Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: Backyard Grill Blog

What You Can Expect in the Coming Socialist Government.

156 Comments
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 2:02 PM A Right Brainer writes:

Lest we forget

Expanded terrorist operations abroad, and almost certainly at home. A 25% reduction in military expenditure. Pullin out of Iraq and Afganistan, on the basis of economic expediency.

The jack boots will be on when the next attack comes on our soil.

Be prepared and vote Mac 08
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 2:39 PM caday5 writes:

we have already seen

free speech stifled. For example, a person was about to board a plane while wearing a teeshirt with Arabic writing. This person was pulled off the plane because of the teeshirt.

What did the teeshirt say? It was an Arabic translation of the end of the 4 leaflet of the White Rose which said: "Wir Schweigen Nicht" or We will not be silent. The White Rose, btw, was a student resistance group in Nazi Germany.

But with the consolidation of media outlets, don't we see a self-sensoring of the media anyway. Only the news that serves or does not disturb corporate owners gets on the air.

In addition, all of this persecution prophecy is more due to narcissism than reality. Christians have nothing to fear, regarding themselves, in an Obama presidency. The general public, however, should have most of the same fears as they would if McCain was elected.

Since Obama's proposals do not meet what you are predicting with regards to taxes, why don't we wait and see on that.

Most of your note is an irrational appeal to fear
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 2:52 PM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

caday5

You're an idiot.

95% of ALL terrorist events since 1965 have been committed by?

Drumroll please.

Muslims.

It's not an "irrational appeal to fear" when the story is backed by FACTUAL DATA.

Try reviewing the State Dept's page on terrorist events since 1965.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 3:06 PM bob's my uncle writes:

RB

Thanks for stopping by. Yes, terrorism was in the back of my mind as well. My focus was on what the dems may do domestically, but certainly it will weaken us on our defense against Islamofascism.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 3:25 PM drpete writes:

some more, bob's nephew.

Your 401k, IRA, etc., will be nationalized. Contributions will not be tax-deferred. Your IRA will be put in a government account for you, invested in government bonds, and will grow at 3% per annum, inflation-adjusted. Your retirement payouts will come from the Social Security Administration as a component of your monthly check. As with social security, when you die, that money becomes the government's. How's that for a "death tax"?

Homes larger that x sq. ft. and /or appraised at more than $y, will be calculated as to rental value. Anything over $z will be taxed as imputed income from rent on your excess domain.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 3:43 PM bob's my uncle writes:

C5

I see you've just been waiting for me to post something. I've got to agree with Gunny. An irrational fear would be fear of something that is unsubstantiated or unreal. Every one of my points is an expressed desire of Obama or The Left in general. Persecution of Christians in the world is a fact, especially in your beloved 3rd world. There is already suppression of Christian free speech in the public square and public schools. Speaking of Nazi Germany, Hitler rose to power out of very difficult circumstances in the Weimar Republic. I'm sure that many Germans just said, "Why don't we wait and see." Holocaust and World War is what they saw. I guess you don't see the blatant bias in the major media outlets. They're all in the tank for BHO. I would be interested to hear your reasoning behind fear of McCain. I have fears of McCain, but at least he's not an ideological Socialist.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 4:06 PM Gray Ghost writes:

caday5 Forgets That We Have Already....

seen "1st Amendment" violations in the USA. For example in Virginia, a child was suspended from school for drawing a picture of his brother (then serving in the US Military) in uniform with a rifle. The school explained their action by stating it was part of their "zero tolerance" policy on guns.

Unlike his Arabic writing t'shirt example (which GunnyG explained correctly by showing the association with Arab Terrorists), the "gun drawing" in Virginia is "Political Correctness" gone bersek. I might also mention that the School Administration admitted to being "Liberal" in their political beliefs.

I expect an Obama presidency to try the "back door" approach to gun control. Taxes on ammunition will be raised (Obama tried this in the Illinois Senate), the Assault Gun Ban reinstated, and a Federal Gun registration proposed (and supported) by Obama.

"A Right Brainer"'s comment: "The jack boots will be on when the next attack comes on our soil" is especially possible considering what occurred in New Orleans during Katrina.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 4:23 PM Redhead writes:

economy meltdown

A further manufactured meltdown of the economy, which will result in "necessary government action."

Foreign attacks, as the world "tests the mettle of this guy," and resulting Jack Boots.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 4:23 PM caday5 writes:

bob's my uncle

What is incomparable between Hitler and Obama is what they promised. Hitler promised the elimination of all other political parties. Essentially, he promised to end democracy. Meanwhile, Obama promises to listen. He has not promised to limit or eliminate free speech. Essentially, what Clinton tried to do is what Obama is going to attempt to do. This is why I cannot vote for him.

Obama is going to maintain American Empire and give corporations preferences. His health care plan will funnel even more business to health insurance companies--you know the companies who put a priority on profit when deciding what procedures they will pay for.

Quite simply, there is no comparison between pre-election Hitler and pre-election Obama. Any analogies are there to induce an irrational fear response.

And btw, you left my last note unanswered from the last thread. THat is why I hung around. But since you posted something new, I thought I would comment.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 4:40 PM davecatbone writes:

they'll be looking for a reason

to smash civil liberties, any reason. The entire scenario they always accused the Right of trying to perpetrate. Fascists. Look for arrests.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 4:44 PM bob's my uncle writes:

drpete, thanks

great specifics for point #3.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 4:52 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Davecat

C'mon now. C5 thinks you're exhibiting irrational fears.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 4:54 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Gray Ghost

Right you are. Christianity is not welcome in many sectors of our society. You're better off being a Muslim.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 4:57 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Red

Dow is up 800 points today. LOOK OUT! Quite a roller coaster. But businesses are preparing for BHO presidency by laying off and downsizing. Gotta get below 250K. Or is it 150K? What is that magic number today?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 5:14 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Alright, C5

I have been too busy being a good little capitalist lately to deal with you. Besides, you make me tired. You've always got some obscure non sequitur to try to counter my arguments. I see that everywhere I see your comments. I cannot for the life of me understand your attraction as a "conservative Christian" to liberty eliminating Socialism. Now you're saying you're not voting for the Socialist Obama? What kind of trip are you on, man? Apparently you can read BHO's mind. If he's smart, he'll let the free market be free, because he's gonna need the money it produces to run the government. But if he is a Socialist, wealth-redistributionist, he's gonna kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, and he'll have less and less to give away to the po'folks as time goes by.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 5:19 PM Goshawk writes:

Gunny

You beat me to cady5. Obviously he/she is looking forward to a Socialist world.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 5:22 PM Goshawk writes:

bob's my uncle

Good post! And some great comments!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 5:32 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Thanks for stopping by Gos

I appreciate you and Peppermint2. Read your blog every chance I get.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 5:45 PM Snow Knight writes:

very true

I wonder how many that are voting for this phony-baloney realize that they are the ones who will get pounced on by the Obama thought police????
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 5:55 PM Bob writes:

Here's how we get it back

America's Trojan Horse is a blog I wrote to turn the tide of liberalism and where it is leading America. It starts with getting God back into ever sector of our society. A godless society is a lawless one in which it needs more government controls. Since God was removed, via seperation of church and state according to the misinterpretation of someone, America has steadily declined. For more check out my blog.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 5:58 PM crossbow writes:

Excellent post!!

All too true and all facts. There is hope. The hope is that we as free Americans know the real reason for our freedoms.I totally agree with you, Ghost and Gunny.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 5:59 PM crossbow writes:

Bob

Amen.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 7:29 PM caday5 writes:

Maybe

your confusion is caused by the boxes you try to put people in. Maybe the boxes are not right in the first place.

Conservative Christians from other countries have no problem understanding my perspective. So here is another possibility. That there exists a syncretism between conservative Christianity and American Patriotism/capitalism.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 7:47 PM str8_talk writes:

I see we have another C4

explosion from C5! All of that brain matter splattered!

As to this blog, BMU, you've described CHINA! We already Import enough from that country, do we have to import their form of government also?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 8:33 PM bob's my uncle writes:

C5

Perhaps you are confused, because I am not confused. Obama has put himself in a Socialist box and so have you. I don't even know what you mean by "conservative christian". You use that term but it apparently means something different to you than it does to me. My Bible says "if they don't work, they should not eat." Socialism says, "feed them anyway, they don't have as much as everyone else, poor little lazy, non-working, souls". Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the State is the vehicle for my charity. The State must first confiscate my wealth in order to give to others. Whereas, if the lazy guy sticks a gun in my face and takes my money, its robbery. If the State does it, its legalized theft. I get no joy, benefit, or blessing from that. Only when I give FREELY do I benefit.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 9:42 PM str8_talk writes:

bob's my uncle

Socialism is bland compared to the article I was just sent. Obama's true mentor is Alinsky and his mentor is revealed on my blog...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 9:43 PM Cindy of Texas writes:

BMU - very rational

Yes, the only one I would have added was the 25% cut in the defense budget, which would lead to all kinds of interesting and fun international incidents upon which he and Biden could test their reflective genius (sarcasm intended here). The rational fear and dread of those two dealing with the complicated and dangerous world in which we find ourselves is enough to stop your heart.
Thanks for another well-written, perfectly scary post - right in time for Halloween.
I'd like to add that I am still optimistic for a McCain victory - if you have time, make some calls and get some people out to vote!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 10:05 PM bob's my uncle writes:

str8, thanks for the comment

C5 thinks socialism is gonna save the world or something, but it's gonna sink us (U.S.) Obama's not necessarily a Manchurian candidate, looks like he's a product of the American CPUSA. I'll be by your place in a bit.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 10:10 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Cindy

Thanks for stopping by. We Texans are gonna have to stick together. It could get ugly. I pray that your optimism proves true on Nov. 4.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 11:47 PM Darvin Dowdy writes:

Thanks for the Rain Cloud's Grill...

...I see 'em, you see 'em and all our friends here at TH see the sign that says "Bridge Out Ahead". But it seems like our nation is still barreling down the highway at 80 mph happy go lucky.
YOu asked for our additions/input? Careful what you ask for Grill. Here 'tis:
http://streetlevel.blogtownhall.com/2007/04/12/if_the_demo crats_win_in_08__.thtml

DD
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 29, 2008 12:36 AM bob's my uncle writes:

Darvin Dowdy

I bow in your general direction. Your prescient essay (April 12, 2007) has exceeded my puny little attempt here. I perceive that thou art a prophet.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 29, 2008 12:52 AM dawndawn writes:

Hey, Bob`s Nephew!

I believe efforts to suppress the freedom of thought and speech will be attempted by a left/progressive regime. For many years now we have been reigned in by the boundaries of politically correct speech. Every day some new group or individual is offended and has no qualms about making a spectacle of a simple word or phrase. All of us must continue writing and expressing our opinions and inviting and encouraging debate. An open exchange of ideas and philosophies must continue and flourish. Until the last links and satellites are blocked, our blogs must continue to represent the free thought and expression for those who are open to it and want to participate. Thanks for your post, Bob`s My Nephew! You have been missed!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 29, 2008 2:08 AM bob's my uncle writes:

dawndawn

Thanks, girl. We are going to keep on keepin' on until there ain't no keepin' on left.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 29, 2008 10:43 AM caday5 writes:

Bob's my uncle

I don't mind being put in the socialist category. That puts me in the company of people like Helen Keller and Martin Luther King Jr. My point is that people on the left, those socialists, do not see Obama as a socialist and there is nothing in his platform that contradicts their contention.

BTW, the OT is full of examples of the state becoming the vehicle of people's charity. That is because the church and the state were one in the OT. To be kicked out of the synagogue for sin was to be stoned. And thus what people gave to their equivalent of the church went to the state and some of that helped the poor. And if you read Isaiah 58 and 59, you will see that God punishes all of Israel for not helping those in need.

The other matter is this, if today's church cannot provide all of the help needed by the poor, you are going to deny giving to the poor because it is the state that is administering the help? Regardless of the reason, you are still denying help to the needy.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 29, 2008 11:38 AM davecatbone writes:

Bob's Nephew

Communist sympathizers like C5 only need to be reminded of one name. Woodrow Wilson. Had thousands arrested for speaking out against the war. Fascists, Liberals, Democrats.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 29, 2008 11:38 AM bob's my uncle writes:

C5

Okay, do you want to institute the OT economy? We're going to have to start stoning homosexuals, adulterers, incorrigible children. We'll have to quit eating shellfish and bacon and all the rest. OT Israel was ideally a pure theocracy. Those who disbursed funds to the poor were priests who exercised moral judgment. They were under no compunction to give to the those who were poor due to their own sin or sloth. They might be given temporary food or shelter, but not an income. That, they were required to earn themselves.
In this country, before state welfare became the norm, there was a concept among charities called "the deserving poor". They got help, because they were in dire straights due to no fault of their own. They got a hand up, help in getting on their own two feet, and continued help if their strongest efforts were not enough, but they were required to make the effort.
The secular state cannot make these kinds of judgments. I don't trust politicians with that kind of power. They always want something in return for passing out taxpayer favors (votes). State funded welfare has created a dependency class, and many are not required to leave the system even if they are able. They have no impetus to do so. BTW, we have the richest poor folks in the world. TV's, automobiles, air conditioning, microwave ovens,running water, etc. I don't feet too sorry for them. I don't deny help to the needy. I deny the vehicle by which they are helped - the government. I give to Christian charity. They preach the gospel with their gifts.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 29, 2008 11:44 AM bob's my uncle writes:

davecat

You're right, except C5 is so into Socialism as the vehicle to Utopia, he'll come up with some other non sequitor story and make believe that by pointing out some great sin of our Republic that he has won the argument.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 29, 2008 12:33 PM caday5 writes:

Bob's my uncle

remember that you said the following:

"Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the State is the vehicle for my charity"

I pointed out that that was incorrect. But let me ask you, why if we wanted to help the needy as Israel was commanded to do in the OT, do we also need to include the violations that merited capital punishment back then. Is your logic that you must have all or nothing, or is there another reason why gov't help for the needy is so offensive to you. And if it is offensive because tax dollars are used to help the needy and those dollars are forced from you, how is it that enough people will voluntarily give enough money for the needy?

In essence, the mindset I get from conservatives is that the only people of value to our gov't are those with money. The rest are invisible--that is as long as they respect a system that does not respect them.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 29, 2008 3:52 PM bob's my uncle writes:

C5

I am officially getting tired of you, again. If you are such a Bible scholar, you would know that the OT system, was indeed "all or nothing".

Deuteronomy 28:15
15 "But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

There is no picking and choosing which laws we keep and which we don't. You want OT law? You've got to have it all. Otherwise, God, knowing it was impossible for us to keep the law, gave us grace in the NT through the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. There are only 2 ways to salvation, 1. keep the law 100% perfectly (not a good option), 2. believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. (good option)

Paul writes about the liberty we have in Christ. That is, the ability to make good choices, in the power of the Spirit. That same liberty is what many of our Nations Founders spoke and wrote about when they rebelled against the British Crown. The power to choose to do good and not have that power taxed away by a tyrannical government.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 29, 2008 3:53 PM bob's my uncle writes:

C5 II

You stated, "In essence, the mindset I get from conservatives is that the only people of value to our gov't are those with money. The rest are invisible--that is as long as they respect a system that does not respect them."

IMO you mis-characterize the mindset of conservatives. Conservatives are the most generous people in this country. Polls prove this.
The reason that successful business people are favored by the government is because almost everybody understands how the economy works, except you. People with money and businesses hire people to work. They make money, the businessman makes money, everyone should be happy. Until the government comes and takes half of all that is earned, gives it to po'folks, and makes sure they're registered to vote for the Democrat.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 29, 2008 11:45 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Michael

I just realized I ignored you here. I apologize, and thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your comments.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 30, 2008 9:12 AM Snow Knight writes:

Bob's nephew

Hey'no problem!! This caday5 guy is quite a piece of work. Just go over to conservabears place and see for yourself!!keep it up Bob's nephew!!God bless.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 30, 2008 11:17 AM caday5 writes:

Whoever bob is

Not everything is all or nothing in the Bible. And insisting on that was why there were unnecessary conflicts such as the eating of meat that was previously offered to idols. Paul did not take a B/W view of that. He said that it is a matter for your conscience as long as you do not cause others to sin.

Psychologically speaking, unnecessary B/W thinking leads to mood disorders. This is addressed by the cognitive therapy school.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 30, 2008 11:56 AM The Crawfish writes:

There goes C5 again

saying that the US has an "empire" to maintain. I still haven't found it anywhere.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 30, 2008 11:59 AM American Sweetheart writes:

crawfish

Maybe we don't have the empire anymore and it's time for it to strike back.

Yeah...bad joke. But I had to!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 30, 2008 12:07 PM The Crawfish writes:

Conservatives are indeed

the most generous. This is proven every four years when the candidates' tax returns are made public, and conservative candidates always show large charitable donations, while Democrats always have next-to-nothing.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 30, 2008 1:51 PM bob's my uncle writes:

C5

I give you standard, traditional, biblical theology and you give me psychobabble in return. I'm beginning to think you're a fraud. (Did I say that?)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 30, 2008 1:53 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Am. Sweetheart, Crawfish

Thanks for the visit. Did you get to read the whole debate here with C5? Quite revealing I'd say.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 30, 2008 2:29 PM caday5 writes:

bob's my uncle

It doesn't matter what you think. That is because on the internet you can make any accusation you want and feel no need to prove it. In person, where some of what you can say can be instantly verified, people are usually more cautious when making accusations.

So the willingness to make accusations where there is no need to prove anything reflects the kind of spirit that is driving people away from the Republican Party. That i
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 30, 2008 3:27 PM bob's my uncle writes:

C5, If it doesn't matter

what I think, why do you bother making comments on my blog? I can say the same about you. This is an egalitarian forum. Any one can lie and call themselves whatever they want. You can write whatever BS you can think of. Say what you will, however ridiculous it may be. I'm calling you a fraudulent christian. Deal with it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 30, 2008 10:49 PM American Sweetheart writes:

bob

no. I have not read anything c5 had to say. It's always the same and he apparently thinks only his opinions matter, which if that is the case, I don't understand why he is here reading other people's opinions and trying to change the minds of people who don't agree with his philosophy anyway. *shruggs* I'm over it!

Well...going to go read your new blog now!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 31, 2008 12:25 AM bob's my uncle writes:

American Sweetheart

Thanks again for stopping by. Yeah, C5's stuff makes my eyes glaze over and my sphincter pucker. But I'd still shoot the S.O.B. that wouldn't allow him to have his say. But I guess I might have hurt his feelings, finally.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 31, 2008 11:01 AM caday5 writes:

Bob

But the person making the accusation bears the responsibility for proving their point. I am here to interact with people who have different views and most of the TH people believe in arguing by insulting. This tendency is seen in other non-TH conservatives.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 31, 2008 1:02 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Look, C5

I gave you the traditional, Christian theological view. Salvation is by grace through faith, Eph. 2:8-9, not of works (ie. keeping the OT laws). It IS an "all or nothing" proposition. If I rely on any of my own "good works", which God calls "filthy rags" to gain salvation or any favor with Him, those are rejected. He will recognize no righteousness other than what is imputed to me through His Son, Jesus Christ. I can't earn it. Nothing I can do can merit His favor. It is GRACE, unmerited favor, through FAITH, belief in and reliance on, the GIFT of eternal life through Jesus.
This is basic stuff. Maybe too basic for you. It's an INDIVIDUAL decision and relationship directly with God. The State enters into it not at all. I trust in God, I do not trust the State in any form.
I see the State as a "necessary evil" and I want to limit its power over the individual. The goal of Socialism is to gain power over every individual by being their provider or their master, or both.
Now, those are my honest views. You claim to be a "conservative Christian". I assert that if you do not believe in that basic theology, you are no Christian.
BTW, my name is not Bob, I have real uncles named Bob. I chose "bob's my uncle" as a screen name. It is a British colloquialism referring to perceived 19th century "nepotism" in the government. You can google the reference for yourself, if you like.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 31, 2008 1:24 PM inchdeep writes:

Hey Bob

I see that caday5 has been to assigned, buy the Obama campaign, to monitor your blog as well. Got to get that fairness doctrine list ready.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 01, 2008 11:42 AM caday5 writes:

Bob's my uncle

and salvation by faith is an all or nothing proposition. The fact that we are saved by faith in the works of Christ rather than our own works that rules out all boasting and pride (the end of Romans 3 mentions this). And in Ephesians, even our basic faith in Christ is a gift from God so that no one has the right to boast or look down on others.

But realize that not all issues are black-white. This is why I brought up as an example the eating of meat that was sacrificed to idols. Those who were weak in faith saw it as a sin while those who were strong in their faith did not. What Paul said, in Romans 14 I believe, was that not only should we let our consciences be our guide, we cannot afford to cause a fellow believer to fall by what we do. So, whether the Christians of Paul's day were to eat meat sacrificed to idols was not a black-white issue, it was complicated.

So my point is that not all issues we deal with are simple black-white issues. We can find examples of both black-white and complicated issues throughout the Bible.

btw, regarding Bob, Bob was actually my father. He was a devildog in WWII and was very apprehensive that would I have to go to Nam. Fortunately I did not have to go.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 01, 2008 6:34 PM bob's my uncle writes:

C5

Salvation is "all or nothing", agreed? It is possible that I see things more "black and white" than you do. I find that it is the case with liberals and progressives, so to speak. Yet, as a christian, I do not understand the attraction you seem to have with a Socialist form of government. I cannot imagine a Socialist government that is not oppressive in some way, especially in terms of high taxation. It is this gift of liberty that I have in Christ that causes me to rebel at the thought of our government tilting to all-out Socialism. As I said before, I do not trust the State, especially to do the things the body of Christ, the Church is, can, and should be doing. Whenever a government acquires greater power, it is always at the expense of individual liberty. If we all give it up willingly, well fine. I don't think that's good, but fine. If my liberty is TAKEN from me without my consent, and I have broken no law, I will rebel. Over-taxation is a form of liberty- stealing tyranny. The Founders rebelled at the imposition of a 3% tax on tea. Would to God, that were our most tyrannical form of taxation today. Our taxes are much too high, and Socialists like Barack Obama wants to raise them more. Don't tell me "it's only on the rich", because he has voted twice to raise taxes on people earning only $42K a year and they ain't rich. (repealing Bush's tax cuts)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 02, 2008 12:31 AM caday5 writes:

bob's my uncle

I have an extreme distrust for any center of power so we have at least a partial agreement here. Our own economy, which those on the left sometimes call a corporate welfare economy shows signs that we have centers of power in the private sector that attempts to make our gov't its slave.

The strength of our gov't is that its members are determined by election by the general population. Leaders in corporations are in no way answerable to the general population except when the gov't forces it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 02, 2008 12:57 AM bob's my uncle writes:

Well thats it, C5

I have much greater distrust of government because it is ubiquitous and it DOES control more parts of our lives including business than I believe that it should. I think that if Obama is elected president and given a supermajority in the Congress, you will see so much government control and interference in our lives, it will not be funny OR nice. My post that you dismissed as "an irrational appeal to fear" will seem like a dry professorial lecture in college, because those things will be real and affecting real people.
I distrust businesses far less, because I understand their motivation, profit. That is a common, human motivation. That is "prospering", doing well, improving one's lot in life through hard work and ingenuity. Honest people run many businesses. Dishonest people run some. Buyer, beware. Good government should prosecute dishonest business and the people that run them. If government corrupts itself, bad businesses will prosper. A corrupt gov't will create corrupt society. Honest, good people will suffer.
Socialism, wherever it is in play, seeks to gather all state power, centrally.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 02, 2008 1:24 AM bob's my uncle writes:

Also, C5

I will direct you to a video posted on my friend Oil Patch Plug's blog.

http://theoilpatchplug.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/01/free_to_ chose_,_time_to_hear_uncle_milte_again.thtml

Milton Friedman lays it out very succinctly.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 02, 2008 1:54 AM bob's my uncle writes:

And another thing, C5

It is my considered opinion, that the problem of the truly poor, "the deserving poor", that I mentioned earlier in my comments, is a much smaller problem than we are led to believe by politicians, the press, Barack Obama, et al. I submit to you that the truly poor in this country is something less than a 5% figure. Now keep in mind, that I'm talking about people that suffer handicaps, mentally and physically, or are just temporarily "down on their luck". The former are a permanent subset, while the latter move in and out of poverty all the time. As I said before, improving one's lot, is a natural human tendency. Poverty is unpleasant, so working for a living is a means to cure that unpleasantness. There would be no need for massive government programs to care for the poor if we were to focus on this small percentage and them only.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 02, 2008 8:58 AM Peppermint2 writes:

Free health

care to all illegals in this country, thus making it difficult for some of us to get the health care we need. We will be put back in the line of waiting and older people will die waiting for care.

Great article.

And you covered a lot.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 02, 2008 11:45 AM caday5 writes:

bob's my uncle

Unfortunately, I don't think the documentation supports your claim. We can talk about people who can barely afford to live and support their families who cannot pay for healthcare or some other nevessity. See, that number is growing. The number of people who lived below the poverty line increased the first 6 to 7 years of Bush's administration.

As for the link, I will read it later today or tomorrow.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 02, 2008 11:15 PM bob's my uncle writes:

C5, what documentation?

If you look at rich or poor as the relative terms that they are, you will understand my point. If some "expert" says there are x-million "poor" in this country, he has made a judgment call based on an arbitrary number of income dollars where some people have a difficult time "making it".
I will direct you to Proverbs 30:7-9.
7 "Two things I ask of you, O Lord; do not refuse me before I die: 8 Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. 9 Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, 'Who is the Lord?' Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God."
Jesus echoed this sentiment in what I call the "disciple's prayer". Mt. 6:11.
My point is that the truly poor is a much smaller number than the 40% who pay no taxes. If these people can earn enough to pay for their daily bread, they have no need of assistance from me. That is all the guarantee forthcoming from God himself. What you NEED, not what you want to have. I do not wish to buy people TV's, stereos, cell phones, etc. just because they can't afford them. The American "poor" are the richest "poor" in the world. Draw that poverty line wherever you want. I'd rather send my money to Christian charities overseas than give it to a politician so he can buy "poor" American votes with it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 02, 2008 11:27 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Peppermint2

Excellent point. My mind was so filled with those other scenarios, that I forgot about that one. As a matter of fact, here in Dallas County, Texas, there is a referendum on the ballot to vote for $1 billion for a new public hospital. 70 percent of all babies born in the current hospital are to illegal aliens. People are dying in the waiting room after waiting for 19 hours to see a doctor. Most of the people waiting are Spanish, not English speaking. Most cannot pay for the care they receive. I pay property taxes to support that. Now they want to build a state of the art hospital so that more illegals can be treated with more efficiency, thus costing more taxpayer money.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 02, 2008 11:28 PM American Sweetheart writes:

bob

I agree. He and everyone have a right to express their opinions and it is wrong to deny them that right. That is not what this country is about and that is not the country that I love.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 02, 2008 11:57 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Am. Sweetheart

Thank you. IMO, C5's ideas only work in the Socialist Utopia found in his head. I think he is confusing the future Kingdom of Christ with the ugly realities found in this world under human rule. Despite evidence to the contrary, he thinks Socialism will improve on the greatest standard of living known to mankind, the free people of the United States of America.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 03, 2008 12:09 AM American Sweetheart writes:

bob

I have a new blog up :)

news hot of the wire
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 03, 2008 1:52 PM caday5 writes:

The statistics

that have been accumulating over the years. Some from the corporate mainstream media. Some from gov't stats. Some from alternative news media.

That the number who lived in poverty increased during the first 6 to 7 years of Bush's presidency was reported in the corporate mainstream media. That we have over 45 million people with no health insurance and many with inadequate insurance has been reported in several places.

That the gap between the rich and the poor has been growing for quite some time now has been reported in several places.

If you want, when I have time, I will be more than glad to dig up the specifics for you.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 03, 2008 2:22 PM bob's my uncle writes:

C5, I guess you didn't notice

that I nuked your damned statistics in my last post to you. They can be nothing more than arbitrary numerical assignments from someone's head.
I give you "give us this day our daily bread" and you give me eyeshade accountant statistics. We have the highest standard of living in the world, even for the "poor", yet you are not satisfied. Socialism is not about raising everyone up. It's all about tearing down the wealth of others to give it to someone else. How long do you think that will last? In all this you have never made your case for the "glories of Socialism". All you have are complaints about what "is" or what Socialists perceive conditions to be.
I never have said nor do I believe that America is perfect. I will make this statement without equivocation, "The United States of America is the MOST successful country, with more opportunity and justice for more people than any country on the face of the earth throughout history." PERIOD!
Socialists and Democrats and Barack Obama are fixing to ruin it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 03, 2008 2:23 PM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Goshawk

Re: Your post Tuesday, October, 28, 2008 5:19 PM

HAHA! My pleasure amigo.

You know the old saying:

"Those who can...DO!
Those who can't...are Democrats!"
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 03, 2008 2:32 PM bob's my uncle writes:

GunnyG

You rock! That's all I've got to say.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 03, 2008 2:53 PM caday5 writes:

You can only

nuke those statistics when you are not at the bottom end of those statistics. Think what you are saying when a family is living in a car because they can't afford a home. You might say: "If they are in America, they are living in better cars than if they were living somewhere else."

Pay attention to the statistics. Statistics that tell us how many people die per year because they cannot afford health care or because our gov't won't crack down on environmental hazards in the work place or neighborhood.

See, I use to work with those very rich poor americans. Perhaps if you knew what life was like from their end, you would not say what you do.

You only nuked the stats in your own mind. Other people, who make up those stats, would beg to differ.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 03, 2008 2:56 PM caday5 writes:

What we are seeing

in America is a pre-obama redistribution of wealth where instead of a spreading of the wealth, we have a consolidation of wealth. In addition, it is odd with all the things we are best at, we are not best in housing, life span, health, and education.

But we are the best in arming our military and selling weapons around the world.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 03, 2008 6:49 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Welfare gives us a permanent underclass. Some have likened it to a form of slavery. They are kept in place by the need and addiction to a government check. If ever a welfare recipient starts to work and earns his own money, the welfare stops. SCARY! If I were poor, (and I don't consider myself to be rich), I still have my faith. "Give us this day our daily bread." Poverty, fear, all those negative conditions are great motivators for individuals to make changes that improve their lives. Again, I reiterate, the truly poor is a much smaller problem than any would believe by listening to the media and the politicians.
I Tim. 6:6 "But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that."
Paul speaks here of what we NEED. What person here in America cannot get food and clothing just for the asking. There is so much abundance of this sort. I do not use this as an excuse for not helping the poor, this is how it should be done. Not by a permanent government handout.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 04, 2008 8:32 AM caday5 writes:

Bob's my uncle

There are some who take advantage of welfare, and those of us who were or are social workers are aware of that. But my experience tells me that that was the minority.

In addition, welfare doesn't give us the poor. Welfare is an answer to a preexisting condition of the poor. And if anything, American capitalism where the gov't holds the private sector accountable to less and less is what is producing more poor.

And if you looked at Galations 2, you will see that Paul was very concerned about the poor. And if you want a gov't that is righteous, why wouldn't you want a gov't that is concerned with the poor.

Now why not go out on a fact finding trip and see how much the poorest can get just for the asking. And see if there are more necessities than just food and clothing--like housing and health care and education, the latter which can help lift people out of poverty.

Is your objection against the poor being helped our the gov't requiring you to contribute to the poor by paying taxes?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 04, 2008 5:36 PM Snow Knight writes:

caday5

I see you are doing the very same thing here as you have done on other posts. A blogger answers a question you ask and you go into a spell to drag it on-and-on-and-on. I invite you to look at all of the Nations that are Socialistic in Government--they are all meserable!!!You love to quote the Bible and yet you deny its principles in your support of Socialism. In my Bible it says if they do not work they do not eat. Admit you are wrong-go on and get a LIFE!!!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 04, 2008 5:38 PM Snow Knight writes:

Bob's nephew

"be strong and take courage"
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 04, 2008 9:28 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Hey Michael

Thanks for stopping by and for the moral support.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 05, 2008 6:31 AM caday5 writes:

Michael

Since I read a lot of leftist stuff, I can assure you that not one leftist I read regards Obama as anything but conservative. And having a friend who just moved in from Sweden, I can assure you that there are people who are happy in socialist regimes though we must understand that no regime is without problems.

Finally, the end of Acts 4 shows a socialist church where no one consider themselves to have anything of their own but gave it to the Church leaders so that all could be provided for.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 06, 2008 11:37 AM Snow Knight writes:

caday5

Obama conservative?? HA! HA! HA!!you really ARE a piece of work!!!! I see right thru you caday5. Not just me but other townhallbloggers see right thru your mess. If people are happy is Socialist regimes they are as brainwashed as you are and their puppet strings going all the way to the "mommastate" You were on the losing end of an arguement between you.conservabear,Ben0Israel and me concerning Israels right to their own land and you were not man enough to admit you were wrong. You are now on the losing side becuse of your support of the insanity of socialism. Bob's nephew just demolished your lame facade yet, you just drag on. Oh and by the way the church in the passage you stated gave because of God's spirit -it was NOT because some government goon squad came swooping down to take from hard workers to give to those on their puppetstrings.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 06, 2008 11:54 AM bob's my uncle writes:

Michael

Does C5 really think Israel has no right to the land that God gave them? I would love to read that argument. Can you direct me to the blog entry?
How about it C5? What IS your opinion on that?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 06, 2008 2:32 PM Snow Knight writes:

Bob's Nephew

Yes, He does. Me Ben-Israel and conservabear whent toe to toe with him on that issue. Go to conservabears place- bellowings of the weesie bear and read the post called: Citizens for McCain-Palin update-posted sept 11 at 12:30:46AM. Caday5 asks C-bear a loaded question about the republican slogan "country first". conservabear explains pretty good his position but Cady5 launches into his mind-mess. Ben-Isreal joins in because of conservabears staunch stand fot Israels right to the land God gave them thru an everlastiing covenent. I join the fray and it gets pretty interesting from there!! God bless.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 06, 2008 2:38 PM caday5 writes:

To numerous people

Michael,
the only people who are claiming that Obama is a socialist are conservatives. I see nobody on the left making that claim and, in fact, their complaint is that Obama is too conservative--See Paul Street's book, "Barack Obama And The Future Of American Politics" for example. Or you can also read what Noam Chomsky says about Obama.

Bob's my uncle,
I will first refer you to a website written by Christian Fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is God's inerrant Word but who belong to a different school of eschatology than you do. THe link is:

http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.com/cur_sit/wdoor.html


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 06, 2008 2:46 PM bob's my uncle writes:

C5, I don't give a flying flip

for Chompski and other socialists who think O-mob-a is not a socialist. That's kind of like me saying McCain is not conservative. The thing is, Mac is kinda conservative, but not conservative enough. Maybe O-mob-a isn't socialist "enough" for Chompski and them, but he IS A SOCIALIST.
Quacks like a duck! if you know what I mean.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 06, 2008 4:27 PM caday5 writes:

But again,

It is only those on the right who call him a socialist. No socialist that I know of does. SO perhaps those on the right should listen and modify their accusations.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 06, 2008 4:59 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Why should I listen to

the "wisdom" of Socialists telling me who and who is not a Socialist. As I wrote in my blog, "It's the 'Stupid' Economy, the main tenet of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism is, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Now, "spreading the wealth around" sounds the same to me. First you gotta TAKE it from someone in order to GIVE it to someone else. It's all the same to me. Marxism, Socialism, Communism are just 3 different shades of the same color.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 06, 2008 5:26 PM Snow Knight writes:

caday5

wrong again, The left are so tight they prop up this wannabe along with the media who are in the rich socialist pockets. You can try as you might but it does not fly. I also notice you do not challenge me on the facts I have presented--what are you afraid of?? could it be the truth??
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 06, 2008 5:33 PM Snow Knight writes:

Bob's nephew

conservabears place is: bellowings of WEEZIE bear-sorry for the typo!.The post is on page 2 it is the 12th post down from the top. Just after the post about 9/11.There are over 70 comments on this post. Scroll down to c-5s question about the republicans slogan "country first". The action starts from there---enjoy!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 06, 2008 5:38 PM Jim writes:

Caday5

What was involved in electing this under qualified, NO RECORD, MARXIST, RADICAL was just short of criminal! The media started by trashing our president, Obama lied about our president (BTW Caday, he's your president to)He lied about campaign finance, the lied about killing babies, I could go on, but he lied a heck of allot. They the socialist picked someone (Obama) with no record so there would be too much bagage but they had to cover up allot more bagage then they expected. The hoax perpatrated on the sheep of America was pheonominal if not criminal.
You may not want to say the word but he is at best a socialist, more then likely he's a Marxist.
The duck can bark all he want's but he ain't no dog.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 06, 2008 10:18 PM caday5 writes:

Michael,

If I am wrong, prove it. List the socialists who call Barack a socialist.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 06, 2008 10:23 PM caday5 writes:

Jim

List the media lies about the President. Rather than treating him harshly, they gave him a blank check until around 2006 regarding his militarism. First, his invasion of Afghanistan allowed the warlords to replace the Taliban. Second, he lied about Iraq as well as mismanaged it. IN essence, our invasion of Iraq broke both the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. His approval of torture and his national strategic defense plan were criminal.

But it wasn't until the stock market plunged that Americans began to change in mass. That is because those other matters don't mean too much to the American public.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 06, 2008 11:58 PM bob's my uncle writes:

C5 It makes no difference

if a socialist calls B Hussein Obama a socialist or says he isn't. I say again, I don't care what they say or think. To me, Socialism, Communism and Marxism are varying intensities of the same philosophy. The only difference is how much fascism you add. Yes, I said "fascism"! Three shades of the same color. Fascism is the tinting agent.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 07, 2008 6:15 PM Snow Knight writes:

C5

WELLL for starters he was a panelist at a meeting sponsored by the democratic SOCIALISTS of america---read it for youself in their mag-"new ground" early 1996 issue. I have proven you wrong also about Isreals right to their own land but somehow you still refuse to admit it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 07, 2008 6:18 PM Snow Knight writes:

also

c5--it was the march-april 1995 issue.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 07, 2008 6:19 PM Snow Knight writes:

Jim and Bob's nephew

I agree-God bless.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 07, 2008 9:22 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Michael & Jim

Thanks again for the comments and the support. As for C5, why any Christian would want to put the State in the middle of his relationship to God is way beyond me. It makes no sense. When I pray, worship, give alms, repent or anything else, I don't want the State involved in it. At that point, it's just me and God. Getting the government out of the way is a good thing.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 08, 2008 10:35 AM caday5 writes:

Michael

Being a panelist at that meeting implies what?

In addition, how have you proven me wrong about Israel and the land? My guess is that you didn't even read the link I provided which gives another Fundamentalist view of Israel and the land. The two views are the Dispensational view, which you seem to be a member of, and the Covenental view, which I am a member of.

My basic problem with the Dispensational view is that if one takes the same exegetical approach to the NT as they takes to the OT, one would find that the NT and the OT contradict each other regarding who are the people of God and the significance of the land. I haven't seen any statement of yours that addresses the points made in the link I provided or the point I just made.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 08, 2008 12:03 PM bob's my uncle writes:

It's OK C5

You ignore points made to you all the time, too.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 08, 2008 1:43 PM caday5 writes:

bob's my uncle

List those points
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 08, 2008 10:53 PM bob's my uncle writes:

C5

All you have to do is go back through this thread and you will find them. I don't have the energy or the inclination. You totally ignored my last two comments directed at you.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 08, 2008 11:19 PM caday5 writes:

bob's my uncle

Sorry, but statements like the one you made are simply used to avoid the subject. It is not my responsibility to prove your claim.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 09, 2008 5:41 PM bob's my uncle writes:

C5

It appears that there is more proof than just my opinion that BHO is a Socialist/Communist. Besides the obvious implications of his many nefarious associations, he apparently ran for Illinois State Senate in 1996 as a New Party candidate. I had heard this, but it did not make an impression on me at the time. There is a definite relationship. Here is one link to the story. There are many others.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021724.php
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 09, 2008 7:27 PM caday5 writes:

But

when you look at the voting record, promises, and donors, people on the left will rightfully point out that in 2008, Obama is very much a supporter of corporations. Associations in 1996 can be indicators but when more recent behavior shows a significant change, these past associations imply nothing
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 09, 2008 7:40 PM bob's my uncle writes:

The Communist Dialectic

allows for disguising your true aims and lying to that end is certainly not a new tactic. It is obvious to those who would look, that Obama is in no way the persona he projects himself to be.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 09, 2008 10:52 PM caday5 writes:

But

none communists lie like that too so Obama lying implies nothing. In fact, Paul Street, who is actually a leftist and communist, criticizes Obama for his false front.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 10, 2008 12:59 AM bob's my uncle writes:

I have made a point

that Communism, Socialism, and Marxism are all of the same philosophy. 3 "shades of the same color". Your opinion? And how do YOU differentiate, if at all?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 10, 2008 7:31 AM caday5 writes:

Since

I have never studied Marxism, there isn't much I can say. From what I have read and talked to people about communism, we are looking, to differing degrees, focusing power in the public sector. But if you just draw on that similarity, imposing gov't regulations on businesses is socialism because it focuses power in the public sector and thus is Communism/Socialism. There are other factors.

Communism tends to completely eliminate private property. The communism we saw in the old soviet Union was a totalitarian regime. But the Nicaraguan form was not. In fact, back in the 80s, Nicaragua gave some freedom of expression that the US backed El Salvador gov't did not. In addition, Nicaragua had legitimate elections. Cuba is more totalitarian but they have been on the receiving end of a terrorist war with the US since Castro took over.

Then you have socialism that to varying degrees allows for private property. Nazi Germany allowed for private corporations and, in fact, it was the private corporations that gave much support to Hitler because his policies benefited them. Then you have even less public sector power with England and Canada with their health care systems but countries like Sweden run vast social programs. It is interesting to note with the countries list, there is much freedom for the private sector.

Then you have the NT Church in the latter part of Acts chapter 4. They were more of a totalitarian communism than anything else.

The problem with the worst of capitalism and communism is that they tend to focus power to "elites" in either the private or public sectors. Here, the powerful elites are in the private sector. In the old Soviet Union or Cuba, the elites are in the public sector.

It seems like the "socialistic" countries like Sweden, England, and Canada have power more dispersed in the private sector
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 10, 2008 7:36 AM Brian writes:

You may should add...

....a centralized world economy....as will be proposed by British PM at next weekends G20 summit.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449264,00.html
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 10, 2008 8:55 AM caday5 writes:

Brian

Under Reagan and now Bush, we have seen the centralization of power and money. Gov't leaders listen more to the needs of corporations than citizens and the average citizen's pay, adjusted for inflation, has either stagnated or gone down. Yet the rich get richer.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 10, 2008 11:28 AM Snow Knight writes:

caday5

He was a panelist at the meeting hosted by the democratic solalists---he openly identified not only with them but on the panel. I do not know how more simple it can be caday5-all you have to do is search any engine with Obabas name and solialist and the info is there!!I rest my case with that one--as for the contention between us about Israels right to their own land I ask you a question: what part of an everlasting covenant do you not understand????As I proved to you at conservabears place the land was given TO Isreal-called Israel it will ALWAYS be Israel wheter you like it ...or not. Is it just too hard for you to accept this truth???
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 10, 2008 11:30 AM Snow Knight writes:

Bob's nephew

I totally agre with your points. OLe caday5 here just can't bring himself to the truth of what is right before him.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 10, 2008 12:31 PM Snow Knight writes:

and...

caday5 are you expecting us to believe that when the church gave to those in need it was communist??????
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 10, 2008 1:57 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Michael, Brian

Thanks again for stopping by. You can always tell a Socialist like C5, you just can't tell them much. As Ronald Reagan is famous for saying, "It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 10, 2008 2:01 PM Brian writes:

Agree Bobs my uncle

...the truth is whatever they want it to be.

Most of us adhere to basic fundamental laws of science, economics, nature...and we make our agendas according to those laws.

WHat C5 is ignorant about is these laws cannot be changed. IE The laws of natural occurrence that says when you over tax an economy, fewer dollars are put into that economy...making the economy even worse.

Ann Coulter is exactly right, "If Democrats had brains, they would be Republicans"
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 10, 2008 2:18 PM bob's my uncle writes:

C5

Marx said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I have made the statement that that is the basic shared philosophy of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. Marx envisioned a future "utopian society" with a socialist form of government. The Communist Bolsheviks were adherents to Marx's philosophy with some modifications, of course. They all believed in an extreme egalitarianism; no individual property rights. Socialism, as you say, "to varying degrees allows for private property". This is where I see a difference. The trouble is that if it is the government doling out the "right to private property", it can also retract that right. What it takes from a person in the form of taxes, it is taking private property, money. Legal tender which beforehand was controlled by the individual, but through taxation, is power taken from the individual. The government that has the right to take any of your property it wants (see the Kelo decision) is too powerful. Private property is the key to our freedom. Private property in real estate, cash, savings, investments, etc. all become subject to confiscation at the whim of an all powerful government. Without absolute right to private property, the individual has no power. The state has all.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 10, 2008 3:35 PM caday5 writes:

bob's my uncle

But the gov't that is not supported by the people cannot give anything away.

Regarding Marx, the problem was in in the utopian objective. Christian commentator, Os Guiness, that the two societies that are responsible for the most bloodshed are utopian societies and societies that follow dualism where the world is divided into good people and bad people. Under Bush,l we have become the latter and our results do not upset the cart.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 10, 2008 4:58 PM bob's my uncle writes:

C5

I said nothing about the government giving anything away, I said it had the power to TAKE personal property.

As for utopian world views, we are battling one now. If you read and listen to the Islamic Fundamentalists, you will see that their goals and aims are utopian. Many of them believe in one form or another that their total defeat of the infidels (anyone who's not a practicing Muslim) will bring about a world caliphate. I suppose at which time, their world will be perfect.

Good people, bad people? Dualism? From whence comes this? Explain.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 11, 2008 7:05 AM caday5 writes:

bob's my uncle

Dualism simply says that we are good and those who oppose us are bad and we must confront and battle evil. Unfortunately, the Biblical description of evil to sinful men says that we all have evil.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 12, 2008 9:35 AM Snow Knight writes:

caday5

I suggest that you look more closly to what Bob's nephew wrote. It says what we have been tring to convey to you from the very biginning. In a totaltarian/socialist state it is the government that is all-seeing-all-powerful. Do I dare say in such a situation the government is god??It wants people to work alright--so it can take from them-thus crushing the enterprising creative drive that God has put inside each and every one of us. This is also true to an Islamic state-here in America we still have choices----so far.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 12, 2008 10:52 AM Jason writes:

Michael

Dare say....

Both have faith based beliefs.
Our Faith in God, while their faith is in The Government "system" or Science to others.

God has the power of Goodness, few realize it at times, that Satan, though limited at this time, has power as well.

If we know "the end of the story", we know that good will triumph over evil in the end.

The one world government, unified currency,Anti Christ regime, will erase all previous governments, and be the stumbling block or the savior of men in those...possibly these times

I think we should all focus on that battle, of what is to come.

Great points all...well taken

Jason
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 12, 2008 12:05 PM caday5 writes:

Michael

the centralization of power can happen in a socialist as well as capitalist state. Likewise, the decentralization of power can happen in both. With the patriot acts and expanded surveillance, Bush, who is not a socialist, was already making the gov't into big brother.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 12, 2008 1:52 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Michael, Jason

Thanks, again guys. Been a little busy, and lazy the last few days. I appreciate your points and agree. I certainly fear an all-powerful government much more than any capitalist entity.
Even the biggest, most powerful US company, Exxon-Mobil had to appear before Congress for a browbeating and threats of Nationalization. Who really holds the most power? Have you ever noticed how C5 acknowledges your comment without acknowledging your point?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 13, 2008 9:20 AM Snow Knight writes:

Yes

Bob's nephew I have noticed that some time ago---Jason:good points I agree with you sir-may I add that the struggle to come is already at our doorstep with this guy coming to the white house. caday5:I agree totally that we have a great concern with those in power. There is not even a question about that. The government is much like "big brother" in many ways. What is different here -so far-in America we have checks and baleneces to power. The founding fathers farsaw the possible power abuses and put the power in the people-our votes. In regards to our contentions about socialism-read what Bob's nephew wrote on Nov 10 at 2:18 P.M.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 13, 2008 9:52 AM caday5 writes:

Michael

At least in gov't, there are checks and balances written in law, though not always in the hearts of those working there.

But when power gets concentrated in the private sectors, there are less checks and balances.

But it is good to know we have a shared concern about the misuse of power.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:37 PM Snow Knight writes:

cady5

only God knows what is peoples hearts-everyones. At least in the private sector the people have control-do they not? It is not overlorded by a government official ready to take it away at the whimm of the state thus, The falicy of socialism.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:47 PM caday5 writes:

But the

problem with predatory capitalism is that those with wealth and power can victimize all others. And if gov't does not monitor if victimization occurs, that leaves those with less at the mercy of power hungry people.

I agree with what you say regarding the need to check the power of those in gov't. But such centralization of power is not implied by socialism.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 13, 2008 4:55 PM Snow Knight writes:

predatory??

caday5 in a free capitalist democracy EVERYONE can succeed who has drive and uses the God given brains they have. If some bully corperation picks on the small guy the small guy has every right to succeed to grow big enough to tell the bully where to go. In what you support is an all-powerful socialist state to call the shots in everything---does'nt work. Hitler,Mussolini Stalin, and Castro all brought untold misery on their nations by that insanity. AGAIN look at what Bob's nephew has wrote. I am not gonna bend on this caday5. Is you head so thick that you cannot see the straight truth right before your eyes?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 14, 2008 12:34 AM bob's my uncle writes:

C5, re: dualism

Dualism is also a theological view which mirrors eastern philosophy such as is found in the yin and the yang. Basically that God and the Devil are equals and opposites. I do not believe this. I do, however believe that some people are "good" and some people are "evil". We may judge these things in the works that they do. In addition, each of us has the potential to do great evil or to achieve some good in our lives. There exists in each of us this dichotomy.
Now, Paul writes in Romans 7 of a certain "dualism" of the human soul where he desires to do good and please God but, "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not." As a regenerate Christian, the old "sin nature" is still with us, though we are instructed to "mortify" our flesh and subjugate it to the will of Christ.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 14, 2008 7:22 AM caday5 writes:

Michael

But we don't have equal opportunity. Those with money buy the gov't that gives them the advantage. That has been our history. Consider how many times in the past the police have been used not to keep the peace but to attack workers. Now, we are more subtle. We just change the laws that limit workers' rights and thus opportunities and make them almost subservient to the employer. Certainly not all employers are bad, but think about the Reagan days and the fired air traffic controllers. That was the beginning.

And btw, I know workers are not pure as the driven snow. But today, there is an unbalanced approach to the rights and opportunities of workers.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 14, 2008 7:24 AM caday5 writes:

Bob's my uncle

The meaning of the word often depends on the context. The dualism Os Guiness referred to was the belief that the world is filled with one side who is only evil and the other side who is good and it is good' responsibility to make war against evil.

There are two problems here. First, to view someone else as only evil while yourself as good is unbiblical. Second, if you start an unprovoked war with anyone, you are following evil.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 14, 2008 12:47 PM bob's my uncle writes:

So caday5?

Who started an unprovoked war?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 14, 2008 2:17 PM caday5 writes:

We did

in Iraq.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 14, 2008 3:34 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Yeah, poor old Saddam

Uday, and Qusay. They used to be such nice little dictators, torturers, and scam artists. I miss them. NOT!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 14, 2008 4:45 PM bob's my uncle writes:

I forgot to mention

murderers, warmongers, sponsors of terrorist acts, just all-round nasty bullies.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 15, 2008 1:10 PM caday5 writes:

Michael

In predatory capitalism, people look to control because everyone is out for themselves. The rich and powerful only get more powerful. Our economy has shown this to be true. The disappearance of the blue collar middle class and the increased discrepancy between the rich and the poor indicate that predatory capitalism is what we practice. That we lose manufacturing jobs here so a few can make a bigger profit is also another indicator.

Our current system of capitalism wants everyone to live on his/her own island with no concern for others and the job of the gov't is to protect the islands. For people to make their own islands more comfortable, they raid the islands of others.

Compare that with King who said that our future is intertwined with the future of others.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 15, 2008 1:16 PM caday5 writes:

bob's my uncle

As horrible as the Husseins were, they did not provoke the war with us. And as a result of our invasion, up to 1.3 million Iraqis have died and 4.7 million have been displaced and the country was destroyed.

If the same percentage of Americans suffered the same fate then around 12 million Americans would be killed and around 60 million would be made homeless.

So more have suffered than just the Hussein family.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 15, 2008 1:47 PM davecatbone writes:

BMU

Liberals so conveniently forget the acts against Kuwait, and the attacks on our soldiers monitoring the no fly zone, as well as all the UN (precious Liberal institution) mandates the Hussiens ignored...or the hundreds of thousands of murders (guess it should have been Rwanda) in the mass graves, or the gas attacks on the Kurds, naaah, we use relative moralism. You really should stop feeding the trolls, you can't argue with an idiot.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 15, 2008 3:45 PM caday5 writes:

dave

We didn't invade Iraq because of Kuwait. In addition, what attacks on our soldiers in the no-fly zones--which were illegal anyway? Or maybe we should be invaded, by your logic only, because the sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children let alone over 1 million Iraqis.

See, if you want to admit that the invasion of Iraq was for revenge, then admit it. But it only proves that our invasion was unprovoked. It seems that the conservative problem is that they see clearly the sins of others even with a log in their own eyes. Or to put it another way, conservatives, and most democrats, take the sins of their own country for granted while taking exception at the sins of other countries.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 15, 2008 5:10 PM Snow Knight writes:

caday5

At least we have the right to make our own islands --do we not? I would like to see how far someone would get if he/she tries to raid anothers island--if the owner of the island had a gun. OH--I forgot---there would be no owner of the island-because in your utopian socialist state the state would own all the islands. also gun onership would be non-existant because it would not be a free society. The issue here is freedom---free to choose indavidually as God made us. We see plenty of our on sins!!!We are harder on ourselves than the liberals who pat themselves on the back as they rant and rave agenst us. FYI Sadddam invaded Kuwait for their oil and to expand his empire. He also was harboring Al-Quida terrorists AND he did have WMDs.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 15, 2008 5:45 PM Saltwater writes:

Re C5 numbers

It is difficult to decide which total is climbing more quickly - the number of Iraqi dead/wounded/displaced/unemployed/uneducated (might as well throw in those with bad teeth and acne) the left attributes to US action - or "found" Al Franken votes in MN.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 15, 2008 6:34 PM caday5 writes:

Saltwater

your comment is meaningless ridicule. If you want, I can cite the sources and this is all do, not to US forces, but the invasion itself. This kind of tragedy is just one reason why many opposed the war from the beginning. And the Bush Administration was warned by legitimate organizations that this would occur.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 15, 2008 8:53 PM Saltwater writes:

c5 more numbers

Perhaps you have trouble understanding the language – the phrase I used was “US action” not “US forces” - a distinct difference which refers to military, economic, political and related actions taken by the United States.

Your claim that 1.3 million Iraqis are dead since the war started almost 8 years as direct result of those actions is a stretch at best. The implied claim being there would have been NO deaths in Iraq without the war.

The Iraqi population is just over 28 million, with a 2008 estimated annual death rate of 5.14/1000. That works out to about 143,920 per year, or 1.15 million in an 8 year period.

Your number of 1.3 million suddenly loses impact when put in context.

BTW the US population is just under 304 million, with an estimated annual death rate of 8.27/1000, or about 2,514,000 Americans dying each year.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 15, 2008 9:23 PM caday5 writes:

Saltwater

I was going on estimates of 25 to 26 million which is what many have used. The difference between our numbers, though is not significant.

But what does what happened 8 years ago have to do with the Iraq war?

In addition, the 1.3 million have to do with the war. If you want the difference between the number of deaths that would have occurred because of the war but would not have occurred, the only peer-review estimate comes from the studies in the British Medical journal Lancet. As of Oct 2006, the estimate was put at 650,000 died that would not died otherwise. The methods of that study have been used in other studies where the situation was uncontrolled. It is a rough estimate with the numbers given between 392,000 to over 900,000.

The 1.3 million estimated killed comes from the Oxford Research Bureau. The 4.7 million estimated displaced comes from the UN. I have seen an estimate that exceeds that and the lowest estimate I have seen is 4.5 million.

BTW, what your numbers do not show is the source of death. As I said before, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children were dying because of the sanctions we insisted on in the UN and enforced with our military. Over 1 million Iraqis died from that. Do your numbers include that? Do your numbers include the fact that during the first Persian Gulf war, we bombed most of Iraq's civilian infrastructure such as their electric grids, water and sewage treatment plants. This is one of the reasons why the sanctions were so deadly.

Also don't forget that when Saddamn was at his worst using WMDs on his own people, we were supplying him with the materials.

Finally, I fail see the ethics of invasion by saying the people were dying anyway without distinguishing who was killing them anyway. And where did you get your numbers?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 15, 2008 10:26 PM bob's my uncle writes:

C5

1. Iraq was a hell hole under Saddam Hussein. He was killing plenty of people, many of whom were found in mass graves.
2. Our re-invasion of Iraq in 2003 was legally a resumption of hostilities following the 1991 action with nearly 70% approval of the American people and not one but two Congressional votes giving the President authority to do so. Then the Democrat party and the liberal press set about immediately to undermine that authority and after 5 or 6 years have succeeded, leaving us with your stupid opinion.
3. I'm still glad we kicked their a** and killed Saddam and his evil sons. I'm still glad we're there and helping the Iraqis to create a stable and prosperous country. I'm very glad that we have killed off how ever many terrorist scum Islamofascists that we have. I believe we are safer, now for having done all of that, but with B Hussein Obama as President, we'll see how long that lasts.
4. You can live in whatever fantasy world you want. I live in a world where real people do real evil things and kill real people for reasons which I find abhorrent. My position is that in order to protect ourselves, we have to kill them first, because they are not going to listen to reason.
5. I'm tired of you C5. Take your dam*ed socialism somewhere else. I'll not answer you here anymore and I ask that no one else do so either.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 15, 2008 10:37 PM Saltwater writes:

caday5

I was not citing an isolated event dating to 8 years ago. I originally read “...as a result of our invasion, up to 1.3 million Iraqis have died” in your 1:16 PM post as describing the period between March 2003 and now. However, your 3:45 PM post referred to the “no-fly zones” and sanctions that “...killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children let alone over 1 million Iraqis.”

The no-fly zones and sanctions preceded the 2003 invasion, and were in effect under Clinton. Since the all Iraqi deaths must be laid at the Bush doorstep, I concluded that your numbers were based on the 8 years since GW Bush assumed office.

I note your sources vary. Picking the most dramatic to bolster your argument? Why you not use the January, 2008 WHO study? But of course, that only puts the number of violent deaths since 2003 at 151,000.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr02/en/i ndex.html

If I gave you my number sources, I'd have to kill you.

Iraq:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook /print/iz.html

USA:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook /print/us.html

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 15, 2008 10:38 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Davecat

You're right. No more.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 15, 2008 10:40 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Saltwater

Thanks for coming by. You make great comments and you bring the ammo with you. From now on, this is a No C5 Zone.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 15, 2008 10:43 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Michael

No more C5. We're tired of him. From now on, the Backyard Grill will ignore him. He IS an idiot.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 15, 2008 11:22 PM Saltwater writes:

bob's my uncle

Thank you for the kind words, sir, it is my pleasure.

No more feeding the troll - even if the facts choke him.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 16, 2008 4:06 PM caday5 writes:

Saltwater I

I don't understand your confusion. Both Clinton and Bush are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Clinton is responsible for those deaths during the sanction years and Bush for the invasion and war years.

The Lancet study specifically addresses your point about those who have died during the war who would not have without the war. The Lancet studies were published in 2004 and 2006. The 2004 study estimated the number of deaths to be 100,000 but with the following footnotes: they did not include the 2 battles at Fallujah which would have produced a higher estimate and they included the losses in the Kurdish area which actually lowered the estimate. In short, the 2004 study was a conservative estimate.

The 2006 study included everything and I gave the whole range in the estimate. The 1.3 million estimate is from the Oxford Research Bureau.

BTW, a piece of trivia that is not an estimate is this. Our invasion of Iraq not only violated the UN Charter which is binding law here because it was ratified by Congress, it violated the Nuremberg Principles and we used the same defense as the Nazis used for killing Jews in Eastern Europe. That defense is called "anticipatory self defense." That is the Nazis anticipated a Bolshevik invasion and anticipated that the Jews would join them so they killed the adults. They then killed the children because they thought that they would rise up against them once they knew who killed their parents.

Using the same defense for invading a country that the Nazis gave does not make us Nazis. But it does put our own defense in perspective.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 16, 2008 4:06 PM caday5 writes:

Saltwater II

In short, if you are to have the rule of law, there is no nation above the law. The moment you allow a nation to be above the law, you then are endorsing the rule of force. According to Eisenhower, the only hope for civilization is the rule of law.

BTW, I pick the Lancet study because it is the only peer reviewed study. Peer Reviewed means that the methods are critically reviewed.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 17, 2008 9:30 AM Snow Knight writes:

Bob's nephew & Saltwater

Amen and Amen. We have tried and tried to show sense to this self-proclaimed socialist protaganist to no avail. His "titanic" has struck the iceburg of truth long ago and he STILL is proclaiming the ship is unsinkable!!It has been an experiance God bless.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 17, 2008 12:32 PM caday5 writes:

btw saltwater

you asked why cite the higher estimates. It has something to do with saying that there are UP TO 1.3 million deaths due to the invasion. If I quote the WHO stats, and there is nothing wrong with that, and there are studies that estimate more casualties, I could not logically say there are up to 151,000 casualties knowing that there could be more.

We have legitimate organizations giving different numbers with little to use to rule out any number given.

But the logic of your argument is what I disagree with. According to you, there was a fixed cost of Iraqi deaths before the invasion so that the invasion itself caused no harm. But I saw no evidence from you citing the cause of Iraqi deaths, that is distinguishing the number of Iraqis killed from our sanction from the number of Iraqis killed by Saddamn Hussein. So are you saying that the invasion can be justified because so we didn't have to kill Iraqis by the sanctions?

All of you can ignore what I said but the numbers I cited have validity and you cannot fault the logic. You can try to hide from the fact that we destroyed a country, being partially motivated by business reasons, but you cannot hide from the atrocities you are supporting even though many here have sincere concerns about the welfare of Iraqis under Saddamn Hussein.

Finally, what you can wonder about Saddamn is why he was tried and convicted for a relatively minor offense IN COMPARISON to his other actions. For example, he was not tried for his use of chemical weapons on the Kurdish people, for example, and with good reason. If they tried him for that, then we could be held accountable as accessories because we often supplied him with materials to make those kinds of weapons.

See, all of this is about wanting to be flattered by the actions of your country.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, January, 18, 2009 2:48 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

don't forget

forcing gynecologists into giving abortions even if it's against that doctor's beliefs. they're already talking about that.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, January, 19, 2009 1:48 PM bob's my uncle writes:

Good point, Jesse.

I may repost this one with additions from comments.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive