The contrast is incredible

[Tim Elston]

You must have me confused with someone else, because I don't recall ever saying any of those things. I voted for his opponent because I thought he was the better choice for the country, but I never -- NEVER -- disparaged Obama personally. If you can find where that happened, please point it out... or admit you are incorrect, please.

No, Gary, I didn't say you, and you have not, in fact, said that. I have confused you with no one. I appreciated your comments about having an African-American president and, earlier, your expressions of sympathy for Obama visiting his grandmother in the face of irrationally critical hysteria.

[Tim Elston]

No, Gary, I didn't say you, and you have not, in fact, said that. I have confused you with no one. I appreciated your comments about having an African-American president and, earlier, your expressions of sympathy for Obama visiting his grandmother in the face of irrationally critical hysteria.

I read what I said again, and I can see how it looked like I was saying you. I meant it rhetorically. I didn't mean you. That's what I get for being angry. My apologies.

[Pastor Gary]

You must have me confused with someone else, because I don't recall ever saying any of those things. I voted for his opponent because I thought he was the better choice for the country, but I never -- NEVER -- disparaged Obama personally. If you can find where that happened, please point it out... or admit you are incorrect, please.

No, Gary, I didn't say you, and you have not, in fact, said that. I have confused you with no one. I appreciated your comments about having an African-American president and, earlier, your expressions of sympathy for Obama visiting his grandmother in the face of irrationally critical hysteria.

Okay... then I am confused; why were those remarks made in direct response to my exchange with you, instead of in a general post or in a reply to someone you actually think reviles Obama?

As I said, I didn't vote for him because I disagree with many of his views and policy. My worldview and his are different. That being said, as a human, as an American, as a Christian, as... whatever... I watched his acceptance speech (is that the right term??) on TV and saw something that made me proud. I saw his beautiful daughters looking at their father with pride, and I saw the faces of some young blacks in the audience who grew up believing that they lived in an unfair, racist society -- but there on the stage was the proof that the promise of America was open to them, too. Sociologically, electing our first nonwhite President was a big step in our national maturity, though I would have strongly preferred if that honor had been bestowed upon a black candidate not listed as the most liberal Senator in the country.

[Tim Elston]

Okay... then I am confused; why were those remarks made in direct response to my exchange with you, instead of in a general post or in a reply to someone you actually think reviles Obama?

I made those rhetorical comments in a post to you because you happened to be the one to step in and mock my centrist moniker. That's okay, I trust your motives, Gary. I like you. I've grown to appreciate you. I know your natural reaction is to step in like that, especially when I lay into someone else. You're defending them, not attacking me. I know that, and I like you for it. I also like Tim Shelton. I respect him. I'm sick and tired of the partisan junk that mascarades as wisdom and righteousness on left and right in this country, but I like Tim Shelton. I like Poimen. I like most others; probably everyone. But, my goodness, I don't like the attitudes toward Barack Obama expressed tonight. (I like yours, Gary.) Karl Rove--now his attitude impressed me tonight. Bill Bennet--he impressed me. Some people, like you, Gary, have the decency to congratulate a man for his successes and qualities. Others are just too politically disturbed.

[Pastor Gary]

I made those rhetorical comments in a post to you because you happened to be the one to step in and mock my centrist moniker.

Uhhhhh, Tim, you don't HAVE a centrist moniker anymore.
And it wasn't mocking. It was a friend teasing a friend.

I think you might misjudge the motives of some here. I don't think there are many here who disregard the plight of the poor and disadvantaged. In fact I know that more than a few here have actively aided the poor, the homeless, the prisoners and those needing disaster relief. One can do all of those because those are righteous actions and still honorably disagree with the kind of forced charity implicit in graduated taxation as social policy.

According to Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," --
"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

"It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last (2004) presidential election."

[Brian]

I've just saw more class in John McCain then we will most likely see in the next four years. The more that I learn of him the more I amire him. A real patriot.

Obama has typically shown exceptional class in this campaign. I think we'll see a lot of it from him. Hopefully we'll see it from Jude2 people toward Obama, too.

The only class I expect to see from Obama is his continued class warfare strategies to raise taxes.

I think you'll be disappointed, Tim. He has personal grace and class. You may not want to see it, but he'll display it. He's already shown it, to those who are willing to see it for what it is.

It occurred to me once that there is a political correctness on the right, as well as on the left. The thought came to me as I observed the sociolinguistic behavior on Jude 2.

And as I read your statement, it occurred to me that the language I have seen here on Jude2 in response to Obama's tax plan is a rightist politically correct class warfare against the poor and unemployed as a class. The super rich are robbing us blind as a matter of course, and what you are worried about is a slogan. People can't pay their mortgages and can't afford basic health care, while bankers make off with the retirement savings of millions, and you're angry at a socialism that is a figment of an imagination created for you by politicians, traders, and bankers who use abortion and marxism and socialism to ever hold you hostage to their control of power. Read your Bible, there, Mr. Alabama Lawyer, and tell me that your God didn't care about the poor. Despise him as a class warfare monger, will you? You're so angry and righteously indignant at a man who dares to make people's health and income an issue at the expense of people who make their wealth from those people's labor. What about the distribution of wages? Why is labor so valueless relative to the market that two wage earners can't provide health care to their children without begging for it? To whom is the value of their labor being spread? Who is responsible for the distribution of the poverty of working people? It sure isn't the millionnaires and billionnaires whose wealth is amassed by that labor, is it? We darn sure better be miffed and hot and fuming about a president elect who is going to give a crap about someone besides the well-off. We sure better accuse him of socialism and marxism and every other vile enmity of America because he doesn't wear a pin that, to our perverted minds, actually stands not for liberty or justice but for our class warfare against hard working people in need of something more than a politically correct diatribe about the so-called free market, which is, in fact, monopolized by power, shouldn't we?

Hey Tim, for me it isn't about how great and awesome the republican party is, or how pure and righteous there moral decisions are compared to the evil old liberal democrat. For me it's about real everyday practical issues and principals that govern my everyday/everyman life. I guess you could say that I'm an average Joe. Or possibly below agerage Joe. We are a family of five, my wife and I and the three kids. She is an RN and I am a gerneral contractor (so to speak) who does bathroom remodeling. Our income is modest I suppose, for the area we live in. The median family income here is around 70k so I guess at just shy of 45k that puts us on the lower end of the spectum.
We work hard for what we have. We put lots of time and energy in this thing called life and family. I work for a small buisness owner. It's accually only he and I. But as far as health care I have to rely on my wifes plan because my employer doesn't provide it. And you know what? I'm ok with that. He is a small buisness owner and he himself struggles to live and makes ends meet. Obama may concider him well off because his buisness may net over 250k. I can asure you that this is not the case. He is a hard working American who is living to get by just like me. I can't imagine for one single second thinking that just because he is my employer that he owes me one single thing other than monetary compensation for the services I provide him. It isn't his responcability to provide me with health care. I'm a big boy and am suppose to live within my means to be able to incorperate that exspense in my life without having to sarifice my of my families wellbeing in the process. It's called being a responcible adult and making the right decisions for my family instead of exspecting someone else to give them to me.
I live in an area where there are plenty of wealthy people. I mean like really well off! 5000 to 6000 square ft homes in the countryside on golf courses......thats pretty common in this little area. But guess what? Those people have worked to get where they are now and there money is there own! I have no "right" to share in there good fortune unless I get off my lazy bum and makie it on my own. (not that I'm lazy ) There are too many people who see the wealthy as evil gready low lifes who got that way on the backs of us regular folk. I'll tell you this, if you work hard and are responsible and mature with you money, live within your means, you can have a very nice life with all the basic necessities one desires. But if your a lazy bum who is on wealfare when you could work, have 8 kids to keep the checks coming in or maybe you just don't know the daddies are.....then it is NOT your "right" to TAKE what IS RIGHTFULLY someone elses and claim is as your own.
Tim, even if the need is there......and I know in many cases it is, the government shouldnt be able to take what one person has (even if its a ridiculous amount) and give it to who they think deserves it.

Too many people want what others have and cry fowl because someone else has so much and they have so little. But guess what? Its theres!
If I had a 2 acre garden with corn, carrots, green bean, potatoes, lettuce, celery, and squash, and the family down the street had a 4 ft. by 4ft. plot of grass with a couple raddishes in it it IS NOT MY RESPONABILTY to give that guy one single kernal of my corn NO MATTER how bad his raddish crop does. Thats life Tim. If he wants more then he should do more to get more. That is how I was raised. Not to expect our big governemnent to hold my hand while it solves all my problems.

I would much rather the government not be in our lives so much and let people live and take care of themselves and not use the government as a crutch as to where you will never regain your strength and never be able to stand on your own two feet. It's not always the fault of the big bad evil corperations that keep people down. Far too mant people are experts at keeping themselves down!

[Sherry]

Tim, you do not usually respond to my posts (I think it's
because I don't use all those big words maybe?) but I'm going to ask you anyway.

With your recent posts, I'm wondering why you didn't just vote for Obama?

I just want say thank you for proving my point. I'll try to work on my vocabulary so I can be more stimulating.

[Shellie]

Tim,

It would really help the reading along if you would break your writings into paragraphs. One large block of script gets a little difficult to follow.

[RamboPreacher]

I've just saw more class in John McCain then we will most likely see in the next four years. The more that I learn of him the more I amire him. A real patriot.

zactly, and ditto.

[deb]

According to Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," --
"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

"It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last (2004) presidential election."

If I had a 2 acre garden with corn, carrots, green bean, potatoes, lettuce, celery, and squash, and the family down the street had a 4 ft. by 4ft. plot of grass with a couple raddishes in it it IS NOT MY RESPONABILTY to give that guy one single kernal of my corn NO MATTER how bad his raddish crop does. Thats life Tim. If he wants more then he should do more to get more. That is how I was raised. Not to expect our big governemnent to hold my hand while it solves all my problems.

I found these two quotes to be quite interesting this morning and I'm willing to bet that if Brian's neighbor came knocking on his door because he was hungry - Brian would supply him with food from his garden.

[Mike Vande]

According to Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," --
"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

"It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last (2004) presidential election."

Well, to give that particular group of devils their due, you'll also find the liberals are more willing to pay higher taxes for the government to take care of those people, and the ones who don't think the government should be the welfare agency are less willing to pay high taxes. It kind of balances out in there somewhere.

The question that should be asked is "who can do a better job of taking care of people, the government or private agencies and church/parachurch groups?" When you remember that an elephant is a mouse built to government specifications, the answer is pretty obvious.

But the reason why government got into the welfare business in the first place is that the private agencies and churches weren't doing as good job of it as they should and the government was forced to step in. The Great Depression between WWI and WWII made it necessary. Maybe the church groups' tithes & donations dried up along with the dust bowl, or maybe those groups never really had much going on in the way of relief for the poor. Maybe folks were too proud to take it before then;"Relief" was a dirty word until the Depression, and for a while after. But when everybody is starving and no one has any way to help, folks are forced to deny their pride in favor of their stomach. In any event, if the government hadn't become the welfare agency for this country, a lot of folks would have starved to death, and that's the sad truth.

But when you give a government power, it's very hard to get it out of their hands again. The politicians and govvernment functionaries just hate giving the reins on financial allotments from the treasury, There are too many appointments to make that can make or break a political career, too many ways to insure that you keep getting that big, sweet government paycheck every two weeks to make voluntarily giving it up good for them.

Our present welfare system is a continuation of Roosevelt's New Deal. The people never got that particular piece of power back after the need for the government to weild it was gone. I doubt we ever will under the current system, even though Washington keeps turning out those elephant mice...

If I had a 2 acre garden with corn, carrots, green bean, potatoes, lettuce, celery, and squash, and the family down the street had a 4 ft. by 4ft. plot of grass with a couple raddishes in it it IS NOT MY RESPONSABILTY to give that guy one single kernal of my corn NO MATTER how bad his raddish crop does. Thats life Tim. If he wants more then he should do more to get more. That is how I was raised. Not to expect our big governemnent to hold my hand while it solves all my problems.

I found these two quotes to be quite interesting this morning and I'm willing to bet that if Brian's neighbor came knocking on his door because he was hungry - Brian would supply him with food from his garden.

Yeah, and he rightly bridles when the government knocks on his door and demands he give it away and without any say over who gets it. That's what happens when government gets power...