I would correct that to: Deification is a form of psychosis. Funny though how it doesn’t apply to religion, eh?

Not really. Attributing Godlike qualities to a famous person is obviously inappropriate, but not attributing Godlike qualities to God; that’s just correct.

No response from stupidialist in over 24 hours. Must be out digging more illegal graves.

It is rarely the leader/teacher who claims to be a god, but their followers who deify them.

Correct! I would add though that this deification is mostly an unconscious act, the people not realizing how far they have elevated another finite human being, and when that leader falls as they all must, it crushes those that dared deify them.

I would add one more point: In my opinion there is a natural desire by every human being to look for God. which to my mind is significant evidence that He placed this desire in every human heart and human beings cannot feel complete until they make that connection.

Socialist: Please run to the nearest psychiatrist and get some thorazine, you are hallucinating again!

MOFAL: Read Socialist and you’ll understand about the JFK mystique which goes far beyond reality.

Or initiating the flight to the moon

Will you be praising Bush in a few years for initiating the flight to Mars?

How old are you, Mittens?

How old do you want me to be?

Democrats fought it tooth&nail.

Yep, the exact same southern redneck anti-American Democrats that started voting Republican the minute the liberal socialist progressive Civil Rights Act passed. The northern liberal pro-American Democrats joined the northern liberal pro-American Republicans in getting it passed.

The “Southern Strategy” was to convert all the anti-American Zell Miller animal molesting, cousin screwing, idiot ass redneck Democrats into anti-American redneck Republicans and it worked, and precisely why Republican fascism, sexism, racism, bigotry, and homophobia has flourished for the past 4 decades.

THE accomplishment of JFK, the involvement of America in VietNam

Wrong again. The involvement in Vietnam started under the Eisenhower administration, but even I don’t blame Ike for the shitty mess LBJ got us into when he staged the Gulf of Tonkin thing and escalated it.

Well, just don’t count on him to dive in to deeply and lend much of a helping hand

just don’t count on him to dive in to deeply and lend much of a helping hand

He never was one for a water chaser!

You know, I think that in this election cycle, one of three strange things may be happening:

1. Endorsements are having ZERO effect as people are taking their own counsel more this year than ever before. I believe this is due to mistrust and cynicism towards pundits.

2. There are so many conflicting endorsements from so many different people that voters are just blocking them out. They say that if you give a person more than 3 choices, they will likely make no choice at all and stick with the status quo.

3. Endorsements are actually DRIVING VOTERS AWAY as they basically mistrust the motives of pundits and resent being TOLD WHAT TO DO.

From what I can see of this election so far, no particular endorsement by anyone has made any difference whatsoever. Perhaps this is because we just don’t have any great iconic leaders like Reagan anymore.

We don’t seem to trust anyone with a partisan axe to grind and so we say “a pox on all their houses” and vote our own conscience.

Bill,

You know, I think that in this election cycle, one of three strange things may be happening

You can only think of three? C’mon try harder.

If a man is not a liberal when he’s eighteen, he has no heart.
If a man is not a conservative when he’s thirty, he has no brain! -Sir Winston Churchill

How old are you, Mittens?

First Kerry, now Ted–sounds like a typical Clinton dirty trick–tie a bunch of dead weight around Obama’s neck, and watch him sink.

Romney EXPLODES into National Lead!
RASMUSSEN:

“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday continues to show a two-man race for the Republican Presidential Nomination. Mitt Romney is now on top with 28% of the vote, John McCain is two points back at 26%. and no one else is close. Mike Huckabee is twelve points off the pace at 16%, Rudy Giuliani is at 13%, and Ron Paul is supported by 7% of Likely Republican Primary Voters.”

Meanwhile this LAUGHER from Zogby:
“According to our latest polling, McCain now has a 5 POINT LEADS AMONGST CONSERVATIVE VOTERS!”

Sorry, but THAT is just funny. You would think after missing MI by 10 points that Zogby would be trying to get at least some of his reputation back.

Rasmussen shows Romney with a 20+ lead amongst Conservative in FL.

Nice try Zogby.

I literally stumbled accross this tirade from the NY chapter of NOW:

News from NOW-NYS

“Senator Ted Kennedy Betrays Women by Not Standing for Hillary Clinton for President
Ultimate Betrayal Felt by Women Everywhere”

“ALBANY, NY (01/28/2008; 1101)(readMedia)– Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.”

You should read all of it – it’s quite the article.

http://readme.readmedia.com/news/show/Senator-Ted-Kennedy-Betrays-Women-by-Not-Standing-for-Hillary-Clinton-for-President/53725

I had a hard time loading that link though, so maybe it would be easier to check the synopsis of it at this link:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/28/awesomely-awesome-now-nys-calls-teddys-endorsement-of-obama-the-ultimate-betrayal/

I have to say I really don’t understand women who say they want to be treated as mens’ equals, but then don’t want to be held to the same standards as their male competitors. Later in the article, the author says:
“they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one…”

So a couple of questions: why is that so impossible to believe? After all, many people have already looked at other presidential candidates and thought: I do want a man for president, just not this man…

Also: Why is it so important to have a woman for president that people should vote for any woman who is running even if they don’t agree with her on issues they consider important? Is it really so inconceivable that there are those of us who vote according to their principles and not according to “social issues” like proving once and for all the equality of women in our nation by getting one (any one) into the White House?

Neiman,

I hate to disagree with your, my friend, but Ted Kennedy’s armor was terminally tarnished long ago and his sword is as fearsome as a piece of rope. Most of those on the Left who make the JFK/Obama comparison do so not from memory so much as from what they’ve read elsewhere… oblivious of the fact that for al his rhetorical skills, JFK as president accomplished next to nothing.

Ted Kennedy’s endorsement, and that of his niece, are as far more a part of the Clinton/Kennedy fight for control of the Democrat Party than any geriatric reminiscence about Camelot. And if Obama himself doesn’t understand this… well, he is rather yound and inexperienced, isn’t he?

Obama better watch his back. The Clinton Hillbilly Mafia could turn on him.

After this is all over, there will be a huge love fest. Osama Hussein, Hilly Rodham, and Bill Jeff will unite and the Rodham-Osama ticket will win.

Will you be praising Bush in a few years for initiating the flight to Mars?

Maybe, but for darn sure we can praise him for initiating the flight to Uranus.

MOFAL: Yes, the sole reason I mentioned Diana was not to suggest she claimed deity for herself and neither did JFK for that matter, but simply to say that people tend to elevate some individuals to an undeserved status based on solely their image and their mystique, and they seem less than interested in whether or not these idols have any substance.

JFK has achieved on the Left here a true demi-god status based on his looks, his style, his skills at oratory and the general Camelot mystique and certainly not based on his successes, as he was rather a feckless President. Most of the things creditted to his presidency were actually accomplished by LBJ. But, people anxious to visit the Camelot that really never was in America in the early Sixties are viewing Obama through a JFK lens, dreaming that he is another JFK.

could they come up with a stupider, more redundant, useless, or wasteful thing to grandstand about?

And that’s the point, why grandstand about JFK initiating the moon landing, if you can’t see the parallels in the wastefulness of initiating a Mars landing?

Who’s “Jack” a sockpuppet of?

Neiman, I take it you refer to the canonisation-by-proxy that seems to surround JFK and more recently Diana, otherwise I am a little confused as to what you are talking about.
Diana, princess of Wales was a good person. She wasn’t hocked up on every prescription drug under the sun like Kennedy, nor did she (apparently) play around with actors whilst married (though there was some doubt about a certain Major). Most of her time after her separation and subsequent divorce from Charles, was spent as an ambassador of the British state on humanitarian efforts.

Has it only been a week? The tedium of his tantrums make it seem so very much longer. Kinda like a bad marriage.

Landing on Uranus is darn cheap. Not useful mind you, but cheap.

Robert, my point was that deifying leaders of religions or religious teachers is all too common and, IMO, misplaced. It is rarely the leader/teacher who claims to be a god, but their followers who deify them.

random question: what sort of ass thinks that cold war style hijinks like flying a guy back to the moon or to mars, say, if a good use of our trillions of tax dollars? especially considering NASA is still running apple IIe computer?
does that piss you guys off too? I mean could they come up with a stupider, more redundant, useless, or wasteful thing to grandstand about?

When Bush gave that speech I just didn’t get it. Maybe that’s because I know a thing or two about science. I heard a great diss of that speech at a chemical heritage society conference. SOmeone might ask the scientists about science and not the 3rd graders. “what do you kids think will be COOL?” “the moon, the moon” “mars, mars!”