Wednesday, February 13, 2008

I Wonder What His Supporters Think

I thought I had heard something like this in the last couple of days. Another peek into the man who would be king can be found here.

Of course it may be simply the people who man the office, but then one must wonder why do such people support Obama? What do commies see in him that bring them out to back him? The same could be said for others of questionable character and desires, such as Planned Parenthood, GLBT types and who knows who else? If such people were attracted in a way that brought forth their repentance or positive change, that would be one thing. But I suspect they see in Barry Obama something to which they can relate. I wonder which candidates Mahmoud likes?


Dan Trabue said...

Speaking for myself, I support Obama because:

1. The US needs an antidote to Bush. He has divided our nation, isolated us from the rest of the world and damaged our Constitution and our security. I understand that you don't agree Marshall, but that is what a HUGE number of Americans believe the facts to be.

2. Obama's not Clinton. She is part of the Problem. The Clinton years were very much part of a troubled system that encourages corruption. Even if Clinton would be better than Bush (and she would - practically anyone would be), she is still a terribly divisive, untrustworthy individual beholden to the Democratic machine and a corporate agenda.

3. Obama's right on many issues. For instance:

a. We DO need to end this war in Iraq as humanely as possible. It is a matter of national security. It is a matter of trying to begin to salvage our economy. We are hemorrhaging our economy in pools of blood in Iraq.

b. We DO need to affirm that the US DOES NOT SUPPORT TORTURE.

c. We have got to address our energy problems. Oil supply is on its way down and Oil demand is on its way up. It is WAY past time to begin to address this soon to be crisis. I'd like to hear Obama come out stronger on this, but he's at least looking in the right direction.

Obama is by no means a perfect candidate, but then no one is. He won't solve our problems. I'm not even hoping that he will.

I'm just hoping he will begin to slow down the problems we're already causing. That he WON'T appoint gas industry people to solve our energy problems, coal industry flaks to oversee the coal industry, that he will begin to at least consider living within our means and living responsibly, not foisting environmental and global crises off on our children and their children.

For starters...

Dan Trabue said...

Thanks for the link on the Obama piece. Interesting.

As one who does not wear flags nor pledge alledgiance nor salute our nat'l anthem (all being against my anabaptist belief system), it is encouraging to hear that Obama doesn't either. Although it's a little unexpected in a presidential candidate and I wouldn't be surprised to find out this guy has it wrong.

Marshall Art said...

Thanks for stopping by Dan. Though I often give you the business, I have no trouble seeing you visit here. Despite what you seem to think, I don't hate people. Not even scumbags like Obama. And he's pretty pathetic. Now for your points.

1. The US needs an antidote for it's complacency and it's laziness. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with that. And he wasn't the divider, the Dems were. Right from the gitmo, I mean gitgo, he reached across the aisle to one of the biggest buffoons of the Senate, Ted "Pour Me Another" Kennedy, to create the No Child Left Behind Act. But due to the childish sour grapes antics of Gore and his supporters, angry that they lost to the legitimately elected George W. Bush, they've done nothing but seek to undermine every move he's made since taking the oath. But I understand what unity means to the left. It means do it the left's way or you're being devisive. Sorry. Adults don't behave that way. If we isolate ourselves by doing what needs to be done, and the war against Islamofascists needs to be done, then so be it. The world in general likes us only when they need us. They, too, want us to do as they dictate without regard to any impact upon us. And Bush has done far less to crease the Constitution than have liberals with their Roe v Wade decisions and anti-2nd Amendment stances and the indistinguishable distortions of the 1st Amendment. And that HUGE number of Americans that agree with you? They're wrong as well.

2. Obama's a black male version of Hillary without the familiarity that makes one cringe. They descend from the same leftist teachings of Alinsky and they pretty much want the same for the country in terms of bleeding the producers to pay for all their stupid victim creating programs. Neither of these clowns would be better than Bush because for the times when he acted in a less than conservative manner, they will make him look like a complete tight ass. And as far as foreign policy, I've heard all I need to hear from Obama. He hasn't a clue.

3. Obama "sounds" right when he's spewing his non-substantive rhetorical drivel, but on the points you've listed:

a) We need to WIN this war as decisively as possible. It is a matter of national security to put down once and for all the ideology that results in innocent civilians being murdered, decapitated, burned, tortured (real torture, not the wussie crap the Senate just prohibited the CIA from using). It's nice to know that money is an issue for you after all the talk against materialism and consumerism. Are you saying there's a limit to spending when it comes to defeating evil? If we can do it on the cheap then it's OK, but if we have to dig deeper we should just let evil run free?

b) We done this dance many times. I don't mind avoiding the use of torture (real torture, not the wussie crap the Senate just prohibited the CIA from using) but to let our enemies think there are limits to what we will do to protect our people and allies is the epitomy of foolishness. By proclaiming that we will not engage in torture, we have just announced a weakness that will be exploited. Thank you so much. I prefer that our enemies be scared to death of us until they realize that our way is no threat to them and we will engage with anyone who doesn't try to mess with us. Your way sets us up as a major chump in the world. It is unrealistic and an invitation to our enemies to attack us.

c) Bush has made attempts at dealing with the energy crisis. It is simply that the left doesn't like his proposals. (He could promote their proposals and the left wouldn't like it.) He supported drilling in ANWAR---the left whines. He supports the use of nuclear power---the left whines. The oil supply is NOT down, but the demand is indeed up due to China and India's progress mostly. But petroleum is a part of so many products, we will likely always, or at least for several generations, have a dependence on oil.

But Obama is not just imperfect, he falls so far short as to be unworthy of the presidency. As an Illinois senator, he's voted against treating children who survive abortions. The irony is incredible that a black man would look to another human being, one not in the womb that is, and say he's not prepared to call it a person!!! I need no more than that to dismiss him as a worthless piece of crap. But he's also voted against raising the penalties for crimes committed by street gang members, but I'm sure he supports the inane "hate crimes"/"hate speech" nonsense. (I had a bigger list of his senatorial stupidity, but we're remodeling the basement where my computer is and I can't find anything.)

And your last paragragh we've discussed before as well. I don't see how things improve when you appoint ignoramusses to oversee what only insiders could understand. Apparently the only people you trust are those NOT involved in running the country. But where do those people come from? From among us. And he will NOT consider living within our means if you've been paying attention to the programs he wishes to start with our money, or more precisely, with the money of the producers of our nation. I don't think you've looked deeply enough at this individual. I think you should.

Marshall Art said...

Please provide some kind of link or source that will explain in some detail this "anabaptist" belief system. Why should pledging allegiance to our country or the flag that represents it be a problem in your faith? I don't see that doing so in any way means putting the country above God, so what's the deal?

I find it extremely troubling if such is true of a guy who wants to be top dog to not even engage in outward expressions of devotion to the nation. Very troubling indeed. More so than if an average citizen acts in the same manner.

Dan Trabue said...

Why should pledging allegiance to our country or the flag that represents it be a problem in your faith?

Mat 5.33-37 “Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ {or} ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.”

We pledge allegiance to no man, woman, nation or thing but God.

Here's one Mennonite source talking about it in more detail.

Marshall Art said...

Wow. Just had a moment to review the link. Too busy to go in depth at present, but I don't see how there's ANY reason to believe there's a conflict between pledging allegiance to one's country and the faithful allegiance to one's God. Obviously, God comes first in all things. There's nothing in the pledge, or standing for the flag or anthem that in any way diminishes or interferes with one's allegiance to God. I understand the point about swearing oaths, but it is used as a confirmation to tell the truth, uphold and defend the Constitution, remain faithful till death to you part. It is binding until fulfilled because it brings God into the equation. The promise is in fact made to Him more than to anyone or thing in this life when an oath, vow, promise, pledge is made.

Les said...

"...I don't see how there's ANY reason to believe there's a conflict between pledging allegiance to one's country and the faithful allegiance to one's God."

Uh, because the man just said his faith prohibits such pledges, Art. You don't see a conflict because your particular brand of faith doesn't interpret the scriptures Dan outlined in the same manner. Hmmm...another of those non-existent gray areas, perhaps?

Marshall Art said...

Then perhaps you could explain it to me, Les. Seems to me that the word of anyone is supported by his actions to comply with his statements, but to remove any doubt from the other party, swearing to God, on purpose, with the knowledge of His feelings on the subject, should be convincing to the other party, should that other party understand the undertaking.

Keep in mind, sometimes gray areas are only wrong interpretations. This may be one of them. But the question stands: how does pledging to anything on this earth, automatically infringe on one's devotion to God? There's no indication that the pledge of allegiance takes priority over one's devotion to God. We enter into all sorts of contracts. To take the verse in question to it's ultimate conclusion, a handshake is the extent of any solidifying agreement. A contract is a pledge to fulfill particular promises. How does the Anabaptist buy a house or car on credit? Why the distinction over pledging some sort of support for our nation? Pardon me if it seems shortsigted and just a bit farcical in light of how our society and legal arrangements work.

Dan Trabue said...

How does the Anabaptist buy a house or car on credit?

They don't, or at least the more extreme anabaptists, don't. But even for those of us not as extreme, we're not pledging allegiance to a bank when we get a loan.

I'll say it again, we pledge allegiance only to God.

Marshall Art said...

I looked up pledge, vow, promise, oath, and swear using Merriam-Webster's online thesaurus. They define the words there as well and I think they just used the same definition. ("swear" was slightly different.) I didn't look up "contract", but it's likely the same as well. In other words, all these other words mean the same thing. (Some, like "pledge", "swear" & "contract" have other meanings as well.) I can't see that even the most devout anabaptist can avoid the Biblical warning against swearing oaths in today's society. Hey, Les! Maybe we have a rare gray area! So if the folks you have in mind don't buy houses or cars, what do they do? walk everywhere until it's time to go home to the lean-to? A rental agreement is a pledge, contract, covenant, oath, vow, promise to do something. If any of them work as sub-contractors or are self-employed consultants or any of many other trades, they likely must enter into such promises to earn a living. So they are pledging everyday (rhetorically speaking). I think the Biblical admonition upon which they (and you) base this belief/practice, is merely a warning that whatever is promised is in fact a promise made to God to comply with the agreement with the other party. Thus it says, "Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no..." (or words much to that effect---I didn't look up the exact tract.) because to make a deal with God means it must be fulfilled. Swearing such oaths, then, is not to be taken lightly, which is why I believe claiming bankruptcy is to be avoided and finding a way to pay the debt is paramount.

Yet pledging allegiance to our flag does not mean anything more than refusing to pledge one's self to the flag of another country. Actually, I don't think it even means you can't pledge to another flag, but that one can't truly divide one's self. However, I don't believe God has a flag and the pledge does NOT interfere with one's devotion to God. Not in THIS country, anyway.

Now, hanging a Cuban flag with a picture of Che on it is quite another thing, and it suggests some kind of allegiance or support for another country, or the memory of it's bloodthirsty despotic hitman. A wonderful thing for a candidate for the United States Presidency.

Marshall Art said...

Oh yes, I almost forgot! Do any of these anabaptists marry? I guessing they made some kind of promise there.

Dan Trabue said...

But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king.

I am not sure why this is hard to understand. We believe that we are to "Make NO oath at all." We do not swear ourselves in in a court room, we don't pledge allegiance to any one or thing but God.

When we marry, we promise to be a loving spouse, but we don't pledge allegiance to our spouse.

You are free to read that passage as you wish, I'm telling you that this is how the world's millions of anabaptists generally have treated oaths and pledges for the last 500 years.

Marshall Art said...

Yeah, fine, but I said that promises are oaths. You're doing the same thing using a different word. And doing it before God and His congregation. There's no difference.

And dig this, my friend: numbers aren't the be all end all. There's about a billion Muslims and they're wrong.

Les said...

"And dig this, my friend: numbers aren't the be all end all."

Then why do you use numbers when they work in your favor, Art? Like your argument that the majority shouldn't concern themselves with a 2-4% minority. Let's keep it consistent, shall we?

Marshall Art said...


A distinction: I use the numbers in terms of support, such as, the majority of this country, where the subject was put to a vote, support traditional marriage. The use of numbers I reject is when the majority is used to determine right vs wrong. At one time, great numbers supported slavery. I think they were wrong and greater numbers wouldn't change that. So even in my first example, it wouldn't mean that those voters were right, though they are, only that more of them supported traditional marriage. In that manner, I think I've been fairly consistent.