The argument that "HEY, just because Hillary is Bill's wife doesn't mean she got experience on how to run a country" is simply wrong.
Before schools were standardized in the world, many people who became EXPERTS in their fields or Art, first watched the Artisan or Expert do everything, talked to them mostly everyday, and learned a lot from them.
I am 100% sure, Hillary has way more experience than Obama on how to run a country, there is no question about this. Hillary may have had bad ideas in the past, and Bill may have influentially changed them by teaching her the better ideas, the smarter methods.
So next time, don't make the argument like "Hey I watch NFL, just cuz i watched it, does that mean I can be an NFL linebacker?!!?!?!" My response to that is--- Guess what? If you're saying Hillary is like the person who watches NFL but hasn't actually become a linebacker-- it's still better than being Obama who hasn't watched NFL...
So please, understand that such logic is faulty, and you need to think more critically and at a higher level to understand the issue.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
John McCain's Mistake on Al Qaeda and Iran
It was reported that John McCain accidentally made a statement in Jordan saying that it is "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." Moments later, Senator Joseph Liebermann corrects him that Iran is training extremists not Al Qaeda, and McCain quickly apologizes and corrects himself by saying that "Iran is training extremists, not Al Qaeda".
This mistake has become a new attack point for Democrats, who seem to believe that it is such a big mistake to confuse Al Qaeda operatives with Extremists and Hezbollah operatives. Considering they both have the same objectives, a common cause, and have had the same ideologies, and are usually confused by the media (even neutral CNN) anyway.
This is not really a big mistake for McCain to accidentally say that Al-Qaeda is trained by Iranians. He is not 30-40 years old, some room for mistakes and should be given but it takes an even greater man to admit his mistake. Why? Because he could have argued that Al Qaeda is being trained in Iran, since, they both have a common cause to attack Christians and Jews (the same view on America and Israel), hence different sects of Islam CAN come together to aid each other in a COMMON CAUSE and very few would protest, since no one except Iranian leaders really know.
Bush on the other hand has made thousands of mistakes, and the severity of the mistakes are unbelievably stupid. This was a common mistake that even Obama or Clinton would do. The problem is, Obama avoids being specific, so he secures himself with low-risk speeches and statements that don't leave room for mistake, since he's so vague...
Obamastradamus, gives speeches very vaguely, and pretends he is somehow different from Hillary or other ultra liberals. He feeds off his own popularity and eloquent speeches, and our once great neutral media adores him. CNN seems to attack Hillary with the weakest and most childish arguments or stories trying to make a point that Hillary is not as capable as Obama, when she is clearly capable to be president. Perhaps, America has been trained since childhood education about not to be a racist, but very little attention was given to sexism.
McCain's campaign released a statement: "In a press conference today, John McCain misspoke and immediately corrected himself by stating that Iran is in fact supporting radical Islamic extremists in Iraq, not Al Qaeda -- as the transcript shows. Democrats have launched political attacks today because they know the American people have deep concerns about their candidates' judgment and readiness to lead as commander in chief."
The DNC Communications Director Karen Finney released this statement:
"After eight years of the Bush Administration's incompetence in Iraq, McCain's comments don't give the American people a reason to believe that he can be trusted to offer a clear way forward. Not only is Senator McCain wrong on Iraq once again, but he showed he either doesn't understand the challenges facing Iraq and the region or is willing to ignore the facts on the ground."
I am strongly against Bush, I have been against the Iraq war (since I was familiar with the intricate details of the area) since 2002, especially since I already knew that Al Qaeda and Saddam were enemies.
However, this constant allusion to Bush when talking about McCain, and this exaggeration of McCain's tiny mistakes or sometimes even normal behavior (such as when the media exaggerated by claiming McCain was "incredibly angry" at a NY Times reporter in a plane; even though he had a calm tone and only because he cut off some of the reporters questions) is going to backfire on the Democratic party, and they should really stop sinking to this level that Republicans have been doing during the Bush campaign.
Do not compare McCain to Bush, because they are different people, and have presented different answers and solutions to the country's problems. They have also presented differences in ideologies and McCain is generally known to be more of a Moderate than a Republican. With strong affection for global warming and his willingness to solve health-care problems and discuss the details--something Democrats tend to avoid, while they throw around pretty language and vague discussion of the issues.
McCain and Bush are different candidates, please do not beat this dead horse anymore, or it may ruin the credibility of honest Democrats and candidates.
This mistake has become a new attack point for Democrats, who seem to believe that it is such a big mistake to confuse Al Qaeda operatives with Extremists and Hezbollah operatives. Considering they both have the same objectives, a common cause, and have had the same ideologies, and are usually confused by the media (even neutral CNN) anyway.
This is not really a big mistake for McCain to accidentally say that Al-Qaeda is trained by Iranians. He is not 30-40 years old, some room for mistakes and should be given but it takes an even greater man to admit his mistake. Why? Because he could have argued that Al Qaeda is being trained in Iran, since, they both have a common cause to attack Christians and Jews (the same view on America and Israel), hence different sects of Islam CAN come together to aid each other in a COMMON CAUSE and very few would protest, since no one except Iranian leaders really know.
Bush on the other hand has made thousands of mistakes, and the severity of the mistakes are unbelievably stupid. This was a common mistake that even Obama or Clinton would do. The problem is, Obama avoids being specific, so he secures himself with low-risk speeches and statements that don't leave room for mistake, since he's so vague...
Obamastradamus, gives speeches very vaguely, and pretends he is somehow different from Hillary or other ultra liberals. He feeds off his own popularity and eloquent speeches, and our once great neutral media adores him. CNN seems to attack Hillary with the weakest and most childish arguments or stories trying to make a point that Hillary is not as capable as Obama, when she is clearly capable to be president. Perhaps, America has been trained since childhood education about not to be a racist, but very little attention was given to sexism.
McCain's campaign released a statement: "In a press conference today, John McCain misspoke and immediately corrected himself by stating that Iran is in fact supporting radical Islamic extremists in Iraq, not Al Qaeda -- as the transcript shows. Democrats have launched political attacks today because they know the American people have deep concerns about their candidates' judgment and readiness to lead as commander in chief."
The DNC Communications Director Karen Finney released this statement:
"After eight years of the Bush Administration's incompetence in Iraq, McCain's comments don't give the American people a reason to believe that he can be trusted to offer a clear way forward. Not only is Senator McCain wrong on Iraq once again, but he showed he either doesn't understand the challenges facing Iraq and the region or is willing to ignore the facts on the ground."
I am strongly against Bush, I have been against the Iraq war (since I was familiar with the intricate details of the area) since 2002, especially since I already knew that Al Qaeda and Saddam were enemies.
However, this constant allusion to Bush when talking about McCain, and this exaggeration of McCain's tiny mistakes or sometimes even normal behavior (such as when the media exaggerated by claiming McCain was "incredibly angry" at a NY Times reporter in a plane; even though he had a calm tone and only because he cut off some of the reporters questions) is going to backfire on the Democratic party, and they should really stop sinking to this level that Republicans have been doing during the Bush campaign.
Do not compare McCain to Bush, because they are different people, and have presented different answers and solutions to the country's problems. They have also presented differences in ideologies and McCain is generally known to be more of a Moderate than a Republican. With strong affection for global warming and his willingness to solve health-care problems and discuss the details--something Democrats tend to avoid, while they throw around pretty language and vague discussion of the issues.
McCain and Bush are different candidates, please do not beat this dead horse anymore, or it may ruin the credibility of honest Democrats and candidates.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Obamastradamus! Is he a good candidate for 2008?
The following is a very important discussion on what you can do to help McCain or if you do not like Obama and his Obamastradamus behavior of being vague and ignoring the issues. Obama has been focusing on having a rhetoric of Change and Hope, but he is never specific and tries to talk positive and a typical politician that DOES do politics as usual but in speeches claims he would never do that.
Pros of Obama:
- A positive thinking candidate who wants change. (But no difference from Hillary or McCain on this)
- Wants universal health care. (But no difference from Hillary or McCain on this and hasn't clarified his plan.)
- Wants to end the Iraq War (So does Hillary, and I suspect so does McCain, since he has two sons in the Iraq War)
Cons of Obama:
- All he talks about is change and hope avoiding the issues, and definitely avoiding controversial topics.
- He is vague on issues, and even when he's attempting to be specific he tries to avoid it, sometimes changing the subject or focusing on a sad story and talking about how he will fix this sad story.
- He goes to a church that constantly makes sermons that criticize the American people specifically white people. In addition has been associated with antisemitism as well.
- Obama pleases lobbyists, but at the same time claims he is avoiding them.
- Obama talks about how he doesn't do 'politics as usual' but he does attack Hillary, especially his staff, and he does do politics as usual, but tries to confuse people by claiming he doesn't.
A message by a smart moderate individual:
Ok, I noticed that compared to Democrats, (I am a Democrat in support of McCain over Obamastradamus (Nostradamus!)) republicans really suck at activism ONLINE, well not all, but a lot of people do. Or perhaps because there's more young Democrats than young Republicans. I'll tell you how you can make a significant difference below...
Some questions about activism online?
Why do university teens support Obama? Because he's a guy, in a suit, he makes speeches, he's a democrat. Why don't they support Hillary? Because MAJORITY of university students have been well-educated about Racism, and know it's wrong to be racist against blacks, but have been virtually never taught about sexism, and they consider women inferior even though they will never admit it. (Hence the Hillary is a bii****h argument). Why don't they support McCain? Because he said statements about Iraq/Iran and is a republican.
Ok so WHAT YOU CAN DO:
- Youtube.com - If you notice, a majority of Obama videos are positive for obama, especially the ones that are VIEWED the most. So Democrats and Obama supporters are good at spreading emails and links to videos. A majority of Hillary and McCains top-viewed videos are NEGATIVE.
What can you do at youtube?
-- Post videos positive of McCain and
-- Advertise them, emails, phone calls, blogs! (with strong keywords)
-- Subscribe to John McCain on youtube.
-- Keep watching More Positive McCain videos
- Facebook.com ---- There's numerous groups in support of McCain and against Obama, you can join these groups easily. And also takes 2 minutes to invite your friends just by clicking check-marks.
What can you do in Facebook?
-- Create groups criticizing Obama
-- Create groups supporting McCain, especially more specific points
---- Specific like: McCain has TWO sons in Iraq War, VERy IMPORTANT.
-- Join Groups and invite friends!!
- Wikipedia.org --- Find news articles that criticize Obama (NOT anti-Islamic anti-Black criticism; racism/anti-Islamism HELPS obama; believe it or not, it HELPS; people feel sympathy for Obama when people attack him for his religion/race) This is why Obama is so popular actually, because people feel sympathy for an African-American underdog (who's not an underdog anymore).
What can you do in Wikipedia?
-- Find news articles criticizing Obama, and add them with citations to Obama's page. Make sure you are neutral, bias-attacks or Point of View attacks are frowned upon and will get you blocked.
-- Make articles about people who Obama has had relations with.
What else can you do??
--- WRITE A BLOG! A good way is to write a blog, and start writing good articulate articles about McCain and about Obama. Convince people, without using Anti-Islamic anti-Black comments (these will ruin your credibility and HELP obama). ( where? blogger.com blogspot ?)
--- Link to other more popular blogs and articles... especially ones that criticize Obama and support McCain.
The most effective way is youtube videos and wikipedia edits. Blogs help as well.
Watch CNN as well, sometimes they make it worse for Obama.
Focus on Obama being Obamastradamus (like Nostradamus, makes vague and very general themed speeches with positive messages without ever being specific on any issue. His only message is Hope and Change, but any new president will bring change and fix Bushs mistakes)
Remember Bush-loving is unsupported, so anti-McCain people try to associate McCain with Bush (like as if they are THE SAME).
Find places of debate... Join Obama Support groups and ARGUE! You will convince the most people in Obama support groups.
HOPE THIS HELPS!
Pros of Obama:
- A positive thinking candidate who wants change. (But no difference from Hillary or McCain on this)
- Wants universal health care. (But no difference from Hillary or McCain on this and hasn't clarified his plan.)
- Wants to end the Iraq War (So does Hillary, and I suspect so does McCain, since he has two sons in the Iraq War)
Cons of Obama:
- All he talks about is change and hope avoiding the issues, and definitely avoiding controversial topics.
- He is vague on issues, and even when he's attempting to be specific he tries to avoid it, sometimes changing the subject or focusing on a sad story and talking about how he will fix this sad story.
- He goes to a church that constantly makes sermons that criticize the American people specifically white people. In addition has been associated with antisemitism as well.
- Obama pleases lobbyists, but at the same time claims he is avoiding them.
- Obama talks about how he doesn't do 'politics as usual' but he does attack Hillary, especially his staff, and he does do politics as usual, but tries to confuse people by claiming he doesn't.
A message by a smart moderate individual:
Ok, I noticed that compared to Democrats, (I am a Democrat in support of McCain over Obamastradamus (Nostradamus!)) republicans really suck at activism ONLINE, well not all, but a lot of people do. Or perhaps because there's more young Democrats than young Republicans. I'll tell you how you can make a significant difference below...
Some questions about activism online?
Why do university teens support Obama? Because he's a guy, in a suit, he makes speeches, he's a democrat. Why don't they support Hillary? Because MAJORITY of university students have been well-educated about Racism, and know it's wrong to be racist against blacks, but have been virtually never taught about sexism, and they consider women inferior even though they will never admit it. (Hence the Hillary is a bii****h argument). Why don't they support McCain? Because he said statements about Iraq/Iran and is a republican.
Ok so WHAT YOU CAN DO:
- Youtube.com - If you notice, a majority of Obama videos are positive for obama, especially the ones that are VIEWED the most. So Democrats and Obama supporters are good at spreading emails and links to videos. A majority of Hillary and McCains top-viewed videos are NEGATIVE.
What can you do at youtube?
-- Post videos positive of McCain and
-- Advertise them, emails, phone calls, blogs! (with strong keywords)
-- Subscribe to John McCain on youtube.
-- Keep watching More Positive McCain videos
- Facebook.com ---- There's numerous groups in support of McCain and against Obama, you can join these groups easily. And also takes 2 minutes to invite your friends just by clicking check-marks.
What can you do in Facebook?
-- Create groups criticizing Obama
-- Create groups supporting McCain, especially more specific points
---- Specific like: McCain has TWO sons in Iraq War, VERy IMPORTANT.
-- Join Groups and invite friends!!
- Wikipedia.org --- Find news articles that criticize Obama (NOT anti-Islamic anti-Black criticism; racism/anti-Islamism HELPS obama; believe it or not, it HELPS; people feel sympathy for Obama when people attack him for his religion/race) This is why Obama is so popular actually, because people feel sympathy for an African-American underdog (who's not an underdog anymore).
What can you do in Wikipedia?
-- Find news articles criticizing Obama, and add them with citations to Obama's page. Make sure you are neutral, bias-attacks or Point of View attacks are frowned upon and will get you blocked.
-- Make articles about people who Obama has had relations with.
What else can you do??
--- WRITE A BLOG! A good way is to write a blog, and start writing good articulate articles about McCain and about Obama. Convince people, without using Anti-Islamic anti-Black comments (these will ruin your credibility and HELP obama). ( where? blogger.com blogspot ?)
--- Link to other more popular blogs and articles... especially ones that criticize Obama and support McCain.
The most effective way is youtube videos and wikipedia edits. Blogs help as well.
Watch CNN as well, sometimes they make it worse for Obama.
Focus on Obama being Obamastradamus (like Nostradamus, makes vague and very general themed speeches with positive messages without ever being specific on any issue. His only message is Hope and Change, but any new president will bring change and fix Bushs mistakes)
Remember Bush-loving is unsupported, so anti-McCain people try to associate McCain with Bush (like as if they are THE SAME).
Find places of debate... Join Obama Support groups and ARGUE! You will convince the most people in Obama support groups.
HOPE THIS HELPS!
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Secularism and Freedom
Secularism is the foundation of many powerful educated countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Turkey. It defines the separation of Church and State.
One may ask, well why is this so important? Why not have complete religious freedoms even inside government?
The problem is, if government leaders based decisions on their religious beliefs, then we would have wars constantly. Almost all wars in the planet were either motivated or caused by religion, money, or land. Some cases involve assassinations or extremist nationalism.
For leaders however, the three categories of land, money, and religion are the key reasons for declarations of war.
Government leaders must have a sense of respect for all religions and allow freedoms in an equal manner to all sorts of beliefs.
Some of the best cases of secularism were implemented in France and Turkey. Though France continues to violate freedom of speech constantly. In Turkey, you cannot wear any religious symbols in public institutions such as schools or government properties.
So, many religious Muslims who wear head scarves are blocked from entering universities unless they remove their head scarf (or veil).
Today many religious leaders and Muslims argue in Turkey that wearing a head scarf or other religious symbols are a freedom of religion and expression and that the government is oppressing them for their religious beliefs.
The argument is very weak, because we all know that freedom of expression and religion can also create the freedom to do bad things. Many religious people in India and Pakistan carry Sikh Swords which are large knives and they carry it as part of their religion. Now imagine if one of these children get into an argument with other children, they may decide to use this weapon to hurt someone. Imagine students in the United States carrying knives because they claim it's their religious right. Where do you draw the line?
If it is a religious right to wear head scarves in public, then couldn't it be my religious right to dress naked and be a nudist in public? Oh but then I would be arrested in many countries, but what is the difference?
The idea is simple, society has a dress code, and religious dress code should not be allowed in society unless it is a part of society's dress code. The idea is to dress accordingly and decently that will allow people to not judge you in the wrong way. This is why many people in the business world dress very similar because ones that dress awkwardly are not taken seriously.
Some have argued that it is the woman's freedom to dress however way they want. This is an incorrect conclusion, because the head scarf historically is an oppression of women. It is against the equality of men and women. If women should wear head scarves as a freedom of speech then shouldn't men wear it too? Why don't we all just dress like Arabs then?
The Islamic History
Guess what, historically these dress-styles were fabricated by religious leaders in the 1900s after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Mainly the Saudi kings and their religious leaders decided to follow a more strict and literal interpretation of the Qur'an instead of the correct interpretation established by Mohammad and the Caliphates that now ended with the Ottoman Empire. The Arabs had revolted and betrayed the last Islamic Caliphate, so in essence these Arab leaders betrayed Islam and created the foundation to seek fundamentalism. These leaders simply wanted the strict following of Mohammad's life according to the Hadiths (or a volume of numerous witnesses talking about how Mohammad lived and basically are the foundation of Sheriah Law [Religious oppression laws that Islamic states follow]).
If you read books from Dr. Bernard Lewis such as "What Went Wrong?" which talks about what went wrong in the Islamic world that lead to the wars today.
These literal interpretations and more usage of the Hadiths which in my opinion are just fabrications made by unverifiable sources even though Mohammad said to simply follow the Qur'an and only that.
So what are in these hadiths, here are some examples of the Hadiths and if you know Muslims who are following them they may not be bad people but they are following incorrect interpretations of Islam (which usually lead to fundamentalism; the idea is to live exactly how Mohammad lived, which usually has a sense of anti-Technology):
- For Men: Sit down while peeing, in order to avoid getting dirty. (completely ridiculous)
- For Men: Do not shave your beard
- Floss your teeth with roots instead of current technologies.
- Wear a headscarf
- Wear traditional clothing
Some Muslims choose to follow certain rules, while ignoring others. One Pakistani I know followed the first rule I mentioned but didn't follow the second (How Weird!).
So as you can see, Islam has a struggle within itself as to the correct ways to practice Islam. For Turkish Muslims they are the most moderate and liberal of all Muslims. They even drink alcohol and sometimes eat pork (which is mentioned in the Qur'an as big sins). Their justification is that these laws are guidelines for a better life (pork is a filthy animal [as mentioned in pulp fiction], and alcohol leads to crime, addiction, and death a lot of times), and they say that they won't be affected by the terrible effects of eating or drinking these and they believe that it isn't such a big deal. Though there are many Arabs that smuggle alcohol and drink it. So if you are a Muslim who has eaten pork or drank alcohol, do not think that you will automatically go to hell, this is nothing serious.
However, Muslims may ask "well don't these rules help make Muslims a good people that will eventually make them better people?", well no this is absolutely WRONG. In fact, it has kept Arabs and the Arab world in a state of primitiveness.
For example, Ramadan is a celebration in the Islamic world by fasting and only eating dinner to feel like the poor, so that you will go and help the poor and unfortunate, it is a very interesting and benevolent celebration of Muslims. So these rich princes with millions of dollars (there are like hundreds of princes in Saudi Arabia) have a lot of money to help the poor in Ramadan. So how is it that Saudi Arabia still has a MASSIVE POVERTY population?
Conclusion
So whatever you believe it's important to think balanced and moderately. Do not assume that every little sin you commit is going to take you to hell. As long as you are being a good person, it doesn't matter what you believe. Do not think in a prejudice way about Muslims or other religions, because this doesn't help civilization progress. Everyone has good intentions, but just different and odd methods at being a good person.
Your belief in God or other beliefs are for you alone. Do not force your religion onto others and do not promote religion because that is not your duty, if people like your religion they will believe in it without your help.
Secularism is a method of progress for further development and the respect of religion so that people get along, if governments become religious they will make the wrong decisions and fight with one another for no reason.
One may ask, well why is this so important? Why not have complete religious freedoms even inside government?
The problem is, if government leaders based decisions on their religious beliefs, then we would have wars constantly. Almost all wars in the planet were either motivated or caused by religion, money, or land. Some cases involve assassinations or extremist nationalism.
For leaders however, the three categories of land, money, and religion are the key reasons for declarations of war.
Government leaders must have a sense of respect for all religions and allow freedoms in an equal manner to all sorts of beliefs.
Some of the best cases of secularism were implemented in France and Turkey. Though France continues to violate freedom of speech constantly. In Turkey, you cannot wear any religious symbols in public institutions such as schools or government properties.
So, many religious Muslims who wear head scarves are blocked from entering universities unless they remove their head scarf (or veil).
Today many religious leaders and Muslims argue in Turkey that wearing a head scarf or other religious symbols are a freedom of religion and expression and that the government is oppressing them for their religious beliefs.
The argument is very weak, because we all know that freedom of expression and religion can also create the freedom to do bad things. Many religious people in India and Pakistan carry Sikh Swords which are large knives and they carry it as part of their religion. Now imagine if one of these children get into an argument with other children, they may decide to use this weapon to hurt someone. Imagine students in the United States carrying knives because they claim it's their religious right. Where do you draw the line?
If it is a religious right to wear head scarves in public, then couldn't it be my religious right to dress naked and be a nudist in public? Oh but then I would be arrested in many countries, but what is the difference?
The idea is simple, society has a dress code, and religious dress code should not be allowed in society unless it is a part of society's dress code. The idea is to dress accordingly and decently that will allow people to not judge you in the wrong way. This is why many people in the business world dress very similar because ones that dress awkwardly are not taken seriously.
Some have argued that it is the woman's freedom to dress however way they want. This is an incorrect conclusion, because the head scarf historically is an oppression of women. It is against the equality of men and women. If women should wear head scarves as a freedom of speech then shouldn't men wear it too? Why don't we all just dress like Arabs then?
The Islamic History
Guess what, historically these dress-styles were fabricated by religious leaders in the 1900s after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Mainly the Saudi kings and their religious leaders decided to follow a more strict and literal interpretation of the Qur'an instead of the correct interpretation established by Mohammad and the Caliphates that now ended with the Ottoman Empire. The Arabs had revolted and betrayed the last Islamic Caliphate, so in essence these Arab leaders betrayed Islam and created the foundation to seek fundamentalism. These leaders simply wanted the strict following of Mohammad's life according to the Hadiths (or a volume of numerous witnesses talking about how Mohammad lived and basically are the foundation of Sheriah Law [Religious oppression laws that Islamic states follow]).
If you read books from Dr. Bernard Lewis such as "What Went Wrong?" which talks about what went wrong in the Islamic world that lead to the wars today.
These literal interpretations and more usage of the Hadiths which in my opinion are just fabrications made by unverifiable sources even though Mohammad said to simply follow the Qur'an and only that.
So what are in these hadiths, here are some examples of the Hadiths and if you know Muslims who are following them they may not be bad people but they are following incorrect interpretations of Islam (which usually lead to fundamentalism; the idea is to live exactly how Mohammad lived, which usually has a sense of anti-Technology):
- For Men: Sit down while peeing, in order to avoid getting dirty. (completely ridiculous)
- For Men: Do not shave your beard
- Floss your teeth with roots instead of current technologies.
- Wear a headscarf
- Wear traditional clothing
Some Muslims choose to follow certain rules, while ignoring others. One Pakistani I know followed the first rule I mentioned but didn't follow the second (How Weird!).
So as you can see, Islam has a struggle within itself as to the correct ways to practice Islam. For Turkish Muslims they are the most moderate and liberal of all Muslims. They even drink alcohol and sometimes eat pork (which is mentioned in the Qur'an as big sins). Their justification is that these laws are guidelines for a better life (pork is a filthy animal [as mentioned in pulp fiction], and alcohol leads to crime, addiction, and death a lot of times), and they say that they won't be affected by the terrible effects of eating or drinking these and they believe that it isn't such a big deal. Though there are many Arabs that smuggle alcohol and drink it. So if you are a Muslim who has eaten pork or drank alcohol, do not think that you will automatically go to hell, this is nothing serious.
However, Muslims may ask "well don't these rules help make Muslims a good people that will eventually make them better people?", well no this is absolutely WRONG. In fact, it has kept Arabs and the Arab world in a state of primitiveness.
For example, Ramadan is a celebration in the Islamic world by fasting and only eating dinner to feel like the poor, so that you will go and help the poor and unfortunate, it is a very interesting and benevolent celebration of Muslims. So these rich princes with millions of dollars (there are like hundreds of princes in Saudi Arabia) have a lot of money to help the poor in Ramadan. So how is it that Saudi Arabia still has a MASSIVE POVERTY population?
Conclusion
So whatever you believe it's important to think balanced and moderately. Do not assume that every little sin you commit is going to take you to hell. As long as you are being a good person, it doesn't matter what you believe. Do not think in a prejudice way about Muslims or other religions, because this doesn't help civilization progress. Everyone has good intentions, but just different and odd methods at being a good person.
Your belief in God or other beliefs are for you alone. Do not force your religion onto others and do not promote religion because that is not your duty, if people like your religion they will believe in it without your help.
Secularism is a method of progress for further development and the respect of religion so that people get along, if governments become religious they will make the wrong decisions and fight with one another for no reason.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
2008 Presidential Race, who to vote for?
As a Moderate I have a hard time picking whether to be on the side of Democrats or Republicans. The reason why being a Moderate is so important is because you can be an unbiased judge of candidates without succumbing to easy definitive issues that parties focus on.
In other words, many Democrats and Republicans fall into the trap of voting for their party rather than voting for their candidate.
Voting for your party rather than the candidate is the biggest mistake someone can make. I've voted Democrat for '00 and '04, because I believed that Al Gore would be a magnificent president, and many Americans today regret not voting for Al Gore. I also voted for John Kerry because I believe that only a veteran can know how to handle a war properly.
In 2008, Bush's terrible policies and administration has made many Americans paranoid of voting Republican. The tides have turned, and the balance has shifted towards Democrats.
However, I know for a fact that having a Democratic Congress and a Republican President is the best combination that makes America successful and has done so in the past. Republicans failed because they had a Republican president and a Republican Congress. The same situations have negatively affected Democrats in such cases.
This time around, at least until the candidates make any significant changes--I will be voting for John McCain. Why? Well if one has followed John McCain, what he's been saying in his speeches, the debates, and interviews with great shows like The Daily Show, you'd notice that John McCain is a true Moderate and quite frankly, sometimes I'm surprised by the open-mindedness of him. He seems to think fairly on all issues in a balanced way. He doesn't succumb to Liberal or Conservative views.
John McCain does believe in Global Warming and wants a solution for it. Which is one reason why I would vote for Al Gore if he was running.
I just noticed that Hillary Clinton has just this minute been projected to win the Texas Primary as well as Ohio and Rhode Island. So Congratulations to her, I do not like her too much, but I think she at least has more experience than Barack Obama, who seems to just like to talk pretty.
Obama talks vague in his speeches like Nostradamus. I was going to vote for Obama in the primaries but then decided not to vote because of a letter he wrote to the ANCA about the Armenian Genocide.
Aside from the dispute of the Armenian Genocide, the mere fact that it is disputed by recognized historians such as Bernard Lewis, Guenter Lewy, Stanford Shaw, Norman Stone and others, it seems a little corrupt and cocky of Barack Obama to declare the Armenian Genocide a fact---especially since he isn't a historian but only a politician.
I don't like candidates who appease lobbyists.
In other words, many Democrats and Republicans fall into the trap of voting for their party rather than voting for their candidate.
Voting for your party rather than the candidate is the biggest mistake someone can make. I've voted Democrat for '00 and '04, because I believed that Al Gore would be a magnificent president, and many Americans today regret not voting for Al Gore. I also voted for John Kerry because I believe that only a veteran can know how to handle a war properly.
In 2008, Bush's terrible policies and administration has made many Americans paranoid of voting Republican. The tides have turned, and the balance has shifted towards Democrats.
However, I know for a fact that having a Democratic Congress and a Republican President is the best combination that makes America successful and has done so in the past. Republicans failed because they had a Republican president and a Republican Congress. The same situations have negatively affected Democrats in such cases.
This time around, at least until the candidates make any significant changes--I will be voting for John McCain. Why? Well if one has followed John McCain, what he's been saying in his speeches, the debates, and interviews with great shows like The Daily Show, you'd notice that John McCain is a true Moderate and quite frankly, sometimes I'm surprised by the open-mindedness of him. He seems to think fairly on all issues in a balanced way. He doesn't succumb to Liberal or Conservative views.
John McCain does believe in Global Warming and wants a solution for it. Which is one reason why I would vote for Al Gore if he was running.
I just noticed that Hillary Clinton has just this minute been projected to win the Texas Primary as well as Ohio and Rhode Island. So Congratulations to her, I do not like her too much, but I think she at least has more experience than Barack Obama, who seems to just like to talk pretty.
Obama talks vague in his speeches like Nostradamus. I was going to vote for Obama in the primaries but then decided not to vote because of a letter he wrote to the ANCA about the Armenian Genocide.
Aside from the dispute of the Armenian Genocide, the mere fact that it is disputed by recognized historians such as Bernard Lewis, Guenter Lewy, Stanford Shaw, Norman Stone and others, it seems a little corrupt and cocky of Barack Obama to declare the Armenian Genocide a fact---especially since he isn't a historian but only a politician.
I don't like candidates who appease lobbyists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)