Obama is a Democratic peacenik. His plans for Iraq will leave it divided into at least three warring countries. Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq, but he offers no intelligent plan on how to get out of Iraq without leaving it as a black-hole. Obama wants to beef up in Afghanistan. He desires to practice the same kind of policies with the dictator of Pakistan as Jimmy Carter practiced with the dictator (Shah) of Iran. Let’s hope the implications of Obama’s similar policies doesn’t end up like the Carter’s policies which eventuated a Muslim state in Iran. Obama desires to set a deadline to get out which traditionally is understood as disastrous in terms of policy since those who are fighting against America can bide their time knowing when troops will leave.

McCain is a neo-con Empire extender. His plan would likely have troops in Iraq forever. McCain obviously has more of what counts for international relations experience. He obviously knows about more warfare. I don’t agree with what would doubtless become McCains military adventurism.

They both turned sentimental on us citing for the national audience how they wear bracelets remembering those who died in battle in Iraq. What was interesting is that the mother who asked McCain to wear her son’s bracelet also asked Senator McCain to make sure her son had not died in vain, while the mother who asked Obama to wear her son’s bracelet asked Senator Obama to not let other sons die in vain.

In the end they are both international interventionists.

Both McCain and Obama seem to think that they will be able to govern the same way in terms of spending — this in spite of the recent financial meltdown. They both want tax cuts without talking substantially about cuts in entitlements. If they do talk about cutting entitlements its only cutting the entitlements that are in keeping with their ideology. However, for every entitlement they want to cut, they have some pet entitlement plan they desire to implement.

Neither want to deeply cut the entitlements.

Both of them are socialists. McCain a national socialist. He desires to take an American socialism and export it internationally. Obama is a international socialist. He desires to take the socialism of the UN and impose it on America.

Obama keeps saying that 95% of people will get a tax cut under his economic plan.

Here is the truth,

Before one understands the difference between Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s tax plan, one must understand the difference between a tax cut and a subsidy. A tax cut is when someone makes money and the government allows that person to keep more of the money that was earned by that individual. A subsidy is when the government takes from one person to give to someone else. Many people in the mainstream media use the terms interchangeably, even though there are major differences between the two.

Presently, the bottom 40% of income earners pay zero income taxes. The top 20% pay 80% of all the federal income taxes. Therefore, it is not possible to give the bottom 40% a tax cut because they pay no money to the government. So this begs the question: How is Barack Obama proposing to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans?

The truth is that he is not going to give a tax cut to most Americans; it is not possible. Instead, he is going to give welfare subsidy to the bottom 40%. Sadly, the mainstream media does not know the difference so they claim that Obama is telling the truth. In fact, it is very likely that Obama does not understand the distinction either.

Obama is a liar.

Doug

The fact that civil leadership by a woman is not part of the general creation order (which it is not), and rule by women generally is treated by Scripture as a curse, which it is (Is. 3:12), does not mean that any given instance of a woman ruling has to mean that the woman is disobedient,

Mark

That’s right. Deborah didn’t install herself as judge, nor was she elected by her constituency. Have we been called to assist God by electing Sarah Palin?

Doug,

and/or that the men around her are wusses. The Bible never says that.

Mark

It’s a reproach and contrary to the creation order. The reason behind the reproach is irrelevant.

Doug,

In other words, outside the Church, a woman in a position of authority over men ought to be treated as an anomaly, not as a sin or a disgrace.

Mark,

Certainly Deborah was neither sinning nor disgraceful. But Israel was sinning.

Doug,

A woman pastor is not an anomaly; it is disobedience.

Mark,

That’s right. But pastors are called, hired or appointed by men who have no business acting in a manner contrary to Scripture. Prophets and judges were not hired, elected, or appointed by men. False dichotomy Doug.

Doug,

But a woman who runs the household of her quadriplegic husband

Mark,

Did she maim him in order to gain ascendancy? Since she didn’t it is a non sequitur Doug to suggest that because a woman can run the household of her quadriplegic husband, therefore Christians should vote for a female magistrate to be head of a nations political household.

Doug,

But such a virtuous action on her part does not keep it from being anomalous.

Mark,

But no more anomalous than a single father raising his children. The point proves nothing. Inane point Doug.

Doug,

And to use the kind of example I have used before (and which no one in this debate has answered yet, incidentally), can a father or husband leave an inheritance to a daughter or wife if that inheritance includes the laboring jobs of males? Can a Christian woman inherit a factory that employs fifty men? The answer is of course.

Mark,

It has been answered and his is no proper comparison. Employees are free to leave the company. Her authority over what rightfully belongs to her doesn’t affect my house, my church, my role in society. The role of magistrate is categorically different. She will be party to decisions about how my taxes are spent, whether or not we will go to war, how my children will be educated in the public schools and every other area where the gov’t has taken authority whether legitimate or not. Perhaps a better question would be whether the inheriting daughter should maintain control of the company after she’s married? What say you Doug?

Anomalies exist. God, in bringing them about is exercising his right of ownership. God takes life whenever he chooses. The murder of a righteous man is an anomaly. What personal behavior can we justify with that? God’s actions don’t validate our acting in ways inconsistent with Scripture — such as voting against God’s creation order by voting for a female magistrate.