Posted on 02/19/2008 4:55:34 PM PST by K-oneTexas
Why I Will Vote for McCain Conservative resolve (mine, not his).
By Daniel Oliver
John McCain is not a conservative, but I will vote for him anyway.
After all, in 1952, conservatives, grumbling that Ohio senator Robert “Mr. Republican” Taft had not been nominated, voted for Eisenhower because he was clearly the better alternative to Adlai Stevenson. And they voted for Ike again over Stevenson in 1956.
In 1971, a Who’s Who of conservatives, including the senior editors of National Review, suspended their support of President Nixon because of both his domestic-policy failures and his tendencies in foreign policy.
In 1972, however, National Review endorsed the reelection of Nixon, describing the Democratic candidate, George McGovern, as “not something with which a grown-up superpower can play.”
Was Eisenhower a conservative? No. Nixon? No. Bush (either one)? No. McCain? No. Republicans, yes — it’s a famously big tent — and with some conservative positions. But having conservative positions is not the same as being a conservative.
What is a conservative? Essentially, someone who is temperamentally suspicious of government. That’s why conservatives argue for limited government, economic freedom, low taxes, and fewer regulations. The bumper-sticker version might be: “If in doubt, keep government out.” That demonstrates a healthy skepticism of both government’s competence (think Katrina clean-up) and its fuzzy benevolence, which generally involves toying with any activity that begins with the letters A through Z, scolding people for their behavior (and, er, persuading them to change it), or redistributing their wealth.
The skeptical view of the redistributionist function of government can be described, with apologies to William Graham Sumner, as A and B deciding how much C should give to D.
The behavior-modification efforts of government can be seen in innumerable campaigns and diktats like anti-smoking and anti-obesity crusades and campaign-financing laws.
A useful rule of thumb is: No one who voted for, or signed, the McCain-Feingold Act can be considered a conservative. Unless he recants and repents.
John McCain also opposed Bush’s tax cuts (though his vote may have been less an anti-tax-cut vote than an intemperate anti-Bush vote — but that is not good either) and he favors global-warming programs that most conservatives think are foolish and harmful (if in doubt, keep government out). And — sigh! — he favors importing prescription drugs from Canada, which is not just economic nonsense of the first order but suggests college-level economic illiteracy.
Nevertheless, McCain is clearly a Republican, with some conservative positions. He has promised to appoint judges who will interpret the law, not make it. He has promised to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. And he has promised to fight government spending, to veto any bill with earmarks, and to roll back entitlement programs—positions that, these days, it is an act of nostalgia to describe as “Republican.”
Meanwhile, Senator Barack Obama has been named the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate by National Journal. Senator Clinton can’t be far behind. Against them, Senator McCain would seem the obvious choice for conservatives. But some of them think a term or two in the political wilderness would be beneficial.
Conservatives have been here before. As National Review said in 1972, “There are those, including some of our colleagues, who believe that four years of McGovern would catalyze a recrudescent conservatism. We disagree that the chance is worth taking. McGovern is the erector set of big-think intellectuals, otherworldly dreamers, and children. Belloc warned that dangerous toys should not be given to little boys.”
Senator McCain might help his cause with conservatives if he stopped calling himself a conservative. He is damaging their brand name. And conservatives should stop, now, demanding that he be a conservative: that is not a condition precedent for being the better choice for president. Conservatives should remember that the fault McCain is not a conservative is partly their own: They have not succeeded in making conservatism the iPod in the marketplace of political philosophies.
To conservatives, John McCain sounds like the Devil. That is his fault, not theirs. He has dissed them and enjoyed it. That is not presidential, and if he does not stop he will not be president. He should make—and is making—amends, and not for his own sake, or for the conservatives’, but for the country’s.
It is time for conservatives to accept reality (accepting reality is another conservative trait); and the reality is (1) John McCain will be the Republican nominee for president and (2) he will make a far better president than the Democratic alternative.
Dangerous toys should not be given to little boys.
Or to little girls.
— Daniel Oliver was chairman of the Federal Trade Commission under President Reagan. He is now a senior director at White House Writers Group and chairman of the board of National Review.
No we do not really have a big problem with them. I know that North Carolina has a big issue right now. I think that NM has a bigger problem than Ohio. I am not sure what part of Ohio you were visiting and how you “knew” they were illegals.
I’m sure there are illegals in every state of this union but Ohio is not one of the top problem areas - they probably don’t like the cold weather up here. You have peaked my curiosity, however, so I’m going to see what I can Google on this.
Hey I found a link that lists the believed stats on illegals for each state - VERY interesting.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_est_num_of_ill_imm-people-estimated-number-illegal-immigrants
Sorry to bug you again but I had a funny thought. Now that we know the suspected numbers - why don’t we just go state by state and round up the small numbers first. Right?
We can start in Hawaii and try to get rid of the 2,000. Then we can move on to the other states. Well...... it’s a thought.
I was right about them not liking the cold however. And coincidently, the state you mentioned that had a lot less than Ohio - New Mexico - is right next to us on the list.
The problem is, Western nations keep moving leftward, so each non-conservative Republican is further to the left than the previous one. We're then instructed to vote for them anyway, since the Democrat is worse.
In 2020, the GOP nominee will be a supporter of same-sex "marriage", abortion-on-demand, race quotas, and suppression of talk radio, but we'll be asked to support him because the Democrat candidate will be for all that plus human-animal "marriage", infanticide for downs syndrome newborns, reparations, and suppression of the internet.
I'm surprised that you would find NM high on that list. NM residents don't think so. Reasons for that are that NM doesn't have a very robust economy and not much agriculture. As for cold climates? WA state has one of the biggest populations of illegal aliens and naturalized hispanics (formerly illegals in many cases) because of their large agricultural economy.
Perhaps they were just more visible along the Interstate in the mid-western states I traveled through because that is where you would see farm workers traveling to and from work. Migrant worker communities are certainly more visible in WA state than in NM. Even the grocery stores in WA have a better, bigger selection of imported Mexican food products than you will find in NM in spite of NMs 300+ year history of Spanish/Mexican/Indian influence. Sure surprised me.
I see CO above WA slightly on that chart but it's darned hard to find a good selection of Mexican food products here. Though much better than 15 years ago. I know that's kind of anecdotal evidence but those stores aren't stocking shelves for kicks.
It’s not that I found them high; just that they were one below Ohio. I always thought Washington’s weather was pretty mild compared to what kind of winters we get here, up in the Northeast, and especially up in the Dakotas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc. There was nothing scientific about my thought, just a feeling.
I think you are right about attrition. I do feel strongly also about us not giving them privileges (like driving) or allowing their children to become citizens if born here. I especially get upset when I hear that they have gotten college help!
I don't think so. I have been a practicing Buddhist for almost ten years.
Karma is about how you will come back reincarnated at a level based on what you did in your previous incarnation -
That is absolutely incorrect. Karma (Sanskrit for 'action') has nothing to do with reincarnation. The belief in reincarnation is based on the law of karma but karma is in no way dependent on a belief in reincarnation. It's full meaning, as taught in every Buddhist school and sect, is that actions have consequences. That is it. There is nothing whatsoever else to it other than the explanation that causes have conditions. But that is only saying that actions have consequences in a different way.
If "you reap what you sow" doesn't mean "actions have consequences" I would like to know what it does mean.
A lot of people use the term very loosely but it does have a very specific an unique meaning.
Now you know the specific meaning as it has been taught to me by a number of authentic teachers of Buddhism and numerous ancient doctrines. What you have been told is baloney.
"The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad offers a succinct explanation of the workings of karma: 'Now as a man is like this or like that, according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will be be....' Thus, individuals who lived virtuous lives and fulfilled all their duties could expect rebirth into a purer and more honorable existence - for example, into a higher and more distinguished caste. Those who accumulated a heavy burden of karma, however, would suffer in a future incarnation by being reborn into a difficult existence, or perhaps even into the body of an animal or an insect." (bold emphasis is mine)
Whoo Hoo! Gotta love this kind of belief system!
Perhaps Buddhist karma is slightly different from Indian karma, the karma that was originally taught by the Upanishads.
I have studied a little bit about karma Do you believe in reincarnation or not?
As for the Buddha, he was a very wealthy and pampered man who chose to give it all up to seek salvation. One of Buddha's primary truths (one of his Four Noble Truths) is that desire is the cause of suffering and that eliminating this desire brings an end to that suffering. What a crock - an absolute and pathetic crock! While to be sure, some suffering IS from desires, to say that desire is THE cause of suffering is just sheer lunacy. If I am burned in a horrible fire and am suffering intense physical pain, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with desire. Some African baby that is born to a dying mother and is suffering from starvation - is he suffering because of desire? No, he's starving to death - he's in pain - are you telling me it's wrong for the baby to want and need food? He doesn't even understand or comprehend why he's in agony and suffering!
I am always in frank amazement about what is so attractive about these kinds of religions that offer no true salvation and no true peace. As for the Noble Eightfold Path that demands right belief, right resolve, right speech, right occupation, right effort, right contemplation, and right meditation, RIGHT as compared to whom or what? Who determines right? Right according to Hitler? To Ghandi? To Mother Theresa? To Buddha? To you? To me? One of the reasons for Buddhism's huge growth was that it avoided using the Sanskrit of the literary Vedas and used the vernacular speech that the people used - it was able to reach many more people that way and resonated with them. It took out the formality of working through the Brahmin priests so it was easy for people.
I will grant you that Buddhists are generally good people and are peaceful and loving. I have only known a couple of true Buddhists. Whether they practice the type of karma that the Hindus do, I do not presently know at this time, but I can assure you that my understanding of karma is absolutely right.
And if there aren’t enough, Hussein Obama will win.
Karma is the law of cause and effect. Period. That book is complete crap.
'Now as a man is like this or like that, according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will be be....'
That sounds more like a Psalm from the Bible than any Buddhist text I've ever read. In fact it sounds almost word for word from the Bible but I don't recall the passage name and number.
Thus, individuals who lived virtuous lives and fulfilled all their duties could expect rebirth into a purer and more honorable existence -
That is not an explanation of cause and effect it is a Hindu description of reincarnation. A really poor description. It sure isn't how reincarnation is described in Tibetan Buddhism and probably not any other form. But 'karma' is the law of cause and effect and nothing more. Either reincarnation happens or it doesn't. I have no knowledge about it one way or the other. If it does happen it has to follow the law of cause and effect. If it doesn't happen the law of cause and effect still exists. What you reap so shall ye sow. The proof of cause and effect is all around us.
If I am burned in a horrible fire and am suffering intense physical pain, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with desire.
Desire is a poor transliteration from the Sanskrit. Lust is also used, so is attachment and wanting. There is no English word that works perfectly. How did you get in the fire? Some action you took led you to get into that situation.
African baby that is born to a dying mother and is suffering from starvation - is he suffering because of desire? No, he's starving to death - he's in pain - are you telling me it's wrong for the baby to want and need food?
The desire for food causes the mental anguish does it not? In point of fact there comes a time in the starvation process where the pain ceases. Does the body stop needing food? No, the mind stops focusing on hunger and suffering is no longer experienced. Just like a drowning person experiences a state of euphoria after the pain and panic is let go of. The body is still going through a process of destruction. What has changed?
RIGHT as compared to whom or what? Who determines right?
Again the transliteration is difficult. It is not right as in right and wrong. Dualistic thinking is the problem. Right, as meant in the Eightfold path, means 'correct' in terms of "appropriate to the path." It has nothing to do with good/bad, right/wrong etc. It refers to what works, or at a minimum, what doesn't create problems for the practice. It has nothing to do with morals or ethics and no meaning outside the context of Buddhist practice. It isn't meant to.
One of the reasons for Buddhism's huge growth was that it avoided using the Sanskrit of the literary Vedas and used the vernacular speech that the people used - it was able to reach many more people that way and resonated with them. It took out the formality of working through the Brahmin priests so it was easy for people.
That doesn't make any sense to me. First of all the Vedas are very much a part of the Buddhist canon. But they are used and interpreted according to a completely unique Buddhist view. Hinduism, of which the Brahmin priests were a part of, had no Four Noble Truths. They don't recognize it or practice it AFAIK. Buddhism took a lot of cultural iconography from Hinduism and numerous other Indian religious and cultural practices but that's just cultural baggage having nothing to do with core Buddhist views.
The same thing happens with Christianity when it's introduced to new cultures. You can see that in American Indian Christianity, South Pacific, Asian and African Christianity to name a few. They all wed their cultural ideas, whether religious or not, into Christianity. None of which changes what Christianity is at its core. Same thing with Buddhism and East Indian cultural views which naturally includes Hinduism. Even the belief in reincarnation can be seen as cultural baggage. Cause and effect exists and works whether you believe in it or not.
I will grant you that Buddhists are generally good people and are peaceful and loving.
Garbage. "Buddhists" are just people like any other people. Just like Christians or people who follow any other religion only a small fraction take it seriously and do anything with it. The rest just like to associate themselves with a group they perceive as "good" and follow it when it suits them and do as they please when that suits them.
I don’t need to read that. I know what Obama wants to do with our pensions and etc. I know what Hillary wants to do and I know what McCain wants to do. I have no doubt who is the least damaging to what I think is important. Does that mean it will come to pass? No, but I have to go on the issues as they are now. I don’t need to read everyone’s crystal ball ideas or interpretations of every little bit of minutia.
No crystal ball ... just a decade’s worth of documented historical incidences of McCain snubbing conservative values. You’ve done your research and it seems you are comfortable voting for McCain. That’s fine. Vote your conscience and do it. I won’t pester you to change your mind. I only want you to understand why I ... we ... on the other side of the coin cannot. We have more battles with liberalism ahead, and on battlefields you and I can more clearly agree upon. Until then ...
Support McCain? Some people seem almost eager to adopt the role of masochists.
I’m not doubting you at all. I’m just looking at my options in this multiple choice question:
1. Who should be the next President of the U.S.
a. Hillary Clinton
b. John McCain
c. Barack Obama
I remember the old rule of choosing the BEST answer. I’ve taken many tests where none of the answers quite were what I wanted and so I’d pick the best of the ones.
That’s what I’m doing now. Mitt Romney was my 1st choice and I was really disappointed when he pulled out. I don’t know which way you were leaning. I liked a couple of the people in there for a variety of reasons and John McCain was really the last on my list (well, actually Rudy was for me).
"and my confidence in karma makes [me] hope and fear both distractions rooted in focusing on the past or future."
All I did was mention that as a Christian I do not subscribe to the belief in karma. You could have just accepted my statement and moved on - but you chose to "correct" me. Incidentally, when I said I didn't believe in it, I wasn't insulting your belief, merely stating that I do not subscribe.
You are apparently very evangelical in your efforts to educate people on Buddhism (e.g. your "about page"), and likewise, I am evangelical in my beliefs. Thus, I do not like to see people make non-existent connections between Christianity and pagan ideologies.
The Christian belief in sowing what one reaps is vastly different from karma. Whether you believe in the Indian version of karma that I have read much about, or not, obviously only you know, and I will gladly admit on here that I know very little about Buddhism. I know some basic history, and some of the fundamental beliefs but I also know there are different forms of Buddhism and don't begin to pretend I understand the subtleties between them; but please, please do not try to equate any of this with Christian doctrine. Many people probably already believe this, and very erroneously so I might add. The term "karma" is tossed about frequently, even by so-called Christians.
Furthermore, you are the person who used terms such as, "that book is a bunch of crap" and so on and became extremely defensive. I never called you a liar; I only said that the things I have read did not did not agree with what you say you know. Of course, you are not about to let a "western" professor, or any textbook, or anything and everything I have read in the past 30 years on this topic get in the way. It obviously is all completely and totally in error, while you have the corner of the market on truth. At least I gave you some citations - you have given me nothing.
Regarding your statement:
"Buddhism comes from the east and is simply not understood by westerners",
All I can say is, "You understand it, right?" Shall I assume that you are not a westerner? Can a Buddhist understand Christianity, Judaism, or even Islam? You insist that karma is the same as the Christian belief of reaping and sowing. As a Buddhist, perhaps you just simply cannot understand Christian things.
As far as myself wanting to understand Buddhism, I only wish to understand it insofar as it helps me to better communicate the differences in my faith. It is not only important to know what Christianity teaches, but to know what others teach. The chasm between us is significant. Finally, I have great courage and conviction about Christianity, which is why I felt compelled to address the karma comment to begin with. I was not trying to, as you stated, "take [you] to task," so go ahead and post the whole conversation. I was trying to be polite and keep this off a McCain thread.
Buddhism and Our Ongoing Conversation
From Paved Paradise | 02/24/2008 3:24:28 PM MST repliedI’m talking this off the thread - it’s getting too deep for the topic of that thread.....
I find it interesting that you think the book is complete crap. I have read about karma in numerous books and it has always been directly linked with reincarnation. Incidentally, I noticed you never answered the ? I asked you about whether you personally subscribe to this belief.
Also, you said my quote sounded like a Psalm but I gave you the book it was from - it came from the “Brhadaranyaka Upanishad” which was the book written by the Upanishads.
As for your explanation about a baby having mental anguish from starving because it is his “desire for food [causing] the mental anguish.” Talk about LOL! The baby doesn’t even understand desire or food or anything on any intellectual level whatsoever. Do you even have the most basic understanding of human development at all? As for the point in time when pain stops during starvation that you mention - yeah, you’re right - when the person becomes comatose and body literally shuts down.... As for the mind stopping its focus. See, this is what drives me crazy about these kinds of religious beliefs. Would you as a Buddhist help a person suffering? Or would you simply just go on your merry old way and think that he would eventually reach a point of no longer experiencing such a selfish state as wanting (e.g. wanting water, food, or even air!) Even the Buddha started on his personal journey because he saw some poor peasant suffering miserably and because he was raised in such an indulgent manner, it bit at his conscience. That’s about the only good thing I can say about Gautama.
Furthermore, you talk about euphoria when a person drowns. I have heard of stories of people drowning and being rescued and it is sheer and utter horror and terror. Otherwise, if euphoria was there, water boarding would not be an issue, now would it?
And as for your comments about being “corect” as regards being “appropriate TO the path,” I submit to you the same basic line of questioning. WHAT path? Whose path? Who decided the path? This is such B.S. and I do not laugh about it because there are people lost in this kind of belief - lost and doomed to hell and I do not find that funny one little bit. Sorry about that my friend.
At least I can be authentic and say that my faith, Christianity, has God as the author of my belief system. When you ask ME who made the rules and whose path I follow, I have a very simple answer.
Finally, the quotes I gave you from the Upanishads and the info on the Vedas is all stuff from India that was out there well before Buddha.
The reason I said Buddhists were loving and peaceful is because I have never heard of them doing anything evil on a big scale, but then again, they don’t do much of anything do they? They sit in their little monasteries and meditate but I have never seen or heard of any major Buddhist missions where they went out and clothed people, fed people, and tended to them. I have never heard of anything! Nothing! Maybe you can enlighten me on this topic. In fact, I’m going to check it out for myself.
One last comment - I am not trying to “straighten out” your views by any comments made by a western professor. I am, however, trying to tell you that there are numerous scholarly works written about karma that seem to completely disagree with YOU. Also, I see you used the term “western” as if it’s some kind of flaw. Meanwhile, you have no idea who the professor is or who the authors of the textbook are, much less the numerous books the textbook cites, etc.
I may not know everything but I know that eastern thought is not superior to western thought.
Re: Buddhism and Our Ongoing Conversation
To Paved Paradise | 02/24/2008 3:32:10 PM MST sentI can understand why you didn’t want to post more of your nastiness and prejudice on the open forum.
Tell you what; I know what I know, you believe what you believe.
Re: Buddhism and Our Ongoing Conversation
From Paved Paradise | 02/25/2008 10:44:49 AM MST repliedI did not think what I posted was nasty nor was it appropriate to continue this line of topic on the thread - it had veered far off course.
I have no idea why you felt my comments were “nasty.” If you told me that Buddhists believed I wasn’t going to attain “nirvana” or your version of heaven, it would not bother me and I would not think it nasty of you to say. I might believe you are very wrong however and try to reason with you. I have an Uncle who is a Jehovah’s Witness. He thinks he’s doing his job when he “shares” and I respect that. If one truly believes his way is the right and good way, it is only natural to want to convict others of that belief as well.
The Bible says, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end, it leads to death.” What you “know” is very limited by your finite mind and you cannot “know” what you “know” anymore than I can - but that’s why it’s called faith.
I happen to think “your way” is leading to death. I am not going to make an apology for that; I didn’t make that up for my own sake and it’s a very hard truth. As St. Paul said that the fragrance of Christ is life to those who believe but it is the very stench of death to those who do not. I am afraid what you have gotten from me is the stench of death and for that I will make no apology.
Re: Buddhism and Our Ongoing Conversation
To Paved Paradise | 02/25/2008 11:49:13 AM MST sentYou took the conversation off track not me. With your first post you started insulting me. You also basically called me a liar. Repeatedly. If you think I like that you’re wrong.
I know what I know about Buddhism because I am a Buddhist and have practiced and studied it for ten years. However “limited” my knowledge of it is it is far greater than what some western professor or you know about it. It has nothing to do with the quality of “western” thought. Buddhism comes from the east and is simply not understood by westerners particularly those who aren’t Buddhists.
So far everything you have said about Buddhism and karma are completely wrong as far as any Buddhist is concerned. Take it or leave it. I don’t care what you think about it but I don’t care to be called a liar either. The fact that you don’t even see how nasty and arrogant that is tells me all I need to know about you. But that’s your problem. Keep it to yourself or go tell someone else they don’t know what their religion means.
This hasn’t been a conversation this has been your one-sided proselytizing using insults and accusations to tell me “you’re right and I’m wrong.” You are the one who wanted to take me to task over the word “karma.” I could give a flying rat’s ass what you “think” it means. It is obvious that you couldn’t care less what Buddhism teaches that it means so why should I bother?
If you want to continue to insult me then have the courage of your convictions and do it on the thread or I will post all of these FReep-mails on the thread for you.
There you have it. As you wished.
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.