Tyrant closes libraries

[OryHara]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_fr...s_public_ac.htm

 

I find it is rather interesting that this tyrannical dictator has kept himself in office this long.

[killbot1000]

What the hell?! How can he do this, I tell you this country is circling the drain...its only a matter of time before we get f***ed up...Its just a testament to the fact that the president has too much power...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"watch out for any president that says the government has become too powerful, they are the first to expand it" -Me

[domino]

pathetic... I'm speechless... I guess he likes wearing his ass for a hat.

[killbot1000]

I cant believe more people arent taking an interest in this issue, its pretty important...

[Technobob]

I guess he is trying to hide his mistakes so they can't be used to make his party look bad before the next elections well quess what it's too late.

[sHARD>>]

Similar to what I said in the other thread, the reason this "tyrannical dictator" hasn't been thrown out is because the rest of the government has decided to go along with making this stupid {censored} legal. That is, we've lost sight of our bill of rights.

[OryHara]

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

In this particular case, he doesn't want people to know how bad the lack of regulations on polluting the atmosphere, and causing the rest of the world to heat up. He doesn't want scientists speaking out about the causes of killer storms like Katrina, and the migration of shark's food supplies out of the gulf. Thats why Florida, and east Mexico, got all those shark attacks.

 

He knows its happening, he doesn't want the public to know, so he can make his oil buddies more wealthy.

[killbot1000]

It makes me sick that our country has been reduced to this....all our integrity, gone...science subdued, time and time again, all in the name of christianity...Bush isnt a christian, and what hes doing is wrong...

[OryHara]

It makes me sick that our country has been reduced to this....all our integrity, gone...science subdued, time and time again, all in the name of christianity...Bush isnt a christian, and what hes doing is wrong...

What the most funny thing is that even the dumbest animals would never knowingly destroy themselves. I mean the EPA knows the atmosphere is going to hell in a handbag, and Bushy boy is trying to silence them. Its like... an insect that would eat itself to death.... Ive never even seen an insect that dumb. I say lets duct tape his mouth to the exhaust pipe on a hummer, then redline the motor in neutral. Maybe he will get the point then.

 

Thats true. He even slipped it out on TV a few times by mistake that he wasn't a christian. He wants people to think he is (most dumb rednecks), but he isn't. He isn't fooling those of us with brains, who think for ourselves. Thats why its people like us that the administration does not like. They want everyone under their control, and their set of mind. People that aren't are considered "terrorists".

 

{censored}: Oh no, those EPA people are giving Exxon problems.

Bush: Those terrorists! Lets close down their libraries!

{censored}: That will teach those dirty little commies.

 

I never thought id say this, but for the first time in life, I have had too much coffee.

[wildcat69410]

Uhm, that article is hardly objective at all. Seriously, you guys are acting as if this is an objective, reviewed, substantiated source. Sure, the libraries are being closed, but the author is pinning this as a Bush wants to destroy your right to information {censored}.

 

I'm surprised you guys can actually read bull like that, and accept it as fact.

[killbot1000]

Uhm, that article is hardly objective at all. Seriously, you guys are acting as if this is an objective, reviewed, substantiated source. Sure, the libraries are being closed, but the author is pinning this as a Bush wants to destroy your right to information {censored}.

 

I'm surprised you guys can actually read bull like that, and accept it as fact.

 

 

IT IS FACT! The article says he closed the libraries, and guess what, he closed the libraries, just because the writer has an opinion doesnt make the article wrong. What we should be asking ourselves is WHY hes closing the libraries.

[wildcat69410]

IT IS FACT! The article says he closed the libraries, and guess what, he closed the libraries, just because the writer has an opinion doesnt make the article wrong. What we should be asking ourselves is WHY hes closing the libraries.

 

Yes, I know it is a fact. However, the posters in this thread aren't questioning why, they're just taking the author's opinion as fact. The article specifically mentions that this was done under the "guise" of a budget cut. That seems to be the opinion that everyone has been taking, that Bush intentionally did this just because he wants to axe our freedom.

 

The objectivity of this topic is already screwed just because of the original article provided. If you want an objectionable debate based on facts, post a 100% factual article, without the opinion of some liberal nutcase with a political agenda.

 

It's our job to enforce our political agenda, not his .

[killbot1000]

Yes, I know it is a fact. However, the posters in this thread aren't questioning why, they're just taking the author's opinion as fact. The article specifically mentions that this was done under the "guise" of a budget cut. That seems to be the opinion that everyone has been taking, that Bush intentionally did this just because he wants to axe our freedom.

 

The objectivity of this topic is already screwed just because of the original article provided. If you want an objectionable debate based on facts, post a 100% factual article, without the opinion of some liberal nutcase with a political agenda.

 

It's our job to enforce our political agenda, not his .

 

Just so were clear, theres just as many liberal nutcases as there are conservative nutcases, honestly, i didnt think the guy's article was that bad, he does bring up some valid points, my thoughts anyway...

[bofors]

The objectivity of this topic is already screwed just because of the original article provided. If you want an objectionable debate based on facts, post a 100% factual article, without the opinion of some liberal nutcase with a political agenda.

 

I'm sorry, I do not need any objective articles or debates to release that the Bush administration is cheap fascade for a bone fide right wing conspiracy that is illegally exercising power in the USA.

 

This doesn't mean I am a "liberal" either.

[wildcat69410]

Just so were clear, theres just as many liberal nutcases as there are conservative nutcases, honestly, i didnt think the guy's article was that bad, he does bring up some valid points, my thoughts anyway...

 

Okay, there are just as many nutcases, but his article was heavily left winged. I don't exactly see a lot of his "points" that he brought up, the majority of the article is the author interpreting and writing about what Bush "wants". He says that Bush "wants" Americans to be uninformed about air pollution, and that he "believes" that he is at the top of the evolutionary food chain. He takes a factual event, and then turns it into a "Bush is the devil" rant. There are more accustations in that article than actual fact, and that's just stupid.

 

Plus, that entire site looks heavily left winged, there are links to other articles on that page that go to "Bush is Enemy of Democracy". I think I'll stay with my objective news media.

 

I'm sorry, I do not need any objective articles or debates to release that the Bush administration is cheap fascade for a bone fide right wing conspiracy that is illegally exercising power in the USA.

 

Okay... Just generally, most people try to back their opinions with facts, that way their opinions don't sound like they're ranting and raving. Just a suggestion...

[OryHara]

That seems to be the opinion that everyone has been taking, that Bush intentionally did this just because he wants to axe our freedom.

I think he did it because he doesn't want the public knowing that he, and his oil buddies are f***ing up our breathable air. And laying waste to this beautiful planet.

[killbot1000]

Why does the news have to be completely balanced, it takes all the fun out of it, non objective news is what allows us to debate, news has never been objective, back in the day when people "thought" the news was better, all it was was the news talking about how great the country was, propaganda if you will, I take every news article with a grain of salt, liberal or conservative, because the truth is almost always somewhere in the middle. My personal guess:

 

Bush isnt an evil man trying to prevent us from seeing the truth in a big conspiracy, but its also not 100% for budget reasons, the budget thing is probably half of it, and the oil buddies thing is probably "hmm, I dont mind that, if it helps out my buddies".

 

 

Back to being liberal, Im liberal, but I see nothing wrong with that, I dont blindly follow media, I have my own thoughts and Ideas, that just happen to be liberal, but instead of somebody telling me what to think, I think this way because of logic, and factual information. All being liberal means is that you support chance. The world is changing everyday, I say, we adapt to this new world, rather than trying to desperately cling onto what we once had/thought. Just my take on liberalism anyway.

[wildcat69410]

I think he did it because he doesn't want the public knowing that he, and his oil buddies are f***ing up our breathable air. And laying waste to this beautiful planet.

 

Oh yeah, it's George Bush and his oil buddies ruining our air. Check out LA, Mexico City, places like that. His oil buddies have nothing to do with the pollution there. Bush isn't an enemy of planet earth by any means, and he is nowhere near laying waste to this beautiful planet.

 

Why does the news have to be completely balanced, it takes all the fun out of it, non objective news is what allows us to debate, news has never been objective, back in the day when people "thought" the news was better, all it was was the news talking about how great the country was, propaganda if you will, I take every news article with a grain of salt, liberal or conservative, because the truth is almost always somewhere in the middle. My personal guess:

 

Yes, in today's world, truth will be found in the middle. The different articles and world views that we have, are almost always polarized toward a particular set of political beliefs. For you and for me, it isn't much of a problem because we can always analyze it and find the real truth within it. However, a large majority of people take the news for what it is, news. At a certain level, unbalanced news is okay, but when it becomes such a problem, I don't like it.

 

You can debate with objective news, the difference is that now you're debating facts and evidence, not the opinion of the writer. I don't see what's fun about debating the opinion of a writer, I'd much rather debate the facts.

 

Bush isnt an evil man trying to prevent us from seeing the truth in a big conspiracy, but its also not 100% for budget reasons, the budget thing is probably half of it, and the oil buddies thing is probably "hmm, I dont mind that, if it helps out my buddies".

 

And you may be right, but I don't think it is fair to criticize him, and bash him in this thread just because of a theory about Bush's thoughts. This entire thread wasn't created to have a meaningful debate about the article, even with the title it was meant as an attack on Bush's decision. What anger's me about this is that you can't have a real debate when a person is put on the defensive from the second it starts.

 

I know, sometimes it works better this way, and sometimes it makes it more interesting. However, I prefer a fair debate, or at least one with an article sited from a more objective source (not an uber-left or uber right one), and at least one with an objective title. You don't have to comply, it would just be something nice, lol.

 

Back to being liberal, Im liberal, but I see nothing wrong with that, I dont blindly follow media, I have my own thoughts and Ideas, that just happen to be liberal, but instead of somebody telling me what to think, I think this way because of logic, and factual information. All being liberal means is that you support chance. The world is changing everyday, I say, we adapt to this new world, rather than trying to desperately cling onto what we once had/thought. Just my take on liberalism anyway.

 

I can respect your being a liberal, and the way of having your own thoughts and ideas that end up reflecting what that party believes. However, your take on change is where I disagree. At a certain level, change is fantastic. We get to improve as a society, and positive things come out of it. However, not all change is positive. Every bit of change that occurs has a positive and negative reprocussion.

 

I'm not asking people to desperately cling on to things that we once had or thought, I'm just asking people to reconsider and think for a moment before commiting to that change. When society becomes so focused on change, and racing to improve, we lose focus on the present. Once we lose focus on the present, and focus on the end product, we start making too many sacrifices.

 

Plus, our standards for ourselves would be constantly changing, and imo, when a society starts setting its own standards, they just keep getting lower and lower until we don't have them anymore.

 

Sure, some of what I said can be considered worst case scenario, but it is true.

[killbot1000]

Oh yeah, it's George Bush and his oil buddies ruining our air. Check out LA, Mexico City, places like that. His oil buddies have nothing to do with the pollution there. Bush isn't an enemy of planet earth by any means, and he is nowhere near laying waste to this beautiful planet.

Yes, in today's world, truth will be found in the middle. The different articles and world views that we have, are almost always polarized toward a particular set of political beliefs. For you and for me, it isn't much of a problem because we can always analyze it and find the real truth within it. However, a large majority of people take the news for what it is, news. At a certain level, unbalanced news is okay, but when it becomes such a problem, I don't like it.

 

You can debate with objective news, the difference is that now you're debating facts and evidence, not the opinion of the writer. I don't see what's fun about debating the opinion of a writer, I'd much rather debate the facts.

And you may be right, but I don't think it is fair to criticize him, and bash him in this thread just because of a theory about Bush's thoughts. This entire thread wasn't created to have a meaningful debate about the article, even with the title it was meant as an attack on Bush's decision. What anger's me about this is that you can't have a real debate when a person is put on the defensive from the second it starts.

 

I know, sometimes it works better this way, and sometimes it makes it more interesting. However, I prefer a fair debate, or at least one with an article sited from a more objective source (not an uber-left or uber right one), and at least one with an objective title. You don't have to comply, it would just be something nice, lol.

I can respect your being a liberal, and the way of having your own thoughts and ideas that end up reflecting what that party believes. However, your take on change is where I disagree. At a certain level, change is fantastic. We get to improve as a society, and positive things come out of it. However, not all change is positive. Every bit of change that occurs has a positive and negative reprocussion.

 

I'm not asking people to desperately cling on to things that we once had or thought, I'm just asking people to reconsider and think for a moment before commiting to that change. When society becomes so focused on change, and racing to improve, we lose focus on the present. Once we lose focus on the present, and focus on the end product, we start making too many sacrifices.

 

Plus, our standards for ourselves would be constantly changing, and imo, when a society starts setting its own standards, they just keep getting lower and lower until we don't have them anymore.

 

Sure, some of what I said can be considered worst case scenario, but it is true.

 

 

I said I was liberal, not a democrat, and when I say liberal, I mean pre 1940's america liberal, which means that "I accept the current system as a workable system, however, I feel that there needs to be changes in it, and I work within the system to tweak it to make it better". Im actually quite independent, I believe strongly in states rights, I dont go to party lines, what I really care about most is objectivity and honesty in a leader, and that just happens to be harder to find in a conservative candidate because they usually tend to be religious, and in turn, more irrational, just one of my pet peeves, but honestly, I will vote for whoever seems to me to have the most integrity, the one with the best intentiions, and an actual plan for helping people that will work, regardless of whether they are democrat or republican, if it were up to me, there would be NO political parties, either that, or there would be 30 of them, each with equal power, its really a stupid game to play heheh.

[wildcat69410]

I said I was liberal, not a democrat, and when I say liberal, I mean pre 1940's america liberal, which means that "I accept the current system as a workable system, however, I feel that there needs to be changes in it, and I work within the system to tweak it to make it better". Im actually quite independent, I believe strongly in states rights, I dont go to party lines, what I really care about most is objectivity and honesty in a leader, and that just happens to be harder to find in a conservative candidate because they usually tend to be religious, and in turn, more irrational, just one of my pet peeves, but honestly, I will vote for whoever seems to me to have the most integrity, the one with the best intentiions, and an actual plan for helping people that will work, regardless of whether they are democrat or republican, if it were up to me, there would be NO political parties, either that, or there would be 30 of them, each with equal power, its really a stupid game to play heheh.

 

So is your largest problem with conservatie candidates their political standing, or their religious beliefs? You mention that you vote for the candidate that seems to have the most integrity with the best intentions, but would that change if the candidate is a strongly religious person? In a lot of cases, those values in a leader can be seen and argued with both candidates, so how do you judge?

 

Obviously the current system does need some changes, I'll admit it. But to what point do those changes stop? We obviously cannot create, or upgrade to a perfect system, that's logically impossible. So the goal of the changes is to achieve as closely as possible to a perfect society, a utopia perhaps? However, with every change there is a positive and a negative change associated with it. So with every change we make as a society, we progress backwards as well as forwards. Now sure, sometimes we have a net forward progress, but in just as many other circumstances we have a net backwards progress.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that progress doesn't really move the entire society forward as a whole, therefore I am valuing a society that makes progress when necessary (but not avoiding it), while also valuing the progress we've made. This could be theoretically impossible, or even physically impossible, but I like it, lol.

 

As for the political parties, there are always going to be them at some point or another. Whenever two peoples' views coincide, they can be grouped into a political group. So even if political parties were non-existant, we'd still have some form of political grouping. Even if we were to divide the political parties into 30 different groups, we'd still end up having two main groups fighting for overall dominance. Plus, it would make things in Congress that much more difficult. Imagine trying to present a bill in a way that would be favorable to 15 or more of those political parties involved. Talk about impossible, lol.

[killbot1000]

its not the religious beliefs, perse, its when their religious frame of mind is used as a framework for their job, thats what bothers me, kind of like assuming that everybody in the country thinks like they do, its a little presumptuous, people can do it without religion too, but religion offers no wiggle room, its kind of absolute, so that person cant really be convinced to change their mind usually. I have no problem with a political leader being religious, but when they use the religion to further their agenda is where I have a problem. Given im not religious and I happen to like non-religious people a little more, if the religious candiate had moral integrity, I would definately vote for them. I just dont like them using religion to further their agenda, thats just a really big deal to me

[wildcat69410]

its not the religious beliefs, perse, its when their religious frame of mind is used as a framework for their job, thats what bothers me, kind of like assuming that everybody in the country thinks like they do, its a little presumptuous, people can do it without religion too, but religion offers no wiggle room, its kind of absolute, so that person cant really be convinced to change their mind usually. I have no problem with a political leader being religious, but when they use the religion to further their agenda is where I have a problem. Given im not religious and I happen to like non-religious people a little more, if the religious candiate had moral integrity, I would definately vote for them. I just dont like them using religion to further their agenda, thats just a really big deal to me

 

I think that's sort of an extreme perspective there. Presidents may use religion as a framework for moral decisions, but they don't use it to exercise foreign policy. The goal of the President isn't to think like the rest of the country does, but rather to think like what might be best for the country. The two are hardly ever congruous. If religion is used to judge morals, I see no problem with it. The biggest problem with society in my eyes, is that it continually sets standards for itself. Whenever you allow anything to decide its own standards, more than likely those standards are going to lower themselves to allow more through. And although religion leaves little wiggle room, it makes it where leaders have standards that they keep, which in terms of morals isn't a negative thing.

 

What about non-religious people that use that to further their agenda? The biggest misconception I've seen is that Religious people are always trying to use Religion to further what they believe. That, plus the fact that people assume that Religious leaders look to the Bible for everything. The Bible is simply guidance, how closely we folllow that guidance, and how we do it is up to the leader.

 

On the moral integrity bit, I'd say that the majority of religious people have large moral integrity. I'm not saying that there aren't some who are dirtbags, and I'm not saying that there aren't non-religious people with moral integrity. It's fairly difficult to find a religious leader who does not possess moral integrity.

 

One final question, if it came down to two candidates, both of which had moral integrity, and had ideas that would push the Nation in a strongly positive direction, yet one was religious and one was not, who would you pick? I know it's hypothetical, and extreme, but I'm just curious.

[Devil]

the revolution is coming...

 

 

"Sic Semper Tyrannus" - John Wilkes Booth

[killbot1000]

I think that's sort of an extreme perspective there. Presidents may use religion as a framework for moral decisions, but they don't use it to exercise foreign policy. The goal of the President isn't to think like the rest of the country does, but rather to think like what might be best for the country. The two are hardly ever congruous. If religion is used to judge morals, I see no problem with it. The biggest problem with society in my eyes, is that it continually sets standards for itself. Whenever you allow anything to decide its own standards, more than likely those standards are going to lower themselves to allow more through. And although religion leaves little wiggle room, it makes it where leaders have standards that they keep, which in terms of morals isn't a negative thing.

 

What about non-religious people that use that to further their agenda? The biggest misconception I've seen is that Religious people are always trying to use Religion to further what they believe. That, plus the fact that people assume that Religious leaders look to the Bible for everything. The Bible is simply guidance, how closely we folllow that guidance, and how we do it is up to the leader.

 

On the moral integrity bit, I'd say that the majority of religious people have large moral integrity. I'm not saying that there aren't some who are dirtbags, and I'm not saying that there aren't non-religious people with moral integrity. It's fairly difficult to find a religious leader who does not possess moral integrity.

 

One final question, if it came down to two candidates, both of which had moral integrity, and had ideas that would push the Nation in a strongly positive direction, yet one was religious and one was not, who would you pick? I know it's hypothetical, and extreme, but I'm just curious.

 

I would pick the non-religious one, because their view of the world is probably based on practicality and logic, rather than a book that says that slavery is ok, that its ok to kill women, that if we work on the sabbath, we will be put to death, if somebody is {censored} they will be stoned, somebody who followes that moral guideline is either A: picking and choosing which rules to follow, which means, I dont know where they stand, or B: they are crazy. atleast the nonreligious person is basing their decisions off of actual logic of the world they live in. The bible is poor rulebook on how to live ones life, sorry to say, but its the truth. Dont believe me, lets say some passages from the bible together:

 

"For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death." Exodus 31:15

 

"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:20

 

"If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky… Take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death."– Deut 17:2-7

 

"If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell." - Matthew 18:7-9

 

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." - 1 Corinthians 14

 

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." - 1 Tim 2

 

"Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open." - Hosea 13

 

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." - Numbers 31

 

Now answer me this, would you want to follow anybody who uses this as their guidepost for making decisions that affect our lives? No of course not, people who believe in the bible, have obviously never read it, I mean, how can anybody follow this? I really dont get it...

 

So yes, i would much rather trust the canditate thats not religious because they are not working with 2000 year old rules, they are working with our world today, with our world problems, and OUR concerns, and our needs, not the needs of a 1st century roman.

 

I mean am I totally off base here?

[wildcat69410]

I would pick the non-religious one, because their view of the world is probably based on practicality and logic, rather than a book that says that slavery is ok, that its ok to kill women, that if we work on the sabbath, we will be put to death, if somebody is {censored} they will be stoned, somebody who followes that moral guideline is either A: picking and choosing which rules to follow, which means, I dont know where they stand, or B: they are crazy. atleast the nonreligious person is basing their decisions off of actual logic of the world they live in. The bible is poor rulebook on how to live ones life, sorry to say, but its the truth. Dont believe me, lets say some passages from the bible together:

 

"For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death." Exodus 31:15

 

"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:20

 

"If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky… Take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death."– Deut 17:2-7

 

"If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell." - Matthew 18:7-9

 

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." - 1 Corinthians 14

 

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." - 1 Tim 2

 

"Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open." - Hosea 13

 

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." - Numbers 31

 

Now answer me this, would you want to follow anybody who uses this as their guidepost for making decisions that affect our lives? No of course not, people who believe in the bible, have obviously never read it, I mean, how can anybody follow this? I really dont get it...

 

So yes, i would much rather trust the canditate thats not religious because they are not working with 2000 year old rules, they are working with our world today, with our world problems, and OUR concerns, and our needs, not the needs of a 1st century roman.

 

I mean am I totally off base here?

 

You are always mentioning extremes! Whenever you mention the random verses that contain negativity, you are bound to create a negative impression. You selected 8 verses from the Bible, and I'm sure that there are more. But still that's only 8 out of an entire book that promotes good morals. How about the Ten Commandments? I believe it is a positive thing for a leader to live by these commandments.

 

As for the non-religious person, I wouldn't pick them because they base their decisions on the continually reducing standards of society. At a certain level, they'd make some decent decisions, but when they begin to base their standards on the standards of society (which is inevitable), we'd end up getting crappier and crappier decisions that invade on moralic standards.

 

The biggest misconception here is that religious leaders rely completely on the Bible to guide them, and that they don't at all employ logic to solve their problems. They use a mix of both to help provide strong leadership that doesn't falter with society's problems. How about that?