Friday, October 24, 2008

Time Out Again for a Partisan Moment


Anonymous said...

I appreciate your partisan moment and can understand why you'd want to support John McCain. However, in a similar (and certainly non-shrill) partisan moment I'd like to say that I'm voting for Barak Obama for reasons that extend beyond my own (or your) tax liability. Frankly, I'm not all that concerned about people making more than $250,000/yr paying an extra 3% of their income in taxes. And the fact that McCain is concerned with this shows why he's about to get thrashed on Voting day.

I'm voting for Obama because health care, peace, diplomacy, and concern for justice are family values. What's more, just once I'd like the smartest person to win.

I'm Joe the Pastor and I approve this message! ;-)

Anonymous said...

I am voting for McCain for one reason: his possible apointment of two conservative Supreme Court justices will finally can finally turn the tide of Roe v. Wade.

The sanctity of Life is the only family value.

The Pilgrim

1662 BCP said...

Regardless of what happens on November the Third, it is only the Americans who actually vote who will decide the trajectory of the Executive Branch for the next four years. Most of the peti-beureaucrats, with whom you have to deal, will remain the same. I acnnot subscribe to the mythology that the smartest person will be elected, if that was ever true, it has not happened in a very long time. My advice for the future would be that people would study Basic American Government, by Clarence B. Carson, And either attend or obtain The Institute On The Constitution, available from IOTCONLINE.COM, so as to be prepared for the future. The candidates I would have preferred are Ambassador Alan Keyes or Representative Ron Paul. Remember the warning of the Psalmist, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man." Psalm 118.8

Hening said...

Interesting to see people that are employed as pastors, shepherds for Christ, promoting someone that energetically supports partial birth abortion, and leaving children that survive abortion to cry themselves to death.

Bishop Robinson is also heavily supporting the socialist candidate on his website, since he supports the non biblical distortion of same sex marriage.

I'm Joe the Christian, and I've officially left TEC and the hypocrites behind I sure won't vote to elect another one as president.

Emer of Armagh said...

Since your video is no longer available (You Tube seems to always censor anything critical of Barack, doesn't it?)why not ask folks to watch this one: Dear Mr Obama - on You Tube to honor the sacrifice of the precious young soldier in it.

There are like more than 25 million reasons why I am voting for John McCain, but the 25 million are the folks who would have been exterminated by Barack's friend Bill Ayers if he had succeeded in his Marxist revolution. Oh yeah, and then there's all those millions of babies, too!

The proudly partisan Faith McDonnell

BabyBlue said...

It seems to be available now. ;-)


Llano said...

Glad to see this - my state is so red the only thing we've ever seen here are the Obama ones (and not many of them either).

I've never been crazy about McCain. But I cannot vote for a corrupt Chicago politician about whom we know very little, other than he's a corrupt Chocago politician.

Anonymous said...

Say it ain't so, Joe. 1.2 to 1.3 million abortions a year are OK by you? And more to follow with Obama, I'm sure. And 'free' health care? Free? Ha. Someone will pay. And you can't have peace or effective diplomacy without a strong military and the resolve to use it if needed.

Obama will weaken America, and a week America is the greatest threat to family values I know of.

And really, is Obama really smarter than McCain? Or is he just more slick and sly? Your elitism shows, Joe. You assure us you are not shrill, but fail to see just how small-minded your comment is.

-- Anonymous Catholic

Anam Cara said...

The basic philosophy of the two candidates is different.

One believes that government exists to shape society - that is the candidate who wants to share the wealth. The other believes that government is part of the problem - people need to accept personal responsibility.

My daughter asked if McCain would really tax health care benefits. I told her I'm not sure what his platform actually says but I do know this: Obama with a Democratic Senate and Congress will be able to do pretty much anything he likes. McCain will have to fight for anything - sort of checks and balances the way it's supposed to be. So McCain might SAY he will tax health care, but even if elected, odds are it will never happen. But if Obama says he is going to "share the wealth", you can bet your booties that some of the wealth he is sharing will eventually come from you!

Anonymous said...

Wow, anonymous Catholic, you ARE shrill. Sorry to make you so angry, but please hear me out. If you think the presidential election is a referendum on abortion I believe you're sadly mistaken. 22 of the last 30 years we've had so-called "pro-life" presidents. 6 of the past 8 years Repub's have controlled the House, Senate and White House PLUS there have been a majority of Repub. appointees on the Sup Court for some time. Moreover, Mac has said he "won't have a litmus test for SC appointees" (as GHWB also said and proved it!). And the abortions over these past decades? ...well they haven't stopped, have they? What you'll soon realize is this: Repub's do not care about abortion, they only need you to think they do so that you'll keep voting for them. They need an issue but they have no interest in a cause. At least the Dems are honest on this point.


Anonymous said...

Oh Joe,

Funny how you focus on the first two lines of my post. I never claimed it to be a referendum on abortion, I simply stated I thought there would be more under o than McCain.

The dems are not honest on the abortion point -- like most politicians, they are not honest at all. But they will surely weaken the country and pull it further left than the Republicans.

A pastor that so cavalierly dismisses the tragedy of abortion ("And the abortions over these past decades? ...well they haven't stopped, have they?") is a disgrace to his profession and a bit disgusting to boot.

And I'm far more sad than angry joe. Sad that a pastor has such low regard for life, sad that you think you are so clever and sad that we very well might have to live through four years of the most liberal president in our history with a liberal leftest controlled senate and congress tearing down further the values that made America so great.


Anonymous said...

You misunderstand me. I have a high regard for life, which is precisely why I'm voting for Obama. I simply find the notion of ending abortion in the US through the presidency as wrought with flawed logic. Neither candidate is anti-abortion.

To wit I am arguing that we are left to decide which candidate promotes other pro-life issues like ending an unjustified war, offering adequate and affordable health care, and securing financial help for struggling families.

I suppose, however, I could vote for Mac and hope he'd act differently on abortion than Reagan, Bush, and Bush, but do you really think that will happen?


Anonymous said...

No Joe, Sorry Joe, I don’t buy it.

If you had a “high regard for life” you would actively campaign against abortion and those who favor it. You have sold yourself out for a feel good mantra of shallow and vague ideas. How much is enough to take from me Joe, to give to the struggling family? Who decides what makes a “struggling family?’ Is it someone who lost their job because taxes are so high that the owner goes out of business? Or because they are lazy? Or because the owner is an ass? Why does the government get to take the money someone else made and give it to whoever they deem ‘needy’? Why do you want the Government do the work of charity? You say you are not all that concerned about people making more than $250,000/yr paying an extra 3% of their income in taxes. When do you become concerned Joe? 5% more? 10% more? $100,000? $50,000?

You say you are concerned for justice, Joe. But the injustice of abortion is now taken for granted by you.

Unjust war? Did you really feel that way several years ago? If you did, kudos to you. But so many who spout that now were all in favor of it back then. And what is a ‘just’ war, Joe? One you decide is? Stop the slaughter in Darfur! End the Somali piracy! Bomb Kosovo! Free Tibet! Do we stop Iran from building a bomb or wait until they use it on Israel? Or maybe they won’t use it on them and we should talk about it? How will you feel if we are talking to them and they kill 3 million Jews? Oh well, sorry? Life isn’t so clear cut. I don’t know if we should take military action to stop an Iranian bomb or not. But Iran has made it pretty clear what they want to do with one. If Obama is elected and he is convinced military action against Iran is required will that be just? And if just, is it just because you think it is the right thing to do, or because you will give obama the benefit of the doubt because you think he is smart and he wants affordable health care and he is only going to tax the high rollers?

I don’t know, Joe. You back peddle about abortion in part because you are concerned about what candidate will give more to your pet causes.

If man isn’t charitable enough, perhaps it is because those who are supposed to be in charge of the spirit are more concerned with Caesar.