While canvassing neighborhoods in Ohio this Sunday, Barack Obama advised a tax-burdened plumber not to worry about money because under his presidency money will disappear since it will no longer have any meaning anyway. Instead, all Americans will be living off Obama's highly nutritive WealthSpread™ formula that is surprisingly low in effort and is being promoted by a group of leading nutritionists known as the Cook Fringe of the Democrat Party under the brand name "I Can't Believe It's Not Earned!""Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."
"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama responded. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Read the rest ...
And, in a bold move to woo offended female votes ...
4 comments:
Rick,
I'm confused. Where in Obama's proposed policies do you see any miracle 'spread the wealth' polices? He has consistently said no new taxes for 95% of Americans and a rollback on some of Bush's taxes for the wealthiest 5%. Does that look anything like how the ultra-right ideologues in the source link have portrayed Obama? One Christian professor friend put it well. He said, "Being a Christian does not give you the right to misrepresent others or make them less human than yourself."
And why are Bush's tax cuts which went primarily to the wealthiest 5% more "Christian"... even while Bush cut back on services to the poor, reneged on his Faith-based funding promises, and racked up record deficits for our children to pay off? The Bible clearly warns us about showing preferential treatment to the rich (James 2).
Christian philosopher Merold Westphal points out that Christianity itself becomes nothing more than ideology when its rhetoric primarily serves to legitimate existing power structures and endorse institutions that produce needless suffering. (See "Suspicion and Faith"). Sound like much of what I hear from the Religious Right. My income, as most middle class Americans, has dropped in real dollars in the past 10 years. Meanwhile, company executive officers have increased their relative compensation 20X in the past 30 or so years regardless of performance. The Fortune 500 company where I work further cut employee health-care benefits last year while still rewarding the CEO an 8-figure salary even while our stock tanked to half its value. If you think this is OK, your religion has become mere ideology. But I guess justice, and abstaining from falsehoods or slander, none of this is important as long as you don't condone abortion.
Which brings us to the topic of Sarah Palin. Obama as a Messiah? False faith. Palin as Wonder Wonder? Equally false.
Palin's RNC speech had overt lies (she didn't oppose the "Bridge to Nowhere", she did raise taxes, and no, once again, Obama has said he will cut taxes, not raise taxes, for 95% of Americans.) Her speech even included a quote from avowed racist Westbrook Pegler. (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080915163817AACeIEy)
She's already been found guilty in Troopergate by a bi-partisan panel. Her accusations that Obama is "palling around w/ terrorists" is patently false. ("Terrorists?" As in plural? Other Republicans have sat on the same boards as Ayers. Are they also "palling around w/ terrorists?")
Finally, more info about Palin's past "reforming" mode is coming out. Her governing style appears to be highly partisan, personal, vindictive and secretive. She demands unwavering loyalty from her staff and rewards old friends in a manner much akin to old school cronyism. A bulldog w/ lipstick? No. Bush with lipstick? Yes. She has Jesus in her heart so God must be on her side. Therefore, she must be above the law...both the law of the land and moral law. More mindless religion as ideology.
More reading on this at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?pagewanted=print
Bad news bud. God is not a Republican.
Anonymous - even worse news, you're ignorant. Try reading a little and then try to understand the context. After that, try not being anonymous and communicate with some sense of intelligence.
I'll help you just a little by telling you I already publicly wrote what you seem to think is some kind of revelation (which only belies your bias), i.e., God is not republican.
I said as much on 1 Nov 2006, 16 Nov 2006, 21 Aug 2007, 19 Jan 2008, and 18 Sept 2008. Perhaps more but that should suffice for now.
Come back when you have something intelligent to say. It's apparent that you have an agenda that is not about promoting the Gospel but rather some political position.
Mine here was just to be silly. One could argue whether or not that was accomplished but only someone guilty of what you accuse me of would take it otherwise.
Bad news bud ...
Rick,
What makes you think I don't read? Because I'm not familiar with all your blog entries? The intelligent people I know suspend judgment until they have all the facts.
When my evangelical cohorts malign and misrepresent Obama, that's being a "Wilberforce-like crusader." But when I critique Palin's lack of Christian charity, I’m not promoting the gospel but a political agenda. If logical consistency is a pre-requisite for intelligence, explain to me the intelligence behind your own visceral response. You fixated on my last statement “God is not a Republican” and had nothing intelligent of your own to say about all my counter-factual arguments against Prophetess-cum-Politician Palin.
If what I said has no intelligent value, then why is it so often new news to so many Christian Republicans with whom I have conversations? Would you prefer that I get my all my news exclusively from their news sources: Fox News and Focus on the Family? (Anything else, of course, is biased).
It seems to me that "having something intelligent say" means agreeing w/ your own biases. Do you think the source you gave for the Obama v. Palin comparison (9/1/08) is fair and objective? You've got an interesting definition of "intelligence." For example, that comparison conveniently doesn't mention why Todd Palin is not a member of the Republican party. He was a long time member of the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party. Sarah is right. Obama definitely doesn’t think about America like other Americans…up in Alaska.
Intelligent or not intelligent, the venom in your response does highlight one salient quality of the Religious Right (the bias of your own postings indicate you fall in that camp…even if you are smart enough to realize God is not a Republican): mean-spiritedness. Former Republican governor, Christine Whitman, notes that the Republican party is “now categorized as a mean-spirited, narrow-minded litmus test party.” The source? The absolutistic morality of the new breed of conservative extremist coming into the party. (http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/435/transcript.html). Who exactly are these new intolerant mean-spirited Republicans? Republican (and Christian) Sen. John Danforth identified them as conservative Christians (http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/danforth/transcript.shtml).
Finally, I don’t have a created account or my own blog so I posted my response as Anonymous since that made the most sense to me. You assumed the worst about me in that regard too.
In essence, it appears your definition of intelligent is “agree with me.” Your definition of “promote the gospel” is “agree with me.” And being Christ-like means demonizing your opponents and impugning their intelligence. And if non-Christians don’t want to become Christians, it’s their fault cuz they are clearly blind.
Lee Novak
lee.novak at comcast dot net
Lee - you are reinforcing my point.
You claim read but you didn't bother to read what is written here. Your focus was to argue. Why comment as you have here if you understood that I wasn't taking sides?
You are focussed on criticizing. No one here is saying what you are accusing them of. There is no religious right denigrating the Obama camp here. There is only me expressing frustration with both sides involved in this process. You ignored that and are doing exactly what I'm critiquing.
Because of your bias and obvious anger you have completely missed my point and continue to do so. Even your new reply is laughable. I'm not asking you to take any side in the political arena and the link to Christianity was brought in by you.
My focus is that there is good news before, during, and after the US political process and that this good news is above all of it. Your message is angry, critical, and given your absolute inability to see what I've written, ignorant. You are guilty of the charges you are making.
Not me, I thought the post was funny. A couple of days earlier I posted what I thought was a funny picture of Palin. I think your anger so blinded you that you thought one was anti-Obama and the other was pro-Palin. You completely missed that I thought both reflected the silliness of their creators presuming the creators were serious - and on the other hand, I thought both were funny.
You my unkind friend, didn't bother to read a serious post I made less then one week prior in which I said "this video happens to be against democrats but I'm sure there is footage to match of the republicans doing the same" and then quoting a friend, "I think 'change' and 'hope' and 'reform' (even the mavericky kind) start during the campaign, and so far, I'm not seeing much of it."
Also, I called you ignorant because you somehow believe that the political right is mean. I think that reinforces that you don't read or watch much news. Both sides are quite ugly and the point I've tried to make is that both are wrong in doing so.
So feel free to continue to drop by to prop up your team and make up arguments against the other. In doing so the way you have you exemplify what I am pointing out. At some point however I'll grow weary of the complaining and delete your comments.
I'll say it again, It's apparent that you have an agenda that is not about promoting the Gospel but rather some political position. And by the Gospel, I do not mean agreeing with me on politics given that I have not said anything about which way you should vote. I only said I hate how both sides behave and I have little faith in either.
Post a Comment