Change You Can Believe In?
June 14th, 2008 at 03:21pm Mark Noonan
Yep, that Obama; just a breath of fresh air in American political life:
Obama: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” (Barack Obama, Remarks At Fundraiser, Philadelphia , PA, 6/14/08)
FLASHBACK: Obama: “I chose to run … because I believed that Americans of every political stripe were hungry for a new kind of politics, a politics that focused not just on how to win but why we should, a politics that focused on those values and ideals that we held in common as Americans…” (Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Des Moines , Iowa , 12/27/07)
One of the more amusing (in a sad way) things about modern politics is the way the left has convinced itself that the left has been the victim of a smear campaign - this is one of the best illustrations of the “big lie” I’ve ever seen. There is, however, an internal logic to this - when the left calls the right racist, sexist and homophobic the left views this as mere statement of self-evident fact, and thus can’t be a smear. On the other hand, as leftists are living saints (in the important things - which don’t include actually helping the poor, but do include recycling), anything which might cast them in a bad light is automatically a smear. Example: Calling the President “BusHitler” is ok, merely asking quesitons about Kerry’s bona-fides is evil; get it?
But the fact remains - it is the left which is nasty, and increasingly so. As I said early on, we can expect the most massive smear campaign in human history to be directed against John McCain - Obama isn’t really talking about bringing a gun to a knife fight, but about bringing a gun to something that isn’t (or shouldn’t) even be a fight but should, instead, be a careful exposition of the contrasting views so that the American people can make an informed decision about what direction they wish the nation to be taken…but, the problem with this is that such an exposition would result in a crushing victory for McCain, so that whole concept is out the window.
Get ready for the political gun battle, boys and girls, because we can’t afford to hold fire.
UPDATE: This is making Team McCain rethink their offer of ten town hall meetings:
Obama Flip-Flop on Gun Control? Or New Politics? Or Both?
Barack Obama appeared at a fundraiser in Philadelphia last night where he delivered the following remark:
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”A couple thoughts from McCain HQ on this. First, Barack Obama has a long track record as a proponent of stringent gun-control regulations–to the point that a questionnaire filled out by his staff, and with the candidate’s handwriting on it, stated that Obama favored a ban on the manufacture, sale, and distribution of handguns. Can we assume that Senator Obama now opposes efforts to ban the possession of handguns?
Second, would Obama be carrying a concealed weapon to this fight? Will he have a permit?
And finally, we’re having second thoughts about our proposed series of town halls.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Kook Left
61 Comments
1. William Teach | June 14th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Mark, just so you are aware, it is no longer Change. In the spirit of Truthiness, it shall henceforth be known as “Changiness!”
2. Kahn | June 14th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I don’t know William. maybe like “buttery” or “choclaty”, it should be ‘changery”.
3. SEW | June 14th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I don’t know Kahn, maybe like Global Warming, it should be fraud. Or chicanery. Chicanery you can believe in. From the Flim Flam Man.
4. Casper | June 14th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Mark,
“But the fact remains - it is the left which is nasty, and increasingly so.”
So what are some of the Threads on BFV in the last month:
Obama Fears McCain
Pinko Money
The “Cocky Igorance” of Barack Obama
Obama Ducking Questions Again
The Kind of Things That Ensure Obama’s Defeat in November
What Liberal Fascism? Part 3
Tom DeLay: Obama Is A Marxist
Obama Denies “Whitey Tape” Rumor… Or Does He?
I don’t deny that the left is going to get nasty. But is hypocritical for you to act like it is only coming from them, when you are just as bad or worse.
5. SEW | June 14th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Casper, is that a multiple guess question? I give, which of your gotcha list is nasty? We all know using his given name Hussein is nasty? Accurately describing his political scorecard as Marxist is nasty? Ducking questions is nasty?
As Mark stated, “Calling the President “BusHitler” is ok, merely asking quesitons about Kerry’s bona-fides is evil; get it?”
6. Casper | June 14th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Sew,
I have never referred to President Bush as BusHitler. However, I don’t see mush difference between that and calling Obama a Marxist. Like I said, both sides do it.
7. LiberalMe | June 14th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Obama speaks of the hyper partisan people, such as Lindsey Graham, that no can ever reason with or find any compromise in the political arena.
These right wing partisan hacks must be treated to the harshest of rebuke and forced from power through all legal means.
Play time is over for the right wing. Payback is a b*tch, players!
8. neocon | June 14th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Lindsay Graham is hyper-partisan?
You do remember the gang of 14, right? Or is Graham the KOS talking point du jour. It’s hard to tell if you guys think, or just regurgitate.
9. The Silver Vixen | June 14th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
You want change you can believe in?
Where is Bush, Cheney and McCain when there’s flooding in Illinois?
Nowhere to be seen.
Where is Obama?
Quincy, Illinois. Filling sandbags.
Change you can believe in.
10. neocon | June 14th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
I want a President that knows how to delegate. But thanks.
11. The Silver Vixen | June 14th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Neocon, Delegating is fine. I’ll give Bush a pass on that, he’s in Europe on a foreign tour - so he should have delegated Cheney to go fill sandbags on his behalf.
But where was McCain?
There is a disaster going on here. Admittedly not on the scale of New Orleans after Katrina, but a disaster nontheless. Obama is there, filling sandbags (and yes, having his picture taken, but at least he IS there).
No sign of any representative from the current administration. No sign of McCain.
This thread is about change to believe in. I want a president that will do what needs to be done, when it needs to be done, and if that includes filling sandbags, then it includes filling sandbags.
But thanks for admitting you don’t want a president who will actually DO anything.
12. Mark Noonan | June 14th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Silver,
If the commander is in the thick of the fight, then there is no commander. This is basic leadership - and while Obama is getting a great photo op, he’s not showing any actual leadership….and, of course, he wouldn’t know about it anyways, as he’s never held an executive position…
13. Mark Noonan | June 14th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Casper,
But Obama’s policy views are heavily influenced by Marxist thought…this is no surprise at all, as Marxism started to capture American liberalism in the 1960’s (and, of course, American liberalism never had too strong a disagreement with Marxism at any time). Nastiness is someone calling me a racist, calling Bush a warmonger, saying that McCain wants to fight for 100 years in Iraq, saying that we’re fighting for oil, saying that we’re fighting for Israel, saying that Bush lied and people died, saying that Bush knew about 9/11 and did nothing to prevent it…Nastiness is most emphatically not asking why Kerry gave slanderous testimony to Congress during the Vietnam war, not asking why Obama sat for 20 years in the church of an anti-American racist, not asking what Obama’s full relationship with Rezko was, not asking how someone with zero executive experience can be considered ready to be President of the United States.
Hard hitting politics is hard hitting politics - but nastiness is some almost an exclusive preserve of the left.
14. janet | June 14th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
As W says goodby to Europe, America says Good Ridence!!!!!
15. SEW | June 14th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Casper, So multiple guess, and calling Bush Hitler is the same as describing Obama’s actual political idealology? If so why are you an Obama supporter but think his political ideaology is nasty?
As Mark stated. “Calling the President “BusHitler” is ok, merely asking quesitons about Kerry’s bona-fides is evil; get it?”
16. SEW | June 14th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Identifying the messiah by his given name Hussein is nasty politics as well? Correct?
17. Kahn | June 14th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Hey! Check this out….
“Conrad Says Countrywide Waived Point on His Mortgage (Update1)
By John Hughes and Nadine Elsibai
June 14 (Bloomberg) — Senator Kent Conrad said he was given preferential treatment on a mortgage from Countrywide Financial Corp. and will write a $10,500 check to charity.
“It appears Countrywide waived one point on my mortgage,” Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said in a statement today in Washington. “Although I did not ask for or know that I was receiving a discount, and even though I was offered a competitive loan from another lender, I do not want to have received preferential treatment.” ”
You know what? Screw the check to charity. Resign. It’s what you’d demand of a Republican.
18. Rana Quijotesca | June 14th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
so… if Obama says that he will go after people who raise bogus charges against him (like that he’s a Muslim), he is just doing “politics as usual”…
You know what Mark… the writers on this site are the only people I’ve heard use “BusHitler.” Perhaps I just don’t hang around people of such low caliber, or perhaps you are drawing us a lovely red herring. However, I have heard some pretty nasty things said about Obama and other Liberals from people on this site (conservative people). I have also heard blatantly racist comments from people on this site (looking at you, Jeremiah). I’m not saying that only Censervatives are nasty (there are some pretty nasty people on KOS, which is why I don’t go over there), but partisans on both sides are just generally disgusting…
Mark-
A few of things… I’ll go in the order you presented them…
-Military leaders (great ones, mind you) have been in the “heat of battle.” MacArthur held a command position at a much-bombarded fortress in World War II (Philippines Campaign) and only moved when Roosevelt made him. Until the 1900’s many commanders (you know, leaders) hung out around the front lines with their troops (the oft romanticized image of the king riding in to battle with his knights). Patton often got yelled at for putting himself in harms way–I could go on and on. Actually, having a commander that doesn’t ever get in to the thick of it often causes resentment among subordinates, who have to do all of the dirty work. On of the virtues instilled in student leadership in highschool JROTC programs was that you should never delegate anything that you wouldn’t be willing to do yourself (I was the S2 for my highschool’s Army JROTC corps–at a rank of Cadet 1st Lieutenant)… I thought that you were a “student of history.” You need to hit the books, son.
-Filling sandbags doesn’t really show leadership, but it does show that you…you know… care about the people who are being evicted by floods… It may not show leadership, but it’s generally a nice thing to do…
-McCain has never served in an executive political position either. He did control a training Squadron in the 1970’s (assumed control in ‘76 I think), but, to my knowledge, he has never lead troops in combat. His other roles in the navy were pilot and liason to the Senate, not roles that require that much leadership. I’m not denegrating his service (and correct me if I’m wrong–with evidence, of course). I just don’t see how his experiences equip him any better for an executive office than Obama (who, as a lawyer, has more experience with laws and the Constitution).
(Ed. Note: Off topic part of comment deleted)
19. Casper | June 14th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Mark,
I get it. Nastiness is only when someone on the left says something someone on the right doesn’t like.
Bull.
Calling someone a Marxist or an empty suit, calling a U.S. Senator or the wife of one a bitch, saying that someone who doesn’t wear a lapel pin is unamerican, calling someone who disagrees with the war unpatriotic are just as nasty as anything someone on the left says. The fact that you can’t see it says a lot about you.
This is your blog and you can be as nasty as you want. I won’t return it, but I will call you on it.
20. SEW | June 14th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Settle down Casper. Hugo Chavez, Ajmadman, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, AQ and Hamas agree with you and Hussein.
21. Casper | June 14th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
SEW,
“Casper, So multiple guess, and calling Bush Hitler is the same as describing Obama’s actual political idealology?”
So that means since Stalin believed in locking up enemies of the state without a trial and Bush believes in locking up terrorists without trials, they share a common idealology. That means it’s ok to call Bush a Stalinist.
Wrong, Bush is no more a Stalinist than Obama is a Marxist.
22. Casper | June 14th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
“Hugo Chavez, Ajmadman, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, AQ and Hamas agree with you and Hussein.”
Wow, you speak for all of them? How did you get that job?
23. SEW | June 14th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Casper, they speak for themselves.
24. Jeremiah | June 15th, 2008 at 12:38 am
I have also heard blatantly racist comments from people on this site (looking at you, Jeremiah).–Rana Quijotesqa.
Me? Racist?
Nah, man, you’re just still mad because I’m against interracial marriage….listen, I can’t help what you don’t like, but the facts will stand bold in the face any petty little political storm that ever come their way.
Obama is a product of interracial marriage. You and the rest, including that jerk that was here a while back trying to cause trouble can’t take the truth for what it is.
Whether Obama doesn’t like to be called what he is remains to be updated, either way, he’s still a mulatto.
You see, I got to thinking about this - If he wants to call himself “black” then what does he think of his mother, does he care about her?
There’s nothing at all inflammatory or offensive about the term ‘mulatto’ because it just describes a person that is of mixed race.
However, I do find it highly strange that people would have attraction to different races of different skin colors, because that’s not how God planned it, God seperated the people when they tried to build a tower to worship instead of him, and each one of each country He have them a different skin color, how He done this is beyond me, the wonders of God are a mystery, but there are some wonderful people out there with the knowledge to figure it out and have given their theories, but either way, God done it, and He done it for a purpose, and I’ll not question Him in that area, because He won’t be mocked in any way shape or form.
I believe Obama was a good kid, but he got in with the wrong crowd when he was sent to college, a bunch of crazy liberal professors messed his mind up. I hate to say that, but it’s unfortunate that that is what happened to him.
Obama’s skin color is of no issue whatsoever to me at this point in time, I have no feelings of prejudice nor bigotry against people of color, there are some wonderful people of color I know, many actually, that are true people of God. I’ve welcomed them into my home and had dinner together and we would dicuss the Bible and world affairs, and then have prayer.
One thing I’d like to mention, I talked to a fellow today, I was out mowing grass, and this old fellow 83 years came driving by and he stopped and was asking for directions….Well, he and I got into a conversation…This old man had tattos all over his arms and I could tell… there was something different about his voice, I said to myself, “Where is this fellow from?” and I just asked him, “Where you from, England?” *chuckles* And he said, “no, actually I’m originally from Massachusetts, was born and raised there, and I said, “Well I though you sounded different” and he said, *chuckles” Yeeah, I was born and bred a Yankee man, so I’ll not lose my accent. Then I asked him from seeing the tattoos, “Were you in the Navy?” and he said, “Yeah, I actually was” and then he went on to say that he worked for the government and all that.
To my recollection, today will be his first day in church in 20 some odd years, I think he said.
Then I told him that America really needs our prayers, and then we started to talk about the election…..He said, “You know, we don’t have a presidential candidate….and then he got to talking about Obama, he said, “If they put that man in the White House, I’ll actually be ashamed to be called an American for the very first time…because if they put that man in office…he will have this country in such a turmoil it will be unimaginable….there will be chaos like you’ve never seen before young man.” And then he said, “”If I was 20 to 40 years younger about your age and they put Obama in the White House…you know what I would do….I’d pack everything up and move to Canada.” and I told him, I said, I wish I could, but I can’t leave my home….and then he said, “You would if it got so bad that you couldn’t find food in the stores.”
And you know what? I believe him, he will change our flag, our entire country we will not know all because America follows behind him like dogs on a leash.
Wake Up!
25. Kahn | June 15th, 2008 at 1:54 am
Rana, but the Democrats vote BASED upon race and gender. Don’t they?
26. Mark Noonan | June 15th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Casper,
You bring out the laundry list, but I’ll demonstrate its fallacy by taking on only one point of it: “calling someone who disagrees with the war unpatriotic”. I suppose there might be the odd person on the right who does that, but they would be so few and far between as makes no matter. You can disagree with the war till the cows come home - what is unpatriotic is doing anything which might cause us to lose the war, or make the war longer and bloodier by convincing the enemy to fight on in hopes of our quitting. The problem with the left is not that they think we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq, but that now that we’re there, they are entirely ok with a crushing American defeat in Iraq. The decision was made - we liberated Iraq; for all patriotic Americans, it immediately became a matter of how to secure victory once the troops went in.
You remind me of those Soviet spokespersons who would appear on American media back in the 70’s and 80’s to denounce “slanders” of the Soviet Union…what they were really denoucing was people telling the truth about the USSR. To you, “nastiness” is telling the truth about the left…
27. Mark Noonan | June 15th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Rana,
MacArthur wasn’t, however, digging trenches on Bataan, neither was Patton actually driving any of the tanks he commanded. A commander has to take the larger view - and even the king in days of yore usually stood back a bit from the front so that he could observe the whole battlefield, and would only move as necessary to head off defeat or take charge of the exploitation of a defeated enemy.
I know Obama cares about those poor people; McCain does, too…but Obama is also getting in the way and costing a great deal of money for his photo op…a Presidential candidate with Secret Service protection doesn’t just stroll into such a highly public setting…a lot of advance work had to be done, and probably a lot of local, State and Federal money was expended to ensure Obama’s safety. He’d have done more good and at less cost if he’d just gone on TV and urged his supporters to kick $10 of this week’s Obama donations over to the Red Cross.
And if Obama had any real world experience, that is just what he would have done, supposing he wanted to do anything personal regarding the floods.
What Obama did was just the sort of empty gesture you on the left are so easily hoodwinked by - as if before his arrival you were going, “that heartless bastard Obama doesn’t care, ’cause he’s not there”…and then he shows up and mental fireworks go off and you get a tingling feeling down your leg, “he cares! Can you believe it? He cares!”, and then you turn your mind towards McCain and go, “well, this just proves that McCain - like all Republicans - just doesn’t give a damn”…
28. kjstrouble | June 15th, 2008 at 3:37 am
Mark, you can give it up, this group of liberal lemmings will never admit that Obama helping to fill sand bags is not a demonstration of leadership. It was just a chance to look good and get a good photo op.
As for calling people names - extremists on both sides have been doing it, it is just that the MSM gives more air time to the libs who go after President Bush.
29. Baton Rouge | June 15th, 2008 at 5:43 am
12. Mark Noonan | June 14th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
“If the commander is in the thick of the fight, then there is no commander.”
George Washington. Tadeusz Kosciuszko. William Tecumseh Sherman. Theodore Roosevelt. George Patton. Lord Mountbatten. Vasily Chuikov. Frank Merrill. Anthony McAuliffe. David Hackworth.
You should read more young man.
30. 1-1-8 | June 15th, 2008 at 5:49 am
17. Kahn | June 14th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
You guys don’t want to wade out too far in this Countrywide thing trust me. Chris Dodd, Kent Conrad and Pelosi’s son are just the first wave of people who got VIP treatment from Countrywide, Wachovia and yes even Bank of America. The list is three to one GOP and their relatives and major conributors. The MSM is going to start dropping pianos from the sky on this on Monday midday. Umbrellas aren’t going to help.
31. bongoman | June 15th, 2008 at 6:11 am
So Jeremiah’s not racist. He’s just opposed to interracial marriage. Hilarious.
32. Pain | June 15th, 2008 at 6:23 am
24. Jeremiah | June 15th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Nah, man, you’re just still mad because I’m against interracial marriage
“Against.” One simple word that places you in opposition. Not against a war that has cost billions and upturned millions. Not agaisnt poverty in your own nation where the disaprity between the rich and the poor is the most stark on all of terror but against a white woman marrying a black man and having children.
This makes you narrowminded and had you stopped there We would have been merely annoyed.
“However, I do find it highly strange that people would have attraction to different races of different skin colors, because that’s not how God planned it, God seperated the people when they tried to build a tower to worship instead of him, and each one of each country He have them a different skin color, how He done this is beyond me, the wonders of God are a mystery, but there are some wonderful people out there with the knowledge to figure it out and have given their theories, but either way, God done it, and He done it for a purpose, and I’ll not question Him in that area, because He won’t be mocked in any way shape or form.”
And that makes you a racist and a mindless heathen. It also makes you a liar Jeremiah because in the story of the tower and the city in the biblical book of Genesis it says nothing about each person being made a differrent color they were forever separated by language confusion.
33. bongoman | June 15th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Yeah, but Jeremiah gets a free pass ’cause he clocks the offensiveness of his utterances in his ‘faith’, as distorted and petty-minded as it is.
34. bongoman | June 15th, 2008 at 6:48 am
clocks = cloaks ^
35. CanadianObserver | June 15th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Jeremiah…..And then he said, ”If I was 20 to 40 years younger about your age and they put Obama in the White House…you know what I would do….I’d pack everything up and move to Canada.”
———————————-
Believe me, Jeremiah, he would hate it here. We have laws to protect individuals from the consequences of bigotry. In addition, even with a conservative government, our fair land would be way too liberal for the fellow. Better he stay home where he and folks like him can hold tight to all the hatred they can muster against their neighbors for not being like them.
36. neocon | June 15th, 2008 at 9:55 am
“We have laws to protect individuals from the consequences of bigotry.” - CO
Please elaborate CO. Does somebody in Canada have the right not to be offended? Is that it? Or are the laws designed more to protect against physical harm?
Because if it’s the latter, we have the same. If the former, than I feel sorry you sensitive little fools.
37. Casper | June 15th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Mark,
To start with what prominent American has ever said he or she wanted us to suffer a crushing defeat?
“You remind me of those Soviet spokespersons who would appear on American media back in the 70’s
and 80’s to denounce “slanders” of the Soviet Union…what they were really denoucing was people telling the truth about the USSR. To you, “nastiness” is telling the truth about the left…”
Actually Mark, that describes you much better than it does me. I have been against name calling from both sides all along. I’ve stated on several occasions that I would vote for McCain over Senator Clinton and I don’t believed I’ve ever defended President Clinton for any of the things he did wrong as president. I also try to back up my positions with the facts.
I have pointed out times when President Bush has done something notable (aid to Africa) and I have been as supportive of the troops as anyone on this blog.
You on the other hand have supported President Bush 99% of the time regardless of what his position has been. The only times you compliment a liberal is if that person agrees with Bush or it makes another liberal look bad. You are ok with calling others names, but get upset if anyone calls you of your fellow conservatives names. If someone points out that a Bush policy has failed, you try to blame it on someone else, or call the person names. To you, “nastiness” is telling the truth about the right.…
Unlike you, I see the good and the bad in both sides. Our country is at its best when everyone works together. It’s at its worst when people with only one viewpoint are in control.
38. FmrMarine | June 15th, 2008 at 11:22 am
casper;
>>>I have never referred to President Bush as BusHitler. However, I don’t see mush difference between that and calling Obama a Marxist.<<
The first ISNT………the second IS.
Very easy to understand!
39. Jeremiah | June 15th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Believe me, Jeremiah, he would hate it here.-CanadianObserver
That’s ok, CO, it couldn’t possibly be as bad is it would be under an Obama administration with all the imprisonment of Christians because we speak the truth, and aside from that he would rob the working man of his dream.
This old man knows a little bit about the world, CO, he’s seen good moons and bad moons, he watched the Japanese torture people, been around the horn, seen the ravages of war…So, I would prefer this old man’s wisdom over the defeatist Marxist rhetoric you spit out any day. He knows what Obama would do to this country…he may sound hateful at times, but he’s not it’s because he understands the seriousness of what is at stake…The United States of America.
We don’t want to see Obama become President, believe me.
40. Jeremiah | June 15th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
*LOL* …. and aside from that …. he wouldn’t be afraid to teach you a lesson.
41. Tractatus | June 15th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Hard hitting politics is hard hitting politics - but nastiness is some almost an exclusive preserve of the left.
You don’t read your own blog, do you? Look at Jeremiah in comment #24. Or how about his expressed desire to execute judges whose decisions he doesn’t like (a common thread all around the wingnut right you’re so fond of–remember all those people advocating the execution of Supreme Court justices with the charming phrase “Rope, tree, judge–some assembly required?”), particularly those that aren’t anti-gay, if not executing the gay people themselves?
How about FmrMarine’s virulent homophobia? His disgust with minorities? I could go on, but you’ll do everything in your power to resist acknowledging the point. We all know your habitual cowardice in this area.
As for your sad deflection in comment #26…you, personally, have called people who disagree with the war “unpatriotic.” Remember your completely asinine “From Dissent to Treason” threads? (Here’s the part where you try to claim they don’t say what they actually say.)
You say: “what is unpatriotic is doing anything which might cause us to lose the war, or make the war longer and bloodier by convincing the enemy to fight on in hopes of our quitting.” But, of course, you define speaking against the war as “doing something that might cause us to lose the war or make the war longer, blah blah blah.” And you simply decide that the left wants “crushing defeat” absent any actual evidence of that but purely on the basis that you want it to be that way so that it fits in with your bizarro world. But you disprove your own rhetoric without even realizing it.
Again, your habitual cowardice when confronted with the truth means you will go out of your way to avoid this, perhaps cooking up some sad little deflection to help you feel better about yourself.
To you, “nastiness” is telling the truth about the left…
And to you, “slander” is telling the truth about the right.
You’d do a lot better if you’d simply be honest, Noonan. It really isn’t that hard, and you wouldn’t have to do all these mental gymnastics to try to justify your massive contradictions.
42. Tractatus | June 15th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Funny: Going to a flooded part of the U.S. is a waste of money and resources and distracts people who have more important tasks to attend to than to walk around with a politician looking for a photo op. But somehow, the same is not said about going to Iraq and grandstanding and lying about the security situation there a la John McCain.
Love that wingnut consistency.
43. Jeremiah | June 15th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
You shan’t be pointing fingers, TractorTires.
You’re a hypocrite….you denigrate people for pointing out the obvious truth.
Oh well, if you wish to elect Obama…then….as CE always said…’God ahead…make my day!’
44. Tractatus | June 15th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
You’re a hypocrite….you denigrate people for pointing out the obvious truth.
The obvious truth, Jerry, is that you don’t appear to know what the word “hypocrite” means, nor what constitutes “obvious truth” (hint: your desire to murder gays and ban interracial marriage are only “obvious truthes” insofar as they indicate your religion-fueled derangement).
45. Jeremiah | June 15th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Obviously, TractorTires, you make excuses to cover your hypocrisy. You can hide from the truth, bud. I do not hate those Judges, nor do I hate homosexuals. All I want in this world is for America to be a decent place to live. Furthermore, I have my understanding of right as derived from God’s Word, and I don’t think He would be happy at all with a society that goes about murdering the innocent and engaging in sexual immorality.
You may find me superstitous, but that’s ok, my friend, the least I could do was try, and try I will to help the world understand how I stand on the moral issues facing our country, for that is the sole purpose God placed me here for, to uplift and Glorify Him in everything…You may not like it, but as long as I have my first amendment right under provision of Almighty God….I will continue to speak from the heart.
46. kmg | June 15th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Jeremiah,
I have a question for you. You believe that the races should not mix because God did not want them to mix. My cousin and his wife are of seperate races. Do you consider their daughter an abomination before God?
47. Jeremiah | June 15th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
You believe that the races should not mix because God did not want them to mix. My cousin and his wife are of seperate races.–kmg.
Yes, that’s right. God commanded the Jews not to marry outside the Jewish Nation.
Do you consider their daughter an abomination before God?
No, of course not. However, the children do have to suffer the consequences of their parents actions, but the same time, that doesn’t hold me responsible, because I have to stand in judgment for my own actions.
I don’t think white people should be laying with black people, or vice versa, or chinese with American, or Mexican with Canadian, and so on around the globe.
I believe God wants people remain within their own race, but whatever they do, they will have to stand in account to God for.
48. Jeremiah | June 15th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I apologize…. I meant to say that doesn’t hold them responsible.
49. kmg | June 15th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
So the daughter is an innocent victim, but the parents have sinned and will stand in judgement before God for their sin. And, according to your beliefs, their daughter can never marry and produce her own offspring because that would perpetuate the mixing of the races.
And how is this not racist?
50. Tractatus | June 15th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I do not hate those Judges, nor do I hate homosexuals.
No, you just want them to be executed. Somehow, that isn’t hatred to you.
Do you still stick up for this guy, Noonan? Do you share his murderous desires? Do you agree with him when he says, “I don’t think white people should be laying with black people, or vice versa, or chinese with American, or Mexican with Canadian, and so on around the globe?” Do you consider this to be good Christian living?
51. Casper | June 15th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Mark,
“To you, “nastiness” is telling the truth about the left…
#47 “I don’t think white people should be laying with black people, or vice versa, or chinese with American, or Mexican with Canadian, and so on around the globe.”
Is that the truth you are talking about?
52. Jeremiah | June 16th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Is that the truth you are talking about?
As far as I’m concerned it is, Casper.
Now, why would anyone want to change that truth into something other than what God intended? My first guess would be Satan, Satan makes us believe things that aren’t true…because Satan is all for pleasure…he doesn’t care about right and wrong, he just wants to destroy peoples’ soul. The problem in the interracial marriage deal is that it then poses a whole litany of problems. One of them being assimilation, and that’s one of the very biggest problems we have here in the United States today, and is the consequence of disobeying God’s orders.
Change it if you want to, but the truth will remain just as it is.
53. Mark Noonan | June 16th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Tract,
I’ve stated it before and I’ll state it again: I believe my brother Jeremiah is wrong in his views on how homosexuals should be treated. On the other hand, there is no vulgarity in the presentation of his views and he tends to keep on topic. This is a forum where we encourage people to bring their views to the table and argue for their cause - what you are trying to do is say that because I don’t censor Jeremiah’s views, that I must in some sense be in agreement with them.
Well, you’re wrong about that.
54. Mark Noonan | June 16th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Casper,
As far as I can see, your quote is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand - to state an opinion, even a very odd one, is not to be nasty…
55. Mark Noonan | June 16th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Jeremiah,
It is off topic, but I feel compelled to address your views on inter-racial marriage. People in my own family are and are about to be engaged in inter-racial marriage and we’ve already got one mixed-race member of our family, highly loved. God made them, male and female and he made them in his image - but the image of God isn’t your phsysical appearance or mine or, indeed, anyone you’ve seen; our image of God is in our soul - on that level, we resemble God and are like unto him (though not, of course, duplicates of him). The outward body of any human being is a trivial affair, and I can’t see any justification in the Bible or in any genuine tradition of Christianity where an inter-racial marriage is something for us to be concerned about.
56. Jeremiah | June 16th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Mark,
I wish I could agree with you, but alas, another issue we part ways again. You do have a persuasive argument though.
Yes, we do share God’s image spiritually, but in that area we must be changed anew, for spiritually we are fallen. We also bear God’s image outwardly or physically in perfect form however God decides we are to appear according to His plan, which is something that is un-changeable, it is permanent.
As far as the issue is spiritually concerned, I believe if we are Christians, then color presents no seperation between us, for we are all one in Christ Jesus.
However, I believe some things God did not intend or approve, and I am of the firm opinion that He wanted us to stay in our own race, in other words, any other way and He would not have created one specific color of people designed for their own particular country…most likely all would be the same.
Some say it was solely for interreligious purposes….I believe that contributed a lot of it, because if we were to marry an Atheist then we would prove ourselves to be insincere in our faith to God, and He wouldn’t want that. He wants people to understand each others heart according to what His plan is…not for this one, or that one, but His. And that’s how we establish unity within the Body of Believers. We shouldn’t use a right to excuse a wrong, and I believe that’s what has happened in this day and age we live in, too many people have come to accept the bad with the good, and giving bad a room to stay in, thus, corrupting the whole house. This applies to all areas, not just marriage, but in all areas like abortion, government, education, healthcare at the state as well as federal level, mostly on the federal level though.
Obama would change all these, and establish his own set of ideologies in total disregard for the truth that our laws were based upon by the Founding Fathers in the Founding documents - Principally, The Declaration of Independence.
You know, Independence Day is coming soon, we should really be thankful, because this may be the last one we ever get to see if Obama gets elected in November.
God bless!
57. Republican Killer | June 16th, 2008 at 2:45 am
you idiots need to look at history! First off House rank and file Republicans are tens of millions of dollars short of meeting fundraising targets. Second Historians belonging to both parties offered a litany of historical comparisons that give little hope to the Republican. Several saw Barack Obama’s prospects as the most promising for a Democrat since Roosevelt trounced Hoover in 1932.
“This should be an overwhelming Democratic victory,” said Allan Lichtman, an American University presidential historian who ran in a Maryland Democratic senatorial primary in 2006. Lichtman, whose forecasting model has correctly predicted the last six presidential popular vote winners, predicts that this year, “Republicans face what have always been insurmountable historical odds.” His system gives McCain a score on par with Jimmy Carter’s in 1980.
Lastly, and this of course is no shocker, but the biggest obstacle in McCain’s path may be running in the same party as the most unpopular president America has had since at least the advent of modern polling!!! No wonder you idiots changed your websites name!!
Sadly only Harry Truman and Nixon both of whom were dogged by unpopular wars abroad and political scandals at home, have been nearly as unpopular in their last year in office, and both men’s parties lost the presidency in the following election.
So much for the Bush Legacy! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
58. CanadianObserver | June 16th, 2008 at 9:49 am
24. Jeremiah | June 15th, 2008 at 12:38 am
47. Jeremiah | June 15th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
——————————-
It is disheartening to learn that after all the battles fought by brave men and women for racial equality in America, there are, still to this day, folks who would dismiss the victories won and gladly return to the shameful and tragic past.
How prevalent is this sickness in American society? Is it widespread or is it just confined to a small segment of the U.S. population?
59. Tractatus | June 16th, 2008 at 11:39 am
On the other hand, there is no vulgarity in the presentation of his views and he tends to keep on topic.
So it’s OK for him to call for murdering gays, so long as he doesn’t use any four-letter words in doing so? And that somehow doesn’t strike you as being “nasty?”
what you are trying to do is say that because I don’t censor Jeremiah’s views, that I must in some sense be in agreement with them.
No, I’m merely pointing out your hypocrisy on this whole issue of “nastiness.” What Jeremiah does is beyond name-calling and well into racism, homophobia, and a desire for murder (aren’t you supposed to be some sort of culture of life guy?), yet the best you can do is offer a meek, “Well, I don’t think that’s quite in the Bible….” and still embrace him as a “brother.” You embrace a racist homophobe with a desire for murder as a brother, yet you denounce “the left” for name-calling. Which do you think is worse, Noonan? Which do you think is nastier? Yet which do you embrace and which do you assert is a terrible wrong?
60. Jeremiah | June 16th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Tractatus,
Mark can denounce and distance himself from me if he likes, that’s not a problem at all…yet I will still consider him my brother, because we agree on one thing…that Christ died for our sins, and that if we accept Him as our personal Lord and Savior that there’s no need to be enemies, because we’re on the same level. Theologically and Ideologically, Mark and I may differ on certain things, most all denominations do, however, even denominations do not seperate God’s people because we don’t define the church as the Roman Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, The Methodist Church, the Presbytyrian Church and so on down the list of many different branches.
How do we define the Church, What is the Church? It is all those who have been born-again through the shed blood of Jesus Christ and have come to know Him as their personal Lord and Savior.
So, there’s no certain denomination that I have to belong to, to be worthy to be called a Christian. There difference is in the heart, not in the sect or building. What seperates us from God is sin…..Atheism, homosexuality, murder, theft, all are sin that seperate us from God’s love. Do you see now?
Now, the reason I feel the way I do is because as I said, I have my understanding of right and wrong according to God’s Word—and the government was created for the sole purpose of GOOD……and that means to prevent EVIL get evil OUT……spur people to good …. homosexuality, this is wrong CHECK, murder this is wrong CHECK, abortion is wrong CHECK….and this is the Law.
I tell you, it really confounds me to no end what is wrong with you people that you can’t understand something so simple……Life we be SOOO much simpler and we would have WAY less problems if you people would just try..Just ONCE to do what is right.
This is why we must speak out, for if we didn’t the country would be an utter disgrace….unfortunately, Christians aren’t speaking out, they’re holding back way to much for way to long and it’s giving the devil his way.
pity.
61. » Change You Can Be&hellip | June 17th, 2008 at 11:21 am
[...] You Can Believe In? Posted in June 14th, 2008 by in Uncategorized Change You Can Believe In? On the other hand, as leftists are living saints (in the important things - which don’t include [...]