//
Uncategorized

>Jeff and Mike – Poly Sci and Talkin Crap

>Political Q&A with Mike aka Green19

Mike, Barack Obama seems to be drawing some interest from an unlikely group of voters: evangelicals. Do you think this is a media creation or are evangelicals truly considering voting for Obama?

Doesn’t surprise me. Christians, evangelicals in particular, have been especially prone to what I call collective guilt syndrome. Obama says he’s black so naturally, Evangelicals want to reach out and apologize for everything from slavery to Vanilla Ice. It appeases the false guilt they’ve acquired from Promise Keepers and other such peer pressure movements. So now they’re in a bit of a quagmire. They’re used to thinking in groups, and they desperately want to appear non-racist. It’s obviously not about the political issues Obama does or does not endorse.

Just today the USA Today showed poll results saying that if Obama is defeated race relations will worsen and those same people hope Obama will address racial inequality. That just means that he’ll sanction men with guns to take money from one segment of society and give it to another. It’s sad that evangelicals are starting to buy into this bullshit.

Why do you think some evangelicals are moving to the left?

Many evangelicals don’t really have a grasp of politics. Think about it, how many of them do you know that truly understand the political system? Hell, how many citizens understand the political philosophy behind what they say they believe? I think they’re moving to the left because they’re bored with the right. That and the TV said to.

Does this seem to be based on measured reflection upon the issues of the day or is this is a symptom of the evangelical obsession with trendiness and wanting to be liked?

I wouldn’t presume judge their motive… oh hell, yes I would. I think it’s because they don’t have a clue about philosophy. I’m not talking about some screwy deep shit that no one can understand, I’m talking about the underlying rationale for why they believe what they believe. If a person doesn’t have that most basic and foundational understanding, they’ll be changing their mind with every new and handsome charismatic figure that comes along.

For too long evangelicals have been trained to have faith in faith. What does that mean? It means that the focus has shifted from the grace of God to forcing ourselves to believe a set of doctrinal propositions about God. We can debate the theology all day long, but I think we’re seeing the consequences of training a few generations of people to think blind faith is a good or godly thing. Evangelicals need to stop being afraid of philosophy and start encouraging people to actually use their brains.

How do you explain the Obama phenomenon we witnessed during the primaries? People have commented on the messianic elements of Obama’s campaign for good reasons. What do you think is going on here?

Obama is the Anti-Bush. He is cashing in on everything Bush did wrong and I think it’s working for him. It’s a very smart thing too. I mean, he’s following the playbook like an NBA all-star (Larry Byrd perhaps?). Don’t get me wrong, I was a Bush supporter, two times running, but I woke up. It’s not that I don’t like Bush; I’d love to hang out with him and drink a six-pack or two but I agree with Judge Napolitano, Bush has done more to trample the constitution than any other president except Lincoln. That’s unacceptable and Obama is right there with him just on the other side of the fence. That gives him the impression of being different! That can only happen when people are focused on the details and ignore the larger picture! The larger picture here is the constitution; the document that circumscribes the powers of government. If Obama or Bush would chain themselves to that document, I could support either of them as president.

With many of our politicians today, it is more popular to imitate the policies of Europe than the principles of our own Founders. What has happened to the concept of “liberty” in our country?

I think it has more to do with how people want an easy life rather than a free life. Freedom is difficult; it means working hard to make sure you can take care of yourself, your family, and your neighbors. I think Europhiles are content with selling themselves (and their neighbors) into servitude only they don’t really see it as such. It’s just a much safer place really and it gives them something and someone to bitch about- which is an important element needed to placate the ego crushing truth that they’re lazy bastards trapped in a finite reality.

People no longer understand the concept of liberty. Schools haven’t taught it, people don’t have to learn it. Liberty has been replaced by “The New Deal”, the welfare mentality, and entitlements. It’s so much easier to get a gang of people together and take stuff from other people than work for it yourself, especially when it can be justified.

Christian’s aren’t immune! The Religious Right was too quick to pick up the government sword to enforce its own morality (e.g. the Moral Majority). While this isn’t a history paper, I suspect it had a lot to do with the end of the world that was supposed to take place around the year 2000. (You all thought it, don’t even pretend you didn’t). Jesus was coming back for a spotless bride and we need to clean house! Holy shit, what were we thinking? We became the new Christian Empire too willing to not only give up our liberty but our neighbor’s as well. The Golden Rule became “Do unto others what I think is in their best interest, to impress God.”

You supported Ron Paul during the Republican primary. What was it that drew you to his campaign?

Supported? I STILL support the man! As a matter of fact I feel the need to make a shameless plug for his new NY Times best seller: “The Revolution: A Manifesto”. It’s an excellent small book on the dual concepts of freedom and liberty.

I wouldn’t say I was drawn to Ron Paul I was drawn to his message and that’s an important distinction! His was a simple and straightforward message of individual liberty over and above collectivism. The collective is much easier to herd toward any goal a politician (individual) may dream up. The collective will always vote away the rights of the minority; the smallest minority being the individual.

People think that individualism is the same as isolationism and that’s completely untrue. In fact, I propose that individualism can only truly exist within community lest the individual be subject to roving gangs of assholes. As a group of individuals we agree to protect each other and never use force, fraud or coercion in our relationships. That’s it. It’s very simple.

I think that the only antidote to the personality cults of politics is to return to the document upon which our concept of liberty is grounded – the constitution. As long as the president sticks to that, it wouldn’t matter who the president is. Hell, we could all take turns for that matter.

Advertisements

Discussion

67 thoughts on “>Jeff and Mike – Poly Sci and Talkin Crap

  1. >Of course, I could be wrong about McCain and I truly hope I am, but I fear we will both be disappointed by his Court appointments. I suspect that political expediency will trump conviction.

    Posted by ChiefsSuperfan | July 18, 2008, 12:24 pm
  2. >I’m loving the discussion too. 🙂 Even though I don’t always contribute or do so sporadically, CRM is my second blog read of the day.

    Posted by ChiefsSuperfan | July 18, 2008, 12:17 pm
  3. >Our disagreement is rather minor here, Superfan…just thought that I’d tell ya that I’m enjoying the discussion though.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 18, 2008, 1:30 am
  4. >”I would see the pro-life cause in similar fashion as the prohibition of slavery. And nothing less than a modern day Wilberforce or Lincoln will prick our cold, callous, sanitized hearts. McCain is not that crusader. May God give us a crusader.”No President can overturn Roe v. Wade. That is for the Supreme Court to do. McCain has promised to appoint justices in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. And like I said, he has said that he will have people such as Olsen and Thompson help him with selecting judges. There is a very good chance that McCain will have to replace a Justive during his term if he wins. If he appoints a conservative like he says (I have no reason not to believe him) then there will be a 5-4 conservative majority on the court which would give an opportunity for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. Don’t be upset because you think McCain hasn’t spoken loudly enough on this issue. Look to his record.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 17, 2008, 11:48 pm
  5. >Note that I stated earlier I would be voting for McCain. Theological arguments could be offered to suggest little difference between apathy and outright violence against the defenseless. I would see the pro-life cause in similar fashion as the prohibition of slavery. And nothing less than a modern day Wilberforce or Lincoln will prick our cold, callous, sanitized hearts. McCain is not that crusader. May God give us a crusader.

    Posted by ChiefsSuperfan | July 17, 2008, 11:24 pm
  6. >http://www.lifenews.com/nat3612.htmlMcCain said, “I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” Sorry for the messy links, quotes, and etc. I still haven’t figured html out and leave that to the young guns on staff with me. :)This link best reflects my skepticism.http://ncregister.com/site/article/7918/Thanks for the discussion. 🙂

    Posted by ChiefsSuperfan | July 17, 2008, 11:14 pm
  7. >I don’t think McCain will be apatheic to the pro-life cause (especially based on his strong support for it in his voting record). However, for the sake of arugument let’s just say that he would be. Your question was would there be an upside? My answer is yes. Imgaine who Obama would nominate to the Supreme Court. Scary huh? We are only one conservative away form having a majority on the Supreme Court. Obama would surely nominate someone in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We might not get an opportunity again like this (to get a conservative majority) in years. McCain has already said that he will appoint originalist to the Supreme Court. He has also said that he would have people like Fred Thompson and Ted Olsen help him when deciding who to pick. Let’s not pretend like there isn’t a world of difference between Obama and McCain here.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 17, 2008, 11:08 pm
  8. >Thanks for the links related to McCain’s recent pro-life votes.Keep in mind that the National Right to Life has made similar endorsements during general election seasons in the past with Republican nominees to whom they had previously given “moderate” scores (i.e. Dole, the first Bush).A search of the question, “Is John McCain Pro-life?” will show the same concerns I raise as to the depth of his conviction to the sanctity of unborn human life. His votes on stem cell research in particular, his continual insistence on abortion in the case of rape, and his previous defense of Roe v. Wade (pre-2004) leaves a deep-seated skepticism.Obama will of a certainty be passionate about his pro-choice idealogy. McCain will be apathetic about the Pro-life cause. Which is worse?The upside? Not sure there is one.I wish he would speak against abortion with the same vigor and passion and zeal with which he echoes the common sense strategy of being in Iraq and Afghanistan over the long haul.

    Posted by ChiefsSuperfan | July 17, 2008, 10:44 pm
  9. >I got the Recent Comments working again. The only problem is the new code doesn’t show the name of the post the comment came from. Maybe I can find a way to include that.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | July 17, 2008, 10:04 pm
  10. >Those links aren’t showing up right. Here they are:+The Right to Life Lobby vs. McCain They’re not fighting about abortion. and+National Right to Life PAC Supports John McCain for President

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 17, 2008, 9:05 pm
  11. >Here’s another link:http://www.nrlpac.org/National Right to Life PAC Supports John McCain for President “National Right to Life PAC strongly supports Senator John McCain for United States President and we have supported him in all of his U.S. Senate races. Even while National Right to Life disagreed with Senator McCain on campaign finance reform, Senator McCain did not waver in his votes against abortion.Senator John McCain has a solid voting record against abortion and has cast 31 pro-life votes since 1997, including a vote against endorsing Roe v.Wade. (McCain’s votes can be seen on the National Right to Life website at: http://www.nrlc.org.) In addition he voted to confirm Justices Alito and Roberts. National Right to Life is grateful for is pro-life votes.”

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 17, 2008, 9:02 pm
  12. >Where are you getting those stats? What pro-life bills has he voted against? Pretty much everything I’ve ever read has shown how McCain has always been consistently pro-life. A lot of social cons seem to not like him very much but I basically think that is unfair. Here is one artical that talk about how many social cons don’t like McCain because of McCain-Feingold, NOT abortion. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/556qurfs.asp

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 17, 2008, 8:59 pm
  13. >I’ve been involved in the Pro-life movement for 18 years and McCain has always been viewed as a Moderate Republican on moral issues such as abortion. His Pro-life voting record is 70%. That is to say, 3 out of 10 times he votes against the Pro-life cause.

    Posted by ChiefsSuperfan | July 17, 2008, 7:04 pm
  14. >”McCain is anything but Pro-life.”Actually his record is solidly pro-life.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 17, 2008, 4:49 pm
  15. >If we are truly committed to nation/democracy-building in Iraq (a huge benefit to the US national interest) then we will have to be there for two or three decades at the least (i.e. Japan, Germany, and etc.).We pulled out of Vietnam too quickly and carnage ensued. It’ll be worse in Iraq. Removing our troops too soon and too quickly is not the remedy for (if indeed its the case) a mistaken justification for war. We mustn’t try to correct a “mistake” with another.I was disappointed with the GOP when Dole was our appointed candidate. I’m feeling the same over McCain. But, I will likely vote for him because of Obama’s barbaric views on partial birth abortion. That said, McCain is anything but Pro-life. I will vote for him, and afterwards feel a wave a nausea.

    Posted by ChiefsSuperfan | July 17, 2008, 3:08 pm
  16. >”I taught the class on logic, thank you very much. ;)”Ha ha ha! I need to work on putting up a section where each of the contributors can share their backgrounds. That was funny.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | July 17, 2008, 2:01 pm
  17. >they missed that class in logic.Bwahahahaha! Yeah, that’s it. ::rolleyes::I taught the class on logic, thank you very much. ;)I’m too conservative to give up on habeas corpus.

    Posted by QueenKnitter | July 17, 2008, 12:59 pm
  18. >I’ll also point out that military tribunals have been used throughout the history of our nation…from George Washington to Lincoln to FDR to Bush. It’s not something new.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 16, 2008, 9:06 pm
  19. >”but I know you’re intending…” Oops, NOT intending.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | July 16, 2008, 8:58 pm
  20. >The we need to go the way of an International Court then because how could these foreign detainess be treated justly with the same organization, America? And we need to abandon our military courts for our soldiers as well. They can only be treated fairly in a civilian court I suppose.”That is like having a policeman arrest you and then having his partner determine your guilt or innocence.”I think this reduces the military system to mere cronyism and casts these judges in a very negative light but I know you’re intending to disparage these military judges so I’ll move on. Is it truly like your example when they had non-military legal representation? I don’t think so. This court in DC is designed for criminals. They are innocent until proven guilty and, depending on the type of case, the prosecution must meet a high level of proof in order to convict. Depending on the nature of the offense the level is very high. The deck is stacked in favor of the defendant in order to protect them from overzealous prosecutors, etc. The defendants have many priveldges, rights regarding access to evidence, cross-examination, etc. Its more complicated than this, of course, but these things make sense for American citizens suspected of criminal activity. Is this criminal system the place to deal with foreign terrorists, non-lawful combatants? Are terrorism, actions on the battlefield, attacks from terrorists moving in and out of the civilian population, etc. criminal matters or matters of national defense? With the first attack on the World Trade Center we made the mistake of treating it as a criminal matter. The prosectuor from that case reports that this was a big mistake that ought not be repeated. Our criminal justice systeme is not designed to deal with these matters.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | July 16, 2008, 8:57 pm
  21. >Do you not see any conflicting interests in having the same organization detain you and judge your case? That is like having a policeman arrest you and then having his partner determine your guilt or innocence. If there is nothing wrong with that, then is our division between judicial and law enforcement parts of government superfulous? If this is artifical and unnecessary, it is unnecessary for American citizens too. If history, tradition and prejudice has told us this is the way to preserve justice, why is it denied to non-Americans?

    Posted by Jared Nelson | July 16, 2008, 7:50 pm
  22. >My question was and is – what was wrong with the previous system? Why was this extreme, unprecedented move necessary? How were they being denied justice under the previous system?

    Posted by Jeff Wright | July 16, 2008, 5:54 pm
  23. >J. Wizzle said: No, not disgusting at all. Um, they’re not US citizens. Why would Habues Corpus applly to non-US citizens? Terrorists aren’t even covered by the Geneva Convention. Were Confederate soldiers eligible for habeaus corpus? How about those merely accused of being confederate soldiers? How about an easier one. Were Japanese living in America subject to habeaus corpus when they were interned in camps during WWII? [a good place to go for background for these questions is Rehnquist’s “All the Laws But One”]Another question morally speaking is: Do we acknowledge universal natural rights or only civil rights? If captured terrorists are outside of civil rights, do they have no rights as humans? American citizens are not the only humans with dignity on this planet, and if you wish to suggest foreigners lack a natural right to justice, then it is extremely disgusting, but if it is merely which court civilly, then fine.

    Posted by Jared Nelson | July 16, 2008, 5:07 pm
  24. >One thing I’m sure you and I agree on Wiz, among many others, is that we DON’T want a recession!

    Posted by Mark Mathews | July 16, 2008, 3:00 pm
  25. >Hey Mark,I’m enjoying the discussion as well. Often we start feeling the effects of a recession before we actually are in one. That’s because growth starts to slow but doesn’t actually decline below a certain level. You are correct though that we often don’t officially know we are in a recession until we are already in one. So, in that regards you could be right but we know for sure for a while.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 16, 2008, 2:53 pm
  26. >”Yeah, I know. Isn’t it disgusting? Habeas Corpus is THE principle/value we inherited from the British. It is core to our freedom. If conservatives aren’t conserving this value, what good are they?”No, not disgusting at all. Um, they’re not US citizens. Why would Habues Corpus applly to non-US citizens? Terrorists aren’t even covered by the Geneva Convention.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 16, 2008, 2:50 pm
  27. >Also, I’m also not aware of too many conservatives that aren’t upset about the Supreme Court wanting to give terrorist comatants Habues Corpus rights.Yeah, I know. Isn’t it disgusting? Habeas Corpus is THE principle/value we inherited from the British. It is core to our freedom. If conservatives aren’t conserving this value, what good are they?I’m “conservative reformed” as Reformed go. But that doesn’t automatically mean that I’m Republican. That’s what I’m protesting. I talked about that in earlier posts.

    Posted by QueenKnitter | July 16, 2008, 11:59 am
  28. >Ah, come on Nate. Your vote for Nader did essentially end up helping Bush and hurting Kerry. Since, you live in GA it probably didn’t matter much in the end though.That might be the case, just as my drinking coffee this morning helps bean grinders and hurts orange pickers. But the larger question, in my mind, is why I should let the two major factions decide what counts for a “wasted” vote. Perhaps I’ve listened to Alice’s Restaurant too many times, but I figure that if just three people on every block, I mean three people on every block, would walk into the polling place in November, sing a bar of Alice’s Restaurant, vote for the best candidate irrespective of the horse race, and walk out, people would start calling it a movement. And that’s what it is–the Alice’s Restaurant, we’re-tired-of-the-elephants-and-donkeys movement. And all you have to do to join is sing it the next time it comes around on the guitar…Wow. I should get back to working on my article. I’m getting punchy.

    Posted by Nathan P. Gilmour | July 16, 2008, 10:57 am
  29. >The name of our blog might need to be changed to Semi, Kinda, Conservative Reformed Mafia.I’ll take this moment to remind you that one of the earlier invited writers was at most a conservative-by-default but interested in engaging conservatives’ philosophical projects with them. Won’t say who that writer is, though. 😉

    Posted by Nathan P. Gilmour | July 16, 2008, 10:53 am
  30. >”Basically everything I’ve ever read or hearrd about recessions has used the definition I gave earlier. I guess you’re just looking for something to squabble over though. I’ve already agreed that the situation is grave. I’m just going to hold off on calling it a recession until we are actually in one.”Here is some more accurate information for you. The NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research defines a recession as:”A recession is a significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, visible in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade.”It uses as its criteria for determining a recession the “definition” you provided and this is only one of many criteria used. Thus, this is not a definition but one indicator, that agreeably has not been met at this point, of many indicators. The problem is, the four main criteria that they use to determine a recession have been met and that is why the “Bulls” and the administration hang their hat on this one. They know they can’t use any other indicator right now and that the final one is inevitable. But it doesn’t take the final one to “make it” a recession.If you look back, what typically happens is that announcements come out that acknowledge a recession and they always go back to a starting point long before their announcement. They will say something like, “We are in a recession and it started back in ?????” So typically the recession is in full force long before it is “officially” announced. This is the case with our current economy. I tend to think they will say it began in March 2008. In the past economists have always made the claim we are in a recession long before it is admitted openly. I for one don’t need to wait for the government to tell me we are in a recession “officially” when it is already evident to some of our major economists.For the record, David Rosenberg of Merrill Lynch has also said “officially” that the U.S. economy is in a recession. I’m sure everyone else will admit it once the government says its okay to do so.I understand nobody wants to say the word RECESSION. It’s an ugly word. And in our pie in the sky culture where we think we can wish things away or spin them into whatever we want to it is certainly not something people want to admit to. But it is what it is. Call it what you like. I respectfully disagree but do admit that there are a lot of people on your side. I’m not saying you have a radical viewpoint. I just disagree and think that the future will prove me right. Thanks for the discussion Wiz.

    Posted by Mark Mathews | July 16, 2008, 9:35 am
  31. >”I’d have to consider three core dynamics at the heart of Evangelical Obama Support, some of which Mike vetted.- Group-think,- Guilt & the assumption of fault.- “Nice-guy-ism”I’ve never heard an Evangelical state which Obama policies they support (which would be difficult because so far he’s only espoused idealistic rhetoric). The biggest reason is a combination of “Why not?” and “It would be good for a black man to be president because they’ve been ‘excluded’ up to this point.””Jacob, you’ve done a good job of capturing some of what is going on here. There are additional options as seen by QK’s protest vote reason. In addition to those reasons I think some evangelicals are wanting to say “you don’t own me” to the GOP. They feel as if they have to express that in some way. They want to show that they’re not the fundy, right-winger they once were and have become more sophisticated in their thinking about the issues of the day. I do appreciate that. I would just take serious issue with expressing this through any kind of leftward shift.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | July 16, 2008, 3:46 am
  32. >”In the late 70’s early 80’s we had an almost duplicate situation that we have now. They called it a recession. I lived in it and was just entering the business world in 1983. It was TERRIBLE! A lot like it is now. The only difference was, they hadn’t invented SPIN yet.”And there are no gas lines. Yet.I’m no expert but I’m really not understanding the drilling-won’t-fix-it crowd (actually I do but I’m trying to pretend as if they have our best interests at heart). It’ll sure help. I am for a certain degree of common sense environmental restrictions but we’ve let the tail wag the dog.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | July 16, 2008, 3:40 am
  33. >I guess Greenspan changed his mind again in June.http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSJAT00371420080624Basically everything I’ve ever read or hearrd about recessions has used the definition I gave earlier. I guess you’re just looking for something to squabble over though. I’ve already agreed that the situation is grave. I’m just going to hold off on calling it a recession until we are actually in one.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 16, 2008, 2:28 am
  34. >”As of the end of June, Greenspan said that we were heading towards a recession but yet in one. He said that the chances that we would end up in one were a little more than 50%.”I know these links don’t work correctly but perhaps you can cut and paste it. The 50/50 call he made in February. But in April of this year he said outright that the U.S. economy was in recession. I have added the link for your review. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/08/greenspan-economy-in-rece_n_95725.htmlAs for superlatives, I would use what Greenspan and Buffet are using; recession. I think they’re more qualified than a Google search.

    Posted by Mark Mathews | July 16, 2008, 2:15 am
  35. >”I am soooooo weary of evangelicals & conservatives who are soooo ideologically pure that they can’t bear to pull the lever for McCain or their head will explode so they’re either going to stay home or vote for Obama.”I will vote for John McCain. But I wish Newt Gingrich was on the ballot.

    Posted by Mark Mathews | July 16, 2008, 2:04 am
  36. >1.) Go to google and type in recession and most definitions will be the one I gave you. I don’t know who made the official formula. I’m a poli sci major not business or economics.2.) As of the end of June, Greenspan said that we were heading towards a recession but yet in one. He said that the chances that we would end up in one were a little more than 50%. You are correct about Buffet though. I’m not sure how calling it a grave situation is denial. What other superlative should I use?

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 16, 2008, 2:02 am
  37. >I am soooooo weary of evangelicals & conservatives who are soooo ideologically pure that they can’t bear to pull the lever for McCain or their head will explode so they’re either going to stay home or vote for Obama (same thing). I agree J.Wizzle…….they missed that class in logic. It just makes me tired all over.

    Posted by Jeff Bailey | July 16, 2008, 2:00 am
  38. >”My understanding has always been that a recession is when the GDP has declined for two or more consecutive quarters.”Three questions: (1) Where did this formula come from? (2) Why is it that Alan Greenspan and Warren Buffet don’t follow this formula? (3) Why would men of their caliber say unequivocally that the U.S. economy is in a recession when it supposedly is not?Calling it a ‘slow down’ or a ‘grave situation’ is simply denial. These men have nothing to gain politically and they are by all counts VERY qualified, in fact more qualified than Bernanke and most other economists, to make this assessment.

    Posted by Mark Mathews | July 16, 2008, 1:53 am
  39. >Just to repeat what I said earlier. Just because we aren’t techinally in a recession that doesn’t mean we aren’t in a grave situation. I just don’t think that we should call it a recession until it actually is one. That’s all.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 16, 2008, 1:46 am
  40. >My understanding has always been that a recession is when the GDP has declined for two or more consecutive quarters. It’s not about believing anything. Has the definition changed? I’m just trying to go by facts and not just on feelings.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 16, 2008, 1:42 am
  41. >Bernanke says what he is told to say. Alan Greenspan and Warren Buffet both have publicly said the U.S. economy is in a recession. Are these guys idiots?

    Posted by Mark Mathews | July 16, 2008, 1:26 am
  42. >Please tell me you don’t believe that!! Please!!There are just as many economists who say we are in a recession as there are members of Bush’s administration who say we aren’t. The facts speak for themselves. In the late 70’s early 80’s we had an almost duplicate situation that we have now. They called it a recession. I lived in it and was just entering the business world in 1983. It was TERRIBLE! A lot like it is now. The only difference was, they hadn’t invented SPIN yet. So everybody called it what it was, a recession. I’m just trying to keeps it real.

    Posted by Mark Mathews | July 16, 2008, 1:22 am
  43. >”Good grief! Bush is on TV today saying we are not in a recession. Is this guy smoking crack!? Give me a break, I’m smarter than that. You can come up with all the formulas you want to in order to make something qualify as a recession, but where I come from, $4.00 a gallon gas, banks going out of business, GM laying off thousands, Starbucks closing HUGE amounts of stores, housing prices falling through the floor, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the verge of something bad, massive home foreclosures, the dwindling value of the dollar, and a falling stock market IS a recession!!!!Please Mr. Bush, don’t insult what little intelligence I might think I have!”Just a FYI, we actually are not in a recession. That doesn’t mean that everything is all fine and dandy and that we shouldn’t be trying to find ways to deal with the current econmomic and financial woes but we are not in a recession. With that said, why should we call it a recession when we are not in one. Maybe it would be more accurate to call it a serious situation as Ben Bernanke has called it.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 16, 2008, 1:13 am
  44. >I’m not going to vote for Obama because I think fundamentally he cannot deal with the volatility of what is going on internationally. With Iran, China, Russia all buddying up together, this fiasco in Iraq and the ongoing trouble in Afganistan, the African nations coming apart at the seams; it’s more than this guy can handle. But I must sympathize with Queenknitter. Conservative Evangelicals have been drinking the Republican Kool-Aid for too long now. Good grief! Bush is on TV today saying we are not in a recession. Is this guy smoking crack!? Give me a break, I’m smarter than that. You can come up with all the formulas you want to in order to make something qualify as a recession, but where I come from, $4.00 a gallon gas, banks going out of business, GM laying off thousands, Starbucks closing HUGE amounts of stores, housing prices falling through the floor, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the verge of something bad, massive home foreclosures, the dwindling value of the dollar, and a falling stock market IS a recession!!!!Please Mr. Bush, don’t insult what little intelligence I might think I have! This guy is not helping the cause.

    Posted by Mark Mathews | July 16, 2008, 1:04 am
  45. >”I do think it is better than the other party, but that doesn’t mean a conservative is not allowed to consider a vote for a non-Republican, especially if the war is a big issue for them.”I didn’t say that a conservative is not allowed to consider voting for a non-Republican. I’m saying that it doesn’t make sense for a conservative to vote for Barack Obama who is one of the most liberal candidates we’ve seen in a long time. I also said (while I am personally not in favor of voting third party) that if a conservative doesn’t want to vote for the GOP then they should consider either Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 16, 2008, 12:37 am
  46. >”…especially if the war is a big issue for them.”Unless its based on a pacifistic, non-violent, or some other sort of principled stance. Because Obama has clearly indicated that he intends to “redeploy” the troops to Afghanistan (further indicating his lack of foreign policy/military wisdom, imo). Obama wants to pull of one front and ramp it up in another. So I suppose voting for Obama because of the war means that one has become convinced of the wisdom of this strategy.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | July 15, 2008, 11:29 pm
  47. >You can be Reformed and even Conservative and vote for Obama. I’m a McCain man, but can sympathize. The GOP is a mess in scandle, has a lack of vision and is just flat wrong on a few issues. I do think it is better than the other party, but that doesn’t mean a conservative is not allowed to consider a vote for a non-Republican, especially if the war is a big issue for them.

    Posted by Jared Nelson | July 15, 2008, 10:20 pm
  48. >I am totally confused for your reasoning for voting for Obama. If you’re voting for Obama then how is that not a vote for him? I am so totally confused. You’re going to protest against the GOP so to get back at them you are going to vote for a political party that you agree with even less? If you are going to vote for someone other then the GOP how about the LP or Constitution Party? Let me ask you this…are you even a conservative? If not then that would explain to me how you’re going to vote for Obama. I don’t know how a conservative could vote for him in good conscience. I’m not a one issue voter but have you checked out Obama’s views and record on abortion? I wouldn’t be able to justify voting for him, but then again I disagree with him on just about everything.Also, I’m also not aware of too many conservatives that aren’t upset about the Supreme Court wanting to give terrorist comatants Habues Corpus rights. The name of our blog might need to be changed to Semi, Kinda, Conservative Reformed Mafia.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 15, 2008, 10:05 pm
  49. >It’s a protest vote, so I’m voting AGAINST McCain not for Obama. I’ve been giving the GOP a what-the-heck vote for too long. It’s getting old.I witnessed something strange in my final months at BJU. For years and years, I would critique the Republican candidate/president and jaws would drop — “How dare she?” was what the look communicated. But in the last two years, I’d critique Bush, and the students would nod in agreement. I heard faculty members regularly speak with disgust against the GOP. That didn’t happen in earlier times. At all!One little group actually dared to request to start a College Democrats group. Their request was refused in the end, but that there was enough interest in this bulwark of the GOP was telling. Something had changed. I think a large part of it is the bad, bad handling of the war, the lying about WMD, the indiscriminate dropping of habeas corpus, the torture have all disenchanted evangelicals from the GOP. In fact, I forgot to mention that. McCain’s response to the recent Supreme Court decision preserving habeas corpus was the final nail in McCain’s coffin for me. I heard many of my BJU alum friends saying the same thing. . . . If you want us to make a moral choice FOR the GOP, then pony up!!

    Posted by QueenKnitter | July 15, 2008, 9:39 pm
  50. >Ah, come on Nate. Your vote for Nader did essentially end up helping Bush and hurting Kerry. Since, you live in GA it probably didn’t matter much in the end though.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 15, 2008, 5:23 pm
  51. >”Yes, this is ’04 all over again.”It was such a merry time, what’s not to like?

    Posted by Jacob (aka. James) | July 15, 2008, 1:14 pm
  52. >The cold hard fact is that a vote for anybody but McCain is a vote for Obama.Yes, this is ’04 all over again.

    Posted by Nathan P. Gilmour | July 15, 2008, 10:24 am
  53. >Sorry….that quote comes from this article:http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=28457

    Posted by Jeff Bailey | July 15, 2008, 1:12 am
  54. >No sooner than I had written my last comment than I read this, “Obama is co-sponsor of a new bill, the Freedom of Choice Act, aimed at overturning the ban on partial-birth abortion and other pro-life laws nationwide. The law would make abortion a federal right and would keep abortion legal, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned someday. He said in a 2007 speech that the “first thing” he’d do as president is sign the bill.”

    Posted by Jeff Bailey | July 15, 2008, 1:09 am
  55. >”Question for you: What will Obama do differently on the war?”Oops! I spoke too soon. He’s flopped back to the Surrender Option in his NY Times editorial today!

    Posted by Jeff Wright | July 14, 2008, 11:48 pm
  56. >The cold hard fact is that a vote for anybody but McCain is a vote for Obama. When he and the Democrats in Congress get the partial-birth abortion ban repealed we can all thank those folks for voting as they did. McCain and the Republicans certainly have their share of problems but they pale next to baby genocide. Wake up people.

    Posted by Jeff Bailey | July 14, 2008, 11:18 pm
  57. >I know I’m a broken record, but this is once again reading like ’04 but with the hats switched. One party’s base is quite pleased with their candidate, and the other party’s base doesn’t like their candidate very much at all but nonetheless is likely to turn out, but not as strongly, in an “anybody but Obama” effort. I imagine we’ll be seeing another near-stalemate with more money for political entertainers to follow.

    Posted by Nathan P. Gilmour | July 14, 2008, 11:06 pm
  58. >Oops, I actually regret asking that last question since I really don’t want to turn this into an Iraq war discussion!

    Posted by Jeff Wright | July 14, 2008, 7:45 pm
  59. >”Now if Newt Gingrich were running? I’d be tempted.”Now you’re talking!!! This demonstrates the real problem. We lack candidates with real substance. Sure McCain is a war hero and deserves a great amount of respect. Obama is a young black man who has achieved goals probably beyond his own wildest dreams. But President of the United States and these are our choices? It’s a sad day. Of course, we could have someone like Gordon Brown forced on us. Man, he’s gotta be the dumbest guy in the world! So maybe it’s not too bad. 😉

    Posted by Mark Mathews | July 14, 2008, 7:38 pm
  60. >Thanks, C.Question for you: What will Obama do differently on the war? He’s already abandoned his commitment to pull the troops out. Also, aside from what Obama or anyone one else has said in the past, does anyone really beleive that ANYONE will really pull the troops out when they get in office? I do not. Neither candidate will “pull the troops out” as we commonly use that phrase. On side note, I would see that fact that McCain will not pull the troops out as a positive, wise, prudent position rather than a negative.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | July 14, 2008, 7:23 pm
  61. >I disagree with Obama on the war and energy. Obama has already began changing his mind on the war. On energy Obama offers absoultely no plans. He’s against drilling, nuclear energy, etc. He’s even said that he isn’t worried by the high gas prices. He’s just worried that it happened so quickly. Other than that, I disagree with Obama on just about every issue. His stance on abortion is pretty brutal. If you’re going to go for a protest vote this year than I would suggest a party that you agree with on more issues…maybe the LP or Constitution Party.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 14, 2008, 7:20 pm
  62. >It’s a protest vote. I admit it. Maybe I’m just in a contrary mood after having Bush shoved down my throat for so long in my previous life.I’m most certainly not voting for Obama because he’s black. That’s really not in the mix at all. ::shrug:: I just don’t care.For me, the big issues on the plate are two: 1) War. I’m not convinced that McCain will get us out. I’ve heard him waffle on this point. 2) The economy/gas prices. McCain is same-old, same-old.Now, notice how I’m reasoning here. The presumption lies with the GOP in my mind. I’m a cultural Republican, I guess. I’ve never voted differently. I can’t think of a time I didn’t vote a straight ticket.But it’s not working. Now if Newt Gingrich were running? I’d be tempted.

    Posted by QueenKnitter | July 14, 2008, 6:52 pm
  63. >If a conservative disagrees with the GOP than why would they choose to vote a party that they disagree with even more? I will never understand that. I am not in favor of voting third party but if I did it would be for the Constitution Party and then maybe the LP. Obama is one of the most liberal candidates in a long time. There is absolutely no way I could justify voting for him.Also, there is really no easy way to get hard numbers and facts with this but I don’t really have to go out on a limb to say that there are a lot more people that will be voting for Obama because of his race than people who will be voting for McCain because of his. I happen to believe that voting for or against some one based soley on race or gender is pretty dumb.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | July 14, 2008, 6:31 pm
  64. >”Obama says he’s black so naturally, Evangelicals want to reach out and apologize for everything from slavery to Vanilla Ice.”And those voting for McCain are doing so because he’s white.

    Posted by robert | July 14, 2008, 6:23 pm
  65. >”I’ll tell you why I’m probably voting for Obama.1) McCain.2) Bush.The GOP is a disaster. I’m done with them until they get their act together.”Isn’t this merely why you’re voting against the GOP rather than why you’re voting forObama? Are you going for the protest vote only or are there things about Obama that make you think he (and a Dem-controlled Senate & House) would be better for the country than McCain?

    Posted by Jeff Wright | July 14, 2008, 5:40 pm
  66. >I’ll tell you why I’m probably voting for Obama.1) McCain. 2) Bush.The GOP is a disaster. I’m done with them until they get their act together.

    Posted by QueenKnitter | July 14, 2008, 5:16 pm
  67. >Thanks Jeff & Mike. Good thoughts without B.S.I’d have to consider three core dynamics at the heart of Evangelical Obama Support, some of which Mike vetted.- Group-think,- Guilt & the assumption of fault.- “Nice-guy-ism”I’ve never heard an Evangelical state which Obama policies they support (which would be difficult because so far he’s only espoused idealistic rhetoric). The biggest reason is a combination of “Why not?” and “It would be good for a black man to be president because they’ve been ‘excluded’ up to this point.”

    Posted by Jacob (aka. James) | July 14, 2008, 2:15 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

From the Vault

Friend of Grace

Photobucket
All articles © 2007-2011 by the respective authors of the Conservative Reformed Mafia. All Rights Reserved.
%d bloggers like this: