Criteria:

1) One who does not "joke" about killing Iranian citizens

2) One who does not use Fear-Mongering nor associate with those who do.

3) One with a genuine faith, regardless of denominational category or religious jargon

4) One who understands that we live in a democracy, not a theocracy.

5) One who does not rush to anger

6) One who does not rush to preemptive war & torture against their neighbors

7) One who seeks justice, not systemic corruption

8) One who believes in accountability, not irresponsibility

Posted by: Quetzal | July 29, 2008 1:19 PM

Quetzal - In response to your criteria, I suppose Hugo Chavez would work - to bad he isn't running for election here. Would you support him if he were?

Posted by: Armed2Win | July 29, 2008 2:27 PM

Right. McLaren's way of picking a candidate is more enlightened than everyone else, because he is so free of bias and just wants whats best for everyone (including the flowers). Everyone else is just following their social groups or voting from their gut, or whatever...

Of course, McLaren's vote in this election is going to be the same as virtually everyone with whom he associates on a regular basis, and in lockstep with the group on whose board he serves. And, of course, anyone could have predicted who McLaren would support for president from the second Barack Obama stepped in the ring.

But that's just a coincidence, because he's actually arrived at precisely the same political conclusions through an entirely different means. Amazing how that works.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 29, 2008 3:36 PM

Everyone else is just following their social groups or voting from their gut, or whatever...

(sigh)

Of course, your idea of "bias-free" voting means that he supports your personal ideology -- right? Might it be the case that he really believes that, after all the evidence he can muster, Barack Obama is the best qualified person still running for President? Not all Christians are voting for John McCain, y'know. (Considering that the other Christian blog I visit is far, far more anti-Obama, and viciously so, than Sojourners is pro-Obama, I'd say that at least Sojo is at least paying lip service to the idea of informed voting.)

Posted by: Rick | July 29, 2008 3:58 PM

Ok -- maybe it's me, but it seems like McLaren is just asking us to make a balanced decision. His list of criteria is clearly a reflection of our times, but you are free to add whatever criteria you find important, and to even sell that criteria to those around you. Like old people for instance.

When I make decisions, about anything, I list the pros and cons of each side, and then do my comparison. I'm so analytical that I laugh at people who follow their heart. However, I do believe that people who follow their heart can make as informed a decision as I do.

I also feel that if I'm telling you to do your research and make your own decision, then I can't tell you how to vote either.

My decision is not clear yet, as lots is going to happen between now November. We'll learn a lot more about each of our candidates -- including running mates.

Posted by: frankie | July 29, 2008 4:20 PM

i'm all for killing as many people as possible that "hate freedom." So... whichever candidate is in line with that...

Posted by: tad DeLay | July 29, 2008 4:31 PM

"Right. McLaren's way of picking a candidate is more enlightened than everyone else, because he is so free of bias and just wants whats best for everyone"

The sarcasm reflects poorly on its author.

Posted by: JamesM | July 29, 2008 5:13 PM

I plan to vote for the candidate who called the invasion of Iraq "stupid."

Call me a single-issue voter.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | July 29, 2008 5:44 PM

Perhaps McLaren is reminding us to take a balanced view because there are many reasons not to this time around.

Posted by: frankie | July 29, 2008 6:06 PM

I plan to vote for the candidate who called the invasion of Iraq "stupid."

Call me a single-issue voter.

I know how you feel, neuro_nurse. In 2004, I refused to vote for the reelection of the candidate I voted for in 2000 precisely because of that invasion. I couldn't in good conscience support the one who would so recklessly take the nation to war.

This time around is different, because whoever wins the election will inherit the results of the stupid decision and will have to find a way to deal with it. There are strong indications in my mind that one candidate is poised to expand on that stupidity, because his advisory staff contains at least a few neocons. That's a big concern of mine. If the neocon position re. foreign affairs hasn't been completely discredited, then I guess I don't know what the word "discredit" means. I can't imagine any potential president who would be willing to trust their advice ever again, and it certainly doesn't bode well that one candidate still seems to be listening to them.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | July 29, 2008 6:30 PM

Is no one at this Christian website at all concerned that a vote for Obama could be a vote for Anti-Christ?

Never in my lifetime have I seen such adoration of a mere community organizer named Barry. It is supernatural.

Everything is in place for the rise of Anti-Christ, and out of nowhere rises a 'politician' who is being called 'messiah' and practically worshiped.

What has happened to the Christian community? Is everyone under his spell?

Posted by: Sami | July 29, 2008 7:16 PM

Re: single issue voting, I appreciate the fact that McLaren threw in "war" with abortion and homosexuality, as many people no doubt are using this as a litmus test. Will Sojo criticize their narrowmindedness, I wonder?

The whole discussion on single-issue voting frustrates me because I'd propose that everyone is a single-issue *exclusionary* voter.

Imagine your perfect candidate. He/she holds the same views as you on a range of issues. Is it possible for them to hold to support an additional policy that is so abhorrent so as to exclude them from receiving your vote? Would any one thing be a deal-breaker?

What if they were the perfect candidate, yet supported the enslavement of African-Americans? How about if they supported the segregation of hispanics or african-americans? Would you still support them?

I think everyone has "deal-breaker" issues. However, some just don't see any such issues at play in politics today. I disagree (and it seems neuronurse joins me in my disagreement).

Posted by: jesse | July 29, 2008 7:20 PM

What if they were the perfect candidate, yet supported the enslavement of African-Americans?

This is an invalid example. Nobody would support such a move; at least, nobody who supported it would ever become a serious candidate.

Posted by: Don | July 29, 2008 7:34 PM

"This is an invalid example. Nobody would support such a move; at least, nobody who supported it would ever become a serious candidate."
--It's called a hypothetical. McLaren assumes that there are no issues in play that are as bad as slavery, which is where he and I disagree. I would appreciate the anti-single-issue proponents to debate this point: all issues are not the same and everyone can think of a deal-breaker for any candidate no matter how good.

Posted by: jesse | July 29, 2008 8:03 PM

I can see where McLaren is coming from and I believe he is being fair and balanced. The President of the United States is a central force in the world. Many Christians are myopic in their view when it comes to Jesus Christ. As a Christian, I am seeking God for wisdom in my voting. I believe that still makes me myopic because I lean on, stand on and trust the word of God.

I think where many Christians, including myself, have been taught to look at one issue as the moral litmus test. This was done in the last two presidential elections. As we know God is much bigger than one issue. As Christians, we have allowed others to dictate how we should vote instead of seeking God. Many Christian leaders have guaranteed the Christian vote to politicians who have decided that they would not oppose their issues. Well, I guess that is debatable. If the world has lobbyists for their issues, Christians can also lobby their issues, but I can also see how we have focused on one issue and their have been no major impacts in legislation. We have been patient with President Bush as he has walked out his faith.

Now we have two candidates who both profess to be born-again believers and I see so much hypocrisy in Christians and Christian media. One candidate even denounced two powerhouse Christian leaders!

Jesus always taught those he came in contact with, Jews and Gentiles. He reached out to Pharisees and Sadducees. He was not swayed by one issue, but he did submit to God, our father.

He used every opportunity to teach God's ways and point out hypocrisy in the Pharisees. He showed them how they wanted to hold others to laws that they weren't even following.

We have to pray and seek God before we vote this election. Many want us to believe that voting for Democrats make you immoral and voting for Republicans make you moral. Many Democrats believe social issues are important and moral issues are personal. I believe that our next leader needs to have the right balance. He will be morally guided and socially concerned. I know you think it’s impossible, but Proverbs 21:11 says that God can turn the heart of the king like a channel. Where President Bush fell short, President Regan, Carter and others fell short, God made up the difference! He still took care of His people. Now we still need to pray for Godly legislation and include God as our guide. Christians have been called to be the light to the world.

I believe that God is so much bigger than one issue, remember He created 10 commandments! I believe the Christian vote has been part of a political marketing strategy. I believe candidates have courted the evangelical vote for years and pastors have all but guaranteed the vote would go to Republicans.

I would caution Christians to continue to watch wolves in sheep's clothing as Jesus warned us. Let us not be fooled by political parties. Let us be guided by the Holy Spirit. Let us not allow one issue to be the moral litmus test, because many can say they are against one issue and then disregard many other issues.

Pray and seek God during this election season. Don't allow Christian leaders to sell your vote. See what's really in it for them as well. Let's hear the spirit of God. Let's stop the party loyalty and be loyal to God. Let's show the compassion and love of Jesus. Let's elect a Christian leader (and both candidates are Christians) that hear the heart beat of the world. I'll pray about it and be open to God whatever He leads me to do. Will you?

Freya S. Williams
Author of Pray Before You Vote! Jesus Is Not a Democrat or a Republican! Jesus Is Lord!
www.praybeforeyouvote.org

Scriptural references:
Romans 12:8 "If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men".

1 Corinthians 2:14 - 15 "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one".

Matthew 6:24 "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon".

Romans 13:1 "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God."

Proverbs 21:1 "The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord, He turns it wherever He wishes".

Posted by: Freya S. Williams | July 29, 2008 8:08 PM

How about a candidate that doesn't think it's OK to puncture an infants skull and suck it's brain out while it is 5 centemeters from recieving full rights under the law. Or are all you "social justice" losers too busy thinking about ways to have the government forcibly confiscate peoples hard earned money (ie: steal) too give infanticide any thought?

Except for two things: 1) Those kind of abortions were already illegal in most states, so the "partial-birth abortion" bill that Bush signed was little more than rhetoric. 2) Government has the God-given right to levy taxes, whether you like it or not -- so quit complaining. (In fact, be grateful to God that you have the ability to pay taxes.)

What concern is it of McLaren's or anyone else if I arrive at a decision based on a litmus test?

The current administration is an example of why that's a questionable policy. We ended up electing (at least the second time) a man who has been nearly totally incompetent as President precisely because many conservatives and Christians used litmus tests without considering whether he knew how to run a government. A whole lot of folks understand that now, which is part of the reason Hillary got a long look, even from Republicans. I for one will vote for the person I deem best able to administrate. (Which, in practice, means I will never support a conservative.)

Posted by: Rick | July 29, 2008 9:36 PM

Brian B.

There isn't a problem with having a litmus test, but there is a problem is that litmus test limits your view (you already said this isn't the case for you).

i think the real issue is this. I'm a Christian who very much agrees with Brian's post. I also will be voting for Barrack Obama. I hate hate hate abortion and think it is one of the most vile laws that we have here in the US.

be that as it may, i'm still voting for obama. However, what if all those Christians who are voting for obama also started to urge democrates to do away with abortion (i'm assuming your comment referred to abortion.)

abortion could become a moral issue and not a partisan issue. i think there is enough dislike for abortion on both sides to do some real damage, however, politics are getting in the way.

let's vote for who we think we ought to vote for. and then after the election, our real work begins. voting is just the start....

Posted by: Adam Lehman | July 29, 2008 10:04 PM

--It's called a hypothetical.

But it's not a valid hypothetical, because it isn't realistic. That was my point.

D

Posted by: Don | July 29, 2008 10:12 PM

Sounds like a litmus test.

Not really, just common sense. When you consistently say that government is the problem, as modern conservatives until recently did, that should tell you that you have simply no business running it because you demonstrate no respect for either the institution or the duties it entails. This is why, among other things, the K Street lobbying scandal of two years ago and the recently-released report of the shenanigans in the Justice Department proved so devastating not only to the conservative movement and the Republican Party but to the country -- the conservatives that got caught up in those were in the end concerned only with the power and authority that came with the position[s] and not at all with the required responsibility of actual governance (remember, government was the "problem"). In other words, they played the populace for all it was worth and in the process became so arrogant about it they were virtually begging to get caught.

Posted by: Rick | July 29, 2008 10:54 PM

Bradley -- Ask Christians, who had to flee Iraq because of anti-Christian persecution that didn't exist before Saddam was overthrown, about that. And BTW, the Taliban are once again gaining strength in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Rick | July 29, 2008 11:16 PM

So, McLaren supports out-sourcing because it's good for the Mexican people. Right?Posted by: DITE

Your point is well taken. Politics is the art of trade offs and as Jesse put it, there are some issues for each of us that are deal breakers.

Having said that, I personally am more comfortable with McLaren's paradigm than, say, O'Reilly's or Hannity's. Those who are not, can continue to complain and cast aspersions on McLaren, as one named Kevin S does with alacrity or else they can visit blogs that correspond to their worldview and get fed the information they want.

Posted by: JamesM | July 30, 2008 5:34 AM

Obama and Chavez are definitely NOT equivalents, nor have I suggested so, nor do I believe so.

Well, whether you intended it or not, it was certainly implied in your comment to Quetzal. And that's also why I thought it was a cheap shot.

Using absurdity to try and make a point can backfire if there's no perceived connection between the absurdity and the intended point. I guess I couldn't find such a connection.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | July 30, 2008 7:58 AM

Don, how does 130 'present' votes and absolutely NO committee meetings, make Obama a valid candidate for President?

His record in the Senate alone should terrify Christians, as he is the most Liberal Senator in his decidedly Far Left votes (the few votes that he actually made, that is).

Do Christians really want the Far Left Extremists to run our nation? They will be far worse than the Far Right Extremists, imo.

McCain voted 75% of the time with the Republicans, which means he was halfway between Dem and Repub. Obama voted 95% of the time with the Dems -- tell me what in his voting record sounds like the pathway to 'reaching across the aisle' or bringing Unity to the country? He is further Left than Kerry.

I stand amazed that Christians feel the Far Left will be good for our nation, and I am a life-long Democrat who has always voted for my Party, except this year, with this SELECTED candidate and his scary associations with those who bring ribald hate into their political views (even from the pulpit).

And, Don, your comparison of the obsession with Obama to Kennedy, is completely avoiding the Messiah comparison that Obama brings to the campaign. I'm quite sure Kennedy was never considered our 'Savior' as Obama is considered.

Check out this website -- nothing like this ever before in our political campaigns -- it is supernatural.

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Sami | July 30, 2008 8:17 AM

"Politics is the art of trade offs"

Hopefully people like McLaren understand that. It feels, however, that he really believes that he and Sojo are "above this kind of politics." Not Left or Right, but forward...or whatever. This Utopian notion that if conservative meanies can just get over their partisanship we can govern flawed people into a perfect society is...well, a bit scary.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2008 8:57 AM

"It feels, however, that he really believes that he and Sojo are "above this kind of politics." DITE

Yeah, sometimes you just have to go elsewhere to be fed when all you can see in the person speaking is the negative side.

"This Utopian notion that if conservative meanies can just get over their partisanship we can govern flawed people into a perfect society is...well, a bit scary." DITE

I agree. If the conservatives weren't real mean I'd think that they were up to something behind my back.

Posted by: JamesM | July 30, 2008 9:15 AM

"I agree. If the conservatives weren't real mean I'd think that they were up to something behind my back."

I don't get it.

Posted by: DITE | July 30, 2008 9:26 AM

Don,I'd like to hear your response to this letter sent to the DNC Treasurer, by a loyal Dem supporter:

The following is a letter sent to DNC Treasurer Andy Tobias (pictured at right) telling him why, from a rational investor's point of view, Obama has not earned the author's vote. The letter was sent by one of the DNC's biggest donors, a donor who has historically maxed out to the DNC and who was a maxed out donor in both the Kerry and Clinton campaigns, in response to comments by Tobias that she could not see the forest through the trees.

You decide.

Dear Andy,

So you want to know what is taking me so long to "get on board"? Let me try to answer with some discussion of what my 25 years on Wall Street and the Hedge Fund community have taught me, and what insights I can share in order to explain my stance.

As you know, anyone in our profession meets with countless management teams on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. The "plots" change from time to time and the cast of characters play musical chairs. After awhile, they become all too familiar. You have seen the movie before. When you spot the corrupt CFO enter the scene, it immediately casts a doubt on the rest of the management team. One or two conclusions can be drawn - either they are inept or they wanted a dishonest player. Neither answer provides any comfort, but always insight. I have been lied to by the best of them over the decades; I am sure you have had similar experiences.

After years of stepping in land mines, I learned to read people and situations. I had no choice - my listening skills were honed, my gut fine-tuned. I picked up on what was and was not said, and I always paid close attention to the cast of characters. The actions of a management team always told me more than anything they ever said. If they were bailing out, so was I. If the head of sales left unexpectedly, alarm bells went of.

In the thirteen years that I have had audited results, I lost money in only one year, and then only in single digits. I am proud that I was able repay my investors' faith and confidence in me by compounding their funds assets, net of fees, at 18% over those 13 years. I took my responsibilities seriously and when I knew I could not give it 110% of my energies, I turned it over to someone who would. My investors deserved someone who would work tirelessly on their behalf, looking under every rock in support of their interests.

The fact that I became successful was not what made me proud. It was how I did it. My soul is intact. It was the self-imposed rules and standards that I adhered to. I believed in a win, win, and still do. My investors always came first. I never screwed anyone over. I made plenty of mistakes, but I always owned them, never blaming others. I treated everyone fairly and with respect, believing everyone has
something to offer. I always tried to do the right thing.

So what does this have to do with me not falling in line and
supporting Obama? Well everything as you can see.

Andy, if I worked and served the people in the 13th District in
Chicago, I would have known all of the players. And to win that district, would I have gamed the system to run unopposed? Tony Rezko would not have had a seat at my table. Either Obama is a fool and is blind to what should have been obvious, or someone like Tony is fine by Obama's standards. The guy is a dirtball. And a dirtball would not
be part of my circle, certainly not my inner circle. I would rather not be elected than associate with someone like Rezko.

Nor for political or any other reasons would I choose Rev. Wright, Rev. Meeks, or Father Plager as my spiritual mentors. Again, he is either blind or an opportunist. Would I be hanging out with Mr. Ayers? Would you? Would you refuse to be photographed with Gavin Newsom? There is a pattern with this guy - he manipulates; the ends justify the means. He lacks character.

Getting not one bill passed in the first 6 years of his career in not inspiring. Having Emil Jones hand him the ball 26 times on the one-yard line in order to make Obama a United States Senator does not cut it either. What deals he made, he did to benefit no one but himself. He never worked long enough in either Senate to help the people who elected him. Andy, I could never imagine you taking credit for legislation someone else slaved over. Starting in his community organizing days he claimed sole responsibility for other people's accomplishments all for the purpose to boosting his career.

In terms of the campaign itself, I had the opportunity to witness his methods up close. During the primaries I was in 6 states, 2 of which had caucuses; it was not clean. El Paso was a joke with the Obama campaign stealing the caucus packets, locking supporters out - Intimidation 101, 102 and
103. Fair elections do not seem to be a priority in my birth state. No other machine exists from the days of Boss
Tweed, but Chicago's. How many elected officials are in jail?They are the joke of the nation. It is called the Chicago machine for good reason.

It was clear that what I saw and experienced was not a fluke or isolated incidents, but coordinated, deliberate and arrogant. I got to see him and his organization for who he is and what it is - not inspiring, to say the least. Not something I would have, in business, endorsed in any way. In fact, I would most likely have reported them to the appropriate regulators.

Andy, I have consistently found you to be a compassionate person, but more importantly you have always put your money where your mouth is. Does it not bother you that a guy like Obama can serve a poor district and give away a paltry $1000 to charity? He only stepped up his giving when he decided to run for President and he knew his charitable
giving would be made public. How could anyone see that much misery and not try to personally do something about it?

Please, show me something this guy ever did that was not done in a calculated fashion to create and advance his own personal narrative? Something selfless, perhaps, just because it was the right thing to do?

Every person I have talked to who worked at the Law Review at Harvard with him, or in the later part of his career, said the same thing: he was arrogant and self-centered. One person laughed, saying Obama wanted to be King of the World, that he was always running for something, never staying in one place long enough to amass accomplishments or be held accountable.

Do you not you find it troublesome that he has hundreds of paid bloggers, posting vicious attacks not only about the Clintons but her supporters as well? The whole purpose was to cast him as the second coming, while trashing her and quashing other points of view.

At first I thought is was just some hyped up kids, and then a pattern emerged. He paid others to do his dirty work. The most egregious sexist cracks were rampant, both on the Internet and the MSM. Yet, what did Howard and Obama say? Nothing. Obama promoted it, paid his bloggers to write it. Never once did he try to stop it. Howard, after the damage was done finally commented on it, but barely. Wink,
wink.

Andy, I heard remarks that still make my jaw drop.

You know I consider myself a centrist. The right wing of the
Republican Party scares me, but so does the left. Ideologues of either side should not have control simultaneously of the executive, legislative, and judicial arms of the government. Absolute power corrupts, be it on the left or the right. Ha, but you will say.... the courts. If you have the legislative branch, all will be fine. McCain voted Ginsberg in, he is not a stupid man and certainly not an Ideologue, and he took heat in the primaries for refusing to have a litmus test for judges. And need I remind you that Obama thought Roberts was an acceptable appointment until some more experienced hands in the Senate told him that would not do?

Painting him as Bush 3 is a little annoying, and what's up with the MoveOn Baby Alex commercial? Give credit where credit is due. McCain went against his own party twice on immigration reform, on ethanol subsidies, and campaign finance reform. He started talking about Global warming 8 years ago. I don't agree with McCain on a number of topics, but I do believe he has principals and a backbone. He is not
willing to say anything to get elected.

I can't say the same for Obama who is turning out to be more like Bush than McCain; Obama is at least as arrogant as W, just more polished. Are you not ashamed, in these past weeks, of his reckless abandon of any pretense to a moral center on issues such as FISA, separation of church and state, gun control? And what he did to one of my heroes,
Wes Clark? Insulting my intelligence and my standards will not win me over.

But, in this conversation, you will say, McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. No, he said that as in Japan, or Korea, we could have a presence. We have been in both of those countries for 60 years and not leaving any time soon, and the world is safer for it.

Next will be, McCain is not knowledgeable about the economy. While with Carly Fiorina, who I remember from her Lucent days, at a town meeting he turned the mic over to Carly when asked about the mortgage mess, painting her as the expert. Wow - he gave a woman a compliment, praising her knowledge, referring to her as the expert. How often
have you praised Charles, or me, and everyone for that matter? Why? Because you are gracious and you know it reflects well on you.

All this might not bother me if so much if the stakes where not so high, but they are. I am an issues person, not a cult of personality devotee. Substance matters. Barack is a politician, an inexperienced one at that, pretending he is different. I just see him as arrogant and power hungry. Our country deserves better, someone I would be proud to do business with.

Andy, my country comes first, not the Democrat party. Having said that, I believe that the Democratic Party has just kicked away the best candidate and our best chance to redeem our country, Hillary Clinton, a proven centrist. Given his resume, or should I say the lack of one, he is either ineffective or hiding something, neither answer gives me the warm and fuzzies. If she is chosen in Denver, you can
count on my full and enthusiastic support. Until then,

I own my vote.

Posted by: Sami | July 30, 2008 9:42 AM

Ronald Reagan was governor of the most populated state in the union for two terms before he became president. That's way more experience than Obama.

That's a damning point, because in my view Reagan was absolutely the worst president in my lifetime and the reason I got move heavily involved in politics in the first place.

Posted by: Rick | July 30, 2008 9:51 AM

Regretably, my earlier post referring to Senator Obama's experience assumed that those reading it were aware of American History. For those who need an explanation, the last president who was elected who lived in Illinois at the time of his election was Abraham Lincoln, who briefly represented his state in the House of Representatives and who unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. Senate against Douglas.

Ronald Reagan (whose support for the Taliban in Afghanistan during the 1980s created the mess that we now face) was living in California at the time of his election.

Posted by: sister marie | July 30, 2008 9:58 AM

"the last president who was elected who lived in Illinois at the time of his election..."

Would that Paul Simon had received the Democratic nomination in 1988 instead of Michael Dukakis. We could have had a President of high intelligence and integrity--from Illinois yet! We would have also had a pro-life Democrat at the top of the ticket. Where were all the social justice Christians in 1988, after eight years of Reagan? We dropped the ball! Sorry, after twenty years I'm still smarting over it.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2008 10:40 AM

"You may not see that, but those of us who aren't conservatives sure do. They really believe in their heart of hearts that they're superior to everyone else"

Unfortunately, I guess I'm not enlightened enough to see that only the conservatives want political power. I guess I was so naive that I thought liberals were trying to win every election too.

Conservatives favor worth/power being measured by the voluntary exchange (the market). Liberals want equal outcomes, achieved through coercion (government), to put forth their "superior" ideals.

"Regretably, my earlier post referring to Senator Obama's experience assumed that those reading it were aware of American History."

Ha Yes, obviously we all knew you were talking about Lincoln. But Reagan grew up in Illinois, and "came from Illinois." Sorry, I couldn't pass up the chance to capitalize on the vagueness of your comment.

Oh, and Lincoln certainly had more years of "public service" experience than did Obama. And this is a bit off subject, but it really makes me a little upset. Obama continually says that he has "over twenty years of public service." That's an outright lie. Going to Yale Law school was public service? Working at a law firm was public service?

Posted by: DITE | July 30, 2008 10:55 AM

Where were all the social justice Christians in 1988, after eight years of Reagan?

Marginalized, disorganized and all but invisible -- in my city the number I knew I could count on one hand.

Unfortunately, I guess I'm not enlightened enough to see that only the conservatives want political power. I guess I was so naive that I thought liberals were trying to win every election too.

I wasn't talking about just political power -- there's also economic, social and cultural power and the conservatives have always wanted it all, even at the expense of everyone else -- essentially, they wanted to be worshipped. Keep in mind that the modern conservative movement was founded amid considerable resentment toward "elites" and was at first sold as such which played well especially in the South.

Conservatives favor worth/power being measured by the voluntary exchange (the market). Liberals want equal outcomes, achieved through coercion (government), to put forth their "superior" ideals.

Even libertarians today understand that to be an outright lie, as the conservatives proved to be as "coercive" as they claimed the liberals to be.

Obama continually says that he has "over twenty years of public service." That's an outright lie. Going to Yale Law school was public service? Working at a law firm was public service?

Sorry, but that's accurate -- he was a community activist in Chicago for many years after graduating from Columbia and, later, Harvard Law. Just recently I read in the New Yorker magazine (the one with the controversial cover) and later in the New York Times that he also turned down offers to become a tenured professor at the University of Chicago's law school, where he taught constitutional law part-time. Anyway, Obama's community activism explains how he hooked up with Jeremiah Wright.

Posted by: Rick | July 30, 2008 11:31 AM

They are taking God out of every thing we believe in. Time to fight back. When you put you mail out write; IN GOD WE TRUST front and back of your envelopes. We pay for that stamp and it's OUR right.
God bless you all and may he keep you in his love and care alway's and forever.

Posted by: Tina Cotterman | July 30, 2008 11:42 AM

BTW your infatuation with Kevin S. is very entertaining. I'm sorry that wittiness intimidates you.

Posted by: DITE

Many People here who come to the conclussions that government has the answers , unless its conservative government, see open minds as agreeing with them . kevin makes good points , hence he proves the rants made by many of the liberals here false about narrow mindness .
Its Ok here to lump people into groups as being motivated by hatred , this is seen as acceptable in the rules of conduct . Its not bibical , but when has politics ever been in this nation's history . kevin has outlasted the ones here who got tired of the group attacks directed to individuals in sarcastic or other methods using a person's view and attacking it as a though held by non Godly and non caring people , instead of people making heart felt views known . Hence you are pro life , instead of ridicluing the person , others will portray that view as shallow . The person who has been put in the shallow category starts in the conversation already defensive .
Kevin I admire . He takes the chaep shots and premises set up by many here and directs his comments to the issue .

Abortion is evil , yet people here , especially one, will use that as a aspect of your view that is actually cheap , hence being pro life here is turned around into being a fool or something negative . Jesus was pro life , he may not vote for a republican candidate , but he would surely agree . Killing babies is wrong. Candidates who promote the individual's right to abortion are wrong .

Posted by: politicsmakeusthisway | July 30, 2008 11:49 AM

Casey: "For all those mocking the comparisons to Chavez and Obama, I have bad news. My good friend from Venezuela said Obama sounds exactly like Chavez did when he started getting into power."

And I have bad news for you. My good friend from Venezuela says she disagrees with your good friend from Venezuela.

Posted by: carl copas | July 30, 2008 11:56 AM

They are taking God out of every thing we believe in. Time to fight back.

That's our fault for misrepresenting Him. If we were to live as Christ told us to -- and without official sanction -- we wouldn't have that problem.

kevin has outlasted the ones here who got tired of the group attacks directed to individuals in sarcastic or other methods using a person's view and attacking it as a though held by non Godly and non caring people , instead of people making heart felt views known .

Not so simple. See, the "conservatives" generally haven't engaged us or anyone else; they decided that they needed to "preach" to everyone and when people disagreed with them (some more vociferously than others) they claimed persecution because they didn't want their views held up to cricical scrutiny. Many of the conservatives I know were so obsessed with doctrinal purity they failed to see how their pet doctines actually worked -- or, perhaps more accurately, didn't work.

Posted by: Rick | July 30, 2008 12:01 PM

The very Far Right has ruined religion for many Americans, with their tunnel vision and seeming lack of compassion.

But they do NOT try to rid our nation of Christ or God, and for that reason alone, they are not as dangerous to our world as are the very Far Left.

Their intent seems to be to stop all inferences or references to God (and Jesus is just a fairy tale to them, as is the Bible). They want Creationism to be wiped out of our way of thinking and God to be relegated to a passive (very passive) role in our lives, if at all.

Since their belief system also includes a GREAT emphasis on freedom for ALL peoples, not just certain groups -- and since they base their legal right to push this belief system to the forefront due to our Constitution and the basis of our whole government -- I think they are being very hypocritical, since our legal right to Freedom for All is based on (paraphrased) 'we have been endowed from our CREATOR with the inalienble right that all men are created equal.'

What? We have a CREATOR? And they use this, to base their Civil Rights arguments on?

IF we have a CREATOR, I assume He CREATED us. . . .and, once we adapt that basic tenet, the Far Left Extremst's whole premise goes out the window.

Posted by: Sami | July 30, 2008 12:04 PM

DITE:

For the record, Lincoln served for 8 years in the Illinois House of Representatives and for 2 years in the U.S. Congress. Senator Obama served for 8 years in the Illinois Senate and for 4 years in the U.S. Senate. (But you already knew that.) Throw in Lincoln's 3 months in the Illinois Militia and the years of public service are still comparable.

But all this discussion about public service is irrelevant. A review of the past 40 years shows that many of the presidents that we have elected (with years of public service) have been disasters. I was serving in the military when Nixon ran on his "secret plan to end the Vietnam Conflict" only to learn that his secret plan prolonged the war by another 7 years at the cost of thousands of American lives. Then Reagan helped to overthrow the Soviet puppet government in Afghanistan by supplying bin Laden and the Taliban with Stinger missiles. Reagan also supported both sides in the Iran/Iraq conflict and funnelled money to governments in Central American who used it to purchase weapons to kill nuns.

The bottom line is that this "experience issue" is a false and somewhat specious argument - mainly because experience, particularly Washington experience, does not necessarily result in sensible policy.

Posted by: sister marie | July 30, 2008 12:16 PM

But that's just a coincidence, because he's actually arrived at precisely the same political conclusions through an entirely different means. Amazing how that works.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 29, 2008 3:36 PM

Well, there you go again, Kevin. Your "faith" in Jesus would be better served if you weren't so judgmental and quick to attribute ulterior motives to others. This sort of remark is exactly why you garner so much criticism. You aren't the least bit interested in an honest dialogue—just pointing fingers of blame. And every time someone rises to the bait to point out that "Conservative" politicians are just as corrupt and self-serving as any Liberal, you consider it as a personal attack.

All I can say is: "What goes around comes around." If you don't want to be insulted, try not being so insufferably arrogant in your put-downs.

"Hence my rhetorical candidate. It's a challenge of presupposition and predication based on the fact that most commenting here have already made their decision for November 2008 - and that being Obama."

Posted by: Armed2Win | July 29, 2008 4:11 PM

I don't recall a poll or a raft of endorsements for the candidate that many so-called Christians are declaring to be the Antichrist. While it is obvious that you will not vote for Obama, I would not unequivocally state that you will vote for McCain. Why don't you take your head out of your butt and pick a new moniker. You sound too much like a White Supremacist.

"i'm all for killing as many people as possible that "hate freedom." So... whichever candidate is in line with that..."

Posted by: tad DeLay | July 29, 2008 4:31 PM

Here we have another "warrior" for Christ with no faith in the power of His Lord.

Wrong. I simply don't believe in bias-free voting.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 29, 2008 5:26 PM

How about bias-free blogging, Kev?

Is no one at this Christian website at all concerned that a vote for Obama could be a vote for Anti-Christ?

Never in my lifetime have I seen such adoration of a mere community organizer named Barry. It is supernatural.

Everything is in place for the rise of Anti-Christ, and out of nowhere rises a 'politician' who is being called 'messiah' and practically worshiped.

What has happened to the Christian community? Is everyone under his spell?

Posted by: Sami | July 29, 2008 7:16 PM

I sincerely doubt that anyone will go to Hell just for voting for Obama. The fact is that no one IS the Antichrist yet. Aren't you concerned that you may vote against someone based on false rumors? Aren't you at all concerned with the fact that George Bush already has the power to declare Martial Law and cancel the elections? But, of course, he would need become more articulate and insightful in order to deceive the entire world. As it is, he succeeded in deceiving enough Americans to set US on the path of no return.

Re: single issue voting, I appreciate the fact that McLaren threw in "war" with abortion and homosexuality, as many people no doubt are using this as a litmus test. Will Sojo criticize their narrowmindedness, I wonder?

Posted by: jesse | July 29, 2008 7:20 PM

The notion that all Liberals and Progressives are nothing but hearts and flowers and unilateral disarmament strikes me as a bit of narrow-mindedness on your part. Jesus said "put away thy sword"; He didn't say to throw it away. Most non-conservatives are in full agreement with the right of self-defense. Such is not the case with Iraq.

How about a candidate that doesn't think it's OK to puncture an infants skull and suck it's brain out while it is 5 centemeters from recieving full rights under the law. Or are all you "social justice" losers too busy thinking about ways to have the government forcibly confiscate peoples hard earned money (ie: steal) too give infanticide any thought?

Posted by: debarrio | July 29, 2008 8:05 PM

And since when did any of you "tax fairness" losers ever care about those children once they were born. Our "progressive" tax system has always favored the rich with all sorts of schemes for "sheltering" or exempting income from taxes. Your darling candidates have shifted even more of the tax burden from the rich to the middle-class. Each time the Federal government cuts their "income" taxes, the burden of paying for unfunded federal mandates goes to state and local taxpayers. The residents of Beverly Hills are perfectly capable of picking up the tab. But other, less fortunate areas are left to fend for themselves through higher property, sales, and excise taxes and fees.

All of these state and local taxes eventually burden the poor much more than the middle and upper classes. Higher property taxes result in higher rents and higher prices at the local deli—which is usually the only "grocery store" within walking distance of those that cannot afford a car. If they can find a bus that will get them near a major grocer, they must hire a taxi to get them home. It goes without saying that virtually every dollar that the poor have is subject to sales taxes.

You want to force women to have children that they either cannot or will not care for, but you have no money to mitigate the negative influences in their lives. No money for healthcare or proper nutrition, no equal opportunity for an education that will increase their chances of becoming productive citizens. You only have money to build more jails to house them when they (predictably) fail to live up to your lofty expectations of others burdened with challenges that most of us have never faced.

You want to blame Liberals for all your troubles, but it is Conservatives that have engineered the insolvency of the nation by eliminating regulations designed to protect the American public from unscrupulous speculators that are now looking for a "bail-out" with off-budget taxpayer dollars because they are "too big to fail". The dollar has lost nearly 50% of its value under the last 7 years of Republican rule.

Check out this website -- nothing like this ever before in our political campaigns -- it is supernatural.

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Sami | July 30, 2008 8:17 AM

There are plenty of other websites stating unequivocally that Obama "is" the Antichrist. Neither viewpopint is very convincing in providing "proof" of their assertions.

"The "community organizer" has about the same amount of experience as the last president who came from Illinois."

Ronald Reagan was governor of the most populated state in the union for two terms before he became president. That's way more experience than Obama.

Posted by: DITE | July 30, 2008 9:39 AM

If that was supposed to prove a point, you missed the mark by a wide margin. Ronald Reagan had no foreign policy experience when he ran for office; enter George H. W. Bush with his experience as Congressman, CIA Director, and Ambassador to the UN. That would be the same George Bush that has a cozy (and quite profitable) relationship with Saudi royalty.

Reagan provided satellite intelligence and chemical and biological agents to Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran War, arms and training to Osama bin Laden in the Soviet-Afghan War, sold advanced military hardware to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and lost more Marines in one day than Jimmy Carter lost in four years. While Carter took Gen. Noriega off of the CIA payroll—where he had been since George Bush was the director—Reagan promptly rehired him.

Do you detect a pattern of "leadership" that most Christians would say was a BIG MISTAKE?

Furthermore, your sainted Conservative icon engineered a tax package that actually pays companies to leave the country. How many of their tax dollars are now going to the countries that are putting US out of business?

I own my vote.

Posted by: Sami | July 30, 2008 9:42 AM

Vote for whomever you please, it is your right. Brian's post was not an endorsement or criticism of any particular candidate—just an honest and forthright discussion of the reasons people use to justify their vote.

Posted by: Hermes | July 30, 2008 12:29 PM

Some quotes from Wikipedia concerning Hugo Chávez:

"Chávez was catapulted into the national spotlight, with many poor Venezuelans seeing him as a figure who had stood up against government corruption and kleptocracy."

"Chávez and his followers described their aim as "laying the foundations of a new republic" to replace the existing one, which they cast as "party-dominated"; the current constitution, they argued, was no more than the 'juridico-political embodiment of puntofijismo,' the country's traditional two-party patronage system."

"Chávez utilized his flamboyant public speaking style...on the campaign trail to win the trust and favor of a primarily poor and working class following."

"Chávez also halted planned privatizations of, among others, the national social security system, aluminum industry holdings, and the oil sector.[27] Chávez also overhauled the formerly lax tax collection and auditing system—especially regarding major corporations and landholders."

Unfortunately, we know how well Chávez has worked out, taking over companies, corporations, nationalizing/socializing everything in site, including the media to silence any sort of opposition - courting the likes of Iran and Cuba and Russia.

Unfortunately, Chávez sounds a lot like many folks within the current Democratic party, and many commenting here. My wonder is will Obama be able to stand up against the grinding wheels of socialistic tendencies that never work in a corrupt and sinful world, or will he promote democracy and civility?

Posted by: Armed2Win | July 30, 2008 12:41 PM

"would agree. But who is actually promoting the right to abortion? I don't see either candidate doing that."

Don I would say a person who intellectually admits , and I happen to like Obama by the way, that he does not know when life starts , then votes in a way that gain 100 percent rating from NARAL has thought process so enshrined in secular /humanistic philospy, what ever that really means .

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

"And by the same logic, candidates who joke about bombing a sovereign nation are also wrong."

Well I would almost agree with that , except like Reverend Wright , jessie jacksin using the words he does , Obama speaking to people about people clinging to guns and religion , etc are examples of cultural surroundings and saying things that perhaps are not understood totally in the way we hear them .

(What's pro-life about that?)

Nothing . If Mccain actuallypromted bombing Iran I would be concerned , Obama votes for abortion , Federally funding it . Even though he realizes , if he is being honest , I believe he is , that we may be murdering lives with souls . He admits he does not know when life begins .

"Candidates who take advice from militarists and warmongers are wrong."

Huh ? McCain does that or are you going on a tangent .

"Many things candidates say and do are wrong. Which "wrongs" are deal breakers? Which wrongs, while never acceptable, are easier to ignore?"

Well said , and I agree . But when a person supports abortion on demand , voted for it , gets votes from a crowd and political force that makes a living by it , regardless of values involved , and the term regardless is important , to me is a valid issue . The fact that he is wrong on this issue , yet he is defended by many here contradicts the shallowness directed at conservatives . I quit the republican party a few months ago , am supporting a local democrat in a Commissioner race . he is pro choice , gay rights , marriage , etc . He is a fair man . I can understand a secualr thought process for gay marriage and abortion . Wallis may say I am joining his progressive force , not in the least .

The Commissioner I am supporting is wrong on abortion , and wrong on gay marriage . He also would be more likely to give you , I or anyone a fair break with the laws and regulations we have .
But that is far from me saying he is a Righteous and Christian man .

So yes , fairness is important to me , which is why I disagree with those who claim Obama is always concerned about Justice , in the case of abortion , he neglects the most vulernable .
Sermon on the Mount , Red Lettering , well it gets to sound silly when such things are ignored and then thrown in the face in another poltical position .

God Bless,

Posted by: politicsmakeusthisway | July 30, 2008 12:49 PM

Armed2Win: "Unfortunately, Chávez sounds a lot like many folks within the current Democratic party, and many commenting here. My wonder is will Obama be able to stand up against the grinding wheels of socialistic tendencies that never work in a corrupt and sinful world, or will he promote democracy and civility?"

Unfortunately, you present a false choice. And as for "socialistic tendencies that never work in a corrupt and sinful world," they seemed to work pretty well for the early church in Acts. For that matter, they've worked pretty well for a number of social democracies in modern western Europe.

Posted by: carl copas | July 30, 2008 12:51 PM

Huh ? McCain does that or are you going on a tangent .

Some of McCain's advisors are neocons. I don't have names at hand, but I could get them by tonight if you want.

I think neocons can fairly be called warmongers and militarists. Their view of foreign affairs emphasizes military action and minimizes, if it doesn't outright preclude, diplomacy.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | July 30, 2008 12:57 PM

Regarding Antichrist, I don't know what theologians you are reading, but if you read the only biblical passage where the word Antichrist is used (it's in the first letter of John), you will find that Antichrist is not a political figure at all. Antichrist arises within the Church and tries to deceive the elect from within.

A few months ago I was attending a Bible study on Revelation and I learned that there is no one person identified as the Antichrist, just a spirit of such that may be embodied in one or more persons.

Posted by: Rick | July 30, 2008 1:12 PM

Don I am not sure what you mean by neocon . I hear it all the time , but according to the on line dictionary it said this :

moderate political conservatism espoused or advocated by former liberals or socialists.

Which confuses me more because I don;t think that is what you mean . I never considered McCain as a warmonger , just as I never considered Obama as the great satan . I believe McCain would not have put us in this situation in Iraq if he was President . Obama would not have either .

Why I beleive he would be the better Commander In Chief is because I believe he can get us out of this mess in the best possible manner . You seem to believe he would make it worse , or actually get us in another war if I am hearing you right ?

I see McCain being surrounded by peoplefrom all perspectives , even more so then Obama . Would be somewhat interested in the people you are speaking about though , but I hear the right putting Obama with some kooks from Chicago , militant activists , anti anything America, and thaT IS USED ON HIM LIKE THE FLAG PIN he would not wear or whatever . The Catholic Priest that made news preaching at Wright's church is espoused by some of the folks here , even Obama called his remarks out of bounds . He has donated over the years to Obama's campaigns . I will be honest I will take the names with a grain of salt most likely , the association politics of destruction have repeatedly gotten me off track about people in general .

But you got me interested . Just I don't even know what a neocon is .

God Bless , if you have the time the names would be cool to know .

Posted by: politicsmakeusthisway | July 30, 2008 1:21 PM

BTW your infatuation with Kevin S. is very entertaining. I'm sorry that wittiness intimidates you. Posted by: DITE

No, not really on both points. I do feel the pain of your sorriness, though. Thanks.

Posted by: JamesM | July 30, 2008 1:27 PM

"In democracies the State has a monopoly on coercion. Certainly this is necessary, but conservatives want less government than liberals (or progressives...or whatever you prefer to be called these days) so less coercion."

That's just bs. You all just want coercion to come from corporations and the free market. At least be honest about it.

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 30, 2008 1:32 PM

"I am not fearmongering - I am participating in a legitimate debate. Unless you want everyone to agree with you, castigating another's concerns as fear-mongering is a bit hypocritical."

I am so glad you brought this up. You have compared Obama to Chavez on a few occasions and you use hyperbole a lot to show how clueless liberals are. Legitimate debate does more than that. you are fear-mongering when you equate Obama with Chavez. It's disingenuous at best.

Instead of actually debating what people say or do you confuse far left (communist and socialist systems) with what American liberals want. They are not the same thing at all. I wish you would stop doing that. If you stopped doing that that would actually increase debate. I don't want you to agree with me but I do want you to be fair and at the very least honest.

Quite honestly evangelicals have earned whatever critiques they are getting on this site or from me. Oh and it's not hypocritical for me to call for more honest debate. You are not dealing with all the liberals right now. you are dealing with me and besides that, I am one of four real liberals on this board. The rest are just sympathetic.

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 30, 2008 1:45 PM

"That's just bs. You all just want coercion to come from corporations and the free market. At least be honest about it."

Do you have any examples of corporations that have legally coerced people into buying their products?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2008 1:51 PM

That's just bs. You all just want coercion to come from corporations and the free market. At least be honest about it.

p

Posted by: Payshun

Get a grip , most people I know have no incomes close to even have to worry about taxes going up on them . Telling another person their beliefs of smaller government are really just about greed is as BS as telling a poor person his belief government can help his family members is really a secret conspiracy to take away our rights .

Its unchristian , you owe the man an apology .
Smaller government to many people means freedom , freedom means different things to different people . To some less government means a better chance at the American Dream , to some government allows that chance .

Because welfare frauds benefitted from welfare does not mean all supporting welfare were crooks , just as it does not mean all who support smaller government support corporate welfare .

A perfect example of attacking a person's belief with political mud , interesting only conservatives do that from what I hear , you must be in the closet .

Posted by: politicsmakeusthisway | July 30, 2008 1:59 PM

Politics,

Not apologizing, sorry it's true. Greed is god in this country and just because they are deluded enough to believe freedom comes from the free market doesn't make it so. you and I both know that.

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 30, 2008 2:06 PM

Payshun, I have never equated Obama with Chavez, and stated in earlier comments that I don't think the two are even remotely similar. I do think that some Democrats, especially the far left, are similar, but that is moving beyond what I want to address.

My original comments were in regards to Quetzel's Criteria. My whole point is that any number of people can fit into a set criteria, so setting criteria that is holistic in nature is a lesson in futility for that very point.

You neglected to mention that I did agree with you on one point. Let me agree with you on another - statement equating Obama with Anti-Christ are in my opinion....wait for it....fear mongering. ;-)

Posted by: Armed2Win | July 30, 2008 2:10 PM

Most liberals posting here blatantly express unrealistic fears about conservatives, evangelicals and John McCain ...

We "liberals" have enough experience with conservatives to know just what they will do, how they will do it and the spirit in which they will do it for our fears to be labeled "unrealistic." They have played dirty politics from the start (which, for our purposes, means Reagan), and conservative activists even went so far as to file suit in Federal court in Arkansas in 1992 to have Bill Clinton thrown off the presidential ballot! BTW, as long as McCain was fighting the conservatives in his party he was respected; when he kowtowed to them he wasn't.

Bush has not been anywhere near a bastion of conservatism.

Au contraire -- Bush has been the epitome of conservatism, even more so than Reagan, who didn't have a Congress that he simply rolled over. Conservatism, though sold as "smaller government," really always was about class warfare with the the powerful running roughshod over the powerless for their own benefit.

As I see it, modern conservatism had four pillars: 1) Economic/pro-business; 2) Libertarians; 3) Social/religious; and 4) "Hawks," formerly Cold Warriors and now neoconservatives. Reagan brought them together, but because they had different and ultimately irreconcilable goals and roles there was no way that they could coexist for very long.

Anyway, getting back on topic, I mentioned earlier that I would never consider voting for a conservative, not simply because I disagree with it but because I will eventually be marginalized and treated worse than dirt because I do. Besides, I really believe it clashes with the Gospel in key ways, not the least of which that it separates everyone into "us" and "them" -- which necessarily shifts to "us-against-them" -- and that has divided the Body of Christ to our everlasting shame.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2008 2:18 PM

Payshun: "In case you have not noticed that was happening the minute Christianity started fighting with Rome. I am not about silencing any opposition. But at least have some. Have something substantive. A poor understanding of Antichrist theology is not a good reason to not vote for a person."

What I post is not from my own understanding and great knowledge of the scriptures, Payshun, but comes from the words of others who I feel speak with more authority than I (or you, with all due respect).

Presently, I am re-reading 'Escape the Coming Night' by Dr. David Jeremiah. His book is based on Revelation and what John foresaw on the Island of Patmos, and how it relates to our world today.

He speaks of Revelation 6:2, quoting John's own words: "I looked and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest. . . "

Dr. Jeremiah says this about those words of John: ". . . .The great counterfeiter is none other than the Antichrist, who rides into the world at the beginning of the tribulation period to bring peace in the midst of global turmoil. The great imitator, the cleverest mimic of all time, he will conquer without war.....The world is looking for a man on a white horse. Nations are churning. Revolutions are toppling governments. In this nuclear age, men live with the threat of international catastrophe. The final dictator, promising peace and propsperity, will be welcomed as the savior and hope of the world; he will command the military and mesmerize the masses. Governments will be united under his leadership and the people of the earth will sigh with relief, believing their future will be brighter."

(Does this sound like Bush, or Obama)?

No way could 'the very elect' have felt that Bush could be AntiChrist, but Obama fits the description in every way. Even his birth his open to speculation. For the first time in my lifetime, Israel is back in their land as a nation, encircled by enemies on all sides, (and just this week, I read in the Jewish newspaper Arutz Shiva, that the garments for the priests are, FOR THE FIRST TIME since Israel retained ownership of the land, being made, to be used in the Third Temple). The earth seems to be changing, losing its natural resources and its environment is eroded into uncleanness. Nuclear warfare is being used to bully and taunt, by nations that never had that ability before -- and war and terrorism is at the forefront of everyone's consciousness.

And into this global mess, strides Obama, promising Hope and Unity and Peace, and not just for America, but for the World, as is evidenced by his most recent speech in Berlin.

I don't think God is too weak to rescue America, but it is not in the Bible that He will rescue us forever -- it IS in the Bible that the world will be brought altogether through great agony and turmoil, in one place where a great battle will be fought. Other than the Third Temple being built, everything is in place for that battle.

If you believe God's Word, surely you can see that catastrophe will descend and America will be part of the ensuing destruction.

Or don't you believe God's own Words?

Posted by: Sami | July 30, 2008 2:30 PM

Presently, I am re-reading 'Escape the Coming Night' by Dr. David Jeremiah. His book is based on Revelation and what John foresaw on the Island of Patmos, and how it relates to our world today.

The point is that it doesn't -- Revelation, in its proper context, is but a vision that John had and does not generally represent future events; John's original audience of (primarily) Jewish believers would have understood that. Only in the last 200 years or so, with the advent of "dispensational" theology, has Revelation been taken literally when it should never have been.

Posted by: Rick | July 30, 2008 2:43 PM

"just because they are deluded enough to believe freedom comes from the free market doesn't make it so. you and I both know that.

p"

Actually delusion is in the eye of the deluded sometimes . We have freemarkets because of freedom , not the other way around .

Don said

"But I for one haven't honestly seen much legitimate argument from Obama's opponents to date."

Don I don't think I have heard any arguements that have been stated that are in his corner either . I have guilt by associations from both camps , even you surprised me in that .

I saw a cartoon with Mccain , Obama and Uncle Sam . Over McCain the caption says four more years of Bush , over Obama says four more years of Carter , then Uncle Sam is pointing a gun to his head saying Fourrrr more years .

I have seen neither come up for a real energy policy , I don't even know if Obama has one ?
Hope and Change means what ? New social programs or spending more on old programs . National Health Care reform during an energy crisis ?
Hoover had had some great progressive ideas , he unfourtunately was the wrong guy at the wrong time . Hopefully Obama is smarter with his economic undertanding , but he is coming into office with many problems from Bush left to him , plus the energy crisis which is worse then I believe we are admitting .

Maybe the debates will tell us more .

Posted by: politicsmakeusthisway | July 30, 2008 2:47 PM

"No --it's mere persuasion."

Yeah, that's my point.

"What I hear in that statement is out-and-out, 200-proof resentment because for once you're being forced to consider the rights and freedoms of other people besides yourself."

Why? I buy products too.

"Just think if Jesus operated under that principle ... not only would literally everyone be damned but this world would be insufferable."

He did exactly that! He gave humans the ability to choose. Humans don't get struck down every time they are not nice to someone. Thankfully, God has given us mechanisms like the free market and rule of law that prevent us from maximizing our sins against our fellow man.

Posted by: DITE | July 30, 2008 2:52 PM

I have seen neither come up for a real energy policy .../i>

Neither have I, but I don't think we'll get one from any politician. Not one like we need--which keeps petrol prices high so we are encouraged both to conserve and to develop both alternative energy and transportation systems (Sister, marie, I for one don't want to go back to $1.09-a-gallon gasoline. It was bad for us because it encouraged waste). But that's another debate for another time.

Maybe the debates will tell us more .

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. But I hope maybe this time I'll be wrong.

I don't think either candidate has "the answers." (I wasn't all that thrilled with the overall quality of leadership we were being offered during the primaries, either. But we get the government we deserve, and I believe that God is not pleased with us right now.) But it's not hard to see that either candidate is likely to be an improvement, however small, on what we have now.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | July 30, 2008 3:00 PM

"The issue is making them addictive and then lying about it."

Any product can be addictive. When companies lie to the public they break the law and are punished...which is what happened to tobacco companies.

Almost everyone now knows that cigarettes are addictive and bad for you, yet there are some new smokers that buy them every year. Is that coercion?

"Or in your view the big cigarettes did not do that because the corporations only have our best interest at heart. Your blind worship of the free market is idolatry. stop doing it."

corporations only have their own interests at heart. And as a consumer, I only have my interest at heart. So the end result is the corporations have to offer a product in my best interest to make profit (their best interest). It's an unintentional synergetic relationship.

" Your blind worship of the free market is idolatry. stop doing it."

Because I think something is good, doesn't make it idolatry. I could say that your love for government programs is idolatry.

Posted by: DITE | July 30, 2008 3:14 PM

"What?!?!? Those things have been used against our fellow man for millennia "

So feudalism and communism were better alternatives for our fellow man? So over that last 1000 years countries that had closed-markets and no rule of law have been more successful than their counterpart nations? What?!?!? And you know I mean it because I used alternating question marks and exclamation points.

Posted by: DITE | July 30, 2008 3:30 PM

DITE --

For what it's worth, cigarette companies hand out free cigarettes at clubs. They do it solely to get people hooked or hooked again. I see that as coercion too. They walk into an atomsphere of all that is cool and make themselves a part of it.

Don't ever count an corporation to look out for you. Some of them may, but their bottom line is selling a product. Most will sell you out if they can get away with it.

Posted by: frankie | July 30, 2008 3:38 PM

politicsmakeusthisway: "But you got me interested . Just I don't even know what a neocon is .
God Bless , if you have the time the names would be cool to know ."

That's an astounding statement, given that neoconservatives have guided U.S. foreign policy for the past seven and a half years. A good place to start is James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet. Useful also is Thomas Ricks, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2003 to 2005; Francis Fukuyama (a neocon who has had second thoughts), America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy

Posted by: carl copas | July 30, 2008 3:40 PM

"The free market isn't benign and yes now people know that cigarettes are bad but people buy them because they are addicted to them. That makes it force. Cigarette addiction is one of the hardest forms of addiction to conquer."

Yes, again, what about all the people that start smoking cigarettes each year that know the consequences of this action. Is that coercion?

"For what it's worth, cigarette companies hand out free cigarettes at clubs. They do it solely to get people hooked or hooked again. I see that as coercion too. They walk into an atomsphere of all that is cool and make themselves a part of it."

Where are these clubs? I love me some free cigarettes. Anyway, do these companies use force to get said club patrons to take said free cigarettes...or is that voluntary? Is everyone that goes to these clubs obligated to take and light these cigarettes? Are there any of these people that take free cigarettes that do not know that cigarettes are addictive and bad for their health?

I'll be back in 10 hours.

Posted by: DITE | July 30, 2008 3:55 PM

Let's keep the GP blog reasonable, okay? Social justice gets nowhere when we start quibbling about "the Anti-Christ."

I share your concern, I and I, and I wish the topic hadn't come up here. But since it did, I felt we should deal with it.

You are correct that there's no argument with those who are convinced their interpretation of 'end times' topics is the only valid one. But we may have many readers here who have heard the Antichrist rumors and now have doubts. I think we have an obligation to them as well, at least to make them aware that many Christians, for quite valid reasons, do not hold to the popular but faulty dispensational view of things, and to give them some reasons why we don't.

That's the primary reason why I'm willing to engage those who post these rumors, despite their spurious and nonsensical character.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | July 30, 2008 4:09 PM

And you know I mean it because I used alternating question marks and exclamation points. Posted by: DITE

You may not know what you're talking about but you sure know how to type! And you're witty too!

Posted by: JamesM | July 30, 2008 4:28 PM

Carl you still have not told me what you think a neo con is ? Is it a person who believes in less government / pro life / or is it like a big corporate type of republican or something ? Don said John Mccain was surrounded by Neo Cons .

P said
"We have free markets because of greed, not freedom."

wow ? Well I hope you do not vocally campaign for Obama then , because it would not be fair to him .

"Our capitalist system was not designed out of a freedom it was designed to benefit rich white men."

wower yet , perhaps stick to sign holding during the campaign .

"That's called greed last time I checked greed is slavery but hey what do I know? "

"

Actually you sound like a kid who has been taught this , I am sure you know much , your just wrong . Any kind of system can be used for evil or used for good . Their has been slavery for thousands of years , in all types of economic systems . Free markets did not cause slavery , sin , evil, caused slavery silly .

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2008 4:33 PM

Bradley,

Sin in the form of free markets did cause and perpetuate slavery. They saw that there was land to be cultivated, and that Africans were commodiites to sold and used and that created slavery. I am not wrong. It's history. Just because you don't want to admit doesn't make me wrong. Unlike you I can back it up.

BTW we are not talking about any other form of slavery here we are talking about American born slavery. The idea that you can separate sin from our free market economy which was founded on slave labor astounds me and shows a really poor understanding of American history. Unfortunately the two are linked in America even if you want hide your head in the sand and say they aren't.

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 30, 2008 4:57 PM

What about voting on the behalf of unborn babies who are being killed by the second who don't have a voice? Yes we should respect animals, but a human life should come first.

Posted by: Laura | July 30, 2008 5:23 PM

"Carl you still have not told me what you think a neo con is ?"

That's right I didn't. A proper definition would require at least 500-750 words, and I'm not up to writing them, at least for a blog. But I suggested some titles that offer a place for you to begin to find out for yourself. I can offer others as well, if you wish. I'm guessing Kevin S and Wolverine are familiar with some of the literature as well, so you might ask them also.

Rick's definition above is a decent start at defining neoconservatism. You can also Google "Irving Kristol" and " Norman Podhoretz," the founders of neoconservatism.

Posted by: carl copas | July 30, 2008 5:52 PM

A "neo-conservative" supports governmental power, generally military, to maintain the conservative agenda; many were formerly liberal Democrats and are disproportionately Jewish (and thus influenced by the Holocaust).

Posted by: Rick

Thank you , that is close to the on line definition. I think the term is used too loosely however at times . Sometimes I don't get the connection .

Don agree with you about the price of oil . I changed my opinion to closer to yours , but I consider the oil crisis a national security matter also . Is that neo conish ? I think we have gone past the discovery point and the peak producing point . Here on in its trouble in river city , I would even favor a high gas tax to be spent directly on re newable energy sources and scientific research . Am I now a socialist ? ;0) But I favor drilling still , wind , solar , if it makes something move , the cleaner the better .

Oil has caused food production to sky rocket the past century in this world , things are going to get nasty if we don't start yesterday doing something . Obama and Mccain both are unaware or lack the political will to give us bad news .

.

"Unfortunately the two are linked in America even if you want hide your head in the sand and say they aren't."

p

Well thats about as logical as saying free markets have caused prostitution since the beginnings of this country , your talking from a different perspective .
Free Markets allow free people choices , those choices being corrupt or good are up to the individual . Marxism makes government , a godless government in charge . If the leaders of the government go bad , we all suffer . Its a Christian perspective that when counterfeited by government with our God , leads to death .
Your claims to backing up your opinion is noted , I am sure it fits in your idealogical perspective . Does not make it so .

Posted by: politicsmakeusthisway | July 30, 2008 6:05 PM

"Not really, just common sense. "

Everyone thinks their own litmus test is simple common sense. Else why possess the litmus test in the first place?

"I would agree. But who is actually promoting the right to abortion? I don't see either candidate doing that."

How is affirming the right on one's website, on air and in campaign literature not promoting the right?

Posted by: kevin s. | July 30, 2008 6:36 PM

Don:

There is little in your posts that I can disagree with other than the question of the "end times". I do believe that Revelation foreshadowed a time when the world would face complete devastation at the hands of "true believers". As for an "Antichrist", I believe that for any one person to fulfill this role, he must first be a religious leader—a modern day "prophet"—that becomes so enamored of his power to sway the masses he will convince himself that he has become God Almighty.

Quite naturally, the military/political powers of the Gentile world will go along to maintain their position in the "Brave New World" that Satan has been trying to create since time began.

Posted by: Hermes | July 30, 2008 7:05 PM

Everyone thinks their own litmus test is simple common sense. Else why possess the litmus test in the first place?

Would you allow a person who despised music to run a symphony? Or hire a person who didn't care for sports to coach a professional team? Or, to be more hyperbolic, tap a Ku Klux Klansman to head the NAACP? When a "small-government" person says he/she wants to run for office, there's got to be a motivating factor besides public service -- it has to be the power of the office.

That's the hypocrisy I see with the modern conservative movement. It complained to no end about "centralized power" but could effectively combat that only with -- surprise -- more centralized power (only of their own making and with plenty of cash to boot). It tried to destroy Bill Clinton because it knew that he would, and eventually did, expose its true motives.

Posted by: Rick | July 30, 2008 7:26 PM

I vote based on a belief as to what's best for U.S. citizens, and obviously my background and moral beliefs affect that vote. I do attempt to judge a candidate impartially, based on his/her history (actions, statements, and voting record) and whether that candidate has demonstated nonpartisanship or the ability to compromise.

Posted by: judithod | July 30, 2008 9:19 PM

Posted by: Don | July 30, 2008 7:32 PM

"I'm not so sure about the world being laid to waste at the end, though, since I believe that Christ is coming to renew creation rather than to destroy it."

This is certainly true, but men (at least a few that aspire to having it all) have shown that they can and will destroy all life unless God stops them. How many times have men killed their estranged wives and girlfriends just because they could not "possess" them?

"There's certainly room in orthodox Christianity for different views of the end--they've been with us from the beginning of church history. And it probably will all end in a way nobody really expects, anyway. That's how Jesus came the first time--in a way that nobody expected."

Amen to that!

Posted by: Hermes | July 30, 2008 10:27 PM

"Free Markets allow free people choices, those choices being corrupt or good are up to the individual."

We have been overwhelmed with "choices" presented by people with something to sell. Economically, we have been thrown to the wolves by excessive deregulation and spotty inspections of products we expect to be safe and effective. Planned obsolescence has been the dominant business model for over half a century. In politics, we must wade through volumes of claims and counter-claims adorned with accusations of ulterior motives and secret agendas—some of which, unfortunately, will prove to be true.

We are told that we must protect ourselves through "consumer education" and voter awareness. Where, pray tell, are we supposed to get the free time to practice our "family values"?

"Caveat emptor" was never more true than it is today.

Posted by: Hermes | July 30, 2008 10:47 PM

Christians by definition are not free. We are "servants" of the Lord Jesus. We have been redeemed from sin. Any neocons care to reconcile "free market" praise with truly free (Christ following) generous persons (those not driven by fear, greed and envy)?

"Thankfully, God has given us mechanisms like the free market and rule of law that prevent us from maximizing our sins against our fellow man."

I have to hand it to you-DITE- you can really push my buttons. Do you think that the free market was invented? If you believe that, then maybe you believe Al Gore's claims re: the Internet. Cain killed Abel in a "Free market"

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | July 30, 2008 11:20 PM

Yikes! I got to LA yesterday and they's having earthquakes. I tune in GP tonight and they're talking about Obama as anti-Christ. Guess I'd better go out and get me some o' them LEFT BEHIND books so's I can get in tune wid du gospel 'cordin' to 'Merica.

Posted by: canucklehead | July 31, 2008 2:32 AM

Bradley said:
"What is the alternative to free markets? Planned economies."

Me:
Bartering societies like the one's the Navajo and other ancient cultures had. It was not purely about wealth and it was more holistic and healthy an capitalism which reduces everyone into commodities to sold and bought.

You said:
Now, if you think free markets are "sinful," I encourge you to seek out a few people who have lived under Marxist systems and ask them about their experiences.

Me:
I encourage to go visit a few Indian reservations and then tell me that our system is not sinful. when you leave there you will see things differently.

You:
I have had the priveledge of speaking with people who have escaped Castro's Cuba, Latvia (In the former Soviet Union,) and a few other Soviet Bloc nations. You say you dislike slavery, but Marxism is nothing more than the enslavement of all but the ruling class.

Me:
How is that different now? Instead of working for the state Americans are working for the top 1%.
Here is an interesting quote.

The Wealth Distribution

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%.

Me:
You can read more about that using this link:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

You:
Where in the world do you find the worst poverty, the most misery, the greatest human suffering? Only in nations that have deviated from the Capitalist system.

Me:
That's simply not true. you know the poorest nations in the world? Malawi is the poorest nation on the planet right now. The top 50 poorest nations all claim capitalism as their economic philosophy.
Here is a really good link on the subject.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908763.html

So again don't let your bias for capitalism stop you from seeing the facts as they are in the world. It's not South Korea or for that matter Russia or Cuba (which we are responsible for making poorer with the sanctions that have not worked.)

Bradley I really hope you get the chance to take a few international relations or political science or African-American studies classes because this is stuff first year college students learn. I know I did when I was in college. When I say that you don't know what you are talking about and that I can back up everything I say I mean I have studied a lot of this stuff for years, while I was in school an when I was out.

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 31, 2008 3:17 AM

"I encourage to go visit a few Indian reservations and then tell me that our system is not sinful."

Indian reservations are bad because of government dependency, not the free market.

"How is that different now? Instead of working for the state Americans are working for the top 1%."

Our work choices are voluntary...so, not slavery.

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands."

This is mostly true, and really doesn't affect me. I know you feel like there is a handful of rich white guys that sit around a big table in their secret hideaway and use their money to rule the country. It's just not the way things work. And I say mostly true, because people go in and out of the 1%. So the number of people that are in that 1%, even in a time period shorter than a year, is more than 1% of the population.

"The top 50 poorest nations all claim capitalism as their economic philosophy."

There are only a handful of countries on the Earth that wouldn't "say" that they have a capitalist economy, but that doesn't make it so. And capitalism can't work without a stable rule of law.

Posted by: DITE | July 31, 2008 6:27 AM

Asked earlier by an anonymous post, "Do you have any examples of corporations that have legally coerced people into buying their products?"

Absolutely. Monsanto is forcing GM crops down the throats of many poorer nations with the help of The International Monetary Fund. Buying GM crops is the only way they will get the financial aid they so desparately need. This throws the small farmers methods that they have used for generations out the window. They can no longer use their own seed which they have saved for years, keeping the best seed to increase yeild and quality year after year. Monsanto's "roundup ready" seed is generally considered inferior and can make the year after year yield worse. BUT, you have to repurchase new seed every year from guess who? and if your seed gets mixed in with theirs they have successfully sued farmers.

Read Naomi Kleins "The Shock Doctrine".

Posted by: paul w | July 31, 2008 7:46 AM

and if your seed gets mixed in with theirs they have successfully sued farmers.

It's actually worse even than that. They have engineered so-called "terminator" genes that prevent the crop from yielding viable seed--that is, the seed won't germinate and grow. If a farmer whose family has been saving seed specifically selected over generations for the local conditions has his crop contaminated by pollen blown in by the wind from a field where terminator-genetically modified crops are grown, his seed will be sterile and worthless. So the farmer will be forced to buy more seed from Monsanto.

And, yes, they have successfully sued farmers whose crops were contaminated with wind-blown pollen from genetically modified crops. The wind can carry that pollen quite far from its source.

Genetially modified crops, whatever their environmental and health risks might be, are a method for international mega-corporations to control world food production, for their own profit of course.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | July 31, 2008 8:35 AM

So the farmer will be forced to buy more seed from Monsanto.

Memories of the old sharecropping system in the South after the Civil War.

Posted by: Rick | July 31, 2008 8:44 AM

On a more serious note, I wonder if DITE can tell us just when the Native American Indians decided that they would be better off depending on the white man's government to provide for their every need? Perhaps it was when they were faced with the "free choice" between being herded onto reservations carved out of the least desirable land or total annihilation.

Posted by: Hermes | July 31, 2008 8:52 AM

"But in this country the central government is weak and structured to cater to lobbyists, so it's susceptible to pressure from outside private groups, which is why business groups spend billions of dollars trying to get special favors from government"

lobbyists spend billions of dollars because the government has so much power and can grant these favors. So, again, the government should have less power in regards to making economic decisions. I agree that our free market system is far from perfect, but corruption and exploitation are much more scarce than any closed market alternative.

"You have GOT to be kidding! GOD would give us the "free" market which as it is currently practiced has turned out to be the ultimate path of excess greed and corruption?"

I have already commented on this. To answer your question, yes. If you have a different question or and argument against my position I would be happy to hear it.

But I'll try to give a condensed version. Man is flawed and will always have sin regardless of which political structure he lives in. So, the most just society is the one that can best limit the impact these sins have on their fellow man. Liberal free market democracies are the most successful at this. In liberal democracies we grant the state a monopoly on force or "hard power" with the understanding that the state will use this to protect our rights (and no, not to create new rights). This prevents private individuals from legally using force to gain power over another citizen. This means market decisions are voluntary. So no matter how greedy or sinful an individual is in a free market society, he or she can't gain coercive(using force to make a person do something against his or her will) power over other individuals. So, unsurprisingly the greatest atrocities in history were not committed by wealthy businessmen in free market economies, but by men that were apart of the state in undemocratic nations with closed markets. Sorry, that wasn't as condensed as I thought it was going to be.

Posted by: DITE | July 31, 2008 10:44 AM

lobbyists spend billions of dollars because the government has so much power and can grant these favors. So, again, the government should have less power in regards to making economic decisions. I agree that our free market system is far from perfect, but corruption and exploitation are much more scarce than any closed market alternative.

Nuts -- our system was constructed to allow private entities more access precisely because of some of the Founders' fear of a strong central government. At points we have had lobbyists literally writing legislation, again at the expense of much of the electorate. Is that your goal? Besides, people turn to political violence when "economic violence" isn't available.

So, unsurprisingly the greatest atrocities in history were not committed by wealthy businessmen in free market economies, but by men that were apart of the state in undemocratic nations with closed markets.

Then kindly explain apartheid in South Africa, which would have never even taken root were it not for its then-strong economy. That was one situation where economic sanctions to get rid of it actually worked.

Posted by: Rick | July 31, 2008 12:54 PM

"So you acknowledge that it was economic free market pressure that got rid of their apartheid?"

DITE:

Please explain to us ignorant fools how economic sanctions imposed by one government (or a group of governments) against another constitutes "free market pressure".

BTW, the Indians were quite independent until we stole their land and tried to kill them off. Since then, we have used enforced sterilization and assimilation programs to destroy their cultural heritage—although not recently. More recently, we have provided them with a means of "achieving economic independence" by encouraging a few of them to open gambling casinos and stores selling untaxed gasoline and cigarettes. This has enabled a few individuals with few drops of Indian blood to become very rich—along with the promoters that show them ropes of cashing in by "playing the game".

Posted by: Hermes | July 31, 2008 2:24 PM

Great post, Brian. You expressed well my own sentiments and commitments. Thanks for your contribution...

Tom

Posted by: Thomas Jay Oord | July 31, 2008 3:58 PM

DITE: "Sharecropping was voluntary and allowed the poor to provide for their families."

Yes, in the same sense as a person who falls off a boat "voluntarily chooses" to swim rather than drown. Or a young 3d World female who is sold into prostitution by her impoverished parents "chooses" to remain a prostitute rather than kill herself.

Posted by: carl copas | July 31, 2008 5:16 PM

"neuro_nurse: the only highly visible candidate genuinely opposed to the war is Nader. Going to vote for him?"

Visible perhaps, but viable?

I think the best thing for this country would be to have a true multiparty system, but we don’t.

Until then: the lesser of TWO evils.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | July 31, 2008 6:53 PM

How many massacres, broken treaties and diseased blankets does it take to use an accurate term like genocide to describe what happened to them. Thousands were killed in many different nations wiping out a lot of people. That's genocide and governmental dependency is a smokescreen to what's really going on their and your sacred idolatrous free market won't fix it.

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 31, 2008 6:55 PM

Thanks Payshun. I couldn't have said it better. Apparently, some people think the definition of genocide is the total annihilation and extinction of an entire race, tribe or nation, whatever. It certainly couldn't apply to anything we ever did as a nation, could it?

Posted by: Hermes | July 31, 2008 7:32 PM

Actually about South Africa, my old college was primarily responsible for creating the divestment campaign. So I would argue it was leftist student activists that urged and shamed the other companies to do the right thing and divest. So I would argue that it was leftists that did that. It just caught fire and...

Oh and thank you Hermes.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 1, 2008 1:34 AM

I never said the free market has no crime.

Which is our point. In fact, economic issues often drove immoral government policies because, as I said, government in this country is susceptible to complaints about economic issues. In other countries violence is often purely political.

Posted by: Rick | August 1, 2008 7:59 AM

"It was never US policy to wipe out Indians. Our government often tried to restrain settlers, militias, or paramilitary groups from violence against the Indians."

"What about Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears?"

And to Don's example I would add the Washington army's gift of smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians as a peace gesture. Perhaps in most cases it was not official "policy" to wipe out the Indians (just like it was not official "policy" to trade arms for hostages in the 1980's and then continue funding the Contras after legislation forbade it), but the fact is that the U.S. government DID commit genocide against many Indian nations. I'm disappointed that there are "holocaust deniers" on this thread making claims to the contrary .

Posted by: I and I | August 1, 2008 10:34 AM

"What about Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears?"

It was bad, but the goal was to relocate Indians, not eliminate them.

"And to Don's example I would add the Washington army's gift of smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians as a peace gesture."

I addressed this lie earlier. Is there any evidence you have to back up Washington giving small-pox infected blankets to Indians?

"I'm disappointed that there are "holocaust deniers" on this thread making claims to the contrary.

No one here has mentioned the holocaust.

Posted by: DITE | August 1, 2008 11:21 AM

Actually there is evidence for genocide of many different indigenous groups. The Choctaw were decimated because of disease and forced removal. Andrew Jackson and his successor Van Buren stole land, (considering the Supreme Court had sided with the Cherokee) killed 4,000 Cherokee, decimated the Choctaw and many other groups.

The Wampanoag were wiped out going from 12,000 to less than 2,000 people. This was because of European disease. Even though it was not germ warfare Europe did cause the end of a people. There are other groups this happened to.

"Then that's illegal. I never said the free market has no crime."

Actually it was not illegal to do that at the time. My point has consistently been that the laws themselves and the system itself can be criminal, as was the case during the early start of sharecropping. My point is that this system of market economy was made to discriminate against some. That makes it evil, no different from communism really. How much history does it take for you to see that?

Thanks for the dates of the second migration. I made a mistake on that one.

"The second black migration started in 1940's. The increase in factory jobs during WWII was one of the main reasons. It didn't start after the civil rights movement. It happened because, like I said earlier, our economy evolved and modernized and people became even less dependent on land to earn a living."

Actually there is more to the story than that. After World War 2 the workers were being abused by their bosses and wanted more money. Unions became a big thing during the 1940's, 50's and 60's. The workers would strike and the would need people to work and so they would hire migrant blacks and not pay them what their other workers were making. I can see why those details would not help your argument much. As I said earlier the free market system is a system that is corrupt and inherently unfair.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 1, 2008 1:37 PM

obama the antichrist. i wonder how many times throughout history various people have been called the antichrist? i don´t think your argument holds water. it belongs in the category of "the end of the world will happen on" name your date. and sami, why do you insist on thoughtlessly cluttering the blogroll with slight restatements of this same just plain silly thesis?

Posted by: solagratia | August 4, 2008 9:16 AM