Newt Leads In New Poll

As much as I’d like to believe that my endorsement of Newt Gingrich has be so influential that his poll numbers have dramatically improved because of it, the truth of the matter is that more GOP primary voters are seeing what I’m seeing, that Newt Gingrich is the candidate they want to see go head-to-head with Obama.

Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in PPP’s national polling.  He’s at 28% to 25% for Herman Cain and 18% for Mitt Romney.  The rest of the Republican field is increasingly looking like a bunch of also rans: Rick Perry is at 6%, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul at 5%, Jon Huntsman at 3%, and Gary Johnson and Rick Santorum each at 1%.

Compared to a month ago Gingrich is up 13 points, while Cain has dropped by 5 points and Romney has gone down by 4.  Although a fair amount of skepticism remains about the recent allegations against Cain there is no doubt they are taking a toll on his image- his net favorability is down 25 points over the last month from +51 (66/15) to only +26 (57/31). What is perhaps a little more surprising is that Romney’s favorability is at a 6 month low in our polling too with only 48% of voters seeing him favorably to 39% with a negative opinion.

Gingrich’s lead caps an amazing comeback he’s made over the last 5 months.  In June his favorability nationally with Republican voters plummeted all the way to 36/49. Now he’s at 68/23, representing a 58 point improvement in his spread since then. As recently as August Gingrich was mired in single digits at 7%, and even in September he was at just 10%.  He’s climbed 18 points in less than 2 months.

Go Newt!

293 thoughts on “Newt Leads In New Poll

  1. Cluster November 16, 2011 / 6:24 pm

    Pretty hard to argue with someone who says this:

    Your sophistry is embarrassing

    But then proceeds to include this in nearly every post:

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

    You are a legend in your mind barstool, and do me a favor, don’t vote for Newt.

    • neocon1 November 16, 2011 / 7:21 pm

      Activists attack Clinton convoy

      MANILA, Philippines – (UPDATE – 3:55 p.m.) Left-wing youth activists attacked the convoy of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as she left Malacanang Palace following talks with President Benigno Aquino III Wednesday afternoon.

      The activists managed to stop the convoy and briefly turn it back before they were pushed back by policemen and troops of the Presidential Security Group.

      Occupy Manila?
      she must be sooooo proud of her comrads.

      • neocon1 November 16, 2011 / 7:24 pm

        OMG

        GMB………..DONT LOOK!!!

    • bardolf November 17, 2011 / 1:00 am

      Aside from the entertainment value of Newt vs. Obama there is no reason not to stay home if such a matchup were to occur. Still, I’m expecting Romney to be the candidate.

      I might vote for Romney if I thought he’d make a difference.

  2. Mr. TEA November 16, 2011 / 8:40 pm

    OWS Represents Modern Liberalism and the Democratic Party Under Obama.

    A new survey released by Public Policy Polling (PPP), a Democratic firm, shows the following:

    The Occupy Wall Street movement is not wearing well with voters across the country. Only 33 percent now say that they are supportive of its goals, compared to 45 percent who say they oppose them. That represents an 11 point shift in the wrong direction for the movement’s support compared to a month ago when 35 percent of voters said they supported it and 36 percent were opposed. Most notably, independents have gone from supporting Occupy Wall Street’s goals 39/34, to opposing them 34/42.

    As for the Tea Party, 42 percent say they support its goals (45 percent say they oppose). And when asked whether they have a higher opinion of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement, the Tea Party wins out 43-37, representing a flip from last month when Occupy Wall Street won out 40-37 on that question. Again the movement with independents is notable- from preferring Occupy Wall Street 43-34, to siding with the Tea Party 44-40.

    (T) he essential nature of OWS – it’s violence, lawlessness, nihilism, anti-Semitism, and overall filth — is emerging. This is a movement the Democratic Party, starting with the president, has embraced, championed, and supported.

  3. watsonredux November 17, 2011 / 12:08 am

    tiredoflibs wrote, “So Cory now you are bringing state taxes into the mix? Watty did not mention state taxes, federal taxes only. You do know the difference, don’t you?”

    I know you are like the smartest person on this blog, tirdy, but I think maybe you were too busy producing stuff and all to actually read my post. I was not talking about federal taxes only, as you claim. I thought I made that very clear. I even said, “There are a lot of different kinds of taxes. You guys are so obsessed with taxes that I would think you would know that.”

    Look, a lower income family feels the pain of every tax they pay. Do you really think they only feel the pain of certain taxes? Cain’s plan raises taxes on 84 percent of U.S. households, and reduces the income tax burden of households earning over $1 million by 30 percent. Given that the highest earnest have seen their incomes dramatically increase over the past couple of decades, whereas the rest of us have either tread water or lost ground, this doesn’t seem like a sensible policy to me.

    And it’s a losing proposal come election time. If the Republican candidate really runs on a platform like that, the Democrats will make him out to be out of touch with the average American, and rightly so. One thing I’ll give Newt: He’s smarter than to run on something that dumb.

    • tiredoflibbs November 17, 2011 / 7:36 am

      Again watty, obviously you have not read the full Cain plan. YOu just regurgitate the highlights prepared for the lib drones by the lib looters.

      Until you have read it in full, go away. You keep embarrassing yourself.

      Hint: It is not a 30% reduction on the rich. You are trying to convince us that the rich pay at the 39% margin rate? You are also trying to convince us that there are no deductions and loopholes? Another hint: Cain’s plan gets rid of loopholes and deductions and all embedded taxes in the price of all commodities, products and services.

      Again, until you have read the whole plan INTO THE DETAILS, don’t comment on something you know nothing about.

  4. watsonredux November 17, 2011 / 12:25 am

    custer asks, “If you are a tax payer, and have been paying into SS and Medicare your entire life – is that an entitlement?”

    Yes. If the government is legally obligated to send you a regular check, you’re receiving an entitlement. It doesn’t matter whether you “paid in” or not. There is no “fund”–it’s all taxes. So an entitlement is an entitlement. My dad gets a monthly check from the city he used to work for. Entitlement.

    You guys are very good at separating entitlements into what you think of as the good ones and the bad ones. You know, cluster, people pay unemployment insurance taxes, too. But you all frequently complain about people receiving unemployment benefits because they became… unemployed!

    You guys–and Mark loved to do this–even complain about disabled people receiving disability benefits, even though they paid into that as well. Yeah, let’s come down on people in wheelchairs. Sheesh. And worse, your compartmentalization allows you to ignore the biggest entitlements and federal expenditures by far–Social Security and Medicare–so that you can rip on everyone else.

    Basically, it boils down to the fact that many conservatives (maybe not you) want to preserve the entitlements they depend on, but are happy to take away entitlements from everyone else.

    • tiredoflibbs November 17, 2011 / 7:17 am

      “It doesn’t matter whether you “paid in” or not. There is no “fund”–it’s all taxes.”

      So, when the liberal looters get up there and speak about protecting the “Social Security Trust Fund” when there is a non-liberal proposal on the floor for reform…… THEY ARE LYING (not the first time? When the pResident speaks about the trust fund …. HE IS LYING (not the first time)? When Algore spoke of a “lock-box” HE IS LYING (not the firs time)?

      So, present tax payments are paying past contributors?

      Isn’t that a Ponzi scheme? Didn’t Maddoff go to jail for such a scheme? But the federal government does it every day?

      So what do you have against people receiving checks from a system that they have contributed all their lives? While defending payments to those who have hardly or NEVER contributed? – PEOPLE WITH ACTUAL DISABILITIES (and not the free-loaders in the system) excluded of course.

      • neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 9:03 am

        OT

        Our 24 week old grand son was born prematurely last night and passed away 15 minutes later.
        Mother is (physically) ok and we all are mourning our loss.

      • neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 10:09 am

        cal

        thanks

      • Cluster November 17, 2011 / 11:01 am

        Neocon, I am so sorry to hear that. My prayers are with you and your family

      • watsonredux November 17, 2011 / 11:15 am

        I don’t believe we should throw sick and old people onto the street, forced to beg and hold bake sales to raise money. I also believe in paying taxes to help support our system.

        I do have a beef with people like you who argue out of both sides of their mouth. I do have a beef with people who want the benefits but don’t want to pay for them. I do have a beef with people who are essentially hypocrites. I mean, listen to you. On the one hand its the “liberal looters” out there robbing you of your money, and on the other hand you make it obvious that you are either receiving a check from the system, or expect to.

      • Count d'Haricots November 17, 2011 / 11:39 am

        neo,

        So sorry to hear of your loss. Our prayers are with you and your family.

      • bardolf November 17, 2011 / 12:13 pm

        Neocon

        I’m so sorry to hear about the loss of your grandson. I will be praying for you and your family in this difficult time.

      • RetiredSpook November 17, 2011 / 12:40 pm

        Neo,

        Sorry for your loss, my friend.

      • tiredoflibbs November 17, 2011 / 1:34 pm

        sorry to hear that neo.

        Your family is in our prayers.

    • RetiredSpook November 17, 2011 / 11:58 am

      But you all frequently complain about people receiving unemployment benefits because they became… unemployed!

      I think what grates at us is not that people get unemployment benefits when they become unemployed, but that the length of time keeps increasing, from 13 weeks to 26 weeks to 52 weeks, to 99 weeks. Should there even be a maximum time limit for unemployment benefits? I mean, after all, if unemployment benefits generate $1.60 in economic activity for each dollar paid out, why don’t we all just stop working and get unemployment benefits?

      • tiredoflibbs November 17, 2011 / 1:39 pm

        What is amazing is that in a plan that was hyped to fix the economy, they included a means to pay people longer on unemployment.

        So the whole while they were “debating” (never just rammed it through) and hyping that the plan will create 3-4 million jobs (later to say that they “saved” 3-4 million) they would include an option for failure – or just was it political spending?

    • Wallace November 17, 2011 / 12:09 pm
    • Wallace November 17, 2011 / 1:43 pm
    • Wallace November 17, 2011 / 6:17 pm
    • Wallace November 17, 2011 / 7:06 pm
    • Wallace November 17, 2011 / 9:24 pm
    • Wallace November 18, 2011 / 1:51 pm
  5. neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 9:15 am

    NO SPENDING problems here….riiiiight Pee Wee ?

    STUDY: Middle-class areas shrinking…

    Banks in USA Facing ‘Serious Risk’ on Contagion From Europe…

    USA DEBT JUMPS TO $15 TRILLION…

    Fed Now Largest Holder, Surpassing China…

    Challenge to dollar’s dominance ‘within decade’…

    OIL STARTS NEW SPIKE….

    $102… Spain debt costs to hit new high as crisis deepens…

    Hungary sparks fears…

    • neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 9:39 am

      Maxine Waters on Deaths and Crimes at Occupy Protests: ‘That’s Life

      Psssssssttttt mad max

      so is slavery and lynchings, get over it your self.

      • neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 12:23 pm

        Thanks all for your thoughts and prayers.

        Heck I even made the “BIG” time, a mention at the fork LOL

  6. neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 12:25 pm

    walleye and watstooge

    see
    neocon1 November 17, 2011 at 9:15 am #

    It is about SPENDING STUPID, and 53% paying LESS than 3% of all tax.
    looters, takers and OPM
    the communist – donk way.

    • neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 12:27 pm

      OH

      and $$$$$200 BILLION of OPM spent on ILLEGAL alien lawbreakersannually.

      • neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 12:37 pm

        Awwwwww
        just when we thought BOWING to foreign dignitaries was beneath him…….

        paging larry sinclair….

      • neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 1:06 pm

        LOL

        95 Arrested After Trying to ‘Occupy’ a San Fran Bank: ‘Give Us Back What You Stole!’

        “One man was seen urinating in a corner.”

        STOLE????????
        from WHO????
        those on welfare? the unemployed? students? the 46% non tax payers? the looters and takers?
        welfare queens? anarchists? commies? illegal aliens? union thugs?

    • tiredoflibbs November 17, 2011 / 1:32 pm

      neo, it is a too simple concept for these mindless drones to understand.

      • neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 1:36 pm

        tired
        sad but true, history repeats it’s self.

      • neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 5:06 pm

        Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He’s Against “Private” Property, Not “Personal” Property

        He wants to keep his iPad 2, naturally, and not share it with the shiftless vagrants fighting over access to one of the three Porta-Potties recently delivered to the now-evacuated camp site in lower Manhattan.

        HUH??

    • Count d'Haricots November 17, 2011 / 6:13 pm

      I believe the Party Faithful are just so desperate for a “fighter” that they believe Newt’s battle with the Press (and debate moderators) means he’ll fight for conservative (fiscal and social) issues against the great unwashed horde.

      Once they realize it’s not Newt they’ll move on.

      I would love to see Newt debate Obama, but unless Obama decides to take on all comers it ain’t happening.

      • neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 6:41 pm

        I still like Rick Santorim

        newt makes a great debater and teacher POTUS?

        nah!

      • Count d'Haricots November 17, 2011 / 6:50 pm

        I like Rick as well, and George Allen (but he’s not running). I’m just disappointed that Rick has become a bit unhinged as he’s desperate to get air time at the debates. Maybe not unhinged; maybe just a little too argumentative and less focused than when he started out.

        Santorum still has a number of cycles left in him to run. In a few years he might just be a leading candidate, just not right now I believe.

      • neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 7:01 pm

        count

        yeah, im beginning to think a mcLame redux with mitt. UGH!!

      • Count d'Haricots November 17, 2011 / 7:19 pm

        Neo,

        I resigned myself to accepting Mitt 4 years ago because of his ability to behave like a fiscal conservative. I’ve done a lot of face-palm time since then; Romney-Care, Cap’n Tax / Global Warming, etc etc etc.

        Still, he’s a far superior choice to Obama and eminently more qualified to move the government right-ward from the current position on the cusp of an abyss.

        Will I be happy? Course not.

        Are there better candidates? Yep.

        Can any of them govern much less win? Doubt it.

        Can I enthusiastically support Romney? Meh.

      • neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 7:41 pm

        count

        I hate that the leftist Pravda’s of this country get to select our candidates for us by destroying all the opposition.
        I cant wait for the total collapse and implosion of the dinosaur MSM and their minions.

        once again hold nose and vote ANYBODY but Obummer or hitlery.
        sad sad time in America.

      • Count d'Haricots November 17, 2011 / 8:06 pm

        neo,

        The last time I voted for someone enthusiastically was 1984.

        Every election before and since Reagan has had a modicum of nose holding involved.

  7. dbschmidt November 17, 2011 / 6:34 pm

    It is an age-old story but broken down to the five major points reveals that America has lost understanding of the the first four points and is quickly falling to the fifth which will spell demise for the America I know or knew.

    1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

    2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

    3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

    4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

    5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

    • neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 6:42 pm

      Bingo

    • neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 6:59 pm

      db

      the govt has NO money, only the ability to tax and print paper.

    • RetiredSpook November 17, 2011 / 7:01 pm

      DB,

      You’d think nearly everyone could understand those simple principles, but the “this time it will be different” meme always gets in the way for some.

      • neocon1 November 17, 2011 / 7:05 pm

        Spook
        for the dumbed down,useful idiots yes
        to the other LOSERS it is the promise of POWER.

        think Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea….heck every commie initiated revolution.
        Ask their psychopathic murdering hero che how well that worked out for him.

  8. dennis November 18, 2011 / 12:54 am

    Dbschmidt, you present a straw man argument by saying “You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.”

    I don’t think any serious person, liberal or conservative, believes this. The time-honored means of attaining prosperity is hard work and creativity.

    However when the system becomes corrupted to the point where hard work or creativity are no longer adequate even for maintaining basic living standards for millions, while the very wealthiest continue accruing great wealth, largely from the earnings of the poorer classes, neither by hard work nor creativity but through exploitative policies permitted by unregulated markets, monopolies, unfair trade practices and the like, the government can and should play a corrective role.

    “What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.” and “When people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them…”

    More straw arguments. Welfare is not so that the poor may become rich or sit on their asses, it is so they may survive with dignity. Most poor people really would rather be working to make their own way. And here you should take up your complaint with Yahweh, who established the legal mandate of the wealthy setting aside a portion of their earnings to help the poor survive – see Deuteronomy 24:19-22 and other passages. This is a principle replete throughout the Bible, both Testaments. And it hardly destroys the prosperity of the wealthy.

    Too bad Mark isn’t here, who so reveled in our “Judeo-Christian tradition,” for the nation of Israel was commanded by God to judge and plead the cause of the poor, and to defend the rights of the needy. Furthermore Israel’s national failure to do this was the reason for some of the worst judgments against them, including the destruction of Sodom by fire (see Ezekiel 16:49, 50).

    Consequently all the religious folks who populate the Republican and Tea parties who decry the taxation of wealth to help the poor and to keep our infrastructure intact haven’t a moral leg to stand on. They quickly default to arguments by the godless misanthropist Ayn Rand and similar kinds of logic to condemn government largesse and social programs that make an attempt to plead the cause of the poor and defend the rights of the needy.

    It highly relevant that part of what brought America out of the Great Depression was government spending – much of it deficit spending – to fund the CCC, arts projects and building the great infrastructure of America that today is crumbling and needs renewal. But those Conservatives will be damned if they’ll support Obama’s efforts to help the nation get moving again. Problem is, if the Bible still speaks the truth they may ultimately be damned in a much more literal sense for their failure to do this.

    • neocon1 November 18, 2011 / 8:23 am

      dennistooge

      bull crap…..the TAX the rich mantra and screeching from the left while 47% pay NO taxes and suck up TRILLIONS of OPM.

      • Wallace November 18, 2011 / 1:46 pm
    • neocon1 November 18, 2011 / 8:25 am

      dennistooge

      Consequently all the religious folks who populate the Republican and Tea parties who decry the taxation of wealth to help the poor and to keep our infrastructure intact haven’t a moral leg to stand on.

      you are either a Fn LIAR or far far stupider than even I give you credit for.

      • RetiredSpook November 18, 2011 / 8:46 am

        Neo,

        I don’t think Dennis is a liar or stupid. He just has a completely different take on things compared to you and I, an incorrect take, I might add.

      • RetiredSpook November 18, 2011 / 8:58 am

        Here’s another good article. The chart says it all.

        I would submit that, contrary to Dennis’ argument, Progressives who have destroyed prosperity under the guise of helping the poor are the ones who don’t have a moral leg to stand on. But this is something on which we’ll NEVER agree. Our brains are simply wired differently. There will be a judgement some day. Some will be vindicated and some excoriated.

      • neocon1 November 18, 2011 / 9:16 am

        Spook

        I was standing on his accusation,……..

        “decry the taxation of wealth to help the poor and to keep our infrastructure intact”

        It could be wiring, indoctrination, stupidity, or a bit of all of the aforementioned.
        I have NEVER heard a conservative or TEA, EVER call for NO taxes, taxes not to be used for education, infa structure, or as a safety net for those in real need.

        To hurl that type of accusation and add “religious folks” to the mix IMHO is either a lie, or sheer stupidity.

        IF it is wiring he must have attended the school of commie leftist wiring run by bill Klintoon, bwany fwank, and je$$e jackass. LOL

      • neocon1 November 18, 2011 / 9:21 am

        Spook

        I know this will be met with howls from the left, but the “WAR on poverty” rose out of the civil rights movement and was the beginning of the democrat plantation in order to suppress blacks and win donk votes for sustained power.

        If left intact it will destroy this country as it has the black family and community.

      • neocon1 November 18, 2011 / 9:42 am

        spook

        YUP
        from the last paragraph

        “The social safety nets we have created to eliminate Third World-like poverty are good for America. What we are debating today is not how to keep the poor fed, clothed, and housed, but how to bring the poor into the middle-class. We all want that to happen, and history is telling us that government policies that promote economic growth will help and wealth redistributive policies won’t. “Class warfare” may be good politics, but it won’t lift Americans out of poverty.

        I have NEVER worked for a poor man.
        I have NEVER been employed by a poor man.
        I have NEVER been paid by a poor man.

        BUT I have worked, employed, and paid one.

      • Amazona November 18, 2011 / 10:41 am

        dennis, you appear to resent those who make money from the labor of others. What you say is …very wealthiest continue accruing great wealth, largely from the earnings of the poorer classes, neither by hard work nor creativity but through exploitative policies permitted by unregulated markets, monopolies, unfair trade practices and the like..

        First, of course, no one makes money, much less “great wealth” from “the EARNINGS of the poorer classes”. There are some whose wealth comes from the sales of products or services, which are made or provided by people of “…the poorer classes..” These, by the way, are called JOBS.

        So let’s turn that Leftist whine upside down, and admit that those “very wealthiest” provide JOBS for those “poorer classes”—jobs they would not otherwise have, and jobs which provide wages or salaries for those “poorer classes” to use to buy housing, food, and so on.

        What seems to chap your donkey is that those “very wealthiest” receive, in return for the money they pay these “poorer classes” by giving them JOBS, some profit from the sale of the goods or services these JOBS produce.

        Then you hit the Little Red Book type of rhetoric with your ….exploitative policies permitted by unregulated markets, monopolies, unfair trade practices and the like..

        Oh, really? Such as………..

        Name an unregulated market, and then explain how it “exploits” those “poorer classes”.

        Name a monopoly and then explain how it “exploits” those “poorer classes”.

        Name unfair trade practices and then explain how they “exploit” those “poorer classes”.

        You sound like your antagonism is directed toward private property and capitalism, which you try to hide in the guise of concern for “the poorer classes”.

        The problem with the Leftist rhetoric we hear from such as you is that there are just too many examples which put the lie to your whines and complaints. Too many black people, for example, DO succeed, on merit and effort and not on condescending paternalistic handouts. Too many low-income people DO live comfortable, albeit frugal, lives, on less money than people like you want to give them from OPM. Too many people DO lift themselves up from backgrounds of poverty by being industrious and wise.

    • Amazona November 18, 2011 / 10:28 am

      dennis, do you truly believe that what one person has is taken from you? Do you truly believe that if X had less money, you would have more?

      Do you truly believe that …hard work or creativity are no longer adequate even for maintaining basic living standards for millions… ? (OK, I’ll agree that “creativity” is not much of a building block for “..maintaining basic living standards..”)

      Do you truly believe that the very wealthiest continue accruing great wealth, largely from the earnings of the poorer classes, neither by hard work nor creativity but through exploitative policies permitted by unregulated markets, monopolies, unfair trade practices and the like… ?

      Because your complaint sounds very little like a list of actual, thought-out, personal beliefs, and much more like something from a radical Leftist screed.

      As Spook has pointed out, it appears your brain is simply wired differently, so there is no reason to think that facts will change the way you see the world. But facts are not on your side.

      For one thing, even the so-called “poor” in our country have a standard of living above most of the rest of the world, including what are considered middle class people in most of the world. And there are accounts after accounts of families living quite well on less money than your so-called “poor”. Oh, they might not have cable TV or $100-manicures or expensive “body art” or new cars or I Pads or smart phones, but they have comfortable homes, plenty to eat, clothes and toys and TVs and cars. They are simply frugal—a word disdained by those who bleat about “the plight of the poor”.

      As an example, I personally know a family in Ohio with five small children and a stay-at-home mom who does home schooling, which lives very comfortably on an electrician’s salary. Of course they bought land when they got engaged, waited to start their family till they could pay cash for a house which they enlarged and improved by their own labor as necessary, drive used cars, never go out to restaurants, and in general live the way most Americans lived for tens of decades.

      Oh, by the way, they DID get married, and they did not have children till after they got married. He studied and then spent time learning a trade. In other words, they took control of their own lives. How many of your “poor” can say the same thing?

      Take a look at the number of “poor” in the U.S. when LBJ started his infamous “War On Poverty”. Look at the vast overruns of the projected costs of this “war” and now look at how many “poor” we have in this country, and tell us how well it works to just hand out money to people who have not earned it.

    • Amazona November 18, 2011 / 10:56 am

      Welfare is not so that the poor may become rich or sit on their asses, it is so they may survive with dignity.

      Oh really? Where is the “dignity” in living on handouts, earned by others? Where is the “dignity” of being the third or fourth generation which has never worked or taken responsibility for its own life?

      And here you should take up your complaint with Yahweh, who established the legal mandate of the wealthy setting aside a portion of their earnings to help the poor survive – see Deuteronomy 24:19-22 and other passages. This is a principle replete throughout the Bible, both Testaments.

      Perhaps YOU should take up YOUR complaint with whoever taught you that the Bible ever says redemption can be achieved by taking the property of others and then handing it out so you can preen in your imagined generosity.

      The Bible gives us lessons on how to achieve our own salvation. If you are one who believes in collective salvation through the forced redistribution of other people’s wealth, then this is a deeply held personal philosophy which has put you firmly on the far-Left end of the political spectrum. But please spare us the hypocrisy of pretending that this is based on, or supported by, Scripture. You cannot achieve salvation by taking from one person to give to another. Your giving must come from your own heart and your own purse to be relevant to your own redemption.

      So you just stop pointing at the specks in other peoples’ eyes and worry about the beam in yours, OK?

    • Count d'Haricots November 18, 2011 / 2:22 pm

      It highly relevant that part of what brought America out of the Great Depression was government spending – much of it deficit spending – to fund the CCC, arts projects and building the great infrastructure of America that today is crumbling and needs renewal.

      No, it didn’t. No economist defends the make-work projects of the 1930s.

      The Depression ended in 1939 as a result of the end of protectionist tariffs. The Keynesian policies of Hoover and Roosevelt worsened the Depression. Read The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes.

  9. Amazona November 18, 2011 / 11:27 am

    Cory keeps bleating that he wants/need citations of Islamic law regarding the renunciation of Islam. I didn’t take the time to copy several of those I found, but here is a reference to the topic in Malaysia, which is under sharia law. I can see why Cory refused to do his own research—-facts would have completely undermined his shrill insistence on trying to make a big deal out of a simple passing comment on Islamic law and the ability to simply say “I’m a Christian now” UNDER THAT LAW.
    ********************
    Conversion from Islam

    Muslims who wish to convert from Islam face severe obstacles. For Muslims, particularly ethnic Malays, the right to leave the Islamic faith and adhere to another religion is a controversial question. The legal process of conversion is also unclear; in practice it is very difficult for Muslims to change their religion legally.

    In 1999 the High Court ruled that secular courts have no jurisdiction to hear applications by Muslims to change religions. According to the ruling, the religious conversion of Muslims lies solely within the jurisdiction of Islamic courts.

    The issue of Muslim apostasy is very sensitive. In 1998 after a controversial incident of attempted conversion, the Government stated that apostates (i.e., Muslims who wish to leave or have left Islam for another religion) would not face government punishment so long as they did not defame Islam after their conversion. However, whether the very act of conversion was an “insult to Islam” was not clarified at the time. The Government opposes what it considers deviant interpretations of Islam, maintaining that the “deviant” groups’ extreme views endanger national security. In 2005 international media attention focused on the Sky Kingdom sect whose founder Ayah Pin claimed to be God, and whose members – mostly Malays – were accordingly charged with religious “deviancy” and “humiliating Islam.”

    In the past, the Government imposed restrictions on certain Islamic groups, primarily the small number of Shi’a. The Government continues to monitor the activities of the Shi’a minority.

    In April 2000, the state of Perlis passed a sharia law subjecting Islamic “deviants” and apostates to 1 year of “rehabilitation” (under the Constitution, religion, including sharia law, is a state matter). Leaders of the opposition Islamic party, PAS, have stated the penalty for apostasy — after the apostates are given a period of time to repent and they do not repent — is death.

    Many Muslims who have converted to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and other religions lead “double lives”, hiding their new faith from friends and family.

    General interpretation about the freedom of religion as described in the constitution in Malaysia is that a person has a right to practice his or her religion freely. This freedom does not grant a person a right to change his or her religion “at a whim and fancy”. For example a Muslim who wants to convert to another religion must get an explicit permission from a syariah court. The syariah courts rarely grant such requests, except in cases where a person has actually lived his or her whole adult life as a person of different religion, and only wants to change the official documents to reflect this fact. The Islamic interpretation of the situation is that only the syariah courts can decide who is a Muslim and who is not. A person does not have such freedom, and so cannot have a say in the judgement given in a syariah court.

    The Lina Joy case challenged this view of the situation by taking the problem of apostasy to the Federal Court in 2007. Lina Joy lost the case and was denied identification as a Christian on her identification card. This cleared the situation about the overlapping areas of jurisdiction between the Islamic and the secular courts in Malaysia.

    ****************************

  10. dennis November 18, 2011 / 5:19 pm

    I have neither time or interest in addressing Amazona’s lengthy response point by point. However I would note that as usual, she takes great liberties with things said by others, imputing meanings to them which cannot be justified by their literal reading.

    “…Whoever taught you that the Bible ever says redemption can be achieved by taking the property of others and then handing it out so you can preen in your imagined generosity” is entirely a product of Amazona’s mind, and doesn’t address anything said by me.

    In Christian doctrine as taught by the New Testament, redemption from sin is achieved solely through the atonement of Christ. There is nothing any person can do to merit salvation, period. Good works may be a result of godly values in the life, but they earn nobody salvation.

    As for any person “taking the property of others”, that is generally regarded as stealing. However in Mark 2:13-17 and elsewhere in the Gospels, Christ tacitly acknowledged the validity of government taxation. And since the government’s role in a Christian nation would certainly encompass the values of compassion that were enjoined upon ancient Israel during its theocratic era, having a portion of mandatory taxes used for welfare is hardly unbiblical.

    In fact to rhetorically protest welfare as “forced redistribution of other people’s wealth” seems a mostly Pharisaical construction. The Pharisees were concerned with outward appearances but inwardly were quite selfish. In Mark 7, Matthew 23 and other places Jesus exposed their true spirit. He knew and taught not just the letter, but the spirit of the law. If a person is committed to godly values he or she will embrace the spirit of the law; if not, I certainly won’t be able to persuade them of anything in this venue.

    “If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.

    Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the Lord against thee, and it be sin unto thee.

    Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: because that for this thing the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto.

    For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.” Deuteronomy 15:7-11.

    • Pharnsworth, the Phalse Prophet November 18, 2011 / 5:56 pm

      “… and thy shall empower thy Government to act as My agent, and thy shall surrender under them your house and your ox and your ass and your manservant and your maidservant and your wife and all earthly possessions that they may be accounted, and thy government shall take from you your house and your ox and your ass and your manservant and your maidservant and your wife and your cattle all earthly possessions and allow you the use of a portion. The remainder of your possessions being distributed to the poor, the destitute, the needy, the lazy, the democrat, the Congressman, the Congresswoman, the cop on the beat, the student, the abortionist, the banker, the hedge fund trader, and the clerks that accounted thereof, after taking a liberal portion for the administration of the confiscation.

      Thou shall have no free will with which to make offerings for it shall be taken, thou shall have no free will to appease the Lord for it shall be coerced, thou shall have no free will to care for your brother care for the less fortunate care for the elderly care for the downtrodden care for the sick the helpless the infirmed for all shall receive redemption from the giving since none can refuse.

      And it shall come to pass when the government will take thee possessions into the into the land of the Congressites whither thou goest to take possession of it, thou shalt erect unto thee large stones, and thou shalt cover them with lime, and thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this Law, and it shall come to pass when ye cross the Potomac, ye shall erect these stones which I command thee upon Swamp Washington, and thou shalt build there an altar unto the Government, an altar of stones, and thou shalt not lift upon them iron, of perfect stones shalt thou build thine altar, and thou shalt bring upon it burnt offerings to government, and thou shalt sacrifice peace offerings, and thou shalt leave the offerings and get the hell out of Dodge. That mountain is on the other side of the Potomac at the end of the road towards the going down of the sun in the land of the Congressites who dwell in the Watergate facing Georgetown.
      Pharnsworth, the Phalse Prophet

    • Cap'n Obvious November 18, 2011 / 6:28 pm

      My children are really on board with this; since the spirit of giving is now confiscatory they just take what they want for Christmas and I get credit for being the most generous daddy in the world! I’ve done my duty and don’t even have to think about it.

      What could possb’ly go wrong?

    • Amazona November 18, 2011 / 9:36 pm

      In Christian doctrine as taught by the New Testament, redemption from sin is achieved solely through the atonement of Christ. There is nothing any person can do to merit salvation, period.

      And by the same token, there is nothing any person can do to merit damnation, either? It’s all a done deal, just sit back and enjoy the ride?

    • neocon1 November 19, 2011 / 4:37 pm

      dennistooge

      the OT was the Jewish law, Christ fulfilled the law and we live under grace NOT the old law.
      If you want to quote Bible directives to Christians do it accurately through the New Testament.

      while you are at it tell us what the NT says about homosexuality stooge.

      • neocon1 November 19, 2011 / 4:45 pm

        Romans 6:14-15 “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.”

      • dennis November 20, 2011 / 2:33 am

        Neocon, you make no sense at all. Jesus confirmed that the law (not the Jewish law, but the eternal law that still applies today) was to love God supremely and to love your fellow man as you love yourself (see Luke 10:25-28). And loving your fellow man is exactly what Deuteronomy 15:7-11 was all about.

        Don’t you know Jesus fulfilled the law to atone for our sins, not so people could trash the law and walk all over it?

        You want New Testament, how about Acts 4:32: “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that any of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.”

        That was a bunch of sanctified people, under the New Covenant no less.

  11. dennis November 20, 2011 / 2:46 pm

    Amazona: “And by the same token, there is nothing any person can do to merit damnation, either? It’s all a done deal, just sit back and enjoy the ride?”

    Ama, every person who has ever sinned merits damnation. That’s a foundational teaching of Christianity. Salvation has been provided through the atonement of the only one who never sinned, Jesus Christ. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast.” Ephesians 2:8, 9.

    That’s a standard doctrinal belief across all Protestant denominations. However many people have a hard time wrapping their minds around the idea they can’t do anything to earn salvation. Some have a system of penances, dispensations, indulgences and other sorts of human contrivances to try and get around the idea that salvation comes solely by grace, through faith.

    People who put great stock in their own self-worth, in personal wealth and self-made success may have a hard time accepting that isn’t the way the Gospel works. Salvation can only be attained by acknowledging one’s need and humbly accepting God’s grace. It’s the ultimate unearned welfare benefit. But by refusing to participate in the divine value system, one forfeits all its benefits by default – which places them back where they started, in an unsaved, fallen human state.

    • neocon1 November 20, 2011 / 4:00 pm

      dennistooge

      yet you ignore the beam of theft by taxes, sodomy, abortion, murder, rape perpetrated by YOUR political party in your eye.

      wolf is sheeps clothing.

      • Jeremiah November 21, 2011 / 4:35 am

        Absolutely, neocon1, absolutely!!!! You hit it, you hit the nail on the head!!!!

        It would almost seem ironic if it weren’t for the seemingly contrite manner in which dennis quotes the Scriptures, and lays out the meaning of the gospel message…yet, will denigrate, belittle, and throw invectives at those on the Conservative and TEA party side who have upheld, and hold true to those values that embody biblical principles as set forth in God’s Word.

        So I would have to say that dennis is most strikingly, and may I say, Boldly hypocritical…

    • Amazona November 21, 2011 / 7:36 am

      ….by refusing to participate in the divine value system, one forfeits all its benefits by default – which places them back where they started, in an unsaved, fallen human state…

      And you decide YOU get to define this “divine value system”, which by the way you define as the confiscation of OPM for redistribution by political elites.

      Very convenient.

      I can see why people like you have chosen to believe that they have no real way to participate in their own salvation—it sure takes a load off, doesn’t it? All you have to do is accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, and KABLOOEY, you’re saved! Your treatment of your fellow man is irrelevant, the way you choose to live your life is irrelevant, nothing matters because nothing matters.

      However, you do choose to veer away from this when you can spin Biblical teachings to support radical Leftist confiscatory and redistributionist dogma, when suddenly you claim that Christ, through the Bible, has demanded that certain elites be given the power to take property from some to give to others. Your version gives no credit for personal generosity and charitable acts, but only for allowing oneself to be stripped of personal property by others, ostensibly for the benefit of others.

      Make up your mind. If the way you live your life has nothing to do with whether or not you are saved, then why bother with all this Scripture stuff? According to people like you, the Bible is not a guidebook to redemption but merely a collection of historical anecdotes, as there is nothing we can do to achieve our own salvation anyway. But then you drag it in when you think it will shore up your political agenda.

      • Wallace November 21, 2011 / 12:10 pm
      • neocon1 November 21, 2011 / 3:15 pm

        walleye

        , lines up with your right-wing nutjob views. How convenient.

        LOL, PRICELESS the inner thoughts of a marxist devoid of any spiritual beliefs.
        che, mao, joe, satan must all be soooo proud.

  12. Amazona November 21, 2011 / 7:49 am

    …I have neither time or interest in addressing Amazona’s lengthy response point by point….

    Awww, how convenient, especially as this “lengthy response” consisted to a great extent of questions to you which are evidently too hard or too inconvenient to answer.

    dennis, do you truly believe that what one person has is taken from you? Do you truly believe that if X had less money, you would have more?

    Do you truly believe that …hard work or creativity are no longer adequate even for maintaining basic living standards for millions… ? (OK, I’ll agree that “creativity” is not much of a building block for “..maintaining basic living standards..”)

    Do you truly believe that the very wealthiest continue accruing great wealth, largely from the earnings of the poorer classes, neither by hard work nor creativity but through exploitative policies permitted by unregulated markets, monopolies, unfair trade practices and the like… ?

    And you ducked these, too:

    Name an unregulated market, and then explain how it “exploits” those “poorer classes”.

    Name a monopoly and then explain how it “exploits” those “poorer classes”.

    Name unfair trade practices and then explain how they “exploit” those “poorer classes”.

    And:

    Where is the “dignity” in living on handouts, earned by others? Where is the “dignity” of being the third or fourth generation which has never worked or taken responsibility for its own life?

    I repeat: You sound like your antagonism is directed toward private property and capitalism, which you try to hide in the guise of concern for “the poorer classes”…. to which I add, ….and which you try to shore up with selective quotes and interpretations from the Bible to give your political views a semblance of moral foundation..

    • neocon1 November 22, 2011 / 8:24 am

      Gee

      Billionairs are made by exploiting the POOR???

      a WTF moment…..where did all those POOR people get all this money to be exploited from them?????

  13. packeryman November 22, 2011 / 10:53 am

    If you have read this blog you should know that certain vulgarities are not allowed. Post again if you can do so without resorting to any of them. //Moderator

    • Amazona November 22, 2011 / 1:44 pm

      Really? You sure about this “death bed wife” thing? Because the wife is still alive, was not in the hospital for cancer, and was the one who wanted to divorce the high school student she seduced and then married when he was legal. His own daughter said he took the girls to see their mother in the hospital, where she was having a benign growth removed, and they never discussed the already-in-progress divorce at that visit.

      “Ethics issues”? Again, you sure about that? All but one “ethics issue” was dropped for having no foundation, and the remaining one was so vague and superficial it could only have been brought as an attack tactic. Later the IRS agreed it was not a violation of anything at all. Do you even know what it was?

      “Lobbying”? Once again, are you sure about that? What is wrong with being paid for doing consulting work? He was hired, he was paid, and his opinions on what to do were ignored. He had no power, no authority, could not guide legislation, and was merely one whose opinions were considered valuable enough to pay for—-at least until they disagreed with Leftist agendas.

      Can you define “far right radical”? Please do. No one else has ever been able to define “right” much less “far right” and as for “radical”, well, not a clue.

    • Wallace November 22, 2011 / 2:53 pm
    • Wallace November 25, 2011 / 3:51 am

      That’s what you get for introducing facts where they aren’t welcome, packeryman.

Comments are closed.