I've been wanting so badly to post about things related to the election, but have been so distracted by our new puppy, that I haven't had much of a chance to think as straight as I'd like to and as a result have only posted 5 posts last month, the month before the election. This is less than any other month and none of the posts I did were directly related to the Election. Consequently, I've been feeling a little annoyed both with our puppy and with God. I posted a little about this in my Post Entitled "Blogging Fatigue/Sometimes God has Different Plans".
Well, God finally gave me a break and I'm so glad that I checked our Email today because one of the Emails was exactly the sort of thing that I needed in order to post something relating to the Election. In this Email, a friend of ours sent the following link.
The Rise of the United Socialist States of America USSA
This is just the sort of thing that really scares me about Obama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
As I said in my final comments and predictions before the election, total Democrat control is a big reason why I'm voting for McCain. If the GOP was in control and likely to remain so, I'd let the GOP burn.
It's depressing to have to vote against someone rather than for someone. But vote against Obama I will.
Way to go Patrick and thanks for dropping by.
How about I do better that and add you to my blogroll?
Actually, it's done.
Look, the way I see this is that this is a war between John McCain and those that sit around helplessly whining and wanting everyone else to pay for their pathetic little lives....
still here, still voted, still awaitin, tis one day i wished i had tv. have a good tuesday all.
Patrick,
I'm developing a whole list of people who I need to add to my blogroll and it takes me awhile to visit them all. Oh well.
Myself,
Based on the results of the Election, it appears that there are more "whiners" in our country than there are McCain supporters. As far as convincing them, as Republicans, we are doing something wrong because they obviously aren't listening.
Griper,
Perhaps it's a good thing that you don't have a TV. It seems that Obama is winning the Election and by a much bigger margin than I would have ever wished for. Just as I said to "Myself", above, we aren't communicating right. We're not succeeding. We are not getting through to those who support the opposite point of view.
I guess it's time for more of us to humble ourselves and pray, just as I said in the verse I quoted in my post entitled "Blogging Fatigue/Sometimes God has Different Plans", 2 Chronicles 7:14.
Griper,
I found the California Proposition results at the "Directory of California State Propositions". I'm sure there is lots of other information on the web as well.
thanks for the site, lista. well, see my vote was not counted among the winners on very many. though i am glad that the ones important for me was in my favor.
as i was saying over at heidianne's blog its not our message that isn't getting through it is their tactics of keeping focus where they want it and they have succeeded.
Glad you liked the site. I'll be back later with more of a response.
I think that our message isn't getting through because the general public keeps supporting the wrong side. Somehow we aren't succeeding at getting them to see that the Democratic way of thinking and especially the Socialistic way of thinking is not the correct way of thinking. They keep not getting it, no matter what we say.
Or perhaps we are missing something that they are trying to say to us. I sense that there is a serious communication break down between Democrats and Republicans and when I say this, I do not mean the leadership, but the general public. We are having serious trouble talking to each other.
Obama would not have such a big following if there wasn't some problems that the Republicans are not adequately addressing. We need to try harder to win them over. Even if it means compromise. Anything is better than allowing America to become a Socialized Country.
Lista: Obama would not have such a big following if there wasn't some problems that the Republicans are not adequately addressing. We need to try harder to win them over.
Even if it means compromise.
Compromise is what got us to this point. Think back (because it seems so long ago already) to the infamy of the Dastardly Bastardly Bailout. There was a $1 trillion dollar pork-laden compromise. And if you look at the list of names on that POS, you'll notice names like Bush, McCain, and Boehner, and Obama, Reid and Pelosi.
Only by truly setting the GOP apart from this madness (socialism) are we EVER going to compete against an emotionally compelling and currently favored President Obama.
We do this by leading with principles.
Patrick,
Unfortunately, I do think that the Bailout was necessary in order to protect our Economy, but it should not have been Pork-laden. I don't understand how the Republicans allowed that. That annoys me. So often that which may be necessary is done in a very wrong way and it becomes a very big negative.
I'm a person who is much more reluctant to compromise on moral principles such as Abortion and Homosexuality than on Financial ones. As a Christian, I look to the Bible as my guide and I do not feel that the Financial make up of a Country is clearly outlined in the Bible.
You might be right, though, about the compromise of principles being a big part of our problem. If there was not such a large number of Christian Conservatives who compromised their Moral Principles in voting for McCain in the Primaries (my parents included), than perhaps we might have done better in the General Election.
A bailout may have been necessary, but not the obscenity that we got charged.
The reason I lean libertarian, and therefore am more flexible on social issues than you, is based on the way the constitution was designed. It is a document designed to limit government and maximize personal freedom. And personal freedom is lost when the government gains power. This, in turn, threatens our ability to govern are lives.
While I don't think moral issues are trivial, or that flexible in terms of any biblical interpretation, the agreement of a free people, as protected by the Constitution, does not force the religious morality of one person onto another. And only by respecting the beliefs of others as long as your beliefs are protected can we function without descending into legislated morality.
Which brings me to a point I've made on the abortion issue. The battle to stop babies from being killed will not end by passing laws and bans and amendments. I can only be ended by changing the hearts and minds of people.
That is the true sense of the First Amendment's establishment and free exercise clauses: To protect us from a state-mandated morality (think Sharia law) and to allow us to seek God in what way leads us to Truth.
Once again, I'm interrupted before I can give a more complete response to a comment. I'll be back later to give my response.
Patrick,
I'm not sure exactly how much of a bailout was needed. I'm not an expert on these things.
You are the second Libertarian that I know of that has visited my blog. I guess I should read up on their platform, so I know what I'm dealing with.
The total absence of Government is called Anarchy, not Freedom. No person should be so "Free" that they are free to intrude on the rights of others. The Abortion issue is not about "Freedom of Choice", nor is it even about "Morality", but about the Rights of the Baby.
We had a very interesting discussion about this on one of my Abortion pages. I believe it was the one entitled "Abortion/Fetal Development".
Nothing can be entirely stopped by the making of laws. The goal is not to stop, but to reduce the numbers. The Abortion Rate went way up when it was legalized and it will go down again if this is reversed.
If we take the idea of avoiding all "State-Mandated Morality" to it's furthest conclusion, than we would have to do away with all laws, including the laws against murder, because there is no such thing as a law that has nothing at all to do with Morality.
I was just browsing through the posts and Patrick M's seems to be the mainstream position to wit abortion is bad and I'm against it BUT...what I don't get is this, with so many people being personally opposed to abortion or at least saying they are why are there still over 1 million abortions per year? So is this stated consensus false? just wondering (ps-not calling into question Pat's sincerity it's just that everyone saya this.
Re legislating morality I've heard this one before but you wanna know something? The prevailing legal view at the moment that the fetus has the same moral status as Hamburger Helper is itself someone's view and it might be added that one view among several others beginning at the other end of the spectrum and all gradations in between has been imposed upon society at large and so all laws are based on someone's morality the only question is whose morality?
Z,
I don't know what percentage of people say that they are personally opposed to Abortion, nor how that number relates to the number "1 million per. year", for that is not a percentage number.
There will always be people who say they believe one thing and than when put in a difficult position end up doing something else. This is called Hypocrisy and this, along with dishonesty in general, causes a lot of statistical numbers to be off a little.
Your second comment was great!! The part that I'd like to repeat and emphasize is something that you did not put in bold print and that is "All laws are based on someone's morality. The only question is whose morality?"
Between this and another blog, I think a comprehensive post on abortion is called for. I've got it half-done, but I had to shelve it because of the election. I think I'll get it done next week, and probably link to your abortion post.
As for where I've arrived on the abortion issue, it's because we will never be able to put the abortion problem to rest once and for all until we can break the stalemate between these polar opposite sides.
The abortion battle has gone on for 30 years now, and despite all the efforts of the pro-life movement, not one bit of progress has been made. I want to achieve the same thing as you do. But it may take a completely new strategy to do it.
I look forward to it, Patrick. Keep me posted on your progress.
Actually, we did finally make some progress in relation to a Partial Birth Abortion Issue. They finally decided to ban it, but there are lots of other Late Term Abortion Methods that though less graphic, are for the most part, just as bad.
Patrick we can't put the abortion problem to rest because the Supremes hijacked the whole process back in 1973 when even pro-choicers were surprised at what they did so of course if you bottle something up like this it's gonna percolate, get carbonated, boil over, what have you. Let's say a state wants to ban abortions after 18 weeks, 20 weeks, whatever, can't do it 'cause the Supremes said it's full-throttle up until at least 24 weeks or thereabouts and even then you have that amorphous phrase "health of the mother". So the Supreme Court practically ensured the issue would never die, if anything's legislator-friendly it's abortion.
Patrick and Z,
The very fact that the Supreme Court has "hijacked" the issue and taken the control away from the states is the very reason why the Roe verses Wade ruling was so inappropriate.
A lot of people seem to think that if this court case was over turned, Abortion would become totally and completely illegal without exception, but in reality, all that would happen is that the decision would be returned again to the states where it belongs. I just goes to show you how paranoid people are in relation to this issue.
It's interesting that this Comment Thread has gotten off on the subject of Abortion. It's off subject, but it is an important enough discussion that I don't feel like shutting it down. I'd like to do another post on Abortion too, but it seems that the posts that are the most on my mind right now are a series of 4 posts that I plan to post all at the same time on the subject of lessons I have learned from our dog and from dogs in general.
Socialism? You mean like socializing corporate losses, handing out free checks to people and the government increasing its size and power and taking ownership of industry?
That doesn't sound like Socialism, that sounds like the Bush Presidency. And you want to call Obama a socialist because he wants to repeal a tax cut for rich people which put us in the biggest deficit in history??
YOu are going to have to do better than that.
Oh right, he wants people to be able to go to the doctor...my bad.
Actually, I was referring to things such as Socialized Medicine and the like.
Post a Comment