General Question

watchman220's avatar

Is Obama leadiing America to destruction?

Asked by watchman220 (421points) October 28th, 2008

Is Obama leading America into the realm of global leadership? Will we secede our rights as a sovereign nation for the “greater good” of the people of earth?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

99 Answers

Bluefreedom's avatar

That’s stretching things a bit isn’t it?

missingbite's avatar

I don’t think it is as far of a stretch as you may think. Take a look at his voting record. He is by far the farthest left of all senators but is preaching that he is a moderate democrat. That is dangerous. His tax plan is socialist. Spread the wealth does not work and should not be tried. We already have a progressive tax system. By his rational, a person in school who makes all A’s should “spread the wealth” and just get all B’s so some of the less fortunate students who make all C’s can be brought up to all B’s and therefor be equal. That is wrong.

bpeoples's avatar

I’m in favor of a hegemony, but it’d need to be structured more like the EU than the strong-federal system we have in the US.

But I don’t think that Obama is going to be the one to drag us into it…

Bluefreedom's avatar

Looking at the McCain/Palin dynamic duo, I have to say that I’ve got some misgivings about those two also. Neither McCain nor Obama is anywhere near being an ideal candidate and they have to work with what is in front of them. Which happens to be a trainload of shit (8 years old) that Bush is leaving one of them to inherit.

willbrawn's avatar

gotta say good to see a question that actually questions Obama.

mzgator's avatar

I think more people should question Obama. Too many people are simply just drinking the “kool aid” and jumping on the bandwagon and hoping for a great result.

coquilicot's avatar

I don’t think there is any chance of what you seem to be hinting at.
First of all, global leadership is not destruction. The EU has sucessfully integrated their markets and don’t face immanent destruction, in fact, their economy trumps ours every time. Why are people afraid of this type of thing?

And, on our sovereign rights: the rights of American citizens have been limited more in the past 8 years than under any previous administration in a really long time. Think – the PATRIOT ACT, warrentless wiretaps, racial profiling, torture – these are the violation of our sovereign rights. Hopefully an Obama administration will begin to correct this trend.

I think that what may be confusing here is that there hasn’t been a liberal administration in a really long time. Nothing that Obama is proposing is that much more radical than it was under Clinton. Obama has been very open about his (in my opinion, terrible) plan to cross the Pakistani border to find Bin Laden, does that seem like a gesture for the “for the “greater good” of the people of earth”?

On the tax plan: I don’t know about any of you, but $250,000 in taxable income is rich to me. Those are people who have benefited from the system of both hard work and family privilege. I am semi-privileged, I come from an upper middle class family and I went to private schools, but my parent don’t have a combined income of that much. Why is there so much resistance to the highest tax bracket being taxed at a higher rate, to help out those people who have been excluded or cannot participate in the system? If this is socialism, why can’t we embrace it for the greater good of our own citizens?

What’s wrong with universal health care? And a envoy to the UN that doesn’t think that it should be abolished? These are just things that we are used to after almost a decade of neocon government, but it doesn’t have to be this way.

I’m not a pro-Obama nut. I weighed my options carefully (in the primary, I was a big fan of Bill Richardson) but the alternative (McCain/Palin) is really ominous.

EmpressPixie's avatar

In a word: No.

delirium's avatar

Obama isn’t a socialist… and i’m voting for him anyways! (I am a BIG fan of socialism, and i’m from a Very wealthy family. Weird?)

syz's avatar

In what way? Socialism? Do you really think that one man could possibly shift our entrenched capitalistic, pray-to-the-almighty-dollar, buy-more-than-you-can-afford way of life? You credit him with magnitudes of order more power than he can possibly attain.

missingbite's avatar

Socialism takes the drive out of people. Why strive to make $250,000 if when you reach that point (if that is really where it is, he has voted to raise taxes on incomes of $48,000) the government will then take some to redistribute. You would be better off to make $248,000, by working less and keep more. That is not American. That is wrong!!!

EmpressPixie's avatar

Honestly, that happens every time you enter a new tax bracket. This year I’m jumping tax brackets and it is really annoying.

Interestingly, it also happens at places where workers are hourly, but managers are salaried. Often being a manager ends up cutting your take-home pay because you aren’t getting overtime.

In both cases, you are also gaining the advantage of being able to make more in the future.

bodyhead's avatar

Isn’t bailing out the banks to the tune of $700 billion dollars a little socialist?

skfinkel's avatar

Obama will heal our nation. He will help heal our image in the world. Sadly, we are in such dire straits, that it could take a bit of time to get this mess fixed. I hope he has enough time (eight years) to do it, but after his presidency, our country will be in a different place, and we can elect another man or woman who has the same good values and ideas as he. One thing I am quite certain about—he will not do anything but add to the greatness of our country.

prince's avatar

Ug. Please. Can we get off the socialism bullshit?

@missingbite: By your logic, a gradiated tax system is socialist. We tax the wealthy at a higher rate! We must be socialist! McCain is a socialist! Run for the hills! The reds are coming!

Maybe we should return back to the good ol’ days when Ike was president, and the highest tax bracket was 91%. Because we sure were socialist back then.

missingbite's avatar

ExpressPixie/prince, You are correct about tax brackets. That is a “progressive tax system” which is what America has. The difference is where the money goes. Under a progressive tax system, the more you make the more you pay, but the money goes to programs like roads, bridges, education,... Under socialism, which is “redistribution of wealth”, the money would go to the people who are less “fortunate”.

prince's avatar

@missingbite: So if you have a progressive tax system, that’s ok, but if you try and change the brackets, that’s socialism?

Every government in the world has some sort of “wealth redistribution”.

@willbrawn: While sometimes I tire of the left-leaning viewpoint of Fluther, I don’t think a fallacy of a question about US sovereignty really qualifies as a legitimate “questioning of obama”.

PupnTaco's avatar

Let’s talk about “destruction” for a minute:

1. Global economic collapse
2. Crumbling infrastructure
3. Loss of international goodwill
4. The rise of anti-intellectualism
5. Increasing animosity between the left & right
6. Rising unemployment
7. The loss of an entire major US metro (New Orleans)
8. Weakening the Constitution

… I could go on all day.

I think we’ve had just about all the “destruction” one country can take for eight years, fuck you very much.

missingbite's avatar

prince, no. Read my response. It is about where the money goes that is the point. Changing the amount in the brackets is about paying taxes. If Obama had said he wanted to raise taxes to improve the infrastructure of the country, or build up the militay, we would not be having the socialism debate. But to take my tax dollars to give to someone else because they have less money than me, that’s wrong.

missingbite's avatar

PupnTaco, nice response. Very classy with the last line. Spoken like a true adult!

PupnTaco's avatar

@missingbite, sorry about that, I just get so frustrated with this line of thinking. That wasn’t directed at anyone here, just the whole “Obama is going to destroy America” BS. I mean really, haven’t we been through enough?

PupnTaco's avatar

Where did Obama say he wanted to take tax money and not spend it on the military or the infrastructure?

prince's avatar

@missingbite: Well, I think we’re having the socialism debate because John McCain is desperate for a talking point when he has nothing substantiative to say about the economy.

Haven’t we been “redistributing the wealth” towards the upper class by giving us tax breaks? That’s the whole tenant of trickle-down economics… if we’re lowering the rates of the upper class, then we’re effectively making the middle class pay more (since we’re not cutting their taxes as much as we could). I cry reverse wealth distribution! Socialism!

What about health care credits? Oh wait! That’s wealth redistribution! Offered by McCain! Socialism!

Complain if you want about those making over 250K having an increase… but don’t call it socialism. It just looks silly.

SoapChef's avatar

*Sigh * The redisribution of wealth was an unfortunate way to describe what he wants to do. He is not planning to take money from the rich and give to the middle class and the poor. He wants to reform the tax system to become more equitable. The wealthy in this country pay less taxes proportionate to their incomes. He just wants everyone to pay their fair share. Its revolutionary, I know.

missingbite's avatar

Well we can agree to disagree. I have never said I love McCain or even that I think he is doing a great job. One thing is for sure, in my opinion, McCain is for free enterprise and I believe that Obama is for Socialism.

missingbite's avatar

SoapChef, unfortunately, that is not what he has said and it is definitely not what his voting record would suggest.

EmpressPixie's avatar

But the comment about “spreading the wealth around” was specifically about the tax bracket that you hit at $250K. He asked the guy if he made over $250K as a small businessman—or if he would—and the guy implied yes. And Obama said, okay, but by taxing you more, we can tax other less. True, he worded it in a way that people could jump all over him for, but there’s no nice answer there: yes, like years and years and years, we’re going to tax the rich a bit more in order to tax the poor a bit less. That’s what he meant by spreading the wealth.

(It was an implied yes, because surely he would not have lied to Obama and it was later revealed that he’s not in that bracket.)

prince's avatar

“You know, I was going to start my business, but you know what? In a few years, if I’m successful, I’m going to pay around 8% more in taxes. Naw, I’ll just sit on the couch and smoke weed instead.”

forestGeek's avatar

Obama is not “Hope”, Mcain is not hope either. Nor is Nader hope, though he’s obviously a better candidate than either of the previously mentioned. Do we all really believe that’s where hope comes from? Nope, not me, my hope is that we as people can pull our collective heads out of our asses and stop being so self centered, helpless, greedy, ignorant and destructive.

Seriously, destruction is going to happen because we let our reckless government keep doing what their doing – bailing out banks, overspending on wasteful expenses and spending insane amounts on military and in other countries, at the same time letting our own people starve, letting our kids go without good education, letting our own people go without healthcare, letting our roads and city infrastructures go to shit, and not being prepared to help our own people in the case of a tragic natural disaster like Katrina.

That’s where the destruction will come from, not from Obama. Nothing will change in this country until the people start questioning what the government is doing, forcing them to do as we want them to do, and start holding them accountable. How many people here want war? How many people her want the government to bail out the banks? How many people want our politicians to spend outrageous amounts of money on corporate welfare? My guess is not many, yet we sit around and let it happen, waiting for that one person to give us hope for the next 4 years!

This question makes me sick!

missingbite's avatar Good luck to everyone. It will be interesting!

susanc's avatar

@missingbite: You “believe” that “Obama is for socialism”? Honey, this isn’t about
faith. It’s about information. America has incorporated a version of socialism forever because that’s the only way communities can function.

The USA has had a progressive tax structure since it began taxing income. Socialism: the poor get more than their smaller dollar will buy. So unfair, when the rich worked so much harder for their dollars. So much harder.

The alternative to a progressive structure is a flat tax. In theory that’s fair.

The rich would love a flat tax; with what they’d save, they can build their own airstrips, hire their own mercenaries. If they haven’t already.

But this is a community. What hurts one of us hurts the rest of us, even if it takes a strenuous amount of insight to see it. Perhaps in the so-called “land of the free”, that’s more insight that we can expect.

I doubt that you believe you personally “earned” good roads, a (marginally) workable public-school system, an army so we don’t have to individually fight off invasion, clean drinking water, and so on. We all chip in for this stuff. Some of us can’t chip in. What should we do, kill them? Put them in prison? Oh wait, we already do that.

Don’t buy the myth that you did it all yourself. None of us did.

Your friend,
Susan Hussein Christian

iwamoto's avatar

to me, as a european, the only thing that concerns me is that you guys stick to wrecking your own country and economy and not dragging us down with you

…crazy americans ;)

missingbite's avatar

I’m not sure how to respond to that Susan. Again, I never said we didn’t have a progressive tax system or that people with higher incomes should not pay more. What I have said and continue to believe is that if you tax rich people more to give to the poor, it will hurt the economy. It is a question of where the money goes. Not how much is paid. I believe that Obama has a belief that rich should pay more so the poor can get some. That in my opinion is socialism and is dangerous. You can believe that it is not and you are entitled to your opinion. His statement of 95% of americans will get a tax cut is wrong. About 40% of those 95% don’t pay any federal income tax at all. If they get a tax cut, in my opinion, that will mean they get more money back than they put in. That is “redistribution of wealth”. That is fundamentally wrong in my opinion. They already don’t pay any and the wealthy pay a higher rate to make up for their lack on payment in.

fireside's avatar

Obama is most likely looking at the tax plan that was in place while Clinton was in office. His plan sets similar levels. What you are saying is that Obama is leading America to socialism by reversing a fairly recent policy that GWB thought was a good idea.

Obama may also be looking at the fact that America budget was balanced under Clinton, as well.

andrew's avatar

@iwamoto: It’s not just us anymore. It’s everyone.

fireside's avatar

I’m with Andrew on that one.

Not to freak you out, watchman, but we already have a global economy.
Soon enough the political leaders will see that war between major powers is hard to do with the interlinked economies.

Look at what happened in Russia. They sent tanks into Georgia and that week investors pulled $30billion out of the Russian market.

watchman220's avatar

Of course we do. But we donot yet have an official global currency. The next step would be a consolidated currency that government can control. This way they can control the value. It will be worth what they say it’s worth.
We have no gold standard anymore. We literally have about 10% the actual gold that is stated on paper. So if everyone claims there gold…we are screwed.
It’s starts with money.
Money is what gives power.
Control the money, control the world.
Control the world, you tell people what they can or can not do, buy, or sell.
Isn’t this clear?
WHo cares how much money they give away, when it will all be worthless soon.
We have not seen the bottom yet.
I am not freaked out.
I am just saying, wake up people! Get a clue!

iwamoto's avatar

listen, it just comes down to this, you dropped the ball, we’re all fucked…

if you guys hadn’t been so stupid as to all get that “surprisingly low” mortgage that you couldn’t afford in the end, we wouldn’t be in this mess right now, offcourse, the quest for the W O M D’s didn’t help you guys get out of debt either

it’s not like i’m anti american or anything, but you guys really need to fix your problems, because now everyone else is getting screwed too…

dalepetrie's avatar

missingbite -

Clearly you don’t understand what a progressive tax structure is. I go back to your why strive to make $250k, if my taxes are going to go up, I should just stick at $248k argument. The problem with that is once you reach 250k, it’s not as if the taxes on the first $249,999 go up, its the tax on that two hundred fifty thousandth dollar thas are higher than the tax on the dollar before it. Here’s the theory of progressive tax, in a nutshell.

Let’s make it really simple and say your taxes go up by 5% with every $50k you make. So the first $50k you pay 5 cents on every dollar you make, but you keep 95 cents of every dollar you make. Then dollars 50,001 to 100,000 you keep 90 cents and pay 10 cents. So at $50,000 your tax liability is $2,500, you keep $47,500. At $50,001, your tax liability is $2,500.10, you keep $47,500.90. So there’s still an incentive to make that extra money. You’re not going to just aim for right underneath that number so your taxes won’t go up.

Your argument would make sense if when you earned $50,001, your tax liability went up to $2,501.01, and you only got to keep $47,499.99, but that ain’t the way it works.

When people say your taxes will go up at $250k, they don’t mean that you’re going to take home LESS money than you would have if you made only $248k, they simply mean that more of the money OVER AND ABOVE the $250k threshold is taxed.

And you may still balk and say, why is this fair? Well, it’s fair because whether you make 10 thousand dollars or 10 million dollars a year, you still have to pay sales taxes on everything you buy, you still have to pay licensing fees for your car or your driver’s license, you still have to pay taxes on whatever property you own or rent, there are all these taxes built into or added onto every penny you spend at the state, local and county levels.

So when you say that 40% of that 95% Obama talks about saving don’t actually pay taxes, well that’s just a dirty damn lie. Indeed, if you look at all the taxes they pay and not just federal taxes (which is where the lie exists), they pay more as a percentage of their actual income than any rich person in this country. Because when you are rich, you can shield great deals of your wealth from taxation altogether.

So, you can buy into this “redistribution of wealth” lie, but all Obama is doing by increasing the marginal tax rate on those who can most afford to pay it and giving a little more to those at the bottom end of the economic scales is making OVERALL taxation more fair and equitable.

And you think this will hurt prosperity, which means you’ve bought into the other big lie that when people have more money they will invest it and create jobs and wealth will just trickle down. We’ve been trying that for 28 years…it hasn’t worked yet…the middle class is smaller and the poverty rolls are larger than at any point in American history…the wealthy have a larger concentration of the wealth than ever, and wage disparity has increased twentyfivefold in this time period.

Conversely if you make sure that EVERYONE has enough money to get by…not to live a life of luxury not supported by any personal effort…but essentially ensuring that if you work for a living, you will be able to meet your basic financial needs (food, clothing, shelter, health), then EVERYONE has money they are spending on these things. This money gets spent, and who gets it? Those who supply these goods and services. Demand for these things goes up. To meet demand, providers must up supply. To up supply, providers must hire more workers. More workers mean more people with more money to spend.

The difference between the wealthy and the poor though, and why we should try to put more money at the bottom rung of the economic ladder than the top is that on the bottom rung, the money gets spent, on the top rung, it gets hoarded.

But for Obama to be a true socialist, he would have to also go to these captains of industry and say, you know what…instead of you swooping in to meet this newly created demand due to some equity in wages and taxation being spread among the 295 million people who didn’t used to enjoy it, you 15 million captains of industry need to step aside so the government can step in and meet these needs.

I guarantee you, if we upped the minimum wage to a living wage, created a tax system that was fair and affordable for everyone and invested in a green technology job sector, the rich would be FAR richer than they’ve ever been, and poverty would be virtually non-existent, the government would be flush with tax revenue and everyone’s needs would be met. But as long as people persist in believing that if we raise the marginal tax rate on the most fortunate Americans we are somehow Socialists, it will neve rhappen.

Don’t believe me now…Obama is going to win and you will see and all these tired old arguments won’t even make sense to you before too much longer.

madsmom1030's avatar

Lately this is what conerns me- it maybe somewhat simplistic in nature but I find it hard to believe that more people are not realizing it. The existing government structure we have was set up as a series of checks and balances- aka question each other and encourage debate. We are on the verge of a Democratic House, Democratic Senate and Democratic White House. The raises the possibility of no checks and balances. I will say this makes me uncomfortable- debate and discussion is healthy if we center it to the issues and leave out all of this ridiculous personal attacking. I could care less who wears what!

missingbite's avatar

dalepetrie, I can see where my post of making $248,000 instead of making $250,000 left a lot to interpolate. I apologize for not making my point more clearly. With that said I do understand a progressive tax system. What I typed was misleading and I apologize for that. Please read my post about 40% again. I never said they didn’t pay taxes. I said they didn’t pay federal “income” tax. That is not a lie. I know very well how much all americans pay for things like car registration and so on. We will have to disagree about job growth and taxation because we will never agree. I think jobs are created by small businesses and not by taxing the rich. If Obama is elected (which it looks like he will be) I hope and pray that I am proven wrong about his “fundamental” beliefs. In a few years, I would like nothing more than to say I was wrong. Time will tell.

augustlan's avatar

I can’t even believe this is still being bandied about.

dalepetrie's avatar

I think jobs are created by small businesses to, and who starts small businesses? Regular people…by throwing their savings into it. If we’re giving a tax cut to people making say $100—$200k per year, they have that much more they can save and start their small businesses with. When they do, there are millions more people who can actually afford their products. But yeah, I understand…you’ll have to see it with your own eyes.

susanc's avatar

@missingbite: You said you think that wealth redistribution is “wrong”. Economically wrong? Morally wrong? Tell me what “wrong” means. Where does it hurt, and who gets
Susan Hussein C.

missingbite's avatar

Morally and fundamentally wrong for the country. I believe wealth redistribution is the same thing as a handout. I believe that redistribution is the same thing as the Robin Hood theory. Take from the rich and give to the poor. Now, if what we are talking about is the rich pay more taxes for infrastructure, then that is a whole different matter. My example of redistribution would be if a person makes $25,000./year gross income and pays zero Federal Income Tax but at the end of the year gets a check for say $2000. from the government and that money came from taxes collected on people whom made say $350,000./year. In my opinion that is what Obama believes in. I may be wrong and hope that I am. But that is what I believe and I believe that is wrong.

I know that my example is overly simplistic, and the numbers are just examples.

La_chica_gomela's avatar

i’m going to keep it simple, and go with ‘no’.

charliecompany34's avatar

they laughed at ben franklin and that “key” gimmick he tried to pull.
yup, they laughed at thomas edison too with them tin cups and a string.
they probably teased bill gates about computers talking to each other.
and those wright brothers? flying like birds? what the hell? could they be serious?

my fellow flutherites, obama is a witty invention that many americans are not sure will work. but in order for things to progress, that “thing” that is so different and fresh is what inventions are. you’ll look back in history years from now and realize we needed obama all along.

watchman220's avatar

yes Obama is just like an airplane…why didn’t I think of that.

The only difference is he has no rudders, or ailerons, or air brakes. He is like a rocket…without direction. Propelled by the fuel of left leaning socialist democrats. I can say this because I am not one. And I do not want socialism.

To add to missingbite’s example. I am a father of 4 that was averaging about 30,000.00 / year. With that income….and kids…I easily qualified for Earned Income Credit. An existing program that increased my tax refund every year.

Funny thing is…I already made so little and never had to pay taxes. So I would get a check for 3500.00 to 5000.00 dollars depending on how much money I made that year.

When I went into business for myself, I was taxed 1.5 times the amount of a W-2 job. But I had heavily fluctuating income. Sometimes, totally sporadic. So I disagree with taxing people with self-employment tax. the existing system. If they simply removed this burden, then self-employed Americans would be free to keep more of their own money.

But Obama wants to add more giveaways to people who already get giveaways…perpetuating the reliance on government handouts at the end of the year. Additionally we recieved health insurance from the state and foodstamps as well. We were poor. We still are poor. But I moved to another state to get a better job that pays more.

People will find ways to take care of themselves and their families without government handouts. If the government did not tax self employed people…they would not need to hand out money to them at the end of the year.

That is the problem with this socialist agenda. We are already receiving enough from the government. I want the government to take less and leave my money alone. I do not want the government to decide who gets my self-employment tax.

Even now…I make more money than ever…and can not afford health care for my family, but I can not qualify for government healthcare. I am in between. But if the government would stop taking my money out of my check, I could organize my own damn spending plan thank you very much.

Socialism is for the lazy and the unmotivated.

squirbel's avatar

“Funny thing is…I already made so little and never had to pay taxes. So I would get a check for 3500.00 to 5000.00 dollars depending on how much money I made that year.”

@watchman220: You did pay taxes – and you did not receive that 3500–5000 dollars out of thin air. That’s the money that the government automatically withdrew from your paycheck each month – it’s the way you pay taxes before they are due. And then, on April 14th, when taxes are due, the government gives you the money YOU ALREADY EARNED YOURSELF back, because you made too little during the year.

You are not receiving free money. You are getting the money they took from you for probationary causes.

SoapChef's avatar

@ syz Awesome clip! Did you watch it watchman?

watchman220's avatar

squirbel. You are incorrect sir. I claimed exempt as is a choice on w-4. THey did not take anything. The only money I “paid” was due to self-employment tax which came out of my earned income credit for having 4 kids.

I never paid 5000.00 worth of taxes. I had no tax liability in most cases. Any tax liability I did have came from self-employment tax. Even though I was broke still, they taxed me…but it was still not enough tax to overcome the credit which they had already given me for having 4 kids.

The point is…people already get checks like me. THe amount maxes out at about what my checks were, because I had 4 kids. You could be poor and have no kids and still receive that credit. It is not based on how much tax you paid…it is more like an end of year bonus.

@syz I watched the video…it was funny.

I should add here that the only reason I am voting for McCain/Palin is because they are not pro-abortion.

None of these candidates have the answers. But Obama seems the worst choice to me…for so many reasons.

SoapChef's avatar

Watchman, the term in pro-choice not pro-abortion. How do you reconcile that McCain Palin don’t have a problem with killing innocent Iraqui citizens and our own brave soldiers all because of a big fat lie?

watchman220's avatar

The term for Obama is pro-abortion. As in his denial of medical attention to babies that survive abortion.
Everyone is pro-choice.
But some are pro-choice for abortion
And some are pro-choice for life.
Obama is pro-abortion…lets call it what it is.
Palin especially is obviously pro-life…even with a baby that has special needs.

Obama does not want his kids to be punished with the burden of a child, if there is some supposed rationale for taking the life of the child. Rape, Incest. Perhaps not the right timing for their life at this time to have a kid…(whatever)

If you can’t commit to the creation and sustenance of a human life, than why in the world are you having sex!

Screw off all of you progressive-post-modern-free-love-no-consequences-abortion-supporters. Sex has certain natural consequences that just happen to be the reason you are here alive today. What if you were an abortion.

War is much different than killing defenseless fetuses you sick bastard.

Nobody wants war…nobody wants innocent people to die…so are you justifying abortion?

How do you justify any democratic or republican president killing people in a war if there are any possibilities of civilian casualties.

Your statement suggests that I take the side of McCain / Palin on the war.

Truth be told I do not take any sides except for the side of life.
Especially innocent life.

SoapChef's avatar

Whoa, watchman! Some of your post struck me as un-christian like.

watchman220's avatar

I am just sick of the hypocritical nonsense.
What could possibly be wrong with defending innocent life…and yet…I am attacked on some level for posting it.

It makes me sick.

susanc's avatar

I’ve had 3 abortions. Consequently, I would rather see no more of them.
They aren’t something anyone sane would “want”.

However, we haven’t promoted sex education in this culture.

I don’t know what to say to watchman. I completely understand his feeling.

Susan H Christian

watchman220's avatar


Thank you for your honest sharing of that experience. THis is another level of the abortion problem that nobody ever talks about. The hidden consequences of abortion on women. The emotional distress and trauma is very real. No one ever talks about this in women’s rights.
Pro life people talk about this. And it is sad to know that people do not listen until they make their own mistakes by having an abortion themselves.
It hurts Susan, but God does forgive you, and I hope you have already forgiven yourself.

susanc's avatar

I have forgiven myself, watchman, and it was also my impression that God had. I paid my debt by raising 3 kids that “weren’t mine”. By grace,
now they believe they are mine. They’re fabulous.

I’ve spent a lot of time talking about this – though not, I admit, with many men.

Can we get back to sex ed, watchman? I think you’ll say with “You shouldn’t have sex if you don’t want to get pregnant.” Or would you?
Talk to me.

susanc's avatar

A question for watchman unrelated to abortion, which I think we agree should be extremely rare.

How did you save enough money to start your own business? Was it easy to do that? Did you have a pretty good education?

Forgive me if this is too personal. We seem to be using ourselves as cases in point.

EmpressPixie's avatar

Watchman: Pro-choice advocates talk about the mental health of women who get abortions ALL THE TIME. Have you ever looked into a Planned Parenthood? At all? Maybe even a little? They don’t just offer them up for a nickel and a bandaid, you know.

I DARE you to read the account of this woman who got a late term (aka the partial birth) abortion. And realize that the women getting them? Usually have extraordinary circumstances.

And to say that no one talks about the emotional distress? You want to know who did? John McCain did in the last debate. Remember those sarcastic air quotes surrounding “health” of the mother? That was alllll about the emotional stuff. We liberals can, you know, stretch “health” to mean just anything these days—like that it might not be HEALTHY, you know, mentally to carry your rapist’s baby to term. That’s why you can’t always make exceptions for health. Once you give us an in, we’re just kill, kill, kill.

And I super love the part of your post where you more or less blame the victim of a RAPE for getting pregnant. I honestly don’t care if you meant it or not. In one line you listed the reasons for getting an abortion EXTREMELY dismissively and in the next you said you shouldn’t have sex if you don’t want a kid. Like we all get a choice.

I’m taking a deep breath before I continue.

No one wants abortions. No one is pro-abortion. People want women to have the choice to have a child—especially when they haven’t always had access to reliable birth control and haven’t always had choice about having sex. Do you know how under-reported rape is? Especially date-rape? Some teenagers are so poorly educated about sex that they don’t even know how you actually GET pregnant. And people want for children to always be wanted and cherished, not a mistake that ruins someone’s life. And we want for women to no longer die in childbirth. You know that our rates for women dying in childbirth are practically third world rates, right?

Now at what point exactly do you consider it abortion? Is birth control abortion? Because you’d fit in with GWBush if you did. Is the morning after pill abortion? Is RU46 abortion? Where exactly does abortion begin in your world?

watchman220's avatar

@susanc My point of view…which I share with the people.

I can speak from experience about pre-marital sex, and about marriage. It’s really simple. I had pre-marital sex. We got pregnant. And I took responsibility for my actions. We got married. We have 4 beautiful kids. I would not change anything.

Don;t have sex, unless you are ready to commit to a child. That means a life long commitment. The same commitment that your parents made to you, or that you wish your parents had made to you.

Break the cycle. Open your eyes people. THink about your effect on the next generation. It’s not all about you.

Regarding saving money for business. I borrowed a small amount for my first business. It failed due to lack of good business plan or business experience. So have a good plan.

The second business, I borrowed money for college…which I still owe. 50,000.00 dollars in school loans. GOod education at Devry UNiversity. It got my foot in the door of IT consulting. I am still building knowledge in that area to get Microsoft Certifications so I can make more money.

Now my only goal is to get out of debt. THe bible says. Owe no man anything. Save the money until you can make it work. I wish I had. =)

watchman220's avatar

Life begins at conception.
Life is more important than health.
Whether the fault is the woman’s or the rapist’s, life is more important. Life happens.

However that said. I will say that legally we must allow for choice. We may never repeal Rowe vs. Wade and if we do…then only 18 states have abortion laws and it will be a large deal for states to decide what they will do.

But morally the view is defined differently.
You become pro-abortion at the moment you choose death.
You become pro-life at the moment you choose life.
Regardless of the circumstances.

The purpose of pro-life organizations is to morally educate society against the lie that abortion is a no consequence action.
The goal is to repeal the mantras of the 60’s “free love” “no consequences” to a moral point of view.

To restore the moral compass of America, the sanctity of life, and the effects of abortion on women after they have had them.

Abortifacients such as the pills you mention, cause the uterus to reject the living flesh and prevent the embryo from implanting on the uterine wall. This is esentially abortion.

Legal = Choice. It can not be legislated.
Moral = Life or Death. It must be decided by conscience.

fireside's avatar

a little off topic here, but Hercules was a product of rape. I pity any doctor that might have tried to abort HIM

forestGeek's avatar

I knew this would end up this way again! Always!! We cannot have a nice healthy argument without bringing up Hercules, now can we?

prince's avatar

@iwamoto: That’s a little naïve. It wasn’t solely the sub-prime mortgage catastrophe that lead to this global economic crisis—it’s a combination of coinciding shrinking economies globally (which is unique), the unilateral softening of US housing markets (again, unique), and most of all, the process of banking institutions across the world trading vast amounts of debt with no oversight. And that, my friend, is a global problem.

You can blame the US for many things, but ultimately, the economic crisis is the product (for better or worse) of a global economy.

@watchman220: I sincerely hope that, with your views, you are staunchly against the death penalty.

prince's avatar

@madsmom1030: I hear your concern about one-party government… however, if you look back to the last time major legislation was passed in the US—in the 1960’s/70’s—it was due to one-party government.

If the Democrats win presidency and congress, they’ll have 2 years. If they screw it up, they’ll be out quicker than you can blink. As Chris Matthews mentioned on Hardball last night, it’s actually a more accountable scenario.

Coincidentally this is the argument I make toward the “third party” candidates… not that we should exclude voices from the political process (since it’s good to have vigorous debates), but that I believe that the best hope for change is from within the existing political structure, like we experienced during the Civil Rights movement.

delirium's avatar

I find it amusing that most insanely dogmatic, and usually male, anti-choice (if we’re going to go there..) individuals are not only all for the death penalty, but they eat meat, take advantage of the environment with no respect for the rest of the humans on the planet.

Oh the irony.

watchman220's avatar


As a CHristian I more concerned about people accepting eternal life. If I were to vote on the issue of the death penalty, I think I would vote against it. For the opportunity for any man or woman to see the error of their ways, repent and come to salvation is the truly the heart of God.

Saul, a murderer of the CHristians repented and became the largest most influential evangelist in the hostory of the church, writing most of the books in the new testament.

However, if the government has voted on the laws of death penalty, and passed them, then I support the government which God has instituted.

God knows the leaders, He has appointed them to those positions, and He knows the bounds of their habitation. We are to obey those that God has put in power, and we have no fear of punishment if we do not break the laws. So I will pray for those who are appointed the death penalty that they might humble themselves and find repentance and eternal life.



delirium's avatar

Because that’s so not going to last, i’m going to take advantage of this moment to call you an absolute idiot because the mods will probably erase both at once.
Stupid, stupid sheep…. nay…. Troll.

delirium's avatar

Also, if Obama wins, didn’t god make him win?
If Mccain is acting like a blundering fool, didn’t god make him a blundering fool?

augustlan's avatar

No one is pro-abortion. I’ve had one. I hated it before, during and after. I wouldn’t have one again, unless my life was at stake. And only then due to the fact that I have 3 children who need a mother. That said, it is not my place, and certainly, as a man, NOT YOURS to make those decisions for other people. Morality is subjective, and yours may vary from another’s. The idea of when life begins is also hotly debated, and no one can know who is right.

dalepetrie's avatar

I have to interject two things re watchman’s comments

First off, you mischaracterized Obama’s position on abortion when you said, “his denial of medical attention to babies that survive abortion…”

You are referring to his vote in the Illinois State Legislature against a law which ON ITS FACE purported to require medical attention for babies who survive abortion. However, the State of Illinois ALREADY HAD A LAW ON ITS BOOKS requiring medical attention for babies who survive abortions. BUT this law ALSO included language that would have, had it passed, allowed legal challenges to Roe v. Wade.

Obama’s actual position on abortion, if you care, is that late term abortions should not be legal unless it poses a threat to the life or well being of the mother. Now, you clearly don’t agree with that…and that’s your prerogative. You lived your life according to your moral code.

But make no mistake about it, it’s YOUR MORAL CODE. By pushing for the outlawing of abortion, you are trying to force your morality down the throats of others who don’t agree with you. Your position is derived from your religious beliefs, and one of the basic tenets of our Democracy (which you seem so concerned about preserving vis a vis your question), is a separation of church and state. The establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states, and I quote,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

What we can and historically do use as a basis for the creation of our laws is science.

Per wikipedia, science “is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments. Knowledge in science is gained through research.”

And the knowledge that has been gained by the use of scientific experimentation in regards to where life begins conflicts with the religious belief of where life begins. Science defines life as viability, i.e. from the moment of conception until 20 weeks of gestation, an unborn fertilized human egg is known as an embryo, which by definition means it lacks viability outside the mother’s womb. In layman’s terms, if you take it out, it’s not going to survive, no matter what. After 20 weeks, the scientific definition changes from embryo to fetus, which is essentially defined as an entity which can survive and continue gestation outside the womb. In short, life has not actually been achieved until 20 weeks. Furthermore, it is not until 26 weeks that most neurobiologists believe that a fetus has any perception of things such as pain (due to the development of thalamocortial connections). This 20 week point is also the approximate point at which a mother can feel the fetus moving. And in fact, the 20 week point is theoretical, most fetuses born before 28 weeks do not survive, and only two fetuses have ever survived when being born before 22 weeks of gestation (one at 21 weeks 5 days, the other at 21 weeks, 6 days).

So, thank you very much, I understand you don’t like it, but #1 – it’s not your decision to make, #2 – the reason you think you should be able to make it is grounded in your own superstitious beliefs and not facts, and #3 – you not being a woman could never fully understand what making such a choice entails to a woman.

Finally, I don’t think everyone who has an abortion is simply being irresponsible. Accidents happen, and some times people (particularly people who live in school districts whose policies are dictated by people with strong religious beliefs about why we should deny any sexual education that is not 100% abstinence based) are simply not educated about the ways to avoid pregnancy. Whether you like it or not, sex is a basic human drive…if we didn’t have it, our species would not survive. Some might be able to retain the willpower to avoid sexual activity until they are ready to raise children, but essentially to do so is to deny nature in favor of social mores. And quite frankly, I would argue conversely that it is better for society as a whole not to force someone who is physically, emotionally and/or financially incapable of raising a child to become a successful adult.

So, until all these “pro-life” women are willing to donate their bodies as incubators to carry unwanted embryos to term, and their time and resources to raise those resulting children to successful adulthood, then you, who so clearly hates hypocrisy, should see why your argument is untenable.

susanc's avatar

1. Science versus belief is never going to convince a believer, including a believer in science.

2. Not sure why someone who’s only viable inside the womb should not be considered human. It seems to me that the design is for such people to be kept in there where they belong till it’s safe for them to come out. Either that, or don’t get them started.

3. In Holland, where there’s excellent, calm, widespread, sensible sex education for kids beginning in grade school, abortion is hardly ever an issue. We prefer not to learn from this? How dumb is that?

4. Men, who suffer the consequences of pregnancy only if they feel like it, should never have been offered the burden of making decisions about it. Let’s offer them the opportunity to shut the fuck up.

it’s 3:18 in the morning

syz's avatar

I’m not pregnant, but I’m thinking about going in for an abortion anyway, just to piss off all the religious zealots

watchman220's avatar

I have been married for 14.5 years. I have 4 kids. The potential for a human being is so much more than a medical procedure, whether you or anyone else considers the life viable.
If it has the capacity to be a living child outside the womb, this is the normal process that continues the human race.
To use your own argument against you…a normal sex drive has the purpose of creating normal human beings by the process of impregnation and gestation.

However “normal” would not include the early termination by medical procedures of a viable life, protected in the womb.

SO the moral point is, don’t engage in baby creating activities if you are not prepared to have a baby!

Who exactly is it that defines a child or adult as ready to have a baby!? It is a natural process that has been happening throughout the ages. No one decides they are ready…they just make a choice to ride out the difficult details of life as a human being…including the creating of a new life or the destruction of that life.

I loathe how you justify the “viability” of life by scientific observations, according to fetal response to pain.

If the child can be identified as a human being in process or gestation, it should be illegal to kill the human being. Just as it is illegal in the outside world. Legally…this is murder. The taking of a life.

Morally, I would propose that no abortion should ever take place. But legally we have to give a choice, because wee can not legislate morality. Your legal right to choose murder by abortion, does not make it a moral correct decision. Whether the reason is rape, incest, inconvenience, a “flawed” human being, or whatever, it is a life. And it got there by the action of 2 people.
2 people should therefore be responsible for their actions. Yes it sounds terribly harsh…but life is not always fair. And life is not always predictable.

Just because a woman was impregnated by rape, or incest, or accident, does not remove the capacity of that life to develop into a human being. It is a sacred process and privilege of the woman to nurture life. LIFE LIFE LIFE. That is what this is about. It’s not about just the woman, or just the rapist, or just the husband, or just a blob of flesh. Removing the life that is growing in a woman does not remove the crime perpetrated on her by a rapist or by incestual relations. It also does not remove the error in judgement to engage in life creating sexual relations with an uncommited partner.
Life is so much bigger and complex than a simple terminating medical procedure.

Abortion has plenty of consequences to the woman and to the man involved. I resent any woman or man that says it does not affect men. It certainly affects men quite profoundly. They just don;t have as much control or choice in the physical matter.

So in summary. Legally we must give a choice.
But legally we must also protect the innocent human beings that are clearly identifiable as such.
Morally, you must choose your own path. The legal system still gives you the choice to make a moral decision that supports life or death.

The real goal of pro-life people like me is to address the issues of moral education. Not to legislate and force your hand. So your fight is not with me, it is with your conscience and with God.

EmpressPixie's avatar

Watchman: Just curious, but you’ve now mentioned God and the bible. How do you justify—to yourself—the parts of the bible that require killing and mesh them with your pro-life philosophy?

dalepetrie's avatar

watchman220 – but your entire argument is based on what YOU believe, what YOU loathe, what YOUR morals are. Legally we need a standard that is supported by something concrete, not something ethereal like morality. I never said abortions don’t affect men, they affect the fathers (or would be fathers) and therefore, yes a man should have some say in the reproductive process if he is the father. But Jane Doe’s abortion does not affect you, but laws protecting her health affect ALL women. And you talk about what people SHOULD do when they suffer unintended consequences, I tend to be more pragmatic about what they WILL do. Those who lack a fundamental responsibility in their makeup will be lousy parents and bring an unwanted life into this world, which adds to the misery both of the individual and collectively to the society if (when) things don’t work out well. Having unwanted, unloved and uncared for children grow into deviant, irresponsible adults because they don’t have responsible parental figures on whom to pattern adds a destructive element to society in my opinion…I think for the greater good, when we’re talking about a “potential” life vs. an “actual” one (which is the distinction I draw based on logic and science…things that can be proven vs. the theoretical tenets of religion and morality, which at best simply can never be “disproven”), sometimes for the betterment of mankind as a whole, I think we should as a society say that not every person who is capable of reproducing should be forced to do so. Indeed, those who refuse to take responsibility for their actions are the last people in many cases who should be responsible for directing the life and development of another human being. Therefore, I have no objection to allowing the termination of a pregnancy before the unviable embryo becomes a viable fetus.

I also accept the real consequences of having a system where such a procedure is not available in a safe, legal manner. We have historical precedent that shows how people who find themselves in desperate circumstances will do whatever need be. In short, I don’t believe we should return to a period of back alley, coathanger abortions.

But one interesting facet to this argument is that you and I do agree on one thing…we should seek to limit the number of abortions that actually occur. We just disagree on how we get there…you want to get there by prohibiting the practice through artificial legal means. That doesn’t work, just as prohibition of anything doesn’t work (which we saw in the 1920s with alcohol and we see today with the war on drugs which has done nothing but create a viable and violent black market, but certainly hasn’t tackled the demand side of the equation). That’s what it boils down to for me, and this is where Obama stands on the issue as well. What we need to do is not restrict the supply of something we’d like to see reduced such as abortion…we need to tackle the demand side. We need to concentrate on educating our kids about sex and its purpose and consequences. We need to work on healing the ills of society such as poverty, which make people feel they are unable to be responsible parents and leads them to this difficult decision. We have many paths to making sure that our society views abortion as an avoidable, last resort…in that way we can bring down the number of them that are performed. But if we simply restrict access to the procedure, people are going to take matters into their own hands, and the overall death toll will be higher. And that is why forcing your morality down everyone else’s throat is not a good idea, it’s like trying to pound the proverbial square peg into the round hole.

What the pro-life movement seeks to do is to overly dramatize the situation, to demonize people without walking a mile in their shoes, and to judge everyone else based on their own set of moralistically acceptable parameters. What is the right decision for you is not necessarily the right decision for everyone else.

And that may offend you, but you have no right to legislate morality, period.

watchman220's avatar

@dalepetrie I think you missed my point…which even more agrees with you. From my previous post.

“So in summary. Legally we must give a choice.
But legally we must also protect the innocent human beings that are clearly identifiable as such.
Morally, you must choose your own path. The legal system still gives you the choice to make a moral decision that supports life or death.

The real goal of pro-life people like me is to address the issues of moral education. Not to legislate and force your hand. So your fight is not with me, it is with your conscience and with God.”

I don’t want coat hanger back alley abortions either.

We must make choice available legally.
But we should educate our people morally.

However I disagree, with your characterization of who would be a valid parent. Sometimes, and certainly in my case, it was the seriousness of having a child that matured me to the point of being a responsible human being. Surely there are other processes that contributed to that end, but we can not determine who will be the bad parent and who will be the good.
And we can not justify this procedure of abortion based on that subjective argument.
People have been having kids through all of human history. It’s the human experience. People will figure it out. They always have.

dalepetrie's avatar

OK, I get you and I basically agree with you, with the exception of the good partent/bad parent discussion. I agree that’s your experience and the experience of many others, but I see the opposite experience as well. Perhaps the definer is the person who owns up to their moral responsibility vs those who don’t…that might be a harbinger of who would be the most successful parent. I’m probably more permissive than you in terms of saying that people should be able to look at their situations and determine if this unplanned event fits into their lives…I don’t think it’s a convenience issue, but I think it’s a gray area because at times it has a convenience aspect. But yes, I think the goal should be reducing unwanted pregnancies, but still having the option to terminate if that is your own choice, and I wouldn’t want to make any law that respects one moralistic viewpoint over all others, like you said, that’s for you, your conscience and your God (if any).

PupnTaco's avatar

watchman 220 said: “So your fight is not with me, it is with your conscience and with God.”

I don’t believe in God and my conscience is OK with aborting early-term fetuses.

So then why are you on a mission of “moral education?” Why not let “God” directly communicate with everyone and cut out the middleman?

dalepetrie's avatar

I’d also point out that whereas McCain’s plan is to appoint Supreme Court justices who would throw Roe v. Wade back to the states, surely resulting in it being outlawed in some places, if watchman is sincere that he feels it should be legal and we shouldn’t return to the back alley coathanger abortion days, then he should vote for Obama who has said his goal is to educate and reduce the number of abortions performed. Just sayin’

watchman220's avatar

Thanks for a great response dalepetrie

Even if Rowe vs Wade is repealed. The states will have to decide what to do with this issue. Only 18 states currently have laws on the books about abortion as it stood in 1973. Rowe vs Wade created a Federal ruling over the states.

Whether it’s repealed or not. I will do my best to support these agencies which make counseling for crisis pregnancies available to women. Agencies that educate scared young ladies about the options of adoption, or introduce the ladies to the concept that people are there to help. And it does not have to be the end of their life.

Roe vs Wade opened the door for all manner of abortions. I can not say what will happen. But Obama makes me uncomfortable. I will never vote for Obama.

willbrawn's avatar

kinda late i must admit. Why does nobody believe that God can heal our country? Everyone puts all kinds of faith into Obama. He is just a man in a three party system. I am going to put my faith in God to heal our country, and he will make sure the right people are in office.

dalepetrie's avatar

willbrawn – I wouldn’t go as far as to say ‘nobody’ believes this, I have to think most people of deep faith do believe it’s in God’s hands. There are those of us however who do not have such faith. I’m sure if it is God’s will that will prevail, then it is also His will that we have this discussion n’est ce pas?

augustlan's avatar

Was it God’s will that installed Hitler?

watchman220's avatar

I am fine with God’s will: whether it be Obama in office, or John McCain in office. We have to trust that God will do His will. He appoints rulers and he knows the bounds of their habitation. All things work together into His plan. And I believe it’s a good plan.

It is the ultimate surrender to believe that even if things are appointed for a time to go badly, that God will work out the details for the good to those that love Him.

This belief is what allowed Job to say, though He slay me, yet will I trust Him. CHristians have a point of reference past this temporal existence on earth in this one life.

The promise of eternal life is the hope that drives the behavior of faith beyond what seems logical in this life.
So when Christians do not agree with humanistic ideas that seem like great ideas, it is because they have a different understanding and belief about where the world is truly going, not to mention a moral viewpoint that disallows certain practices in their lives.

But I am willing to die for the cause of CHrist. I am even willing to die for a country that defends freedom. Jesus was willing to die for those who were His enemies. I don;t know if I am yet there. But living for eternity gives one a different persepective, that includes the giving away of control of one’s life and time of death.

So Obama? If he gets in office I believe will escalate the series of events and circumstances that will perpetuate the last days. We will grow that much closer.

McCain? I think we will have 4 more years of grace if McCain gets in office. Perhaps enough time for me to get out of debt and dissapear of the grid before things go really bad.

I don’t like that people can track your movements wherever you go in this world. I would truly like to dissapear sometimes…so the government machine would be off my back annd out of my business.

This is the primary argument and process of thought that I have when I think about bigger government providing all me needs.

I forget the source of the quote…but it was one of our forefathers that said, “A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything from you.”

For the purpose, beyond our understanding, and that will be made clear by God someday, he allowed Hitler to be. God, in the act of allowing Hitler to be, defined more clearly, the nature of humanity to digress into evil and sin. It was for this purpose in the long run, that God allowed man a choice to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. The really important part of that decision was that we now know evil. Mankind made the choice…through one Adam. Now we have another choice through Jesus. That is what salvation is all about. The restoration of relationship with God.

God knew how it would go down. He could have stopped it. But he allowed it instead. For what purpose??? Perhaps a purpose much greater than we can understand. But God is the creator and we are the created. How can we argue with authority such as that? We can have feelings about it…and I do…it makes me sad…but I also know that my position has no authority over such things. And God offers salvation, He disproves of Hitleresque type things, He has no part with evil, but he allows it as a defining force, so that people will chooose good, which is purely God.

augustlan's avatar

@watchman: I understand that you and I have differences of opinion on the nature/existence of God, so I will not question your religious beliefs. However, I will question your political beliefs. If you hate that the government can track you, why would you vote for the party that has dramatically increased the level of surveillance on innocent Americans? Hint: It wasn’t the Democrats.

EmpressPixie's avatar

And just so we’re clear “dramatically increased” includes “did things that were definitely illegal, then went back and changed the law so that they weren’t and so that the new law would cover their bums.”

EmpressPixie's avatar

Ohhh, I hates FISA. I hates it! I cannot believe Obama supported it. I was so mad at him!

dalepetrie's avatar

augustlan, someone who is of the belief that Obama will lead us to the last days and McCain will give us 4 “more” years of grace is basically in the camp of thought where political and religious belief are inseparable. So you really can’t question his poliitcal beliefs without questioning his religious beliefs. The problem is, you can poke holes in anything someone like this says all day long, and there’s always another workaround…God has a plan and He works in mysterious ways, it’s a catch all.

So I can point out that his quote about government big enough to provide us with everything we need is also big enough to take it away sounds good on paper, but that this is not what we’re discussing…we’re talking about government competent enough to make sure that anyone willing and able to work hard can provide for his OWN needs. Then we’d get back into the discussion of redistribution of wealth, the role of charity vs. government, and so on and so forth.

You can talk about the paranoia factor of being tracked by our government, but he can point out that it doesn’t seem to make it any harder for us to express ourselves here online and that ultimately we have to make some self sacrifices to keep ourselves safe from the forces of evil. And eventually you’ll get into discussions about freedoms, and abortions will come up and you’re right back to the argument that Democrats kill babies.

So you have to argue why God allows this, and we’re told how He works in mysterious ways and that’s why he calls upon his followers to elect people like W and McCain, and if McCain is not elected, He has part of a plan that he may or may not reveal to us eventually, depending on when we are all called home to His glory.

It boils down to, worldy matters aren’t all that important when you think God is ready to take the world from us anyway. However since we know if this philosophy is correct, all of us heathens will be Left Behind™, so I guess we’re fighting for the remaining scraps. No matter what, a belief in the END OF DAYS is an impenetrable wall which repels all arguments regardless of logic or illogic if they do not meet the overall worldview that this world is of no ultimate consequence. Which explains why it’s the religious right wing which ultimately champions a Drill Baby Drill philosophy that doesn’t move us to energy independence…why make this sacrifice when the world isn’t going to be around long enough for us to exploit all that God gave us. And beside, if we did run out, he’d make more somehow, as it is HIS will. And if he doesn’t, well, that’s HIS will too. If I get a boil on my ass, that’s part of HIS plan. It’s out of our hands and all we can do in terms of casting our votes is to cast them for the righteous candidate lest we be judged too harshly on judgement day.

augustlan's avatar

@dale: I know, I know…I just keep hoping that logic will win out in the end. I know better…and should just let it ride.

dalepetrie's avatar

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on what side of the fence you’re on), only 10% of America is evangelical/fundamentalist (i.e. people who take the bible literally and find it to be their calling in life to spread the word). What you see is that the nation is kind of a spectrum…a 3-D bell curve if you can envision that. from one of the far fringes on the right you’ve got this group, but it votes monolithically in favor of social conservatism. It in many ways corresponds to what we see with the African American vote on the left…it is overwhelmingly socially liberal (with the exception of gay rights for some strange cultural reason I don’t fully comprehend) and it votes overwhelmingly the other way. So in years where you’ve got 2 rich old white men (i.e. every year so far up till this one) seeking the Presidency, there is nothing to energize that monolithic voting bloc on the left, but the right can ALWAYS energize that monolothic voting bloc on the right. Every election in US history would have turned out differently if only 9% of people had changed their minds (even the landslide years), so when you’ve got 10% of the population, if you get almost ALL of them to come out and vote, 9 times out of 10 you’ll swing the election. Reagan realized this and cozied up to this group and they’ve been a reliable bloc for the Republicans ever since.

Fortunately, Obama came around this year and excited the black vote so not only will it support him 97% of the time, but instead of voting in lower than average numbers, they will vote in higher than average numbers. This is why McCain picked Palin…the evangelicals didn’t think he was a real carrier of the torch, but she’s drunk the Kool Aid and given the ticket its bona fides. Fortunately however her utter lack of knowledge about world affairs and complete lack of experience have made anyone who actually believes the world will be around for our great grandchildren (but only if we protect it) is now too scared to vote for her (even some evangelicals).

This is resulting in the Republican party splitting. You’ve got two camps…those who want a Palin/Joe the Plumber ticket in 2012 (ideology over experience or knowledge), and those who want to return to fiscal conservatism and embrace their deeply held values, but in a less ideological way. This is in my view a good thing because it’s going to relegate that voting bloc back to the fringe where it belongs, they’ll probably end up starting a 3rd party, and the Republican party will have to move away from being the party of the rich and privileged in order to appeal to the moderates who’ve become Democrats. This might actually force the Dems a bit to the left to differentiate themselves.

I think 2012 and 2016 will be fascinating assuming watchman is not correct about us being in the end days.

watchman220's avatar

I am btw NOT a rich old white man fan either. I was simply trying to make the point which I think you pretty much understand, that I am not happy with anyone in public office, because I am a fundamentalist Jesus Freak.
Yes I freely admit it.
We live in a country that I love…but I truly believe it is flawed, in it’s constitution because it allows everyone to do whatever they want….to a fault.
NOW HEAR ME….I amnto saying that it is not the BEST country and governmental system in the world. But that is precisely the point. It is the best in this world only.

All good things come to an end…I just think this government and country are headed that way. That might sound like pessimism…but I am really not upset about it.

Additionally…if people turn this country around and we have a fantastic economic policy repentance, and people start valuing the important things in life, rather MORE MORE MORE stuff…I would be very happy to see a healthy USA that works hard to remedy it’s problems. Understand? I WOULD BE HAPPY!

But it truly is my opinion that we are headed towards an inevitable change…perhaps not for the better, as it seems to have been proven plenty of times that a legislated government controlled compassionate provision for the people, can lead to over controlling circumstances and depressed economic and moral directions.

I hope we do not see that….but regardless of the president…I think we will. Eventually.

If you believe in GOd…then pray!

Otherwise…well…do what you do…lol


dalepetrie's avatar

My comment about rich old white men running for President wasn’t directed at you, watchman. That comment was meant to imply that there are scads of people who simply don’t vote at all because they don’t feel either candidate is like them or represents them all that well (a good swath of America can not relate to either candidate most years). As for the religious stuff, you should be proud to stand up for your beliefs, no argument there. I do however believe you and people who believe as you do are less concerned about the ultimate fate of the world (not that you don’t care, you’re just less concerned) because it is in God’s hands, and is not the ultimate goal anyway. Not to say you wouldn’t be happy to have this world reflect your own personal utopia a bit more.

watchman220's avatar

Well….good deal then.

I suppose we will see what happens after November 4th. God help us.

iwamoto's avatar

the word god has been said 40 times in the conversation (including this one) and frankly i find that a bit irritating, i always see fluther as a place of knowledge and exact science, so why do we feel the need to use disputable evidence in a discussion ?

let’s just hope this won’t happen too often

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther