Here is an interesting article.

[erskine]

Folks,

I am a small government, conservative, similar in many ways to a libertarian. I don't want you to think that I am advocating anything, and I've been called a PETA person and a sheeple more that once in these forums. I am not a PETA person or a sheeple, but I was almost born in Texas where, "men are men and sheep run scared".

Seriously though, as I mentioned elsewhere, I want this guy to be a good President, even though I did not vote for him. So I pray for him, and for my country. My father's father, my father, my sons and I have served her well, and would again were it reguired of us.

Here is a link to an interesting article that humanizes Obama. The words of his daughter at the end of the article actually brought a tear to my eye, but the I went to my step-dad's funeral today so I'm prolly a bit stupid today. ;)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h9myD14WN3DrDOyLiaP_rVq6naUwD95P28Q80

[JWC]

I'm sorry to hear about your step-father; please accept my condolence on his death and your family's loss.

I think Obama is probably well-intentioned and a good man, but I also think he's misled and wrong in his political philosophy.  Based on his statements and actions, thus far, I think he will do well-intentioned harm, rather than actual good.  I'd love for him to be a good President that leads this country towards living by its founding principles and ideals, rather than merely giving lip service to them.  Unfortunately, I don't expect that to happen.  To achieve such a goal I think we all need to pray like it's up to God and work like it's up to us.  Real change will only come if the people understand what is at stake and how we have allowed our liberty and principles to become eroded over the years; that almost demands something of a paradigm shift in the way people perceive U.S. politics and government, at this point.

I still cling to some hope, though.  I think that Obama's mantra of "change" was well-chosen.  I think the people know (or at least have a gut feeling) that change is desperately needed.  That's a positive sign.  It's unfortunate that the peoples' vision didn't extend beyond Obama, who doesn't represent real change at all, but only a continuation and acceleration of the policies that we've followed.   I think the "change" he offers is either superficial or an acceleration of what is wrong, and not what is needed, in either case.  Perhaps others (especially those who voted for him, hoping for real change) will come to see this, too.

[erskine]

JWC - 1/17/2009  6:02 PM  I'm sorry to hear about your step-father; please accept my condolence on his death and your family's loss.

Thank you sir. It is mom that suffers, not this old man.

I think we all need to pray like it's up to God and work like it's up to us.

Now there is a wise man, right there. That should be added to the list of good quotes the site provides.

 

Real change will only come if the people understand what is at stake and how we have allowed our liberty and principles to become eroded over the years; that almost demands something of a paradigm shift in the way people perceive U.S. politics and government, at this point.  I still cling to some hope, though.  I think that Obama's mantra of "change" was well-chosen.  I think the people know (or at least have a gut feeling) that change is desperately needed.  That's a positive sign.  It's unfortunate that the peoples' vision didn't extend beyond Obama, who doesn't represent real change at all, but only a continuation and acceleration of the policies that we've followed.   I think the "change" he offers is either superficial or an acceleration of what is wrong, and not what is needed, in either case.  Perhaps others (especially those who voted for him, hoping for real change) will come to see this, too.    

Personally, I hope that he is nothing like the man he had to be to get elected. I take comfort in the idea that the reason that the ban on gay marriage that passed in California, passed because of the black vote. I think, well, no, I hope and pray, that Obama is more like his hero than he is like the guy that he had to be to get elected.

I took a lot of joy out of that daughter of his, saying, "First African American President, better be good." If his ten year old gets it, someone taught her. Lets hope it was her mom and her dad.

If he is no more than he appears to be, well then we are in very serious trouble.

[JWC]

erskine - 1/17/2009  8:26 PM



That should be added to the list of good quotes the site provides.

I like this one:

Any time a politician starts talking, but especially when he starts talking about "sacrifice," beware!  Look to your life, your wallet, and your freedoms!

[Gene_SC]

I did not read the article Michael but I know that Obama was placed in office by the large corporations. Had you ever heard of him before 2006? Probably not. I am not singling him out but IMO our candidates for our presidential elections for the past 30 years have been put in office with big corporate money. It is sad that it has come down to this but it is a fact.

I pray for my children and there children and our country.

[riflejunkie]

The remark about being happy that the black vote passed the anti gay marriage bill warrants a response.
Here is the mentality as I see it.  Traditional families are threatened or weakened if somebody different from you has one.  Therefore your family is stronger because somebody else doesn't have one.  You can walk better if your neighbors leg is broken.

[JWC]

I think we'd be better off if government wasn't involved in marriage (where it has no business, in my opinion -- I'm married, and I paid the fee they extorted and got the state's permission to marry because that's what you have to do, but the reality is that I don't give a rip what the government thinks about my marriage or its validity; I think my marriage is none of its business).  

If marriage were a matter of religion and of private contracts, there wouldn't be any question of legal equalities or inequalities.  Moral stances and opinions would not be affected, there would be no special treatment or state sanctioning (and thus "approval") of a given marriage (since the state would view them as legal contracts like any other), and no one would have any grounds to complain.  The government would not be approving or disapproving of anything, since it wouldn't be involved.  (The involvement of the government would be limited to judging and upholding whatever private contract applied, in the event of a dispute.)

[erskine]

riflejunkie - 1/19/2009  8:30 PM  The remark about being happy that the black vote passed the anti gay marriage bill warrants a response. Here is the mentality as I see it.  Traditional families are threatened or weakened if somebody different from you has one.  Therefore your family is stronger because somebody else doesn't have one.  You can walk better if your neighbors leg is broken.

I take that to mean that you support gay marriage. If I take that correctly then I take issue with the idea that we, who are not gay, should have to redefine something that we instituted, and defined thousands of years ago to allow two percent of the population to be included in that thing.

I just don't get it. Men don't marry men and women don't marry women. They may have their "union" if they so desire, just don't make me redefine "marriage" to include same s3x unions.

For that matter, why does anyone feel a need, and why is it reasonable to require people whose faith precludes such unions to then redefine those terms?

I will point you to the second chapter of Romans. I will also state for the record that my wife of 20 years, who bore me three children, decided in 1993 that she was a lesbian. I raised the kids. I was once fond of quipping that I was the only man I knew who could turn a perfectly good woman into a lesbian in only 20 years. She was a good woman, too. I don't think she should be allowed to call her union marriage because that would require me to redefine the term.

No point in surprising you, if you are for gay marriage. You might as well know what you are dealing with. :)

[JWC]

I agree with you on the essential nature of marriage (i.e. only a man a woman, etc.) and what it is.

However, I don't think we need the government to sanction, permit, oversee, and tax marriage.  That's the *real* problem.  Eliminate the government's involvement, and you eliminate the grounds for complaint.  The orthodox and traditional Christian (or other religious) definition of marriage is not redefined.  Churches can marry or refuse to marry couples as they see fit, and it isn't a "civil rights" debate.  No one's tax dollars are used to encourage or condone practices they repudiate.  The state does not "bless" or "approve" or give special benefits to anyone on the basis of marriage, so there is no "favoritism."

[riflejunkie]

It affects inheritance, insurance coverage, hospital visitation, taxation, status as family member.  Prejudice is tenacious and dangerous.  Anytime any group is singled out as being somewhat less human than the rest of us, that group becomes the target of violence.

[erskine]

JWC - 1/19/2009  10:59 PM  I agree with you on the essential nature of marriage (i.e. only a man a woman, etc.) and what it is.  However, I don't think we need the government to sanction, permit, oversee, and tax marriage.  That's the *real* problem.  Eliminate the government's involvement, and you eliminate the grounds for complaint.  The orthodox and traditional Christian (or other religious) definition of marriage is not redefined.  Churches can marry or refuse to marry couples as they see fit, and it isn't a "civil rights" debate.  No one's tax dollars are used to encourage or condone practices they repudiate.  The state does not "bless" or "approve" or give special benefits to anyone on the basis of marriage, so there is no "favoritism."    

Oh, absolutely. We would not even have a problem if the gubmit had not licensed marriage in the first place. You are dead on on that observation. I think the founding fathers would have laughed at the idea that government should have anything to do with marriage at all.

After licensing it, then we did even more stupid, we changed the tax code to reflect it... again stupid. Way too much gubmit, way too little common sense.

[erskine]

riflejunkie - 1/19/2009  11:00 PM  It affects inheritance, insurance coverage, hospital visitation, taxation, status as family member.  Prejudice is tenacious and dangerous.  Anytime any group is singled out as being somewhat less human than the rest of us, that group becomes the target of violence.

I can deal with the idea that gay people should be treated exactly the same under the constitution. I can not deal with the idea that I should have to change my definition of marriage because they want me to do that.

Let them have their, "sacred union". Let it be legally the same as marriage, but don't make me call it marriage. That requirement ignores my faith.

You can take this one to the bank as well, the founding fathers would have crapped their pants if anyone even suggested this might become an issue. They did not deal with this one because it was simply beyond consideration in their time.

The next minority that comes down the pike whining about being treated equally, suffering violence because they can not be allowed to enjoy their own perversion will be pedophiles. Mark this down and take it to the bank as well, the next group you will see begging for the right to call it marriage will be NAMBLA.

Don't take my word for it, just wait... You will see, in your life time, a forty year old man whining on the six oclock news about how it is wrong not to allow him to marry his fifteen year old boy friend. Thank God, I'll be dead by then.

[JWC]

riflejunkie - 1/19/2009  10:00 PM

It affects inheritance, insurance coverage, hospital visitation, taxation, status as family member.

With the exception of taxation, these things can be covered by private contracts if you remove government's approval and sanction of marriage from the equation.  Taxation is a whole 'nuther subject, of course, but assuming minimal change from the status quo, you change the tax code to eliminate government acknowledgment of or interest in marriage.  Dependents are claimed by any one income-earner in a household.