Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
On our turf
Experts say the threat of domestic terrorism is growing
FULL STORY
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration
Bitter pill: GOP senators swallow hard as judicial nominee David Hamilton is confirmed
Just friends: Obama’s Asia agenda steered clear of any tough talk on human rights abuses 
Good morning!
Today’s quote is from a 19th century preacher: “It is well known that it is no guarantee of a man’s honesty that he is a member of the Church.”
All original content Copyright © 2009 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top174 Comments to “Whirled Views 10.11”
The quote is so appropriate given the recent report on Palin’s illegal activities.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah Musing…..you just couldn’t wait to take a jab at Sarah Palin, huh? You’re like the shark who senses blood in the water only to find out it was much ado about nothing.
Report comment to moderator
Personally, I think that 7AM is too early for Lynn to post. I believe she’s on the left coast, so that would mean 4AM her time.
That might explain why she left the “D” off “Whirled Views”. Or maybe the name of the magazine is changing to “Worl”.
Naah, that gets into changing scripture (their verse is “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; the world and those who dwell therein.” – Psalms 24.1).
On a related note, my wife and I got to participate in Zondervan’s hand transcription of the NIV when it was in Cincinnati. See http://www.bibleacrossamerica.com/home.php
Report comment to moderator
My suggested improvement to post #2: “You’re like a shark who senses blood in the water only to find out it was Kool Aid.”
Report comment to moderator
#2
World has been using “Whirled Views” as a daily blog title for a long time and it has lost its flavor on the bed post overnight.
Starting this Monday, the daily general purpose blog title will be Much Ado about Nothing.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks to #2 and #4 for proving the truth of #1 and the original post.
The good, moral Christians aren’t worried that Palin might actually be guilty … only that nobody be so impolite as to bring it up.
Report comment to moderator
PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULD NOT PITCH BOULDERS.
Are You Sure Whirled
Google: Steve Stoll and Palin.
PLEASE do you own research.
Do your homework.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/10/palin_chryson/
Report comment to moderator
McCain/Palin ‘08.
Whoo-hoo!
Report comment to moderator
Actually, SteveG (#6), my post at #4 has nothing to do with Palin or her supporters or her detractors. In fact, it has nothing to do with politics. It has nothing to do with proving and/or disproving points and/or guilt and/or politeness.
It’s just playing with words and phrases (and unexpected turns thereof) for my own early morning entertainment. The rest of you may join in or abstain.
Report comment to moderator
Mark: Point taken. Fortunately for me, #8 comes along to take the place of #4.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, my wife and I saw a bumper sticker last night that read: “MCCAIN: Country First!”
I suggested to her that it might better read: “MCCAIN: Palin First!”
Report comment to moderator
The quote could be from Charles Spurgeon, my favorite 19th Century preacher.
steveaubrey #3- I believe Lynn probably sets it up so the post comes up automatically. Blogspot has that function, so Wordpress must also.
Musing #1- So Palin is found guilty of manipulating state government. She should be punished according to the laws of the land. Perhaps the indictment is politically motivated. What can you say about Sen Obama’s alleged ties to a home grown terrorist, or to ACORN, which has been caught rigging the election by registering dead people. All the candidates have some skeletons in their closets, and running for President brings them out. Let us remember the words of Jesus: “Let the one who without sin cast the first stone.” I am sick and tired of both campaigns digging up dirt on the other side, then trying to backpedal and cover up their own “sins” when discovered.
Let’s find out what each plans to do to get this place in order. We will never find a perfect person. If we do, He will be the true Messiah, and all will know Him because He promised to come again with the sound of a trumpet and the host of heaven.
Report comment to moderator
#12 Peter L, I agree with the auto-post idea. I had to work backwards to come up with a reason for the missing “D” (now fixed).
And I’m with you on no perfect people. And in looking forward to the trumpet from on high.
Report comment to moderator
McCain/Palin vs Obama/Biden. A moderate Republican posing as a conservative running with a small state governor with recently discovered skeletons; vs an inexperienced Senator who said he was not ready to be president (at least he thought that in 2005), who also has questionable ties to convicted terrorists and corrupt financiers in Chicago running with a Washington insider (change? what change?) who is also a known plagiarizer, who called his running mate not fit to serve (or something along that line). Is it any wonder most voters will probably stay home in November? I guess it is time to reconsider voting for a third party candidate. Bob Barr/Wayne Root anyone?
From the website:
Perhaps it is time for a real change!
Report comment to moderator
Obama has thoroughly explained his so-called “questionable ties” and there is no fire there. Which won’t stop the smear crowd from blowing smoke.
Report comment to moderator
Obama is no John Kerry
Report comment to moderator
Different topic (it is Saturday, after all).
Can any of the college football fans here present (don’t miss any of the big games today, BTW) define FBS and FCS for me? I occasionally cruise over to ESPN, and constantly see those terms, but never what they mean. Is it a differentiation between the old Div I-A and I-AA teams (since I don’t see those mentioned anymore)? If so, which is which?
Report comment to moderator
Peter L,
Yep, they’re the “new” names for what you and I still call Div 1-A and 1-AA. I believe it’s “bowl” and “championship,” respectively. It’ll take a while for that to catch on, I imagine.
Report comment to moderator
“Obama has thoroughly explained his so-called “questionable ties” and there is no fire there.”
I’m callin you on that score. Show me exactly where he “thoroughly” explained his questionable ties, and I’ll show you where he made flat statements with no supporting evidence. If you prove me wrong, then I’ll take it back. But there’s no way he spent 20 years under Jeremiah Wright and had no knowledge of black liberation theology, and there’s absolutely NO good reason for him to stay in that church if he did know about it.
As for ACORN, you can see the evidence unfolding as we type.. And there’s no excuse for those ne’er-do-wells either. And no exuse Obama can make to cover up the wrongdoings of that group or his involvement in it. They just don’t care that they are doing wrong…..
Report comment to moderator
“Obama has thoroughly explained his so-called “questionable ties” and there is no fire there.”
Any explanation (or no explanation) will suffice when it supports what you want to believe. No explanation will be heard or considered when you want to believe the worst.
Because this is a conservative Christian blog, there are some people here for whom this appears to hold true on the conservative Christian side, but for the non-Christians who supposedly come here to “challenge” us and to point out our “double standards,” if you want to have an effect, you’d do well to not practice the exact same thing in reverse.
Report comment to moderator
Why is nobody here (not to mention nobody in the national political parties) taking my suggestion seriously about choosing General Patraeus as the Vice Presidentail candidate?
Report comment to moderator
“Presidential.”
I don’t want anybody to think I am making improper comments about the second most important executive position in America.
Biden is a hack. Palin is likely to hack too enthusiasticaly.
I realize McCain and Patraeus would put two military people on the same ticket, but I am sure McCain knows how to salute and take orders. Also, he is probably qualified to fly Air Force One, which save money on pilot costs.
Report comment to moderator
#18 Cameron: Thanks. Even though you are female, I am not embarrassed that you knew and I did not. I like to watch college football (oops! the Texas-Oklahoma game is on and I am not watching, yet), but I do not pay so close attention that I know it all. So, which teams are in the FCS and which in the FBS? Can a team from the lower level (the FBS I presume) play in the so-called “Championship Game” if they are the only undefeated team left? Is that what all the hubbub over Boise State was a few years back?
Report comment to moderator
Peter L,
I only knew because TJ has patiently explained it to me. The structure is exactly the same as it was a year ago–the old AA has the playoff/championship system while the Div-A slogs through a seriously flawed bowl system. Schools/teams can “jump up” like Marshall did several years ago. Boise State is beyond my Southern ken, I’m afraid!
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man and Ree:
As for Ayers, Obama has discussed the work they did together and it isn’t anything radical or troubling. Whatever else Ayers might have been involved in, the primary connection between him and Obama is the Annenberg Challenge, a mainstream education project that dozens of Chicago’s leaders were also involved in, giving them precisely the same connection.
No one has yet shown any evidence that the relationship went any deeper than he has said. What they hope is that by repeatedly connecting their names and Ayers violent past they can fool some people into thinking Obama condoned the violence. It’s sleazy, but some people are dumb enough to fall for it.
As for Wright, again, Obama’s made no secret of the fact that he was a member of Wright’s church for 20 years. That has been widely explored. Make of it what you will. But it is interesting that the people who think we should all freak out about Wright have nothing to say about Palin’s witch-hunting preacher, eh?
Not to mention that Falwell and Robertson have said many things just as offensive as Wright — in some cases, the same thing — and no one wants us to be concerned about that.
Report comment to moderator
Peter L,
FBS = Football Bowl Subdivision. Formerly known as Division 1aA in the NCAA. The FBS culminates in the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) and the National Championship game.
FCS = Football Championship Subdivision. Formerly known as Division 1-AA in the NCAA. The FCS has a play-off system, resulting in a Championship. The title game is played in December in Chattanooga, TN. Appalachian State won it last year (remember them – they upset Michigan last year). I go to the game every year – it’s a nice game and tickets are very reasonable.
Report comment to moderator
What does Falwell and Robertson have to do with anything?
Report comment to moderator
What does Falwell and Robertson have to do with anything?
If you’re going to condemn Rev. Wright for suggesting God should withhold blessings from America for America’s sin (which is what the “God d**n America” sermon was all about), then you should condemn white preachers who say the same. Falwell and Robertson said America brought 9/11 on itself by tolerating sin.
Why aren’t you just as condemnatory of them? Because they’re white? Or (more likely I think) because that would not give you a handy cudgel to bludgeon a political opponent with. It’s selective outrage.
Report comment to moderator
I was outraged when they said that, SteveG. If I’d been in their pews, I would have left. Obama, hearing awful things, stayed.
Report comment to moderator
Wait, I’m confused. Which candidate was spiritually mentored by Falwell and/or Robertson for twenty years, again? Maybe the mainstream media covered up that connection because of their vast right wing conspiracy because certainly this must have occurred with one of the candidates for this to be a relevant analogy.
I’m also unclear about what other associate of the still radical William Ayers besides Obama is running in this election because, I’m not aware of any. You’ll have to bring me up to speed, I guess, before I can intelligently engage in this discussion.
Before you explain these things to me, though, you might like to consider this. In the words of Douglas Wilson, “just imagine if McCain had paid a few social, chatty visits to Timothy McVeigh, and had worked together with him on a few projects.” No big deal, I’m sure, right? Why should it be a problem so long as McCain didn’t condone the violence?
Report comment to moderator
Ree: Therein lies the difference.
McVeigh was a malcontent violent man who paid the price for his crimes. He murdered more than 100 people.
Ayers murdered no one. His organization always warned their targets to ensure their bombs caused only property damage, not injury. That does NOT excuse it, but it does put his crimes on a different level than McVeigh’s.
Now, more to the point … Ayers’ crimes took place 25 years before he met Obama. By that time he had become a university professor and a respected member of the community. Others who worked with him and Obama on the Annenberg Challenge — including Republicans — have expressed their disappointment and frustration that it’s even become an issue because they know there was absolutely nothing improper or questionable about the work Ayers was doing in the ’90s.
“Still radical?” In what way? Still supporting peace and education? Yeah, true. Still planting bombs and otherwise using violent means? Not at all true.
The only way his “connection” to Obama could be relevant would be if Obama were in some way complicit or condoning of the violence and there’s absolutely no evidence of that. So you resort to guilt by association.
You’re a Christian, yes? Whatever happened to (1) the grace to forgive a person his past and (2) the whole thou shalt not bear false witness thing?
Report comment to moderator
StuBob: Anyone who objects to Obama on that basis should certainly factor it into their voting decision. Those like me, who really don’t see what the big deal is, are free to discount it.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Anlir. Always a good source for college football.
Another question: Though I really don’t care who wins the OU-TX game (other than picking Texas in your contest), I wonder if I have been out of the loop as per the rules. The second OU touchdown had a player receive a pass deflected by another offensive player. I always thought a pass was incomplete if two offensive players touched the ball in succession w/out a defender touching it between them. Is that only an NFL rule? Or has it been changed at all levels?
Good game, so far. BTW- I thought Texas was going to be the home team, but OU is listed as such on screen. Are they now playing the game at the Cotton Bowl so it will be at a “neutral” site? I have noticed border wars moving to neutral sites, at least around here: Mizzou plays Illinois at St. Louis, then KU at Kansas City most years.
Report comment to moderator
Friends: Let me ask the question: What is the 10th of the Ten Commandments?
You’d be surprised to know, according to John Adams it was, or likely was “10. Thou shalt not boil the kid, while it is yet sucking.” See my latest post on my blogs for the evidence.
But on issues as basic as even the Ten Commandments, America, in principle, was founded to be as much about doubting that we had the right version of the Ten Commandments, as it was to be about living by the traditional version of the Decalogue.
Report comment to moderator
“If you’re going to condemn Rev. Wright for suggesting God should withhold blessings from America for America’s sin (which is what the “God d**n America” sermon was all about), then you should condemn white preachers who say the same.”
Do you have a problem staying on topic? The topic was about who was an influence on the candidates, and just how they did influence them. But just for your information, I did, like StuBob, condemn the words of those pastors. I have no use for anyone of any stripe to twist or misuse the words of the Bible. And even less do I have use for any candidate who represents his position as something other than it is… ‘nother words, he “distances himself” (he lies) to cover up his heretical past.
And tell me this, what exactly does Ayers do now? And what political social views does he hold now? And does Obama agree with him?
Report comment to moderator
One day not too long ago, I said to my daughter, as I was deleting a program I’d recorded on DVD,
“Don’t worry. I’m always very careful about what I delete.”
As I said this, I was actually deleting a show I hadn’t seen yet & did not want deleted.
I’ll never live that one down.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Whatever happened to (1) the grace to forgive a person his past…
This is generally accompanied by repentance. Ayers isn’t repentant.
Report comment to moderator
And tell me this, what exactly does Ayers do now? And what political social views does he hold now? And does Obama agree with him?
Tell me this: Do you have one shred of evidence that he’s been anything other than a respected and upstanding citizen at any time after about 1974?
Because unless you do, this remains a sad and sleazy attempt to tie Obama 2008 to some shameful acts in the distant past that he had nothing do with.
Are you prepared to accuse everyone else who worked on the Annenberg Challenge along with Ayers of also being whatever it is we’re supposed to think Obama is?
Because unless you are, then you have no basis to accuse Obama.
Is this really the best argument you have? Because if it is, it’s pathetic.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron: Has Ayers done anything violent in the past 35 years?
Report comment to moderator
Cmaeron: Ayers isn’t repentant.
Ayers: now and then (and unpredictably) I appear in the newspapers or on TV with a reference to my book Fugitive Days, a memoir of the revolutionary action and militant resistance to the Viet Nam War—the years of miracle and wonder—and some fantastic assertions about what I did, what I said, and what I believe. The other night, for example, I heard Sean Hannity tell Senator John McCain that I was an unrepentant terrorist who had written an article on September 11, 2001 extolling bombings against the U.S., and even advocating more terrorist bombs. Senator McCain couldn’t believe it, and neither could I.
[...]
Regrets. I’m often quoted saying that I have “no regrets.” This is not true. For anyone paying attention—and I try to stay wide-awake to the world around me all/ways—life brings misgivings, doubts, uncertainty, loss, regret. I’m sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Viet Nam, and I say “no, I don’t regret anything I did to try to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government.” Sometimes I add, “I don’t think I did enough.” This is then elided: he has no regrets for setting bombs and thinks there should be more bombings.
From Ayers’ blog.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
It is irrelevant to me whether Ayers has continued to be violent if he is not repentant for the earlier violence. Time doesn’t heal all wounds. If he doesn’t regret it (his words), he isn’t sorry/repentant.
How do you interpret the phrase, “I don’t think I did enough.”?
Report comment to moderator
Ayers is not running for president….
Report comment to moderator
“Is this really the best argument you have? Because if it is, it’s pathetic.”
Helloooooo! Wake up call for SteveG…
I asked a question. I did NOT make an argument. I shouldn’t have even brought up the subject of Ayers, because you used it to deflect the other point you’ve ignored so far.
Report comment to moderator
Peter L: If a pass is touched by one eligible offensive player and then caught by a second offensive player, the pass completion is legal.
Concerning the Texas-OU series, it began in 1900 and has been played at a neutral site (almost always in Dallas) since 1912. It has been played in the Cotton Bowl since 1932.
Great win by UT – Hook ‘em!
Report comment to moderator
MIM: Please re-state the point you say I’m deflecting.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron: He regrets the violence, but not opposing the war, and wishes he’d done more to oppose the war. He has categorically said, including in the entry I linked to, that to conclude from that that he wanted more bombings is wrong.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I say “no, I don’t regret anything I did to try to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government.”
The above is copied from post #40B, but the bold is mine. So he doesn’t regret the violence.
Report comment to moderator
Fine. Whatever. You’re going to believe it no matter what, so go ahead. But given that he hasn’t committed any violence since then, and everybody else associated with the Annenberg Challenge — Republicans included — thinks this line of attack is silly and a bit insulting, I’m going to conclude that Obama’s association with Ayers does not mean Obama is a bomb-throwing radical.
Report comment to moderator
To clarify what I said, I was referring to the influence Jeremiah Wright had on him. If he agrees with Wright, that’s despicable. If he didn’t “get it” after all the years he spent with him, then it’s alarming because his intelligence is questionable. If he’s distancing for political expediency, then that’s even worse. He’s stabbed a friend in the back, and still holds the same position. If he truly disagrees with Wright, then what the heck was he doing in that church?
You previously deflected this point by talking about Falwell and Robertson. Then I helped you ignore it by bringing up Ayers in the next line.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
When, exactly, did I come within ten miles of saying Obama is a bomb-throwing radical? I never even mentioned Obama’s name!
Report comment to moderator
Wright doesn’t bother me. I don’t know why Obama stayed in the church, though I have known many people who disagreed with their pastor yet stayed in the church for other reasons.
I brought up Falwell and Robertson because I don’t think that Wright has said anything more outrageous than some evangelical leaders, but because there’s no political advantage to be gained, nobody much cares about the others. If I’m mistaken about that, then good, that’s encouraging.
I do know at least some of Wright’s alleged outrages are trumped up. I don’t recall which one it was now, but one of the video clips that circulated was pulled out of context. I saw a longer clip and it turned out that the outrageous part of it was actually him quoting someone else, and then going on to disagree … but it was presented as if Wright had said the thing.
But the bottom line is, I don’t see any signs that Obama believes anything discomforting because of his church membership. If you want to insist that he just must agree with Wright in every particular because he didn’t stand up and denounce him from the pews or walk out, then I can’t dissuade you from that. But I don’t see it.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron: Well if we’re not worried that Obama is a bomb-throwing radical, and if Ayers in the 1990s was a well respected university professor who worked alongside a lot of people in Chicago on education projects, then what exactly is the problem?
This is the trouble with guilt by association … no one can ever quite articulate just what it is the target is supposed to be guilty of.
Report comment to moderator
Sarah Palin credits an African Witch Chaser’s blessing over her with her governorship.
Report comment to moderator
theophilus post 2,
well yes when serendipity brings the whirled views quote and the news from last night into alignment, I think it more than appropriate to note:
1) she has apparenty been lieing about her involvement
2) she did commit illegal abuses of power
You don’t think these are relevant issues?
Report comment to moderator
Steve-
It’s comforting to see all the Palinistas have is this lame Ayers thing
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I never said there was a problem, although I think it unwise for a candidate of any stripe to associate with someone who does not regret deliberately and maliciously destroying private or government property. By “associate with” I mean (but not limited to) serving on boards or committees where both names will appear together, thereby serving as a potential link.
On the one hand, as badly as Obama seems to want to be PotUS, one would think he would have avoided many of the questionable associations he has made over the years. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to be hurting him.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron, other people who worked on the Annenberg Challenge didn’t find it questionable. Whether Ayers has worn sackcloth and ashes to your satisfaction nonwithstanding, Republicans and Democrats alike “associated with” Ayers on the project. They apparently felt that whatever he did 25 years earlier did not take away from the stature and respectability he had earned since then. (The city named him Chicagoan of the Year in 1997 … real radical, huh?) Some of them think the invoking of Ayers’ name as a political attack on Obama is misguided and offensive.
Ayers was no radical by the time he met Obama, or the author of this article. He was, in fact, a very effective educator whose program ideas were being successfully adopted around the country. Obama should refuse to work with him on an education project because of things he did when Obama was eight?
I think you are just either falling for the emotionalism of the innuendo, or trying to spread it. Either way, it’s unjust, untrue and unfair to both Obama and to all the other people who have not rejected Ayers in his later years based on his ancient past.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
I read the part you quoted from Ayers blog, but I’m still missing the repentance part. Granted, a bombing in which no one is killed is less horrendous than a bombing where people are killed, but a person who resorts to bombing is still an over-the-top dangerous radical, and regardless of how long ago the act was done, if there’s no repentance, forgiveness is not appropriate. Perhaps Obama really doesn’t “condone the violence,” but his willingness to lightly dismiss Ayer’s past does give us some real insight into Obama’s worldview, and the idea of such a man occupying the White House is more than just a little alarming. And if your argument is that Ayers must not be a radical amoral left winger because he’s a university professor, one might as well conclude that a greasy, limp stick of potato must not be a french fry because it was found on the floor at McDonald’s.
In regard to Obama and Wright, it wasn’t even just that he stayed in the church, but that he was spiritually mentored by this man for years and he defended him right up until the time it became a serious political liability to do so.
The real issue between us, I think, is not that you don’t see what I’m saying, but that you’re perfectly comfortable with the views of people like Ayers and Wright, so you’re not bothered by Obama’s association with them.
I’m equally unperturbed at the idea of a Kenyan pastor who was involved in an instance of spiritual warfare in Africa. There is a great deal of blatant demonic activity in Africa to which any Christian missionary in the region will testify. Apparently, you’re just too enlightened and rationalistic to subscribe to any of that silly supernatural stuff, but don’t expect Christians in America to get up in arms over it.
We’re just worldviews apart.
Report comment to moderator
Ree: I’m not completely comfortable with the views of Wright or Ayers, but I have not seen any sign that Obama himself subscribes to the views of theirs that I’d have a problem with.
Since Obama’s the one running for office, I’m going to judge him by him, not by everybody he’s ever interacted with. Do you really think McCain doesn’t have a few shady associations?
Report comment to moderator
Here is why this Ayers meme is a bridge to nowhere:
Take a peek at the Annenberg Foundation members.
1. Walter & Leonore Annenberg – founder who gave Bill Ayers a $49M grant. His widow, Leonore, has endorsed McCain. In fact, just yesterday the McCain Campaign released its list of Ambassadors supporting him. It included, Mrs. Annenberg, a former “chief of protocol” at the State Dep’t under the Reagan Administration. A Republican, she also DONATED THE MAX OF $2300 TO McCAIN’S CAMPAIGN IN MAY 2008.
She also donated to:
George W Bush, Fred Thompson, Arlen Spector, Rick Santorum, Jon Kyle, Elizabeth Dole, Bob Dole, Richard Shelby, John Warner,David Dreier, Olympia Snowe, Jon Fox and Christine Todd Whitman.
David Kearns – former Deputy Secretary of Education under Bush I; former CEO of Xerox; Chairman of NASDC, a Bush I reform initiative for Education; WORKED FOR & DONATED TO McCAIN’S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IN 2000 AND AGAIN IN 2008.
Arnold Weber – former member of Nixon Administration; former President of Northwestern University and U of Colorado. Board Member of Tribune Company. DONATED TO McCAIN’S CAMPAIGN.
So why is it again the Obama should be chastised for serving on Boards with William Ayers? When the founder of the Annenberg Foundation gave $49 million to Ayers, then put him on her Board, and still to this day contributes thousands to GOP candidates across the country, should each of these GOP members be assailed for taking contributions from someone who associates with a “domestic terrorist” from the 60s?.
Report comment to moderator
OK, I understand liberals make nothing of Obama’s past and present associations. True, having associated with retired terrorists and rabble-rousers doesn’t make him either. However, if he wants us to believe he’s “post-partisan,” let’s see an example of where he worked alongside some conservatives. Maybe in the Senate? Oh, wait, he was only there six months before devoting his time to running for President. Maybe in the Illinois legislature? Perhaps he joined Republicans in voting “Present.”
But, back to the point: Where’s the evidence that he’s “post-partisan”? It seems his associations are all radicals. Are there any post-partisan associations?
Report comment to moderator
StuBob, take a glance at post #60. Obama had “associations” with everyone who took part in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that were at least as extensive with any association he had with Ayers. That was a long list of people of both parties.
The fear merchants talk about it like it was just Bill and Barack, but it was not. It was a couple dozen people at least, working together on a project. And Obama’s connection with ANY of them is equal to what he had with Ayers.
Report comment to moderator
This column, I thought, clearly articulated the concerns:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100902328.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Report comment to moderator
Good point SteveG.
The Annenberg Challenge shows Obama reaching across the isle to work with Republicans that give millions of dollars to terrorists, like the Republican Annenbergs.
Report comment to moderator
StuBob-
What are your thoughts to the information linked in #60?
Report comment to moderator
Donna J: That column includes this: Obama’s political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room.
Along with half a dozen other Democrats who hosted events.
It was later in 1995 that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn hosted the gathering, in their town house three blocks from Mr. Obama’s home, at which State Senator Alice J. Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced Mr. Obama to a few Democratic friends as her chosen successor. That was one of several such neighborhood events as Mr. Obama prepared to run, said A. J. Wolf, the 84-year-old emeritus rabbi of KAM Isaiah Israel Synagogue, across the street from Mr. Obama’s current house.
“If you ask my wife, we had the first coffee for Barack,” Rabbi Wolf said. He said he had known Mr. Ayers for decades but added, “Bill’s mad at me because I told a reporter he’s a toothless ex-radical.”
“It was kind of a nasty shot,” Mr. Wolf said. “But it’s true. For God’s sake, he’s a professor.”
This is the nature of the smear. By the mid-1990s, Ayers had left his past long behind and become part of the mainstream of Chicago society, and every Democratic politician had some interaction with him.
Yahoos like Krauthammer want you to believe that Obama sat at the feet of his idol Ayers, eagerly lapping up radical politics and sharing his fond memories of blowing things up. IT IS A LIE!
Now, if you good moral Christians want to believe and spread lies, nothing I can say will stop you. But you should at least have the decency to be ashamed.
Report comment to moderator
Saturdays here used to be light, fun conversation. I cannot wait until the election. (Of course, Outkast might prefer this to recipes and such
)
#44 Tychicus: thanks. I guess I never paid attention to the OU-TX game in the past, not really liking either team. But today the game had real significance, other than who would be tops in the Big 12 South. I cannot wait for Mizzou to face either of these teams, as Mizzou might actually have a chance to be one or both of them this year.
Go Tigers!
Report comment to moderator
Peter L, I think ALL of us will be glad when this election is over. No matter who wins. Seriously. Whatever. I’ve pretty much reached that point with all of this.
So I’ll start getting some recipes ready to post.
Report comment to moderator
Ayers got lucky that he murdered no one. It didn’t matter to him when the bombs were set if people would be injured or killed. There is no difference between McVeigh and Ayers except that they come from opposite extremes. Both misunderstand America, and anyone who supports and defends them also misunderstands America.
Donna J, I will be making the coconut recipe previously posted, but I have a new friend who says he will eat any kind of cake, so if you are so inclined to post recipes (especially the one you are “known for,” this is one poster who would enjoy cutting and pasting them into Word.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, Peter L–just one more, and I’m done!
SteveG,
For the second time, I didn’t invoke Obama. I’m evaluating Ayers on his actions and his alone. You asked about forgiveness; I explained the problem with that. You extended it to Obama, not me.
Frankly, I don’t care–I wasn’t ever voting for Obama anyway–I find him anti-American enough on his own. I consider stifling small businesses and the “free” market, plus ignoring immigration plenty destructive on its own. That goes for candidates on both sides.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: I have some homemade dog biscuit recipes. But that’s probably not something you’d want to serve to a new friend.
SteveG, I only posted the column link because I thought it gave a perspective on some of the issues that were raised earlier on this thread (such as whether Obama actually “agreed” with the opinions of some of these other people).
Call me a dreamer, but I still have the expectation that folks in this country can disagree with respect and civility toward one another.
With that, I’m going to the dog park.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron: Since Ayers is utterly irrelevant to anything without his purported link to Obama, if you’re not talking about Obama then the whole discussion is really pointless.
Donna: Fair point on civility. But I’m really tired of the Republican fear squad rearing its ugly head every election cycle.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG post 72,
what is interesting is that the argument against Obama is one of association.
By contrast is a clear case of where investigation has fo0und a clear ethics violatio on the part of Sarah Palin.
so let me get this right: Obama is guilty by asssociation, but Sara Palin is not guilty even though the investigation which was approved unanimously byu a bipartisan committee of the Alsakan legsilatrue have found her guilty BASED IN PART ON EVIDENCE WHICH SARAH PALIN HERSELF PROVIDED.
Report comment to moderator
Is nothing sacred??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TgDanmWkg
please note the Obama/Biden sign above the player’s bench. Given this is the Spectrum in Philly, Palin’s lucky they only booed her.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J, NOOOOOO! — but I do have an old friend who cooks for her Bichons, so bring them on! (Those dogs eat better than I do!)
Report comment to moderator
Great find HRW 74~
They are all over her with boos and jestures.
Like I said yesterday, after she loses the election for McSame and is impeached in Alaska (if they have any sense at all), she can sit opposite the empty suit Hannity on Fox News. The perfect parrot couple for the neo-con noise machine.
Report comment to moderator
Do I remember wrong? Obama talked with Rev. Wright over a year ago and told the Rev. that if things got too tough that he, Obama, would have to throw over the Rev. and his church. The Rev. told him to go ahead and do that.
So much for standing up for God and your faith. Ths told me all I needed to know about Obama and his faith.
I also don’t need to know much more than that he is a Liberal with a capital L.
He is a Democrat of Democrats.
He is so focused on moving up in the political world that rather than take a stand, he votes present, early and often. (to use a phrase)
I don’t care about his parentage. I worked in a ghetto school for 29 years.
Voting for someone who will stop the rise of the oceans is blasphemous.
There is no there there.
Report comment to moderator
so let me get this right: Obama is guilty by asssociation, but Sara Palin is not guilty even though the investigation which was approved unanimously byu a bipartisan committee of the Alsakan legsilatrue have found her guilty BASED IN PART ON EVIDENCE WHICH SARAH PALIN HERSELF PROVIDED.
I don’t think anyone considers Obama “guilty by association” in the sense that the guilt of his associates is imputed to him. He just appears to have a consistent record of closely associating with radical left wingers, and this is also consistent with his voting record and everything else that’s known about him.
The issue with Sarah Palin is completely unrelated. If she’s guilty of something, then she’s guilty, and if she’s not she’s not. I’m not under any constraints to hold onto a good opinion of her despite the evidence. I don’t really have a strong opinion about her one way or the other. Judging by what I’ve read about the incident, though (and it seems fairly simple and straightforward), I don’t see that anything improper went on. The official findings didn’t even dispute that he was rightly fired, as I understand them. The issue appears to be over whether or not Sarah Palin and/or her husband should have used any influence to pressure the authorities to take an action that indisputably should have been taken. The official finding, for whatever reason, seems to be that they shouldn’t have, but that doesn’t make any sense to me. If she and her husband had personal knowledge of the situation, and they knew that it was being overlooked, I don’t understand why, as the governor, she should have been constrained to not get involved.
Report comment to moderator
The Leftists here (as everywhere else) lie with every breath they take.
Ayers killed three people. He was a killer and is still remorseful that he did not do more killing.
He was also incompetent because the three people he killed were his own people who were building a bomb from his specifications, which he had targeted for soldiers and girlfriends at a dance at Fort Dix.
It was at this point he became a wanted fugitive. I am not sure why he was wanted. Perhaps someone planned on giving him a medal for sucessful (though inadvertant) vermin control.
Obama had (and still has) the same violently anti-American Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist views as Ayers. Obama knew his past very well long before the first time they are ON RECORD as snuggling together in Ayers home (along with his ‘wife’). Note Obama’s claims that he ‘did not know’ about Ayer’s past are bald-faced lies. Ayers was an extremely well known individual in Chicago – including his violent past and his lack of remorse for what he did.
Note that Ayers and Obama are also both creatures of the corrupt Chicago political-mobster-Democrat machine.
It is not presently known whether Obama invited Ayers to his ‘church’ to hear Rev. Wright. Most Americans go to church around Christmas to hear Cantadas or nativity plays or that sort of thing. Obama went to church around Christmas to hear America damned and whitey cursed.
Anyway. I wonder if Ayers taught Obama any of his bomb-making ’skills’ in all their many personal and political meetings?
Probably not – Obama probably did not want to end up like Ayer’s original three comrades.
The Left has a sort of career path – after an initial screening, it moves its bomb-incompetent into the less risky positions of political theory and activism; some of these less talented ones then even run for President.
Report comment to moderator
ree post 78,
were it not a case of guilt by association, rather than discuss Ayers, one would be discussing Obama’s own policy positions.
This does not appear to be the form of the agenda on these issues, unless it is perhaps shall we say overly energizing McCain supporters to proclaim actions which tread perilously close to being illegal.
As long as Ayers is raised it is pure and simple guilt by association.
Report comment to moderator
ree post 78,
as to Sarah Palin: the investigation which was approved unanimously by a bipartisan committee of the Alaskan legsilature is quite clear: Sarah Palin illegally abused her power as governor.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 79,
you do seem to have a history of making posts with unsubstantiated comments fo the form:
“Obama had (and still has) the same violently anti-American Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist views as Ayers”
If you argue that Obama has these violent anti-american views, I assume you have references to prove this. so provide the references.
Or is it just these rather bombastic posts of yours which we are presumably to accept unquestioningly because you say we should?
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 79,
and I suggest that if you do not have references to back up your statement:
“Obama had (and still has) the same violently anti-American Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist views as Ayers”
then it is in fact you who are posting material which is a lie.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 79,
have you perhaps been attending too many intemperate Palin or McCain rallies?
Report comment to moderator
Steveg (72): thank you. I think we’re all tired of the anger that’s been so characteristic of this election cycle (and such a long season, at that). I’ve heard it coming mostly from the liberal side, but I suspect that we each tend to “hear” it most loudly from our particular opposition, whatever side that may be for us.
NJLawyer: OK, I know, how about some homemade cat treats?
Your cat would like that, no?
Report comment to moderator
I have no idea if there’s any validity to this whole Ayers thing, but it appears to me that domestic terrorists are to Obama what bimbos were to Clinton. Perhaps there’s someone in the campaign assigned to control Terrorist Eruptions.
Report comment to moderator
stubob p[ost 86,
and you can provide references to support your charge?
I thought not.
I am starting to hear in this blog the intemperate statements which are being made at Palin and McCain rallies AND WHICH McCain HAS HIMSELF REFUTED.
Report comment to moderator
Post 79 makes me want the election to be over. Perhaps then drill will be back to his old self.
Donna J @ 85: OK, I know, how about some homemade cat treats?
Boy, could we take that one the wrong way and offend all the cat lovers (which phrase could also be taken wrong).
Report comment to moderator
Well, Musing, never been to a single McCain-Palin rally. I did have one of my cars vandalized because it had a Bush bumper sticker on it four years ago. Funny thing was I had just bought the car and had not even put the bumper sticker on – I never use bumper stickers.
Oh. I remember a little girl being attacked at a Kerry rally because her Daddy was holding a pro-Bush sign, too. the media buried the story of course, like they always do.
Regarding your child-butchering Messiah, Obama. His memoirs make interesting reading. He was mentored by Marxist-Leninists – he admits that he sought them out, along with Marxist-Leninist Black Liberation theologians. His father was also a Marxist-Leninist – his connection there is complicated, I am sure.
He has never renounced his Marxist-Leninism, so I assume he still holds to it.
Now, were he to hold a press conference (or if even anyone in the media would bluntly ask him) and renounce his Marxist-Leninist past (as well as his past close associations with anti-American Marxist-Leninist terrorists who bombed and killed in America), I would be mildly impressed.
Then, if he actually went a number of years without making hate-filled statements about Americans (like me) and then actually pursued a political path which indicated that he did not hate America and Americans (like me), why I would even consider him more or less without suspicion.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir- Too bad the Vols could not pull it off. That young QB looked pretty good out there!
Oh pooh! I see my AZ Wildcats lost to Stanford. So much for them finally winning the PAC 10. Not that they would have beaten USC, mind you. But the way things are going this season, you never know!
Report comment to moderator
Funny….
Seriously, I don’t often weigh in on the political threads, and the few times I do, I try never to make it my point to provoke. But these days I think that’s nearly impossible.
I really don’t have much stomach for hand-to-hand political combat (that Quaker background, you know, although I must confess: Sometimes I fear I’ll grab a broom in a rage and start wacking away at someone like the Quaker mom attacking the ‘rebs’ for trying to kill her pet goose in “Friendly Persuasion”).
So look out. … You’ve all been warned. My broom is never far from me.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 89,
well your tone and comments seem to be straight out of the video segmenbts showing the rallies.
and McCain himself refuted much of this type of discussion.
So if it is not the rallies, then I am increasingly forced to conclude that the issue is with you yourself. I was trying to give you an out.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 89,
and in your typical fasshion:
“He has never renounced his Marxist-Leninism, so I assume he still holds to it. ”
you are misusing Marxist-Leninist.
Since to you it appears to mean “I disagree with you”, then I call upon you to renounce your Marxist-Leninist tendencies.
And when you renounce your Marxist-Leninist tendencies, start providing references for your asserttions and perhaps have some camomile tea, then your discussion may begin to add to the conversation.
Report comment to moderator
No, Musing, I am not misusing the term Marxist-Leninist when refering to Obama. Marxist-Leninism does NOT mean ‘I disagree with you’. You seem to be confusing a political definition with a simple declaratory phrase in English. I am not sure why. Perhaps you need to go back to your local Obama headquarters for some more current/relevant directive to follow. Or do they control you autonomously with some sort of implant?
Report comment to moderator
I am reposting this from another thread – it is like doing a heretic of old being required to do penance in a number of towns and cities, before he is led to the border – or the gallows.
My apologies to Musing, Steveg, Arcadia, RPN, etc. and even Obama, for my outbursts this evening, especially on some other thread.
I have been immoderate in my language to say the least and have been brought to repentance by a higher power. In looking back, I am at fault here.
So I am sorry.
I do sincerely hope for the sake of the children that Obama will not be elected President. Due to the Supreme Court issue, only. Because, with that aside, after four years of Obama, I expect the American people would not elect another Democrat for twenty years. But the Supreme Court appointments are looming and they are for a very long time.
But, should Obama be elected, he will be my president as long as he supports the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (which, unfortunately, I do not think he will) – even if I work to see him or his Democrat (assuming pro-abort) successor defeated in the next election.
Anyway, I am getting to invested in this election and have lost my sense of proportion and have been guilty of a verbal scorched earth policy toward my political opponents, which is not very laudable.
And hence am calling it quits on WMB (the only blog I look at anyway) until AT LEAST well after the election.
No matter who wins or loses. I may post this blog over on the Whirled views, too, just for redundance.
So, sorry, and bye.
Report comment to moderator
Well, that figures. On my way out, I make a post with some major grammatical and stylistic errors.
Report comment to moderator
This is a serious post with no sarcasm. Drill, each person has to consult their own conscience on these matters, but your post struck me as a very thoughtful one and the product of some anguish and a great deal of searching.
Report comment to moderator
Not me. Normally, I’m quite happy to accept a sincere apology when one is due, and let bygones be bygones.
Not this time, though. Drill’s language has not been “immoderate,” it’s been inflammatory, lurid, insulting and base. I will eventually let it go, but a brief apology followed by a quick exit is not enough.
Abortion is a highly controversial topic. My own views on it are quite a bit more tempered than either Drill or NJLawyer gives me credit for (or likely, are capable of understanding.) I appreciate that it drives strong emotions, on both sides. However, being attacked as if I see abortion as something to be gleeful and cavalier about (rather than as a regrettable necessary evil that should happen as rarely as possible, which is more the case) is a deeply offensive thing.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Steve, I personally don’t care whether you’re happy or glum about murder. As long as you call it “necessary,” you support it, and your emotional state while doing so is well-nigh irrelevant. It’s nice that you have enough of a conscience to see it as regrettable and evil…but until you take the next step and see it as NOT necessary, you are, unfortunately, a supporter of evil. A temperate one, to be sure, but one who almost sounds willing to support it against your own conscience (which is a bit problematic, it seems to me).
Report comment to moderator
#98 SteveG
“My own views on it are quite a bit more tempered than either Drill or NJLawyer gives me credit for (or likely, are capable of understanding.)”
Drill was an Engineering Professor at a major university. NJLawyer is a lawyer who clerked for a judge. Why do you think they are not capable of understanding?
As I see it there are two choices; either they understand you and just disagree, or you haven’t done a good enough job of explaining your position.
” I see abortion… (rather than as a regrettable necessary evil…
Most of us Christians here on WMB agree that abortion is evil, we just can’t see the necessariness of it. EVER!
Report comment to moderator
Drill…a man must do what a man must do. I am proud to be known as a Drillbit.
As for SteveG….there is a man with a credibility rating less than O. To call abortion a necessary evil….makes you distasteful at its core. Abortion in all its forms is murder.
Now, onto a video posted on YouTube from Calypso Louis Farakhan! You want to talk about people’s associations……….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OowxMcVTjTE
Report comment to moderator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OowxMcVTjTE
Report comment to moderator
Drill, We’ll miss you. We look forward to seeing you back here as your old funny self. ‘Til November or so.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 94,
as we have discussed, Marxism posits the end of history with the last dialectic between capitalism and socialism.
Leninism posits that the Marxist revolution can be pursued by the agricultural workers, but posits the end of history.
Since effectively no Americna candidate supports these positions, effectviely no American candidates are Marxists-Leninists.
And in your misuse of the term, it is now fair for me to misuse the term.
And I will continue to do so so long as you misue the term.
So until you change your ways here, I suggest that you need to rethink your positions and revise your Marxist-Leninists posts.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles post 100,
I suggest that the following assumptional position:
“Most of us Christians here on WMB agree that abortion is evil, we just can’t see the necessariness of it. EVER!”
show the nature of the problem and why if one accepts this assumptional position, understanding is unlikley no matter how well explained.
I take issue with the term “Most of us Christians here on WMB …”. I suggest that the correct term might be “Most of us conservative/evangelical Christians here on WMB …”.
In apparenlty arrogating all of Christianity to the evangelical model, I sugest you are overstating your position. Evangelical Christianity may be 1/3 of the Christian in the U.S., but not more.
Now you might try including Catholics in here, which will drive you to 2/3 and get you your majority, but then we need to look at what you actually call your coalition on WMB!
Report comment to moderator
What I understand is that a child was born — something many here can’t comprehend — and then that child, who was breathing and helpless, was placed in a plastic bag and burned and suffocated by bleach. There was absolutely NO compassion for that fellow human being. I probably have not read all of Drill’s postings that he feels were over the top. I’ve only posted a few times in the past few days because I am so thoroughly disgusted with the callous response to that child’s life, and I haven’t been able to get beyond the laughing response to the horrific end to that child’s life. Not one word of compassion. Not one word of comprehension that a fellow human being — a totally helpless one at that — was murdered. And make no mistake: even if you favor killing “fetuses” through abortion, this child was born alive, and the child was murdered in that plastic bag.
I know how Drill feels, because I feel the same way. I have put my fingers to the keys and cannot type because what can you say to people who have lost their humanity? That’s a rhetorical question because I am still not capable of building a bridge to people who can react to a gruesome death with laughter. I’m still in shock.
Report comment to moderator
Bob at #100: Drill was an Engineering Professor at a major university. NJLawyer is a lawyer who clerked for a judge. Why do you think they are not capable of understanding?
In the first place, I haven’t actually ever described the specifics of my position on this issue. Their attacks on me (as lumped in with all the others NJLawyer has taken to calling “resident ghouls”) are based on assumption, not facts.
In the second place, there was a rather gruesome description in a recent thread of a baby being born alive through induced labor and then suffocated in a plastic bag filled with bleach as an “abortion” technique. I doubted, and still do, the truth of the story, but I specifically said that if it did happen it was horrifying and those who did it should be in prison. Despite that, Drill and NJLawyer have both been attacking me and others as if we had expressed not just approval but pleasure at the death.
Note that in #106, a post I assume is addressed to me, NJLawyer refers to “people who can react to a gruesome death with laughter.” Well, I didn’t, and wouldn’t, but it does not slow her down from dishonestly implying I did.
I’ll let others speak for themselves, but I regard the attacks as unfair, baseless and slanderous.
Report comment to moderator
So the following article appears to echo som eof my sentimints:
Trajectory of McCain campaign
where the following comment seems most germane:
“Mark Salter, McCain’s long-serving chief of staff, is understood to have told campaign insiders that he would prefer his boss, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, to suffer an “honourable defeat” rather than conduct a campaign that would be out of character – and likely to lose him the election.”
This seems to martch some of my earlier comments suggesting that McCain can go for broke and probably lose the election and his reputation OR McCain can accept a loss but try to recover his earlier stance and reputation.
We will see over the next week or so which path McCain chooses to take.
Report comment to moderator
For CherylD, Theophilus and others: I don’t mind people disagreeing with the views I actually hold. I do mind being attacked based on grossly exaggerated caricatures of those views, which Drill and NJLawyer were both doing. I suppose NJLawyer will continue to.
I’m open to dialogue and even to having my mind changed on what I actually do think, but I’m not going to be put into the position of defending things I don’t even believe.
Report comment to moderator
I still question why people post comments here and what they think they are accomplishing.
For example, I feel more strongly about genocide than some of the other issues discussed here. At the same time, I doubt that posting comments against genocide on wmb does the slightest thing to stop an actual genocide, such as the one currently happening in Darfur.
By the same token, I fail to see how posting passionate messages opposing abortion on wmb stops a single abortion from taking place. Apparently, I am the only person who finds it odd that we engage so passionately in an activity which seems so obviously useless.
Anyway, if a person about to have an abortion is reading this comment on this Sunday morning at 7:06 am (PST), stop right this minute and call a Christian adoption group and make other arrangements. Yes, it is inconvenient and uncomfortable to have a baby (as well as a mere man can empathize with the process), but it will be so worthwhile to turn the baby over to a loving family and so rewarding to then have the child track you down years later and thank you.
Report comment to moderator
Under the circumstances of the present discussion, it it fitting that I should run across this quote in a book I am reading; The Reason For God by Timothy Keller:
– Alister McGrath -
Report comment to moderator
“Freedom of Religion” does not mean “Freedom from Religion” in the sense that one should be denied the opportunity to practice that religion…
Report comment to moderator
Here’s another example of what goes on at McCain and Palin Klan rallies…..
Report comment to moderator
Of course a racist is not going to vote for Obama, That doesn’t make McCain or Palin racist anymore than all the sexist remarks and video’s about Palin makes Obama a sexist.
Report comment to moderator
Did I say McCain is responsible for the racist crowds he appeals to?
Report comment to moderator
Did I say you did?
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 112,
you are more than free to practice your religion.
You are not free to use the state to promote your religion.
And arguing that your religion should be fundamental to the state is frowned upon.
This is the “your freedom to move your hand stops at my nose” problem.
Practice your religion as your own spiritual quest no problem.
Use your religion as an imperative in the public square and things get very very exciting.
Report comment to moderator
But Obama sure is attracting to a lot of sexist types.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G.,
Since there were several posters on that thread, at least one of whom did laugh, why do you assume they’re speaking about you? Now, I personally don’t see a whole lot of difference between that bleach murder and a saline abortion inside the womb (the kind of abortion Gianna Jensen survived, where salt burns the baby outside, and as the dying child gulps amniotic fluid, he is also burned internally). So perhaps your defensiveness on this is based not on what you actually said on any threads, or others’ imagined attacks on you, but on a conscience that feels guilty about being (even hesitantly) in support of abortion, in which babies in the womb die in ways every bit as cruel as this bleach death…babies in their own mothers’ wombs, which should be the safest, most nurturing place on earth for a human being to live.
Worth thinking about: Can it be time to rethink your position on the death of babies inside the womb?
Report comment to moderator
112 & 113
#1 I don’t consider that either religious belief or secular (whatever you want to call it) indicates very well whether people who follow those beliefs will be good or evil. Overall, secular people have been too complacent about evil done by secular movements such as Communism. Religious people have been too complacent about participation in genocide (as I have been discussing each week) by various religious groups such as Christians. Comments about “who killed more” as if evil can be weighed by body count do not convey to me very serious thinking.
@2 Freedom of Religion” does not mean “Freedom from Religion” in the sense that one should be denied the opportunity to practice that religion…
I am not sure whether this refers to a specific situation or general Christian whining (not much different than general atheist whining) borth of which I describe as “drama queen theatrics.”
Are you talking about oppression in a place such as Cuba or North Korea, or are you whining about prayers in schools, Christmas celebrations in public schools, ‘under God’ in flag salutes, “In God We Trust” on our currency.
Or as Jean Shepherd (one of my favorite humorists) titled a book, “In God We Trust–All Others Pay Cash”
Only today he would probably want gold coin or even grain and fresh water.
Seriously, I don’t understand the point of your second post in the two I reference.
Report comment to moderator
#105 Musing
“show the nature of the problem and why if one accepts this assumptional position, understanding is unlikley no matter how well explained.”
This makes no sense to me. I understand the abotionist side. Human fetuses are not human until they are born. What do I not understand?
“II take issue with the term “Most of us Christians here on WMB …”. I suggest that the correct term might be “Most of us conservative/evangelical Christians here on WMB …”.
In apparenlty arrogating all of Christianity to the evangelical model, I sugest you are overstating your position. Evangelical Christianity may be 1/3 of the Christian in the U.S., but not more.”
Next you change what I said about Christians here on WMB to all Christians in the USA. Bad Musing, bad boy, bad boy.
Report comment to moderator
If there is anything I have learned from my time on here, it’s that the CCR’s are completely and utterly obsessed with two things:
1. Abortion
2. Gays
It consumes their emotional energy and passion. Those two topics consistently generate the greatest number of responses on here and the most extreme and outrageous comments. It’s apparently the be-all and end-all of their Christian faith. If you ask the average person to describe conservative Christians, they’ll say “abortion and gays”. That, and voting Republican. If Christ himself were on the Democratic ticket, they’d still vote Republican.
Report comment to moderator
KBells- Why did you bring race up at all?
Report comment to moderator
“Use your religion as an imperative in the public square and things get very very exciting.”
Telling another that one cannot bring their beliefs into the public square is itself a truth statement, and is doing the same thing you are accusing the religious of doing.
Report comment to moderator
The other day I posted a link to a story about Obama and the New Party during the 90’s. Here’s more on Obama’s radical friends and bedfellows. And there’s a lovely picture of the whole gang, including BO.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/10/021747.php
“Taken together, the evidence strongly suggests that Barack Obama was a member of the New Party in the 1990s. At a bare minimum, he was endorsed by the New Party, worked with New Party members and attended New Party events. Given the radicalism of the New Party’s program, it is hard to understand how any interviewer could fail to ask Obama about his association with the group.”
While your there, click the link at the end for the New Party’s program. Welcome to Socialism USA. Ideas like these are not the change most Americans seek, but it’s what BO’s been involved with, and groomed for.
And I recently realized that factcheckdotorg is another venture of philanthropist Walter Annenberg, as was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that Obama and Ayers ran. It may be nothing, but it makes me a little skeptical of their “unbiasedness”. Any thoughts?
Report comment to moderator
Powerline is a right-wing blogsite, with an anti-obama agenda. What the aren’t is an unbiased source of information.
Report comment to moderator
Palin to protester: Bless your heart
Yeeeaaahh Go Sarah! She’s awesome!!!
Report comment to moderator
123. Because your link did.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles post 121,
but of course the fact that it makes no sense to you demonstrates the problem completely.
The question of course is focused on what is meant by human life.
Skin cells are agreed by most not to be potential human life worthy of protection.
A living baby is agreed by most to be a human life worthy of protection.
And the assumption set determines where between these two points you believe that human life worthy of protection begins.
The law is clear: it is basically when the fetus is viable outside the womb.
The traditional anti-abortion stance is that it begins at conception. Increasingly this is becoming an untenable intellectual position. But then the position is typically not held on intellectual grounds.
And the initial asusmptions are typically hard to change and dramatically change the perspective, as your post indeed shows.
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 124,
ah but do note my phrasing.
You can indeed bring your religion into the public square.
But you do so at great risk. If you succeed, I suggest pluralistic democracy has probably failed.
And if you fail, you risk your religious ideal.
So do it if you must, but do be prepared to pay the consequences.
We are seeing the consequences in the abortion debate and the marriage debate. In general, the social conservative position is not doing well on these fronts. And it is having consequences far beyond the immediate political issues.
Report comment to moderator
Musing.
I will not be sidetracked. You cannot suppress any world view and still say that we have freedom of religion. To do so is to be guilty of the same thing you accuse people of faith to be doing.
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 131,
and I make no pretense of suggesting that we suppress any worldview per se.
I do suggest that how the worldview is expressed may have blowback consequneces on that worldview.
Bringing the Bible into American government has not fared well, and it would appear to be getting ready to fare even worse.
But keep it up. A determined thrust which fails will do more to discredit a worldview than any argument which is made in advance.
Report comment to moderator
The Bible has not been brought into the American government, and it is a lie to say that it has been.
“You can indeed bring your religion into the public square…But you do so at great risk. If you succeed, I suggest pluralistic democracy has probably failed.”
This is utter nonsense. We have a pluraslistic democracy, so far it has not failed, and if it does, it won’t be because of the Bible. It will be because of the utter lack of decency of the rabid left.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 13,
you are right it has not been brought in successfully.
But many have tried. So far the courts have blocked them.
And the stronger the push, the more likely for blowback.
Report comment to moderator
“…and I make no pretense of suggesting that we suppress any worldview per se”
No sir, that’s exactly what you are saying… And exactly what is being done in the public square.
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 135,
no reead my post.
I am saying rather that one think carefully before bringing one’s religious views directly into politics: the potential for blowback is huge.
No where have I said that one is not allowed to or shouldn’t, merely that it may be unwise.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
were it not a case of guilt by association, rather than discuss Ayers, one would be discussing Obama’s own policy positions.
You’ve never heard the old adage, “A person is known by the company he keeps,” apparently. Is it only when it’s a candidate you support that you don’t understand how this concept or does it hold true across the board? If a Republican candidate worked closely with a Klansman, would you get it then, even if the Republican candidate was clearly not a member of the Klan and even denounced some of the Klan’s beliefs and activities? I’m pretty sure you’d get it then.
as to Sarah Palin: the investigation which was approved unanimously by a bipartisan committee of the Alaskan legsilature is quite clear: Sarah Palin illegally abused her power as governor.
Of course, Sarah Palin is “objectively” guilty because a committee said she is. I get it.
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y: at #127:
Her response has to do with those in Iraq, including her son, fighting for the protestor’s right to protest.
Which would be true if, and only if, there were anyone in Iraq both wishing to and able to, take that right away. There is not and has not been.
So I find her quite a bit less “awesome” that you do. More “awful” I think.
Report comment to moderator
If a Republican candidate worked closely with a Klansman, would you get it then, even if the Republican candidate was clearly not a member of the Klan and even denounced some of the Klan’s beliefs and activities? I’m pretty sure you’d get it then.
If a Republican and a Klansman ended up serving on a project that three dozen people were involved in, and were not known for hanging out after hours happily swapping stories of lynchings and cross-burnings, I would find it a coincidence.
This Ayers nonesense has been blown way out of proportion. But it’s about the only thing McCain has left, so I guess it’s understandable.
No one has yet explained to me what’s wrong with Ayers in his later, post-Weatherman years anyway. By all accounts from people actually in a position to know, by the 1990s he had become a well-respected academic. He was named Chicagoan of the Year in 1997, for cryin’ out loud.
Why shouldn’t Obama, or anyone else, have worked alongside him then?
Report comment to moderator
ree post 137,
certainly one can use that adage.
As has been clearly dmeonstratedin my discusisons with xion, Obama is not keeping company with Ayers.
All efforts at linking Ayers to Obama save the woods foundation board and the $200 donation are so tenuous that under scrutiny they disappear.
Report comment to moderator
ree post 137,
as with all our justice system, we put in place bodies to make findings of fact and reeach decisions.
Your argument also suggests we should diisband the jury system, disband the courts and allow all criminals to go free, since we can never prove objectively, as you seem to define the term, that they are guilty.
You seem to be confounding your opinion with conlcusions based on facts and data.
Opinions are wonderful, but facts and data allow us to make reasoned decisions.
Report comment to moderator
Your argument also suggests we should diisband the jury system, disband the courts and allow all criminals to go free, since we can never prove objectively, as you seem to define the term, that they are guilty.
No, my argument is that, with a reasonable knowledge of the the occurences on which someone has been judged by an official body, one can legitimately disagree with the official findings.
Do you dispute this?
Report comment to moderator
When times are tough, people frequently return to God. This economic mess might make people think twice.
Report comment to moderator
“I am saying rather that one think carefully before bringing one’s religious views directly into politics: the potential for blowback is huge.”
Sigh. You don’t get it do you? Either that or you are purposely being obtuse.
Saying it is unwise to bring your religion into politics or saying you should think carefully about it, is pretty much the same thing as suppressing a religion, because at the root there is the assumption that your world view is superior to, and your vantage point/perspective is more objective than the religious world view. At it’s core it is a smug and arrogant (not to mention naive) view that supposes that one’s perspective is more objective than a religious one.
In addition, no one is suggesting that you think carefully about bringing your own secular view into politics. So why the double standard?
Report comment to moderator
Sigh. You don’t get it do you? Either that or you are purposely being obtuse.
It’s nice to know, at least, that I’m not the only who feels this way when discussing things with Musing.
Report comment to moderator
I am surprised that Musing has not suggesting that we be sure we define our terms carefully, as he usually does. What exactly do we mean by bringing religion into the public square? What activities does that involve? Unless we are all thinking of the same kind of activities, we may be simply talking past each other.
Report comment to moderator
ree post 142,
of course one can legitimately dispute the official body.
However, it usually helps to do this based on facts and data.
And I have not seen you present facts and data which refute the abuse of power claim.
In fact, most of the evidence supporting this claim is agreed by Palin to be essentially correct or is supported by written documentation and tapes.
So without a facutal basis to support your dispute, you are again inserting your unsupported opinion in place of conclusions based on facts and data.
We are repeating the same argument over and over in different threads, and in the end you do not seem to be willing to provide facts and data to support your position.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t imagine what it must be like to view the world Musing’s lenses?
I’m not disputing the “facts and data” as they’ve been presented. What I have trouble seeing is how occurences that are not in dispute constitute an “abuse of power.”
Does the concept even exist in your mind for the legitimacy of subjectivity?
I’m getting the feeling that, if I knew you in real life, I would understand fairly quickly the futility of trying to reason with you outside of the only categories you seem to understand. Without that face-to-face interaction that reveals so much about a person, it can take a long time to recognize such things.
Report comment to moderator
Facts & data often (usually?) need interpretation. Interpretations are subjective. Two people can look at the same facts & data & come to different conclusions.
And sometimes there are other factors involved, not observable in mere “facts & data”, which shade the meaning of the given facts.
Report comment to moderator
ree post 147,
the expicit staute which was violated was quote in the report.
by using her office to pursue the firing of wooten for personal reasons whe abused her power.
there is a long document trail supporting this ANd there is a tape of one of the interactions.
For an ethics case, based on my following of the data, this is about as objective as one can get.
Report comment to moderator
Karen o post 149,
aboslutely the interpretation is generally subjective.
But to make a subjective interpretation one needs at least some facts to interpret.
When there are no facts, we can say that the entire process is purely subjective.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline post 146,
good observation.
However, for this case my sense is we can use a process based approach: if you behave this way what are the ramifications.
In general if one tries to enforce one’s personal views on others in the public arena, in todays environment it tends to go badly UNLESS there is broad agreement that these views are a consensus opinion: that is you can only really make people do something that they all agree on. If there is no consensus then in this day and age, personal decision making tends to hold. Look at the obscentiy statutes for example.
Since relgiious views are personal views, they will follow the same model, and we don;t really need a precise definition.
Report comment to moderator
ree post 148,
my external operational lens tend to be highly focused on what is the data. But then I am a scientist/engineer by training.
Once I have what I understand to be the best data available, I then use my personal religious and philosophical understanidngs to decide what to do about it.
But I try hard to keep philosophy and religion out of the path of collecting the data.
Report comment to moderator
ree post 148,
and I find it hard to understand and imagine what it is like to explicitly up front filter all the data through a philosophical or religious lens.
Report comment to moderator
You fail to understand that that is exactly what you are doing. No one is exempt. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
But is enforcing one’s personal views on others in the public area what Make It Man is talking about? He said something about people bringing their beliefs into the public square – I see “bringing” and “enforcing” as two rather different things. I don’t know what Make It Man has in mind, but I think some specifics might make the discussion clearer.
Report comment to moderator
But then I am a scientist/engineer by training.
Yes, many people who fall into the category I suspect you fall into are.
by using her office to pursue the firing of wooten for personal reasons whe abused her power.
This is where the interpretation comes in. What constitutes a “personal reason?” She had personal knowledge of the man and what he had done because of her personal relationship to him, but no one disputes that, based on his record, he ought to have been fired. To find her guilty, one must be able to determine that she wanted him fired out of some kind of personal vendetta with no consideration for the actual reasons why he should have been fired. Who can measure her inner motivations like that but God? If he hadn’t been her former brother-in-law, but she knew about him from some other source, would it have been an abuse of her power for her to have made an effort to get his superiors to do what it was already deemed an appropriate action anyway? Was she constrained to ignore the issue of a hazardous state trooper because she has a personal dislike for the man? Would it only have been appropriate for her to be involved if she wasn’t a human being with human emotions?
As far as I can see, it could only be deemed an abuse of power if there were no genuine grounds for firing him. As it is, they’re judging her on her motives. If a man broke into your home and attempted to rape your wife, would you only be allowed to shoot him if you didn’t have any personal animosity towards him?
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 155,
I believe I am reminded of the two hikers and the bear. the hiker with the running shoes probalby has a better chance.
You are correct, no matter how disinterested one tries to be in collecting data, it is impossible to completely divorce oneself. Science recognizes this issue and has a process to manage this and discussing thisprocess makes for possibly an interesting discussion.
But just because the approach is not perfect, does that mean we should abandon trying? Is partial success perhaps more useful that not trying? There is in fact some good data on this point if one is interested.
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 155,
I am remindede of the engineer and the mathematician with a version of zeno’s paradox.
To stay within the bounds of this blog, lets just say that the mathematician doesn’t move and the engineer notes that they can get close enough.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline post 156,
but again, lets look at the process.
When we look at the operational behavior we see that the goal is to make one’s personal perspective the law of the land. The example which keeps cropping up is abortion which provides a simple and clear exemplar for us to consider.
The operational behavior can then be clearly examined NO MATTER WHAT WORDS WE CHOOSE TO DESCRIBE IT.
And I suggest this operational approach has fared badly during the 20th and 21st centuries.
Report comment to moderator
ree post 157,
the issue was trying to get wooten fired long after the official penalties had been aplied. There were clear documentary evidence that this was based on Sarah Palin’s desire to get wooten fired basedon the divorce.
The issue had arrisen far before Sarah Palin was made governor and ocntinued while she was governor. There is little argument about the facts here.
So your challenge should you choose to accept it is to demonstrate that trying to get Wooten fired because he had divorced ySarah’s sister was not trying to get Wooten fired for personal reasons.
I am sure you can do it, but when you present your logic, it would seem that it will probably be very contorted indeed.
Report comment to moderator
ree post 157,
which was Monegan’s point: there were no ground for firing Wooten, and so he did not do so.
There were other grounds for firing Monegan and hence firing Monegan, although the report concluded that personal reasons were part of the motivation, was not an illegal abuse of power.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Abortion is probably the most problematic issue, because people don’t agree on whether there is another person being affected besides the mother. If what is in her womb is just a “potential” person but currently just part of her body, then prohibiting abortion is imposing one’s personal view (about when life starts) on her. If what is in her womb is a separate person, then it doesn’t matter what her view is, she doesn’t have a right to end that person’s life.
Make It Man did not mention abortion. Discussion of religion and the public square can have to do with a variety of issues, from opening legislative sessions with prayer to display of a religious symbol on public property to an elected official giving voice to how his faith affects his actions. There is plenty of room for discussion as to the wisdom of some of those activities in a religiously pluralistic society, but I do not see those as “making one’s personal perspective the law of the land.”
Report comment to moderator
because he had divorced ySarah’s sister
This is the disputed portion of the argument.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline post 163,
certainly, but boundary cases preovide interesting insight in to the overall phenomenon.
Ok, so shall we talk gay marriage?
And you see I can continue this set of exemplars for quite a while.
And you can see these exemplars in action in this blog on a regular basis.
If the phenomenon is that we will build my personal belief system into the civil law AND there is not a strong consensus (not a 50% +1 majority) for the proposal, then in the context of the 20th and 21st century, it has historically been problematic.
And the effect is typically blow back on the belief system.
Report comment to moderator
to make one’s personal perspective the law of the land.
The only perspective that is not someone’s “personal perspective” is a perspective that no person holds.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline post 163,
now if instead of a fundamentalist assurance that they are right in imposing their beliefs, we have the alternatvie of a profession of one’s belief but a realization that all may not agree and one wil continue to have a civil discourse with your opponents, then one has a different dynamic.
But you can easily explore and examine the dynamic which is in action when the social conservatvie community “brings their beliefs to the public square”.
Democracy depends on a willingness to compromise AND honor your opponents.
So for example if the late 60s if abortion had been proposed as beoing legal with strict medical and parental controls, it would have been accepted and we would not have had Roe v Wade.
If civil unions had been proposed int he late 80s, we would not see the successful push for gay marriage in thge 2000s.
And I believe this demonstrates the case nicely.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline post 164,
and if you still have concerns about my analysis here, then simply examine say Drills, Make It Mans, or even Peter Leavitts, to name a few, posts on these topics.
Report comment to moderator
ree post 164,
actually, one can generate a consensus position which typically is not the personal perspective of any given individual.
It generally does not satisfy the fundamentalists or ideologs.
It does have staying capacity.
Report comment to moderator
ree post 164/Pauline post 163,
now there are exceptions to this process. But these are typically called revolutions and they usually do not honor democratic principals (at the beginning of the American revolution independence was a minority position).
And in general I have not seen conservative forces effectively executing revolutions.
Report comment to moderator
It generally does not satisfy the fundamentalists or ideologs
Pejorative terms for people with principles.
Report comment to moderator
now there are exceptions to this process. But these are typically called revolutions and they usually do not honor democratic principals (at the beginning of the American revolution independence was a minority position).
And in general I have not seen conservative forces effectively executing revolutions.
I’m at a complete loss as to what this has to do with my post on whether or not Sarah Palin’s reason for wanting a man fired was because he divorced her sister.
Report comment to moderator
ree post 172,
or more accurately then peopl who refuse to compromise.
Unfortunatley or fortunately democracy runs on compromise. Those who will not and who demonize their opponents typically find democracy a very unpleasant place, at least inj the 20th and 21st centuries.
Report comment to moderator
ree post 13,
quite simply if you believe your positions are absolutely necessary AND you are losing out on these issues in the Democratic process, the alternativve is revolution.
I use the American revoilution as an example, because most Americans have favorable feelings towards the American revolutino even though in its earliest phases it was quite undemocratic.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!