Rose's Reasonings

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Joe the Plumber

Joe the Plumber lives 10 minutes from me. What a riot - the NBC news interviewed him this morning and reported live from his front yard! I don't know Joe, but apparently he has a child that went to the Christian School that is a part of our church.

I think Joe's concerns represent ONE of the problems with Obama. He wants to take one person's success in the form of higher taxes... and give it to a person of lesser income who may or may not have the same work ethic, ambition or desire to use that money to end up where Joe is. Not fair! Not free! This is not the American way.

I will be glad when this election is over because these kinds of things make my blood boil... the fact that we are putting up with this absurdity because the candidate has a nice way about himself and a lot of personality and star power.

BTW - our 7th grade son came home yesterday and told us that some kids at school are saying that if your parents don't vote for Obama they are racist! WOW! (He goes to a mostly white school, too.. in an affluent suburb). The Democratic talking point has made it to the junior highs of America. Who'da thunk it?

61 Comments:

Are you opposed entirely to a graduated tax system Rose? Many are and are outspoken advocates of the Fair Tax which neither candidate talks about or seems to embrace because neither of them are conservatives.

I have heard that Obama's plan returns us to Reagan era taxing levels but I am not sure that is true. I do know that the Bush tax cuts were part of the probem because spending was not cut with taxes.

I think that, with a 10.2 trillion dollar national debt and a 1/2 trillion dollar budget shortfall neither candidate should pandering to the electorate with promises of tax cuts.. it is just foolish.. and sadly a reflection of the way that our culture has degenerated.

Our country, our citizenry and the majority of American Christians seem to be content with unbiblical financial slavery.. and no one seems to be concerned with the legacy that we are leaving our children.

By kc bob, at 10/16/2008 12:03 PM
Taxing for military spending and other necessities is on the one hand and I would even call paying those taxes 'patriotic', Bob... but taking from Joe the Plumber and giving it to one of the lower half of the 95% (who DON'T EVEN PAY TAXES) is called "spreading the wealth" like Obama said. Actually, it isn't "spreading the wealth" it is giving away money to people who haven't earned it WHICH NEVER CREATES WEALTH and it doesn't make anyone any better off.

I think I am not opposed to a fair tax, but I am not as informed as I should be about it.

A graduated tax scale is one thing, but do you think 250 thousand is rich? I mean, it sure sounds good to me, but it seems the lines are moving.

Ya know, I noticed... all on my own... during last election cycle we had the Democrat talking aout the "top one percent" (remember that?)... and this time we have the Democrat talking about the "top 5 percent" (in effect).

The line is moving!

You're right - Bush spent too much - I agree, as do all conservatives.

By Rose~, at 10/16/2008 12:20 PM
If Obama were in Canada, there wouldn't even be a contest, ... we love socialism up here. <ugh>

By Daniel, at 10/16/2008 12:51 PM
oh, and Hi Rose.

By Daniel, at 10/16/2008 12:51 PM
It sounds like you agree with a graduated tax system Rose but just don't think that it should be graduated that much. It also sounds like you think that it is okay that the candidates are promising tax cuts and don't find that it is pandering for votes.

How do you think that our nation will be able to balance our budget and pay down our national debt if taxes continue to be cut?

The increases coming in Medicare costs alone will have dire consequences on our nation unless we somehow return to responsible and biblical fiscal accountability.

I guess it is okay to continue to drink the hedonistic and materialistic koolaid that BOTH candidates are offering.. I just think that it is unbiblical.

If your family's wages were cut I think that you would make spending cuts.. it is sometimes difficult.. but it is always moral.

http://redemption.kansasbob.com/2007/07/financial-slavery.html

By kc bob, at 10/16/2008 1:08 PM
Hi Bob,
"Sounds like"? I didn't say one way or another - I was saying that I think the line is moving and moving. Do you see what I mean?

Did you watch the debate? McCain talked about tax cuts but he also talked about "ACROSS THE BOARD" spending cuts.

If you think that the way to raise the receipts of the government in a time of resecssion is by raising taxes, that is wrong. It makes people tighten their belt more and then recessions deepen and the receipts to the government lessen on the net. Democrats think they will get more money by raising taxes but the government will end up with less.. and so will the CITIZENS.

How to deal with economic times like these takes finesse that I don't think Obama has.

BTW - again, Bush spent too much - I agree, as do all conservatives.

By Rose~, at 10/16/2008 1:17 PM
Hello Daniel!
Thank you for your comments. Come on down! It's warmer here anyways - you can ride your bike longer. (But not a lot longer in Ohio)

I hope you are doing well.

By Rose~, at 10/16/2008 1:18 PM
BTW Bob,
I think "offering tax cuts" is not pandering to people. This is our money that we earn. What is up to discussioin is how much the goverment should take and spend on PROGRAMS. Less spending!! I am all for it.

WE WON"T GET THAT WITH OBAMA.

If you are for less spending, then don't vote for Obama.

By Rose~, at 10/16/2008 1:20 PM
I suggest you take a look at the effects that President Nixon's freeze had on our economy Rose.

Going back to your family.. when wages are cut do you unilterally cut spending in every area of your family life? Or do you make decisions based on your priorities about what areas you will cut?

McCain's freeze is just another one of his ill-thoughtout theatrical ideas to try to get him some attention.

Yes I did watch the debate and what I saw was a man who seems to be angry and likes to shoot from the hip contrasted with a person who seemed to be a bit more contemplative and cooler under pressure.

As I have said I am not a fan of the policies of both of these guys.. especially the pandering tax cuts.. it is why I am yet undecided.

That said I definitely like the composure and temperment of one candidate much better than the other.. it is why one person is having such a difficult time digging himself out of the hole he dug for himself a few weeks ago.

Just my opinion.

By kc bob, at 10/16/2008 1:32 PM
This is what a cut looks like off chart:

(on both plans)

Let's say my family made 37k. Life is tough, got 3 kids on free-lunch, but I don't take anymore handouts. I know my kids will get financial aid when the go to college - Yippee!

McCain - I'll get about $300 more - which means I pay $0 in taxes and the taxpayers give me $5000 in aid.

Obama - I'll get about $1000 more - again, which means, I pay $0 in taxes and the taxpayers give me $5700.

(consequently, my section 8 neighbor on food stamps got just slightly less and bought a big screen TV and a used car - I paid off my credit cards for the medical expenses I couldn't afford since I went over the limit this year for gov't funded medical insurance)

Well, maybe I'm better off. Let's say we make 137K taxable. I'm on my own for 3 kid's educations and no free lunches. :(

McCain - I'll pay about $2500 less, which means instead of paying $27000 in taxes (after various deductions), I now pay $24500.

Obama - I'll pay about $2100 less and will now pay $24900.

Both is insignificant - the savings won't pay for even one kid's tuition.

What about closer to the top at 3M? I have 40 personal employees, not to mention the 200 I pay at the business I own.

McCain - I pay $150k less, which means I now only pay 875k, more than 30% of my income.

Obama - I pay $250k more, which means I now pay 1.275mill. More than 42% of my income.

Anyway, I think Joe might have been talking about business taxes, though.

By Missy, at 10/16/2008 1:55 PM
(Boy, that was a mouthful. Sorry, Rose!)

By Missy, at 10/16/2008 1:59 PM
Plumber to Obama: “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more. Isn’t it?”

Obama: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

No, Mr. Obama it is not good for everybody. It is called socialism and it never works. Government does not give people a chance for success by spreading wealth around from those who produce to those who don't.

Government gives people a chance for success by giving them freedom, liberty, and a free enterprise economic system that can be accessed by anyone willing to work and achieve on their own. This system produces prospertiy and is why, as you have said, America uses 25% of the world's oil while only having 3% of the world's population. PEOPLE PROSPER UNDER CAPITALISM AND THEY STRUGGLE UNDER SOCIALISM. Obviously this is not what you learned from Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright.

By jazzycat, at 10/16/2008 3:05 PM
Hi Rose,

Been a while, thought I'd stop by. How have you been?

I don't have as much of a problem with liberals talking to junior high students. They aren't old enough to vote!

A lot of liberal political thought is based on class envy. Personally, I don't know many rich people and I don't like any of the nes I've actually met, but even so let's be real pragmatic here:

The reason that wealthy people are wealthy is because they know how to create wealth. In turn, this creates jobs and puts money in circulation, bringing prosperity to all. We need them, there's just a lot of people who are soar because they're not one of them!

The fallacy that some people have is that the economy is a zero-sum gain. In other words, for someone to be richer, someone else must be poorer. But that is not true. The economy is capable of growth and prosperity, a rising tide that rises all the boats.

For example, if I buy a new house for 200k and pay cash, I am not poorer. My wealth still exists but in another form: the house is worth what I paid for it. But the person who built the house has seen his wealth increase because it grows wherever people invest labor.

But back to the queston of taxes. Income redistribution will never work. "Soaking it to the rich" makes about as much sense as taking the engine off the front of the train and expecting it to roll faster without all of that dead weight. Real life just doesn't work that way. Prosperity comes and is spread to others when hard work is rewarded; when it is penalized through taxes, the opposite occurs. Believe it or not, soaking ito the rich will also make the poor poorer.

BTW, if you get a chance please check out a new blog I built. It's a study on the doctrine of the trinity:

trinityconcepts.blogspot.com

Loren

By Cleopas, at 10/16/2008 3:46 PM
Hello Rose,

I'm convinced neither of the big 2 candidates nor any of the forgotten ones have any realistic chance of solving any financial problems that affect our national economy. The President does not have that power. These folks aren't financial wizards anyway. I am also convinced that there is no individual nor any think tank that knows what to do. People, though often conforming to trends, have the irritating tendency to do the unexpected, even when it is bad for them. I don't want to hear about any plans to save the economy. No one can do it. The economy cannot be controlled. I wish the candidates would focus on what they actually can do as President rather than on what they want to do. There are two other branches that often put the breaks on the best laid plans of mice and men.

By Looker4522, at 10/16/2008 9:45 PM
Hi Rose -
I'm still surprised no one is seriously considering abolishing the IRS and going to a national sales tax. I know there would be short term ramifications but it would save a ton of money over the long haul, the wealthy would still buy (and be taxed on) the lexus, the rolex etc., the middle class would still spring for the camry, the nintendo etc. and those who need to get ahead would have an incentive to save for college, small business etc. There would be no loopholes, many accountants would be unhappy and a huge governmental department would simply go away. I feel for the accountants but it would sure be a lot cleaner! You would think both liberals and conservatives could be able to live with it and it would be one less topic to lie about during a presidential campaign! Given the spending habits of myself and my fellow americans - I think it would put us back in the black!

By Jon Lee, at 10/16/2008 10:43 PM
Hi Rose,

Your last paragraph is quite shocking. That just sounds like a bullying tactic to get others to vote for Obama by preaching racism. I do know that some are voting for him simply because of skin color and have no clue as to what Obama stands for. The following is a link sent to me by someone to show that if white people are racist then black people are biased and both are not true even though some are:

http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3

This does prove ignorance, but I do believe that both sides are guilty. Some vote republican simply because they are republican and do not even know what their candidate even stands for and vice versa. I have even known females that wanted to vote for a particular presidential candidate because he was better looking turning the presidential election into a beauty pageant. So stupidity is on all sides.

McCain has my vote but not for racial reasons and certainly not for any beauty reasons. You can see McCain's record over the years and not so much Obama's. Experience clearly goes to McCain. I also find sincerity goes to him as well even though I hardly ever consider what either candidate says prior to the election because once in office things always seem to change in what they claimed they were going to do. Sometimes you just have to listen as to what they do claim they stand for that reveals their heart. I just have a bad gut feeling about Obama.

I do like this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

By D, at 10/17/2008 8:44 AM
Hi Rose,

Personal financial security aside, here's the main reason that I won't vote for Obama.

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/09/ode_to_obama_an.html

Watch the video. And if anyone is concerned about the death of millions of children, they won't vote for Obama either.

Could it be that one of the reasons we're facing this economic crisis is a result of our country's willingness to not only turn a blind eye to this atrocity, but also give hearty approval to those who practice it?

In Christ,
Ten Cent

By Ten Cent, at 10/17/2008 11:48 AM
Jon Lee wrote: "I'm still surprised no one is seriously considering abolishing the IRS...."

Jon, I've got two words for you: Ron Paul. Join the revolution!

By Anonymous, at 10/17/2008 12:06 PM
Kansas Bob,
I will look into that. I must say you don't really sound undecided. :~)
I do find it interesting that you point out the cool calm demeanor of Obama. I think that is what is getting him alot of the support that he has - his "way" - not his policies or his experience - just his TV presence. The die-hard Dems are behind him of course, but the undecideds that are going to him must be swayed by his star quality is all I can figure, because there isn't much in subsstance.

BTW - I don't think McCain seemed ill-tempered in the debate. I have heard that he has been at other times in the past, but not in this campaign and I certainly didn't see it in the debates at all.

Bob, God bless and thanks for the dialogue.

By Rose~, at 10/17/2008 3:34 PM
several people have shown up here that I haven't seen in ages and properly greeting you will have to wait cuz I gotta run right now! See ya later!!

By Rose~, at 10/17/2008 3:34 PM
I'd say that I am leaning left about 51% on the presidential race.. and it won't take much to swing right.. but I am voting 100% conservative and Republican in every other race and issue on the ballet.

I too have enjoyed the dialogue Rose.. I feel that I learn so much when I visit your blog.

Blessings, Bob

PS: Please stop by my place and vote for who you think Colin Powell will endorse on Sunday.

By kc bob, at 10/17/2008 3:51 PM
Kansas Bob, speaking of being hedonistic and unbiblical, Obama is for abortion and he will nominate pro-choice judges to sit on the bench of our Supreme Court, not to mention judges who also believe our Constitution is passe and not to be adhered to. I "think" there are two justices who are set to retire during this next presidential term and so the stakes are extremely high in this election.

The rate we're being taxed is outright thievery.

By Dawn, at 10/17/2008 7:37 PM
Which justice(s) do you think will be replaced in the next four years Dawn?

I am under the impression that supreme court justices (like presidents, senators and congressmen) do not have to retire.

Did I miss the retirement announcement?

For me, I would like to see pro-life legislators like Senator McCain actually initiate legislation to overturn Roe v Wade.. the last such action was 25 years ago when the senate voted down legislation to overturn Roe v Wade.

Unless this is done we will always be at the mercy of whatever president is nominating justices.

By kc bob, at 10/17/2008 8:11 PM
Hi Rose,
Just popping by. Being Canadian I have no right to comment, although we are CNN junkies and so have heard more American politics, speeches, mud-slinging in the past 2 years.... do you ever actually get to the point of voting? :)
At least with our system they call the election and then we vote 5 weeks later. Quick and painless.
Yes, we also pay more taxes than you do, but it's graduated and our government doesn't hand out money to people making almost 4k a month. Everyone here pays a fair share - even our Joe the Plumbers!
But, this blog isn't about how Canada does it better. Tee Hee!
Think I'll go crawl into a Canadian igloo until after Nov 11.

But, seriously, we in Canada are affected by your country and most of our friends are very worried about the future if Obama wins.
Eunice

By Anonymous, at 10/17/2008 10:39 PM
Thanks for dropping by Jazzycat and for providing the quote of the exchange between Obama and Joe the plumber. I hope McCain is making a commercial out of that "unguarded" statement by Obama:
I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody

Not everybody watches the debates so he has to get that out there for more people to see.

By Rose~, at 10/18/2008 8:26 AM
Hi Loren!
Good to see you and so good to read your sensible comment. I totally agree with you. Class envy is what they use. Like I said to Bob:
during last election cycle we had the Democrat talking aout the "top one percent" (remember that?)... and this time we have the Democrat talking about the "top 5 percent" (in effect). The line is moving.

I am so glad to see you and yes, I will check your trinity blog. I hope the wife is doing well and that all is fine with you.

By Rose~, at 10/18/2008 8:32 AM
Looker,
Interesting comment. The economy does seem to be a rather complex problem. Politicians act like they have a solution for it and then it doesn't seem to work like they think it will. They all seem rather discombobulated over it. More taxes is not the answer though. Of that I am sure. Now I hear the House is getting ready to do another "stimulus" package. Deary me.

By Rose~, at 10/18/2008 8:34 AM
Hi Jon the Baker!
How are you??!
It is fabulous to see you. Long time. How is the baby?
I think that will never happen although it sounds like a good idea. There's your "graduated" tax scale. The more you spend, the more you pay. But would that supress buying? Hmmm.... I would like to learn more about it.

I am gonna look at yer blog and see if you posted anything.

Thanks for visisting!!

By Rose~, at 10/18/2008 8:36 AM
Rose,
Let us hope McCain and Sarah will get out there and hit this spread the wealth around Marxist thinking of Obama's often and hard.

Bob,
You say you are leaning left for President, but are going to vote conservative and Republican on every other race and issue. Pardon me if I find this totally illogical. If you vote for the liberal Obama for President, why wouldn't you want to have liberal representatives to insure that his liberal policies are implemented?

By jazzycat, at 10/18/2008 8:39 AM
Hi Dave,
Thanks for coming over again! :~)
It is shcoking, isn't it? But that is what they were saying at school. I just wonder if these kids hear this nonsense from their parents. You would think people would be more sensitive than to say such things to children.

I remember having a conversation before the 1996 election woth one of my aunts. She said that Bill Clinton had "honest eyes" and that was why she was voting for him. (Boy, was she in for a shocker!!) I totally agree that many people go on these superficial things like "star quality" and impression and likeability etc. It is a fact of life. That is one reason why I was very skeptical of the McCain nomination - he just didn't seem like a good "candidate" in this day and age - the telvision era. We shall see. Hopefully enough people will think beyond the surface of things to tip the scales away from the dramatic swing toward socialism that seems looming.

Thanks again for visitng :~)

By Rose~, at 10/18/2008 8:42 AM
Ten Cent,
I watched that video in my office yesterday and it made me cry. WOW. "This baby won't stop breathing." Sickening that such a thing could be allowed. The main difference between that baby in the bedpan and the baby as it is in the womb is all in the minds of people, intheir perceptions. When the baby is in the womb we can't see it and so it is easier to dismiss our justified horror at killing it. The fact that people who aren't outraged by abortion become outraged by these kinds of things proves that.

Anyone who says that the life issue is just another issue among many is fooling themselves. What butchery and inhumanity we have going on in our country!!!!

By Rose~, at 10/18/2008 8:49 AM
Ten Cent says:
Could it be that one of the reasons we're facing this economic crisis is a result of our country's willingness to not only turn a blind eye to this atrocity, but also give hearty approval to those who practice it?

It could very well be that he is right. We need to end this like we ended slavery. The Supreme Court is the only way to do it.

By Rose~, at 10/18/2008 8:51 AM
Dawn,
Good to see you! I agree with your comments. Its nice to see that most of the Christains here agree on these things even though we find plenty of other things to debate witheachother on. :~)

Eunice,
Thanks for your comment. Canada sounds lie a very interesting but COLD place to live. Ohio is actually too cold for my taste (even though I have lived here all my life but 7 months) so my heart goes out to you. :~)

By Rose~, at 10/18/2008 8:53 AM
I pardon you jazzy.. no offense taken :)

By kc bob, at 10/18/2008 8:57 AM
Hey Rose!

A little comic (yet all too real) relief:

Since there's quite a bit of focus on Ohio & possible voter fraud now, here's a Q & A fer ya:

Q: What's the difference between a dead Democrat & a dead Republican?

A: The dead Democrat can still vote.

Yep, I made that one up.

By David Wyatt, at 10/18/2008 12:43 PM
Hi Rose,

I LOVE Joe the Plumber!!!
How neat that you live so close to a celebrity like him!!!
:-)

Why do I love him? BECAUSE....
He got Obama to answer a question that nobody else could get him to answer. He wants to take from those who work for their money and give it to those who don't. He believes in distribution of wealth. That's socialism. That's unbiblical.

So THANK YOU JOE FOR FINALLY GETTING OBAMA TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. So now we know!!!

No matter who wins, I'm going to continue to praise the Lord every day because I know who's REALLY in control of all circumstances!!!

Hope you all are enjoying HIM today!

Diane
:-)

By Diane, at 10/18/2008 1:17 PM
P.S. Rose, here's a good reading on "snopes" about a Christian concert pianist who is African American. It's his views on Obama. For those who choose to read this, be sure you read the follow-up at the bottom. Thanks.

http://www.snopes.com:80/politics/soapbox/huntleybrown.asp

By Diane, at 10/18/2008 1:26 PM
CORRECTION...

The full address to the snopes article didn't come through on my computer printout. If that happened to you I wanted to give you the ending to that address. It is...
huntley brown.asp

Thanks. :-)

By Diane, at 10/18/2008 1:35 PM
Rose, I apologize for not having said Hi to you!!! I realized my faux pas AFTER I left the house. I'm glad to see that most of us are seeing eye to eye as well.

Kansas Bob, I'm not sure that there are any justices that are going to retire and I never set that anyone HAD to retire. I just heard somewhere (can't remember where) that there is a possibility of two judges retiring during this next presidential term. Stevens is up there in age (88) and it is not implausible that he would retire soon. Bader-Ginsberg is also up there in years. So it is a great "possibility" that two would be retiring or passing away in the next four years.

You said, "For me, I would like to see pro-life legislators like Senator McCain actually initiate legislation to overturn Roe v Wade.. the last such action was 25 years ago when the senate voted down legislation to overturn Roe v Wade.

Unless this is done we will always be at the mercy of whatever president is nominating justices."

Which is why I'm baffled (assuming that you are a Christian) that you would even "consider" voting for Obama.

Obama is NOT good for this country. I'm not a McCain fan, but he's certainly a much better choice than Obama.

By Dawn, at 10/19/2008 4:16 PM
I seen this video and who knows what is true. I know not all videos can be trusted since some videos have Obama claiming to be a Muslim when the 'full' video shows that it was most likely mistake. Here is a video of Obama bashing the Bible:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4FCNKwHRCQM

Does anyone know about this video whether or not this was taken out-of-context?

By D, at 10/20/2008 7:18 AM
"Which is why I'm baffled (assuming that you are a Christian) that you would even "consider" voting for Obama."

An interesting question Dawn.. one reflective of many "Christians".. insinuating by innuendo that to vote for Barack Obama is to be unchristian and tantamount to sinning.

By kc bob, at 10/20/2008 9:31 AM
Hmmmm.
As one of the many “Christians” that Bob refers to, I would like to state my position without innuendo and insinuation. I am very uncomfortable with being grouped with people making insinuations and innuendo. Therefore, considering the human rights issue of abortion alone, I do not believe a discerning Christian would vote for Obama in light of his position in favor of unlimited abortion through a federal law. Certainly there is wiggle room for undiscerning Christians to vote for Obama.

So Bob, please remove me from any group that you consider to be making insinuations and place me in the group that is expressing a firmly stated position.

By jazzycat, at 10/20/2008 10:30 PM
Thank you for dropping by and leaving such a kind comment.

--Will

By Curious Servant, at 10/21/2008 12:35 AM
An interesting perspective jazzycat.. if I am understanding you correctly you have reduced discernment to somewhat of a formula saying:

"I do not believe a discerning Christian would vote for Obama in light of his position in favor of unlimited abortion through a federal law."

Seems an approach that many folks are comfortable with. I am not comfortable with that interpretation of "discernment".. it is a polarizing one that condemns Christians as "undiscerning" because they have a different "discernment" about the candidates.

For me, I have found that discernment only comes through prayer and it often does not look anything like the formulaic description that you have indicated.

I honor the Lord's leading and discernment in Christian voter's lives. It is obvious to me that God has not "chosen" either senator in the narrow way that you have indicated. A Christian can most certainly vote for either candidate and not sin if He is following the Lord and His discernment.

In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things love.

By kc bob, at 10/21/2008 11:01 AM
Dave,
That video was gone ?

By Rose~, at 10/21/2008 11:45 AM
Kansas Bob,
You said, For me, I have found that discernment only comes through prayer

No, Bob discernment also is available through God's revelation in the Holy Scripture. God tells us in Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

The will of God is revealed in the Holy Bible where he says: For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. AND Do not murder!

Bob, I do not see this as a non-essential to Christian practice.....

Yes, Bob the Christian world-view is very polarizing. Jesus was very polarizing. Christians that obey God rather than men are very polarizing. Paul says in Eph. 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

To honor the LORD's leading is to affirm and follow his precepts as found in the Holy Bible.

I hope this helps....

By jazzycat, at 10/21/2008 11:50 AM
David Wyatt,
too funny! Thanks so much!

Diane,
I agree with you about Joe the Plumber. He got Obama to say what he thinks in a way that he wouldn't have if he was all "practiced" on the questions that were going to be put to him.
BTW, I read that the other day about the pianist. Poor guy - he just shares his opninion and gets all that hate mail. I hope people on the refecting side aren't doing that... but I am sure they are.

By Rose~, at 10/21/2008 11:51 AM
Curious servant,
You're welcome. I also commented on a post by you at your friends blog over in that corner. I pray you will sense God leading you along.

By Rose~, at 10/21/2008 11:53 AM
Amen Jazzycat. The bible is very clear about God's view of babies in the womb and murder. Not to mention the other unbiblical issues for which Barak Obama stands.

By Dawn, at 10/21/2008 2:55 PM
Hi Rose,

Sorry I didn't answer your questions in the other thread, I'll just answer them here if that's okay. My "obedient son" has times where he doesn't quite live up to his name. ;-) But he actually does pretty well most of the time, and I'm learning how to discipline appropriately without expecting perfection (tough balance sometimes!). He started kindergarten this year, so we're having fun.

I just have one other kid, he's about Levi's age (he was born on New Year's Eve 2006 but was 2 months early). He's doing quite well now, got a bit of a late start on talking but has made up for it lately! He probably has close to 100 words now, but won't put 2 together yet. His favorite thing though is to learn letters. He can recognize almost half of the alphabet! Crazy, but true. He's always pointing out M, or S, or T, or O, etc. in stores and pictures and things. My "obedient son" loves to talk too, and right now I don't have hardly any voice due to a cold, so it's hard to keep up with them. :-)

Anyway, about politics. I understand what Wayne, Dawn, and others are saying about Christians voting against abortion. I agree. But I think Bob is trying to say that just because a candidate says he is pro-life doesn't necessarily mean that he really IS pro-life, or that he'll actually try to do anything about abortion. I think Bob sees the Republicans as often talking the pro-life talk just to get votes.

So then it gets a bit more complicated than simply voting against the pro-abortion candidate. Because what if a person has good reason to believe that the "pro-life" candidate won't really bother to do anything "pro-life" while in office, and the person also disagrees with the "pro-life" candidate in many other areas? Now, this is definitely not me because, while McCain isn't my favorite Republican, I am in significant fundamental disagreement with the vast majority of Obama's views and policies. But I could understand if someone (another Christian) wasn't as opposed to Obama's other policies, and felt that abortion was being played just for votes by the Rep. candidate, that perhaps that Christian might vote for Obama despite his stance on abortion, and not be going against his Christian beliefs to do so. In fact, a Christian could even feel that NOT voting Rep. would send a message that if the Repubs want the Christian vote, they better either start actually doing something about abortion, or have some better policies.

Said another way, if a Christian believes that nothing will be done either way on the issue of abortion, then abortion could become a sort of non-issue and other things factor in more heavily as which candidate to vote for. I know that some people are beginning to think that Christians have been hoodwinked into voting for the Republicans based on abortion alone, when the Repubs (some say) are all talk and no action.

So while I agree that abortion is murder and it's absolutely awful that it's even allowed in our country, it's not necessarily as simple as voting for the candidate who is pro-life. If neither of the candidates would be willing to actually do anything about abortion, then it's not necessarily so simple. In any case, we should be careful not to condemn our fellow believers too quickly for their voting choices. It is one thing to say, "I don't care about abortion, I just want free health care!" (that would be bad) It's quite another to say, "No candidate is actually helping get rid of abortion, so maybe I should check out some other issues." (that isn't necessarily so bad)

By Rachel, at 10/21/2008 4:18 PM
Hi Rachel (and Rose),

You said: "So while I agree that abortion is murder and it's absolutely awful that it's even allowed in our country, it's not necessarily as simple as voting for the candidate who is pro-life. If neither of the candidates would be willing to actually do anything about abortion, then it's not necessarily so simple."

There is a difference in this election. Because one of the candidates will do something about abortion. Obama has said that he will fight for Roe v. Wade. He's not neutral. He is pro-choice. In fact, he intends to sign legislation that would damage what little ground the pro-life movement has made. So, I do agree that the chances of McCain actually proving to be a strong leader on this issue and making a stand against Roe v. Wade is a long shot, but at least we wouldn't be voting someone into office who is outspoken in favor of continuing this awful practice.

In Christ,
Ten Cent

By Ten Cent, at 10/21/2008 4:39 PM
The Supreme Court is what matters when it comes to the abortion issue. Rachel, if you're right about how these Christians are thinking, then they just need to think about the lasting effect that a President has on the Supreme Court. That is the Supreme consideration, IMHO.

When John McCain said in the last debate: "Elections have consequences..." (referring to the fact that the Senate should confirm the nominees that any president puts forth as long as they are qualified, because that is the President's right to put forth a nominee that agrees with his ideology - that is the consequence of the election. [Democrats haven't done this but have spurned nominees based on ideology, not credentials])

Well, I wish he would have hammered that home:

"Elections have consequences. If you elect Barack Obama, he may very well change the court so that legislation such as the "Freedom of Choice Act" which removes all regulation on abortion, and which Barack Obama said he would support as a Senator, and which may likely be passed by a Democratic Congress will then go unchallenged by a Supreme Court to which Obama gets to add [probably] two justices. Most Americans would not want things this way. Elections have consequences and Americans ought to think long and hard about these."

By Rose~, at 10/21/2008 4:48 PM
I agree with Rachel's last comment.. she communicated my thoughts better than I have in my previous comments.

For the past 28 years.. in the last 7 presidential elections I have voted pro-life.. the abortion issue trumped every other issue.. I believed that Ronald Reagan and George Bush (the elder) would nominate pro-life justices.. Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy.. Bush nominated Souter.. and Ford nominated Stevens.. much of the present court make-up can be attributed to these republican presidents.

I understand how strong this issue is but I simply no longer believe that the supreme court is the answer to abortion. I think that the best that they will do is return the issue to the states.. they will not outlaw abortion in our country.

The rights of unborn babies is not a state issue.. it is one which.. like slavery.. demands a national answer. William Wilberforce was a man of integrity who made a change in slavery for England. We fought a civil war to give slaves person-hood.. this led to a change in our constitution.

I do not believe that John McCain has a fire in his belly about the unborn.. he has never introduced legislation to abolish abortion in our country.. his support for unborn babies has been passive at best.. he will do nothing for the unborn if he is elected.. and I don't think that even a pro-life justice nomination is assured.. he makes many decisions by the seat of his pants.. if he had not listened to advisers we would be looking at a pro-choice Ridge or Lieberman VP nomination.

Okay.. I didn't mean this to go on so long.. I just wanted to give you a bit of my thinking about the issue. I am okay if you deem my thinking to be unchristian or undiscerning.. you don't really know me so I am not sure that I would offended by such an opinion.

The conversation has been an interesting one and I have enjoyed it. I hope that I have not offended anyone.. if I have then I offer my apologies.. not my intention to offend.

-Bob

By kc bob, at 10/21/2008 7:07 PM
Rose,
Very good point on the judges. You can bet your house and farm that Obama will be sure that any judge he appoints will be pro-abortion.

By jazzycat, at 10/21/2008 9:46 PM
Bob,
You've explained yourself well, even though you didn't have to. :~) I appreciate that. You do know Obama's view on the "Freedon of Choice Act" right? This would seem to be the opposite than what you stated in your last comment that you want these legislators to do.

By Rose~, at 10/22/2008 11:48 AM
Even the status quo is better than what Obama is promising to do. We'll see federal funding of abortion under an Obama administration. So all us pro-lifers will get to start footing the bill for abortions. McCain will not sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which Obama says will be the first piece of legislation he signs. That act will eliminate all progress that has been made on the abortion issue up to this point.

Throwing the issue back to the states is the best thing that can happen at this point. An Obama presidency will set the prolife cause back 20 years.

By Anonymous, at 10/23/2008 8:02 AM
It is far worse than we realize. I believe that liberals and Obama will use new hate crime legistlation to silence their definition of hate speech which will include any kind of speech that could incite crimes against abortion providers. In short dissent to abortion and other cherry picked issues they support will be crimianalized.

Obama told Planned Parenthood that the culture war was "so nineties" and declared it over and stated it was time to move on. Do not think for one minute that liberals won't use so called "hate crime" legistlation to silence dissent.

By jazzycat, at 10/23/2008 9:43 AM
This whole election is making me sick. There is a black man at my mom's church that is telling people that is telling white folks there that if you do not vote for Obama then you are a racist. I told my mom to fire back at him that if he doesn't vote for John McCain then that proves that he is a racist against white people. Hopefully this will show the stupidity and the racist view of his argument. We don't vote on basis of color but who is best equipped to run the country effectively.

Rose, you said the video is gone but I just copied and pasted and it worked. Did you mean something else by that?

By D, at 10/23/2008 11:32 AM
Hi Dave,
It worked this time. The other day it said the video was not available.

Hmmm... I would like to see the whole "message" that he was giving because I can see that this MAY have been someone taking stuff out of context.

If you ever find it or find out about it, will you come back and let us know?

Thanks.

By Rose~, at 10/23/2008 11:44 AM
Casey,
Thanks for the visit. I agree - if Obama wins it will certainly set the pro-life movement back. It will be a crushing blow. I am praying and hoping.

It will be amazing if McCain wins with Obama outspending him 5 to 1, the media on Obama's side, the economic crisis supposedly a help to the Democrat, etc. etc. I can't believe that it is even this close, really, when you consider what a huge advatage Obama has.

By Rose~, at 10/23/2008 8:50 PM
Jazzycat - I hope you're wrong!
Imagine that - pornography is "protected speech" but quelching the voice of pro-lifers is reasonable? I just can't imagine that.

By Rose~, at 10/23/2008 8:52 PM

Metaschema - Erlenmeyer Flask Hungry/6 - Jodie The Stumbling Block - Bobby Sanc's Blog - Michele

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Joe the Plumber

61 Comments:

Metaschema - Erlenmeyer Flask

Hungry/6 - Jodie

The Stumbling Block - Bobby

Sanc's Blog - Michele