on what hand It took in designing everything. There's a huge part of me that sees the miracle of complexity within life as not necessarily something that needed a divine guiding hand - but rather the end result of necessity built upon the countless other iterations that failed.

Ya know?

I think that when it boils down to it - what we'll eventually find is that "life" itself is simply the consumption/conversion of carbon energy. It's simply a chemical reaction. Living creatures (whether it be plants, animals, or whatever) are just variations of a theme which exists to prolong the chemical reaction.

+ rep, great post.

 

[Staccato]

Read Orwell, for one, the answer is there.

Could you explain further?

 

[lemmings]

Going back to the OP question:

"How can anyone support Obama?"

Read Orwell, for one, the answer is there.

We elected Obana to end the Orwellian pactaces of the Bush administration, namely spying of the civilian population as well as political opponents and the press.

 

[DZoolander]

We elected Obana to end the Orwellian pactaces of the Bush administration, namely spying of the civilian population as well as political opponents and the press.

I agree.

After the past 8 years, and what was done in the name of "security" - I have a real hard time seeing anything people say about Obama/etc being Orwellian as anything but disingenuous.

 

[DZoolander]

What I'm curious about - with respect to people that support Intelligent Design...

How exactly do you reconcile Intelligent Design with your concept of Original Sin/The Fall of Man?

With traditional Creationism - it's wrapped in a nice little bow (although in my humble opinion it makes God out to be egregiously unfair... What just creature would hold the sins of the father against the offspring?) Adam and Eve sin - they lose their status of being perfect/sinless beings due to their own selfish choices/despite what God wanted - and subsequently all of their offspring suffer the same consequence.

However - if you go the route of Evolution/Intelligent Design - there really is no "Adam and Eve". There are no singular progenitors to whom you can point and go "A-Ha!! That's where it started!" The guiding hand of God allowed man (through design) to develop over eons - and by the time it truly was "man" - it's already a species. There's no single set of progenitors to cast us into sinfulness.

How exactly do people that support ID deal with that? If there could not have been an original sin - do you believe that God just designed us to be flawed/sinful from the get-go - that we really had no part in that - and therefore it's simply God's design alone that allows us to potentially suffer eternal damnation? How exactly does that work?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

I agree.

After the past 8 years, and what was done in the name of "security" - I have a real hard time seeing anything people say about Obama/etc being Orwellian as anything but disingenuous.

There's more to Orwell than just the Big Brother's Visage being plastered all over the place.

(Gee. Whose visage have we seen plastered all over the place?)

 

[DZoolander]

There's more to Orwell than just the Big Brother's Visage being plastered all over the place.

Precisely my point

 

[romanov]

We elected Obana to end the Orwellian pactaces of the Bush administration, namely spying of the civilian population as well as political opponents and the press.

Well, that did not work out so well.

 

[fated]

Well, that did not work out so well.

I bet they still do it now. I bet if you wrote an email that says you aren't a terrorist and don't plan on bombing Barak Obama, I bet it gets filtered somewhere. I also be someone in the government enforcement reads this specific post because it contains words like Obama and bomb. Like President Obama is the Bomb against terrorists... that's a good one.

BUT, the president apparently have the prerogative to do that. The problem seems to be that businesses cooperated. There could have been a problem if the actual traces lead people to material damages, but that doesn't seem to have happened.

What say you now?

 

[fated]

You know what I find humorous:

President Lays Wreath at Tomb of Unknowns - ABC News

President Lays Wreath at Tomb of Unknowns

Last week, a group of about 60 professors petitioned the White House, asking the first black U.S. president to break tradition and not memorialize military members from the Confederacy, the group of Southern states that supported slavery.

They thought that this would have a chance. Like he wants to be 'that guy.'

 

[tanzanos]

I know science can not explain the jump from a non-living mass to a living one. All the theories have done is move the problem from this planet to another, or from carbon based to silicone.

Science to me has done more to prove the existence of G_D than it has disproven it. The complexities on the plant alone are mind boggling.

Science and religion both require a leap of faith. So in that way creationism is just as much science as evolution.

I am sure that when primitive tribes first came into contact with the technologically more advanced explorers; they must have stood in awe and disbelief at the magical and incomprehensible things like telescopes and lighters that the explorers brought with them. I find you to be in want of scientific erudition and therefore your opinion on matters concerning science as invalid and null!
"Ignorance is no excuse"; Science has been offered to you and you have refused to grant it audience!

Now have a nice day

 

[fated]

I am sure that when primitive tribes first came into contact with the technologically more advanced explorers; they must have stood in awe and disbelief at the magical and incomprehensible things like telescopes and lighters that the explorers brought with them. I find you to be in want of scientific erudition and therefore your opinion on matters concerning science as invalid and null!
"Ignorance is no excuse"; Science has been offered to you and you have refused to grant it audience!

Now have a nice day

Oh, ya?

I've been contemplating contemporary feminism, and I'm drawn back to ancient tribes, within a philosophical sphere and Catholic theological sphere it appears that the idols of these ancient tribes seems to confirm my thoughts that the pregnant female has some elevated dignity, possibly its application in rights and responsibilities conferred having brought people some semblance of peace in the war between the sexes for... about all time...

That is to say that many or all but one (a snake) of the oldest idols I am aware of are idols of an admittedly sexualized female, though one could easily conclude pregnancy, and at very least fertility. Within Catholic theology we have our Lady of Guadalupe, and in our legal traditions some special laws.

 

[Gracchus]

a boggled mind, someone's name in the sand, is not God evidence.

If I write my name in the snow, its evidence that I, me, wrote my name in the snow; not an inellegent being created the universe.

Actually it is evidence that someone wrote a name in the snow. Perhaps it wasn't you. And, my name is not common, but there are at least seven other people in the US who share it. So perhaps whoever wrote the name was writing someone else's name in the snow, and it was mistakenly thought to refer to you.

One has to be careful not to read more into the evidence than is actually there.

 

[tanzanos]

One has to be careful not to read more into the evidence than is actually there.

If it is evidence at all!

 

[fated]

Conservatives prepare for Supreme battle

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Conservatives prepare for Supreme battle - Blogs from CNN.com

...

"If [President Obama] was to nominate somebody who was anti-death penalty, pro-gay marriage, you know – took a very extreme view on the separation of church and state, etc, or against any restriction on partial birth abortion… I think this could really be a 70-30 type issue for the Republican Party." said Levy, meaning it would have 70 percent support from Republicans.

...

"Judge Wood's judicial views have on occasion been far outside mainstream legal thought and appear driven by her personal policy views. In NOW v. Scheidler, she wrote an opinion applying RICO – a statute designed for mob prosecutions – to prevent pro-life activists from engaging in protests. The Supreme Court reversed with Justices Ginsburg's and Breyer's concurrence," reads the conservative talking points.

This seems like the riskiest pick for Obama to make. Here is a judge that is probably going to get another decision overturned, in which she sided with a town that chose to reject all the applications and tests for a group of job candidates, because the only ones to meet the requirements were white.

This judge would almost certainly be extremely, extremely liberal on the bench. And I don't make such a judgment lightly.

It is likewise difficult to comprehend how she believed the burden of proof was met to conclude that pro-life protestors could be equated with mobsters.

I think, if the GOP plays its cards right, voting this candidate onto the Supreme Court could prove challenging for several Democrats, including majority leader Harry Reid, whose popularity would certainly plummet if he didn't strongly question this selection, if not vote against it.

And, of course, it is simple to conclude that this justice almost assuredly supports partial birth abortion and has a low threshold for censoring voices she disagrees with from the public marketplace of ideas.

 

[fated]

Actually, it looks like the Judiciary Committee is putting off the hearing for 60 days or so, and the Harry Reid is in no hurry either. Which actually fits the tactic that challenging her is risky, particularly for Obama, but that they 'insist' on her confirmation with no drama. Thus, the time period allows the legislature to fatten itself on divisive legislation by giving itself so much time.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Sixty percent of her rulings have been overturned!