I'm not saying it was unjustified to fight Hitler. I'm saying that fighting Hitler wasn't done in the name of fighting evil. The extent of Hitler's evil wasn't even known, and if that was the concern then the boatloads of Jewish refugees wouldn't have been turned away. I'm saying that if everyone including those under the orders of Nazi Germany had stopped and not carried out the orders that would have been directly fighting the evil, and those good deeds would have accomplished the same thing. The real evil Hitler did was only discovered as the war went on. Those who were part of that evil could have stopped it earlier, and had the bigotry and stereo-types been stopped earlier it would have never happened.
Um... Otto hardly views Obama as a "heart throb." And yes, he generally levels his attacks at all people who post zero content with zero thought. On another topic, since you've gone the heart-throb/back-slapper/zombie route, I think it needs to keep getting dismissed. There is no good reason to call every one who supports a given candidate as a lunatic. We've got two solid candidates for the first time I can remember, and nobody's an idiot automatically for supporting one or the other. edit: nevermind the advice. your last post tells all of us all we need to know.
The real question is.... Why does Obama routinely do poorly when he doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him?
I get your point but I disagree about the evil. Yes, the holocaust was really uncovered after-the-fact but the steam-rolling of nations and the naked aggression was evil enough. The quotation above was taken from Gandhi's 1938 writings.... long before the facts of the Holocaust were known. If none of the Nazis followed orders there would have been no need for retaliation. Yes for sure but so what? Come out of the theoretical. They did those things and a strong response was appropriate. Hey i wish they had defied Der Fuhrer too... but they didn't.
I'm saying that Gandhi brought it out of the theoretical. It may never happen again, and I'm not faulting anyone for using force against Nazi Germany. I am saying that the reasons they fought against Nazi Germany weren't about fighting evil, it was political and part of a strategy. If it was about purely fighting evil then Stalin wouldn't have been one of the big allies and main reasons Germany was defeated. Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler did, yet he was an ally.
what he is saying is that only god knows. people really hear what they want to hear. how can anyone really know the answer to when a life begins and should have human rights. Does destroying a fertilized egg constitute murder??? And why doesn't a fetus require a passport? I mean, these are questions that are debated and there isn't an answer, and frankly, i'm glad Obama is humble enough to say it's beyond him to answer the question. It's a very sincere and humble answer. McCain is saying something without doubt. While some people like that kind of decisiveness, it's also closed to any other points of view. He BELIEVES that life begins at the moment of conception. Based on what? Theology. The fact is, no one really knows when life begins. It's an arbitrary definition. A sperm and an egg are living cells. Clearly an embryo is not a thinking, feeling, conscious entity. Is a human life? or just a bunch of reproducing cells? I would rather have Obama's open mindedness and consideration - and an honest discussion and dialogue than McCain's stump speech answers.
Forty million less unwanted babies ~ is it any wonder the crime rates have dropped so much since Roe v. Wade. Is this God's way of protecting our great country from overpopulation and criminal activity ?
Err on the side of caution... But the question demands an answer and to take the side that negates the humanity of the child is lame. BTW, a child doesn't need a passport because it will not leave the mother's womb. The artbitrary decision is to draw the line anywhere else because anywhere else might abrogate the humanity of that little life while assuming humanity at conception harms not the child at all. What about human vegetables? And what about either already being or the process of becoming a thinking, feeling or conscious entity? Is it only me who thinks that a slippery answer seems more stumpy than a direct one? Obama's answer was so PC on this topic; how is that not a stump speech?
More straighttalk from McCain -- John Lewis: John McCain's Wise Man? John McCain says he plans to consult with Democratic Rep. John Lewis when he's president. Someone should tell Lewis. During Saturday's presidential forum at Rick Warren's California megachurch, John McCain was asked to name the "three wisest people" he would "rely heavily on" if elected president. He didn't cite close confidantes Phil Gramm and Randy Scheunemann, possibly because they have gotten McCain into trouble politically. Instead McCain chose Gen. David Petraeus; former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, one of his economic advisers; and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a leading figure in the civil rights movement. This is not the first time McCain has invoked Lewis' name on the campaign trail. Earlier this year, in Selma, Alabama, he told the story of civil rights marchers trying to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in a 1965 march from Selma to the state capital of Montgomery. Waiting at the crest of the bridge were a brigade of police and state troopers who meted out an attacks so violent that the day is known today as Bloody Sunday. Central in McCain's telling was John Lewis, a man of just 25 who was at the front of the march and absorbed the first blow. Millions of Americans, McCain noted, "watched brave John Lewis fall." But even though McCain has now repeatedly cited Lewis as a role model and potential adviser, McCain has not established a relationship with the Georgia Democrat in the 22 years they have served in Congress together. At the time of McCain's Selma speech, a Lewis associate told my colleague David Corn that McCain has never been close to Lewis. Lewis was not told about McCain's speech in Selma in advance, nor was he invited to attend. In response to McCain's latest invocation of his name, Rep. Lewis said in a statement requested by Mother Jones, "I cannot stop one human being, even a presidential candidate, from admiring the courage and sacrifice of peaceful protesters on the Edmund Pettus Bridge or making comments about it." But, he added, "Sen. McCain and I are colleagues in the US Congress, not confidantes. He does not consult me. And I do not consult him." It took McCain years to fully embrace the goals that Lewis was fighting for on Bloody Sunday. In 1983, McCain voted against making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday, in opposition to most members of Congress, including many of his Republican colleagues. In 1987, the governor of Arizona repealed the state's recognition of King; McCain supported the move. It was only in 1990, 25 years after Lewis marched in Alabama, when Arizona reversed its decision that McCain changed his own stance on the issue. And there are, of course, the fundamental differences between John McCain's political philosophy and the goals of Lewis and his fellow marchers. Lewis hoped that the federal government would use its influence to protect the rights of disenfranchised individuals; he sought an expanded role for government because of what he believed was government's power to do good. It explains, in part, why Lewis is a Democrat today and supports Barack Obama for president. McCain, on the other hand, is a fanatical enemy of government spending and has said, "I've found over time that less government involvement is better." It's a philosophy that would have left Lewis and his cohorts out in the cold. So why does John McCain promise to consult a man who he is not close to and has never consulted before? I put the question to the McCain campaign. If and when they respond, I'll update the post. http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/08/9293_john_mccain_john_lewis_wise_man.html
