scooterbob

Can I assume that all of you who are so shocked were equally shocked by the attacks on Sarah Palin merely because she had the audacity to be a strong woman with strong Judeo-Christian beliefs? We have plenty of racism, sexism, anti-Christian beliefs, etc. That is not going to change. All who enter the political arena, including Obama, must accept what we call "assumption of the risk". Than is reality. And, in fact, he has a long way to go before he is abused and threatened remotely as much as has been directed at Bush. In a "diversified" society, it goes with the territory.

Absolute tenets of Christianity are not open to debate. You may make your "cafeteria" choices but you are responsible for those choices. Obama is not merely pro-choice. He is the most extremely pro-abortion person to ever seek the presidency. His administration will see great increases in both anti-life rights and deaths of the preborn. To say that one will not have to answer for supporting, passively or actively, such an agenda is foolish and naive. Some truths cannot be swept away even by the deceptive Obama. He is dangerous.

I applaud Fr. Newman. In this day of relative beliefs, it is assuring to see someone with enough backbone and conviction to state that there are absolutes. The teachings of the Catholic Church have always been firm in the area of life. There is no compromise on the issue. If you don't agree, join some other group that better suits your "comfort level"- like, for instance, whatever "church" presently counts Obama among its membership. The Catholic Church is nothing if it abandons or allows for compromising of its absolutes. I would hope, and expect, other priests to follow the lead of Fr. Newman. Sadly, too few will do so in this world of relativity. However, we should keep in mind that God is not a relativist in regard to life issues and other non-negotiable issues.

Excellent post.

It has always been wise to overestimate rather than underestimate the opposition/enemy. I don't think it is wise for us to just pass off all of these legitimate concerns as overreaction and/or sour grapes. It pays to be cautious. No one really knows anything about obama mainly because he has operated pretty much in secret throughout his life. He has been greatly aided by his associates and the media. Most of the concerns relate to statements made by him or his associates. Under the circumstances, any thinking person would have to be somewhat concerned. This was not a normal election and he was not a traditional candidate (Don't start the race crap. It has nothing to do with what I am saying). Hoot, and many others, are saying that we need to be very cautious with what the guy has in mind. We need to be skeptical. We need to make sure that any respect and trust he gets is earned rather than demanded.

I would not suspect that obama has the Catholic Model in mind.

You better prepare for the fact that the inmates will be running the asylum.

So, unlike many others on that side of the spectrum, you were using the figurative definition.

During the night, someone took a brick and broke out the driver side window of one of my cars. Nothing in the car was bothered although my cell phone was in plain view as was well over $70.00 in cash. Now, my neighborhood is one that would have voted overwhelmingly, probably unanimously, for McCain-Palin and I'm sure it did so. Many of us leave one or more of our cars in our dirveways. However, my car is the only one with McCain-Palin bumper stickers on it. Since the circumstantial evidence is obvious that one or more of Obama's supporters broke out the window, do you suppose I can contact him and have him "heal" my window?

By "heal", are you using the figurative use of the word or are you saying that Obama will actually heal us (as in the tradition of another charlatan, Bennie Hinn)? Silly question? I agree. But, then, it does appear that he is seen by many of his supporters as the messiah.

In light of Obama's philosophy, I would be interested in how you can reconcil your statements. Also, since you appear to be an alumnus of Trinity and I assume you are Catholic, I would be interested in how you reconcil his complete disdain for the value of human life (as defined by the Church) with your alleged church association.

The answer to each of your three queries is clearly "No". His socialist-leaning economic plans and his intended trashing of many traditional Judeo-Christian absolutes make it impossible for those grounded in their beliefs to support him. His extreme positions which delight the Pelosis, Reids, and those of similar beliefs make it impossible for him to reach out in an honest effort to those who didn't support him. If he starts his "reaching out" rhetoric, you who actually work for what you have better hide your pocketbooks and protect your beliefs.

It also says that if you don't work, you don't eat (to paraphrase a little). The point is that we all support helping the truly needy and those who cannot help themselves. However, we have no duty to help the millions of takers who have never done anything more strenuous that to produce an abundance of offspring.

Your memory is as weak as your argument. I never said Obama couldn't be president. However, I am sure I did say that he was the least qualified person to ever run as the candidate of major party. And, I did say that he was a socialist. I also called him a Marxist. But, knowing that the media was prostituting itself for him, knowing the race card would be used far more for him than against him (Who can doubt that?), knowing that Yosemite Sam was an embarrassingly weak candidate, and knowing that it was the Democrat's turn to win, I would never have said he couldn't be elected. As for reaching across the aisle, I would recommend that the Republicans adopt a policy of seriously questioning anything he does or tries to do. He is no middle of the roader. He is still a socialist and Marxist who is, to be nice, weak on Christian absolutes.

You aren't serious about this "bipartisanship", are you? Surely, no one believes that will happen. As I said in another post, he was the victor and to him goes the spoils. The country will get what it deserves - an extreme left wing government which may contain a left leaning republican or two for appearance sake (like Hagel). On Yahoo, there is an article listing those believed to be in the running for cabinet posts. Look them over. There is nothing bipartisan in that group. Eric Holder as a possible AG? God forbid.

Have you noticed the sign on the podium at his first "press conference"? It says "Office of the President Elect". A review of history indicates that his predecessors were not quite so pompous. But, then, this is only the beginning. On another note, I did read where gun sales were up 30 percent and were expected to continue at a brisk level through the end of the year. Hopefully, this will stimulate the economy.

Wonderful. I guess those of us in the northeastern corner of the Commonwealth will get the UK-Georgia game. I would much prefer T and X. Watching UK-Georgia would be similar to suffering from constipation (actually a good analogy since UK is hoping for an invitation to another toilet bowl).

Not much.

Ignorant was probably not the proper term. However, I feel sure that "biased" would most likely fit. As a college professor, I am very well acquainted with those of my colleagues who teach such classes. They are biased which is fine as long as their students know to consider this fact and to take what is said as fact with a grain (or two) of salt. By the way, I am biased in the law classes that I teach. My philosophy stems from the fact that I believe strongly in a very strict interpretation of the US Constitution. The only difference between us is that I admit it and so inform my students on the first day of classes. My colleagues in the social sciences do not.

None of these people have any idea of what his "change" means. That is the tragic part of the whole matter. They really have no idea of what they were supporting. Of course, ignorance is bliss- until reality sets in.

Food for thought even for the Obama Kool Aiders.

I would be curious to know if the two Black Panthers will be officers in Obama's 250,000 civilian task force.

Excellent points.

Indeed so and I certainly make no apologies.

Ah, yes, and too often it is written in the eyes of the beholder and those eyes are not without prejudice. That is why we rarely rely on one report to ascertain truth. For example, the 1960s as described by Obama's buddy, Bill Ayers, is quite different than the same period as described by one who was not a terrorist.