If you believe marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman, you are divisive and discriminatory, said future President Barack Hussein Obama (Source).
But by his own logic, BHO’s also divisive and discriminatory, because he reportedly said he believes marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. I don’t get it. Which is it, BHO?
There’s more. Once upon a time, BHO said the issue of homosexual “marriage” should be left to the states. The people should vote yay or nay. He’s apparently changed his mind. Now he believes homosexual “marriage” should be forced on the people by the courts.
You may recall that after the California Supreme Court overturned a law banning homosexual “marriage” last month, the people of California leapt into action, adding over one million signatures to a petition to put the question on the November ballot. Californians will get to decide whether homosexuals can “marry” in their state. But BHO cried foul.
“As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law…And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states,” BHO wrote in a letter to Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club.
(As I’ve written many times on this blog, homosexuals have the same rights as the rest of us. What they want are superior rights. Subverting the will of the people is what liberals must do to push their agenda. It couldn’t work any other way.)
So many people are mesmerized by this “articulate” liberal who doesn’t like being called a liberal, despite doing and standing for liberal things. People who profess Christ are actually prepared to vote for this “Christian” who voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, a measure designed to protect babies born alive during abortions. He voted against it. In other words, BHO believes babies who managed to survive an abortion attempt should be left to die. Is that registering in your mesmerized brain? I doubt the religious sincerity of anyone calling himself a Christian who intends to vote for BHO knowing that he voted against this life-saving measure, and I’ll say it on the radio, on TV, and to your face.
Ever since I first heard the name “Barack Obama” back in 2004, I’ve been trying to figure out why people seem to be fascinated with him. Is he good looking? A matter of taste, but not according to mine. Perhaps his height is the key to his appeal. No? He wears nice suits. Maybe that’s it. Or perhaps people think he’s cool because he went to Harvard. No, I don’t think so. With race preference policies in place all over the place, getting into Harvard doesn’t have the same cachet.
So tell me, Christian readers, if you’re voting for BHO, why, for the love of God? Why are you voting for a “Christian” who believes unwanted-by-their-mothers infants should be left to die? I am pleading with you to give a biblically sound, coherent explanation. Inquiring hearts want to know.
Update: Commenter edub writes:
“You know Lashawn, a few years ago, I was so against EVERYTHING you wrote, however as I find my way back into the word of God, I begin to understand you more and more and so appreciate your logic and your words…You have no idea how happy I am that you are covering BO as you are one of the few people who refuses to bow down and worship him. I’ve been disturbed by BO for quite sometime and I don’t get the appeal either and I have yet to find an outlet to where I can express my concern.”
You can express yourself at LBC, edub. Thanks for reading. 
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 96 comments }
I’ve been trying to figure out what it is that people see in him, too. I think the appeal is precisely because he is a blank canvas on which people project their expectations. I jut finished reading this book “A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win” by Shelby Steele. I think part of the answer can be found in Steele’s observations.
I can’t take a stab at your request for a coherent explanation, because I’m not one of those folks lining up to vote for him. Sorry . .
I’ll tell you why, LaShawn because members of my own family are the kind of people you are talking about. First of all, they don’t know Obama voted against the Born Alive Infants Act. They don’t even know what the legislation was all about. Furthermore, they don’t understand what a horrific procedure partial birth abortion is (as you have pictured) or that Obama supports the right to a partial birth abortion.
With the exception of a few blogs like yours, or places like Operation Rescue, there is a deafening silence on the abortion issue; silence in the media, silence in the campaigns and even silence in the mainstream churches. We don’t “talk” about things like that these days cause we might “offend” somebody. We will scream bloody murder about lives lost in Iraq, but we will stick our heads in the sand when it comes to the blood we ourselves spill every single day.
Blah blah blah.
Barack Hussein Obama will say or sign anything to get elected; nothing new about him or his politics.
It is all about CHANGE! He is going to CHANGE things! He will bring about CHANGE! People like CHANGE! When BHO is elected he will bring about CHANGE…and 98% of America will not like it. People the bible tells us that we often get the leaders we deserve not the leaders we want. As a whole, maybe we deserve him…then we will better understand what we need.
When I see the “Obama 2008″ on placards, I cringe. These people have bought into the lie.
Give me your CHANGE (j/k)!
I wrote something very similar on the Newleadership blog but you def. hit it on the spot. All I can ask Christians is WHY? One vote for Barack Obama is like one vote against the Kingdom of God. Obama and his so called “Christian” voters are denying God and his word.Doing so will only cause havoc. But maybe this country needs to go on a MAJOR downward spiral for Americans so see what we need in a REAL leader. I like your blog very much, I like how you don’t put your beliefs on the backburner just to be liked…offending people is what comes with being the best. If the offended readers keep reading that obviously means you’re doing something right! Keep it up! =)
(As I’ve written many times on this blog, homosexuals have the same rights as the rest of us. What they want are superior rights. Subverting the will of the people is what liberals must do to push their agenda. It couldn’t work any other way.)
Okay, there are a lot of good arguments against same-sex marriage. The main one is that it is un-Biblical and this is still a country that supposedly respects God. The “superior rights” argument is not a good argument.
If you’re saying that a homosexual has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex that a heterosexual does, you’re right. Marriage certainly doesn’t require physical intimacy in the eyes of the law. However, if the law is extended to allow same-sex marriages (and for the record I don’t think it should), then a heterosexual will be allowed to marry a person of the same sex as well.
Of course no heterosexual would want to, but by that same logic no homosexual wants to marry a person of the opposite sex either. What they are fighting for are not “superior rights,” but the redefinition of a cultural institution – a redefinition that really isn’t necessary if all they want are health insurance benefits and the like (which can and should be gotten through other methods).
You know Lashawn, a few years ago, I was so against EVERYTHING you wrote, however as I find my way back into the word of God, I begin to understand you more and more and so appreciate your logic and your words.
You have no idea how happy I am that you are covering BO as you are one of the few people who refuses to bow down and worship him. I’ve been disturbed by BO for quite sometime and I don’t get the appeal either and I have yet to find an outlet to where I can express my concern.
I have a gut opinion however–from my black family members and friends, the appeal ranges from him being married to an “obviously black women” to him being sexy. From my white friends, they use him as the “get of of racism free” card –I can’t possibly be racist because I voted for a black man.
In an age where Tyra Banks can win an Emmy for most informative talk show, it is obvious that logic has long been gone. The idea of entitlement because you are simply black and articulate has lowered the standards tremendously in our community.
I just sit on the sidelines and die a little each day.
Jay–
I actually think it’s entirely possible that two heterosexuals of the same sex might wish to “marry” for such things as insurance benefits, just as some homosexuals have married people of the opposite sex for those and other reasons.
I thought I was the only one ticked at Tyra Banks winning an Emmy for the most “informative talk show!” Lol! Yep, our country is certainly heading in the gutter now!
But seriously, I was one of those black folks caught up into the Barack Obamamania at first. When I saw how many white people were liking this articulate non-al sharpton, jesse jacksonish man, I thought that there was hope at last for someone to possibly unite the “races.”
But then when I found out that not only was he a country club member of Trinity United Church of Christ, but a man who’s ideas were shaped by that church’s anti-Christ, racist teachings as well. It was then (and with the urgings of some of my blogger friends who thought I had lost my mind) I gave it another thought and decided no way at all was I going to support this man!
Abortion rights, gay rights, and even feminism renamed “womanism” are ideas pushed by that church, ideas that Obama proudly supports. (Trinity ridicules God’s role of headship of the husband/father of his family.)
So folks, my apologies for ever thinking that this man could ever bring about positive “change” for this nation.
Woe to us if he makes president.
I believe his appearance and speech are the main reason why a lot of people are attracted to him.
the appeal ranges from him being married to an “obviously black women” to him being sexy.
This voting for O because he’s “sexy” thing disturbs me more than anything else in his campaign (and it’s all pretty disturbing so far). We’re not picking a prom king or a pin-up or an American Idol here. We’re picking an executive to run what used to be called “the free world.” “Sexy” is completely irrelevant.
Trish, it should be noted that just about every privilege automatically gained through a marriage license can be attained through other legal agreements. In particular, California has laws making it a relatively simple arrangement.
This is one of the reasons why the decision was so out-of-line. It had nothing to do with equal protection. It had to do with attaining government affirmation. Language in the majority opinion even said as much – that the fact that the legal arrangements homosexuals could make was not called “marriage” that it somehow created a state of inferiority.
I don’t get it either. He talks out of both sides of his mouth and it will ensnare him at some point. Yesterday he was talking faith and his campaign is reaching out to evangelicals with his right hand but also announcing major gay “rights” policies with his left hand.
I think people believe he is a bridge builder but I think he will say just about anything to appear moderate when in fact he is not.
Oops! I am a Christian who is NOT voting for Obama, but I am not surprised in the least that liberals will call themselves Christian and vote for Obama.
1. If the junior senator from Illinois were the white Barry Hudson O’Banta he couldn’t get a job at Amtrak.
2. Being a Christian has been morphed to fit nearly any issue steeped in moral relativism. If you church shop, you will find one that will accept your agenda.
3. Obama is going for the gold in Olympic level backpedalling and his adoring fans will continue to swoon and call it “hope” and “change.”
4. In Obama’s world of logic a baby that isn’t killed in the womb and survives is still under a death warrant. Simple contract law.
5. No need for a flexible Christian to find a Biblical justification for what you know is right. That is so old church.
You shouldn’t sit on the sidelines, edub. You should be out there, with your family, your community, speaking up about things and sharing your opinion. You may be pleasantly surprised at how many people actually stop and think about it.
And Ric “blah blah blah”…Have you anything coherent to add, or are you just so far gone into the BO hype that you can’t see anything else?
Lashawn, being a white middle class heterosexual Male, I’ll immediately be labelled racist because I *DON’T* vote for him. Frankly, I don’t care. I Have my opinions about BO and will stick to them. A lot of them you’ve mentioned recently. It has nothing to do with his skin color and EVERYTHING to do with his political ideology. He strikes me as a “If you don’t agree with me, you’re homophobic, racist *AND* just a bad person!” kind of guy.
I think LaShawn was sincere when she pleaded for an explanation so here goes an attempt.
1. Abortion is often a function of economics and class, like it or not. I think abortion declined under Clinton due to the better economy and the HOPE (perhaps irrational)that poor people and had during the 90’s. Conservatives must address the realities of inner city life, the consequences of the drug war and failing schools BEFORE they preach about moral behavior.
2. As I have posted here before, abortion is not the Alpha and Omega of morality or Christain values. Most people of color I know are more disgusted by the violence in Africa, Iraq and the inner city than abortion. Where is the Republican party on that? Not saying the perception is right, but the PERCEPTION is Conservatives could care less about the poor or minorities.
3. The President alone cannot stop abortion. True, he can appoint Conservative judges but McCain may appoint a person like O’Conner who would not overturn Roe. (70% Democratic congress next year makes this likely) Even overturning Roe would still allow states to have some form of abortion.
4. Most Americans feel abortion issues are personal. (Look at any poll) They have a family member or friend that has had one and they don’t like the idea of the government making the practice criminal or the doctor liable.
5. I am considering voting for Obama because he is the lesser of two evils. A man who appears to be intelligent and despite his flaws will conduct a foreign policy that will benefit the United States i.e. rational dialogue with other nations. I think he really does care about the poor and elderly and his budget will reflect this.
6. Republicans will NEVER seek to get rid of abortion from the White House because it will brand them as anti-choice forever and cause women and MOST people under 35 to vote against them for the next 50 years. The abortion issue keeps “church folk” attached to them, much like African-Americans are attached to the Democrats. If there is no abortion issue or “Gay scare” they fall short on just about every other Biblical issue…(environment, poor and elderly, social justice, war.)
Sorry for the long post.
I’m not voting for him either, but here’s what I’m hearing (in no particular order):
1. The same irrational thought that makes Bush the devil makes BHO the messiah.
2. My neighbor, who doesn’t work, figures he’ll get health care for nothing.
3. End the war!!! End the war!!!
4. Change!!!
5. My other neighbor, who thinks he’s not a bigot, figures Doug Wilder did a good job as governor of Virginia, and he’s black, so BHO will do a good job as president.
6. He’s not a republican.
7. People really don’t know about his (lack of) character.
8. People don’t really care who his (lack of) character.
9. He’s black. If you’re black and don’t vote for him, you’re a traitor. If you’re white and don’t vote for him, you’re a racist.
10. He’s the MSM’s darling, and they’re determined to get him elected.
11. Change!!!!
El Cee, don’t forget about HOPE. HOPE, HOPE, HOPE, CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE.
“Abortion is often a function of economics and class.” I would need to see some statistics on that.
“A man who appears to be intelligent and despite his flaws will conduct a foreign policy that will benefit the United States i.e. rational dialogue with other nations. I think he really does care about the poor and elderly and his budget will reflect this.” Ah, yes, all these problems would magically disappear with Obama. Because the Republicans could’ve gotten rid of all these issues, but they didn’t want to, right? Because, you know. they’re Republicans. Likewise, the violence in Africa, hostile Muslim radicals, poverty in the inner city–none of those things existed under Bill Clinton. They all started with George W. and will be quickly wrapped up when Obama is elected. Yay. Praise Obama.
LaShawn:
I totally share your frustration with how people, especially some Christians, find Obama appealing. But I have to say that while it frustrates me, it doesn’t surprise me anymore. I think James White really nails it when he notes that the rampant sinfulness and love of unrighteousness of our nation is not going to bring on God’s wrath- it IS God’s wrath. The insanity of this nation is the punishment. So many people find gay super-rights and late term abortions to be good because they are being given over to their sin like never before. And I believe that if we get an Obama presidency, we should expect to see Canada-style persecution of Christians not far down the line.
As for professed Christians that like Obama, I would submit they fall into two types: pseudadelphoi (false brothers) who are not really Christians at all (like BO himself), and those who are simply ignorant of what BO stands for. I pray that there are more in the second group than the first.
Like others who have posted on here, I also have relatives who like Obama and call themselves Christian. It really grieves me, not so much because I have a personal vendetta against the man, but because supporting him reveals how deficient they are in their understanding.
Sounds an awful lot like 1 Samuel 8, doesn’t it?
Israel wanted a king, “such as all the other nations have”. Even though Samuel warned them what would happen to them under a king, they insisted. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”
God told Samuel to let them have their way. It didn’t work out so well for them. I would think that Christians could learn from the examples in the Bible. I guess “folks haven’t been reading their Bibles”, though.
Dr. Lawyer: “Conservatives must address the realities of inner city life…”
Like Obama did? Obama went to bat for his now-convicted swindler-buddy Tony Rezko to pass legislation that allowed Rezko and others (who had no real estate development experience) to get government subsidies to renovate inner-city housing in Chicago (including Obama’s disrict). The housing was never maintained after the initial renovation and much of it is now uninhabitable, yet Obama never noticed that his district had slid back into slums. No, he was too busy buying property with the flush Rezko, who had contributed and raised $200,000 for Obama’s Illinois political career.
You’re right that it’s the conservatives who need to address the problems in the inner city, because it’s the liberals like Obama who are busy causing those problems.
“sigh”
Ak and others are quick to dismiss anyone who claims to be a “Christian” and supports Obama.
I know this is a conservative site but I have been reading LaShawn for a while and I try to really understand opposing points of view. Many of you see politics as good vs. evil. It’s just not that simple.
I don’t think most of you “get it”. As you are aware, consumer confidence imapcts the economy b/c people don’t spend money when they “feel” times are bad. This lack of spending along with other factors can cause the economy to slow and decline. So “feelings” matter in economics and politics.
Point is, because many people “feel” like Obama cares about them and will address many issues they care about, they are hopeful and excited and will overlook many of his flaws and lack of experience.
You cannot dismiss that. At the end of the day the “fruits” of Rebublican leadership have been a war, disregard for the law (FISA, GitMo), torture and all manner of harm done to the National reputation. This behavior allowed the *Coming Of Obama*.
Perception matters folks. Obama is black, liberal and has no executive experience but is leading in most polls. This is a DIRECT result of the Evangelical “Bush 2″ and the contempt most Americans feel for him.
Question for you…WHY are Evangelical politicians often unappealing? (Santorum, Brownback…etc). You have the moral high ground on abortion and “family” issues but the vast swath of America doesn’t care. Do you ever stop to think about why? Take your most conservative leader (Rush, Newt, Fred..whoever). Put him in a National race and they would get crushed by Obama or any Liberal. McCain has a chance because he is *not* conservative.
Do you need stats to tell you that a single mother of two making $7.00 an hour has a tough choice to make concerning another pregnancy? Almost 70% of African-American babies are born out of wedlock, don’t you think incarceration rates of black men (drug war), lack of education, lack of personal responsibilty, culture ALL factor in to that?
Or is it just “simple immorality” to you?
Thank you, LaShawn, for addressing the whole “Obama” issue. I too cannot fathom why people aren’t horrified by a guy who votes to leave a newborn to die on a shelf in some utility room. People, THINK! If he could do that to those children, you think he couldn’t do it to someone else??
Thanks, Michele.
Thanks for the civil discussion, everyone.
I don’t think most of you “get it”.
With all due respect Dr. Lawyer, I don’t think you “get it”.
For those of us on the “religious right”, protecting the life of the unborn is THE issue for us (it is for me any way). It is such an important issue for me that if each party kept their positions identical on all fronts but flip-flopped on abortion, I would become a Democrat over night.
WHY are Evangelical politicians often unappealing?
The answer should be patently obvious. Most Americans, while having a form of religiosity are actually pretty darn hedonistic and are already under God’s judgement (which biblically defined, is nothing more than God allowing the fruits of sin to go unchecked by His divine will). Therefore a truly evangelical politician would only appeal to the true elect of God. Why would someone whose religiosity or statement of faith is nothing more than “I believe in God” but denies Christ find a politician who professes Christ as Lord appealing?
Martian,
In was not trying to insult when I said most don’t “get it”. I was pointing out that people are emotionally invested with Obama and that matters even if most conservatives don’t recognize emotional resonance as a major political motivator.
People don’t like what they see in Bush so the extreme reacation is (often irrational)love of Obama.
The “true elect of God” must find a way to convince others through logic and reason or the decline of our Nation will continue at an amazing rate.
As a matter of National public policy would you like:
1. Hardcore Porn to be illegal?
2. No Fault divorce abolished?
3. Prison terms for recreational drug use?
4. Ban the sale of sex toys?
5. Mandatory Christian morning prayer in public school?
I can name a bunch more issues but in 2008 most Americans just don’t agree the gov’t should take a strong stand on those issues and they equate political conservatives with those goals.
Be honest, could you really sell that on a National level?
All of the above have been attemped in various states by Conservatives. The best way to REDUCE (not abolish) abortion is to educate people so they can better themselves and improve their economic standing.
But most of you don’t want to deal with that….
Dr. Lawyer makes a good point about perception, though. Though conservatives are particularly vilified by outside institutions (academia, Hollywood, MSM, etc.) they have not done themselves any favors in terms of presenting their message to the nation at large.
I believe that America is generally a center-right nation, with a particularly vocal and influential liberal-left establishment – one that has begun to have a serious effect on our center-right identity by going after our children from kindergarten to college and beyond through any number of media. Right now, we still have the ability to turn the nation around, if only there was another Great Communicator to remind the nation-at-large how things can and should work. But we have a problem of perception. And as the fact that so many people can parrot the same old crap attests, perception can become reality.
Dr. Lawyer also makes a good point about the other issues that contribute to the abortion problem. While we need not let up on the moral argument against killing a child (which SHOULD be a no-brainer), we also need to attack the horrible results of “progressive” school policies, welfare state-driven poverty cycles, militant feminist ideology driving men into societal limbo. I find it interesting that liberals and liberal supporters seek to claim the moral high ground by “caring” about all these matters while continuing to support the policies that have brought us to where we are.
As a matter of National public policy would you like:
1. Hardcore Porn to be illegal?
2. No Fault divorce abolished?
3. Prison terms for recreational drug use?
4. Ban the sale of sex toys?
5. Mandatory Christian morning prayer in public school?
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
5. No.
The best way to REDUCE (not abolish) abortion is to educate people so they can better themselves and improve their economic standing.
But most of you don’t want to deal with that….
Actually, the best way to reduce abortion is to greatly restrict it’s access, for instance outlawing most abortions save for when the mother’s life actually could be threatened if pregnancy went to full term.
But all of the left doesn’t want any infringement on abortion.
The mantra of the left is “safe, legal, and rare”. Yet they will never accept the fact that abortion will never be rare as long as it is legal with no restritions whatsoever.
I am not one of the prudes who doesn’t believe in some form of sex education for teens. It should be a comprehensive approach that stresses abstinence (the only surefire method to avoid unwanted pregnancy), and it should scare the hell out the kids. They should be made aware of the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. How it can throw a massive monkey wrench into their life. They should be told that many, many women who do get abortions end up with emotional scars that simply do not go away with time. I do believe that parents should have the right to opt their children out of such education if their religious convictions dictate as such. I also believe that schools have no business handing out condoms at school proms.
Bottom line, abortion as birth control is the lowest form evil. An act based on pure selfishness. My two cents worth…
Gabe hit it on the head.
We don’t have an abortion problem, we have disregard for life problem.
If conservatives were as passionate about changing the conditions that lead to extreme poverty and social inequality as they were about “gay rights” and abortion they would win more hearts and minds.
I am in favor of school choice, small government, welfare to work and many other “conservative” positions. But Republicans are not conservative anymore. They seek to increase the size of government and restrict freedom. Democrats increase government but leave me alone…execept for my tax bill=(
But Republicans are not conservative anymore. They seek to increase the size of government and restrict freedom.
Sadly this is true. Though there are still some stallwart cons in the republican party. Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint and a few others come to mind.
Democrats increase government but leave me alone…execept for my tax bill=(
As evidenced by your posts, it is clear that you are a really intelligent person, but this statement is leaving me a little perplexed. Democrats are the ones pushing “hate speech” bills and the “Fairness doctrine”. They are very quickly becoming the Orwellian thought police. I guess it would be true that they will leave you alone as long as you toe the party line and pay their highly inflated taxes.
Martian,
“Actually, the best way to reduce abortion is to greatly restrict it’s access, for instance outlawing most abortions save for when the mother’s life actually could be threatened if pregnancy went to full term”
I explained earlier the President cannot “outlaw” abortion. Roe is one of a series of cases that allows for Choice.
In light of that, the best way to reduce abortion is education and social change and consensus. There is no way to stop aborion in a state like California. Even without Roe the state could choose. Are you going to set up roadblocks to stop Nevada citizens from going to an L.A. clinic?
You are fighting the war the wrong way.
Interesting about the porn…but I guess one out of five ain’t bad.
True about the “Fairness doctrine” it’s a bunch of crap. They are afraid to compete marketplace of ideas which is a shame. Same with “hate” (anti-gay) speech but I still think on balance they live and let live….hence the term “Liberal”
I think the PERCEPTION is that they “live and let live.” Liberal & Progressive in America actually means Socialist & Fascist if you look close enough.
Come on Gabe, play nice. I’m not a Socialist or a Fascist. Most people of color I know are church going, devout tax paying Americans. They vote Democrat.
Most school teachers I know are Democrats…
and Social workers, nurses, public defenders, the list goes on.
Some of the most giving people I know are staunch Democrats. I also know many Republican Christians who give a lot of time and money to charity.
Like I said its not good vs. evil…..
Lawyer,
I am aware that the President has no authority to outlaw abortion. However, he does have the authority to nominate SCOTUS judges, and given that Ginsburg and Stevens are both looking really long in the tooth, as well as a few others for that matter, the next POTUS could swing the ideological balance in SCOTUS one way or the other for decades. And as you astutely point out, this must first be decided in the courts (thanks to the courts overstepping their authority with the original Roe decision).
You are fighting the war the wrong way.
How so? I am very limited in my “arsenal”. All I have is my voice (via blogs like this), and my vote. I excercise both when opportunity presents itself. If you have a better way, I am all ears.
As for the outlawing of porn, there is sufficient evidence (i.e. devestating affects on children and marriages) to merit severe restrictions at the very least. The half hearted laws on the books now do nothing to restrict access, especially for very young eyes. The government could easily require all adult oriented websites to have .xxx domain name making it very easy for concerned parents and spouses to completely restrict internet access to such sites. Congress does nothing (probably because most of them watch it themselves).
I will deal with the states rights issue when the time comes to do so.
Dr. Lawyer: “I still think on balance they live and let live….”
Democrats are the ones who told you you can’t buy a toilet anymore with enough water to flush everything. You can’t buy incandescent lightbulbs but have to risk mercury poisoning with the twisty bulbs. You really aren’t spending enough for gasoline yet, so Dems want to raise the gas taxes by at least 50 cents. You can’t build on your property if there’s an endangered bug spotted there. You can’t stand on the sidewalk outside an abortion clinic and silently pray. In California, your new house should put the thermostat into the control of the government or the utility companies.
Yeah, the Democrats pretty much leave you alone…
I had a liberal friend ask me in 2004, after Obama’s “infamous” DEM convention speech, “What do you think of Barack Obama?” My response at the time was, “What has he done?”
Thankfully, I have since done my research, and I know he voted “Present” in the Illinois senate, took favors and money from crooks, gave religious charlatans his endorsements and money, and to this day changes his talking points to suit his audience. I find him beyond scary, and with you, LaShawn, wonder how any discerning Christian could give their vote to him.
The only logical explanation I have found to why this is happening is to go back to what Paul wrote to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:3-4: “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
We are seeing this occur before our very eyes. As Jesus said, “Even the very elect…”
Thanks for your voice LaShawn–Keep being a voice of reason in an unreasonable age.
Ok…I’m kinda short on time but I feel like I’m the only “Pro-Obama” poster and I think this debate is constructive.
Martian,
When I say fighting the war the wrong way I mean conservatives should seek to change hearts and minds and advocate postions that will help the less fortunate and you will get *some* reduction in the abortion rate. From there you can move to eliminating the practice utterly.
Yes, I know about the SCOTUS appointments but McCain can’t appoint another Clarance Thomas, Roberts..etc. He is more liberal personally and will have much less political support in the Congress than Bush. Catholics are 5-4 on the court now and they can’t overturn Roe…why would they in 2-5 years?
I’ll tackle the porn issue later but I don’t think the government should be involved. There are plenty of WEB filters parents can and should buy. My point is like you said..pastors, Republicans and conservatives watch porn but they want to line up against it for political reasons. The public knows this and it undermines them on other issues…(see Craig, Larry).
SkyePuppy,
There are many examples of Liberal’s gone wild with regard to restrictions on emissions, wildlife protections,Kelo… But these issues are minor (to most people) compared to:
Who can I love and marry? What can I watch? Can I buy birth control or the morning after pill? What if I am not a religious person will it be imposed on me? Can I buy alcohol on Sunday?
Most Democrats I know don’t call you evil if you drive an gas guzzling SUV…but many Republicans will say that if you are homosexual you are sinful by nature. Making public moral judgements about personal choices has has led the Republican party down the wrong path.
People think Conservative values when applied, infringe on basic human rights and choices.
Finally Jennifer,
Why are you scared? If Obama is elected you can go to church every week, decline abortions, teach your kids right from wrong as you see fit. Obama is not out to change your lifestyle. But if you are gay, if you are a Muslim prisoner at GitMo held without hearing, if you are Anti-war, if you are a college student who can’t get a school loan, you may find Obama’s RHETORIC appealing….
Jennifer, I couldn’t have said it better!
Dr. Lawyer,
Can I buy alcohol on Sunday is a bigger issue to you than our (theoretically) constitutionally protected property rights???
And as for religion being imposed on you, why do you not concern yourself about secularism/atheism being imposed on the religious citizens of the country, whose First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is steadily being chipped away by the left?
You assume to speak for “most people” when you select the issues that are important to you, and you dismiss as minor the issues that concern other people.
By the way, Republicans (Christians, actually) say that you are sinful by nature whether you’re homosexual or heterosexual. There’s no -phobia or -ism involved in that. And I believe your declaration that most Democrats don’t make public moral judgments about personal choices is just a matter of blindness on your part to the kind of moral judgments you happen to agree with.
When I say fighting the war the wrong way I mean conservatives should seek to change hearts and minds and advocate postions that will help the less fortunate
I see this translated as raising of taxes to fund more government entitlement programs to help “hard working americans”. I would posit that most “blue-collar” dems veiw it as such as well, hence their propensity to vote en masse for the democrats.
I find it so ironic that the Dems portray themselves as the “party that represents the hard working middle class”, a statement that by inference means that the wealthy upper class aren’t hardworking and deserve to have their earnings taxed at a higher rate to help the other hard working, but less fortunate folks.
BTW, I speak as one whose AGI (from a dual income household) is barely above 50K. I am one of those “hard working americans” that Barack’s “tax cuts” would supposedly help.
Comment by Dr.Lawyer — 07.02.08 @ 5:40 pm
“Finally Jennifer,
Why are you scared? If Obama is elected you can go to church every week, decline abortions, teach your kids right from wrong as you see fit. Obama is not out to change your lifestyle. But if you are gay, if you are a Muslim prisoner at GitMo held without hearing, if you are Anti-war, if you are a college student who can’t get a school loan, you may find Obama’s RHETORIC appealing….”
Dr. Lawyer,
On what do you base this confidence? According to Obama’s Illinois senate voting record and certain comments prior to 2007, he leans liberal. His initial votes and comments were to reject FISA and support gun bans. Yet he is now supports the FISA decision and says that the SCOTUS decision on DC’s gun ban was correct, yet he still believes gun bans are OK (???). He pledged his support for the sovereignty of Israel at AIPAC, then backpedaled when he upset the Palestinians who support him.
Despite 20-years in a church where the pastor has condemned America and the Bush administration (my sister attended this church, so it wasn’t just a right-wing smear–Wright preached this mess every Sunday), now Obama wants to adopt some aspect of Bush’s faith-based initiatives to appeal to the evangelical community and wipe out the memory of him sitting comfortably at Trinity and soaking all the anti-America stuff in.
Since he has become the presumptive nominee, Obama has ratcheted up the change in his rhetoric and opinions to paint himself in a particular manner to suit the moment. When his long-time friends and mentors become inconvenient to his political aspirations, he distances himself and claims “this is not the ______ I knew…”
He made this statement in Oregon:
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”
So how do we know that if he becomes President, he won’t institute policies that undermine our rights and privileges as a citizen of the U.S., in order to suit his viewpoint of how we are to deal with moral issues, energy or our standing in the world’s eyes?
I could go on, but this comment is already getting lengthy. Suffice to say everything I’ve mentioned is what I find scary.
So, which Obama will he be if he becomes President? If his track record thus far is any gauge, he’s not even capable of sticking to a side on important issues or sticking by people who helped him get where he is today–so tell me what makes him fit to make decisions that affect our lives and our country?
Sorry, I’m not drinking the Kool-Aid–no matter how pretty the rhetoric sounds.
Comment by Tom TB — 07.02.08 @ 5:42 pm
“Jennifer, I couldn’t have said it better!”
Thanks, Tom!
In #24, Dr.Lawyer clearly paints Obama as a demagogue while writing in the demagogue’s voice. To wit:
“……because many people ‘feel’ like Obama cares about them and will address many issues they care about, they are hopeful and excited and will overlook many of his flaws and lack of experience.”
You could easily insert the name Lenin or Hitler or Castro or many others in place of “Obama” in this medicine man spiel on socialism. Certainly, Dr. Lawyer is correct that many people have already jumped on the “hope” and “change” express.
Obama is practicing the arts he learned at Saul Alinsky’s knee and Dr. Lawyer is helping to spread the dogma. It is always necessary to stir up fears and bugaboos to push a socialist agenda.
Dr. Lawyer continues by painting the opposition as the evil overseers:
“…..At the end of the day the “fruits” of Rebublican leadership have been a war, disregard for the law (FISA, GitMo), torture and all manner of harm done to the National reputation. This behavior allowed the *Coming Of Obama*.”
Now really, are all thinking people in accord that the war on terrorism is evil? Dr. Lawyer says “a war” is among the fruits of Republican leadership. (Interesting fact: 2000 more US military have died during the Bush administration as died during the Clinton administration.) The Obama crowd never seems to oppose the invasion of Afghanistan, so may we assume that we are to consider that particular theater of war to be acceptable.
The Republican leadership, Dr.Lawyer tells us, has disregarded the law and then mentions FISA and Gitmo. Yet, a Democrat Congress has not come up with anything remotely resembling an impeachable offense, because it can not find one. FISA is the creation of the Carter administration and whether the Republican leadership interpreted it according to liberal views is a matter of nuance and inside politics. It was certainly not disregarded. (A clearly impeachable offense.) Gitmo was an act of responsibility! We took possession of prisoners of war who were not covered in the Geneva Accords. The liberals have attempted to extend Constitutional rights to them that were denied to the civilian keepers of the holocaust.
“Torture” is a great demagogue word. Once again, there has been nothing laid out on the table that defines or proves “torture.” In fact, clever Bill Clinton actually created a torture program of sorts when he came up with the concept of “rendition.” He agreed to surrender prisoners to interrogation in countries where down and dirty is the norm.
“All manner of harm done to the National reputation” is a really plump charge full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.
And the demagoguery continues:
“WHY are Evangelical politicians often unappealing?” ….. You have the moral high ground on abortion and “family” issues but the vast swath of America doesn’t care.”
This is the same tired old red state/blue state, rural vs. urban bull hockey that socialists have been pedaling for years. First, be sure you scream “Evangelical” because it scares the moral relativists to death. And then make the incredible claim that “the vast swath of America doesn’t care” about family issues. In essence, either you let the fanatics carrying the cross get you or you elect an beneficent state leader who will tend to your ills.
Next, Dr Lawyer notes:
“Take your most conservative leader (Rush, Newt, Fred..whoever). Put him in a National race and they would get crushed by Obama or any Liberal.”
Well, Rush has knocked out every liberal who has tried to play against him. But, Rush is not a candidate, so why mention him? Newt tried to be a candidate and his own party said “No.” Fred was also written out in the primaries of his own party. So does that mean their conservative views are archaic and unappealing? The Democrats dumped Hillary and Dodd and Biden and Richardson and others. Does that mean their views are archaic and unappealing. This whole false analogy is just more stock and trade of the demagogue.
But my favorite line from Dr. Lawyer is:
“McCain has a chance because he is *not* conservative.” The fact is, McCain has a chance because he is *not* OBAMA. The fact that he is not conservative is his greatest liability.
And for the “piece de resistance” we get this thunderbolt from Dr. Lawyer:
“Do you need stats to tell you that a single mother of two making $7.00 an hour has a tough choice to make concerning another pregnancy? Almost 70% of African-American babies are born out of wedlock, don’t you think incarceration rates of black men (drug war), lack of education, lack of personal responsibilty, culture ALL factor in to that?”
For a person who has said that “the vast swath of America doesn’t care” about family issues, this is a strange turn. But not if you realize that Obama will bring down the beneficence of the government on these poor ailing brothers and sisters and lift them out of their plight into a land of hope and change and social equality.
You might note that a single mother earning $7.00 an hour is in terrible trouble raising two children (agreed) and she needs to have future babies killed just to hobble along. And you know what? We need stronger baby killing programs because 70% of the black babies are born out of wedlock. And you know what? Lots of black babies who weren’t killed in the womb grow up to go to prison and get into drug wars and drop out of school, etc.
Wouldn’t it be more efficient to kill the black single mothers? This all sounds like a roach problem, so lets just go after the cause. After all, Margaret Sanger was all about eugenics. Maybe these black people are just Hitler’s Jews after all.
And finally, Dr, Lawyer closes with this stunner:
“Or is it just “simple immorality” to you?”
No, Dr. Lawyer, it is simple moral relativism and state socialism: the end goal of demagogues who profit in stirring the pot of fear and hate in the masses.
I believe wholly in civil discourse. But when this type of slime oozes under the door, it needs to be addressed for what it is. Liberals and the MSM work hard at painting America as a failed nation on the brink of collapse. They even want to hex us with ignorantly creating man made global warming which only they can fix.
Be very wary of this type of demagoguery. It is enticing. It is the candy that perverts offer to children in the park. Those with money have caused your misery. Trust in me, I am saintly. I will bring happiness and justice and prosperity to all the days of your lives.
Thank you, Dr. Lawyer, for bringing us this clear example of Obama’s game.
Heliotrope–
You have said it all.
Trish-
Thanks. It took an embarrassing amount of space.
heliotrope,
You make some interesting points and I have been away from a computer and I will respond more fully later.
My comments were directed at LaShawns plea for understanding why a Christian or moral person might vote for Obama.
I don’t personally swallow everything the “drive-by” media feeds me, but if you want more than an echo chamber on this site and others, you have allow that good people can disagree and support “liberal” positions.
Are you really defending the past 8 years of Bush as an example of effective conservative leadership? Yes, our govenrnment did torture. Yes we did hold prisoners at GitMo without allowing evidence hearings. You might be pleased by that but most Americans are not.
Bob Barr is no leftist, nor the late William Buckley, nor George Will and they have made many of my points better than I.
Obama may be what you say he is, a Marxist who hates his country and will herald armaggedon. My point is that he has gotten this far because of the contempt many have for Bush and his party. A party that wrote the book on “stirring up fear”
Rush would never run for National office because he knows he would lose. He is very effective where he is, stirring the pot and keeping the “true conservatives” encouraged. Good for him, he is great at what he does, but if you really want to understand the Obama effect you have to start by looking at the policies of the past 8 years.
Throwing in Hitler and the rest does not deserve a response. In fact, it should be a rule if a Lib calls Bush Jr. Hitler or a conservative calls Obama Stalin that person should leave the room…agreed?
Civil discourse..yay.
I love you! Found you through Hip-Hop Republican and your piece on the lie of fatherless children was terrific. You are a blessing.
This article explains why Senator Obama voted against, the Born Alive act and none of them are the reasons you say.
First, thank you, La Shawn, for asking questions that I’ve been too chicken to ask my friends. I also haven’t understood why my Christian friends are voting for Obama. I do understand their passion for social justice issues and/or the environment, and I see those as the main reasons for why they are voting for him. We, Conservatives, haven’t done well on either issue.
Second, I appreciate Dr.Lawyer’s dialogue and willingness to respond (calmly) to the debate. He/she has given me a better understanding of how others, those different from me, think. So thank you for that.
I’ve actually posted why a Christian might vote for Obama, but I will repeat some of that here. As stated before, I’ve voted Republican in every vote I’ve been old enough to vote: Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush.
Despite that, abortions go on, immorality goes on, homosexual rights get expanded little by little…
All of that has continued under Republican administrations, including Bush, who I believe is genuinely a born again Christian.
But also under Republicans, our budget has become unbalanced, the Iraq war was initially mismanaged at a cost of lives and dollars, Afghanistan has suffered from the dual focus, our economy is in bad shape (actually not Bush’s fault, more a matter of bad financial laws), our respect in the world has fallen, and healthcare, tax reform, social security and medicare remain largely unexamined.
I have no belief that McCain will be any different than Bush by pushing forward real policy CHANGE, nor do I believe he is strong enough on Christian issues to be reliable. I see no net difference between Obama and McCain in terms of things like abortion changing. As for the Supreme Court, the Republicans will end up losing so much power in Congress anyway as to make any highly conservative placement impossible if an opportunity comes up.
So in a way it’s a gamble and McCain has not made me sufficiently comfortable that he will actually make broad changes or even foster religious tolerance. He grits his teeth and bares it. Dump Hagee but embrace the mild Graham.
Instead I will be looking at who can make the most policy changes that will impact the overall prosperity of Americans and the positive reputation of the country.
Arguably sin is sin–like corruption (keating five), divorce (McCain divorcing Carol)– and since abortion (the life or death issue) is largely a non factor (with both guys doing NOTHING), then the remaining issues cancel each other out.
I could probably go either way but will go with the guy who actually says he will DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. You at least have to want to do something different for real difference to happen.
And yes I also want to see a black person elected after hundreds of years of my ancestors living here and that should not be surprising.
It’s also kind of silly for whites to dismiss the enthusiasm of some to vote for a black person because he is black. There have been blacks on these shores since about 1612 or so, and yet, blacks could never really have any real equality until the 1950’s. So after hundreds of years of being here and a black person actually is in a position to win and blacks are supposed to be like, “Yawn”. That defies every human instinct.
We all resort to tribal instincts. We eat turkey or our traditional food at Thanksgiving, not Chinese. If we are white, chances our children will marry white and will be horrified when the 17 year old daughter brings home the rapper as her new boyfriend (masking our horror in other reasons). If we are Indian, we might look for Indian stores to shop in, or seek to live around other Indians.
Americans of every stripe constantly make racial decisions almost unconciously, and it’s wrapped up in other things. And trust me, in the privacy of her family get togethers, even Lashawn’s family probably views some issues in terms of black and white. (How many of us have heard some old relative saying about a newborn, “Oh she is gonna have that good hair”… aka white hair).
So why suddenly should the vote for President suddenly become the only manner in which we ignore ethnicity or become completely blind to color and historical considerations. It’s nonsense.
But in the end my choice–not fully made up–will be guided by what McCain will or won’t do, and what I antipate Obama will be able to do. On the Christian issues for the most part there won’t be a spitting difference (and especially as the Dems will further dominate Congress).
(And also, once in office, Obama actually being president will stop enough nonsense conspiracy talk among blacks about, “a black man cannot be president.” If he messes up, it reminds us all to make sure we always vote for the man whose issues we believe in, and if he does well, it opens doors to make society less focused on race).
While Obama was sitting in that awful Trinity, with his sole wife and kids, I wonder what church McCain was sitting in?
Phil, that’s called back-pedaling. Constitutionality was only part of the reason. This is also why Obama voted against the bill:
“I now know Obama’s mannerisms well, the way he leans back in his chair, thoughtfully rests his chin in his hand, and with Daschle-like softness of voice, skillfully reasons that allowing live aborted babies to die is necessary to protect the rights of aborting mothers and aborting doctors….A spokesman said Obama voted against the abortion legislation because it included provisions that ‘would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable.’”
http://catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=18474
Jill Stanek is a former labor and delivery nurse who testified before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee and heard what Obama had to say. I trust her version over what he told Relevant magazine.
More from Jill Stanek at CitizenLink. Read it CAREFULLY.
Finn,
The calculus that suggests that McCain and Obama have no net differences is flawed at best – particularly when talking about judicial appointments. If, as you say, the worst case scenario for McCain is having his nominees stalled, than that is a heckuva lot better outcome than a rubberstamped Obama appointment of another
Ginsberg or Souter to sit on the court for 30 or 40 years.
As for the race issues, I have a very big problem with ANY decision based purely on race. My understanding of what the ideal in America is that we should be judging one another on the content of character. Am I supposed to set aside everything I want in a President simply because Obama and I share a PORTION of our ethnicity? As a business owner, would it sound fair to do the same when looking for my next employee? Would it be right for a white person to do it? Fine, certain tribalisms come out as we live our lives and make various personal choices. But we’re not talking about someone we want to marry or discussing our personal preferences in hair texture. We’re talking about someone we want to fill a job working for the American people.
I don’t buy this idea of needing this as some salve for historical wounds. If a black President, regardless of who he or she is, is seen by the black community as some sort of “reparations,” then they’ve been looking for the wrong thing all along. Honestly, I’m tired of all the whining about a past that hardly anyone alive has even the remotest connection. Thirty-year-olds talking about slavery have made slaves of THEMSELVES to the past. How is it that black Americans could be so much like Joseph – brought through a series of unjust events only to find ourselves at the right hand of the greatest nation in the world – and still act as though we’re still sitting at the bottom of a well?
Obama represents no hope or change for me. He is a liberal politician who will do what liberal politicians do. No change there. And that liberalism, while rooted in good intentions, is a fast track to socialism. And Dr. Lawyer, I was not talking about rank-and-file Democrats.
Everyone in America wants the same things, for the most part. The difference between the ideologies on how to get there is what sets us apart. And the obscuring of how those ideologies play out is why there are still people that can support the socialist/fascistic tendencies of modern liberal ideals. Yes, economic prosperity for all is a lofty goal that conservatives and liberals share. But only the liberals think that economic outcomes should be monitored, regulated and ultimately controlled by force of government. Conservatives think that individuals can do it on their own, provided the conditions are free enough – and guarding that freedom is what the government should do.
And there’s where the problem of perception comes in. Because liberals have cornered the market on making people FEEL good, they have the street cred for DOING good, despite having done the opposite. Because conservatives are basically a PR nightmare on wheels, the only cred we get is for being the party of mean old rich guys that don’t care about the poor, sick children, minorities, immigrants, etc. I think the story goes that we kick puppies as well.
It all just makes me sick, really. Which is probably the feeling that many of us have right now. Obama is a nightmare and McCain is no daydream. So where the heck are we supposed to turn?
Dr. Lawyer,
Thank you for your comments…a healthy discussion like this is necessary and you bring up some interesting points. However, I must say that for you to say: “You have the moral high ground on abortion and “family” issues but the vast swath of America doesn’t care”, actually solidifies the argument as to why America is in the situation we are in now. America is a nation that pushes the “feel good” policy or the “get mine” philosophy. Therefore, we stopped caring about the things that mattered…like life. When life becomes expendable under the euphemism of “choice” then everything else is expendable. A PETA member can tell you that you should kill a chicken, but it’s your choice if you get pregnant don’t want the baby and chose to KILL that child… the responsibility falls away from you because you did what made you “feel good”. This mentality will not change with a presidency, but rather will the choice of the people to surrender their lives to their Savior Christ and realize and obey the Word of God.
The tough choice that a single mother making $7/hr has to make concerning another pregnancy, didn’t have to be tough is she made the choice to choose protection if she wanted to continue a sexual lifestyle. Therefore, it would boil down to personal responsibility…yes?
It’s naive and ridiculous of anyone to think that black people will get out of the ghetto just because Obama is in office, or that the world will be the most moral place with a Republican in office. It is about personal responsibility, choosing Christ(not just saying you are a Christian or going to church but the fruit of your life doesn’t show it – I’m telling this to myself too) and giving up your pride. A politician will always be that…a politician…they will not “set us free”.
I cant remember where I found this but I printed it and have it taped to my desk:
“Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always vote for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapes over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations have been 200 years. These nations have progressed throuth this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apty to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.
–Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historian
Maybe some of the posters here are right, it may take something as severe as total Democratic control for the American people to realize that we really do have a good thing here.
I don’t have enough time to explain why some Christians would vote for a candidate with policies and views like BHO’s. It seems to me the man will say anything to get a vote, including promising everyone the moon. I personally don’t get the appeal either, but the Messiah like treatment this guy is getting is beyond scary.
Thank you so much LaShawn, for blogging on BHO. Your clarity and directness is so appreciated and thank you for standing up for God’s policies, not some slick talking politician, pretending not to be some slick talking politican.
DrLawyer, GC (#56) hit it when he said, “will the choice of the people to surrender their lives to their Savior Christ and realize and obey the Word of God.”
The bottom line, it IS simply about immorality. Did you see those stats La Shawn shared about the black family in the previous post? Not only do we (black families) have the greater percentage of unwed mothers, but HALF of conceptions now end in abortion, and we are also high on the STD categories! That is all about the consequences of sexual immorality! Star Parker was even quoted on that stat sheet of saying the same thing: “The top three moral crises facing the Black family are rooted in sexual immorality.”
Personal responsibility begins with right relationship with God through His son Jesus Christ. For the black community, although very religious, according to that same stat sheet, only 10% believe in absolute moral truth. In other words, they aren’t even believing what is being preached, or they aren’t reading the bibles and accepting God’s truth for themselves.
Obama is in that same category. Although claiming to be a born-again Christian, he also says that anyway a person chooses to God is alright too! He is a moral relativist.
He can’t lead a nation if he doesn’t believe himself!
My reason for not voting for him. And since I don’t know WHAT McCain believes, I haven’t decided to vote for him either.
Micah, Thanks for the nice words. My only goal was to offer a different P.O.V. I am not trying to convince anybody here to vote for Obama or be Pro-Choice. I read RedState, TownHall, Instapundit (my former professor) as well as Kos and lefty blogs…have for years.
Demagogue I am not. I am not on this site to “convert” anyone. Bush Jr. has done more to advance Liberalism than I ever could.(heliotrope)
Gabe,
You are really getting to the meat of the issue. Look at Finn’s post again. You all should. Maybe he is a Lib in sheep’s clothing but he is probably telling the truth. I have met MANY “Republicans” that feel the way he does.
As my Dad says ill-informed people buy the “sizzle not the steak.” Sterotypes take hold because there are often elements of truth. Everytime a Republican gets caught in a sex scandal or votes to cut social program funding, signs off on a pork bill etc. a little Republican “street-cred” dies.
Where do you turn? Not sure. Bush and co. made a mess of your party but I would suggest to take and advance good ideas where you find them. No party has all the answers. Learn from Democrats about communicating with the less fortunate, as we “liberals” learn to spread the conservative gospel of personal resposibility and small government.
Rush often says Liberals are to be defeated not compromised with. If it was up to him there would only be 6 guys in the Republican/Conservative party…him, Kristol, Levin, Coulter etc. That is not reasonable or productive.
Reagan isn’t walking through that door. Stop defending every policy the Repub. party sets out, even if it is stupid or unconstitutional. This goes for Dems too, for example….
Fairness Doctrine = stupid.
Government funded/owned healthcare = stupid.
Eating Supersize fries at McDonalds / suing when you get fat = stupid.
School vouchers = good
See, it’s not that hard.
Make room in the party for people who have a different point of view and try to really understand WHY people make the choices they do instead of labeling them baby-killers, Marxists and un-godly. You will earn their respect and have a chance to convince them of a better way.
Interesting thoughts G.C.
“It’s naive and ridiculous of anyone to think that black people will get out of the ghetto just because Obama is in office, or that the world will be the most moral place with a Republican in office.”
“black” “people” are not in the ghetto, and I’d like to think you meant something else. I would say that non-white people, of all lots in life, will not see much of a significant change in 4 years, and will likely encounter interpersonal setbacks under an Obama candidacy, but that’s another matter entirely.
“It is about personal responsibility, choosing Christ(not just saying you are a Christian or going to church but the fruit of your life doesn’t show it – I’m telling this to myself too) and giving up your pride. A politician will always be that…a politician…they will not “set us free”.
Choosing salvation doesn’t automatically make things better here on earth, but it does secure your soul from eternal damnation, gives you unmerited favor, and help of the Holy Spirit in matters of guidance and wisdom, which will hopefully mitigate behaviors and attitudes that would mitigate personal suffering.
The chief thing is folks need to get their MINDS right. This is why conservative believers can’t be clearly distinguished from conservative or liberal heathens in the arena of public debate. A transformed and renewed mind is no longer carnal, and therefore is not at enmity with Abba Father.
And to Gabe’s sentiment:
“And there’s where the problem of perception comes in. Because liberals have cornered the market on making people FEEL good, they have the street cred for DOING good, despite having done the opposite.”
‘Liberals’ or ‘liberal orthodoxy’? There is good and bad in it. And it’s a challenge in imploring ANY group of people strike said balance of logic and emotion. Is what’s best or me, good for all, or is what’s good for all, right for me…or do we know what’s good for mankind as a whole. I think that Liberals, like evangelical conservatives, sit in Moses seat in their own varied methodologies.
“Because conservatives are basically a PR nightmare on wheels, the only cred we get is for being the party of mean old rich guys that don’t care about the poor, sick children, minorities, immigrants, etc. I think the story goes that we kick puppies as well.”
Like liberals (politicians), conservatives (politicians) have earned that cred legitimately, and secular conservatives play evangelicals like collective fiddles, just like secular liberals sucker in minorities and other disenfranchised people.
And the secular (libs and cons) who have the lions share of resources and influence in the world at large, laugh and mock believers to no end.
And to G.C’s last sentence:
“A politician will always be that…a politician…they will not “set us free”.
”
Because they are no good – that’s why. When one soberly embraces that, then you’re on the path to intellectual liberation.
Dr. Lawyer:
I take your point and and I don’t. If you were engaged in expository writing, then consider my “frisking” of that stink bomb to be “expository” as well.
You get the “gong” on my reference to blacks being Hitler’s Jews. Planned Parenthood and the abortion shops are not located in the fashionable malls. They are not peddling their stuff at the girls boarding schools. Your list of serious faults among blacks was coupled with your abortion remarks. That throws Sanger and the whole eugenics crowd into the mix. One of the few places Obama is clearly on record is as an extremely liberal “baby killer by choice.”
You still don’t understand a lot of Americans when you pick on the War on Terrorism. We have not had a repeat of 9/11 because al-Qaeda has nearly worn itself out in Iraq. The war in Iraq has been more of a referendum on the liberal approach to war than a failure of our military. al-Qaeda is hiding in caves and looking over its shoulders for drones. They are a shadowy group pushed deep into the shadows and we and our ALLIES are running them to ground. If anything, the liberal hype over Gitmo has caused us to kill them or turn them over to Jordon or Eqypt or Thailand or Pakistan or even Afghanistan for interrogation. Nice work, liberals, you have pushed the envelope on “torture” to the max.
I addressed Gitmo and torture perfectly well. Why don’t you liberals study up on the Geneva Accords and design a plan for these people that serves the nation, as well.
If the Republican party is “the party that wrote the book on fear” I will ask you for just three examples of the “fear” that the Republicans have set loose upon the land. Three.
You say: “……if you really want to understand the Obama effect you have to start by looking at the policies of the past 8 years.” OK, give me three specific policies of the past 8 years that have caused the Obama effect. Three.
I know what Obama is and I know what the “Obama effect” is. I studied Saul Alinsky too and I fully know how organizing the grassroots in a drive for socialism works.
Who doesn’t want a “free” ride on health care? Who doesn’t want sane dialog that talks dictators into calm submission? Who doesn’t want a leader who will walk among us and bring us together and raise us up and help us to be better than we thought we could ever be? Who doesn’t envy the rich and dream of having some of their wealth drop in his lap?
When all conservatives have to sell is a bunch of moral principles, a work ethic, education you have to earn and prove, a list of responsibilities, nagging about serving your fellow man and all that patriotism hooey,—–the Obama route is like the Yellow Brick Road.
We conservatives will vote for McCain, because HE IS NOT OBAMA. We don’t like him much, but we know we can probably rein him in on important stuff.
Meanwhile, the MSM is full time Obamarama. Obamamessiah propels the “Obama effect.” The libs dream of an Obamanation. And the conservatives are going to vote in the spirit of Obamayo’mamma.
We didn’t like Clinton because of his sleazy character and his slick talk. Now Obama is attempting to be the first black Clinton.
Your entire “expository” post was about why the “rotten” Bush administration has caused the “Obama effect.” McCain is running away from Bush. The MSM is waiting to tie McCain to Bush. Obama is saying McCain will be four more years of Bush. And so forth. That, sir, is politics. No one need write essays on business as usual.
In the past 12 months I have spent considerable time in Egypt, Japan, France, Morocco, and Chile and a few days each in a half dozen other foreign lands. Our national reputation is just fine. Over the forty years that I have trotted the globe, I have seen our reputation waver, but I have never seen it plummet. Germany, France, England, and Italy all have turned to more conservative governments. Even Mexico has a president who is looking inward. When liberals view the world through the liberal press, they are reading editorials instead of journalism. Believe me, the USA is still the overwhelming world magnet.
Should Obama get the job, he will suddenly have the crush of reality fall down upon him. His pied piper tune will be very different then. And the Obama glow will fade. And he will find that words alone don’t cut it.
Dr. Lawyer, come back with those two sets of three specifics each, which I doubt you can produce. I stand ready to be humbled.
Obama is all boilerplate socialism and explaining him by stating what he is not is all part of the old medicine show.
Carlotta,
I did not see your post until just now so sorry if I double post.
I can’t let your comment pass. Read the full context of what I said. My point is that reducing the ills of inner city / black life to “simple immorality” is insufficient and wrong.
There are many factors why poor, uneducated but good people make poor choices and mistakes due to lack of education, resources and as I said “lack of personal responsibility”. Black people are rooted in the church and almost all subscribe to Christianity, yet the same problems contiune to surface. Why? Because they don’t believe in Jesus enough?
Are black teenagers the only ones who have pre-marital sex? Or are other groups better educated and armed to deal with the conseqences of sexual “sin”?
Don’t get me started on the prison culture, hip-hop and the incarceration rates of black men. The Criminal Justice system is deeply flawed and has had a devastating impact on the black family. There are many, many factors at work here.
DrLawyer you said:”Black people are rooted in the church and almost all subscribe to Christianity, yet the same problems contiune to surface. Why? Because they don’t believe in Jesus enough?”
Yes! I do believe it’s all about whether or not one follows after Christ. Don’t forget that stat I shared with you, only 10% are actually believing in moral truth so not very many are actually following after Jesus!
It doesn’t take money and degrees to obey the commandments that God has for us in the bible. If kids didn’t practice premarital sex then there’s no unwed pregnancies or STD’s. If young men didn’t fight, steal and whatever else they do in gangs, then they don’t go to jail.
Now there is a bigger problem I do agree and for me I’ve found that in having no mother or someone home to watch and raise these children. If even having strong moral guidelines, if there’s no one home to enforce them, then what happens? Here in California that has been verified by this alarming stat: One Million Teens
Left Unsupervised After School
Nobody is home watching these kids – rich or poor! We in America, have left our god-given roles. Marriage between a man and woman, man as the provider and woman as the keeper of the home. We women want to be superwomen and work like men while the men are starting to get used to that and now require that a woman can “bring it to the table” with a great job and money, spoiling men in the process. Two-income families but no one really raising their own children. Nannies, day-care centers, after school programs and the like. Children away from their parents nearly 12 hours a day and we wonder why they are doing the things they are doing?
It’s all about knowing God and practicing his principles and it all starts with the individual. Then with the family model.
As any of us already knows, a strong nation begins with a strong family. A strong family begins with strong individuals and that starts with knowing God and obeying Him!
You know, I have a very serious problem with this discussion of non-white people on a blog such as this where it’s clearly questionable whether or not all the participants even have good will towards non-whites.
I’m not saying LaShawn should not exercise her liberty to discuss these matters, but I think that most, if not all, of those fellow bloggers who track to and from this blog, could really stand to be put in check for some of the stuff they write that looks like it came from VDare, Vanguard, or American Renaissance.
I’m going to stop right there for now..
Dr. Lawyer said:
“Make room in the party for people who have a different point of view and try to really understand WHY people make the choices they do instead of labeling them baby-killers, Marxists and un-godly. You will earn their respect and have a chance to convince them of a better way.”
I agree.. there is enough ungodly to go around.
Regardless of who gets elected, it’s going to be a vexing next four years unless Senator Obama actually turns out to be slightly right of center (or more), which I doubt. By that I mean strictly regarding oil, taxes, and the war (which we are financial via loans from foreign governments).
Those personal responsibility issues is why I do what I do at the grassroots level. The government is a failure as being an agent for Yahweh’s well, because the people running it know even less about him that too many of the citizens. This is why he’s not going to punish America because liberal policies are complicit in abortion and homosexuality.
He chastises those whom he loves, and those who are his people and called by HIS NAME. That’s not this country on the whole, but a remnant thereof. Thinking otherwise is where people are clearly deluded.
Real quick before I go to a meeting and off the top of my head.
Three examples of the “fear” that the Republicans have set loose upon the land.
1) http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0919-07.htm
Remarks by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, indicating a belief that al-Qaida operatives would prefer John Kerry in the White House, sparked a firestorm of protest Sunday from Democrats who labeled the Illinois Republican’s comments as “fear mongering” and “un-American.
2)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-07-cheney-terror_x.htm
Speaking to supporters in Des Moines, Cheney called it “absolutely essential” that on Election Day voters “make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating.”
That’s two and I am searching for one by Kristol…I have it in mind but I have to find it on the Net, don’t worry I’ll get it.
But in the meantime, after Boumediene came down, mischaracterize the case as giving “access to U.S. courts to terrorists”. Wrong, only Habeas. Big difference. (See Bob Barr for best explanation I’ve heard.)
” give me three specific policies of the past 8 years that have caused the Obama effect. Three.”
I might be able to get you 10 of these but here are a quick 5.
1) Torture. You don’t think we torture / waterboard. I travel a lot too, and it has given us a black eye. Hitchen’s, and a host of others disagree with Bush on this. McCain to his credit is against it too.
2) Attempt to get Harriet Myers on SCOTUS. Blocked by conservatives but it pissed them off. Illustrates cronyism and tone-deafness of Bush and the policy of friends over competence.(FEMA director)
3) Expansion of Federal Discretionary (non-military) spending. prior to 06, Rebublican congress / no veto by Bush on pork bills.
4) Terri Schiavo. Violated principles of Federalism…many Libertarians upset.
5) Immigration reform. Base up in arms about “path to citizenship”. McCain still haunted.
I got a few more but you get the idea. The failures of Bush opened the door for a radical, muslim sounding black guy to have a chance at the big chair. Without the division in the GOP due to Bush being on the wrong side of the above issues, there would be no Obama. Just Hillary who would probably lose to Rommney, Fred etc…
Be back later.
Soo may typos in my last post.. my bad.
Three examples of the “fear” that the Republicans have set loose upon the land.
Dr. Lawyer, common now. Are the Dems not also guilty of playing the politics of fear? I would argue even more so.
How about the Dems and the “global warming” scare, and the resulting uber-regulation that they would love to enact in persuit of saving the world. Or how about them scaring senior citizens by saying that Republicans want to “take away their social security”. Or how about the dems scaring the african american community by saying that Republicans are against against black people because they are against affirmative action.
I am sure I could go on and on, but these were just the examples I could think of off the top of my head.
Martian,
You are absolutely right, but I was responding to heilotrope who asked for GOP examples of fear tactics. Both parties do it. This election cycle is as much a referendum on Bush and his leadership as anything else.
My argument is that Bush paved the way for Obama and the “fear-mongering” (gays, war, immigrants)of the GOP has allowed the MSM to paint Obama as a logical and rational alternative, even as Obama evokes primarily emotional reacations from polity.
Ironic, no?
No matter who wins, it is the people who are the ultimate deciders in the fate of this country. We simply have to hold these politicians accountable. Obama is no joke. No matter how much he moves to the center, I honestly believe that it is just a facade to appeal to the general election voters. It is politics after all but a politician with his ideas can get over if we don’t wake up.
I found this link on Newsmax today: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/michelle_obama/2008/06/26/107790.html?s=al&promo_code=6514-1
His wife is making statements about how her husband is going to fight for gay equality. It concerns me because we all know of unintended consequences. This kind of stuff could lead up to churches being put on the spot for discrimination and “hate speech.” Just look at Massachusetts, the Catholic adoption agencies are out of business because of the notion of discrimination.
I don’t know what is in store but I will do what I can as a resposible citizen and not quit. I cannot even begin to fathom what life will be like for our children and grandchildren.
C Lynn Patterson, you can do the following, depending on your emotional/political/spiritual currency:
1. Don’t vote for him.
2. Spread the word and the Word
3. Keep the Faith
4. And don’t grieve the Holy Ghost
THEBIGDODDY:
#1 Goes without saying. I cannot vote for the man if I tried. Too much at stake. I would have preferred Mitt Romney, but oh well, Mcain is it. I will have to vote for McCain, I will wretch like heck, but just because McCain isn’t tops, I cant take it out of America.
#2, 3,and 4 you are on point my friend. You can bet on it that’s what I will do.
Thanks.
Carlotta,
I feel like I have to respond to you separately because I think you have a real concern for the family unit and I admire that. I don’t want to sound harsh but it bothers me when people distill complex social problems into “you need to get saved”.
I read the article you linked to and did you notice that the state needed additional FUNDING for the after-school programs. Where do your conservative brothers and sisters fall on that? The cat is out the bag, those children are born and need help. Will we help them or say the mother should not have had them in the first place?
Again we return to economics. Most women in the class of which we speak, MUST work to support the home. Furthermore, many women are the SOLE source of income.
How much was gas in 1965? How much is it now? What kind of job could you get with a G.E.D. back then? What kind of job could you get with only High School Ed. now? What would you have those mothers do?
You refer to a poll that shows 10% of people accept “moral truth”. What does that even mean? How can you gauge the heart? Does a person who dropped out of school even know what moral relativism is?
If you are attempting to show that those of whom we speak are not “holy” enough, I utterly reject that idea. If you mean that personal morals can help a person climb out of poverty and ignorance, I agree in full. But morals MUST be combined with rational, scientific methods in order to effect systemic change. I know many people who have spent a lifetime and earned advanced degrees studying these problems…they are not simple!
This is what we are discussing, the how. I don’t mean to be disrepectful of your faith but Jesus is not the answer for wholesale institutional change. Muslims and Jewish advocacy groups have made great contributions in prison ministries and the black community, and they don’t “follow Christ”. Many people of Asian decent are well educated, productive, law-abiding citizens and they are not “Christian” at all.
Real solutions must begin withan understanding of what the problem is.
My argument is that Bush paved the way for Obama and the “fear-mongering” (gays, war, immigrants)of the GOP has allowed the MSM to paint Obama as a logical and rational alternative, even as Obama evokes primarily emotional reacations from polity.
Ironic, no?
Yes it is ironic.
I don’t agree with your assessment that Bush “paved the way for Obama”. Bush has been the victim of an absolutely irrational hatred by those on the far left. They find a way to blame him for every bad thing wrong with America, and refuse to even entertain the notion that Bush is well meaning in his policies. They believe that he is evil to the core, motivated by a lust for power and wealth for “his oil buddies”.
I believe that it stems all the way back to the 2000 election and the shameful behavior of Al Gore and his bitterness at losing a close election. His challenging the legitmacy of the Bush presidency gave some semblance of creedance to the far left who would say “He’s not my president, I didn’t vote for him. He stole the election”…blah blah blah. The country was already polarized and Gore’s legal challenges fueled by his selfish arrogance and massive ego only succeeded in furthering the divide. There was a brief period of unity following 9/11, but when Iraq didn’t go exactly as planned, the Dems sought to exploit that for political gain. They re-wrote history. And to their “credit”, they have largely suceeded in doing so.
Remember they were all on board for Iraq before it was unpopular. When it started to fall out of favor with the populace, they had to re-write the narrative. They played dumb, Bush mis-led us poor dumb democrats into voting for the Iraq resolution. Nevermind the fact that every democrat in the Clinton administration said the same things that Bush had said. Never mind the fact that every international intelligence agency said the same things Bush said.
No, Dr. Lawyer, an unrelenting attack by the Dems on Bush and his character, calling him everything from a liar to a fool is what has paved the way for Obama. Bush’s largest fault is in not fighting back. Far too often he has let the Dems slander him for the sake of scoring political points with the Moveon.org and Kos folks, with nary a word of reply. He has failed to use the bully pulpit to get his message out. Bush has allowed the far left Dems and the eager to comply MSM to paint a picture of him that is nothing like who he really is. And because the majority of Americans really don’t give a damn about politics save for every 4 years, all they hear about is the snipits on the evening news, or the headlines on the papers, which are demonstrably hostile to Bush.
I hear you Martian and you are not totally off base but..
I would argue this began with the Clinton impeachment and Bush running to “restore honor” to the White House. He set the bar high and conservatives thought he was going to set a strong, small government agenda. It never happened. All those things I mentioned above must be laid at his door. Can’t blame the Dems and media for everything when you have the WH, House and Senate an for the bulk of W’s term.
Myers, no WMD, Immigration, deficit, Scooter Libby..etc. He made a lot of blunders.
Look I know what “real” conservatives think about Bush. I talk to them all the time. They can’t wait to turn the page on him. True, the media attacked him often but he gave them a lot of ammo.
Clinton’s sexual misconduct and lies (otherwise Gore wins in a walk) begat Bush 2, Bush 2 begat 2006 congress (hello Pelosi), 2006 congress and Bush 2 begat Obama. Now if Obama wins it may cause the rise of Reagan 2…you should be happy. =)
Lawyer,
I will agree that Bush was not a conservative. His lack of using the veto pen on pork laden spending bills was shameful. I understand to a degree why he did it. Granted there was a republican majority in Congress and the Senate, but it was shaky at best, filled with RINO’s in purple states who felt the need to stray from the reservation early and often (Hagel, Chafee, Snowe just to name a few). I believe that Bush was trying to buy himself some political capital with the R’s. It obviously didn’t work and the net effect was the kind of increase in gov’t spending that Newt had promised the R’s would eliminate.
The only way I could stomach an Obama presidency is if there were no SCOTUS retirements/deaths during his administration. His policies can be easily reversed once he is out of office. But his judicial appointments are for life. And I know that he would undo one of the few things that Bush has been superb in, and that is stacking the courts (appellate and Supreme) with great judges. You love to keep bringing up Myers I notice, but save for that blunder (one done I believe as a stealth nominee in the hopes of an easy confirmation), Bush has done a fantastic job on judges.
Good dialogue Marvin and Dr Lawyer. I know it’s hard, when you like a guy, but we have to stop making excuses for politicians of any flavor.
We haven’t had a decent President since Ronald Reagan. The rest of been lackluster substitute teachers and noteworthy in NO way, in my opinion. I say that as a non-white male AND political independent who was able to somewhat tolerate the disdain that Ronald Reagan and his administration had for non-whites and other marginalized groups.
Life pretty okay in the 80’s.. at least for me and those in my circle of friends.
I kind of share Obama’s view that it doesn’t have to be 1 man and 1 woman (although it would be nice that way)! I guess Obama’s a passive guy and I can kind of relate to his thinking.
He’s not passive, he’s pandering. He should have left it up to the states and left it at that.
Personal rights issue like that should be up to the people, not the Federal Government.
On the subject of being divisive….I have always been amazed that liberals do not see the divisiveness of taking another man’s money by force, particularly when it is for programs that have unintended/intended consequences.
To me, the fact that we will never ALL agree on a path, makes it critical that there is as little government as possible. So, while Obama views opinions about gay marriage or questioning him about his long-term-chosen-associations with racists,terrorists, & assorted pond scum as “divisive,” those with a smidge of common sense view coercive stripping of freedom and the fruits of hard-earned labor as far more divisive.
heliotrope-
Fine, fine, fine selection of facts and analysis. You have covered well the unvarnished truth. Praise the Lord for the truth!
DrLawyer, I’m sorry that you were offended by my “you need to get saved” as the solution for our immorality problems. You see, my experience in life and what I’ve witnessed so far is that those who are saved and live their lives after Christ, have a very low incidence of immorality in their lives. I know there are moral people without knowing Christ, which is consistent to the bible where it says that God has written the laws in our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33). We all have a consciousness made by God to do what is right! It’s just made easier by having Christ in our lives providing the power needed to DO right! That’s a whole different topic but it just came natural for me to talk about it. I’ll just make sure I’ll leave the “getting saved” part out from now on.
As far as that article on the million teens left at home, I’m glad you noticed that the government is looking for more funding to solve that problem. That should only serve as a wakeup call for parents because as we know, government money has never helped a social problem improve. I know for a fact that with the existing after school programs, no one is still paying attention to ALL of the children! I’ve passed by some of these places and even junior high kids were running wild, hugging, smooching and just plain not being attended to. You can’t pay anyone to watch your children the way that you would. Scientists scratching their heads trying to figure out solutions to these problems just lack simple common sense. You bring children in the world, you take care of THEM.
An example of our brilliant social scientists at work is that if you just kick the women off of welfare, then you successfully have made the welfare rolls fall saving government money. Right? Well, they just didn’t count on all the children that would be left to their own while those mothers worked, creating more social problems with the increase of crime. What a hush hush statistic this is!
The point in all of this is that morality is tied into our social fabric of this nation. That’s why it’s important to choose a president who recognizes this, and if someone like Obama is calling it divisive because we want to have the family unit include two mommies or two daddies, then he’ll just be aiding and abetting to our growing problem of kids being raised in utter confusion!
Oops! That should have read in my last paragraph, “If Obama is calling it divisive because we want the family unit to consist of only one mommy and one daddy,”…
#65 Dr Lawyer:-
Oh……my……goodness! In #49 you wrote: My point is that he has gotten this far because of the contempt many have for Bush and his party. A party that wrote the book on “stirring up fear”
I asked you in #61: If the Republican party is “the party that wrote the book on fear” I will ask you for just three examples of the “fear” that the Republicans have set loose upon the land. Three.
In #65 you respond: 1) Remarks by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, indicating a belief that al-Qaida operatives would prefer John Kerry in the White House, sparked a firestorm of protest Sunday from Democrats who labeled the Illinois Republican’s comments as “fear mongering” and “un-American. 2) Speaking to supporters in Des Moines, Cheney called it “absolutely essential” that on Election Day voters “make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating.” ….. That’s two and I am searching for one by Kristol…I have it in mind but I have to find it on the Net, don’t worry I’ll get it……But in the meantime, after Boumediene came down, mischaracterize the case as giving “access to U.S. courts to terrorists”. Wrong, only Habeas. Big difference……
OK, you haul out some obscure mumblings by Dennis Hastert saying al-Qaeda operatives would prefer John Kerry in the White House. THAT is a chapter in the book on Republicans “stirring up fear”? Holy cow, Dr. Lawyer, do you really believe that if you were to stand on Main street and “stoppeth one in three” that you would find anyone within 2,000,000 hours who would cite that pitiful example of “stirring up fear”? To misquote the bard: Fear should be made of scarier stuff.
Then you quote Cheney saying that if Bush/Cheney are not reelected, “we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating.” THAT is a chapter in the book on Republicans “stirring up fear”? Holy cow, Dr. Lawyer, do you really believe that if you were to stand on Main street and “stoppeth one in three” that you would find anyone within 2,000,000 hours who would cite that pitiful example of “stirring up fear”? To misquote the bard: Fear should be made of scarier stuff. It sounds like Obama wailing about the Bush depression and doom and gloom.
Then you say there is some Kristol quote you will find and then, TA DA, jump to “Boumediene” (only days old) as part of evil unleashed by “the party that wrote the book on fear.”
Sorry, Dr. Lawyer, you struck out. Nothing here is close to being in the league with Murtha’s cold blooded murderers or Durbin’s comparisons with Pol Pot and Hitler, or the hyper-ventilating from the left over Abu ghraib and Gitmo. (To name a scant few.)
I asked you in #61: You say: “……if you really want to understand the Obama effect you have to start by looking at the policies of the past 8 years.” OK, give me three specific policies of the past 8 years that have caused the Obama effect. Three.
You respond in #65: I might be able to get you 10 of these but here are a quick 5.
1) Torture. You don’t think we torture / waterboard. I travel a lot too, and it has given us a black eye. Hitchen’s, and a host of others disagree with Bush on this. McCain to his credit is against it too.
Dr. Lawyer, I said nothing about “waterboarding.” In fact, I asked you to provide your definition of torture. But, guess what? The Geneva accords say nothing about non-uniformed enemy combatants. So, in the world of la-la land, I suppose that giving a non-uniformed enemy combatant a manicure could be considered torture. After all, the lie of flushing a Koran down the crapper made the cover of Newsweek. Why should I play the game of “torture” with you when you won’t reveal what torture means in your brief. Please remember your words: “…you have to start by looking at the policies of the past 8 years.” POLICIES is your word. You are straight out accusing the Bush administration of torture. Prove it.
2) Attempt to get Harriet Myers on SCOTUS. Blocked by conservatives but it pissed them off. Illustrates cronyism and tone-deafness of Bush and the policy of friends over competence.(FEMA director)
Whew! How are you saying that this stumble-fumble nomination (suggested by Harry Reid) is part of “…you have to start by looking at the policies of the past 8 years”? Bush appointed Alito and Roberts, after he got creamed right and left on the Myers nomination, but how do YOU tie this into the policies of the past 8 years.?
3) Expansion of Federal Discretionary (non-military) spending. prior to 06, Rebublican congress / no veto by Bush on pork bills.
Are you serious? Obama supporters and Democrats are furious because of federal (non-military) discretionary spending!!! Wow!!! Recall that this is in to response to: “……if you really want to understand the Obama effect you have to start by looking at the policies of the past 8 years.”
4) Terri Schiavo. Violated principles of Federalism…many Libertarians upset.
“……if you really want to understand the Obama effect you have to start by looking at the policies of the past 8 years.” Terri Schiavo was a POLICY? If you were to stand on Main street and “stoppeth one in three” would you find anyone within 2,000,000 hours who would cite that pitiful example as a POLICY of the past 8 years?
5) Immigration reform. Base up in arms about “path to citizenship”. McCain still haunted.
Good golly, Miss Molly Dr. Lawyer, —– oh, heck, see #4 above.
One of the first rules of trial law is that you never ask a witness a question to which you do not already know the answer. Frankly, Dr. Lawyer, I knew and know that you can not answer my two sets of questions.
I appreciate your efforts to try to talk softly about the liberal non-platform, but at some point, you can not help but come off as trying to patronize rubes.
Clearly, Democrats hate the impeachment charges in Clinton’s embarrassing Lewinski affair. But he flat out lied to a judge and not matter how thick or thin you slice it, calling it a private matter is still bologna. Al Gore challenged Florida in 2000 and tried to throw out the absentee military ballots and limit the recount to certain counties. After the Supreme Court ruled, even the Washington Post and the New York Times couldn’t find a wedge to drive into the recount.
So, the Democrats decided to peddle the lie of graft and corruption to the willing believers. After all, as HITLER said, a lie repeated often enough becomes truth.
In fairness, my two sets of three questions still stand. Take your time. I have meetings, you have meetings, but the truth can wait. Give me your best shot.
absolute favorite line of the year…”To misquote the bard: Fear should be made of scarier stuff.” Exquisite and then some. Methinks even the bard would be delighted with the misquote.
I’m away for the weekend and I won’t have internet but I wanted to wish everyone a great 4th weekend.
I’ll be back Tuesday.
Dr. Lawyer,
With all due respect, are you a doctor or a lawyer, or both?
Since you use so many legal-type situations and illustrations I would guess you are a lawyer.
#87 madhatter: “Monikers” are fun, aren’t they? They can be clever, colorful, curious, quaint and sometimes, informative.
Monikers that say: “I’m important” are fairly uncommon. If you peruse the commenters above, almost all use their name or something related to their name. Marvin even tells us his origins.
I hide behind my moniker. I work is the heart of political correctness where your spoken thoughts can be your worst nightmare if the political correctness police have targeted you. Here, I have to write what I “say” and so I do so “anonymously.”
Your question is one of natural curiosity that has probably occurred to most readers. But, no matter what the answer is, it has no bearing whatsoever on the question LaShawn (who happens to be a lawyer) has asked.
Doctor, lawyers, ambassadors, senators, chattering movie stars, talk show hosts, etc. all have to make common sense. Otherwise, they just look like Obama with a phony presidential seal “talking the talk.” They depend on a certain number of people swooning just because of they were in the presence of “greatness.”
I hear you, helio. I work as a teacher, and it is hard to think of a profession more in thrall to Political Correctness than education. Fortunately in private education the impact of PC is not quite as acute as in the public schools.
Maybe Obama needs to wear an urban t shirt with a man and woman holding hands.
The opposite of “Political Correctness” is “Keeping It Real”.
Neither of them give glory to the Almighty.
Why does everyone totally ignore the fact that Obama is *not* black!?!? His Mama is white folks!
Amy Jo,
He self-identifies as “black”, functions as “black”, and is regarded as “black” by those who classify themselves as “white”.
Obama is like the other demagogues, of the well-spoken variety.
Amy Jo,
His “mama” being white…..His “Dada” is Black. I’ve seen him talk about his black heritage….I’ve yet to hear him speak of his white heritage.
He’s identifying himself with his Black Half (which is ok….thanks). He’s associating himself as a black. Should I classify him as anything but?
mj said:
“Obama is like the other demagogues, of the well-spoken variety.”
Pedat asks:
In what way is Senator Obama a demagogue? What what is a “well-spoken” demagogue? Is not one of the fundamental characteristics of ANY demagogue their persuasiveness?
As a “translator” and “English teacher”, you would know those nuances, correct?
Dr. Lawyer,
Heliotrope is absolutely right that my question in 87 above has nothing directly to do with the thread, and is misplaced. I owe you an apology and I owe him thanks for pointing out my gaffe. I did slip over the line of civility and relevance by substituting idle curiosity for pertinent discussion.
heliotrope,
There seems to be a clear distinction between Obama speaking with a teleprompter, and speaking without a teleprompter, doesn’t there?
The observations were that the polish and confidence seemed to go away without the teleprompter. This was a topic of conversation during the primary, but seems to have lessened as a topic of interest recently. Guess we need to pay a little closer attention to the videos?
Comments on this entry are closed.