Should we all hide our wallets? What do you think?

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

spendius wrote:

... is a bloody commie rat in my opinion...

Obama...

you sure about that chiefy? how do you know that mccain isn't the manchurian candidate?

@DontTreadOnMe,

I don't believe Obama is a Communist and think it is silly to call him one. But he does express soft Marxist socialist concepts that bother me. A lot.

McCain has been around for a very long time now and he is an open book. He is forthcoming and has honestly admited weaknesses, shortcomings, and failures and doesn't really exaggerate his considerable successes. Anything we want to know about him, he tells us. Nothing is off limits except the private lives of his kids that have nothing to do with politics or the campaign.

I would have chosen a different candidate myself, but I am not afraid of McCain. There is no question in my mind what we will be getting with him. He's going to get a lot of stuff wrong, probably, but he loves his country and will always do his damndest to do no harm.

I don't think anybody, other than the close inner circle that we are not allowed to talk about, knows what we will be getting with Obama.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't believe Obama is a Communist and think it is silly to call him one. But he does express soft Marxist socialist concepts that bother me. A lot.

McCain has been around for a very long time now and he is an open book. He is forthcoming and has honestly admited weaknesses, shortcomings, and failures and doesn't really exaggerate his considerable successes. Anything we want to know about him, he tells us. Nothing is off limits except the private lives of his kids that have nothing to do with politics or the campaign.

I would have chosen a different candidate myself, but I am not afraid of McCain. There is no question in my mind what we will be getting with him. He's going to get a lot of stuff wrong, probably, but he loves his country and will always do his damndest to do no harm.

I don't think anybody, other than the close inner circle that we are not allowed to talk about, knows what we will be getting with Obama.

Why did you use four paragraphs of words to say, "Obama is a scary boogie man?" Did you think you could hide your lie-mongering, hate-mongering, and fear-mongering in a sea of words?

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Quote:

Did you think you could hide your lie-mongering, hate-mongering, and fear-mongering in a sea of words?

Wow.

You're sort of a mongering-monger.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't believe Obama is a Communist and think it is silly to call him one. But he does express soft Marxist socialist concepts that bother me. A lot.

How do you feel about Jesus when he proclaims that people should love their neighbors, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, welcome strangers, and help prisoners? That on his second coming, he will judge nations by how they treated the lowest among their inhabitants? That "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"?

Does Jesus's Marxist agenda bother you, too?

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Jesus didn't have a Marxist agenda.

0 Replies

If we do decide to hide our wallets, then clearly we ought to slip them over to Joe the Truant... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1TT7gt5F0w&eurl=http://www.eschatonblog.com/

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

... I am not afraid of McCain...

but i am. he's not the same guy he used to be. any more than i'm the same as i was when i was 20. life is like that.

i understand why you feel like that, i guess. but i don't agree with your read on obama.

it occurs to me that there's a contradiction in the republican pre-req, especially in this election.

first it's that they don't like washington insiders. then they pick an ultimate insider as the candidate.

at the same time, obama is by republican estimates, "too inexperienced"; which means he's not a washington insider, because of the complaint that he's only been in the senate a couple of years.

doesn't sound logical to me, but okee-dokee.

in any case, it really is time for some fresh blood over there. and no, i for sure don't mean palin.

btw, why do republicans believe that palin, with +/-8 weeks in the national scene is more qualified than obama??

there's that contradiction thing again.. oh, well..

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

Like McCain, Palin is also an open book. She is who she is. A bit green on the national scene, yes, but intelligent, sharp, a quick study, and certainly one who would be up to speed after a few years' hands on training. The thing that qualifies her more than Obama is that she has actually done something, managed something, accomplished something, and has something to show for it. And in the process, she enjoys maybe the highest approval rating ever for a town mayor and a state governor. And she pretty much did it on her own initiative without a finely tuned party machine undergirding her. You don't find many, if any, dubious characters floating around her resume. And finally she has taken some of the most hateful, contemptible, unconsionable public sliming I've ever seen directed at a candidate and she emerged nondefensive, smiling, and shrugged it off showing incredible strength of character, poise, and class. She can articulate a reasoned point of view and explain it competently. She is real, completely transparent, and an amazing young woman.

There isn't much that Obama can point to and show success, accomplishment, or results that he actually had a significant part in. He and/or his handlers discourage close scrutiny of what he has actually done. He came to power via some very shady, dubious people and really doesn't have 'friends' he can be proud of--most he has had to throw under the bus and direct the media to something else. He doesn't seem to hold any core convictions about much of anything but shifts his point of view according to what he thinks will make his fawning public continue to genuflect and cheer and believe no matter what it is. He promises a utopia that he can't deliver and may do great damage if he actually tries. He seems to hold a pretty low opinion of this country, what it has accomplished, and its Consitution. And he whines, plays the race card, and becomes offended if he is even questioned; much more so if he is actually criticized.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

There isn't much that Obama can point to and show success, accomplishment, or results that he actually had a significant part in.

Doesn't winning a presidential election count for something?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Now, I don't think Jesus as Marxist is much of an issue, but was Jesus really proposing to tax the highest earners to send money to the lowest half. If you say it was, I'll take your word, of course. I'm not at all inclined to review the documents.

2 Replies

@roger,

Jesus in fact did encourage people, rich and poor, to heal the sick, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and visit those in prison. . . voluntarily. A very conservative concept, actually. It is a Marxist concept only when it becomes a requirement enforcible by the government that the rich be made a lot poorer in order to make the poor richer.

Jesus also pointed out that those who had rich are expected to do more than those who are poor, but also made it clear that the was the owner of the vineyard who would decide how charity and reward would be dispensed from his property. Marx took the view that the owner of the vineyard disadvantaged others by owning that vineyard. Also quite a different point of view.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

Was Jesus really proposing to the highest earners to send money to the lowest half

As they used to say in the Radio Eriwan jokes, "In principle, yes ... except --"

Jesus didn't say anything. The relevant section isn't a protocol of what Jesus said, but a prophesy of what he will say at the onset of his kingdom.
The prophesy isn't that Jesus will judge nations by a process they follow, he will specify a result. Those nations who take good care of the lowest among there members will inherit the Kingdom; those who fail to take good care of them will be asked to "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels". That means nations are free not to care for the poor, as long as they don't mind the hellfire.

The passage (Matthew 25:31-46) illustrates clearly what it means by "the least of these": It specifically names the hungry, the thirsty, the strangers, the naked, and those in prison.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I love this post. If talk radio was under copyright, every sentence would have foxfire in serious legal jeopardy.

But now, if folks want to have some really serious fun, I heartily recommend this old thread (Bush Aftermath 1) following immediately on the 2004 election. Take your time. Savor. Pass it on to friends. Quote contents. http://able2know.org/topic/37997-1

2 Replies

@blatham,

That's mean, Blatham -- love it!

0 Replies

@blatham,

Dismissing fears of one party being in absolute control of Congress, Fedral wrote:

I think that it is time to allow the Party that fairly represents the will of the electorate to have their 'day in the sun'.

Right on.

1 Reply

@nimh,

There are riches in that thread.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Like McCain, Palin is also an open book. She is who she is. A bit green on the national scene, yes, but intelligent, sharp, a quick study, and certainly one who would be up to speed after a few years' hands on training. The thing that qualifies her more than Obama is that she has actually done something, managed something, accomplished something, and has something to show for it. And in the process, she enjoys maybe the highest approval rating ever for a town mayor and a state governor. And she pretty much did it on her own initiative without a finely tuned party machine undergirding her. You don't find many, if any, dubious characters floating around her resume. And finally she has taken some of the most hateful, contemptible, unconsionable public sliming I've ever seen directed at a candidate and she emerged nondefensive, smiling, and shrugged it off showing incredible strength of character, poise, and class. She can articulate a reasoned point of view and explain it competently. She is real, completely transparent, and an amazing young woman.

There isn't much that Obama can point to and show success, accomplishment, or results that he actually had a significant part in. He and/or his handlers discourage close scrutiny of what he has actually done. He came to power via some very shady, dubious people and really doesn't have 'friends' he can be proud of--most he has had to throw under the bus and direct the media to something else. He doesn't seem to hold any core convictions about much of anything but shifts his point of view according to what he thinks will make his fawning public continue to genuflect and cheer and believe no matter what it is. He promises a utopia that he can't deliver and may do great damage if he actually tries. He seems to hold a pretty low opinion of this country, what it has accomplished, and its Consitution. And he whines, plays the race card, and becomes offended if he is even questioned; much more so if he is actually criticized.

Why do you keep using a sea of words to lie to us? For McCain and Palin, you use rose-colored paint to portray them as sugar & spice, and everything nice. Have you NOT been paying attention to the facts? McCain has not shown us that he has the judgement or the temperment to be president. He doesn't think like an adult, he REACTS like a spoiled child. Palin can't string one sentence together in a coherent manner. How many thousands of youtube examples of her nonsensical babbling do you need to understand that the criticism is warranted? The facts demonstrate that Palin is a serial liar who abuses her power to settle personal vendettas.

For Obama, you use black and gray paint to portray him as a scary boogie man. Who the hell are you trying to fool? Everything you ever wanted to know about Obama is a matter of public record. Obama is successful, accomplished, educated, intelligent, and thoughtful. He's a graduate from Harvard and a United States Senator. He's the author of two books. He is running one of the best organized and effective campaigns for president that this country has ever seen. Your allegation that Obama had no significant part in his own success is a crock of ****. That pretty much sums it up for the rest of your unfounded, spurious allegations. How can you be so filled with hate for a Christian black man that you would stoop to smearing him as badly as you do? How can you justify your lies?

0 Replies

And not only do we need to hide our wallets (given an Obama win), we'll also need to hide bush administration officials because...this is a bit tricky here so go slowly... agencies presently working under the Bush administration are investigating the Bush administration.

Quote:

FCC Probe Signals Democratic Attack Machine
by Rowan Scarborough

10/30/2008

A Federal Communications Commission investigation of on-air military analysts is providing a glimpse of what Democrats and an Obama administration will do to critics once they capture Washington.

The FCC has sent letters to some of the nation's most prominent military analysts -- some of them pro-President Bush and pro-war -- suggesting they may have broken the law when they appeared on television stations to comment on and explain the war on terrorism.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29263

0 Replies

@blatham,

Quote:

There are riches in that thread.

It takes all sorts they say.

0 Replies

Should we all hide our wallets? What do you think?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know