Category: Politics

The American worker has produced more per person at any time, but it hasn’t been shared, and that’s the problem because we have been guided by a republican administration who believes in this simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards the means of redistributing wealth.”

Jim Moran — US Congressman
Democrat — 8th District of Virginia

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine (Government censorship of radio airwaves) want the Federal Communications Commission to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

Senator Chuck Shumer
Democrat — New York

Yeah, I understood Lane’s original post just fine – it was about trusting in God’s sovereignty in the midst of the possible election of a man who had led an “evil” career. But he also warns, if the “other guy” is elected (the one he does not criticize!), not to think that “God won.”

Look, I understand part of what it means to campaign is to demonize your opponent. I understand that Obama is probably not quite as wicked as he is being made out to be. Still, I would say “evil” is an appropriate adjective to describe Obama’s career. I mean, “evil” has no meaning if we cannot use it to describe his opposition to the “Infant Born Alive Act.” Any, pooh, poohing of Obama’s career as being evil requires the person pooh poohing to step back and take a deep breath in order to examine whether or not he would call anything “evil.”

Okay, let’s do call a spade a spade – you’re calling a man being evil because his policies are different than yours. Comparing those who stand “idly by” and allow Obama to be elected to those who stood “idly by” while Hitler rose to power is a perfect example of silly verbal pyrotechnics.

Says who? You? Who are you that I should be mindful of your analysis?

It is not verbal pyrotechnics in the slightest to call a spade a ruddy shovel. Here is a man whose policies included creating a national police force (KGB anyone?) includes bankrupting the industry that creates 80% of our wealth (extreme tree hugger enviornmentalist) includes Marxist liquor in its 100% proof form. Quite to the contrary I would say that the man is silly who calls warnings about such a man “silly verbal pyrotechnics.”

I think my response stands.

Sorry, just not seeing it.

This is not about being nice or sweet. It’s about being Christian and honest.Explain exactly how socialism (the economic system) is related to the text of the Bible. Where are these admonitions against state involvement in national economies?

Anybody for “Thou Shalt Not Steal.” Also there is the problem is Socialistic systems of the State seeking to seize God’s sovereignty. (Oh, I am dearly going to love this if this turns into a debate on whether or not socialism is biblical.)

Might I suggest you give “Idols for destruction” a read. Particularly bone up on the subject of ressentiment that it covers.

And, exactly which “other anti-Christian” positions does he hold? I have heard nothing about him prohibiting Christian services, printing of bibles, sacraments, the ordaining of ministers and missionaries, or even removing tax-exempt status for goodness sake!

How many anti-Christian positions are enough in order for him to be evil?

Please, do you really think that somebody campaigning for President leads with his chin? It is amazing enough that the socialistic things he believes have come out as much as they have. Still, mark my word, if Obama is elected with a majority Democrat House and Senate you can look for the kind of Hate speech laws that Canada has now. Such laws will effect speech from American pulpits.

Since there is no doubt that we will “lose our freedoms” as you say, I have to ask – which of your freedoms did you lose under Clinton?

Clinton never had a Democratic super-majorities in the House and Senate.

No one is advocating “doing nothing” – but of course that begs the question – where do you get the idea that there is some special Christian duty in this election that people might be shirking?

Oh, could it be something like opposing those who vote against Infants born alive?

God wins – no matter whom He chooses to be elected.

Yes and God won when Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Lenin came to power. And your point is…?

Like Jason Stellman, I really have no horse in this race, but I am very, very alarmed at what elections do to Christians in my own tradition. So much talk about “supporting evil” and “rights” – it’s all worldly thinking folks – it just is

Say’s you. Some of us believe that evil really can incarnate itself in the flesh and blood world we live in. Some of us know ourselves to well, and what we are capable of when given to much unbridled power and so don’t want that same power given to people who have shown themselves to be evil.

In the face of most of the polls, I am still sticking to my instinct that America will not elect a Black Nationalist Marxist Infanticidist as President. Now, clearly it looks like that is an idiotic assertion, but I have my reasons.

1.) One thing that I am beginning to read is the expectation of a hugely record turnout. If this is true I am of the conviction that this is not good news for Obama. A moderately high turn out would probably be advantage Obama, but a massively high turn out may mean the tide of the silent majority that elected Nixon and Reagan may be rolling in again.

If this tide rolls in then you can throw out the polling data since the polling samples could not possibly have taken into account the tide of the silent majority.

2.) The “undecided” percentage remains unusually high. My instincts tell me these undecideds are going to break hard for McCain.

3.) The news about Obama’s coal policies, though late breaking, has still come early enough and is still powerful enough to affect people’s thinking and vote.

4.) The poll that was the closest on the 2004 election has Obama and McCain in a statistical dead heat.

Now, Obama, through his creative cheating efforts could still become President even if America doesn’t elect him, but I am sticking by my guns that McCain is elected.

Barack Obama said that McCain / Palin wanted to make a “virtue out of selfishness” because they are against his notion of “spreading the wealth around.” Apparently people who believe that charity should be voluntary or that the Government shouldn’t by means of arms, force one to be charitable are by definition “selfish.”

Obama then went on to say that Republicans are going to end up accusing him of being communistic because he shared his toys when he was little or because he shared his peanut butter sandwich. This whimsical illustration proves more than candidate B. Hussein Obama knows. This illustration proves that Obama doesn’t know what socialism or communism is since he is defining it as voluntarily sharing. Voluntarily sharing is not what socialism and communism is and it is not what B. Hussein Obama is advocating. B. Hussein Obama is advocating the use of governmental force in order to redistribute wealth. It is sweet that B. Hussein Obama was a boy that shared his toys and peanut butter sandwich. But its one thing to voluntarily share your toys and peanut butter sandwich, it is quite another to have somebody confiscate your toys and peanut butter sandwich in order to arbitrarily determine who is better deserving of your toys and peanut butter sandwich then you are, while all the while keeping some of the toys and sandwich for themselves. Either B. Hussein Obama is an idiot or he thinks Americans are.

The charge of selfishness really lands on B. Hussein Obama at this point. He selfishly wants to be the one who determines who has to much and who doesn’t. He selfishly wants to be the one in charge of the force that forces people to give up what they’ve worked so hard to earn. He selfishly wants to reward sloth and punish diligence, thus promoting incentive unto sloth while destroying incentive unto diligence. He selfishly wants to legalize theft in order to countenance class envy.

The hypocrisy on this is so thick it is enough to make a sane man gnash his teeth. Obama wants to exercise charity with other people’s money and yet when you look at his and Biden’s own personal giving habits to charity it is grossly minuscule to the point that I give more in a year to charity on a income that is overwhelmingly smaller then what they make. B. Hussein Obama makes all this noise about being his brother’s keeper and yet he can’t even look after his own illegial alien Kenyan Aunt who lives in the slums of Boston. Listen you Marxist, Racist, Black Nationalist, Infanticidist, heal your self of selfishness before you blather about people opposing government sponsored theft being selfish.

Speaking of B. Hussein’s plan to redistribute wealth, take a look at what this woman thinks is going to happen when B. Hussein is elected President.

There is only one reason the polls could be this wrong. There is only one reason a contest that is not even close, that is somewhere between clobbered and landslide, could wind up with the other guy on top. Every pollster in America is not incompetent. Every pollster in America is not failing in precisely the same way when it comes to pulling a sample, screening for voters and assigning weights to the various groups.

The only way all these polls could be that far off is if people are lying in numbers never before seen in American politics.

Why would they do that?

You tell me it has nothing to do with race. I’ll laugh. What else could it possibly be?

What else could it possibly be?

It could be that polls are not scientific.
It could be that polls have never had to work in this kind of election dynamic.
It could be that ways have been discovered to cheat in the polling methodology.

It could be that people are so browbeat about racism that they lie to pollsters because they don’t want to put up with false accusations about racism.

While we are at it, if Obama only wins by 3-4 percent in key states it will be because through ACORN he has cheated. His campaign has cheated in its financing. His campaign has cheated in the way that it has propagandized this campaign. His campaign cheated in the Democratic caucus. His campaign has cheated by withholding the birth certificate. And if he carries key states by a small percentage you can bet the bank that he cheated.