Posted on 06/10/2004 12:19:49 AM PDT by kattracks
June 10, 2004 -- NOW is a good time to look back at the landslide win that sent Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980, because lots of analysts think 2004 could turn out the same way — close for a long time and then suddenly breaking wide open. In 1980, the break came just days before the vote, when Democrat Jimmy Carter finally agreed to debate. Reagan came off as sunny instead of scary and when he admonished Carter with a smile, "There you go again," it was all over.Like President Bush, Carter faced voters nervous over both the economy and foreign policy and wondering whether it's time for a change — in Carter's case, skyrocketing inflation at home plus the endless Iran hostage crisis.
But there's a big difference, since Carter kept getting bad news on both fronts, while Bush is starting to get good news on both the economy, with a surge in new jobs, and Iraq, with international support for the June 30 transfer of power.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Actually, the "Hinduism" in Nazism is a bogus interpretation, using some Sanskrit terms such as "aryan" and the swastika symbol. Kind of like Satanists reading the Bible backwards.
In Sanskrit, "Aryan" indicates a spiritually based culture - a society based on following the rules of the Vedas to ensure everyone's gradual spiritual enlightenment. It has nothing to do with racial purity; in fact, the very idea of racial purity is in direct opposition to the essence of Aryanism which is that the person is not the body, but rather an eternal spiritual soul or atma.
Regarding swastika, the word "swasti" in Sanskrit means "good fortune" or "beneficent" and is a symbol of wellbeing and blessing. For the Nazis to use it as a symbol of world domination and torture is reprehensible.
The Theosophical ideas were pretty much invented out of whole cloth by Blavatsky and her student (and possible homosexual partner), Annie Besant. The whole group Theosophists were indeed the forerunners of a lot of New Age cr*p, taking words, phrases, or ideas from this and that (including the Vedas) and misusing, misrepresenting, and adding their own darkness.
Satanist use the Bible, too. But no one can accuse them of being Christians!
Depends on what you mean as "verification". Personally, I doubt at this point the intelligence services are going to "play games" with a topic like this, given the noted failures they have produced, given Tenets resignation.
We are better served, in my opinion, by thinking bin Laden is alive, til we have his head on a platter.
Religion may not be sufficient to keep a society going but ist is required in any non highly homogenous population. A secifically JudaeoChristian background is required to produce a modern economy. The Communist religion was not sufficient. The state was maintained by a ruthless very small ruling class with Terror- classic government by terror, not the modern definition that calls a pipebomb in a mailbox terrorism. That must degenerate into pure rule with no real ideological content. Stalin was that development in the Soviet Union. The Soviet economy, for all the lives expended and all the resources used, a failure. They couldn't do it. It did not for a number of years reach the level of the 1916 economy. What economic improvement occurred was only possible because Russia had the Western economies to copy prices from. They had no other way to know the value or price af anything and could put that outside information to use only inefficiently. They had to copy the signals in the JudaeoChristian derived economies and couldn't get it right.
Germany neither WAS nor IS a Christian nation. From the turn of the 20th Century onward, Germany cannot in any way be considered a Christian nation.
Japan is a highly homogenous society and has a true religious background. The religion itself has faded as specific belief system but has left a complex system of social interaction. The high degree of homogeneity in Japanese society, unique in large populations, allowed for business because the whole society was/is essentially a single family. The great businesses grew as family businesses do but were unable until recently to deal outside of "family" lines. The Japanese broke through that ceiling by consciously adopting Western methods and extending confidence in others' outside the family circle in their foreign operations. In Japan itself that still doesn't work so well and has been a major contributor to the 16 year depression. That Japan is finally coming out of that depression showis because the Western system is being further integrated with the family system.
Mental illness/heart illness/soul illness.
Even if the majority of Americans are not practicing Christians their interrelationships are still based on that tradition. No there is no Atheist morality, just about by definition. That does not mean that an atheist does not share the same ideas as Christians. For the Christian morality is of God and he can't change the system. He can evade it or oppose it but he can't change it. For the atheist there is no such thing. He can determine with his reason what are the most useful relationships for how he wants to live. He may use the word but it is not the same word when he does. In a Christian or other religious based society the atheist is stuck with the morality of the dominant culture.In a Communist state there is no morality because social requirements are arbitrary and capricious. They change with the perceived requirements of the boss. "Morality" is what seems beneficial right now by the ruler. Communist rule is just oldtime absolute monarchy without the perceived legitimacy.
Most people would not consider me a Christian (although I might differ with their interpretation); I won't fit into that box. Sectarianism is the enemy of truth.
The concept of the universe as a machine without a creator of said machine falls into category #1. It is a subset, or just another way of saying the same thing. If something has no creator, then it has no purpose or meaning.
For some reason, you like to twist my position that absolute morality exists into a desire to "be" morally superior.
You ought to ask yourself why you do that.
Yeah, kind of. A Christian Society does not mean a society full of righteous Christians nor even one that still acts superficially as Christians should. Religion provides the standard, the background against which actions are measured. Not everyone lives to the standard and as we push religion further away from the center it takes more and pettier laws to maintain the society.
While I agree with you that the election will be decided by event that are yet to happen, I don't have quite the pessimistic view that you have. For starters, if events take a turn for the worse, Kerry has to actually be capable of capitalizing on them. Secondly, all indicators point to things taking a turn for the better.
Sure I may discount Kerry because I don't like him, but from what I see he's not winning anyone over who isn't staunchly anti-Bush anyways. From what I see, all the Bush haters will hold their noses and vote for Kerry, but he's not actually convincing anyone of anything.
Reagan was able to unseat Carter because he actually had a positive message and a clear vision. Reagan had a reason to be president. John Kerry has never even tried to pretend that he does, and if he did, no one would believe him.
The one question I have regarding Kerry is: does his stiff patrician demeanor and his measured monotone speaking style make him appear as important and authoritive, or self-important and aloof to the average voter?
Compared to Bush's more casual demeanor and shall we say, "inexact" speaking style, will this be a positive, a negative, or a wash for Kerry?
regarding Bush getting credit for the economic recovery, I imagine that as the election approaches, people will begin to take notice. He certainly has done all he can to take credit for it, and get the message out, making it one of his central themes at every speech. It is not Bush's fault if the media ignores the recovery and keeps talking the economy down despite the facts and his speeches. You may notice that a new campaign ad from Bush about the economy has begun airing. This should have some effect. Remember, we're just now at the point in the election cycle when campaigns begin in earnest.
The one thing that I'm really confused by is that you say of the states that could flip for Bush, "perhaps Oregon". It's the only one that you added the extra hurdle of "perhaps".
Of all the states that Gore won last election, Oregon is the MOST likely to go for Bush this time. He barely lost there, and he's been polling at tied or ahead of Kerry there. It could easily go for him without any election altering event.
the war is won or is obviously to all a necessarily much larger war than just arresting OBL. The intelligence agencies aren't really saying anything about these tapes. They just mumble that it could be and it's awfully hard to tell, and let other people make the necessary news assumptions. The dude is cold.
If I thought my saying it would make Senator Kennedy believe it I would shut my mouth.
So long as our guys don't anounce that he is dead (and they can't truly know that unless they have, indeed, found the DNA) then Teddy can't say hey he's dead the war is over we have to bring the troops home from Iraq.
I understand. Keep praying. :-)
And Kerry wouold say HOORAY! THE WAR IS OVER! Now elect me and I will Bring The Boys Home.
We can let him be dead after Iraq is secured and Iran is collapsing.
Agreed.
Yes, there were, but they didn't push Gore over the edge, did they? They tried every trick in the book, but nothing worked. Bush won every recount. I see God's hand in that.
Notice I didn't say that God made people vote any particular way, but I do believe he prevented Gore's fraud from changing the outcome.
As to the upcoming election, I pray daily that God will grant wisdom and guidance to the voters. I do not pray for anyone to vote for any particular candidate.
If you wanted to have a serious discussion about God and the universe I would be more than happy to have one. But obviously you only want to use whatever I say as a stick to attack with.
Do you accuse everyone who posits the existence of God and moral absolutes as attempting to prove their own moral etc superiority over yours? Why are you taking my arguments as a personal attack?
I am merely pointing out the errors or mistakes in your viewpoint.
You ought to question why you are accusing me of claiming moral superiority. I never made such claims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.