Say it loud, say it proud: I am a racist! *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Jun 11 2008 at 8:48 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
It’s becoming increasingly clear what the Democratic campaign strategy is going to be this election season: Vote for Obama or you’re a racist. I’m not sure I think too much of this approach to bullying the American electorate into selecting a candidate. Aside from the fact that, if you’re a Republican, it’s always a mistake to let your adversary define you, it also seems to me to free people from certain otherwise laudatory restraints.
As for me, because I’m preemptively being defined as a racist (since I most certainly won’t vote for Obama), I’ve decided to step up to the plate and embrace that definition. From here on in, I’ve got my mantra.
When I vote against Obama on November 4, 2008:
- It won’t be because Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq, which I think will weaken America’s interests beyond repair, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama thinks that a nuclear Iran is no threat to the Western World, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because I think it’s an incredibly stupid idea for the most powerful nation in the world to approach evil totalitarian dictators as a supplicant, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because I hate the idea of a President who will subordinate America’s interests to the UN (as he inevitably will), it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama has the thinnest resume ever in the history of Presidential candidates, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because I think Obama’s Leftist connections (Ayres, Dohrn, Soros, Pfleger, Wright, etc.) show him to be either stupid about or complicit with an agenda antithetical to basic American values, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama consistently chooses as advisers people who have opted for the wrong side in the completely binary debate about Israel’s right to exist, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama wants to socialize American medicine, which I believe will destroy the high quality of medical care available to most Americans, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama wants to gut the military and reduce us to a nation with a big target painted on our collective backside, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama wants to gut the Second Amendment and destroy Americans’ Constitutional right to protect themselves from foreign and domestic enemies, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama has already announced loud and clear that he will support activist judges who place their “feelings” above the law, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama supports judicial decisions creating a right to gay marriage, when I think that decision is one for the voters, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama’s announced that he will dramatically increase taxes, putting the slow, inflexible, ill-informed government in charge of what should be a quick-reacting, knowledgeable marketplace, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama’s record in the Senate (albeit short and undistinguished) has been so liberal he makes Teddy Kennedy look like a reactionary, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama’s an open-borders kind of guy, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama has shown himself to be a scarily slow thinker and speaker when released from the teleprompter (which really doesn’t bode well for those cozy private chats with Ahmadinejad, Jong-Il, and Assad), it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama’s wife clearly loathes America and everything it stands for, despite the fact that she’s done pretty well out of it, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama was affiliated for more than 20 years with a church that preached white hatred and began to care only when it looked as if it would affect his campaign, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama was good buddies with Tony Rezko, and other sleazy characters (showing again that Obama was complicit or a singularly bad judgment of character), it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama’s a compulsive liar who clearly thinks we in the public are too stupid to catch up with his lies, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama’s campaign has proven to be fly-paper for every two bit troofer and anti-Semite in America, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama’s promised already to start down the totalitarian path of purging his predecessors through criminal prosecutions, it will be because I’m a racist.
All things considered, when I think about being a racist as I’ve defined it, not as they have, let me say it loud and let me say it proud: I am a racist — and, on November 4, 2008, this racist is not voting for Obama.
UPDATE: Welcome, readers from Confederate Yankee, The Anchoress and American Thinker! To new visitors, if you’d like to leave a comment (and feel welcome to do so), you’ll have to register. Your first post will automatically be sent to moderation, where it will sit for a couple of hours, since I’ll be out and about for quite a while, and won’t be able to update things.
UPDATE II: With regard to Obama’s habit of associating with truly unsavory people, whether because of their criminal antics or their political, religious, or racial beliefs, Terry Trippany has a good list identifying many of Obama’s “friends.”
UPDATE III: Here is the back story, telling what motivated this post.
UPDATE IV: Welcome, Conservative Grapevine readers. Feel free to take a look around while you’re here.
Email This Post To A Friend
95 Responses to “Say it loud, say it proud: I am a racist! *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It seems as if the entire Obama campaign could then be termed “racist”.
Redefining racism…
Bookworm’s putting out a new dictionary:It’s becoming increasingly clear what the Democratic campaign strategy is going to be this election season: Vote for Obama or you’re a racist. I’m not sure I think too much of this approach to bullying…
Get Your Racist Checklist Here…
Here you go, haters. I’ll have you know this does not help Michelle Obama’s children…….
One of my many beefs with the intolerant left is its constant misuse of the American language. They seem to think they can redefine words to dismiss people they disagree with.
In reality, you’re not a racist– your a bigot.
Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
“Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; …”
Anyone intolerant of the dangerous beliefs of the left MUST be a bigot.
Brian
Yep, I’ve already been called a racist by a progressive friend of mine for questioning Obama’s thin resume and why he’s qualified to be president only by virtue of his skin color, and I predict a huge backlash against the pushy rhetoric of the left.
Red America is tired of being hit over the head with their alleged “racism” by race baiters of all stripes who have a vested interest in keeping racism alive and well in order to make a living off the backs of uneducated and brainwashed blacks who want to blame anybody but themselves for the crappy state of their lives.
The fact that an Obama presidency would make us long for the spineless administration of Jimmy “Israel Equals Apartheid” Carter or the corrupt administration of the Clintons makes no difference to the America hating liberals who have never had to miss a meal, or spend a day in a gulag for their traitorous beliefs.
I predict a historical landslide for McCain that will make “Dewey Beats Truman” look like a kindergarten tea party.
WOW! It is time for a change.
The Left/Dems are pushing this as a way to garner votes. They think if you’re ashamed of yourself for opposing Obama, and they convince enough of you that what you’re thinking is racism, then they will win. Had it been Hillary then the Meme would have been that you’re a Chauvinist or a Misogynist if you didn’t vote for her. In either case it’s a faux issue for the dhimmiwitted.
Me, in the same vein as Bookworm, well, I’m a Racist!
Barack Obama’s List of Unsavory Relationships Continues to Grow…
Barack Obama’s claim of being different is little more than empty rhetoric. It seems that every week more and more bones land on the floor while the skeletons in his closet are starting to pile up. This monster isn’t pretty.
……
Well, I guess I’m a racist, too. I agree with every single one of your points.
Well done.
The Democrats have never hesitated in stomping on weaker members of humanity, Book.
Obama:
- Gives great speeches
- Is very cool and calm under pressure
- When in doubt, he reverts back to his deepest, core principles
That sounds an awful lot like Reagan. Except that when Obama reverts, he becomes a classic far-far-far-leftie. Reagan reverted to a basic optimism and simple free-market capitalism.
And, oh yeah, Reagan was the governor of California for eight years before becoming President.
Book listed 29 specific points identifying why she could not vote for Obama. No one could ask for more than that!
But let me tell you about my two sisters in Michigan ( a swing state ) who are nominally Democrats. But not diehard.
One dislikes McCain but, as she says, Obama “scares the hell out of me”. And she doesn’t want to discuss it further. She won’t vote for McCain, though.
The other is fearful of Obama, doesn’t understand him, and thinks both Obama and McCain are not worth the effort of voting. She plans to stay home.
Mom and Dad, also in Michigan, really liked McCain in 2000 but they wouldn’t give him the time of day now. They dislike him intensely. I haven’t asked them about Obama, but my hunch is that they dislike him as well.
So for my Democrat family, there’s no support for McCain, and no enthusiasm for Obama. It may be a “vote for the lesser or two evils” election for a lot of people this year, especially in the swing states.
I’m in Texas. Translation: I don’t matter.
Helen, just curious. Now that Hillary appears to have lost the nomination, are you still voting Democratic? Or have you decided? ( I was an early supporter of Giuliani, so my candidate didn’t make it either. I will stay the course w McCain, FWIW.) I am not trying to get into an extended discussion of the vices and virtues of the candidates. Just curious about how you decided.
Gringo,
There was never a question. I’m a Democrat. I planned to vote for the Democratic candidate. I had hoped that candidate would be Clinton. I voted for Clinton in the NC primary. But it now seems that candidate will be Obama. So I’ll vote for Obama. This is not a change in plan.
If I were to change, which I am not considering, I’d leave the Democratic party and join a different one. That’s the way I do things. I join a party, then vote for that party’s candidate. (It’s like joining a church, if you grow to disagree with the one you’re in, you leave and join one you do agree with. And you do things their way.) I am loyal or gone.
I am a Democrat because I think the government is big enough and powerful enough to make some of the changes I agree with. I want soldiers to come home from this damn, illegal war. I want the US to be friends with other nations. I want health care for everyone. I want prices of gasoline and, therefore, food to be reasonable. I want a responsible environmental plan. I want a foreign policy that makes my country a good member of the world community. I want a more equitable distribution of wealth, at home and globally. Yes, I have socialist leanings but am not quite there. Go that way too much, and we lose our rights. I believe in sharing. And I believe we have a chance to advance race relations by electing the first black president. I think that is very important. But I do not think everyone who votes against Obama is a racist. These are my reasons for voting for Obama. They are as good as anyone’s. The only person I have to convince is myself, because none of the rest of you get to go in the voting booth with me. I know what I’m doing and why. I will vote Democratic in November.
By contrast, I think Republicans are selfish in their dialog, if not in their actions. They believe too much in the individual and too little in the common good. They are quick to sacrifice soldiers and slow to share their money. They are too quick to label poor people as lazy. And I think they are on a witch hunt to prove Obama is evil, not just the wrong man. I hate negative campaigns. I am for Obama. I don’t vote for the lesser of two evils. I vote for the better candidate. McCain is old and the same old same old. He’s four more years of Bush. And I’m not better off than I was when he came to office. I’ve come to believe that none of us are pure anything, except human. And I believe that we’ll all make it without starving regardless of who wins. Bush isn’t responsible for all our nation’s problems, but many of them came to a head on his watch. It’s time for a change.
This discussion won’t last a week. At least, my part of it won’t. That’s a fact.
Owning Up To Racism…
Last week, one of the Chicago area’s minor newspapers insinuated that those of us voting against Barack Obama are doing so based upon race. Now Catholic priest and Chicago Sun-Times columnist Andrew Greeley has said the same. Indeed, Greeley goes……
ARE YOU A RACIST WHEN IT COMES TO BARACK OBAMA?…
Bookworm has the reasons.
Here are a few of the reasons you might be:
It won’t be because Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq, which I think will weaken America’s interests beyond repair, it will be because I’m a racist.
It won’t be becau…
OMG, can’t we somehow get the marxist influence out of our schools and the MSM and Hollywood and the Democrat Party. Oh, never mind, the Democ’rats are already at best socialists and probably closer to marxists. The Republicans are now mostly democ’rats. Simply read the remarks of any liberal and count their statements of which Lenin would be proud.
I want soldiers to come home from this damn, illegal war.
I suppose thinking your government big and strong enough means you can sacrifice other weaker nations and peoples for no consequence to yourself.
(It’s like joining a church, if you grow to disagree with the one you’re in, you leave and join one you do agree with. And you do things their way.)
That’s one way to handle higher loyalties to truth and justice in a nation.
I want a foreign policy that makes my country a good member of the world community.
Only because the powerful boss on the hill wants other people to fawn over them, not because there’s any particular help that can be had for this “community”.
And I believe we have a chance to advance race relations by electing the first black president.
That’s like advancing relations with Sunnis by electing Sunnis to power by disenfranchising Kurds and Shia. That’s not advancing race or ethnic relations.
They believe too much in the individual and too little in the common good.
That’s what the British said when they wanted the Americans to be milked so that Britain could pay off their war debts incurred against the war against Napoleon.
The excuse of any totalitarian regime is that people have too much vested in their individuality and not enough in the common good.
America tried that retarded line in Iraq about sacrificing yourself for the national good for the first 5 years and it didn’t do anything to convince the people that needed convincing. Self-interest, however, did. That’s cause self-interest works and is the only way to acquire and maintain allies, citizens, and nations. It is only the way because it is the just way. Statist policies attempt to force people against their free will, using an unjust model that says “we know best”. You don’t know best and nor does the government.
I don’t vote for the lesser of two evils.
Utilitarianism never did work out philosophically speaking.
There is a way to vote for the best candidate, even when you recognize that this candidate has some of the same evils as the other worse candidate. To ignore all this in favor of “best”, is rather shortsighted.
Ymarsakar :
That’s what the British said when they wanted the Americans to be milked so that Britain could pay off their war debts incurred against the war against Napoleon.
Napoleon became prominent after the French Revolution of 1789, and ruled in France circa 1799-1815. How would the Brits tax the Americans when the US was already an independent country ? The war debt incurred by Britain which caused them to attempt to tax their American colonies, such as the tax on tea, was incurred from conflict against France when Louis XV ruled France. (died 1774)
My bad, I should have remembered that Andrew Jackson was fighting in 1812, at the same time Napoleon was fighting in Europe.
Helen:
As you know, I totally don’t agree with your conclusions, but I very much appreciate that you were able to articulate policies and principles guiding your decision to stick with Democrats over Republicans. Your beliefs are completely congruent with the Democratic platform, so it makes sense for you to hew that way. For you, I suspect, Obama is almost irrelevant as a person or a politician, precisely because you are a party voter — and I suspect equally strongly that you are not unique. If the Dems win in the Fall, it won’t be the candidate, it will be the brand.
You are spot on, Bookworm.
Thanks Bookworm for a typically incisive and honest post. You have to be on the top ten list for most intelligent (and prolific) blog sites. A joy to read across the range of your topics.
I believe that any Democratic attempt to smear non-Obama voters as racists is a cynical, destructive, and wrong, for all the reasons that you have enumerated.
I’d like to approach the issue from a different perspective, using simple numbers (and please bear in mind that I am no mathematician).
First of all, the Democrats are conflating two very different conditional probabilities:
1) Given that you are an anti-black racist, what is the probability that you won’t vote for Obama? [Answer: close to 100%]
2) ***But what we really want to know is, given that you won’t vote for Obama, what is the probabilty that you ARE a racist?***
The Democrats are trying to lump all non-Obama voters into #1. Probabilities can be confusing, but deliberately mixing up #1 and #2 is an old and dishonest rhetorical trick. Let’s try to answer the real question of #2.
Let’s start with a few facts.
a) Blacks comprise 12.5% of the population, therefore non-blacks comprise the remaining 87.5%
b) Obama is currently leading McCain 53% – 47% in the polls.
c) 90% of blacks are supporting Obama.
d) If you remove the black vote, Obama trails McCain 42-46% in round numbers.
Now, for a conjecture:
e) Let’s stipulate that 15% of all non-blacks are racist. That means that about 13% of the entire population is racist (.15 x .875).
So what is the probability that a non-Obama voter is racist?
The answer is the number of racists divided by the number of non-Obama voters, or 13% / 46% = 28%.
So if you knew nothing else except skin color (instead of the contents of their characters), you can guess that 28% of all non-Obama voters are racist. I prefer to frame it the other way, which is that 72% are NOT racist, or roughly 3-1 against being racist.
Personally, I don’t think that there are that many racists, and would like to pursue some further explanations and implications in another post.
If you’ve followed my previous post this far, I promise to keep this follow-up brief!
The key factor listed above is the actual vs. estimated percentage of racists in the entire population. Obviously, blacks and whites have different perceptions — the interesting question is why?
I believe it was Orlando Patterson who noted that if only 15% of all non-blacks are racist — way too many to be sure, but a small minority nonetheless — then in absolute terms, there is a one-to-one correspondence between bigots and black people. (.15 x .875 = 13% bigots vs. 12.5% black population) So, a a white person could legitimately say, “hey, I hardly know any racists” whereas a black person would respond “everywhere I go, it seems like there are as many racists as there are of us!”
Highly simplified and theoretical, but you get my point. Another factor is that because racial discrimination is illegal, and overt racism is rare, blacks can’t point to it directly. Yet it exists, so it must seem to be everywhere and nowhere at the same time, weirdly pervasive. Honest discussion is difficult; over-interpretation abounds, distrust increases, and near paranoia results. This chain of perception skews the number (estimated percentage of racists in society) high.
Back to the numbers. If a black person thinks that 50% of non-blacks are racist, then .50 x .875 = 43.75%, or about the number of voters for McCain! (46% of non-blacks). Ergo you must be a racist! (or suspected as one despite your other actions, which only feeds the paranoia).
Conversely, if a person thinks that 5% of the entire population is racist, then given that you won’t vote for Obama, the probability of being a racist is less than 10%. 9-1 against.
I know which way I’d bet, whether the odds are 3-1 against or 9-1 against. The numbers don’t support the smear.
Lastly, I find that anything Orlando Patterson or Shelby Steele writes is worth reading. Steele’s book “White Guilt” is brilliant. Another good and non-polemical book for this election season is William Poundstone’s “Gaming the Vote” a look at the math behind voting systems (fun and entertaining–I promise!)
I failed to keep this post short. Thanks for bearing with me.
Helen L.
This goes against your assumption that conservatives are less compassionate than liberals– “By contrast, I think Republicans are selfish in their dialog, if not in their actions.”
“In his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservativism (Basic Books, 2006), Brooks (Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks) discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families. This greater generosity among conservative families proved to be true in Brooks’ research for every income group, ‘from poor to middle class to rich.’ ”
Conservatives give money to causes that meet people’s needs. Liberals give more to institutions (check Nancy Pelosi’s charitable giving as an example).
Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
Brian
Or you might be a racist because you’re white.
You’re probably aware of the definition of racist according to the University of Delaware Office of Cultural Diversity.
“A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. ‘The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….’”
Brian
It is not actions that matter, Brian, for that would be too close to the meritocracy myth. What matters are lies and words, which are the really important things in getting the masses going. Individual actions cannot create utopia or correct injustice, but a mob created through distortion, lies, and manipulations can through emotion and fervent belief.
It is impossible to be prejudiced against a public figure. That would mean forming an opinion or making a decision about them based on things we are not aware of. In Hussein’s case, as well as those of every other elected official, the relevant facts are a matter of public record and so are known. There is no prejudging involved.
We are to be tolerant of a co-worker’s choice of music if we carpool, the nose ring on the bagboy at the grocery store but we am NOT obliged to be tolerant of evil and Hussein Obama is the poster boy of evil. It is a matter of public recorde. In fact, we are BOUND to fight and resist evil with all our being.
So, blow it out your shorts, Lefties. NObama!
For Helen,
Re your misconception (stereotype?) about less compassionate Conservatives/more compassionate Liberals.
Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous
By Frank Brieaddy
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America — and it’s making him nervous.
The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.
In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives — from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services — make conservatives more generous than liberals.
The book, titled “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.
When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: “For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice.”
For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, “I have no comfortable political home.”
Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.
Outside professional circles, he’s best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.
One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don’t (like him). Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals’ impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.
Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do — aside from their paid work — why they do it, and its economic impact.
He’s a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.
His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light.
His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.
The book’s basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money.
Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.
All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.
“These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago,” he writes in the introduction. “I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book.”
Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.
In an interview, Brooks said he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements.
Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000: “A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity.”
Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.
“His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least,” he said. “But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid.”
Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.
To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.
“I know I’m going to get yelled at a lot with this book,” he said. “But when you say something big and new, you’re going to get yelled at.”
1LUlu,
Rich people are philanthropists. Rich people can afford to be philanthropists because they have too much money. Rich people have too much money because poor people have too little. Poor people are the recipients of philanthropy. A redistribution of wealth would make all people middle – no rich, no poor, and thus, no need for philanthropy experts, statistics or this book. No problem.
Helen in response to 1LUlu, you wrote: “Rich people can afford to be philanthropists because they have too much money.”
Helen, regarding your previous post, you need to read the posting from 1LUlu a little more carefully. And I quote.
“Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.”
IRRESPECTIVE OF INCOME
IRRESPECTIVE OF INCOME
IRRESPECTIVE OF INCOME
IRRESPECTIVE OF INCOME.
What does “IRRESPECTIVE OF INCOME” mean?
Helen: from bse53 ( post 24 ) on the same study:
However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families.
“Rich people can afford to be philanthropists because they have too much money.” doesn’t cut it.
What does “IRRESPECTIVE OF INCOME” mean?
Doesn’t mean anything really. Means helen is right and you get to eat crow, Gringo.
It means conservatives may be more charitable action wise, but the way they talk is bigoted and prejudiced and will thus be bad in the long term.
Rich people have too much money because poor people have too little.
Thus to get real charity, you have to make people give their money because the rich have the most to give and the poor would want it the most. To each according to their ability and to each according to their need. Blacks can work cotton and people needed workers for cotton.
Course, we’re all against slavery, dontcha know.
In order to clear up something people might have taken an incorrect interpretation on: helen does not in fact care about individual compassion or charity. She cares about the equality of outcomes or what is known as total redistributed income where nobody makes more than anybody else.
So in actual fact, it is meaningless to helen how much conservatives give for it is not an individual virtue that helen is seeking to cultivate but a Monarchian god-government with the ability to compel and force people to obey.
In retrospect, fake liberals are more compassionate than conservatives because only compassionate people will lock you up in a cage and chain your free will to slavery.
PS.
For your own good, of course.
Y., I am not calling for equal incomes. I am calling for food, shelter and clothing plus health care for all Americans. Saying “a redistribution of income” doesn’t automatically mean I think everyone check ought to be the same.
I am calling for food, shelter and clothing plus health care for all Americans.
And how are you going to get that without equal incomes?
Obviously the rich have most of the tax money so they are going to be paying for this, thus subsidizing the income of the poor.
The rich have too much money and the poor too little, do you not remember what you said?
Saying “a redistribution of income” doesn’t automatically mean I think everyone check ought to be the same.
Well, that’s obvious given that there will no longer be a rich to exploit once everybody makes the same.
A redistribution of wealth would make all people middle
I suppose you’ll just be satisfied with “middle”, if not 100% equal.
The world will be a better place when the kid who bags your groceries makes the same amount of money as the surgeon who repairs your heart. Oh, okay, let the surgeon make a little more. How much more? Who decides? Why Helen L., of course.
Helen is also not a Christian.
Jesus said “The poor you will always have with you”. She wants to make Jesus a liar.
God said, when he cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden “Henceforth you shall earn your bread with the sweat of your brow”. But Helen wants _some_ people to work, and others to eat, sleep with a roof over their head, and have any health care they need whether they work or not.
Somewhere in the epistles, it says that among the early Christians – who were the world’s first communists – that those who would not work would not be fed. Don’t remember that one exactly.
In other words, Old Testament and New Testament both agree – man works for his daily bread. He has a moral duty to care for the poor if he’s able – but no where does it say that there is a requirement for a government to take his goods that he’s earned and give them to others. In fact, if government _does_ take his goods and give them to the poor, it robs him of any morality he might have, had he himself donated to the poor.
Great post……
Bookworm writes Say it loud, say it proud: I am a racist! When I vote against Obama on November 4, 2008: It won’t be because Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq, which I think will weaken America’s interests beyond……
OH. I was generous and poor when I was a Liberal. Now I am Conservative, ungenerous, and a rich philanthropist. Hmmmm… interesting.
Suek,
So I am not a Christian. Thank you for clearing that up, God.
Helen…
Can you explain the contradictions?
Suek,
What contradictions?
I claim to be a Christian based on the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ is my Savior. I believe that His shed blood at Calvary put me in right standing with God.
So the details of what He said are irrelevant?
Suek, I have no idea what you are talking about. What details?
Suek means, helen, that you are not obiding by the actions or words of Jesus Christ.
Please spell this out.
Everything I do and say in life is because I am a Christian. My goal is to become one with Jesus so that His thoughts are my thoughts. I aim to “Pray without ceasing,” which is possible only if thought becomes prayer. I include God in my reverie. There are no secret compartments into which He cannot peer. In exactly what way am I not living up to this standard in your eyes?
Christians do differ in their interpretation of scripture, you know. Perfection is a goal I have not achieved. Have you, except when seen as forgiven “because of Jesus’ shed blood”?
>>In exactly what way am I not living up to this standard in your eyes?>>
You want to take away the free will of others by giving the government the right – since you don’t have the power, you want the government to use _its_ power – to take from them what they may not give freely, and remove the dignity of others by removing the requirement that they earn their bread by the sweat of their brow.
Prayer is good. Prayer without justice is empty. It is not just to take from one person even to give to another. It is called theft. Taxes – according to the Constitution – are to be collected to enable to the government to function, not to allow the government to ensure that all people have equal pocketbooks.
Yes, I know that Christians differ in their interpretation of the scripture. No, I have not achieved perfection. (maybe tomorrow!) I do believe that charity without works is dead – and that my personal salvation depends on my acts and thoughts as well as the sacrifice on the cross. I do not believe that Jesus died for my sins and therefore I can commit as sins as I wish – since I am already forgiven. I can choose because of my free will, and others can choose their actions because _they_ have free will. It is not my right to take _their_ free will from them, even if it means that they might fail. “Not a sparrow falls…!”
Ymar – thank you for the translation!
Oh yeah…and “Do not covet thy neighbor’s goods”…even if you think they should be more equally divided.
If you had your way, Job would never have suffered his many afflictions. Would he still have achieved eternal reward?
Ymar – thank you for the translation!
My pleasure, suek.
Doing Love by Henri Nouwen
Often we speak about love as if it is a feeling. But if we wait for a feeling of love before loving, we may never learn to love well. The feeling of love is beautiful and life-giving, but our loving cannot be based in that feeling. To love is to think, speak, and act according to the spiritual knowledge that we are infinitely loved by God and called to make that love visible in this world.
Mostly we know what the loving thing to do is. When we “do” love, even if others are not able to respond with love, we will discover that our feelings catch up with our acts.
Bookworm Room » Say it loud, say it proud: I am a racist! *UPDATED*…
I guess I am a racist then because there is no way on this earth that I will ever vote for Barrack Hussein Obama! No way, no how. I would rather eat dirt. Go forth and read this article and tell them Sarge sent you.
Bookworm Room » Say it loud, …
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Matthew 7:21
“does” … an active verb.
see http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/on-the-path-to-jericho-4/
Ymar…need a translation, if you’re able…!!!
Yeah, Ymar, me too! I read it twice and have no idea…
For poetry, usually it’s a good idea to ask Neo-neocon, but I’ll try.
In general terms, it seems to be about how disaster relief requires more than individual people being alone.
Moses or his clan breached the walls of Jericho by acquiring the loyalty of a prostitute who put down ropes of cloth over the walls. Apocryphal although depending on how tall the walls were, not entirely without plausibility.
Not really sure how the biblical reference was supposed to be used here. Other than that, well, walls fall due to more than one person.
As applied to this thread, I suppose you may take it as a comment on how race relations takes more than one race. A superior race and a downtrodden race, you may say.
“Include
is a verb,” she explains.
Other than the line that suggests that heaven includes rather than excludes, the sparsity of meaning and clarity prevents my piercing the veil.
Luke 10:25-37 (New International Version)
25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26″What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
28″You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36″Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Submitted for Your Approval…
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…
AN argument for socialism essentially, saying that to be saved in Christianity means loving thy neighbor and Jesus Christ. Emotion is the only thing that matters, essentially.
The thing with socialism, though, is that it needs a dictator or somebody in authority at the top that tells people what to do. God for spiritual matters, government for secular matters.
>>AN argument for socialism essentially, saying that to be saved in Christianity means loving thy neighbor and Jesus Christ. Emotion is the only thing that matters, essentially.>>
Disagree on this. It _does_ say that giving away all of one’s possessions and doing charitable acts are required for eternal salvation. It does _not_ say that if the government _takes_ all your possessions (or even part of them) and distributes them, or if the government provides medical care for every person from the possessions it has taken from you, that you derive _any_ spiritual benefit at all.
Delegating charity to the government means that the person from whom the goods are taken cannot have any morality from that act – because there is no free will in the charitable act. There is no choice.
In essence, socialism is directly antithetical to morality.
Oops… conflated two different quotes…the other being “Go, sell what you have and give it to the poor”
Different, but the same.
I’m not a bible quotation expert, I fear. Some of them stick with me, but not as many as I’d like.
There was another quote I was looking for the other day connected to this…something to the effect of “Charity without works is dead”. Or maybe it was “Works without charity is dead”….I’m inclined to the former due to the use of “is” rather than “are”…but when I searched, I couldn’t find either or anything close to it. Maybe some good evangelicals might know what I’m referring to? or maybe I just picked it up somewhere else….
James 2:14-20 (New International Version)
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?
suek, Not only am I a Christian, but I know how to use Google.
I don’t use Google – at least not directly – I use dogpile … which, of course also uses google. My small – probably useless – protest against google’s fascist internet policies.
However…obviously I used the wrong search terms, and probably the wrong bible(as in, I didn’t see the Catholic version that I am accustomed to) reference.
So…if the government feeds the hungry and ministers to the sick, is the government going to heaven?
SueK, You have obviously missed the point once again. The point is, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DECLARE THAT I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH YOUR POLITICS. You are not in charge of who goes to heaven any more than I am. Fact is, God decides.
When you said, “Helen is also not a Christian,” you attacked me PERSONALLY. I think this blog is about political opinion, NOT PERSONAL ATTACK.
Of course, the government isn’t going to heaven. Heaven is for individual people, those who trust that Christ’s payment on the cross cleansed them from sin. Feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick is the job of the church. But the church isn’t doing it’s job. Enter the government.
Submitted 06/18/08…
The Watcher’s Council submissions have been posted.What the Free World Would Do Well To EmulateThe Colossus of Rhodey illustrates one way in which America is freer than just about any other Western democracy – unfettered freedom of speech – and how se…
And when the government turns out to be unable to do the “job”, enter the tyrant and the revolution.
I know I’ll hate myself in the morning, but here goes…
So Helen, since I’m not a Christian and don’t trust that Christ’s payment on the cross cleansed me from sin (I don’t buy the original sin idea at all), then by your definition of who gets into heaven, I’m not going. So why should I bother to do any good works in my life?
After all, if I’m going to spend all of eternity in hell anyway, then I might as well spend my life committing every sin I can think of. There is no use for an idea like right vs. wrong. There is no eternal reward for non-believers. I’m on a one way street – and don’t give me the “if you accept Jesus Christ…” speech because that’s no answer. Assume that I won’t and tell me why I should bother to do any good works in my life.
Judy,
I was speaking to Suek, who says she is a Christian, using a definition of “Christian,” accepted by most Christians (especially Conservative Christians). Suek is questioning that I am who God says I am. Thus, I spoke in this manner.
If I had been speaking directly to you, I would have spoken differently. I believe there is reason to believe that Jesus’ payment on the cross was for the sin of all people, not just those who are Christian. Jesus said, “And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all people to me.”
Now does “be lifted up” refer to the cross or to worship? It is a historical fact that Jesus was crucified. So if it means that, then all of us are “drawn to Jesus” whether we like it or not. If it means worshiped, than we have other problems, because that means salvation is through worship, not faith. I believe salvation is by faith.
To make a long story short, I think there is a very good chance we (Helen and Judy) will meet in heaven. But I’m not God, so I won’t make a promise I can’t carry out. I can’t promise you heaven and back it up. (Jesus does do that.) I am a Christian because I think Jesus is God. Other religions do not.
I wouldn’t give up on being a “good person,” because I think you probably like being a good person, that there’s something in it for you on this earth. I enjoy doing “good works,” and my bet is you do, too. You wouldn’t be commenting on this blog, if you didn’t want to do the right thing. Everyone here does. (We may see things differently, but all of us are trying to do what is right.)
The definition of salvation that I gave Suek says I will have eternal life. I’m not about to say that you won’t. You’ll have to work that out for yourself. I am not God, and I am not in charge of who goes to heaven. This comment was not intended to insult you.
Y.,
So we should just give up because you think there might be a tyrant and a revolution?
Meanwhile, the hungry and and the sick are just SOL?
This doesn’t sound like a plan to me.
>>YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DECLARE THAT I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH YOUR POLITICS.>>
It isn’t based on politics. It’s based on definition. A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. Those teachings include exhortations to give to the poor, feed the hungry and minister to the sick and dying. If you thoughtfully make choices that take those actions away from the individual and give them to the government – which as you point out, cannot go to heaven – then you are making choices that deny the individual the ability to do that which is required to follow Christ. You do this on the basis of preventing suffering – when it is not your place to prevent suffering (other than by doing good works yourself). You seek to make this life on earth more perfect by removing free will from others. _That’s_ why I say that you are not Christian.
>> You are not in charge of who goes to heaven any more than I am. Fact is, God decides.>>
That’s a given. In fact, from your passionate defense, I believe you are absolutely sincere. It’s just that as difficult as it is to accept the imperfections of life, it is morally inconsistent to “fix” the problems of life by handing over the problems to a moral nonentity like the government. _We_ are responsible for our lives, and what we do, just as are those who fail to do so. It is wrong to remove _our_ rights to fail, just as it is immoral to remove the rights of others to fail.
Suek, We kick the dust from my feet at the spot where our lives intersected. Without an apology, you cease to exist for me.
>>Assume that I won’t and tell me why I should bother to do any good works in my life.>>
See…this is odd. It seems to me that you and Helen are on the wrong sides! I would find it perfectly logical for you to be in favor of government taking care of those who are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves. You don’t have a religious belief of responsibility – that is, of either the individual being responsible for him/herself, or the responsibility of the individual to care for those who cannot care for themselves. Helen, on the other hand, _does_ believe that we have a responsibility to care for those who cannot care for themselves, but wants to hand it over to the government, which would negate any spiritual benefit she would get for doing charity herself, simply because it’s too big a job for any one person.
>>if I’m going to spend all of eternity in hell anyway>>
Except that you don’t believe in hell. In Catholic theology, the worst that happens to you is Limbo – a state of eternal nothing, I think is the best definition. You die and pass into non-existence.
>> then I might as well spend my life committing every sin I can think of.>>
But you can’t commit a sin if you don’t believe it _is_ a sin. Again, Catholic teaching (sorry – that’s what I am!) is that the matter has to be wrong (for mortal sin, it has to be a serious wrong), you have to _know_ it’s a (serious) wrong, and you have to consent to it of your own free will.
>>There is no use for an idea like right vs. wrong. >>
There is _always_ right and wrong – there’s just a difference in who sets the standards. Religious people believe in God’s laws. Non-religious people effectively make themselves God – they set their own standards for right and wrong. People who truly have no standards of right and wrong are anti-social and usually are the worst kind of criminals. Statists (socialists and communists) set up the State as God. Whatever the state establishes as right and wrong is right or wrong. The right and wrong the State establishes is based on what is seen to benefit the State – it can change tomorrow.
>>There is no eternal reward for non-believers.>>
Maybe. Don’t know the answer to that – no one has come back with answers!
And by the way…as a Catholic, church doctrine teaches that you have to be baptised to reach heaven. However, it also teaches that there are several means of baptism, one of which is baptism of desire. That is, if you have the desire to live in the best way possible according to what you have been learned in life, and follow your own code of right and wrong to the best of your ability, you have achieved a baptism of desire. Whether you like it or not! Sometimes I think the Catholic Church is sneaky…!
>>Without an apology, you cease to exist for me.>>
I wonder at that!
Thank you both, Helen and suek, for your answers. Of course, my question was somewhat rhetorical, but I was asking for the purpose of finding out how Christian doctrine deals with (good) people like me, who aren’t Christians, particularly with regard to responsibilities and rewards.
I do believe in responsibility. Each of us has the responsibility to take care of him/herself. I don’t believe we are responsible to take care of others against our will (that’s where I object to most government entitlement programs) but I agree that charity, freely given, is good. Helen is right that I do enjoy living a good life for its own sake.
I definitely believe in right and wrong although it’s not based in religious teachings. And yes, sin is a religious term, but it’s so commonly used that I borrowed it.
I don’t know what happens at the end, and I don’t expect to know until I get there – if there’s any “there” to get to. But I don’t worry about it. I’ve got enough to do.
I realize that conversations like this one can get a little testy especially if people believe that the teachings of their particular religion are the “only right way.” But you both answered in good faith and I thank you for that.
>>conversations like this one can get a little testy especially if people believe that the teachings of their particular religion are the “only right way.”>>
Heh. It’s not so much that I believe that my particular religion is the “only right way” as it is that I don’t know any other. I have been exposed somewhat to other religions, but nothing I’ve heard or seen so far has indicated a better framework for living as well as dying. Catholicism has it’s problems, but it’s effort is to direct us to reach eternal life by living _this_ life according to a morality that is fairly simple and reasoned. When I see the mish-mosh of laws Congress has managed to pass, I appreciate the beauty and simplicity of the 10 commandments…one way or another, they apply to almost every choice we debate.
I had one friend (who I found a rather odd person, by the way) who said she had become a Catholic because it was the church with the greatest intellectual freedom. I thought that was an odd evaluation – I still do – but she had apparently researched several religions and said that they had all told her she _had_ to believe certain things that she questioned. The essence of the Catholic church’s belief is the Nicene Creed. Outside of those, there _is_ a lot of latitude, although that latitude is restricted by the application of logic. The Catholic church is very logical – as long as you accept the basic precepts. If you don’t, then you don’t. We view faith as a gift, by the way, not as an act of the will.
Anyway – I _assume_ that Helen – and you – will make the choices that appear to you to be right. I don’t have a problem with your “right” – or Helen’s – being different from mine on a moral basis. I _do_ object to efforts to enforce moral strictures through the use of government – which of course, then becomes a political discussion. And that’s where we started!
FYI: “Mark 6:11 “And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.” (NIV)”
All,
This is why I spoke thusly to suek. Every opinion I hold is because I am a Christian. I try hard not be an obnoxious Christian. As a human being, sometimes I fail.
I have NOT left the Bookworm Room. That comment was aimed at one person only. And BTW, I do believe suek is a Christian; That’s why I used Biblical principles in my relations with her. I believe she will be in heaven. I also believe that without apology, she has forced me to sever any relationship we might have had (not that I think very many close relationships are formed on the web.)
So we should just give up because you think there might be a tyrant and a revolution?
I’m not the one that gave up on studying and debating history in order to streamline the solutions of today and tomorrow. I leave that kind of disorganized planning to the Left.
Y.,
Do what? The civil rights movement of the 60s isn’t history?
>>disorganized planning>>
Isn’t that an oxymoron?
History encompasses the entirety of written and even some oral time periods, Helen. It does not encompass, solely, the personal and anecdotal events of which one single person finds of exceptional interest.
Helen…I had to read your statements twice to realize that you were asking that I apologize rather than stating that you would cut yourself off without apology.
I apologize for offending you. I did mean to challenge your beliefs – not your identity, but that is apparently what I did.
I separate religion and politics – not because one does not affect the other, but because identifying them as a unity takes away free will. Religion states ideal behavior, politics (manifested by laws) determines the least acceptable behavior a society will accept. When you merge them, there’s no room for individual choices – which religion requires. That’s why I hold the position that advocating for the government to take over the acts of charity that are required for spiritual growth is not consistent with Christianity.
I suspect there’s ground somewhere in the middle – perhaps we can find it?
Suek, Apology accepted.
Isn’t that an oxymoron?
Only if you don’t realize that Stalin’s 5 year plan on feeding and industrializing ended up with grains rotting in the silos while people starved because the bureaucrats wouldn’t ship the food out in time.
The Council Has Spoken!…
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Judicial Activism Run Amok by Wolf…
Watcher’s Council results…
And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Judicial Activism Run Amok by Wolf Howling, and After the Charge by Miserable Donuts. All members, please be sure to link to both winning entries (and……
Saturday Links…
Scrappleface: Obama Rejects Public Funds for Campaign, Entitlements
The Pink Flamingo: Magna Carta and also has a piece counterpoint to one Warner Todd Huston wrote here.
Doug Ross: Obamath: Producing More Oil Won’t Produce More Oil
The Anchoress…
Watcher’s Council Results…
The winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Judicial Activism Run Amok by Wolf Howling, and After the Charge by Miserable Donuts. Here’s your link to the full results of the vote and the vote totals:VotesCouncil……
Bookworm Room » Say it loud, say it proud: I am a racist! *UPDATED*…
My post explains how conservatives can deal with being called racists if they refuse to support Obama in the upcoming election….
Helen,
I don’t understand how you can equate poor people having too little money due to rich people having too much money.
If we didn’t have rich people that own companies and employ 1,000’s then there were be no jobs. Sorry, Helen, but because somebody has applied themselves and worked their butts off to succeed does not make them the cause of poor people being poor.
Everybody in this country gets a free education, it is up to the individual to apply themselves and succeed. If they succeed in K-12, they can go onto college with scholarships, grants, student loans, etc., or to a community college.
This concept is called personal responsibility which liberals and democrats never seem to grasp. The reason for so many poor in our nation today is not due to Republicans or rich people, it is due to the liberals believing and teaching that everyone is entitled to everything and that if you can’t take care of yourself, let the government take care of you.
There are thousands of stories of impoverished Americans going back to school in their 30s, 40s, and up and obtaining their high school diplomas and then a college degree. They did this for themselves. Again, personal responsibility.
Those that do take care of the poor are the ones that should, churches, non-profit organizations, individuals with a heart for Christ and others.
P.S. I will not be voting for Sen. Obama for all the reasons listed in this blog, plus more, thus for the first time in my life I am a racist.
Helen Losse on 11 Jun 2008 at 10:06 pm 13
“This discussion won’t last a week. At least, my part of it won’t. That’s a fact.”
Well, this has been a VERY interesting little discussion!!
I guess I will throw the “proverbial” hat in the ring and want to be considered “racist” TOO!
Helen may not be keeping up with this now, but as you can see, the date she made this statement was on the 11th…
Today is the 29th, the last comment was on the 26th…
Maybe my math “ain’t” what it should be, but it appears to me that “might” be a little more than a week?!
Well, looks like there is MORE interest and passion about THIS article than what Helen THOUGHT!!
Put THAT in your liberal pipes and smoke it a while!!!
[...] Via Bookworm Room: [...]
[...] don’t think it’ll come true? Obama is already granted immunity from all forms of valid criticism and any mockery of the sort Bush endured for 8 [...]
“I am a Democrat because I think the government is big enough and powerful enough to make some of the changes I agree with.”
Helen, do you realize how fascistic that sounds? (But then, modern liberalism owes a great deal to early 20th Century fascism.)