Why we need experience in the White House

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...crying out loud.

Jindal is 37 now and does the word 'context' count for anything? How about life expectancy, huh? Washington at 57 is not the same as 57 today.

I would think you'd know by now I also think Jindal is too young, and have said so. He's very promising. If he turns Louisiana politics into something enviable and changes the deeply corrupt nature of that state, that would be a major accomplishment to cash in on later.

Life expectancy isn't terribly relevant. Ben Franklin lived to 84 (although he was never President). John Adams lived to 91. James Madison to 85. Great statesman, all, although every one has the distinction of not having served in war, which likely contributed to Washington's poor health in advancing years and obviously shortened Lincoln's life.

I think a man can be heroic at 57 today. Washington was exceptional, to be sure. He was the Colin Powell/Norman Schwarzkopf *before* the Revolution started. He was 44 when he crossed the Delaware. He was 49 when he accepted Cornwallis' surrender. Even critical biographies of him attest to how great a man he was.

As to your other remarks - point taken and you will notice - the point I *made*. I look to what a man has DONE prior to office. Obama doesn't particularly impress me. At least Jimmy had been a governor of a large state and run a large business. Obama has been mostly community work, unimpressive creds as a state legislator. McCain is clearly more "mature" but what has he done?

[Beelzebaby666]

Old grey haired dudes like Washington also had the times on their side. Fewer people watched and voted, there were less varied opinions and people to please. Fewer groups to appeal to.

I think a younger president would be refreshing and could possibly bring about a solid, gratifying change to a nation that half clings to outdated traditions and limps toward the future.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Obama doesn't particularly impress me. At least Jimmy had been a governor of a large state and run a large business. Obama has been mostly community work, unimpressive creds as a state legislator. McCain is clearly more "mature" but what has he done?

...is a painful joke that someone of his resume could even begin to be considered for senator let alone president.

McCain has one guiding principle; John McCain. I believe, without hesitation, that he has acted in his own self interest from his days at the academy, to his POW years and certainly his elected career. His arrogance and self centered mindset is illustrated in his legislation and actions within the senate.

I agree with you about Carter and I think it's been proven that the knock on him has a good bit less substance than generally understood to be. It's more believed that he was a bad president and he certainly served in a difficult time.

Washington and Lincoln are the model, in my view; Humility and a great abiding faith in the people, that it is our nation and they are, truly, our servants. They had reserve and quiet self confidence. People like W and Clinton just don't have the maturity and certainly not the humility the job demands.

And now, we have two people up for the job who actually have even more arrogance and even more self centeredness.

[ImnoMensa]

Jindal is impressing me. He is asked a question off the cuff and he answers it intelligently without a lot of "Uhs!!" and not one "You know'

They say Obama is good at speaking, but this guy has him beat by a mile.

No stuttering here. Not a pause .

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Beelzebaby666

I was half guessing. I have heard the term before but I thought it was used by people who aren't blind followers and more in to finding how The Creator became the many representations of God. I think most of the religion people practice is grapevine. IE, Someone a thousand years ago saw or wrote something and over time, and through men who wished to have power over something, it's morphed in to what it is now. Like gossip.

I'll have to read more on this because I see there's a lot more to it.

I rarely disagree with Sam, but Intelligent Design is not religion. It was most loudly (and in court) defended by people with a purely religious agenda, but it's not just religion, nor any particular religion. It is the concept that there was a Creator, and there was a purpose (not random mutations) that guides the universe.

While not specifically against evolution, it merely points out that evolution and abiogenesis cannot stand up under the same criteria given for proof for Intelligent Design by the courts. Evolution and abiogensis are riddled with holes and guesses and untestable, unprovable arguments - just like intelligent design.

It's actually a quest for fairness in our science classes, not indoctrination.

I liked your last comment. It's nice to know about what others believe, so long as you can do your own thing. I read the books for that CSM class on religion( the course was BORING ) and I noticed that the oldest religions fostered many similar religions, so I surmised that all religions are the same, only certain individuals changed and adapted them for their own use and to meet their own "needs".

The beauty of my faith is that I can pick and choose from any religion, what makes me feel good. I believe that the unnamed intelligence is the earth itself and we are all at the mercy of he beauty and rage. Until someone can control the weather and the tide, I'll stick with that.

An interesting take.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by ImnoMensa

Jindal is impressing me. He is asked a question off the cuff and he answers it intelligently without a lot of "Uhs!!" and not one "You know'

They say Obama is good at speaking, but this guy has him beat by a mile.

No stuttering here. Not a pause .

Obama has the gift of gab when on the podium, but is not good when he's not setting the tempo, when he's not scripted. He's a hell of a speech-giver, but not much at getting his point across in any other way.

[toppick08 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

Obama has the gift of gab when on the podium, but is not good when he's not setting the tempo, when he's not scripted. He's a hell of a speech-giver, but not much at getting his point across in any other way.

So did Hitler.....

[Beelzebaby666]

Originally Posted by toppick08

So did Hitler.....

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by This_person

It is the concept that there was a Creator, and there was a purpose (not random mutations) that guides the universe.

You're trying to sell the idea of belief in a Creator *isn't* religion? You do realize there are many religions out there that do NOT espouse a Creator, right?

This was what I tried to illustrate further. How would you like proponents of say, Buddhism trying to declare their concept of the universe as bearing up under the same scrutiny as evolution - to the detriment of a belief in a Creator? I daresay, the supporters of Intelligent Design would get their religious hairs on end. They'd fight back - because what they're trying to establish is practical, relevant belief in a Creator - NOT trying to challenge science. There's this sentiment that evolution is somehow the antithesis of a "Creator" - but it's not. There are other religious thoughts on the matter.

This is WHY it is religion masquerading as science. I've never seen it ever as anything other than that, and the ones who advance it are the same ones who gave up the creation science gig. They feel that evolution threatens their position on the universe, and it's pointless.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by toppick08

So did Hitler.....

...a poor reference. The same thing is true of W; great prepared speeches, not so good in an actual press conference. And on top of that, there is no comparison to Hitler for either because Hitler did not face a free press. So, enough with the Hitler bs.