Stanek weekend question I: Is Barack Obama evil?
My friend Judie Brown at American Life League wrote the following this week:
No one else will say it, so I will. The President is evil. He continually lies directly to the faces of people of faith, to our Catholic Bishops, to everyone. Yet they give him a pass. They think he is someone he is not.
He is a liar. He thinks we are rubes, “clinging to God.” His unconstitutional birth control “mandate,” crafted and formed in private meetings with Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood, is intended to force Catholics and Christians to violate their faith, their core beliefs. To say no to God, and yes to Barack….
The fact the blood lusting zealots of Planned Parenthood are helping form and create national policy should not surprise you, the President has proven time and time again, he is who we thought he was.
Do you agree that President Barack Obama is evil?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
If you mean “evil” as being “without God” then yes! At the very least he is a tool for evil.
No more or no less than the pro-aborts behind Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton. Pray for him as Paul said to pray for all those in authority for this pleases God who desires all to be saved.
No one is perfect other than Jesus, but Obama is absolutely evil and a Marxist. LL
In the same sense that Ahab and Manasseh and some of the other kings of ancient Israel and Judah were called evil, because they did evil in the sight of God and led the people to do evil also.
I have said tht too. Lots of people have, maybe not on facebook though. I get slammed for being uncharitable. I am speaking the truth though and so are you.
Yes.
Jill – As you obviously know, he was the only one not supporting the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in the Illinois legislature. That shows he is evil to the core. He hasn’t changed one bit. Behind so many of his decisions is the protection of any organization or anyone who kills unborn babies. That’s evil.
Anyone with a childhood and young adult history of extreme political ideological indoctrination (exposed to strict Islamic rule and political agenda throughout his parents’ globetrotting), compounded by multiple episodes of cocaine use in his early adult years (which I am not sure has discontinued), is likely to do not just bad but evil things.
When Joe Biden (of all people) is found to be on the other side of B.O. and Cecile Richards in an Oval Office debate on religious liberty and the Catholic Bishops, we have redefined evil.
Yes. i think he’s running this country into the ground intentionally. And I think he’s got a bullseye on pro-lifers.
I think he could be the antiX. But then he’d have to be smarter and A LOT better looking.
Yes. (He is evil)
yes without a doubt
I think for sure that he’s a liar. I think he cares nothing about the American people. I think he’s rude and disrespectful. At one point I said–and believed–he was evil. The backlash I received from saying that divided my family and caused a riff with my “liberal” friends. However, on the opposite side, President Bush was called evil and it went mainstream for eight years. It was “cool” to call Bush a liar, Hitler, and Satan himself. I applaud Judie for her guts to speak the truth!
Folks,
A sociopathic mind like this isn’t as simplistic as good or evil and you do yourselves a huge disservice to try to make it so. I would bet my mortgage that the members of the elite Seal Team 6 are sociopaths and were selected for that reason. My father’s borderline personality and sociopathic traits served him well in the 101st Airborne, but certainly did not as a husband and father. Good or evil??
I’m sure many of you think I try to be the ultimate smart*** when I talk on this subject but as you can see I was literally born into it. I want to spare you the traps I fell into and the mistakes I made time and again when it comes to these people, and you folks are falling into another trap here.
The reason I have so accurately predicted what Obama was going to do isn’t magic. Its knowing the mind you’re dealing with. Do not project human emotion, reasoning, sense of right or wrong, onto these people, something I see time and again with posters here. Know how that particular mind works, don’t limit yourself to perceiving it as good or evil. It isn’t relevant. Being prepared and protecting yourself is about all you can do.
Realize that these people perceive reality differently than you do. They have no capacity for emotions or conscience and take it from there. Remember these people are always one step ahead of you.
During every Presidential reign, you have a certain number of crazies who are going to say that the President is evil. There were misguided souls who called Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and now Obama evil. I don’t feel that these people are stupid per se, I think they just let the hate in their life rule so much that it colors all their opinions.
I think if somebody wants to truly call somebody evil, they should make their strong case for it, make sure the speck is cleaned out of their own eye, and know that Christ will judge those as strongly as they judge others.
If Ms Brown thinks that being a liar and supporting contraception makes somebody evil, then she’s placed the tag on the majority of Americans.
President Obama is absolutely on the wrong side of the life issue. He does not value the lives of the unborn (or slightly born if there is such a thing).
If I am going to call Obama evil then I must call myself evil.
On the issue of life, I am on the side of truth. All human life has value regardless of the stage of development he or she is found in.
I am guilty of manipulating the truth to serve my own ends. I seek pleasure over the principles of God. I am prideful. I frequently try to live my life separate of the Holy Spirit’s guidance. I take the sacrifice of Christ for granted every single day.
If president Obama is pure evil, than so am I. My righteousness is as filthy rags.
The only thing that will save me from eternal punishment is believing in my heart, and confessing with my mouth that Jesus was raised from the dead, and sits at the right hand of God.
In the eyes of a perfect God, I am no better than anyone else on this planet, including an imperfect president.
Great post James
b o claims to be a ‘devout’ and ‘commited’ christian, but where is his good fruit.
Beware of false prophets, who come to you dressed as sheep, but inside they are devouring wolves.
You will fully recognize them by their fruits. Do people pick grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
A good (healthy) tree cannot bear bad (worthless) fruit, nor can a bad (diseased) tree bear excellent fruit [worthy of admiration].
Therefore, you will fully know them by their fruits.
Where is b o’s good fruit?
Where is b o’s treasure?
Boys (lads), it is the last time (hour, the end of this age). And as you have heard that the antichrist [he who will oppose Christ in the guise of Christ] is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen, which confirms our belief that it is the final (the end) time.
b o is not ‘the’ anti-christ, but b o is an anti-christ.
Ken – what would be the good fruit of Reagan? The good fruit of Bush?
I mean, with any President, people are going to say the “good fruit” are the policies that they support or not, so it is debatable. I believe the real good fruit is in interactions with the family and others close – and we don’t see that.
I’d say the “good fruit” is expanding health insurance to millions that don’t have it, and getting rid of pre-existing conditions. I believe those things are massively good examples of good fruit. Those who don’t like the health care expansion will disagree – because it is a little issue more than anything.
I have a great deal of difficulty in figuring Obama out. I tend to concur with Mary — Obama is a sociopath, and probably a narcissist as well. (Not a good combination of personality disorders — it makes for a perfect despot.)
There is no doubt that the man is a very accomplished and unrepentent liar. Yet he does not take delight in lying (as Clinton did). He considers lying to be a useful tool in the service of his agenda.
I haven’t figured out his agenda. It’s not simply to win re-election… He has taken desperate gambles to preserve Planned Parenthood’s funding and oppress Christians just to expand the use of contraception, risks that a prudent candidate would not take. He’s sprinting to run up the deficit and debt, when all prudence demands fiscal caution. He’s willing to sacrifice himself to the agenda.
I think we are looking at the maturity of a Saul Alinsky radical. He doesn’t care about families or the economy… he just wants to trigger the crises that he can use to bring on a utopia led by elitist dictators.
If this is what motivates his actions, then Obama is an antichrist.
I hate to say it, because it’s possible he doesn’t mean or try to be, but yes. It is a hard conclusion to escape.
Having said that, I’m’a put on my fancy-schmancy I-have-a-psychology-degree hat for a second…
A sociopathic mind like this isn’t as simplistic as good or evil and you do yourselves a huge disservice to try to make it so. I would bet my mortgage that the members of the elite Seal Team 6 are sociopaths and were selected for that reason. My father’s borderline personality and sociopathic traits served him well in the 101st Airborne, but certainly did not as a husband and father. Good or evil??
…
Realize that these people perceive reality differently than you do. They have no capacity for emotions or conscience and take it from there. Remember these people are always one step ahead of you.
I am sorry if you have had difficult experiences with family members who have had disorders, especially narcissistic personality disorder. That one sucks. However, there are two important points that need to be made in response to this.
One: there is, clinically speaking, no such thing as a sociopath. It and the word psychopath are used in non-clinical settings only (i.e., psychologists, psychiatrists, and others in mental health professions do not use them as diagnostic words) and both refer to the same thing: Anti-social Personality Disorder. There’s may an overview of said disorder here. By and large, mental health professionals rejected these words for two reasons. First, they’re very loaded and come with lots of stigma. Two, everyone defines them slightly differently and no one could define them in a way that made them relevantly different and/or didn’t confuse everyone who tried to use them. ”Sociopath” is not a technical word. Its definition is imprecise and it carries too much stigma to make it useful as a technical word.
Two, the going theory among psychologists is that about one out of every hundred people in the general population has either ASPD or a related disorder that could class them as a “psychopath” or “sociopath” in non-clinical parlance. One in every hundred. Think about that. That is a lot of people. You know someone who is like this. And you’ve probably never noticed it. Contrary to popular belief, these folks come in the same range of intelligences as the general population (i.e., they’re not all super-geniuses). Most of them are living normal lives with normal families and normal friends and not hurting anyone. Because, despite whatever they may struggle with in terms of these sorts of disorders, they have managed to grasp the salient points of morality anyway. As we so often like to point out, not feeling guilty about doing the wrong thing does’t make it less wrong. The corollary being, of course, that not feeling convicted about doing the right thing doesn’t make it less right. Most of the time, a “sociopath” is just a regular person.
The point being this: it is a mistake to make the claim that a “sociopath”–or whatever related terms you care to use–can not or does not understand morality or believe it applies to them. And saying that someone who is a “-path” can’t or doesn’t connect morality to themselves has the implied addendum of, “Therefore, it isn’t really their fault they act this way because they are broken. They don’t understand.” But they aren’t that broken and they do understand. The vast majority of people who can be described this way not only understand morality, but incorporate it into their lives. So, if Obama is some flavor of “sociopath,” “psychopath,” or whatever–which I don’t deny is very possible–that doesn’t give him a pass. He can have a disorder and still be evil. A disorder is not an excuse.
A European exorcist has warned that we should not listen to Obama nor even look at him.
I amen James (we’re all evil) while deeming Obama clearly guilty of specific civic evils. For all I know the latter are on account of the former. Or the latter could be on account of the sulfurous emanations issuing from the bowels of Beelzebub Jarrett’s pit of unspeakably vile horrors. ;-)
Courtnay: “I think he could be the antiX. But then he’d have to be smarter and A LOT better looking.”
I think the sentence you’re looking for was from Tolkien: “I think a servant of the Enemy would look fairer and feel fouler.” ;-)
Mary: “I would bet my mortgage that the members of the elite Seal Team 6 are sociopaths and were selected for that reason.”
Even accounting for Alice’s helpful caution on tossing around difficult or misleading terms, I feel compelled to respond. I don’t think I can do that without employing the problematic terms in question, though. :-/ Heck, I’ll throw caution to the wind.
There’s no way sociopaths would be selected for a multi-million dollar training program for service they could not possibly perform. The more elite the unit, the more impossible for a sociopath. I’m sure it would be possible for a psychopath (which could go completely undetected) — but a sociopath? Not a chance.
That’s not to say sociopaths don’t find their way into the military. Their narcissism can survive in some billets, but the worst of them wash out early — and that’s by design. Many soldiers can recount familiar tales of boot camp failures whose sociopathy marked them for discharge.
What you’re describing is a Hollywood stereotype. http://goo.gl/7Xwkb
Many sociopathic civilian men are attracted to the idea of special forces (or the military in general) because the role seems (to them) to personify qualities they lack but prize. They’re capable of preposterous behavior http://goo.gl/XlJRn which not only rules them out for service in special forces but makes getting there impossible. I suppose many naive civilians observe their behavior and mistake it for “military bearing” or what-not, but that’s just playing into the sociopath’s craziness.
Then there are the well-documented psychological problems suffered by many veterans whose mental balance, we might say, went in arrears as a consequence of — not because it suited them for — their service.
Obviously I know nothing of your father, but assuming you’re talking about WWII or Vietnam, service in the 101st could have taken a serious toll on any man.
I’ll say that I’m grateful for his service, and that I lament the ongoing cost of such service to families.
Absolutely evil. No question about it. The man held fundraisers to keep it possible for people to deliver babies to the head and then stab them in the back of the neck with scissors and suck their brains out so that they could be delivered dead. And he casts some kind of spell over Ex-RINO who even in this post tries to imagine we think he is evil because of his stance on contraception. The people who support him are blind to this obvious evil. What is more evil than sacrificing the blood of children?
His policies are but he is not. I believe he is inspired by the evil one, just look at his record with life. He needs Jesus like so many others. Pray for him.
What power does he have over people like Ex-RINO that makes them unable to even address the man’s stance on partial-birth abortion and bring up contraception instead?
Ex-GOP says February 18, 2012 at 10:53 am
“I believe the real good fruit is in interactions with the family and others close – and we don’t see that.”
Exactly.
We don’t see any selfless acts.
We don’t see any personal sacrifices.
Give us some anecdotal accounts where b o bought lunch for a homeless person or helped his friend move or visited a sick neighbor in the hospital before he became a public figure.
Surely some person in Chicago can remember the communtiy organizer paying for the coffee.
Surely there is some written record from b o’s college days that has survived.
Suerly there is some alumni who can remember a selfless act that b o did for them.
Tommy Lee Jones can remember what he and Al Gore did together in college.
Courtnay says: February 18, 2012 at 10:08 am
“I think he could be the antiX. But then he’d have to be smarter and A LOT better looking.”
=============================================================
And A wee bit more effeminate.
b o has got the killing, stealing, lying and deception down to an art form.
mr. bo-jangles and his take on the place of religion in America
Published in 2006, but particularly relevant today as b o proclaims the entitlement of every fertile female to free contraceptives.
Here is the link to the original article published in USA today.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-07-09-forum-religion-obama_x.htm
No person is inherently evil, so in those regards I have to say no. However, I do not see his work as president as glorifying the work of God. His policies are contributing to the culture of death.. He will have a lot to answer for.
James Dibben says: February 18, 2012 at 10:36 am
1. “If I am going to call Obama evil, then I must call myself evil.”
2. “If president Obama is pure evil, than so am I.”
3. “My righteousness is as filthy rags.”
=========================================================
JD
1. This would only be true if you habitually pracitice the same evil as b o.
Rom 1:32-2:2 32 Though they are fully aware of God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them themselves but approve and applaud others who practice them. 2:1 THEREFORE YOU have no excuse or defense or justification, O man, whoever you are who judges and condemns another. For in posing as judge and passing sentence on another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge are habitually practicing the very same things [that you censure and denounce]. 2[But] we know that the judgment (adverse verdict, sentence) of God falls justly and in accordance with truth upon those who practice such things. AMP
Jesus gave us instructions about how to judge ‘righteously according to HOLY SPIRIT. HE cautioned about hypocisy and duplicity in judgement.
2. b o’s condition has no bearing on yours. You are only accountable for your own thoughts and deeds. If you confess your sin, then GOD is faitfull to forgive you and HIS lovingkindness will lead you to repentance.
3. You have no ‘righteousness’ of your own.
Jesus the Christ’s righteousness is imputed to you by GOD the FATHER.
Your ‘self’-righteousness, would be that which you wrongly believe you have earned or maintained by your good acts or by abstaining from bad acts. The ’book’ describes this self righteous attitude as soiled menstrual rags.
Mary:
Good points. Please read my response to Ex.
Ex and James Dibbons:
Agree with you to a certain point. But there is always a tendency to position the sinful tendencies of the human condition as though it places everyone on the same plane…we are all sinners therefore we cannot judge anyone. Inherent in this attitude is a slouching towards moral relativism. Johnny who steals the candy bar is a sinner; Ted Bundy who killed co-eds is a sinner….see the problem? Was Ted Bundy evil? Yes, and Johnny is not.
Hitler was evil, and though he was a psychopath it does not change the fact he was evil. I think the same goes for anyone who works against saving the lives of babies born alive in the course of an abortion (as Truthseeker points out). Whether that person is a sociopath it matters not in the objective sense of being evil. We can judge others’ actions against a natural law based sense of good and evil…i.e. it is bad to kill innocent people or seek to prohibit efforts to save them. If we do not judge these we invite injustice into our social order.
Some people are reluctant to call another human being evil. Very understandable, but it is not wrong to do so. Nor are we judging someone when we do that. Where we may go wrong is when we have unjust motives in labeling someone evil or when we are filled with foolishness or pride and think ourselves more virtuous than WE really are, but that does not change the evilness of the judged; i.e. Bundy or Hitler.
As for another matter altogether– judging another’s immortal soul–thankfully we do not have to worry about that. Our Lord and Savior who is at once both perfectly just and perfectly merciful will at the end of days judge each one of us perfectly.
No, he isn’t evil. I could probably say a lot more, but I think that I need to apply the twenty-four hour rule…
You probably do.
The problem with “evil” is that a lot of folk imagine folks using it are signifying some kind of black sabbath satanic mass drooling howls under the moon kind of thing.
Which is remarkable, inasmuch as the “the banality of evil” meme is now an old one, and should be more widely understood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil
In that sense, sure Obama’s evil. All of us are — or have been. Apart from Christ it’s a predicate. In Christ it’s an attribute only.
Is Obama predicate-evil? I have no way of knowing. Is he attributive-evil? Yes, of course. And specific ways have been well-enumerated above. And I could enumerate my own specific ways in which I’m attributive-evil. But my ways don’t spend trillions or determine whether killers of the unborn determine policies that subvert religious freedoms. These are grave specifics which make the abstract argument a pointless one.
Jerry – agree with much of that – though I find it massively hard to link anyone to being evil based solely on their voting record. You and I both know that a large chunk of legislation and bills are out there as ‘gotcha’ bills – riders on bills that are going to fail to make it look like you are against those things… or votes on things that on the surface, look like one thing, but it a lot more complex than it really is.
After he killed the Infant Born Alive bill, the smile of satisfaction was just creepy. I remember looking at him and thinking, Either this man is evil or he just got paid a lot of money to kill this bill. I soon figured out that he is just evil.
Is water wet?
Alice,
You look at the history of pschiatry and you will find that terminology, criteria, and diagnoses change more frequently than most people do their underwear. Ant-social personality is the latest rendition. I just use sociopath because, frankly, what’s the difference? Anti social doesn’t sound so bad?
Only one in every hundred. Heck I read it was 4 in every hundred. Read ”The Sociopath Next Door” by Martha Stout Ph.D. Straight facts minus the psychobabble. You’ll find her info very informativee and valuable.
Alice, I know these people walk among us and live normal lives. I never said they were axe murderers. I know a few myself, and came to that conclusion by simply viewing their history and behavior. I’ve been victimized by a few.
Bernie Madoff is a classic example. Charming, manipulative, highly intellilgent, and totally void of conscience. In a perfect position to do what he did. I promise you his only regret is getting caught, not the lives he destroyed, including that of his own son’s.
Now you may choose to get technical about terminology, I say learn how to spot one and what to do when you have.
Alice,
I didn’t say this gives Obama any pass, I said we can’t look at these people in the simplistic terms of good and evil. If we are going to be any match for them, we damned well better know how they think and operate. We have to know Obama considers himself above any rules, that he will discard friends and loyalties when it serves his purpose, i.e. Rev.Wright, Catholics, that the man is totally self serving, intelligent, and void of conscience. We cannot project onto this man what is not there and assume he can be reasoned with. We have to expect deviousness, i.e. his ”backing down” ruse, which I predicted on this blog. Now we can go into techinical terms, I prefer to cut to the chase.
Rasqual,
I’m sorry, but you are badly misinformed.
My borderline PD/sociopathic father was in his element in the 101st. He earned recognition for bravery as one of the “Battling Basterds of Bastogne” in WW2. As a father and husband he was violent, manipulative, explosive, and totally void of love or conscience.
Talking to a 101st historian, I found out that the wife of General Eisenhower did not want the 101st allowed back into the states after the war. Do you suppose it was because these guys sang too loudly in church? It was because these guys were killers and yes, violent and personality disordered. Certainly not all of them, but enough that Mamie was concerned. Looking at my father she may have had good reason. Another man I know who’s father served with mine told me his father became a hitman after his discharge. Also, before being shipped to Europe my mother joined my father in Tennessee. There were signs all over town that paratroopers were not welcome in any establishiments. Now why do you suppose that was? They didn’t fold their tablenapkins?Keep in mind this was an era when soldiers were deified.
This historian also told me that many special missions were carried out by the dregs they hauled out of military prisons because these guys were murderous, sociopathic, fearless, and thrived on danger. Perfect for the job.
Rasquel, not all sociopaths are raving troublemakers. They may be troublemakers in the military, my socipathic cousin was discharged for this reason, or they may fit the job to a tee.
You want someone who is fearless, thrives on danger and risk, has no qualms about killing, can be trained to kill on command, no questions asked. Put simply, you want a killing machine. My father thrived very well in this environment, he could not outside of it.
These guys aren’t being sent to do charity work, they’re being sent to do jobs few of us could even fathom. Its easy to understand how the sociopath would fit the bill.
Hi Jerry,
We have to keep in mind that good and evil are subjective. We view Hitler as evil, some view him as an idol.
Was Bernie Madoff evil? I think so. Others may have thought the guy was just stupid for getting caught. What’s important was how this man’t mind functioned. I can tell his victims not to wait for any remorse from this man. He has no capacity for it. Just be thankful he is locked up as that is the only thing that would stop him. Out of prison I promise you he will only look for another way to scam someone.
Oh Rasquel,
Speaking of my parents in Tennessee. Know how they finally got someone to give my parents a place to stay? A roominghouse owner, a dear old lady, took pity on my mother! She had travelled all nite to be with my father, and for this reason she made an exception and would rent a room to a paratrooper.
Absoultely Disgusting
Obama is no Marxist…
Do you even know what Marxism is, or socialism, or communism or anything for that matter, You seem to be one of those people who throws words around but doesn’t actually understand the meaning.
Grabbing at straws, is that what we call it these days?
The real truth here is that the majority of you are terrorists under the banner of christianity, trying to undermine the established rights of the american people. And you disgusting hypocrites having the galls to call this man “Evil” for advocating American Freedom!
And of course much of the hate for Obama comes from the ignorance of the right with regard to his policies, the lies and myths contrived by conservatives concerning Obama and democrats – ‘voter fraud,’ ‘welfare state,’ ‘entitlement mentality,’ and other such nonsense regurgitated by rightists devoid of fact or evidence.
Christ knows who his followers are. It makes no difference what they call themselves: Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, and all the others. He knows who is a Christian and who calls himself a Christian but is not. He knows where His enemies hide. He also knows ALL of us fall short of the Glory.
You are no Christians. You are not even Patriots, but hateful disgusting racist liars. But you repeat these ridiculous lies anyway, because you can’t say the real reason you hate Obama: YOU ARE A POOR EXCUSE OF A HUMAN BEING AND A RACIST WHO CAN’T STAND A BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
”President Bush was called evil and it went mainstream for eight years. It was “cool” to call Bush a liar, Hitler, and Satan himself.”
Consider the reasons given to call Bush evil.
The wars, Gitmo, torture, etc. Obama has not stopped any of them. So liberals such as myself are disgusted. Obama is not liberal. Any true liberal will support the Bill of Rights. He doesn’t.
Questionman,
LOL. In your entire rant and rave you don’t give one intellligent argument in support of your guy Obama. I can understand why you are hard pressed to do so.
One more thing questionman, the “racist” argument is old and tiresome, and race is only made an issue of by you so called enlightened souls.
LOL, Questionman! Obama is HALF white. So are some of us on this board. You don’t know what race anyone is on this board, so you can’t use the “racist” rant.
My mother and I were BOTH ready to vote for Alan Keyes when he was running for president. People didn’t want him because he was a CONSERVATIVE. In case you don’t remember…
ALAN KEYES is BLACK.
And anyone who jumps on a board just to tell other people THEY are not Christians..
well..I’d say you have some JUDGEMENT issues that YOU need prayer for.
So, I’ve thought about this and have returned.
I would like to begin by establishing that my irritation with such a question as, “Is Barack Obama evil?” My irritation is not directed at pro-lifers or the commenters who use this website. My exasperation stems from an ill that is far too common in this country, and that is disunity. We are one country and yet we are so divided that people get shot over their politics. This is wrong and questions like this further the rift between us. We are one country and though it kills some people to admit it, the truth is this: Just because someone is pro-choice/life and you’re opposed/supportive of abortion doesn’t mean that that individual is motivated by evil.
Pro-choicers believe that they are on the side of good. From the pro-choice point of view, legalized abortion is a part of social justice, a larger part of reproductive justice. Without reproductive justice, women are not inherently equal to men. Barack Obama is in this camp because he believes that it is the right thing to do. The same can be said of the people on this website who are pro-life: pro-lifers are not motivated by a belief that women belong in the kitchen but by a strong sense of justice on behalf of the unborn. Neither is evil. This refusal to see that only creates gulfs between us.
I don’t know anyone here in person but if your posts about your families are to be believed, you are good people. You care about your loved ones. You want what is best for your families. You have a good sense of humor. You have such tremendous hearts and you have nothing but goodwill for the world. I know that you are good people who just want to do the right thing. Pro-choicers are the same (and if you are pro-choice and reading this, know that pro-lifers aren’t any different from you in that their passion for righteousness). Where do we draw the line? When do we finally say, “Enough!” We are one species and we are all that we have- treat one another with charity. I know that it is silly coming from me because I rarely practice what I preach, albeit I do try. I am sincere. But we must treat each other more compassionately or these chasms will worsen. Let’s stop with the, “You are evil baby-killers and that is what your life revolves around!”* Let us instead take a high road, regardless of what anyone else says to us, and say, “This must end. What are your concerns? I’ll relay mine to you and we’ll see what we have in common and what we can work on so that we get somewhere.”
*And yes, I do get upset when I hear pro-choicers say, “Pro-lifers don’t care about babies! It’s just a collective front to justify kidnapping women at club-point and drag them back to the cave and they’ll take away the right to vote and you should be scared and I’m going to appeal to force and use slippery slope arguments and blah blah blah.”
You know where it stops? Asking me to have compassion for abortionists.
“During every Presidential reign, you have a certain number of crazies who are going to say that the President is evil.”
The above statement is true. What is also true is that if the President is evil, they’re right. If the President is a good man, his accusers are evil.
In the case of Obama, he’s unquestionably evil. Because he has failed to repent, he has the blood of millions of dead babies on his hands.
I don’t have the time right now to discuss how scripture differentiates between good and evil men. Suffice it to say Obama clearly belongs in the latter catagory.
Obama’s favorite book is Rules for Radical which is dedicated to Lucifer.
Does that answer your question?
By their fruits ye shall know them.
IOW, “you betcha!”
I won’t say he’s evil, but he is waging war on unborn babies and Christianity. So if the shoe fits…
You look at the history of pschiatry and you will find that terminology, criteria, and diagnoses change more frequently than most people do their underwear. Ant-social personality is the latest rendition. I just use sociopath because, frankly, what’s the difference? Anti social doesn’t sound so bad?
If you look at the history of any discipline you will find that terminology, criteria, and diagnoses change frequently as that discipline learns more and advances. Psychology does it at a slightly faster rate than many others because it is newer. That’s it. As far as terms go, the difference is sociopath is imprecise and poorly defined. That word has a different definition for every single person you encounter. Even in colloquial settings its definition is too vague to be useful. It has been given so much meaning that it means nothing.
And yes, because it “sounds bad.” A classification of a mental disorder should not carry a good or bad charge. Like the way that any sickness is morally neutral. The people who have that sickness may do good or bad things, and certainly it is a very bad thing to be sick, but the actually illness itself just is. The way that we look at it should also just be.
Bernie Madoff is a classic example. Charming, manipulative, highly intellilgent, and totally void of conscience.
Let me first say that I am sorry for the negative experiences you have had. That is hard, and I hope you will never experience them again.
However, that classification you just rattled off is, I’m afraid, precisely what I was talking about. Not all sociopaths/psychopaths/whatever-we-call-them are highly intelligent. Taken together, as a group, they are the same in intelligence as the general population. Some are smart, some are not, most are in between. Nor are all of them void of conscience. That isn’t even true for most of them. The vast majority of them are people of unremarkable morals, either bad or good. Charm and manipulation aren’t even necessarily standard, although they do crop up in slightly higher rates than the general population.
We should not expect bad behavior from Obama because he is a sociopath. Even if there were such a thing, we don’t know that he would be one. And most “sociopaths” do not routinely engage in the bad behavior Obama has. Nor–and here I’m going to be brutally honest–have you ever displayed any insight into his behavior that I had not already worked out for myself. And I, clearly, disagree with you quite strongly on the subject of sociopaths.
What we know is this. There are strong indications that he is an unrepentant narcissist, whether clinical or not is irrelevant. We know he has displayed bad behavior in the past, such as opposing medical treatment for children born alive. We have his record and can observe his ruthless political strategies all the way back to his entry into politics. And we know that he was routinely in the company of people like Wright and Ayers prior to his political career. Nor has anything especially remarkable occurred that might induce him to change his previous behaviors. Instead, these behaviors have been strongly reinforced. From this we may therefore conclude that his bad behaviors of the past will not change in the future. They are habit now, practised and reinforced over a period of several years. We know he’s going to continue like this not because he must be a “sociopath,” but because nothing has forced him to change. Diagnoses of “sociopathy” are unnecessary. This is just bog-standard Operant Conditioning.
Questionman says: February 18, 2012 at 5:33 pm
“You are no Christians. You are not even Patriots, but hateful disgusting racist liars. But you repeat these ridiculous lies anyway, because you can’t say the real reason you hate Obama: YOU ARE A POOR EXCUSE OF A HUMAN BEING AND A RACIST WHO CAN’T STAND A BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE.”
q-dude,
Whoaaaaa there junior.
Get a grip. Tap the breaks.
I would love to see Clarence Thomas in the White House.
You have us confused with Jeremiah ‘g*d d**n america’ Wright and them other Chicago folks that b o worshipped with for more than a decade.
Ethnicity, nationality, religious affiliation, political ideology, sexual orientation and denseness of pigmentation aside, b o is an evil man.
Evil, as in deceitful, vile, vicious, wicked, cruel, heartless, etc.
mr. bo-jangles can read from a teleprompter with a silver tongued slickness that would make the el diablo proud and jealous at the same time.
I even agree with some of o’bamas professed sentiments. It is a shame b o does not.
b o claims to be a devout and committed christian.
I just want to see some of b o’s good fruit.
Jesus did tell us that is how we could judge a person.
Vannah says: February 18, 2012 at 6:36 pm
“So, I’ve thought about this and have returned.”
The arguements you have advanced are self-defeating.
Suggest you, take another break. Drink some hot herbal tea, take a warm bath watch some Maud re-runs, listen to a little Kenny G, go to your happy place, meditate on an o’bama logo, etc.
If sharp disagreement troubles your tender soul, then the reality of 50 million dead babies has got to be shear torture.
Mary,
It is good to read the words of someone else who has endured life with a loved one having a personality disorder and recognize the same traits in our president — charming, manipulative, and divisive. I also have a relative who does not *want* to hurt people, but hurting others is a small price to pay to retain control over other people’s lives.
The book ”Hitler: the Pathology of Evil” by George Victor, discusses Hitler’s relationship (or really, his non-relationship) with his father, his enabling mother, his emotional/dramatic childhood, and his resulting BPD/NPD. The book concludes that unchecked BPD and NPD is what we traditionally call “evil” — unrepentant self-centeredness and a tendency to create divisions and hurt others to gain and retain power.
Hi Alice,
Terminology in psychiatry and psychology changes so much because no one can agree on anything. Its all theory. What causes mental illness? Were you toilet trained too early, genetics, a chemical imbalance, is the person really ill?
The point is Alice, whether you want to call it psycopathy, sociopathy or anti social disorder is of little relevance. Its like calling retardation being mentally challenged. Same thing but a little more socially acceptable terminology. Also, whether or not sociopathy is an “illness” is debated. Personally I believe people are born with this brain wiring, for lack of a better word. I have seen children display definite sociopathic traits. My sociopathic cousin, the one who got tossed from the military, tried to sexually assault another cousin when he was a child. Other signs to look for in children are fire starting and animal torture and killing. Oh, and MRIs have shown differences in brain function in these people.
Concerning intelligence. Generally these people are intelligent, not necessarily geniuses. Also Alice, the mark of the sociopath is lack of conscience. Yes, some are more extreme than others. Certainly not all are criminals. The office lothario or the trusted co-worker who has been undermining you with your employer can be examples of sociopaths. Have you ever been shockecd that someone falsely accused you or spread vicious rumors? Probably a sociopath.
Please Alice, read ”The Sociopath Next Door” by Martha Stout Ph.d. You truly seem poorly informed about these people and I don’t want to go over everything point by point. Dr. Stout’s book is straight forward, fascinating, and minus psychobabble. Most important it gives valuable information.
Obama is an “unrepentent narcissist”? That’s an oxymoron. Alice, there is no such creature as a repentent one. Narcissists do not back down or acknowledge they are wrong. That’s one of their traits. YOU are the one always at fault. Any suggestion they are wrong will result in extreme petulance and rage. Sociopaths are great at making you think they are repentent. My favorite is Ted Bundy giving Dr. Dobson a sob story about how pornography turned him into a killer. Dobson was played for a colossal schmuck. They’re great at knowing exactly what you want to hear. You think this condition doesn’t exist at your own risk.
We don’t have to necessarily look for bad behavior from Obama, who shows every hallmark of the sociopath/narcissist. We should just know what kind of behavior to expect. Do you think its just plain dumb luck that I’ve predicted what he was going to do on this blog? Nope. Its knowing the personality and what to expect. I must admit my embarassment though that it took Dick Morris to hit the nail on the head about the real reason for the contraceptive mandate. I knew it was totally self serving, another sociopathic trait, I just didn’t quite finger it. Close, but no cigar.
But Alice you can believe what you want. I do hope though that you will read Dr.Stout’s book.
Oh, and take it from me, I have lived with these people, they walk among us. That includes a narcissistic stepbrother who threw me over a chair into a wall, and his “repentence” was an effort to stop me from telling my parents, and wrestling a knife from my narcissistic sister during a fight with my sociopathic father. I tell you, never a dull moment with these folks around.
Hi Eric 8:53PM
Its always good to see you here. That book sounds very interesting. I wonder if Hitler’s father was a NPD/BPD. There’s evidence these disorders are inherited. Well, just look at my family for proof of that! Have I ever mentioned how my sociopathic/histrionic grandmother fought tooth and nail with my father and threatened to kill him?
Also my amazing ability to attract these people over my lifetime. Well, they definitely know schmucks when they see them.
I must say though that my father’s survival at the Seige of Bastogne is a source of tremendous pride to me, and my sister, who is my mother’s power of attorney, has been fiercely protective and vigilant of her interests. Believe me, you would rather face down the devil in hell than my sister. As I said, there can be positive aspects to these PDs if they are properly channeled.
How can any reasonable person wether a person is good is good or evil when they spend their time and energies fighting for people’s right to deliver babies to the head and then stab them in the back of the neck with scissors and suck their brains out so that they could be delivered dead. And then think it was ok to do because we killed the baby before the head came fully out during delivery. I am waiting for an Obama-backer to stand up for their man and explain this.
Yes. If Obummer isn’t evil, the word has no meaning.
And people who voted him in and don’t wish now that they hadn’t can’t call themselves patriots, Christians, or even decent, honest human beings, at least not with a straight face and clear conscience.
As for the worn out race card (talking of grabbing at straws), people who profess that as a concern will no doubt be much comforted to know that there are men with darker skin than bo that conservatives would vote in in a heartbeat given the chance. Thomas Sowell and Alan Keyes come to mind, and there are others.
In God’s eyes we are all evil from birth and need His grace and forgiveness.
Hi Mary, I know we have discussed Clstr B traits before, and I have tended to lean toward the environmental “nurture” theory (most people with BPD/NPD had physically/emotionally absent fathers) while you make strong points for the genetic “nature” theory, ie BPD/NPD fathers of BPD/NPD children would tend to be more absent. And you have had far more exposure to these personality disorders than I have, so I take your words very seriously!
Hitler’s father Alois and mother Clara also had issues. Alois was illegitimate and did not know who his father was for sure. When Adolf was young, Alois was nearly always gone from the house for work; but when he would be at home, he was abusive. When his father would leave again, his mother would spoil and enable Adolf.
Mary: “This historian also told me that many special missions were carried out by the dregs they hauled out of military prisons because these guys were murderous, sociopathic, fearless, and thrived on danger. Perfect for the job.”
“Special missions” is not the same as Special Forces. Not even close. They guys you’re describing were often considered expendable in a brutal war. Special forces are not expendable in the least. They’re insanely expensive assets.
And you aren’t distinguishing between whether the 101st themselves were selected for being sociopaths, or whether their experiences in combat scarred them terribly.
Consequence or qualification? I think you’re confused.
“You want someone who is fearless, thrives on danger and risk, has no qualms about killing, can be trained to kill on command, no questions asked. Put simply, you want a killing machine.”
No. You’re misunderstanding entirely. Too much time in front of Bourne films or something. These guys are NOT “no questions asked” types. And there’s a difference between thriving on danger and risk and having learned to control the natural fears that accompany it. These guys can suppress fear very well indeed — but anyone who lacks fear innately would be useless in special forces. They’d get their own people killed.
What I’m reading in your posts is a total lack of personal familiarity with special forces — at least, as they’re constituted in our day.
Ask Marcus Luttrell whether Seals are unquestioning killers.
President Obama is the opposite of evil. He supports a country by and for all. Not just the Christian right wing. More troops brought home equals more of our sons and daughters alive and well. We will be living with the legacy of the Bush wars for a generation or more; in economic and social costs. If President Obama can unite us as a fully secular country while not infringing on the rights of Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other religion, then he will go down in history as one of the greats. Thankfully, the Republican party seems determined to hand him a second term without a fight. War is evil! Poverty is evil! Unmitigated growth is evil! Corporate personhood is evil! Barack Obama is the President of the United States of America! Please don’t forget it.
“President Obama is the opposite of evil.”
Trapper,
You sound like an Obama supporter so maybe you could answer the question I posed above.
How can any reasonable person even question wether a person is evil when they spend their time and energies fighting for people’s right to deliver babies to the head and then stab them in the back of the neck with scissors and suck their brains out so that they could be delivered dead? And then think it was ok to do because we killed the baby before the head came fully out during delivery. And how is this the opposite of evil? Is it part of a utopian plan to stop unmitigated growth? Or is it the opposite of evil because he does not claim to want to kill same baby after the head is fully delivered. Please expound on these points for me cause I am really curious as to how your thought process works.
Rasquel,
I was talking about WW2 when these guys were recruited from prison.
The point is the military saw the value of using people with certain personality traits. Special missions were extremely dangerous then as they are now. They may have been “expendable” but that doesn’t mean these guys were anxious to die nor did they have to agree to even do these missions.
Special forces are extremely expensive yes, but they handle some of the more extremely dangerous missions and take the more extreme risks. That means they are at serious risk. Kind of a no brainer you think? They are the most highly skilled. The selection process itself is stringent. The training brutal. A significant percentage do not complete it. Navy divers, navy seals, air force pararescue, just some of the people who will be sent on the most dangerous of missions. So obviously there is a serious risk of these men losing their lives. Come to think of it, wasn’t a helicopter full of seals recently shot down in Afghanistan and all the men killed?
Now tell me Rasquel, why wouldn’t they seek out men with sociopathic traits? Some of those traits are risk taking, high intellligence, no conscience, no empathy, thriving on danger. Oh and by fearless I don’t mean lacking fear, I mean carrying on despite fear. I mean, you’re not sending these guys out to build churches, right? You’re sending them on special missions to kill or be killed. However that is not to say only sociopaths enter the special forces. I’m saying its an area they would likely be drawn to and I would suspect the special forces has its share of. As I pointed out Rasquel, all sociopaths are not axe wielding maniacs. They can respond well to military regimentation and discipline and may be very much at home in the military.
Now am I saying they are all sociopaths? Absolutely not. I speculate that many are and can see where sociopath traits are very desirable. Another area where a sociopath would likely thrive is as an undercover police officer. Am I suggesting all undercover cops are sociopaths? No. Am I saying the police department may have their share of them. Yes.
I didn’t say the 101st recruited sociopaths. Men volunteered and certainly not all were sociopaths. However, one can see how a sociopath could be drawn to the paratroopers at that time. I told you about Tennessee and this was before the men went to war, so apparently they had a reputation as a pretty rowdy bunch. Maybe because certain personalities were attracted to the 101st at that time. BTW, according to a documentary I saw the 101st was considered the most effective fighting force on the planet at that time. Apparently these guys channeled their rambunctiousness very well. The point I am making. BTW, the townspeople specified the paratroopers were not welcome, not soldiers in general.
Do I think the war warped my father and other men like him? In some cases yes. I believe he joined in the first place because of his personality traits, traits my mother had little time to see before he left. Also, these people are very good at covering up and manipulating, letting a future partner or spouse think they are every man/woman’s fantasy. It isn’t until you spend some time with this person that the real personlity comes out.
Rasquel I will thank you not to patronize me about too much time in front of Bourne films.
I didn’t say these guys are no questions asked type. I said they are trained to follow orders.
I did not suggest they go around blowing people’s heads off on a whim. These are disciplined fighters. They are given an order, they follow it. If they have to kill, they do. The seals were told to kill the Somali pirates and Bin Laden, they carried out their orders. They killed on command. That’s what they are trained for. Oh, and do you think the public is informed every time special forces go on search and destroy or killing missions? These men are trained killers Rasquel, that’s their job.
I would still be willing to bet that Seal Team 6 has socipaths on it and I don’t mean that as an insult. I can’t think of a better way to positively channel those traits.
No Rasquel I spend little time watching movies and more time studying history and a lot of time listening, like to the 101st historian. You’d be amazed what you could learn if you did the same.
Mary, I could kill; but not just cause I was commanded to. If I saw the killing as an unjust order then I would be more likely to kill the one commanding it. Sounds like that wouldn’t make me the ideal soldier from a 101st point of view. If I were forced into a situation like that I’d take one of those sociopaths out before I got fragged.
Hi ts,
You probably wouldn’t cut it as a special forces soldier. I wouldn’t. Not everyone can, which is why they are special forces. What you are saying is speculation ts. A military or special forces person would likely have a different perspective.
My brother was in a position as a police officer where he was justified in blowing a guy’s head off. He swears to this day a voice told him “don’t shoot”. The man then dropped his sword. Yes you read that right, a sword.
It is very tempting for me to jump at a “Yes!” as the Left is wont to do. But I have to stick to the judgement most on the Right fall back on. He’s terribly - no – terribly misguided. Here come my wishy-washy, half-hearted excuses.
First of all, he’s a guy. It may be a secret to most people, but women have always been more pro-life than men. There’s a simple explanation for that. They spend more time around children babies especially.
There aren’t quite as many men smoking cigars while their wives give birth as there used to be, but they still spend less time with their children. Not to mention many who abandon them. Obama saw that first-hand.
Secondly, a strange split-personality has taken hold of this world. We eagerly await births we care about, and put up blinders for those that are inconvenient.
Obama, like most abortion tolerators, thinks he has no stake in whether a child lives or dies, so he is going to champion the causes of his base without giving it a second thought. And base is what they are.
He and they are misguided, unthinking, and, most of all, unconcerned about the miracle of life.
Yes it is speculation, thank God for that. But I am as certain as I can be that I would not be able to kill upon command unless I thought the killing was justified.
I’ll tell you who’s evil. All so-called doctors who perform abortions. They do “know what they do”. And all the gutless cowards in the medical profession who look the other way are accomplices.
We knew that about Obamanator when he fought against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in Illinois, right?
Even NARAL wouldn’t fight against that.
Could it be…………. SAAAATAAAAAANNNN?
One thing for sure. We f’d up as a country. He ran for president promising to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. He started with a 9 trillion dollar debt and three years into his presidency our debt is 16 trillion and counting. That isn’t just a normal every day run-of-the-mill lie….that is what they call a whopper. But that isn’t even as big a lie as when he lloks into your eye and tells you that he thinks abortion is an anguishing decision. He is cold.
Could it be…………. SAAAATAAAAAANNNN?
He is really close to being Margaret Sanger re-incarnated. And then elected as the leader of the Demoncratic party and then elected as president. A freaking nightmare; that’s for sure.
Hi Eric 10:05PM
I’m from the era when “nurture” was big. Autistic children were the result of cold and uncaring mothers. You notice mental illnesses were never thought to be the result of bad fathering!
Personally, I am convinced there is a genetic component. Certainly one has been shown for such disorders as schizophrenia and other mental illnesses. Children inherit talent and intelligence, and we often see children with personality traits similar to parents. Many cold and distant parents may be that way because of a personality disorder.
I argue that Ted Bundy was born a predatory killer. People point out his childhood. I point out my cousin had a similar childhood, only he was completely rejected by his mother, yet he became a normal functioning husband, father, and served with distinction in WW2.
There are just too many exceptions to the nurture theory in my opinion and a lot about the human brain we just do not comprehend.
Yes. Since he embraces the murders of 54 million innocent people, including by suctioning out the brains of infants nearly born, do you even have to ask?
I cried when he was elected…it wasn’t difficult to see what was coming. The only safe place is in the Lord. God says if we will humble ourselves and pray, He will heal our land. We will see in November.
In my parish at every Sunday Mass during the Prayers of the Faithful, we pray for our governor (who has been called, “Obama’s mini-me”) and Obama himself, as well as “all who hold offices of the public trust.” Everyone can rest assured that we do NOT pray for Obama and our governor because the pastor agrees with their politics.
That Judie Brown believes Obama is evil is not something she should have made a pronouncement on publicly, imo. If she wanted to talk about evil, perhaps she could have outlined which POLICIES of his she believes to be evil and why, but there’s something about calling an individual evil that doesn’t seem quite right to me. Even if she had said that Obama “does evil” (vs calling Obama himself evil), that would have been more reasonable, imo.
I pray for President Obama too…that the evil man would either encounter God, get saved and repent for his role aupporting and promoting the ongoing slaughter of innocent children or be removed from office.
I don’t believe most people are evil. I think that a lot of people are misguided, and do horrible things. But evil? That’s a strong word. I don’t think he is evil, I think he is 100% wrong about abortion, but we all have things that we do that are wrong. No one is hopeless.
Jack, can you take a ‘stab’ at answering my question above?
How can any reasonable person even question wether a person is evil when they spend their time and energies fighting for people’s right to deliver babies to the head and then stab them in the back of the neck with scissors and suck their brains out so that they could be delivered dead? And then think it was ok to do because we killed the baby before the head came fully out during delivery. If he is not evil then he must be insane.
My thoughts on truth’s question -
There’s a huge difference between allowing something legally and “actively spending their time and energies fighting…”
First off, I’d like to know what they massive exertion of energy has been on the last couple of years.
Second – on the question. Just because somebody thinks it should be allowed if medically necessary doesn’t mean they are in favor of it or want it to happen more often. I believe you probably don’t feel that the Supreme Court is in favor of what Fred Phelps says – though they supported the right for it to occur in society. I personally don’t believe that Michelle Bachmann wants to torture people – but she does support allowing it in certain, rare situations.
I don’t know Obama’s heart, nor do you – but it is perfectly reasonable that, as he’s explained it, that we shouldn’t have a ban in place when there are already (what some believe) to be proper general protections in other laws, and that this specific law didn’t have good enough health of the mother exemptions.
Now, you can disagree with his statement and the belief there’s proper laws elsewhere – but to say that he’s actively spending time and energy – that to me, is a mischaracterization.
Let’s not put all this on Obama. Abortion has been legal for decades long before any has heard of him. He didn’t create the situation where we have 50 plus million murders. He is simply one of many folks in DC who enable this along with millions of Americans who support this. To single him out as evil is over the top.
Our whole cultural of entitlement to rights to do this evil is evil.
First off, I’d like to know what they massive exertion of energy has been on the last couple of years.
Rightb up until 2008 he actively held fund-raisers to keep that barbaric procedure legal. Then since the SCOTUS made it illegal he openly comes out against the decision but realizes he cannot win. If he thought he could win he would be back to full time fundraising again, no?
There is no freaking excuse Ex-RINO. It is as barbaric an act as humanely conceivable. How is it any different then stabbing a baby in the head 10 seconds after the delivery?
To single him out as evil is over the top.
OK, punisher. Name me 10 other people in the US who voted against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act? Or 10 other people in the US who voted to keep partial-birth abortion legal. Either that or take back your last comments.
truth
So four years ago he campaigned on it. Okay, I suppose back then that was active.
I never said that it was a good procedure or anything like that. You asked how a person could not be evil and support something that is evil -and I feel that I provided several pretty reasonable cases.
Here is another one – I think that people shooting other people is evil, yet I don’t fault pro-gun folks for wanting guns to be legal.
Here is another one – I think that people shooting other people is evil, yet I don’t fault pro-gun folks for wanting guns to be legal.
But lets keep the analogy accurate Ex-RINO. Would you think they were evil if they fought for the right to shoot babies in the head while they were being delivered? Granted that shooting them in the head may not be as barbaric as stabbing them in the head with scissors because they would die quicker if they were shot. But that is about as close as a gun analogy is gonna get.
I never said that it was a good procedure or anything like that. You asked how a person could not be evil and support something that is evil -and I feel that I provided several pretty reasonable cases.
Huh? You feel that way? You are able to justify this as being anything other than evil or insane. It would be one thing if you said you support Obama for x, y, or z. But to not even have the backbone to stand up against him in this monstrous deed is unconscionable.
Truth – if a well-meaning medical doctor believed that it was medically necessary to save the life of a mother, than I wouldn’t think it was evil for the gun lobby to support that.
Okay Truth…
Dear President Obama -
If you are reading this…I feel that you do not promote partial birth abortion, but even the suggestion that it might be the best medical option is not acceptable – so therefore, if the issue ever comes up again, please vote in favor of a ban.
PS – I hope that you have a great 2nd term!
Ex-RINO,
May you receive all the recompense you have due for every baby slaughtered while you laughed and stood shoulder to shoulder with those who burn babies alive with salt in the womb. And if that means an eternity choking on acid and gasping for breathe yourself then so be it. You can use that time to think about all the other great stuff they accomplished and know it was all worth it
Truthseeker,
The truth is that less than one half of one percent of abortions are full term abortions. Most are first trimester abortions performed as outpatient procedures in a small clinic. The abortions you are referencing are done only in extreme cases of severely deformed or damaged fetus or imminent danger to the mother’s life. No state in the U.S. does third trimester abortions as a form of birth control. Access to and education about all forms of birth control would reduce the need for many abortions.
And yes, I am an Obama supporter, a Green Party liberal, and pro-choice. I came to this website when I saw a great cartoon about abortion credits. I wanted to find out who reprinted it. I have found the website entertaining and fun to share with family and friends. Kind of in the manner of “can you believe this stuff?”. We are who we are, and all we can do is enjoy the ride till it’s over.
The truth is that half of one percent of 54,000,000 is 50,000 babies slaughtered while they were being delivered and another untol;d number burned alive or injected with poison in their mother’s wombs. We are who we are but I am not one of YOU.
Truth – First of all, I just scolded Obama, online and in public, for his support.
Second, you were talking about partial birth abortions – I don’t believe salt is used on those.
Third, I’ve never witnessed, participated in, or stood shoulder to shoulder with anybody involved in an abortion. Quite frankly, I rarely stand that close to somebody.
Fourth-in your second sentence, where you seem to be rooting that I go to hell, you should have used “breath”, not “breathe”.
50,000 a year?
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact8.html
Trapper,
How is that going to end up reducing the number of abortions when over 50% of all abortions are commited on women who were using birth control. Part of the reason is the lies they pass off on women in order to collect their $800 a year in birth control money from them. Why do you suppose the bc packaging doesn’t tell these women they are conceiving annually and aborting but those lives are not included in their statistics. Their ‘safe sex’ lie would be blown away and their percentage of women getting pregnant each year on bc would go from 2% to 90%. And it would their lies that people can have sex as often as they want and it doesn’t change their chances of getting pregnant. wtf. The people who buy into that must want to be fooled.
Do the math yourself Ex-RINO. I was talking to Trapper about late term abortion statistics and I used his numbers. Trapper said half of one percent. There have been 54,000,000 abortions. 54,000,000 times .005 equals 270,000. So I stand corrected, just not by you.
Third, I’ve never witnessed, participated in, or stood shoulder to shoulder with anybody involved in an abortion.
You already said you would vote for Obama again. You are lying to yourself. And I didn;t wish it upon I was forewarning in hopes that your Christian baptism was still alive enough in you to shake you out of your stupor. Those babies and their suffering are real and your vote does make a difference.
Truth – you were talking about partial birth – you used the phrase “while they were being delivered”.
Truth -
The number of babies aborted in this country would be the same, if not more if McCain was in office.
Not true. Our HHS would not be full of abortion industry proponents and our government would not be loading up the pockets of people who supported abortion. That would decrease greatly if we quit electing them to office as our representatives.
Truth – I don’t think you can point to a piece of legislation that has taken effect that has increased abortions since Obama took over. You could have every HHS individual be a supporter of abortion, yet if legislation doesn’t change, then you can’t make that claim.
I feel that based on McCain’s economic policies, the recession would have gone deeper, leading to more abortions than we have had under Obama.
Ex-RINO, you were not even the one the statistic was directed at. The half of one percent number came from Trapper. I get tired of chasing your tail.
It doesn’t matter truth – you either don’t know how partial birth abortion works, or you are lying. I’m not sure which one.
Every pro-abort groups agree with Obama. And his vote is consistent with the culture of death. He is a product of that culture. Being more extreme than most other libs does not change the fact he didn’t create the abortion holocaust nor the culture of the death in the first place. The nation as a whole enable it for decades. The nation needs to be judged as a whole not any one person.
Yes Obama deserves to be seen as advocating wickedness. But so do every pro-abort politicians, advocates, “doctors,”, judges, etc.
I know cexactly how it works. You can read it for yourself. Here is the testimony given by the the doctor at the SCOTUS hearing where PBA was outlawed. Dr. Haskell describes the procedure on graphic detail. So graphic it is engrained in my mind forever. The only thing he os missing is the writhing of the baby and the baby jerking and going stiff when he/she gets stabbed in the base of the neck with the scissors. Read it for yourself you sob.
The debate over the partial-birth abortion method — as a discrete facet of the overall debate on the practice of abortion — really began in earnest in 1993, when NRLC obtained a copy of a paper in which Ohio abortionist Martin Haskell described in detail, step-by-step, how to perform the procedure.
Dr. Haskell is a family practitioner who has performed over 1,000 such abortions in his walk-in abortion clinics. Anyone who is seriously seeking the truth behind the conflicting claims regarding partial-birth abortions should start by reading Dr. Haskell’s paper, and the transcripts of the explanatory interviews that Haskell gave in 1993 to two medical publications, American Medical News (the official AMA newspaper) and Cincinnati Medicine. [4] (I have included these materials with several other attachments to my written testimony, and would ask that they be made part of the hearing record.) Here is how Haskell explained a key part of the abortion method:
Haskell wrote that he “routinely performs this procedure on all patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP [i.e., from 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 months after the last menstrual period] with certain exceptions,” these “exceptions” involving complicating factors such as being more than 20 pounds overweight. He also wrote that he used the procedure through 26 weeks [six months] “on selected patients.” [p.28] He added, “Among its advantages are that it is a quick, surgical outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia.”
Now once again. Tell me that is not evil.
Excellent truth – now earlier, you indicated that this happens 50,000 times a year – “the truth is that half of one percent of 54,000,000 is 50,000 babies slaughtered while they were being delivered and another untol;d number burned alive or injected with poison in their mother’s wombs.”
I don’t mind that you were wrong – but when confronted that you were wrong, you tried to say you didn’t say that – and then said that since the conversation wasn’t directed at me, that, what, it was okay to lie?
So which is it?
Ex-RINO, Acoording to this from the CDC 1/2% of abortions were performed at greater than or equal to 21 weeks. Dr. Haskell used to commit PBA on women at 20 weeks or later. If less than one fifth of these was done using PBA then the number would be graeter than 50,000 since RoeVWade. You disgust me. All you do is with your response is try to win a point on statistics that weren’t even addressed to you but you never address the gruesome reality of what you support with your vote. I am done with you for now cause you are hopeless. Hopefully some other sane people will read what I posted and the story of these children being butchered by the likes of president Obama will spark the love in their hearts and their consciences will no longer let them vote for people who voted to keep this legal. And yes; the fact that he held fundraisers to support this being done to mothers and their babies makes him a butcher. He can either repent or spend an eternity gurgling saline that burns him alive from the inside out and/or getting stabbed with scissors in the base of the neck. You reap just what you sew
Truth – I’m going to hope and pray that your idolization of abortion subsides, and that you can start seeing justice, mercy, and love – and that your hateful rhetoric is parted in favor of kindness and gentleness. May your hardened heart soften and the colored glasses you put on to view the world be put aside.
Here is the CDC link I used for my statistics:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713a1.htm
Note that the only numbers available are from the guttemacher institute (the abortion industry itself) so the real numbers are likely a lot worse.
Ex-RINO, if you had a heart of anything but stone; yours would not stand for this abomination upon all of mankind or the people who support it.
Truth – in my own life, abortion is not an answer and acceptable. If anybody came to me about an abortion, I would advise them against it. I truly believe that the difference between abortion numbers under a GOP president and a Dem president would be slim to none. Because of that, I will support policies and Presidents that I think will be supportive of life. I love that Obama has expanded health care coverage to millions that haven’t had it. I believe his economic policies are superior to those on the right. I believe voting for McCain would have led to nothing in regards to abortion legislation, and we would have seen a slower economic recovery and no insurance changes – which again, I believe most of what has been put in place has been positive.
I’m fine with my overall stance, and my love of Christ.
Isn’t that like the fiftieth time you have explained that, Ex? Lol.
It is wriiten:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah 1:5
“ You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother’s womb” Psalm 139:13
I love that Obama has expanded health care coverage to millions that haven’t had it. I believe his economic policies are superior to those on the right.
You mean you love that he has mandated millions of people purchase Obamacare or have their tax returns garnished? And superior economic policies…maybe you missed my post earlier:
He ran for president promising to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. He started with a 9 trillion dollar debt and three years into his presidency our debt is 16 trillion and counting.
He ran on of cutting the deficit in half from eight trillion dollars to four trillion dollars during his first term in office. Is that the kind of fiscal policy you find to be superior? Or is it what he actually has done since getting into office and running up another 7 trillion dollars in debt in his first three years that you find superior? He has both bases covered here. Which is the one you like him so much for?
Jack – maybe one day the mods will let me change my name to that. It is a little long…but it would save me a lot of time!
Ex-RINO, if Obama gets re-elected and stacks the court against overturning Roe V Wade then I guess you’ll stand by your ridiculous notion that you are not responsible. But we both know that’s a bunch of crap. We both know this next presidential election will set the law in the US for the next generation. Sorry, but you can’t cop out with your bs about not being able to make a difference. Stand up proudly with your fearless leader shoulder-to-shoulder in the mutilation of millions of more mothers and the dismemberment of the children torn from their mother’s wombs. Hold you head up you weasel.
Too true, Ex. I think that people continually ask you because they want a different answer.
Maybe some of you who think that you know that Ex, or Obama, or whoever, is going to hell can answer me this. I was under the impression that God was the one who makes that decision? Statements from truthseeker rather gleefully condemn Ex and all who think like him to hell, is that even Biblical?
Truth -
You can certainly disagree with my statements. They are what they are. I’d state my short answers to the above, and I expect nothing less than us to disagree fully. I simply wanted you to understand where I was coming from – which is, I don’t believe that the choice of McCain (or the future choice of Romney) is going to make a difference in regards to an issue politicians love to talk about while campaigning for president, and ignore shortly after.
On those subjects:
1) Yes – I am fine with the mandate. I believe in personal responsibility, and you yourself believe that hospitals should have to treat somebody who comes in with life threatening illnesses or injuries. The difference between you and me is you want those individuals to free load off the system. I want all to contribute. Health care is a unique market in which, at any time, any of us could become a multi-million dollar liability. There is a reason that the individual mandate started as a conservative policy – it is because it is a policy of personal responsibility.
2) I think it was foolish for Obama to believe the yearly deficits would decrease so quickly. There is certainly a deep history of that though – Bush promised great things when we passed the tax cuts, and that didn’t work out. Heck, Reagan promised a balanced budget…that was never achieved. There is a long line of unfulfilled economic promises. I do believe though that he’s done what is needed to set the nation up for better times. You deficit spend during reductions and make it up when times are good.
By the way, your numbers are off – the deficit was 10.7 trillion when Obama took over. The deficit right now is 15.3 trillion – so you were off a combined 2.7 trillion. Furthermore, I see absolutely nothing to suggest that under McCain, the deficit would be substantially different. My guess? The debt would be in better shape – the economy would be in worse shape.
3) Yes – that economic policy is superior. Crashing the nation now isn’t the answer – the answer is to get the economy going and then balance the budget. I believe that we are in much better shape, long term to have a balanced budget than if we had put McCain in office. There is absolutely no way to balance the budget without raising some taxes (unless we’re okay with literally letting old people die on the streets, or greatly eliminating out military). McCain would rather let the nation crash than raise taxes. Taxes will raise after this year.
I, 100% expect you to disagree fully with all of the above – that’s great. Again, I’m just stating what I believe. You are free to believe what you want.
Jack,
I do not judge. But those babes who are dismembered have angels gazing upon the face of God.
“ I do not judge. But those babes who are dismembered have angels gazing upon the face of God.”
I am not sure how that answers my question?
truth -
Name calling is strictly prohibited on this blog. I feel that I’ve been more than fair to you, and if you are angry enough that you can’t speak civilly, than I propose that you move on.
The original R v Wade supreme court was 7-2 from Republic appointees. Furthermore, all that turning over R v Wade is going to do is result in highway traffic of women from state to state for abortions. All the money that now goes towards pregnancy resource centers will go into the state fights to move the line back and forth. Simply call me skeptical.
I simply wanted you to understand where I was coming from – which is, I don’t believe that the choice of McCain (or the future choice of Romney) is going to make a difference in regards to an issue politicians love to talk about while campaigning for president, and ignore shortly after. Go ahead and make your case that McCain would have appointed Sotomayer and Kagan then…
You and I both kknow that is bs and a cop out. if Obama gets re-elected and stacks the court against overturning Roe V Wade then I guess you’ll stand by your ridiculous notion that you are not responsible. But we both know that’s a bunch of crap. We both know this next presidential election will set the law/SCOTUS balance in the US for the next generation.
Jack – it isn’t Biblical at all – you are correct.
Truth has essentially said I’m going to hell quite a few times.
I believe in Jesus and believe my sins have been forgiven. I can’t find text in my bible saying that if I don’t vote Republican, I’m going to hell. Maybe my version is wrong…
Jack – it isn’t Biblical at all – you are correct.
Ex-RINO, you should spend less time looking for political wins for Obama and more time taking scripture to heart “He said to his disciples, “Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. 2It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he wrongs you seven times in one day and returns to you seven times saying, ‘I am sorry,’ you should forgive him.” Luke 17: 1-4
How can you justify your belief in that love and forgiveness with basically wanting Ex, Obama, and who knows who else to burn for eternity? How is that forgiving, merciful, or loving in any way, shape or form? Your talk of hell comes across pretty gleeful, I don’t know if you intend it that way, but that’s how it comes across, truthseeker.
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, 9 for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father.” Matthew 18:10
Jack, it is a forewarning meant to draw them to repentence. I am not the judge. Nor would I want to be.
You are not the judge, but you know for a fact that Ex voting Democrat, regardless of his faith, repentance, etc…. is sending him to hell? Sorry to beat a dead horse, but that doesn’t seem remotely logical.
Truth – I fully agree that having an abortion is a sin. Where I’m not in line with you is believing that voting for a politician when, the person voting has the right intentions (and not sinful intentions). For instance, if a person voted for a politician in hopes that they bomb innocent civilians, I believe that to be sinful. If a person voted for a politician, and a war happened with bombing of innocent civilians, I don’t hold those who voted morally responsible. Quite frankly, ever politician sins, and sins lots – so if a person is morally responsible for everything a politician does, we’d all be in deep trouble!
I voted, and probably will again, for Obama because I believe he’s a better economic and foreign policy choice (than McCain was and Romney will be). I don’t like the abortion choice I’m given, but I don’t see somebody compatible with my beliefs (I’d like a large bill that further restricted or eliminated abortion was also putting in a single payer health care system for all, and greatly expanding educational spending and opportunities).
Jack,
I use that type of rebuke on other Christians because I do not like to see Christians led astray. Obama calls himself a Christian and yet he worked to finance those babies being put through such hideous torture. It is scriptural for other Christians to rebuke Obama for this until he asks forgiveness and repents. And these offenses are so grave that they deserve the condemnation of other Christians who would support him. I cannot know Obama’s heart but I do know I have seen him mock scripture. That in itself should be enough for any Christian to disqualify his vote. It shows he is phony.
truth -
Let me simply say there is great danger in regards to adding words to the Bible – if you are going to state that there are certain sins, or further requirements for salvation then what is simply stated, you should think hard and make sure you can clearly state your case. Jesus seems to not be a fan of overly judgmental individuals, and it is clear that the Bible is to be protected and not added to. So again, if you feel that people are “being led astray”, and that this is a matter of salvation – state your case clearly and Biblically. Otherwise, you are adding to the words of the Bible.
Calling him an SOB and gleefully recounting his punishments that you (hope?) think he will receive in hell and such is a rebuke in Christ?
I am not defending Ex, he is perfectly capable of defending himself, lol. I am simply wondering where you think this kind of stuff is justified.
You are not beating a dead horse Jack. I will try and say this one more time as clearly as possible. I cannot say for sure who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. I have no way to judge a persons heart and I would not be so presumptuos as to place limits upon God’s mercy. I am simple stating what is written in the scriptures (I am sure you have seen the references I posted). I try to live according to Jesus’ words. I really cannot think of any act of sin that man could concoct that would grieve Jesus more than PBA. So it leads me to believe that anybody who would commit or support people who commit this barbaric act would go to hell if they did not repent.
The sob came from his wanting to spin around about statistics on number of late term abortions and not once, as a Christian, come out and forcefully condemn Obama for his barbarism.
How can a Christian see a post of the procedure known as PBA and respond with:
”Excellent truth”; and not one word about how sickening it is and how sickening a person would have to be to support it?
Truth – come on…you are twisting things so radically it makes me sick.
First off, I put a public message to Obama if he does read this board. If Obama’s wife was going to have a partial birth abortion, I’d be pretty mad. That he thinks that if it is medically necessary, it should be allowed? I don’t know if that is morally as reprehensible.
On my “excellent” comment – I was saying that it is good that you know the difference between the two. I didn’t say the procedure was excellent.
Truth – all sin and fall short of the glory of God – whether it be me mocking you, or you swearing and getting angry in using fowl language at me.
Ex-RINO,
We all know that ‘medically necessary’ is code for any time a doctor wants to do it. Dr. Haskell thought one of the reasons it was medically necessary was so that he could do it using local anesthetic and get the mother out of the clinic as an outpatient.
“Dear President Obama –
If you are reading this…I feel that you do not promote partial birth abortion, but even the suggestion that it might be the best medical option is not acceptable – so therefore, if the issue ever comes up again, please vote in favor of a ban.
PS – I hope that you have a great 2nd term!”
You call that a scolding. I call that bs. If you ever want to get real and express some Christian indignation towards abortion then I might be able to take you seriously.
Why can you not bring yourself to see the truth - that Obama is not just looking out for the mother’s who might have a medical necessity to abort their babies. He is tied in tight with Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood and has been since before he was a state senator in Illinois. There are tens of thousands of late term abortions since RoeVWade and they poisin and stab and burn these babies alive. Why haven’t you expressed any indignance towards him for this. Was your so-called public message to Obama heart-felt or just ttempt at a dig at me?
careful Ex-RINO or you may need to change your name to Ex-human
People are not human if they vote for Obama. Dude.. I do believe you have decided millions of Americans are not human.
No Jack,
I was talking directly to Ex-RINO. There are probably a lot of Democrats with buyers remorse who are not comfortable with Obama representing their views.
Jack,
Did Ex-RINO’s public scolding of Obama seem genuine to you?
Why should anybody take him seriously?
Heh. I am sure the best way to get people around to your way of thinking is to dehumanize them. Uh huh. Right.
Jack,
No, not uh-huh right. If somebody calls themselves Christian then they should be willing and prepared to answer for their words and deeds from a scriptural standpoint. And abortion is not Christian and neither is enabling people who support it with money and power.
But how did that answer my question to you?
A Christian would address the injustice of late-term abortion with the dignity that it’s victims deserve and not by a mock scolding of Obama.
Truth -
Two things. Your last quote – point to the Biblical reference supporting your claim that only a Christian would act as you say.
Second – you’ve essentially said you don’t care about my opinion nor respect it (don’t take it seriously) – yet you want to know about how sincere I was about something? If you want respect, you need to be respectful. I’ve been pointing it out to you. Jack, one of the most level-headed people on this board has been pointing it out to you. If it isn’t clicking for you, it might be time to realize you are the bigger problem in this who situation.
Mary: You just don’t understand. “Now tell me Rasquel, why wouldn’t they seek out men with sociopathic traits?”
Because they don’t. You’ve argued from personal experience that has nothing to do with special forces.
You’re welcome to cite evidence.
Have you read any books authored by special forces veterans? Have you known any personally?
Are you a veteran?
Also: are you “anti-war ?” Just curious.
point to the Biblical reference supporting your claim that only a Christian would act as you say.
I have no idea what you are talking about, Please paste the quote you are referring to.
Secondly, about taking you seriously; Your so called ‘public scolding’ of Obama by telling him he doesn’t support PBA (even though you know he held fundraisers to promote it) and telling him you will be voting for him again did not strike me as being genuine. And as I stated in my last comment ”A Christian would address the injustice of late-term abortion with the dignity that it’s victims deserve and not by a mock scolding of Obama.”
Given that the term ‘evil’ is simply a subjective application expressing some peoples extreme displeasure at a given act or the perpetrator of said act rather than an objective term with an extrinsic application perhaps it would be more accurate to pose the question “Why do you hate obama?”
Rasquel,
Really? Well a few have slipped under the radar. Google Benjamin and Erica Sifrit.
Rasquel, I don’t believe they actively look for people who are sociopaths, but the sociopath may well have the traits that will serve well in the special forces. Sifrit was at the top of his class.
Certainly Sifrit was an exception. I would in no way suggest he represents all special forces.
My father and my friend’s father did not represent all men in the 101st. But they had personality traits that served them very well in the military environment they were in. My friend’s father was a killer who continued to ply his trade after the war.
Like it or not a sociopath may well have the traits needed to serve in such a capacity.
And yes, I have known military people who have told me what kind of people the military has sought out for certain missions, and these folks were killers without conscience. They had to be. They are in a very dirty business and yes the military knows who to recruit.
Did I mention how my father was ordered to line up prisoners of war and gun them down?
Orders were orders and they were to be obeyed without question. I’m sure not having a conscience or empathy made doing his job a little easier. Disobeying meant either getting shot himself or ending up in a mudpit, which was how members of the 101st were disciplined.
War and special missions are damned dirty business Rasquel, and you don’t recruit social workers for the job. You look for guys like Benjamin Sifrit. ..and my father.
Ex-RINO, I know I was heated in my response to you but I wanted to try and make you see things from the perspective of the victim. Thus the reap what you sow and references to breathing alkalines till you burn alive from the inside out. I hope you get it.
Barry Soetoro has no good fruit from his works. He is an anti-christ. He is definitely not for Christ.
Truth – this quote is what I’m referring to:
”A Christian would address the injustice of late-term abortion with the dignity that it’s victims deserve and not by a mock scolding of Obama.”
If you are going to state what the qualifications are of a Christian, I would use the words from the Bible, or state that you are adding your own words to the Bible.
I see things quite fine from the perspective of the victim – I don’t need your help.
Mary: No, sorry, the burden of proof is not on me. You claimed that sociopathy is a selection criterion for special forces. I searched as far as the Wikipedia, and the man you cite WAS a Seal before the killings. Whether he was a sociopath before his service, or became one as a consequence, or became one for other reasons, is not something I’m going to trot off and spend time discovering — especially when, if you know the facts of the matter, you know for reasons you could readily cite. Honestly, I believe you’re having a hard time finding any evidence of your claim at all, and that you’re just tossing anything towards me, however ridiculously it fails to support your original claim.
I did just click a couple more pertinent links. Fascinatingly, the only mention of “sociopath” I found was leveled at Erika.
What does this have to do, in the least, with whether he was selected for Special Forces on the basis of observed sociopathic behaviors (“Yeah! This guy’s got murderous tendencies! He’ll be perfect!”)?
Nothing.
You’ve cited no evidence whatsoever that sociopaths are selected for Special Forces.
You ARE an anti-war peacenik, aren’t you? You certainly have the naive marks of one. If your Father was sociopathic I can understand this, but it’s sad that you can’t understand how your understanding of the military — and certainly of its most elite units, who are populated by some of the most stable personalities on the planet — has been warped by it.
I mean none of that in an insulting way, though I’m being blunt enough. Bear in mind that those of us who know special forces veterans, and have served with distinction ourselves, consider such ignorant remarks slanderous. Those who serve with honor do not deserve to be thought of this way, especially when those so thinking can offer no evidence.
Again, that you think this way because you were conditioned to is something I regret, I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. But this is in your head — not in the real world.
War is hell — and families suffer too.
I’m sorry.
So “evil” = “doesn’t agree with me.” Nice to know.
I know I shouldn’t step into this one… Proverbs 26:17 comes to mind! But it’s just close enough to my standards of intervention to give it a go…
EGV wrote, in reply to Truthseeker:
Truth – this quote is what I’m referring to:
”A Christian would address the injustice of late-term abortion with the dignity that it’s victims deserve and not by a mock scolding of Obama.”
If you are going to state what the qualifications are of a Christian, I would use the words from the Bible, or state that you are adding your own words to the Bible.
Well… perhaps we could examine his claim, and your claim, logically?
Truthseeker seems to be claiming at least nine things (several of which, if I understand them correctly, seem to be implicit), in his comment:
1) Christians believe that unborn children, like all human persons, have God-given dignity (which includes the inalienable right to life).
2) The victims of late-term abortion are (among others) unborn children.
3) Therefore, Christians believe that the victims of late-term abortion have God-given dignity (as described above).
4) Christians have a moral obligation to respect (by word and deed) all who have God-given dignity.
5) Therefore, Christians have a moral obligation to respect (by word and deed) the dignity of the victims of late-term abortion.
6) A Christian would [I read that as “should”–perhaps I’m mistaken] address that injustice, if it were involved in the point at hand.
7) The issue of President Obama’s election, promotion of abortion, mandate of contraceptives and abortifacients for all health providers (regardless of religious belief and/or matters of conscience) is certainly involved in the point at hand. (See the original post, for details.)
8 ) A Christian would not consider a mock-scolding (which often denotes sympathy) of Obama to be any sort of adequate substitute for addressing the pertinent issues at hand (see above).
9) Therefore, a Christian would address the injustice of late-term abortion with the dignity that its victims deserve, rather than using a mock-scolding of Obama.
Now… I could understand your position if:
1) you don’t believe that late-term abortion is an injustice, or:
2) you don’t think Christians have any obligation to address such an injustice, or:
3) you believe that a mock-scolding of Obama is morally equivalent to an address of said injustice (and therefore satisfies your Christian requirements in that regard).
Do you believe any of these three? Or do you see any of the nine points (above) which you consider to be false and/or invalid? Otherwise, claims of seemingly wounded dignity (e.g. your apparent complaint that Truthseeker was doing wrong to you by what you take to be his “definition of a Christian”) seem a bit insubstantial, yes?
If I were to applaud Stalin for his “efficient management of the country”, even after admitting that I was perfectly aware of the atrocities committed by him as he did so, and someone were to question my Christian convictions on that basis (i.e. my seemingly comparative indifference to the slaughter of tens of millions of people, while expressing admiration for Stalin’s “efficiency”–a thing of far lesser importance than the lives of the murdered), would you consider it logical for me to sniff about “the imperiousness of some people who content themselves to judge my Christianity”? That, friend, is known as a “dodge”… and a maudlin one, at that.
Hal, don’t troll, please.
Paladin, you guys are pretending to have a serious discussion about whether our president is “evil,” and you accuse me of trolling? Really? I’m am censoring myself to avoid a permanent ban from Jill, but omg, some of you have gone round the bend.
Hal wrote, in reply to my comment:
Paladin, you guys are pretending to have a serious discussion about whether our president is “evil,” and you accuse me of trolling?
Yes.
Really?
Really. Words mean things, dear fellow. “Evil” is not simply a vile-sounding insult; it is a descriptor of a real-world condition (i.e. a conscious violation of the moral law). “Trolling” is not simply an expression of distaste; it is a description of a real-world condition (i.e. being inflammatory without regard to logic or substance).
I’m am censoring myself to avoid a permanent ban from Jill, but omg, some of you have gone round the bend.
(*wry look*) That’s laudable, I’m sure. But a failure to break into a verbal rage is hardly equivalent to a calm commentary on the substance of the post, yes?
Yes, I understand what you guys mean by “evil.” And I understand being inflammatory without regard to logic or substance. I cannot, however, imagine actually holding beliefs where you can pretend to have a serious discussion about whether or not President Obama is evil. I understand you think he is wrong. I understand you disagree with him. But, you have posters musing about whether he is the Anti-Christ. It is not a subject worthy of serious conversation and I will not “debate” crazy. So, I guess I’m left with trolling. Or, simply leaving you to your echo chamber where you can things like “Is Obama the worst person ever to live or simply one of the ten worst?”
Rasquel,
My goodness don’t blow a gasket. Where did I ever say socipathic traits were a selection criteria for special forces? I said I can see where these traits would be beneficial. I say the same for undercover police work. Is that an insult? Not in the least.
I point to my own father as an example. These people do the dangerous and dirty jobs someone has to do and I’m thankful for them.
Now concerning Sifrit. Check out Amazon and read the entire story. He got involved with Erica as a Seal, and eventually was dishonorbly discharged. He began engaging in criminal activity, escalating to hunting and murdering people. Do I think he developed all this out of the blue? Not for a minute. I believe the traits were inate and the discipline and regimentation of the Seals kept him in line. It also provided an outlet for his aggression and violence. I mean, these guys don’t grow flowers right? They are trained for dangerous military actions, which will likely involve killing people. Now we can debate and disagree on this, fine. Again, certain sociopathic traits aren’t necessarily a bad thing.
Also Rasquel, try not to make assumptions concerning peaceniks. No one respects and honors our military more than I do. No one respects law enforcement more than I do. I understand these people do dangerous and thankless jobs. When I say sociopaths may be drawn to these more dangerous lines of work, its is NOT an insult, so don’t yourself in such a dither.
I had the honor of meeting an air force pararescue. He was obviously a cut above the rest and highly respected. He was also cold as ice. But what would I expect, Mother Teresa? Look at the job this man must do. Was he sociopathic? I have no idea, I only had a brief encounter with him, which was unnerving enough. Would I consider it a possiblity? Yes. Would I hope he was there if someone I loved needed to be rescued? Absolutely.
Oh and then there was my sociopathic cousin who got bounced from the military after a couple of days, which was always a big laugh in our family. Now he was completely nuts.
Hal wrote, in reply to my comment:
Yes, I understand what you guys mean by “evil.”
All right. (I do wonder what *you* mean by “evil”, but… one thing at a time, I suppose.)
And I understand being inflammatory without regard to logic or substance.
(*wry smile*) My dear sir, your attempts to get me to bang my forehead against the keyboard won’t prevail, you know! It’s nearing the holy season of Lent, and I’m quite ready for self-restraint!
To the point: if you understand it, perhaps you’d be so kind as to abstain from it… or else refrain from *objecting* when someone calls you out on “trolling”, in the process?
I cannot, however, imagine actually holding beliefs where you can pretend to have a serious discussion about whether or not President Obama is evil.
Hm. Unless you disbelieve in evil, or unless you disbelieve in Obama, I’m not sure why you’d find it difficult.
I understand you think he is wrong. I understand you disagree with him.
Correct, on both counts.
But, you have posters musing about whether he is the Anti-Christ. It is not a subject worthy of serious conversation and I will not “debate” crazy.
Well… since you don’t believe in God (much less in Christianity, much less in Christian revelation as per the Scriptures), of course you’d think so. But don’t you see that you’ve already assumed your own conclusion, and that your reaction is one of irrational bias? I (or any believer) could easily say similar things about anyone “foolish/crazy enough not to believe in God”… but do you honestly think it’d be polite and/or productive?
So, I guess I’m left with trolling.
I really do think there are more options than that, friend.
Or, simply leaving you to your echo chamber where you can things like “Is Obama the worst person ever to live or simply one of the ten worst?”
:) Er… could that translate into “not commenting on threads whose subject matter would lead you to be rude/inflammatory/contemptuous of substance”? I could live with that, I think.
I shall endeavor to hide my contempt.
Mary & Rasquel:
Having been in the military for nearly 23 years, I have not taken offense to the suggestion that certain personality types fare better in special ops. A senior airmen who used to work for me in Korea received a “Dear John” letter from his wife. He proceeded to get drunk, scale a barracks hallway to tear out a fire detector from the ceiling, get into a fight — outnumbered — with several guys who tried to restrain him, and then bite the MP arresting him. After more MPs beat him with their night sticks, he was carted to the brig where he lay on a concrete floor to sober up. After we served him non-judicial punishment, he wanted to go into special operations. I heartily recommended special ops for him, and the special ops community heartily took him.
While he may or may not have been a sociopath, he was very aggressive and was certainly not sentimental. The only thing that would disfavor BPD/NPD personnel working in special ops is that special ops relies on teamwork, which is generally not a Cluster B trait.
Hal wrote:
I shall endeavor to hide my contempt.
:) That will be much appreciated, I think. (Good heavens, I see your point: restraining a sarcastic/teasing reply to your comment was downright difficult!)
So Paladin…seriously…you are saying that you believe that any Christian, on a message board or otherwise, when confronted with injustice, should display enough moral outrage to satisfy the bar that you and Truth have set (previously Truth, but if you want to jump in, by all means)? That if you were a “good Christian”, anytime you saw a story on CNN about starving kids in Africa, you would jump right into the comments and make sure you meet the threshold, again, defined by you and Truth (not the Bible of course) to meet your threshold of how angry a person should be?
Okay Paladin - CNN’s top story is about the victims of the avalanche. To meet your criteria in regards to being a “good Christian”, how much do I need to cry and share in the suffering of those there?
Can you maybe list out your exact standings of public outrage at these sinful acts that a person needs to show to again, live up to the standards that you and truth have defined? I mean, again, if I want to look at how to be a “good Christian”, making sure that I live up to the standards set by how you judge my words…that is the first thing it appears I need to strive for.
You two absolutely reek right now of that guy who stands outside of churches and tells them what their message from God should be, and what level of participation they should have in that outrage.
Give me a break…if you want to signify new standards for being a Christian, by all means, write them up.
Hi Eric,
Thank you for weighing in. I have to laugh because I have heard so many accounts like yours. I am glad you understand that my opinion was never meant as an insult. I have only tremendous pride and respect for our military…and seal team 6! I believc certain sociopathic traits can serve very well under certain circumstances. My father is a prime example. As rowdy a bunch of troublemakers the 101st was they apparently could channel those traits into a very effective fighting force.
Certainly the military doesn’t actively seek out mentally ill people, But these folks aren’t mentally ill and may very well have no criminal or mental health issue records.
Psychological tests are not foolproof. It sounds like the fellow in your account certainly had some psychological issues but the military saw traits they could exploit to their advantage. Perhaps this was the case of BJ Sifrit, who graduated top of his Seal class. Who can ever know.
You have a point about the teamwork, though some sociopaths, like my father, did very well working as a team. I understand multi killing mafia hitman Sammy(the bull)Gravano loved the regimentation and teamwork of the military, and would like to have gone to Vietnam where you get “medals for killing people.”
When my brother was a police officer there was a rash of cop killings. All the killers wound up dead. My brother asked if I noticed this, and then just smiled. Apparently the police see the value of certain sociopathic traits in some of their officers too that might not otherwise be considered acceptable.
ex says:
I feel that based on McCain’s economic policies, the recession would have gone deeper, leading to more abortions than we have had under Obama.
Please cite me a peer reviewed analysis that does a side by side comparison between Obama’s policy and McCain’s stated policy intentions that supports your contention.
I voted, and probably will again, for Obama because I believe he’s a better economic and foreign policy choice…
Well, ex, what part of “fool me once, shame on you…fool me twice shame on me” does not apply to you? (And presumably many other people—I am not picking on you alone). What do you like best about Obama’s economy (other than your feelings and crystal ball ruminations about how it would have been under McCain)?
Perhaps the following will help you sort through Obama’s wonderful stewardship of our economy. Fortunately a critique of Obamanomics for the three years following the stimulus has already been done. You can choose from among these observations provided here courtesy of Investor’s Business Daily and let us know which delights you the most.
Here’s where various indicators stood in or around February 2009, and where they stand today.
Unemployment rate: The jobless rate is unchanged from February 2009 to January 2012, the latest month for which we have data. Both stood at 8.3%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Obama’s economists had initially predicted that with the stimulus, unemployment would stay below 8%.
Number of long-term unemployed: The number of workers who have been unable to find a job in 27 months or more has shot up 83%, with their ranks now at 5.5 million.
Civilian labor force: It has shrunk by 126,000. In past recoveries, the labor force climbed an average of more than 3 million over comparable time periods.
Labor force participation: The share of adults in the labor force — either looking or working — has dropped 3% — also highly unusual in a recovery. At 63.7%, labor force participation is at a low not seen since the middle of the very deep 1981-82 recession, when fewer women were in the work force. A lower participation rate makes the unemployment rate look better.
Household income: Median annual household income is about 7% below where it was in February 2009, according to the Sentier Research Household Income Index.
National debt: Up $4.5 trillion, or 41%, according to the Treasury Department’s monthly reports. The latest Treasury figures put the national debt at $15.4 trillion, larger than the entire U.S. economy.
Deficits: The deficit for fiscal year 2009 totaled $1.4 trillion. The Obama administration’s proposed deficit for 2012 is $1.3 trillion, which would mark the fourth year of deficits topping $1 trillion.
Gross Domestic Product: Real GDP has climbed just 6% between Q1 2009 and Q4 2011, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Spending by consumers and businesses: Personal consumption has managed to climb 10% in the past three years, according to the BEA, but companies continue to hoard cash, with cash on hand up 27% since Q1 2009, according to the Federal Reserve Bank.
Stimulus price tag: The original estimate for the cost of the stimulus was $787 billion. Now the Congressional Budget Office says that, when all is said and done, it will have cost$825 billion .
Perhaps the best measure of the success or failure of the stimulus, however, is the fact that President Obama in his latest budget plan has called for still another round of stimulus spending, this time totaling $350 billion over the next four years, for what is labeled “short-term measures for jobs growth.”
Hi Eric,
Thinking about it, I wonder if that fellow you describe was an NPD or BPD. These are people who are likely to respond very violently to what they perceive as rejection, often resulting in stalking and killing. I would doubt he was sociopathic as these people probably wouldn’t give a hoot if you did reject them.
Just a thought!
Jerry -
Ha – I mean, seriously, 3 1/2 years later, how could an economist even do that? And one who would, would they be independent and show no bias? You’d be better off asking if we could go on a trek to find a crystal ball.
Sorry that I’m going to reply so briefly to a post that I know you took a while to put together (actually, after doing a quick internet search – doesn’t look like you spent too long to put this together).
1) The American economy is controlled very little by the President and even ourselves. You seem like a smart guy – so you should know that our economy has been controlled by Europe and their debt as much as anything over the last couple of years.
2) Yes – I’ve seen those numbers – but I don’t feel a President owns the economy day one. I think they own it after a few months, but in January of the year they take office, they are clearly living under the policies of the previous administration. You and I both know that the economy fell hard and fast. In January, it was 7.6. In June it was 9.5. There’s not a policy out there that could have stopped that short of making it illegal to layoff people. Heck, going back further, February 2008 was 4.8. 9.5 to 8.3, with the near crash that we had – that isn’t bad. The credit market had essentially frozen from the end of 2008 to the beginning of 2009. Small business loans were down 57%. 57%! Crazy numbers.
3) The part I do like better than what I think we could have ended up with under McCain is the understanding of deficit spending during recessions. If we would have truly tried to match spending to revenue during 2009-2011 (heck, even now), we would have been in for quite a crash. Now, who knows if he would have tried to pass through a balanced budget without raising taxes – I’m speculating on this part – but I think McCain would have run smaller deficits, which would have resulted in slower growth.
My opinions – I can give some backing to number 3 if you’d like it. I can pull numbers post January as well if you’d like…but my guess is that it won’t matter much either, and that is fine. We can agree to disagree.
Last thing – if you copy an article word for word – you should cite it.
Mary: “Where did I ever say socipathic traits were a selection criteria for special forces?”
http://goo.gl/9FC6H
“I would bet my mortgage that the members of the elite Seal Team 6 are sociopaths and were selected for that reason.”
Is that a sufficient citation? :-/
“He got involved with Erica as a Seal, and eventually was dishonorbly discharged.”
So much for the value of that personality trait to the Seals, Mary. :-/
“When I say sociopaths may be drawn to these more dangerous lines of work, its is NOT an insult, so don’t yourself in such a dither.”
Not in the least what I’m arguing. In fact, I was the first one to raise the KNOWN fact that such people are attracted to such work. I addressed this: you’re confusing the attitudes of sociopaths themselves, with whether the military finds such traits valuable for SPECIAL FORCES.
This is naive speculation in the extreme. Being the daughter of a damaged soldier — a trial for which, again, I’m grateful (your sacrifice as an extension of his) does not qualify you to understand this. To the contrary, I suspect it damaged your capacity to judge this very well at all.
And again, I don’t mean to be insulting. My only brief is with your claim that special forces service involves selection criteria biased to favor sociopathy. You’ve provided no evidence at all for that.
Just for fun, please see Act of Valor when it’s released. It’s entirely unclear whether it’ll be a great film, but it’s unprecedented in more respects than that it stars active duty special forces.
And Mary, BTW, recall that God fought Israel’s battles for them. He insisted on taking credit for their victories — which often involved wholesale slaughter of the enemy.
Paul does not dissent in Romans 13.
Reconcile yourself with the entirely Catholic idea of Just War. And try to imagine that everyday people are capable of doing what has to be done.
And pray for peace.
Ex:
Last thing – if you copy an article word for word – you should cite it.
I did cite it, and if you were paying attention you would have seen the attribution. But perhaps the confusion is because when posting the article the font changed to make it look as one piece.
But that is not the issue. Obama’s handling of the economy is the issue and it is disastrous. You may wish to go down with the ship but thankfully the majority of us do not. The IBD piece (using the government’s own statistics) was a devastating account of the past three years, two of which he had complete control of congress and yet this is the best he could do.
Now when the Republicans take over their work will be all the more difficult, but at least, finally, there will be adult supervision and some 40 fewer czars sucking on the public teat.
Ex-RINO,
See my post to your yesterday at 6:33pm for your scriptural reference. I could add something but I will let scripture speak for itself. May God have mercy on your soul.
Ex: “For instance, if a person voted for a politician in hopes that they bomb innocent civilians, I believe that to be sinful. If a person voted for a politician, and a war happened with bombing of innocent civilians, I don’t hold those who voted morally responsible.”
Since it’s now apparent that Obama has amplified Bush’s drone wars beyond what anyone imagined (since as a candidate he impugned Bush’s drone wars), that lack of accountability no longer holds.
Votes for Obama have to be justified on some other grounds, I guess. Wouldn’t want to be pinned down to admitting his lies, right? ;-)
“77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones…” Other polls show similar justification by Democrats of what they decried under Bush — the only difference being that Obama’s doing far more. And he’s the first American president to target and kill an American citizen by drone.
Hopenchange!
I mean, what can ya say? Right? Gotta be loyal.
Even a huge majority of Democrats NOW support Guantanamo Bay being kept open.
LMAO
By the way, I was there several times when I was active duty Navy. It’s a wonderful base. I always enjoyed a Baskin Robbins “Daiquiri Ice” while watching a movie in the open air theater (alas, they changed the formulation for that flavor over the years).
Jerry,
But you do have to give credit where credit is due. Obama’s economic plan to drive up the cost of energy is working.
And with the cost of energy, the cost of everything. There’s not a thing in the economy that doesn’t track with the cost of energy. Nothing.
Rasquel, 11:13PM
I was expressing an opinion, not stating any facts concerning criteria in selecting special forces.
I stated a fact concerning Sifrit. It was in the book. I also specified he was NOT representative of our special forces.
I said certain traits may be valuable to the special forces, citing my father and some of his cohorts in the 101st as an example. BTW, my father’s service in this elite and exceptionally courageous group of men is a source of tremendous pride to me, whatever his failings as a father and husband. A history I make certain my children take equal pride in.
I’m glad we have cleared up this misunderstanding.
BTW, I read a book about the “Tunnel Rats” of Vietnam. Servicemen of exceptional courage who searched VC tunnels. One soldier stood out among even these exceptional men. He thrived on the hunt and kill, couldn’t wait to get into tunnels, in fact he became agitated to get into a tunnel as soon as he “smelled” one. The man thrived on the danger, literally. Do I think he was sociopathic? Yes. Is this an insult? I was in absolute awe of the man, as were many of his cohorts. He was exceptional among the exceptional. You decide if that’s an insult.
Hi Rasquel, 11:26PM
I’m afraid I miss the point of this post.
Truth – i saw the reference – I just didn’t see where it included the level of outrage that a person must display in an outward manner to meet your justification of what a “good Christian” should do.
Jerry
It was a devastating few years, and it would be been equally devastating if Ronald Reagan himself was President. Again, I think you are smart enough to know what was going on in 2008/2009 – heck, we still see daily headlines of Greece/Spain that affect our markets. Right now though, the economy is getting better, as evidenced by the lack of the GOP nominees talking about the economy and focusing on social issues.
Who do you support in the GOP race by the way?
Okay Paladin – CNN’s top story is about the victims of the avalanche. To meet your criteria in regards to being a “good Christian”, how much do I need to cry and share in the suffering of those there?
Another meaningless and irrelevant analogy Ex-RINO. No logic at all. This is as bad as your gun analogy two days ago. I could applaud you liberal mind-bending but the fact that these analogies are the best you can come up with makes it obvious to rational people that you have no legs to stand on. Now, if Obama had sinned by holding fundraisers for people to find ways to kill people in avalanches your analogy would be somewhat relevant but as it stands it is like having a discussion with a three year old.
rasqual – I don’t believe digital album downloads (from iTunes or other places) track with the cost of energy.
Truth – great job picking out one little section of a large post. I’ll make it simple for you.
Do you feel that your job is to judge one’s Christian merits by how loudly the pronounce evil on internet boards?
Truth – great job picking out one little section of a large post.
I could have picked any section but I grow tired of chasing your tail.
Do you feel that your job is to judge one’s Christian merits by how loudly the pronounce evil on internet boards?
I believe you meant to say ‘renounce evil’. And renouncing evil is a part of our Christian baptismal vows.
truth – great answer to a question that wasn’t asked.
Do you feel your job is to judge somebody else’s Christian merits by how loudly they renounce evil on internet boards?
Truth
Ha – after our conversation where you got mad at Europe for not covering every drug possible, while also getting mad at the US and the government being involved in health care…I just don’t think you could pay me to find a better example of trying to chase one’s tail and figure out their answer.
I never supported Europe’s health care system or Obamacare. I was merely pointing out that the US was heading for rationing under Obamacare and Europe was an example of where we are headed. Each administration will bring us another group of unelected bureaucrats ‘appointed’ by the sitting president who will be changing rules and looking to cut costs. And one of the first places they go is end-of-life cancer treatments like they are refusing people in Europe. Wrap you head around it and I am sure you can figure out the analogy.
I don’t feel it is my job, no. I do feel Christians are called to renounce evil everywhere they go.
Ex: “I don’t believe digital album downloads (from iTunes or other places) track with the cost of energy. ”
That very example throws into relief just what it takes to escape the costs of energy in the price of a thing — one has to head into totally Platonic territory, away from matter in motion.
But even those costs rise. Do you see it now? No. Will a rise come earlier on account of rising energy costs? Almost certainly, because any expenses any company has are largely energy-driven.
Ripple.
Truthseeker:
Well, he did succeed in driving up energy prices, I’ll give you that! Even the other day he was saying that rising prices reflect a strengthening economy. Boy, I can’t wait for European prices to hit here!
Ex says:
Jerry
It was a devastating few years, and it would be been equally devastating if Ronald Reagan himself was President. Again, I think you are smart enough to know what was going on in 2008/2009 – heck, we still see daily headlines of Greece/Spain that affect our markets. Right now though, the economy is getting better, as evidenced by the lack of the GOP nominees talking about the economy and focusing on social issues.
Who do you support in the GOP race by the way?
I took the liberty of copying your entire entry because I disagree with everything you said. First, if we could have only been so lucky to have had Reagan and his team for the past three years!! Second, your mention of Greece is exactly spot on, except not in the context you mentioned. Look at Greece very carefully my friend because that is EXACTLY what we are becoming if we don’t get our fiscal house in order—FAST. BYW, Obama’s so called “budget” which as we both know is a campaign document, is a blueprint for becoming just like Greece. Third, you can tie what little improvement we have had in the economy to the 2010 landslide election that convinced the pols not to mess with the Bush tax cuts. There is not a single credible economist that would tell you today that looking back we would have been better off today if we had increased the tax burden 15 months ago.
My favorite candidate in the fall is ABO. In the IL primary I’m going for the knuckle dragger Santorum. But this is an issue for another day.
Which of the Repubs (current field) do you think has the best chance against your guy?
Truth, people are already being denied life-saving medications and care. In the US. Care has been rationed already. Something like 45,000 people a year die or get very ill due to lack of preventative medicine and lack of ability to manage chronic conditions bcause they are underinsured or not insured at all. I know if I ever needed a transplant or chemo I would be SOL since I don’t have the insurance or money to pay for it. I am not saying that Obamacare is going to help, but it is no secret that there are real problems with healthcare in this country.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
So Paladin… seriously… you are saying that you believe that any Christian, on a message board or otherwise, when confronted with injustice, should display enough moral outrage to satisfy the bar that you and Truth have set (previously Truth, but if you want to jump in, by all means)?
(*sigh, face in hands*)
EGV… my dear fellow, if I’ve told you this once, I’ve told it to you a thousand times: with all due respect, you’re really not very good at re-presenting arguments which are offered you; you’ve certainly gone off the beam consistently, when trying to “re-cap” mine… and (perhaps without intending it) you convert an otherwise good attempt into a text-book “straw-man fallacy”!
(To give you credit: I do appreciate the fact that you make the attempt to re-phrase my arguments at ALL [not all people do, which makes things rather more confusing]; at least I know, fairly quickly, when you’ve gotten things a bit muddled.)
No, you’ve not characterised my position correctly… on at least two points:
1) I do not, nor have I ever, stated that it is a “Christian requirement” for any Christian to decry every last evil with a specific sort of vim and vinegar. Heaven knows how many times I’ve bitten my own tongue about numerous such things, on this forum alone! More on that, in a moment.
2) You seem to be under some sort of mistaken impression that the “standards for outrage” (whatever you might mean by that) are set by me, or by Truthseeker, and not by objective morality itself; you seem (perhaps unintentionally) to think that there is no such thing as moral gravity, moral parity, and the like (i.e. all evils are of equal importance, meriting and equal amount of outrage, etc.). That is not only untrue, but silly.
The two key elements you’ve missed, at least in my position (and in Truthseeker’s position, if I understand it correctly), are the ideas of “moral gravity” and “contrast” (sometimes manifested as the Sherlock Holmes idea of “the dog that didn’t bark”).
First: I (and, I think, we) do not expect you to comment on every last evil, regardless of severity… nor do we even require you to comment on it at all (though you’re welcome to do so)! But when you DO comment on, say, Barack Obama, you really shouldn’t be surprised if you attract puzzlement (if not outright consternation) by spending (for example) 80% of your comments on Obama’s economic exploits (usually expressing strong support for them), while spending 20% of your comments on Obama’s “life-issues”, such as abortion, contraception, infanticide, etc. (usually refraining from even the slightest criticism of them, and spending a good deal of verbiage defending them from attack, pointing out the short-comings of others in that regard [a.k.a. the “tu quoque” fallacy], etc.). Surely you can see how this would give readers the impression that you find Obama’s economic policies to be frightfully important (and good and correct), and that you regard his efforts to spread legalised, state-subsidised abortion, contraception, infanticide, etc., as being not only of secondary (or lesser) importance, but good and right (or at least “not worth being upset about it”), as well?
I used this example elsewhere, but: if I spent a great deal of time extolling the efficiency and financial successes of, for example, Adolf Hitler (who really did do a great deal to fix the German economy, by any raw financial standard), while offering nary a mention of the atrocities that were committed by him (or, even worse, if I’d been trying to minimise those atrocities, or trying to point out the atrocities of others, when criticism of Hitler came up in conversation), would it not be reasonable for a reader to conclude that I found his atrocities to be trifling (or even positive goods), especially in comparison with the financial/political end of things?
This is precisely what I’ve seen in you: a strident defense of (and high emphasis on) Obama’s political/economic efforts/intentions(*), and a “devil-may-care” attitude (coupled with a somewhat defensive protection of Obama) about his intentional efforts to normalise, subsidise and universalise legal abortion (including partial-birth and full-birth abortion), contraception, and the like. As such, it’s almost inexplicable that a person of your obvious intelligence could possibly be so blase about the spread of undeniable evil (certainly by any sane Christian standards)… and it’s rather odd that you’d become indignant when people point this out to you.
You have stated, explicitly (in the past), that you do not consider “life-issues” (abortion in particular) to be relevant when casting your vote and making political calculations… on the pretext that “the other side makes no significant progress against abortion, anyway”. This has always struck me as similar to having a very skilled baby-sitter whose only draw-back is her propensity to (when my wife and I return from a night out) point a pistol at us and repeatedly pull the trigger; you (EGV) seem to laugh and say, “She’s done that for weeks, now, and a bullet hasn’t come out of the gun, yet! No need to dismiss/remove her… especially in light of her apparent great skill with the children!”
In summary: you seem to minimise the evil of abortion, and maximise the supposed importance of Obama’s “financial initiatives”, and you seek to defend him at every turn, on virtually every topic. Surely you can see how this could trigger the indignant reaction from Truthseeker, among other things… especially since all sane Christian paradigms place the value of human life far above the value of any “financial programme”?
(*) I also believe that Obama’s economic initiatives range from “ill-advised” to “utterly insane”, and that such could be argued on purely economic grounds… but frankly, I have neither the financial expertise nor the desire to do so, here.
Jerry: First, if we could have only been so lucky to have had Reagan and his team for the past three years!! Second, your mention of Greece is exactly spot on, except not in the context you mentioned. Look at Greece very carefully my friend because that is EXACTLY what we are becoming if we don’t get our fiscal house in order—FAST.
Jerry, Reagan did try to really slow the growth of gov’t and gov’t spending in his first two years, but he totally threw in the towel after that, and during his time in office the debt and the deficits ballooned like crazy.
I do agree about Greece – don’t know really “how much time we have left,” but it’s surprising to me *right now* that the bond market hasn’t figured out that it’s crazy to lend the US money for so many years at the current very-low interest rates. A substantial rise in interest rates and the US economy gets hammered. If anything I’m thinking the market “knows” that deflationary forces are still very strong, despite the deficit, etc.
Ron Paul would very likely make meaningful progress on reducing the size and cost of gov’t. I don’t think anybody else would really do diddly, there.
Doug,
Ron Paul would also need a republican senate in order to substantially reduce the size and cost of government. And we could get rid of Obamacare. We could only hope.
truth – if you agree that it isn’t your job, I’d suggest that you avoid statements like saying what a Christian should or shouldn’t do when it is you yourself that is setting the standard and the bar to achieve.
I’m dropping it now with you. Thanks.
Jerry -
You must have short memory – the unemployment under Reagan got real bad before it started to get better. Nothing changes overnight.
I agree – increasing the tax burden during a recession would have been as stupid as massive spending cuts. Luckily, neither happened (too badly) – which has allowed for growth to get going.
Best chance against Obama? Easily Romney. Santorum won’t win the independent vote – not even close. He’ll energize the GOP base more than Romney, but he’ll lose the middle. Only chance for Santorum against Obama is if the economy tanks again..and at that point, who cares who is in the white house.
Paladin
(breath deeply – sigh and scratch head – wonder how one simply question can take 800 words to answer. go to the bathroom and get some water. back again.)
This doesn’t have to be long and drawn out – very simply, over the last few months, truth has all but damned me to hell – questioned Christian beliefs – and made about 25 dumb assumptions based solely on our interactions on this single board. Jack jumped in within the last 40 or so posts and pointed this out as well. The last straw for me is truth saying that a Christian must do certain things on this board to be a good Christian.
You seem to be advising me to give more care and scrutiny to balance any praise with the proper amount of condemnation. Fair enough – but I think it is pretty lame to see how you scrutinize my posts so deeply while completely glossing over truths carelessness with words and judgements.
I like to try to balance out the massively far right thinking of some on the board. The smart ones (which usually includes you) get me thinking – and I hope to get others thinking as well. My Christian life outside of this board is doing quite fine – I don’t feel the need to put my resume within every post, and I don’t feel the need to be a “me too” poster condemning the same thing over and over. Partial birth abortion is a terrible thing, and I support any legislation to make sure it doesn’t happen to a living baby. I’m simply not going to go as far as those writing how evil somebody is for supporting the legal option when we all know that political votes are much more complex than “do you agree with something or don’t you”. Again, Scalia and Roberts and every other supreme recently sided with Fred Phelps. I don’t believe that they support his message because they allow it.
Let me just end with this. You seem great Paladin. There’s some times I scratch my head in disbelief at things you or others write on this board. But I know that you are a person on the other end, and what I’m exposed to is roughly 1% of your life (tops). I’m not going to make judgements based on that in regards to your walk with Christ. I think it is foolish to, and I don’t think it is Biblical to. Judging how quickly you jumped in, you seem fine with that type of judgment. I’m not. That’s all I’m saying.
Partial birth abortion is a terrible thing, and I support any legislation to make sure it doesn’t happen to a living baby.
Ex-RINO,
Partial birth abortion is not just a terrible thing. It is an evil thing. Even when done to save the life of the mother it would still be an evil thing only with justification. And if the world wanted to ‘set the outrage/judgemental bar’ really, really, really, really low then it would be late term abortion.
Secondly, there is no such thing as partial birth abortion on a dead baby. Abortion is the killing of a baby. Adding that ‘to a living baby’ qualification to the end of your above statement is indicative that you still can’t bring yourself to honest debate about what it is. If you could bring yourself to say “Partial birth abortion is an evil thing, and only a unscrupulous barbarian would fight to keep it legal for people to do.” Then you would be jumping right over that very, very, very low bar. Baby steps. And then we can leave the bar the same height and practice jumping back and forth. One time saying ‘partial birth abortion is an evil thing; and then jumping back while saying ’burning babies alive by injecting their mother’s womb with saline is an evil thing.’ Baby steps. Try it in your head first. And then some day (hopefully soon) you might actually be comfortable enough to post it yourself too.
truth has all but damned me to hell
Not true. I speak the truth to help you see the truth and keep you from possible damnation. I truly believe that without repentence those who commit such barbaric acts will be damned. And I truly believe that without repentence those who would hold fundraisers to support peoples right to that will be damned without repentence. That doesn’t mean I am damning you or that I hope you are damned etc. etc. It actually means I care enough to try and help prevent people from being damned. You probably take such offense because you realize/believe the same thing yourself.
It is our conscience’s that keeps us coming back and reading updates from Jill about current pro-life events. What would expect when you visit a pro-life board? Especially when it was you who brings it up !!!!! Here is your post where you brought Christ into the discussion. It was the tenth post on this blogline and long before I ever posted at all about it:
“I think if somebody wants to truly call somebody evil, they should make their strong case for it, make sure the speck is cleaned out of their own eye, and know that Christ will judge those as strongly as they judge others.”
All I did is REPLY TO YOUR POST and tell you how certain I am that late term abortion is an evil act and even supporting late-term abortion is an evil act. And I used scripture along the way to make my point. I wouldn’t be much of a Christian if I didn’t call you on it. And that is all I did is call you on it. Sometimes it takes something blunt to break through a liberal mind-block.
Truth – Let me hit on your first two posts like this.
What I believe about abortion might not come across strongly enough in my posts…and what you believe to be your condemnation of people might be stronger than you think. I quote Jack from this same conversation:
“How can you justify your belief in that love and forgiveness with basically wanting Ex, Obama, and who knows who else to burn for eternity? How is that forgiving, merciful, or loving in any way, shape or form? Your talk of hell comes across pretty gleeful, I don’t know if you intend it that way, but that’s how it comes across, truthseeker.”
On your last post–you didn’t use scripture much along the way, and you certainly didn’t as you started to swear (BS multiple times) and judge with reasoning outside of the Bible(as noticed by me and Jack). You find it your calling to go and find the specks in others eyes and call them out in your Christian duty, though are there not multiple things in this very thread you could be called out on?
For the 15 billionth time (an intentional exaggeration – I don’t need a lesson on lying, as this is meant to be a big money to prove a point) – “allowing” something does not equal “supporting” something. Now it *might*, but it isn’t an exclusive relationship. Again, I don’t believe the supremes support Phelps because they allowed it. On Obama – I don’t know how much he SUPPORTS partial birth abortion. But there have been many that have stated that there are reasons it should be ALLOWED, though thankfully, massively rare. You might disagree that there are any ALLOWABLE reasons – and that is fine. But I believe some people truly believe that there are reasons to ALLOW it in rare cases, and I don’t believe because of that that they SUPPORT it, and I can’t judge them quickly to hell like you do because of that.
My condemnation is of the perverse act of late-term abortion. And those who participate in it or support those who participate in it or people like you who deem supporting it as being a “perfectly reasonable” position. But nothing about anybody commiting such heinous acts makes me gleeful. I would really prefer that they just stopped doing it.
The supremes allowed hate speech; not commiting acts described in hateful speeech so your analogy is a straw-man. But it is not their judgement that we are speaking of is it? Baby steps Ex-RINO. Remove what is base and drive it out of you. Say
“Partial birth abortion is an evil thing, and only a unscrupulous barbarian would fight to keep it legal for people to do.” Then you would be jumping right over that very, very, very low bar. Baby steps. And then we can leave the bar the same height and practice jumping back and forth. One time saying ‘partial birth abortion is an evil thing; and then jumping back while saying ’burning babies alive by injecting their mother’s womb with saline is an evil thing.’ Baby steps.
Truthseeker: Ron Paul would also need a republican senate in order to substantially reduce the size and cost of government. And we could get rid of Obamacare. We could only hope.
TS, yeah, could be, but the Republicans haven’t done squat in “forever” about making meaningful cuts in the deficit. Do you think they would really vote for the necessary measures – which are already quite draconian, really, for us – when it comes right down to it?
It will be interesting to see how Greece does with some pretty darn strict stuff in place. I wonder how we would do….
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
wonder how one simply question can take 800 words to answer
(??) You really do sound serious, here… and yet, I can’t fathom how you could say anything like this, seriously. Are you really such a reductionist and minimalist that you require all brief questions to be answered with sound-bytes? Small questions, no matter how important or deep, must be answered in roughly the same number of words as the original question contained?
(As a mental experiment: try giving an adequate and unambiguous and clear answer [aside from the undeniably clear and unambiguous answer, “I don’t know”] to the question: “Why do we exist?”, or “Why is there evil in the world?” or “Why are we justified in imposing moral values on people who otherwise want to kill other human beings for their convenience?” Honestly, my dear fellow… you’re talking nonsense, here, and apppealing to the gallery while you do so.)
This doesn’t have to be long and drawn out – very simply, over the last few months, truth has all but damned me to hell – questioned Christian beliefs – and made about 25 dumb assumptions based solely on our interactions on this single board.
And I’ll say again: you have a nigh-unto-notorious penchant for mis-characterising the positions and statements of others… usually erring on the side of drama/hysteria/caricature. If you have a problem with Truthseeker’s posts (and quite frankly, I haven’t read many of them–this thread is quite long, you know, and I often, in the few minutes allowed me, only have time to peruse the last few comments in the thread), you’re welcome to take up the issue with him. If I have an issue with one or more of your points, I’m welcome to take it up with you, yes?
I readily admit that I do–and you may feel free to take this as a compliment, of sorts–have an eye for your posts, sometimes above those of others… partially because I can’t shake the feeling that you might, someday, “get it”, and the prospect of leading you to that epiphany is tantalising. Had I thought of you as nothing more than a thoughtless, unreasonable, spiteful troll, I would not spend even a tiny fraction of my current effort on your comments. I only expend such efforts (and verbiage) on topics, and on people, whom I deem to be worth the effort.
Jack jumped in within the last 40 or so posts and pointed this out as well.
I like and admire Jack a great deal; but since he is not a Christian (and, as a humble fellow, does not pretend to have mastered the standards by which a Christian should be measured), and since you are a Christian, I do think that you’ll need to have more than that to support your case.
The last straw for me is truth saying that a Christian must do certain things on this board to be a good Christian.
Again: while I would likely have chosen different words and style, I seized on the true idea that “Christianity means something objective”, and that it’s not simply a personalised jumble of sentiments and opinions; the very idea (style and manner being a separate issue) that a Christian is called to admonish other erring Christians is not only allowed, but MANDATED by Christ, Himself. No sane person expects the receipt of such a rebuke to be pleasant; but indignation and outrage are not the most useful reactions… especially if you’ve not even analysed whether he’s substantially CORRECT in his comments; you seem to busy being offended to consider that point, friend.
You seem to be advising me to give more care and scrutiny to balance any praise with the proper amount of condemnation.
Not quite. I advise you to re-evaluate Obama (and your strident support for him) and your position on life-issues (which take a political back-seat to financial and political issues), and not to let your captivation with his–forgive me–socialism-tainted ideals to cloud your judgment in matters which are far more important. If an innocent is willfully being torn to shreds, that must take priority (in any sane mind) to any political/financial calculus. There is no sane moral alternative to that fact… and you don’t seem to have grasped it, yet. Hence my frustration.
Fair enough – but I think it is pretty lame to see how you scrutinize my posts so deeply while completely glossing over truths carelessness with words and judgements.
Well… I don’t pretend to understand how all my personal tastes (and impulses to answer particular comments) works, quite; but just as an introductory guess: I don’t see any need to convert him to fervency in the pro-life cause (both in thought, sentiment, and action), since he already HAS it. You do not. Again: hence my fervency in this regard (among other possible factors).
I like to try to balance out the massively far right thinking of some on the board.
And (no offense) I hold the categories of “political left” and “political right” with the utter contempt that they so richly deserve, especially when they presume to try to upstage issues of true morality. Morality is not defined by political machinations or games; and morality is paramount, beyond all doubt. This is why you may find me utterly unsympathetic to your efforts, in this specific regard.
The smart ones (which usually includes you)
:) The feeling is mutual, I’m sure.
get me thinking – and I hope to get others thinking as well.
That is commendable. Perhaps you might entertain the possibility that I’m doing the very same thing… albeit from a different direction?
My Christian life outside of this board is doing quite fine – I don’t feel the need to put my resume within every post, and I don’t feel the need to be a “me too” poster condemning the same thing over and over.
(*sigh*) And if you’d read my latest comment thoroughly (as opposed, perhaps, to limiting yourself to awe and disgust at its length), you’d know that I requested nothing of the sort from you. As for what I *did* request… well… see that comment, and see above.
Partial birth abortion is a terrible thing, and I support any legislation to make sure it doesn’t happen to a living baby.
I’m very happy to hear that.
I’m simply not going to go as far as those writing how evil somebody is for supporting the legal option
(??) Perhaps you don’t notice when you veer from “moral clarity” (which you managed quite nicely in your previous sentence) into “moral fuzz” (cf. your use of the phrase “legal option”… as if the current legality of the practice were relevant in the least).
when we all know that political votes are much more complex than “do you agree with something or don’t you”.
Given that your political sensibilities and your sense of pragmatism often trump pure moral principles for you, I can imagine (at least somewhat, perhaps) how you might think so… but that is not always true. I do not deny that some moral issues can get tangles in a morass of extraneous items; what I do deny is the idea that it MUST be so. Nothing stops you, or me, or anyone, from saying: “This is a minimum standard for anyone who wants my political support: they cannot tolerate the directly-chosen, willful slaughter of unborn children. I don’t care what else they support.” Truthseeker thinks that this is a bare minimum for any Christian; and I agree.
(As for your premise: what, exactly, stops Barack Obama from pushing forward his financial agenda WITHOUT these pro-death items? What stops him from saying to his Democrat colleagues, “Submit that abortion as a separate piece of legislation! If you try to piggy-back it on my financial agenda, I’ll veto the whole mess! Don’t even try!”…? Certainly, it’s wildly unlikely that he’d ever do so… but that shows only his unwillingness to stop such pro-death initiatives; it says nothing in particular about his zeal for finanacial initiatives of whatever sort. Do you see?)
Again, Scalia and Roberts and every other supreme recently sided with Fred Phelps. I don’t believe that they support his message because they allow it.
I agree. But surely you see that judicial rulings (which cannot pe “parsed” easily) are quite different from legislation (which can be sent in single-item bits, even though such an idea is almost never used)?
Let me just end with this. You seem great Paladin. There’s some times I scratch my head in disbelief at things you or others write on this board.
:) I assure you, I echo both sentiments.
But I know that you are a person on the other end, and what I’m exposed to is roughly 1% of your life (tops).
That is so.
I’m not going to make judgements based on that in regards to your walk with Christ.
Well… in one sense, that’s good and sensible… if you mean that you refuse to pronounce on the state of my soul, or on where I would go if I were to die at this instant. But you’d have every right to assume that my words reflect my values (i.e. that I’m not simply lying through my teeth with every word), and you’d have every right to question (or even criticise) both the words and the implied values. We Christians are commanded to refrain from judging (i.e. presuming to say whose soul is in a state of grace) or condemning (presuming that someone is definitely NOT in a state of grace); but we are OBLIGATED to “judge” the ACTIONS of others… their “fruits”. As one commentator put it: “We’re not called to judge persons… but we ARE called to be ‘fruit inspectors’!”
Whoops… the editor “ate” part of one sentence of mine:
“you seem to busy being offended to consider that point, friend.”
…should be:
“you seem to BE TOO busy being offended to consider that point, friend.”
(*sigh*) I also note several smaller errors/typos, etc., due to editing one portion and not modifying verbs, numbers, etc. “Speed kills”, as a friend of mine is fond of saying…
Is Barack Obama evil?
Misguided, yes. Evil? No. And honestly I think characterizing our political opponents and those who do not understand our faith or beliefs and thus acting on ignorance and a lack of knowledge, as evil is taking it a step too far.
One note, on that point: I’ve long suspected that many people are leery of calling someone “evil”, not only because of a fear of being judgmental, but because it sounds “permanent” (as if there would be no escape from the label, that it’s a pronouncement of certain damnation, etc.)… and I don’t see what that needs to be the case.
Certainly, no Christian can refer to any human (created in the Image and Likeness of God) as being utterly, irredeemably evil; but it’s rather an extreme over-reaction to say that “no human can ever be called evil”; one might as well say (and with equal or superior Biblical basis, cf. Luke 18:19, etc.) that no human can ever be called “good”, either! But what would that accomplish, save neutering and hampering the English language by removing two of the most profound words (along with their concepts) from it?
Yes, humans can be evil… and the standards for being evil are not impossible (more’s the pity); but we do believe in repentance (i.e. the possibility that one may stop being evil), yes? Even the most evil person on earth need not STAY in that condition!
Always been a Proverbs 31:6-7 man, myself.
Paladin:
Great post. Thank you for your insightful thoughts re ”ex”.
Doug,
:) I’ll see your Proverbs 31:6-7, and raise you a Proverbs 20:1!
Paladin
The “long winded” statement was in regards to the question you were answering (on behalf of truth) in regards to judging. There was no need to dance around and get into economics, the history of the board, or anything else. The question was simply in regards to how sound it is to say phrases like “if you were a good christian, you’d just do that”.
I took offense to it, and while you quite quickly dismiss Jack for not being a Christian, I think if anybody is going to see the judgmental tendencies of Christians, it is going to be somebody who is NOT a Christian. Those are the people to influence and appear non-judgmental in front of!
On taking offense – truth has not only mandated to be a good Christian that one’s outrage needs to be at a level that he defines, but also needs to be posted where he can see it. It’s laughable. Truth doesn’t know me – heck, he thought I was a woman until a few months back. Something like “I believe strongly that Christians should be outraged in situations like this”…but it is much quicker, when backed in a corner, to say something like “if you were a good Christian…”.
I agree partially with your answer on Phelps – but you also must concede that lawmakers vote on an issue in front of them, and bills are often much more complex than they are on the surface. For instance, you don’t support health care reform, and would vote against it. Would it be fair of me to say you are evil because you’d like people without pre-existing conditions…(you know the rest of the argument). No, I certainly wouldn’t think you are evil because bills are loaded up with other language, traps, and aren’t a simple, straight forward answer 100% of the time.
On your last paragraph – agreed – in this situation, if you read through all the posts, the goal was to quickly label and demonize a position, not understand or converse, and quickly condemn and judge.
Thanks for the thoughts – appreciate the response.
Baby steps…lets practice together.
1) Yes or no; “Partial birth abortion is an evil thing, and only a unscrupulous barbarian would fight to keep it legal for people to do.”
Answer is Yes!
2) Yes or no; “burning babies alive by injecting their mother’s womb with saline is an evil thing.”
Answer is Yes!
imo – The non-judgemental extremisim you practice in the name of Christianity – to the point where you are unable to judge burning babies alive and stabbing them in the head while they are being delivered is not Christian at all. The fact that you are not even able to answer the above question YES in a public forum is imo means you are following a path other than Christ. Christianity is supposed stand up and renounce evil in this world.
I’ll see your Proverbs 31:6-7, and raise you a Proverbs 20:1!
Touche, Paladin. :)
I’ll call you Doug. And I’ll raise you an Isaiah 5:11.
Truthseeker, I don’t know – way back in biblical times, there was no Surgeon General with warnings about smoking and drinking too much. I bet those old boys had some real parties out there in the desert.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
The “long winded” statement was in regards to the question you were answering (on behalf of truth) in regards to judging.
All right. Does this excuse you from considering the SUBSTANCE of what I said, rather than merely taking umbrage at the length, the style, and (perhaps) the perceived “insult value”?
There was no need to dance around and get into economics, the history of the board, or anything else.
(??) My dear fellow: surely you remember that those were PRECISELY the topics germane to your question? Case in point:
1) You minimise and/or ignore Barack Obama’s pro-death record, simply BECAUSE you find his financial initiatives to be so appealing and/or “promising”… and that is the basis (so far as I can tell) for Truthseeker’s comments to you; don’t you find your own core beliefs to be relevant to the conversation? (*sigh*) Honestly, I half-wonder if you wrote this simply to irritate me… since it makes no sense at all, and the only other reasonable explanation would entail some sort of head-trauma on your part, which interfered with your memory and/or concentration!
2) The “history of the board” (whatever that means) is now irrelevant to you? Would this include every last comment of yours except your current one, perhaps? Have some sense!
The question was simply in regards to how sound it is to say phrases like “if you were a good christian, you’d just do that”.
Pardon me, but: could you please offer even ONE quote from Truthseeker where he said that you were required to denounce Obama’s evil acts, and JUST that? I see nothing of the sort; perhaps I missed it; and perhaps your own ire is clouding your ability to see his comments clearly. Your inability to represent the position of your opponents is not showing any signs of improvement, here.
I took offense to it,
You were quite clear on that, at any rate.
and while you quite quickly dismiss Jack for not being a Christian,
That, sir, was as thoughtless and inflammatory a comment as I’ve ever heard from you, in recent memory… and it’s the one thing in your comments which has moved me close to genuine anger at you, rather than simple exasperation. I appreciate the fact that you’re irate with Truthseeker, and perhaps with me… but if you seek to have any credibility with me, you need to stop these puerile “sound-bytes” in which you caricature your opponent’s position almost beyond recognition, while doing incidental damage in the process! If you seriously, after reading my comment carefully (rather than skimming just enough to get angry, and fire off a knee-jerk response), see me as “dismissing Jack” in any way, shape or form, then your reading comprehension skills need some augmentation. I do not appreciate the fact that you blithely try to drive a wedge between Jack and me, simply in order to further a pet point of yours. If you were incapable of seeing my friendship and respect for Jack in the post I wrote, then I really don’t know what I, or anyone else, could possibly tell you.
Just in case the previous paragraph was too verbose and involved for your tastes and/or attention-span, let me summarise:
I was not “dismissing Jack”, in the least. I was dismissing your attempted and illogical use of him as a “prop” for your flawed position.
Is that quite clear, pithy and concise enough to make it through your mental filters without distortion?
I think if anybody is going to see the judgmental tendencies of Christians, it is going to be somebody who is NOT a Christian.
(*heavy sigh*)
Let me try again.
First: you’re fallaciously question-begging, in assuming that “being judgmental” is always bad; such an assumption is nowhere to be found in any sane version of the Christian Gospel; the difference between a supposed “judgmental Christianity” and a supposed “non-judgmental Christianity” is entirely within your imagination.
Second: you’ve essentially said that we should be wary of “being judgmental”, lest non-Christians JUDGE us for being so. Do you not see a self-contradiction in that view? Is it not obvious that no sane person need worry about violating a self-contradictory standard?
Third: is it not patently obvious that a non-Christian will (nay, MUST) evaluate Christians in light of his OWN standards, and not specifically by Christian standards? Certainly, a non-Christian can (to the extent that he or she understands them) critique a Christian’s actions on the basis of apparent inconsistency/hypocrisy, insofar as a Christian does not live up to his own standards… but if the standards for that alleged “hypocrisy” involve “violating the viewer’s own SECULAR standards”, then surely you see how that is not a fair basis for judgment?
Summary: you’re wrong.
Those are the people to influence and appear non-judgmental in front of!
Ah. So the early Christians should not have refused to offer incense to the pagan gods of Rome, after all? It was a remarkably judgmental thing for them to do, after all (to say nothing of their denunciation of infanticide, rape, etc.); who were they to say that the pagan gods were not “good enough”? Not even the Romans expected the Christians to MEAN IT when they offered such incense (very few Romans themselves actually believed in the gods, by most accounts); so what was the problem? Why offer a public insult to the beliefs and wishes of the State?
Do you seriously not see what utter nonsense you’ve written, here? Every last JOT of the Christian moral code is a “judgment” upon any non-Christian who does not believe and/or hold to it! If you seriously believe that the Gospel does not set standards by which moral behaviour is to be judged (and even condemned), then you must have read an entirely different book, rather than the Gospels.
On taking offense – truth has not only mandated to be a good Christian that one’s outrage needs to be at a level that he defines, but also needs to be posted where he can see it. It’s laughable.
And I’m saying that you’re offering a caricature of his position, and that you’re wrong.
For instance, you don’t support health care reform, and would vote against it.
Your penchant for ridiculous generalisations of your opponent’s position is on full display, again; perhaps you might consent to saying that I do not support President Obama’s specific initiative which goes by the (dubious) name of “Health Care Reform”? Surely you see how broad a brush you used, here? I’m trying very hard to believe that you’ve been merely sloppy and careless, here, and that you’re no deliberately trying to mischaracterise your opponents’ positions; I’d appreciate it if you could make that belief easier.
Would it be fair of me to say you are evil because you’d like people without pre-existing conditions…(you know the rest of the argument).
No. But I think you could easily call me an evil man if I specifically supported the direct murder of unborn children by means of that political vehicle… to the extent that I forbade anyone (on pain of criminal conviction) to defy or stop it, and to the extent that I gave my unequivocal support for that murder in every public venue. (Honestly: did you think that people see Barack Obama as “evil” because he wants people INSURED? Does not his utter tyrally-ridden efforts to MANDATE child-murder not strike you even as a POSSIBLE reason for such views, in your mind?)
Correction in the last line: “Does not his utter tyrally-ridden efforts to MANDATE child-murder [not] strike you even as a POSSIBLE reason for such views, in your mind?”
OK Doug. What do you got. I am holding a Jn2:7-10 flush.
It will be interesting to see how Greece does with some pretty darn strict stuff in place. I wonder how we would do….
The unionistas in Wisconsin have gone berzerk about Gov. Walkers budget plan made them contribute 10% of the money into their own retirement fund. The Democrats literally fled the state and the union jacks have invaded our state with horns and drums and intimidation. So my guess is it would get pretty ugly. But doing nothing now is only gonna make it even uglier later when something is actually done. The public employee unions are the biggest force driving us towards our own ‘Greece’.
Paladin
Sorry for the delay in answering, but it has become obvious to me that if I’m going to converse with you, that I can leave nothing assumed, as you’ll either berate me for leaving things unsaid, or berate me even harder from trying to summarize a position, yet failing to cover every single aspect of that position. I have three kids, a job, a mortgage, and other interests – so in general, I prefer quick hitting conversations that allow a certain amount of assumptions. I see that is not possible with you – hence the delay.
In the last post, you explained your long-winded answers – and I quote – “Does this excuse you from considering the SUBSTANCE of what I said, rather than merely taking umbrage at the length, the style, and (perhaps) the perceived “insult value”?” Furthermore, you backed up your belief in why you must go into things like economics and other items I felt that were off topic.
In reply, I’ll state that Truth and I had a long conversation going. At issue, when you stuck your nose in, wasn’t the issue of Obama being evil or not, good or bad, or anything else of that nature. The post you initially replied on (Feb 20 at 1:09 PM) was in reply to my post that had occurred roughly 5 hours before hand, at 7:38. Truth had stated “”A Christian would address the injustice of late-term abortion with the dignity that it’s victims deserve and not by a mock scolding of Obama.” My reply had been that Truth was going to put out qualifications of being a Christian, he should back them up with Biblical references.
In furthering my comment, it is clear that Truth is also using his own judgement – the addressing of the injustice is at a level that the victims deserve – which seems to be set by Truth. Furthermore, the scolding should not a “mock” scolding – so within Truth’s sentence, which I took issue to, there are two things that Truth which, quite frankly ,appear to be of judgment from truth, not from Christ.
So in your last reply (technically not your last reply on this post- you last full reply that wasn’t a correction) you asked for one quote from Truthseeker where he said that I were required to denounce Obama’s evil acts. I believe that quote, which I referenced above, asked for a certain level of scolding that was required to be a Christian, and a certain level of outrage. Do you not agree?
The next issue I’ll address is Jack. Though this was an issue you took massive offense at…”That, sir, was as thoughtless and inflammatory a comment as I’ve ever heard from you, in recent memory… and it’s the one thing in your comments which has moved me close to genuine anger at you, rather than simple exasperation.”, let me state why I believe you to be wrong.
In defense of myself, I had stated that truth was being judgmental, and others had noticed it – and offered Jack and his comments up. In reply, you posted approximately 50 words on the entire subject of Jack’s comments, simply saying – “but since he is not a Christian… and since you are a Christian, I do think that you’ll need to have more than that to support your case.” How could you then yell at me for saying you quickly dismissed Jack? How in the heck is that not a quick dismissal? In fact, if I was looking for a definition of quickly dismissing somebody’s opinion – simply saying “I do think you’ll need to have more than that to support your case” would be exhibit A. You might not have MEANT that – but I would ask that if you’re going to make me explain everything in totality without any assumptions built in, then you can’t honestly reason you can say somebody’s opinion isn’t justified enough because they aren’t a Christian, and then get all upset when called on that.
On the next issue, regarding judgment. I think judgement is quite fine. I think that there are a couple of areas though we need to be careful, and the one area I took issue with was judging based on an individuals standards of what makes a Christian and what doesn’t. You take a much broader view, and I appreciate your teachings in the area – but I’m going back to the original post which is, again, what you jumped in on and commented on – which is “A Christian would address the injustice of late-term abortion with the dignity that it’s victims deserve and not by a mock scolding of Obama'”.
Now, you go on and on (and on) about how judgement is good – and you have no beef with me. I agree. I simply don’t agree with sweeping statements regarding what a Christian should or shouldn’t do without properly backing up. What truth said reminds me of when people say things like “real churches don’t have drums in them”…it is quite fine to express one’s opinion, but to put in that Christians shouldn’t or should do something requires a certain amount of Biblical backing, don’t you think? Do you believe, when Truth went forth with his declaration, that he had proper Biblical backing presented?
Your next issue was the cherry-picking of that statement regarding health care reform. If you look at my paragraph in full, you would see that I am simply saying that voting for something or allowing something, in my opinion, does not mean a person SUPPORTS every byproduct of that vote. In regards to partial birth abortion then, I’m simply saying that I believe that good intentioned folks, at times, have given the support of allowing it in case there’s a rare occurrence that it is necessary to save a life – and while you or I or a number of people might disagree with allowing an abortion in that situation, I don’t believe that it means that the person is in favor of using it often, and in cases that don’t merit it. In the same way, I am arguing that you might be against something in a larger bill (like health care reform), but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying that just because you are against the bill doesn’t mean that you are against everything that is a good result of the bill.
I hope that covers things properly. Again, you seem to have taken issue with me getting mad, but tried to pull it out to the entire few hundred posts of the thread. That is simply not the reality here – as it was clear, and should have been clear to you, that my issue was in somebody setting their own standard of what it is to be a Christian, and used their own bar in measuring that standard.
Ex, Paladin, don’t fight girls, you are both pretty. ;)
Just kidding. I am only chiming in to say that neither of you have offended me and I see both of your points. In Ex’s defense, I may not be a Christian but I know antagonizing when I see it, which seems to be a lot of what Truth’s responses to Ex are, not only on this thread. Why, a couple months ago he accused Ex of not being Christian enough because he dared to say that possibly China’s One Child Policy is not the be-all and end-all of evil in Asia, even while he acknowledged that the One Child Policy was a bad thing! Suffice to say, from the tone and substance of Truth’s posts against Ex, which I have noticed over a period of several months, don’t seem to be geared toward Ex’s benefit as a Christian who needs rebuking, they seem like Truth has a personal problem with Ex and the way that he conducts himself.
And in Paladin’s defense, I don’t feel brushed off or dismissed by him, he is my friend and I know he thinks highly of me. It is true to state that I don’t know the specifics of being a Christian, and that I might misconstrue a valid point that Truth was making seeing as I have a rough idea, but certainly not personal experience or a deep understanding, of how Christians should conduct themselves. I am inclined to think Paladin might be mistaken, because I haven’t seen evidence that Truth cares a whit for Ex’s well-being as a Christian, he just doesn’t like him. But all that’s my personal opinion from observing their interactions over the past few months, I could easily be wrong.
I think you are both great and I like your conversations.
Jack “Switzerland” Borsch
Glad you were still on the thread and reading – and appreciate both your kind words and good insight!
Hope all is well!
OK Doug. What do you got. I am holding a Jn 2:7-10 flush.
I can’t top that, Truthseeker. :) If I could make wine from water, I’d likely be a bit flushed, too. Really am sticking to water, anyway, these days, at least until I get past the next doctor’s appointment. ;)
It will be interesting to see how Greece does with some pretty darn strict stuff in place. I wonder how we would do….
Truthseeker: The unionistas in Wisconsin have gone berzerk about Gov. Walkers budget plan made them contribute 10% of the money into their own retirement fund. The Democrats literally fled the state and the union jacks have invaded our state with horns and drums and intimidation. So my guess is it would get pretty ugly. But doing nothing now is only gonna make it even uglier later when something is actually done. The public employee unions are the biggest force driving us towards our own ‘Greece’.
There are plenty of good reasons to want Walker out that have to do with other stuff, energy policy, making it so the gov’t could sell power plants, etc., to private industry without a bidding process, etc. – clear power grabs and aimed at Walker’s backers who stand to benefit financially.
TS, I don’t know how much influence the public unions have over the deficit and national debt, and those are the real problems. In the end, for all that some of us insist on pointing the finger at “the other side,” there is not the political will nor the will among the populace as a whole to do anything meaningful, in time, IMO.
Jack wrote:
Ex, Paladin, don’t fight girls, you are both pretty. ;)
Okay, even in the midst of a tense discussion, I have to admit: that was the funniest thing I’ve read in months. Touché, Jack! :)
EGV, I’ll reply when I get a few spare moments…
EGV,
Rather than going point-by-point (which seems to weary and anger you, and tax your time beyond what you feel free to give… and no fault to you, for trying to manage the latter), let me try to summarise, at least a bit:
You spend a great many words saying, in essence, “everyone is expecting outrageous and unreasonable things from me, and I don’t deserve it!” You say that Truthseeker is demanding that you live up to a particular standard of visible outrage against abortion, on pain of being thought worthy of damnation. You say that I am demanding such an exacting level of detail, and requiring the explicit mention of such a grossly excessive level of minutae and baseline assumptions, that any disinterested third party in your position would be outraged.
May we examine these claims?
1) If you’d like me to say that Truthseeker’s style of commentary to you was brusque, even (at times) to the point of being rude, I’ll agree; if the same sort of verbiage were directed at me, it’s quite possible that I’d be offended, as well. That, hopefully, addresses the “style” side of things; beyond that, take it up with him. I have nothing new to say on the subject, whatsoever.
2) You also challenge Truthseeker’s alleged particular claims about your “spoken words concerning Barack Obama and the abortion holocaust, etc.” being somehow sub-Christian (and even introducing the possibility that your salvation might be influenced by it). I see at least three problems:
a) You, in assuming that Truthseeker was portraying “the totality of his supposedly unqualified, unequivocal position toward you” in his words (as opposed, say, to summarising and simplifying and highlighting key points, in the heat of the debate), are holding Truthseeker to a standard that you refuse to honour, yourself… as is quite clear from your plaintive complaints about my “need for you to make assumptions explicit”, etc. That, friend, simply won’t do; you must choose one (i.e. allowing the possibility that Truthseeker is summarising for the sake of making a key point, especially in the face of your verbal “squirming”) or the other (demand the same rigourous standards for qualifiers, etc., from yourself as you do from him).
b) You seem painfully oblivious to the lack of PROPORTION between your seeming “support of Barack Obama” and your seeming “criticism of Barack Obama”, as well as your seeming unwillingness to discern moral gradients (i.e. which issues are morally equivalent, and which are not). It really does affect the opinions and perceptions of your listeners/readers when you spend, say, 99% of your time lionising Barack Obama, supporting him, cheering him on, apologising [in the old sense of “explaining and defending”] for his efforts against life, and so on… and when you spend, say, 1% of your time listing a hand-ful of items about Barack Obama and his actions with which you “aren’t completely pleased” (with all such “criticisms” couched in such mild, vague, obfuscatory, ambiguous, sardonic language that even Sherlock Holmes would have difficulty deducing any clear opposition to them).
c) You seem to have a great deal of difficulty separating issues with the STYLE of Truthseeker’s comments (where you would have some basis for complaint) from any issues with the PRINCIPLES behind his comments (where you’re on far shakier ground). Unless you already assume utter moral relativism, there’s no reason to believe that “no other person has any basis for criticising my Christian life”… which certainly seems to be what you’re implying (and which is nonsense, as a general principle).
So: you seem to think it adequate that, in contrast to your near-universal cheer-leading for President Obama, a lackadaisical tip of the hat to the vague idea that Barack Obama’s support of legal permission for infanticide (in cases where the “abortion didn’t quite take”), his iron-clad promotion of legalised abortion (to the extent that he’s pleased to trample conscience rights, and even the 1st Amendment), his lament that he should never have supported the initiative to try to save Terri Schiavo, etc., you opine that such actions are somehow “not quite up to the perfection that one might wish in a president”; and I absolutely and unequivocally say that, if this is truly your view, then your understanding of Christianity is severely damaged. I also say, without any hesitation, that any Christian on earth (and even others who are familiar with Christian principles) have every right to examine the “fruit” of your life (cf. Matthew 7:16-20, etc.), even if he/she finds it to be inadequate. The idea that you feel entitled to cry out, “Yes, I may walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and look like a duck… but I demand that everyone refrain from calling me a duck!” is really rather an odd one.
(Have you heard of the phrase, “damning with faint praise?” Perhaps we might say that you are “praising Obama with faint damns”, even when you can work yourself up to the seemingly Herculean task of mustering a criticism of him?)
Since you seem to prefer skimming and gleaning, let me summarise:
1) Do I believe that your adulation of Obama, coupled with your utter reluctance to criticise him in any unequivocal way (or in any way which would betray anything but nonchalance about Obama’s support for legalised abortion and [at least in cases which protect abortion] infanticide), makes you a “non-Christian”? No. I believe (forgive me) that it makes you a rather foolish Christian (at least insofar as this topic is concerned), and that such a view is also morally deformed and wrong. Christianity is not infinitely malleable, sir, despite your fondest wishes; there does come a point where the definition stretched to the breaking point. Moral relativism is nonsense… and the sooner you realise that, the sooner you will get on rather better.
2) Do I believe that you are guaranteed a place in Hell, due to your views? Absolutely not. I would, however, suggest that you show very little evidence of taking Hell very seriously… or that you think support for abortion is somehow too trivial, unimportant and or tangled in political calculus to consider when thinking of “the four last things” (death, judgment, Heaven, Hell). This is fundamentally unwise.
3) Do I think that you have allowed your fascination with liberal causes to blind you to iron-clad, non-negotiable moral principles (such as the objective moral evil of abortion, the urgency and gravity of abortion, and the proportional responsibility of any Christian not to react to all of the above with a resounding “Meh.”)? Yes, I do.
If it helps at all (and if you haven’t stopped reading by this point): even now, I harbour no ill will against you. Certainly, the fact that you seem to be obtuse (and perhaps willfully so) on non-negotiable matters of utter gravity and moral objectivity (in exchange for being very motivated to pursue matters of far less gravity, involving more negotiable principles of morality which can be left to prudential judgment), exasperates me… and you’re quite capable of making me genuinely angry. None of that translates into hatred or antipathy, and none of it changes the fact that I wish you well. I try my best to attack principles (yes, even pet principles, even if such an attack outrages the owner of that “pet”), and not people, as such.
Perhaps this might serve as a useful “rule of thumb”: whenever anyone who is pro-life looks at a self-proclaimed Christian who supports legalised abortion, or opposes legal protections for the unborn child, or exerts virtually all his energies defending (for whatever reason) those who support legalised abortion, they will (if they are conscious) certainly be inclined to say, “Wait… something’s wrong with this picture!”
Paladin -
Thanks for the reply – just going to hit on a few points, but am going to go to a much more general direction in a hurry.
To sum up your views on this conversation, I think you are quite willing to give Truth the quick benefit of the doubt while not offering me that same benefit. I get it – I’ve been on boards like this before, and I tend to play the role of bad guy – taking the opposing position to refine my thinking and hopefully refine others as well. Heck, I watch more Fox at home than MSNBC…just more challenging to explore the other side’s positions then take a bandwagon approach.
Now, you assume a LOT about me from a few interactions on this board. I most certainly appear to be a massive cheerleader, because I jump in solely when I think people are stretching things way too far on the other end. I’m simply not a “me too” type of poster…heck, by definition, it means somebody has already said it. If I were on a far liberal board, while you wouldn’t think me a conservative, you’d no doubt see me as a moderate. I’m not nearly as far left as you think – nor nearly as big of a fan of Obama as you think. Quite simply, in a board where people think Obama is somewhere between the devil himself and Hitler, I like to try to stand up and say “wait a second – let’s put our thinking caps on here”.
Now – I believe abortion is a sin. I believe it is murder, it is terrible consequence of fallen man, and in my own life, I’ve never participated in (funded, gone to, anything) nor would participate in abortion. I think partial birth abortion is a sin as well. I’m not convinced that contraception leads to abortions – I threw out the question three times to both you and Lrning on another post, and neither of you ever gave your thoughts – though later Gerard pretty much conceded that there’s no proof at this point that contraception leads to abortions ( I posted the following quote from a pro-life board – and he said he was helping research to prove the connection – the quote was: “anyone who believes they know absolutely that OCs cause endometrial changes that result in “chemical abortions” is simply wrong. They don’t.”
While I think Obama is wrong on partial birth abortion, I also don’t equate allowing something legally to automatically supporting it. I used Bachmann as an example and I’ll use her again – just because she would allow torture in rare cases doesn’t mean I think she is pro-torture. I’m sure she would wish it never would be needed, but to slam the door as never being allowable in the most extreme cases is a door that is tough to shut. I don’t know enough about partial birth abortion to know if there’s ever an extreme case where it would be an option that should be allowable. On the surface, yes it is bad – and I certainly want it illegal in common sense situations – my quick answer is that yes, it is bad. But I’m not going to ever call anybody evil for saying that there might be a situation where somebody else’s life might be in danger, and that they should be able to make that call. I’m just not going to do it.
On abortion in general…now, I understand the position fully of wanting to ban abortions and make it a crime. If abortion is murder, then treat it like such. Personally, I struggle with what the solution is that would actually work. I tend to think that overturning RvWade would lead to mass trafficking of women and more money diverted to pushing the line back and forth in states rather than helping create a situation where women truly believe that having a child is better than having an abortion. We can ban abortion – yes – but I think we would still have a massively long way to go as a society if we have lots of women out there that would love to kill their children, but had them simply because they could face punishment (prison, whatever) if they didn’t have the baby. So would a ban work? I suppose – but I’d rather keep working (or start working) as a nation to build up health care, education, and create an environment where abortion was truly a rare thing because women valued the life within them, society valued life throughout, and society had the resources to help women in need. The simple answer – sure, ban abortion. I just have a hard time seeing that we’d be in less of a mess than we are now.
If I were in charge – I’d make abortion illegal – but I’d also pass universal health care and expand education opportunities in the same bill. I think they all go together quite frankly.
Obama is far from a perfect President – but I liked him better than the 2008 version of McCain (I liked the 2000 version of McCain better than the 2008 version of Obama though) and I like the 2012 version of Obama better than the 2012 version of Romney or Santorum (though I like the governing version of Romney – just not the campaigning version of him).
Appreciate the thoughts though – I know I don’t fit in the little box you’d like me to fit in – but you must admit, those on this board are some of the rightest of the right – so it is hard not to have one’s ears perk up from time to time.
One last thought – I sort of missed your last statement…I certainly agree. However, the only person that I see in enough capacity to judge “virtually all their energies” would be my wife. I don’t see anybody on this board nearly enough to judge them in that way. Heck, if I had 10 times the amount of posts to look at, I wouldn’t have enough to pass judgement. A person lives 24 hours a day. At most, any of us spend about 1 or 2% of that on this board. To judge off of that is simply foolish.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
To sum up your views on this conversation, I think you are quite willing to give Truth the quick benefit of the doubt while not offering me that same benefit.
My dear fellow, you’re speaking as if I’d never heard a lick of your prior views… and that simply isn’t true! Truthseeker’s complaints against you (though couched in a style and wording which wouldn’t be mine) harmonised with my own; I, too, have been baffled at your seeming nonchalance and utilitarian dismissal of abortion and its strident advocates.
I get it – I’ve been on boards like this before, and I tend to play the role of bad guy – taking the opposing position to refine my thinking and hopefully refine others as well.
Had you claimed, at any point, merely to be “playing the devil’s advocate”, I assure you that you’d likely have heard nary a peep from me, much less challenges or rebukes! But you have not done so… nor do you claim that, even here. Claiming to “play the role of bad guy” really doesn’t help your case very much, so long as your “bad guy” and your ACTUAL views are in unison! Surely you see this?
Now, you assume a LOT about me from a few interactions on this board. I most certainly appear to be a massive cheerleader, because I jump in solely when I think people are stretching things way too far on the other end.
First: I assumed very LITTLE about your personal/overall life, or even about the totality of your views on “life, the universe, and everything”; I take as granted only what you tell me. I find it bizarre that you admit to presenting (for whatever reason) a sympathetic ear and voice to the pro-abortion and/or liberal side (though that’s practically a distinction without a difference, in the western world), you admit to abstaining almost completely from any verbal support for the pro-life side, and yet you cry “foul” when I denounce your presented position as pernicious and incoherent nonsense! If such reactions are so burdensome to you, then surely you could supply some of the “needed secret information” which I apparently “neglect” when forming my opinion of your views? I see no way that I can evaluate what you do not give… and yet, I see no reason why anyone could not evaluate what you DID give!
If I were on a far liberal board, while you wouldn’t think me a conservative, you’d no doubt see me as a moderate.
Er… you may have forgotten the person to whom you’re speaking, sir: I do not usually judge things in terms of politically “liberal” or “conservative” or “moderate”… and I specifically dismissed that wretched trichotomy, in a recent post.
I’m not nearly as far left as you think – nor nearly as big of a fan of Obama as you think.
But… surely you realize that we can only judge what you offer? If you do not wish to be seen as an apologist for Obama (or for the pro-abortion regime of the land), perhaps you might offer some data to the contrary? Now, if sacrificing your treasured “devil’s advocate-esque mental exercise” is too much of a sacrifice, well and good… but decisions like that do have consequences, dear chap… and you should not effect surprise at those who take the (apparently abortion-tolerant) totality of what you offer, consider the utter absence of data to the contrary, and make a judgment on what they have.
Quite simply, in a board where people think Obama is somewhere between the devil himself and Hitler, I like to try to stand up and say “wait a second – let’s put our thinking caps on here”.
If that were all you did, I (at very least) would not gainsay you… and I would very likely support you with my own efforts, in that regard. But I cannot believe that you think you have limited yourself to that small trifle of a sub-topic (i.e. decrying the demonisation of Obama). You have (unless you were not telling the truth) expressed political SUPPORT for him, despite tireless efforts to educate you on Obama’s pro-death stances (and the gravity of that fact). Surely you remember that?
Now – I believe abortion is a sin. I believe it is murder, it is terrible consequence of fallen man, and in my own life, I’ve never participated in (funded, gone to, anything) nor would participate in abortion. I think partial birth abortion is a sin as well.
All right. (I note that you’ve omitted “live-birth abortion”, here… for which Obama was willing to fight, even to the extent of being the deciding vote against efforts to stop it. Can you explain how that fits into your schema?)
I’m not convinced that contraception leads to abortions – I threw out the question three times to both you and Lrning on another post, and neither of you ever gave your thoughts –
My apologies; I honestly don’t remember that, and I may have lost track of it. I’ll happily do so now.
1) There is significant evidence to suggest (both in empirical studies, and in a simple analysis of the mechanisms by which HBC works) that an anti-implantation (i.e. abortive) effect is plausible with its use. (Since HBC at least partially simulates aspects of pregnancy, and pregnancy usually doesn’t allow for additional implantations during the original baby’s term, is it not plausible that HBC might enact a similar “blocking” effect?)
2) To date, I have seen no compelling reasons for the use of HBC which are commensurate with the gravity of the possible death of a child, during the process; one might as well think that a 180-kph drive to the local McDonald’s is justified, given that one’s skill at driving is good, and given that one is fiercely hungry for a Big Mac, otherwise.
3) As a faithful Catholic, I believe that the use of HBC is objectively immoral in any case, and that there are no possible circumstances in which HBC may licitly be used for its contraceptive effects. (I don’t expect you to be impressed by that, however.)
While I think Obama is wrong on partial birth abortion, I also don’t equate allowing something legally to automatically supporting it.
This is why, as you may have noticed, I often use the phrase “abortion-tolerant” in place of “pro-abortion”: because of the predictable, disingenuous nonsense about “no one being PRO-abortion” (which is hardly true), despite the plain and obvious fact that “pro-abortion” means, at very least, “pro-LEGAL-abortion. As such: it’s utterly undeniable that Obama is tolerant of partial-birth abortion, and that he is utterly resistant to criminalising (or even restricting, in any substantial way) it. Does that clarify? And do you see how this still leaves the fundamental challenge (to your support of Obama, despite his toleration and defense of partial-birth abortion and live-birth abortion) unanswered?
I used Bachmann as an example and I’ll use her again – just because she would allow torture in rare cases doesn’t mean I think she is pro-torture.
No… but you would be justified in saying that she is “torture-tolerant”. Would that help?
I don’t know enough about partial birth abortion to know if there’s ever an extreme case where it would be an option that should be allowable.
All right… but this is rather confusing, given the fact that you (in a previous comment) claimed to believe that ALL abortion is sinful and murderous… or am I misrepresenting you? It’s all well and good to focus on the “hard case”, but: surely this doesn’t mean that you’re softening your opposition to ALL abortions?
On the surface, yes it is bad – and I certainly want it illegal in common sense situations – my quick answer is that yes, it is bad. But I’m not going to ever call anybody evil for saying that there might be a situation where somebody else’s life might be in danger, and that they should be able to make that call. I’m just not going to do it.
Then restrict yourself to the fact that President Obama, while a state senator, was the deciding vote in defeating the Illinois version of the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act”… ostensibly because he valued Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (and the abortion-on-demand which they entailed) so highly that even infanticide was not too great a price to pay for their protection. Start there, dear fellow: do you consider any possible dimension of that scenario excusable, on Obama’s part?
On abortion in general…now, I understand the position fully of wanting to ban abortions and make it a crime. If abortion is murder, then treat it like such. Personally, I struggle with what the solution is that would actually work.
That is a false standard, friend. Moral laws depend on what is right, not on what is predicted to be wildly successful. Anti-murder laws are “not successful” in that sense, nor are anti-rape laws; yes?
So would a ban work? I suppose – but I’d rather keep working (or start working) as a nation to build up health care, education, and create an environment where abortion was truly a rare thing because women valued the life within them, society valued life throughout, and society had the resources to help women in need.
Er… what, exactly, is stopping anyone from doing BOTH? They are not mutually exclusive, you know…
If I were in charge – I’d make abortion illegal – but I’d also pass universal health care and expand education opportunities in the same bill. I think they all go together quite frankly.
In the moral sense (I’ll leave aside the practical/political implications of socialistic efforts, since they are of lesser moral concern), that is true.
Obama is far from a perfect President – but I liked him better than the 2008 version of McCain (I liked the 2000 version of McCain better than the 2008 version of Obama though) and I like the 2012 version of Obama better than the 2012 version of Romney or Santorum (though I like the governing version of Romney – just not the campaigning version of him).
In case you’re curious: I find Obama to be the worst president (morally speaking, above and beyond his seeming incompetence with political, diplomatic and financial matters–again, those are of lesser moral concern, to me) we’ve ever had; I find John McCain to be dubious, I find Mitt Romney to be dubious, and I’m very fond of Rick Santorum (though I admit some rough edges, at least politically).
Appreciate the thoughts though – I know I don’t fit in the little box you’d like me to fit in – but you must admit, those on this board are some of the rightest of the right – so it is hard not to have one’s ears perk up from time to time.
And I appreciate yours, as well. Do remember that I do, and I will, respond to what you DO offer me… and I will be rather unsympathetic to any complaints to the effect of “But you don’t know me! You don’t know that these comments are typical of me!” To which I reply: whose fault is that? If you spend 100% of your visible presence on thsi board walking, talking, quacking and looking like a duck, you will be called a duck, friend. If you don’t like that, well… you can remedy that situation readily, I think. Give us some more balanced and representative data.
A person lives 24 hours a day. At most, any of us spend about 1 or 2% of that on this board. To judge off of that is simply foolish.
Come, now! If I were to spend 100% of my time on this list using foul language, reviling all people within view, and spewing lies, then it’s utterly reasonable for the people who have experienced NOTHING BUT THAT from me to respond to me accordingly (i.e. as a troll, probably). I’d agree that the people who also see the other 99% of your life might be in a better position to react differently; but surely you know that they (so far as I know) are not here? Why hold us to an impossible standard? And why not hold your “1% standard of generous benefit-of-the-doubt” to Truthseeker, for that matter? You know nothing of his “exterior life”, correct?
Paladin –
Just pulling out a few statements, as we’re going around in circles here.
What I meant about giving Truth the benefit of the doubt you don’t offer me is, when Truth’s language is rough around the edges and has gaps in it, you fill them in and smooth out the edges. Heck, when I listed the various types of abortion I was against, you searched out anything I missed and, of course, declared I had omitted it and not forgotten it.
On that – did some research on more neutral sites – and Obama’s on the record saying he would have voted for the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which was different than the bill he voted against. Now, there’s definitely a lot of unknowns and possible deception around the situation – when the wording became the same as the federal wording (which Obama claimed he supported). Also it appears that there was some confusion regarding the intent of the law as Illinois law already required that physicians protect the life of a baby when there is a reasonable chance for survival.
Regardless – if Obama came to me and said, “hey, I think we should strike down all laws and allow doctors to kill born alive babies”, I would tell him I didn’t agree.
On contraception – again – there’s a lot of leaning and hinging on the word “plausible”. Do you agree or disagree with the quote I posted from the Life Training Institute Blog?
On the last couple of paragraphs…I think we are wandering far away now from the judging I was talking about – that being, judging another person’s salvation by this boards interactions, and setting subjective standards in regards to how a good Christian should act. I’ll just throw in a few other truth quotes – just from this thread:
“And I didn;t wish it upon I was forewarning in hopes that your Christian baptism was still alive enough in you to shake you out of your stupor.”
“You disgust me. All you do is with your response is try to win a point on statistics that weren’t even addressed to you but you never address the gruesome reality of what you support with your vote. I am done with you for now cause you are hopeless. Hopefully some other sane people will read what I posted and the story of these children being butchered by the likes of president Obama will spark the love in their hearts and their consciences will no longer let them vote for people who voted to keep this legal. And yes; the fact that he held fundraisers to support this being done to mothers and their babies makes him a butcher. He can either repent or spend an eternity gurgling saline that burns him alive from the inside out and/or getting stabbed with scissors in the base of the neck. You reap just what you sew”
“Ex-RINO, if you had a heart of anything but stone; yours would not stand for this abomination upon all of mankind or the people who support it.” (Paladin – keep in mind that all I was arguing was that allowing does not equal supporting)
“Stand up proudly with your fearless leader shoulder-to-shoulder in the mutilation of millions of more mothers and the dismemberment of the children torn from their mother’s wombs. Hold you head up you weasel.”
“I could add something but I will let scripture speak for itself. May God have mercy on your soul.”
(back to me) – So I just want to make sure I’m clear here – so I should yell louder and give more balance to issues instead of simply apologizing on somebody’s behalf – but it is fine for you to simply apologize on somebody’s behalf (Truth) by saying his wording wouldn’t be the same as yours? It appears a bit that the very think you hate that I do in regards to Obama is the same thing I feel like you’re doing here with Truth.
Barack Obama is NOT evil. He and his administration are trying to create better economic conditions in America which would greatly reduce the number of abortions in Americans by making sure that people have access to contraceptives and that poor pregnant women will get the help they need to provide for their children, born or unborn.
The true evil ones are despicable anti-choice fanatics and hy[pocrites like Judy Brown, who not only wants ot makeabortion illegal but contraceptives also, which would only cause th eabortion rate to SKYROCKET and leave many,many women dead from botched illegal abortions.
Brown in not only evil ,but an idiot. She runs a criminal anti-choice organization, whoich if it got its way, would guarantee catastrophe for America.
She belongs in prison. She is an evil monster and a total hypocrite, like so many others in the evil anti-choice movement, such as the loathsome Joe Scheidler, who also belongs in jail for his crimoinal activities.
Anti-choicers talk about “ending” abortion. Bu tthis will NEVER happen. The only thing they can end is th eLEGALITY of abortion. And they care ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for childrne hwo have been born.