I was going to quote but the post was too long.
1) Evolution is truth, especially whats called micro-evolution, which is the observation of smaller changes in a species, its different from macro-evolution where vast changes are made and thus create a new species such as apes to humans. For example a bacteria adapting to a vaccine is evolution, the species as a whole goes through minor changes to adapt and survive, whether thats from mutation, natural selection, deliberate breeding, its evolution. Either way its preferable to the alternative which is creationism, or intelligent design, especially when its taught in biology classes. Creationism and intelligent design are philosophical theories, not scientific ones, they apply and use different methods to find a "truth" or a "conclusion" if you want a more neutral term. However it should not be taught anywhere in schools, nor should it be treated as an argument against a scientific theory no more than you should treat mathematics as an argument against Jesus' miracle of feeding the 4,000 from a few baskets of fish and bread.
2) Regarding experience, the term "executive" is bull**** for this comparison, being the head of a major corporation by no means makes you qualified to be President nor does the experience directly relate to that job. Sorry but being the executive on what markets to advise your new combo pizza don't have much to do with how to negotiate a trade deal with another country, or any of the other many duties of being President. I hardly expect the President to be an expert in every field which his position is concerned with, that is a human impossibility, however a basic knowledge in this involving foreign affairs, a major deciding point for myself, is required. For example he said this a while ago.
"Cain: I’m ready for the ‘gotcha’ questions and they’re already starting to come. And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, 'You know, I don’t know. Do you know?' And then I’m going to say, 'how’s that going to create one job?'
I want to focus on the top priorities of this country. That’s what leaders do. They make sure that the nation is focused on the critical issues with critical solutions. Knowing who is the head of some of these small insignificant states around the world, I don’t think that is something that is critical to focusing on national security and getting this economy going."
As seen here in the fourth video:
Exclusive: Herman Cain Feeling 'Like Moses' and Ready for Media 'Gotcha' Questions
Ok he's talking about Uzbekistan, a country in central Asia which, unlike Herman Cain suggests, is EXTREMELY important to the United States. I'm a logistician, that's my job in the military, but I'm also an intelligence analysis via civilian education at a bacholor's degree level. I don't consider myself an expert but I do believe my opinion to be intelligent regarding this matter. Central Asia is a major supply route for US forces in Afghanistan and every military planner knows that logistics is everything, you can't fight a war without food, water, fuel, clothes, ammo, equipment, the war effort is literally carried by logistics. In 2005 Uzbekistan closed the USAF base operating in Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan is repeatedly threatening to close Manas AFB, this combined with more and more problems in Pakistan not to mention their frequent closing of the mountain passing through which our supplies flow north from Karachi, makes all the countries surrounding Afghanistan critical to the war effort and hardly insignificant. In the longer run, China is attempting to expand its influence into Central Asia to secure a food source, since it cannot domestically grow all the food it needs, as well as purposing to build pipelines through the area from the Middle East or Russia to avoid having to ship oil via the sea lanes which is more expensive and vulnerable to pirates or hostile naval activity, ie the US or India or even a smaller power like Vietnam, Philippians, Taiwan, Indonesia if their disagreements about the South China Sea ever come to a military exchange.
U.S. Evicted From Air Base In Uzbekistan
Sources: U.S. considers base in Uzbekistan - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times
Like I said, I don't demand a President be an expert in everything, and if Cain hadn't known the specifics of the importance of every country, and how changes in Central Asia could affect the balance of power in the South China Sea. BUT he could have give a more intelligent answer such as "I'm not a foreign policy expert, I want my Presidency to focus more on the creation of American jobs, I realize the US has many deals and roles throughout the world and I will be sure to have the best people working in these areas within the top levels of the military, state dept, etc to ensure American economic and strategic security abroad. And of course there are no insignificant countries in the world, the globalized market place has created a system where changes in a lesser known part of the world can affect the globe." That is a good answer, not this mocking and dismissive response to other nations of the world.
3) By overly religious I mean religious to the point of being dismissive to other religions, by that I do mean referring to this nation as a "Christian nation." I realize this nation's people are mostly Christian, however its government is secular and so must its politicians be, I want politicians to be moral however that morality doesn't have to come from Christianity or religion, there are other places one can find morality. Likewise I do not want politicians who profess, hopefully they don't actually believe, they are being encouraged to run by God or that they feel God wants them to be President. I believe on last count FOUR of the Republican candidates have declared God to be on their side, and it looks completely foolish, how can God want all of them to be President when only one can? Cain, Romney, Perry, Bachmann, and Palin have all told people God has told them to run, Palin never did so I guess she defied the Lord. I have no problem with religion, I do have a problem with a man's personal religion being the driving force behind his decision making process or him using religion as a means to pander more votes. This also touches back to my argument about evolution, I see the injection of a purely non-scientific and philosophical and unprovable theory as an alternative to something scientific to be foolish and motivated either by genuine belief, in which case they are attempting to use things like the public school system to spread their belief, or vote pandering.
4) When I said flip flopper I was specifically referring to Romney, he's like the Republican John Edwards, pure politics and never a hair out of place. Obama too has issues with this, his campaign wasn't exactly known for flip flopping but suggesting, encouraging, and not denying their ability to deliver things to people which they really could never do. Its not the same as flip flopping, since they were consistent mostly, but its just as bad, perhaps worse because its harder to see for a lot of people. Trust me, I don't approve of that, its just pandering for votes. I do acknowledge Obama's foreign policy has followed a path laid out by Bush pretty well, the end of the Iraq War being one of those things planned by Bush but accomplished by Obama, exactly as planned by Bush. Both deserve credit for their actions, Bush and his senior leaders for accomplishing whats been accomplished in Iraq and Obama for seeing a good plan through, he made a decision not to change the plan which he deserves credit for. Additionally the US isn't done with Iraq yet, the military mission may be over but there's still a lot the United States can do there through other channels to ensure Iraq continues to be a success story, and resolves its on going problems that is on Obama and his team and he will be held to what occurs during his Presidency.
5) When I talked about Obama's domestic policies I really meant his economic polices, which I have just as much a problem with the Republicans. Both parties are too entrenched to really accomplish anything, however I believe the Republicans are the worse of the two, for example the failed debt reduction committee put forward a plan created by Democrats but was rejected by Republicans without counter proposal. At least so far they've put forward some kind of plan which I believe cut both ways by hitting both entitlements and things like defense spending, not to mention tax increases. I think its a simple economic, and mathematical, fact that debt reduction must involve higher taxes. Obamacare isn't something I'm particularly familiar with, but its cost is ridiculous which makes me shy away from it, however I'm already on gov't healthcare and it hasn't failed me yet. Regarding DADT, I believe its repeal was long overdue, its repeal has had literally no affect on our readiness nor the general direction the military is planning to go in the future. Also a repeal of DADT is impossible, now that the cat is out of the bag you can't force people back into the closet nor can you force-ably remove people for doing something, outing themselves, while it was legal before it was illegal again. Its called a post ex-facto law and a violation of the Constitution. Additionally the military won't support, these gay Soldiers are our friends, comrades, family, people that will bleed and die along with their brothers.
Likewise gay marriage is something the gov't has no right to regulate, its a waste of time and energy to constantly fight over something on the grounds of "my religion and religious voters don't like it" intolerance is absolutely unacceptable, and the gov't has no right to get involved in these people's personal lives NOR deny them the same rights other people enjoy. And if you really are that religious to care, you should know the real marriage defined by your church is before God and not the local Judge at the court house. This is not social conservatism, this is simply big government the same as the Democrats just instead of getting bigger on the left its getting bigger on the right, but in the end its still big and its still in your life.
Sorry but I won't vote for the candidate who promises small government and individual freedom for some but not for all.
