The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Happy Inauguration Day

January 20, 2009 | 66 Comments

Today the reins of our nation will be seized by a corrupt barbarian of still-mysterious origins who lucked into office with a record of no accomplishments, and with the assistance of a criminally-run fundraising machine, a compliant media, and his own glib but faltering tongue. My only hope is that he will be driven from office in scandal before achieving any part of his cynical and death-driven agenda.

Let us pray.

Comments

66 Responses to “Happy Inauguration Day”

  1. K T Cat
    January 20th, 2009 @ 10:37 am

    WSJ Headline today: “Obama to Call for a New Era of Responsibility” – starting by borrowing one trillion dollars from the nation’s five-year-olds. It says everything you need to know about the MSM that they can’t see the atomic-bomb sized irony in Obama calling for an Era of Responsibility.

  2. Lily
    January 20th, 2009 @ 11:03 am

    Amen.

    Ben Franklin said (or is said to have said) to a woman, upon being asked what form of government he and the founders had given us, “A Republic, ma’am, if you can keep it”.

    We have been derelict in our civic duties and in insuring that new generations of Americans would understand what responsible citizenship requires for a long time. While I do not wish any scandal to Obama, his background, lack of experience, lack of accomplishments and socialist philosophy are a disaster in the making. We have mid-term elections coming up which may put some better people in congress than are currently there and there is another election in 4 years …

  3. Cindy (FarmgirlCyn)
    January 20th, 2009 @ 11:37 am

    Don’t hold back. Tell us what you REALLY think!!!

  4. Kenneth Hynek » Blog Archive » Vilkommen auf zee Age of Obama
    January 20th, 2009 @ 11:58 am

    […] The Raving Theist, meanwhile, tells us how he really feels. […]

  5. Livingstrong
    January 20th, 2009 @ 11:59 am

    Rick Warren just prayed. Didn’t you prayed along with him too? Obama is as Christian just like you. He believes in Jesus just like you. Has bigots praying…just like you. I don’t see any reason for you guys not to like him.

  6. Brian Walden
    January 20th, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

    Livingstrong, read what RT actually wrote. None of his reasons for not liking him are religious.

  7. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 20th, 2009 @ 1:15 pm

    Awesome. Poor bitter TRT.

    I wondered how the party of willfull ignorance was holding up, and you guys didn’t disappoint. No gracious rising to the occassion for this group. No sir.

    :D

  8. Chris Arsenault
    January 20th, 2009 @ 1:15 pm

    Actually, we should pray, but perhaps not to have President Obama driven from office by scandal, but to have the Holy Spirit descend upon him in power and conviction when it comes both to life and eternal life.

    I have reason to believe such prayers are powerfully answered.

  9. Lily
    January 20th, 2009 @ 1:40 pm

    I absolutely agree, Chris. I do not want Mr. Obama to fail; I simply want FOCA to fail completely. I don’t want to see the economy destroyed, industries that ought to be allowed to fail subsidized, others nationalized.

    But looking at the Clinton era retreads he is selecting and listening to the Democrats in Congress is frightening. In some ways I fear Pelosi, et al far more than I do Obama. This is why I hold out a lot of hope for the mid-term congressional elections and the possibility of restoring something like balance to Congress.

  10. Melissa
    January 20th, 2009 @ 2:46 pm

    Obama may be seizing the REINS, but God is soveREIGN! :) It’s not like He didn’t know about this. Such things will happen in the last days (Matthew 24). He isn’t slow in keeping His promise to return for His own. He won’t allow this forever. It’s only for the sake of giving people time to repent that He is waiting (2 Peter 3:9). He is slow to anger and abounding in love (Psalm 103:8). If He weren’t, He would have unleashed His righteous judgment long ago. Thank goodness that He is the God of second chances and that His mercy abounds!

    May we all read 1 John 2 and be on guard! God help us all!! We will all be praying for discernment and courage; and we have not been given a spirit of fear (2 Timothy 1:7). We’ll stand strong and fight for what’s right even as Obama pushes to enforce things that are wrong. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” – Isaiah 5:20. “Not every one that saith unto me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but only he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” – Matthew 7:21.

    Brothers and sisters, KEEP YOUR ARMOR ON!!!!! (Ephesians 6:10-28) Remember, we are on the winning side! WE are on the offensive, THEY are on the defensive!! ;) Prayer is our greatest weapon against the principalities and powers at work. The unseen adversaries can’t be fought with earthly weapons; only with spiritual ones! We can do all things through CHRIST who gives us strength!! (Philippians 4:13). Take heart! He has overcome the world!! (John 16:33).

  11. Is it a work
    January 20th, 2009 @ 3:48 pm

    The Raving Theist?
    Isn’t this the Raving Atheist’s blog?

    Could someone give me the scoop? Lost a bet, big joke?

  12. Vince R
    January 20th, 2009 @ 3:55 pm

    The RA reveals more of his true colours! Good one, you just keep going, because you are shedding every last bit of credibility you ever had. Next, you’ll be linking to the “New Alliance” or the KKK. Good on yer mate!

  13. Skeptimal
    January 20th, 2009 @ 3:58 pm

    Metacrock said: “Most atheists are just fighting out of hatred or because it makes feel superior.”

    RA/RT said: “Today the reins of our nation will be seized by a corrupt barbarian of still-mysterious origins who lucked into office with a record of no accomplishments, and with the assistance of a criminally-run fundraising machine, a compliant media, and his own glib but faltering tongue. My only hope is that he will be driven from office in scandal before achieving any part of his cynical and death-driven agenda.”

    Yes, it’s the *atheists* who are filled with hate. Certainly religionists are never inspired by hatred.

  14. Skeptimal
    January 20th, 2009 @ 4:01 pm

    BTW, RA/T, remember your hateful little diatribe here when you whine about how the atheists turned on *you* when you converted to Christianism. It’ll really make us all feel sorry for how you’ve been mistreated.

  15. Helen
    January 20th, 2009 @ 4:09 pm

    I am with Chris. I am praying for my new president. Period. Then I am praying for him to have a change of heart about FOCA.

  16. Erin
    January 20th, 2009 @ 4:10 pm

    I hate to admit it, but I actually cried today listening to the pure awfulness of that poem, and that “preacher.” I cried because of what that man will do to this country that my sons will inherit. It’s a sad day.

  17. Quit whining, cry baby...
    January 20th, 2009 @ 4:16 pm

    –Today the reins of our nation will be seized by a corrupt barbarian of still-mysterious origins who lucked into office with a record of no accomplishments, and with the assistance of a criminally-run fundraising machine, a compliant media, and his own glib but faltering tongue.–

    Happens every four years. Some people are happy, some are not.

    It’s called democracy and sometimes your candidate loses. Put on your big boy pants and deal.

  18. JoAnna
    January 20th, 2009 @ 4:41 pm

    Cardinal Francis George’s open letter to President Obama: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09011905.html

    Worth a read no matter where you fall on the religious spectrum.

  19. Lily
    January 20th, 2009 @ 4:45 pm

    Exactly what is hateful about what RT said? No one comes up through the Chicago machine without soiling his hands. Do you not know that? We know nothing, thanks to the press which acted as his attack machine throughout the entire campaign, about a large chunk of his past, since his college records are sealed and the press went out of its way not to vet him at any point during the campaign.

    We know that he is in favor of absolutely no restrictions of any kind on abortion. That includes the deliberate killing of any baby that actually survives long enough to leave the womb entirely. Why? Because treating them would be too big a burden on the abortionist. How do we know he is serious? Because he already managed to enact that same law in Illinois and wants to do it on a national scale. That is the action of a barbarian. Civilized people don’t let newborns die of neglect.

    There is plenty more but the burden is on those who don’t think that his support of FOCA earns him the name of barbarian to prove otherwise.

    Then there is his “executive experience” which he sure as heck doesn’t bring up (nor did the media). He was the Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg foundation which was supposed to totally remake the local schools. It failed miserably to do so (as its own final report admits)while wasting millions of dollars. Obama has a track record of not worrying too terribly much about other people’s money. Somehow, he finds lots of zeros attached to whole numbers aesthetically pleasing, apparently.

    We have reason to be concerned about this man. I am, personally, equally concerned that our nation has so lost its common sense and its understanding of its heritage that so many could vote for such a man. It doesn’t mean that we won’t pray that Obama leads wisely. There just isn’t much in his incredibly skimpy record to give us hope, short of divine intervention.

  20. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 20th, 2009 @ 4:51 pm

    I have a question for the theists here. Everyone knows that abortions go up when the economy is down and that, because of his double recession, the number of abortions during George’s rein was at an all time high.

    Now we have a dem president back in the whitehouse and if nothing else that will financially benefit the middle to lower classes and reduce abortions. That, and we’ll be out of the war, so Erin’s dreams of having her son’s die in Iraq will go unfulfilled.

    Why would that not make you happy?

  21. Lily
    January 20th, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

    Actually, everyone does not know that UVJ. What is the source of your assertion? The number of abortions is not at an all time high. They have been dropping for some time now though I don’t know by how much.

    What a lousy thing to say about Erin. Leave it to an atheist and/or a liberal to say such a thing.

  22. Brian Walden
    January 20th, 2009 @ 5:05 pm

    BTW, RA/T, remember your hateful little diatribe here when you whine about how the atheists turned on *you* when you converted to Christianism. It’ll really make us all feel sorry for how you’ve been mistreated.

    Are all atheists fans of Obama? Is that some new atheist dogma? Other than “Let us pray” at the end, what do the comments have to do with religion/atheism?

  23. Brian Walden
    January 20th, 2009 @ 5:24 pm

    Jane, the larger issue is a human rights issue. Take for example a hypothetical nation that still practices slavery where less people are forced into slavery when the economy is bad because there’s less need for labor. Would you be happy with a new leader who comes into power and plans to make it even easier for slaveowners to enslave people but is predicted to mess up the economy leading to less slaves in the short term.*

    Oddly enough, it’s the theists who tend to believe that any organism that’s biologically a living human possesses basic human rights. Surely you empiricists can appreciate that argument.

    * This example does not mean that I accept your premises that abortions are at an all time high or that the middle/lower classes will be better off under the new administration – pretend I’m from Missouri and show me.

  24. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 20th, 2009 @ 5:34 pm

    Brian,

    The days of Republican being synonymous with fiscal responsibility are long gone. The biggest spenders and the largest fiscal debt during the last 30 years have all been Republicans. Remember, Chimpie started with a surplus, and every recession but one has started during a Republican administration.

    So, to rephrase your analogy, if the second president redistributed income such that slave ownership was minimized, or even eliminated, I would vote for that candidate. Attaching my name to the solution is of little consequence…to me at least.

  25. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 20th, 2009 @ 5:35 pm

    Lily, If only Erin were so compassionate towards the Iraqi mothers.

  26. Erin
    January 20th, 2009 @ 5:39 pm

    UVJ–thanks for making me laugh on such a dark day, and for continuing to prove what I already believe regarding your ilk.
    BTW, it’s reign, and boys plural, not boy’s possessive. Not that I’m trying to rein in your ignorance, carry on as you were.

  27. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 20th, 2009 @ 5:46 pm

    Not really an answer though, is it Erin. More of an evasion.

  28. Erin
    January 20th, 2009 @ 5:52 pm

    There is no answer that could ever satisfy your kind of vitriol.

  29. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 20th, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

    You’re right. I think putting your 18 year old fetuses at risk to criminalize choice is frightful.

  30. Lily
    January 20th, 2009 @ 5:56 pm

    UVJ– You have made a bunch of careless assertions and one quite ugly one. I hadn’t seen this in you before and trust that you are just having a bad day.

    One thing that is very true in what you have written is that we have been on a socialist trajectory for a long time. If Obama gets his way, there will be more people not paying taxes (or paying very little), than actually do pay. Yet those non-payers will be allowed to continue to vote for all the entitlements they think they deserve which will be paid for by those who actually do pay the taxes. (I am channeling Mark Steyn here, who is always right about these things). This is not a good outcome nor is it sustainable in the long run.

    We need fiscal responsibility which requires educated citizens capable of some minimal restraint. Do we have enough???

    Just today I read a news item about a state that has a law on the books that allows the state to go after the father of any baby born to an unwed mother on the state’s dime. The father is then given the choice– pay the cost of the birth or marry the mother. Well, the happy parents are living together in semi-poverty. Dad can’t afford the $3000+ for the hospital but the two don’t want to get married because mama wants a big wedding which they can’t afford and they are not going to get married until they can. Her boyfried agrees that every girl deserves the big fancy wedding of her dreams. Presumably they will keep building their family on the taxpayers’ dime, until they tie the knot. Ok…

    Do you see the problem with this kind of thinking? How many people can think like that before we cannot get ourselves out of the fiscal hole we are in?

  31. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 20th, 2009 @ 5:59 pm

    Lily, You know very well that more payers does not equal more money. Enough said.

  32. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 20th, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

    And as for my “ugliness,” there is something really dark about someone who would “weep” and the end of a war. Cry about the end of Git’mo. Be depressd about our first non white presiden. That is truely twisted.

  33. Lily
    January 20th, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

    UVJ– Think a bit about it. People who pay taxes (their fair share) tend to care where the money goes. More people paying a fair tax rate will generate some money but most revenue is generated by entrepreneurs creating jobs and investing in the future. High taxes on the most productive earners sabotages that. This is no guess. We have seen it over and over again. When will we learn?

  34. Erin
    January 20th, 2009 @ 6:14 pm

    If what I do looks twisted to you, then I must be doing something right. If you think BHO is going to charge in and end the war and close GITMO, you’re mistaken. If you think doing those things will end violence in the world, again, you’re as wrong as your grammar. If my sons choose to enter the armed forces, (our all volunteer forces), then they will have their mother behind them 100%.
    Your level of anger with me speaks more about you than it does about me.

  35. Christina
    January 20th, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

    I still can’t believe it happened. This guy was JUNIOR SENATOR four years ago — and has done nothing but campaign since then. And then he ended up in the White House. It’s as if the guy in the mail room was suddenly promoted to CEO of a Fortune 500 company because he had a nice smile and brought the best donuts to meetings. My cat is as qualified to be POTUS as this turkey.

    I keep telling myself, “We survived the Carter administration,” but Carter had at least accumulated some experience before running for POTUS.

    What’s really demoralizing is that I can pray ’til I’m blue in the face that we will awaken to whatever sin we’ve been wallowing in that made us deserve this guy — but nearly half the country is giddy with excitement, thinking that Santa has moved into the spare room and it’s gonna be Christmas every day. People are GLAD we have a totally inexperienced cipher who was powered into office by mysterious machinations. Why not be glad that your blind date looks suspiciously like the guy profiled on America’s Most Wanted last night, on the grounds that it’s cool to date somebody famous?

  36. antitheist
    January 20th, 2009 @ 6:22 pm

    I hope all of you stay on this site.
    The owner is a nut!
    The lot of you are angry war mongers!
    None of you can be reasoned with!

    I will venture out to where intelllectuals discuss matters that concern the world, including religion and politics, with wisdom instead of hatred.

    Signing off FOREVER!!!

  37. Erin
    January 20th, 2009 @ 6:23 pm

    Christina,

    I get the strong impression from the flat doom and gloom of his speech that he is beginning to become keenly aware of his inadequacies. Must be frightening.

  38. Christina
    January 20th, 2009 @ 6:24 pm

    Livingstrong, Obama is NOT “a Christian” just like RT. He’s some self-styled “Christian” who believes that it’s okay to wrap a gasping baby in a towel, stik it in a closet, and wait for it to die. For all his mouthing about Matthew 25 he sure shows no compassion for babies, does he?

    The Bible says children are a blessing; Obama called them “punishment”.

    Shall I go on?

  39. Christina
    January 20th, 2009 @ 6:40 pm

    UVJ, you said, “Everyone knows that abortions go up when the economy is down and that, because of his double recession, the number of abortions during George’s rein was at an all time high.”

    What planet are you living on? Abortions are at the lowest they’ve been since 1975!

    The most recent CDC Abortion Surveillance Summary is for 2005 — well into Dubya’s term — and it’s been declining since 1990. You might recall that this is when Bush Sr. was in office. There was a continued decline, then a sudden drop in about 1994 (during Clinton’s first term), and it continued to fall — including during Dubya’s term.

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713a1.htm#fig1

    What happened around 1994 to account for the sudden drop? Dunno offhand. But this was during a period when there was violence against abortion facilities. It could be women were scared to go near them. But I’m open to other theories.

  40. Brian Walden
    January 20th, 2009 @ 6:48 pm

    Jane, I’m not a Republican. I’m not a member of any party. I didn’t vote for Bush in either election.

    If the economy becomes better under President Obama so be it, I’ll believe it when I see it. If that leads to less abortions, that’s good in the short term. But the economy fluctuates, what happens when it hits a slump (for example, after he leaves office) and killing unborn babies is even easier than before President Obama took office?

    The “choice” you advocate is to kill a living human being. It’s the choice to terminate a pregnancy by means of a dead baby rather than by means of a living baby. I can see how a theist can make up the excuse of some non-empirical quality that makes a living baby in a womb sub-human, but I can’t see how an atheist can do it.

  41. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 20th, 2009 @ 7:08 pm

    I’m sorry, Brian. I’m glad to hear that you didn’t vote for Bush in either election but I just don’t agree about abortion.

    I would not ask a man to work to keep a brain dead child on life support, nor would I ask that of a woman. To me a possible person does not take precedence over one that is already here, and free from life support.

    The anti-choice position is weakened when war and Gitmo are justified by the statement “violence happens.” I don’t see the problem with abortion even from someone that hold’s an anti-choice view. Violence happens, right? Not to mention melodramatic statements about babies in towels…All this time I thought they put the fetus back and re-aborted for the pleasure.

    Incidentally, what is your position on the pill and on Plan B.

  42. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 20th, 2009 @ 7:09 pm

    No Christine, there has not been any data since 2004, but even that made no effort to adjust for plan B, and the pill. If you people really cared about the issue instead the posture, you would have good stats.

  43. Kelly Clark
    January 20th, 2009 @ 7:23 pm

    Here is an effort to put the new president and the issue of abortion into perspective:

    http://tinyurl.com/a7n8fp

  44. Melissa
    January 20th, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

    Wow, Kelly!! Hopefully he’ll give other babies the same chance he was given.

  45. Erin
    January 20th, 2009 @ 8:10 pm

    Kelly,
    Obama was born pre-Roe. It’s probably the only thing that saved him.

  46. qlb
    January 20th, 2009 @ 8:19 pm

    What a joke.

  47. JP Manzi
    January 20th, 2009 @ 9:25 pm

    Wow, talk about giving the guy a chance. Ripping him to shreds on day 1.

    Geez, give him an opportunity to do the job. We all should stand behind President Obama. Last I checked, Obama never performed an abortion or had one himself so whether or not he MENTALLY agrees with abortion is mute right now.

  48. Kelly Clark
    January 20th, 2009 @ 9:52 pm

    Obama was born pre-Roe. It’s probably the only thing that saved him.

    Erin, I wouldn’t say that. Much as I hate Roe, there were certainly abortions before the decision. Let’s give some credit to his mom! She chose life.

  49. Chris Arsenault
    January 20th, 2009 @ 9:57 pm

    #42 UVJ – I can point you to plenty of medical journals describing the efficacy of Plan B. To summarize: it doesn’t work. It has no statistical impact upon traditional abortion methods.

    I do have a sincere question – do you love people for who they are, or what they can do?

  50. Brian Walden
    January 20th, 2009 @ 10:18 pm

    I would not ask a man to work to keep a brain dead child on life support, nor would I ask that of a woman. To me a possible person does not take precedence over one that is already here, and free from life support.

    An unborn baby already is a person and is not brain dead. No one’s advising anyone to keep a brain dead person alive. If a child is in the hospital with a coma and the doctor is somehow able to diagnose that he will awake in nine months, would his parents killing him during that time be anything but murder? How much more is it wrong to kill a completely healthy baby?

    Incidentally, if we had the technology to keep babies alive in some sort of artificial womb until they were developed enough to live on their own without life support, killing a baby within nine months of conception would certainly be illegal.

    The anti-choice position is weakened when war and Gitmo are justified by the statement “violence happens.”

    What’s a stupid comment, or even a brilliant one, about the war have to do with whether or not unborn babies have human rights?

    Incidentally, what is your position on the pill and on Plan B.

    It’s debated whether or not they can kill an already conceived person. The answer to that question is above my pay grade. I think any contraceptive that can should be illegal.

  51. Joy
    January 20th, 2009 @ 10:58 pm

    Regarding a tired issue that’s been brought up here on several occasions, I see two possibilities:

    (a) Obama, father of two, gets some evil joy out of the thought of a doctor “chasing” a born infant “through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed.”

    (b) Obama recognized and announced that existing Illinois legislation already delegates ALL legal protections to ALL infants, regardless of how they enter the world.

    I’m pretty sure that deep down both Coulter and Stanek recognize that believing the former is mental masturbation for warriors of God who don’t have a stimulating day job. It helps foster further polarization through the belief that pro-choicers are so depraved that they actually condone killing infants, even if they won’t admit it. The bill was written to suggest that there was a need for it to be written – that premies were legally being tossed in the trash because of the radical left. It was a red-herring and should have been seen as the embarrassment it was.

  52. unkleE
    January 21st, 2009 @ 1:19 am

    I’m really sorry you wrote that. I think you’re wrong, but even if you were correct, in my opinion your expression dishonours the Jesus to whom you are dedicated. Remember we should be “speaking the truth in love”.

  53. Chris Arsenault
    January 21st, 2009 @ 6:51 am

    Joy said: (b) Obama recognized and announced that existing Illinois legislation already delegates ALL legal protections to ALL infants, regardless of how they enter the world.

    Joy – what’s your definition of “infant”? Also could you define for me, what it means to be born.

  54. 1+2=3
    January 21st, 2009 @ 7:01 am

    –I’m really sorry you wrote that. I think you’re wrong, but even if you were correct, in my opinion your expression dishonours the Jesus to whom you are dedicated.–

    Yes, wishing someone will be driven from office via scandal implies you sincerely hope innocents will be hurt so that you can gloat on your blog. What does the raving loon wish for? A personal scandal that destroys the two Obama daughters? A professional scandal that betrays the trust of the citizens of this nation and/or bilks millions of dollars from tax payers?

  55. jolly atheist
    January 21st, 2009 @ 10:48 am

    I have noticed that two criticisms for Obama from theist democracy apologists involve ‘mysterious origins’ and ‘background’. So where is your democracy, equality of people, rights of citizens to elect and be elected? Just admit that you don’t want him because he is black, he is an evolutionist and prefers physical exercise rather than going to church on Sunday mornings. Or you would have given him a chance and observe how he will cope with the financial crisis he took over on his first day. Most of the theist comments above reflect prejudice of the perfect kind.

  56. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 11:10 am

    I’m just wondering what would happen to all your gum-flapping if and when the economy turns around and things improve during President Obama’s administration? Eight years of muted theocracy didn’t do much to elevate our economy, the misery index, or the way we are viewed by the rest of the world.

  57. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 11:25 am

    I have noticed that two criticisms for Obama from theist democracy apologists involve ‘mysterious origins’ and ‘background’. So where is your democracy, equality of people, rights of citizens to elect and be elected?

    I think these are in references to whether or not he was born an American citizen – a requirement to be president. While I don’t think there’s much merit to the claim that he may not be, I do find it disconcerting that his birth certificate isn’t public record. Apparently Hawaii has weird laws.

    Americans have no right to elect someone who’s a naturalized citizen (or not a citizen) president nor does a naturalized citizen (or non-citizen) have the right to become president. If you don’t like it, take it up with the constitution.

    Just admit that you don’t want him because he is black, he is an evolutionist and prefers physical exercise rather than going to church on Sunday mornings.

    You’ve nailed it! Everyone who didn’t vote for Obama is a racist, creationist, bigot. It’s so much easier when the people you disagree with are neanderthals.

    Most of the theist comments above reflect prejudice of the perfect kind.

    Pot. Kettle.

    Or you would have given him a chance and observe how he will cope with the financial crisis he took over on his first day.

    While I agree that it’s probably better to wait to see what Mr. Obama actually does in office before ranting, it’s not like he literally came out of nowhere. Someone who disagrees with his record as a senator, can legitimately extrapolate that his policies as president will be similar. That’s a big part of why we all voted the way we did in November, right?

  58. jolly atheist
    January 21st, 2009 @ 11:31 am

    Mine is not prejudice but prediction from what has been written – like weather prediction!:)

  59. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 11:43 am

    I’m just wondering what would happen to all your gum-flapping if and when the economy turns around and things improve during President Obama’s administration?

    I don’t know much about economics but I know I’m better off today than I was 8 years ago. Just out of curiousity, where are you economically compared to 8 years ago? No details – just better, worse, or the same – out of respect for everyone’s privacy.

    Why is the economy such a big responsibility of the president anyway, we’re capitalists for Pete’s sake. I think it’s rather like attributing the loss to the quarterback when the defense gave up 4 touchdowns (or the win when the defense scores 2). I don’t know what the president had to do with my economic situation 8 years ago or today.

  60. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 11:54 am

    You misunderstand my comment. My belief is that the economy is largely cyclical, and our financial condition (good, bad or indifferent) is only marginally due to the Prez. There are certain things that one can do to sway it one way or the other (such as, say, force lending institutions to make bad loans to people with bad credit, and then insure those loans, and put no safeguards or internal auditting measures in place) but for the most part, there is a certain sine-wave pattern to the economy as a whole. Personally, I’m not doing so great, but I do own my own house. I’m not getting paid what I’m worth, and the cost of my medical insurance has gone up by $100 a month. No one has gotten any raises or bonuses in a while (neither myself nor my wife) so I’m not feeling particulalry chipper. I’m not headed for the unemployment line so there’s some good news. Also, it’s a loaded question, as 8 years ago I was just starting out in the world and had very little, so…

  61. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 11:56 am

    Brian – read up on the whole Freddie and Fannie debacle. It sounds like you’re missing a bit of info on the previous administration’s role in the housing crash. Not a knock on you, just a suggestion.

  62. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 12:32 pm

    Jahrta, I know the basics of it. The democrats are just as responsible (and irresponsible) as the republicans, they’re both guilty. I don’t see why any economic crisis is particularly the president’s fault, his job is to execute our laws and maintain order.

    While government policy was stupid, the government didn’t force banks to give out high risk loans or force people to take on high risk debt. Everyone said housing prices were way over inflated far before the collapse. It’s not like there weren’t obvious warning signs. Many people (not all) just got greedy.

    Sure my IRA is losing money just like everybody elses, but I’m putting money into it while it’s down. When the economy swings back the other way, it’ll pay off. In these past 8 years I moved to a new city without a job and had was able to find one on the spot (albeit lower than what I was worth and had to work my way up), then I got downsized in a merger and again was fortunate to find a new job quickly. I guess I’m optimistic in that sense and see the ability to get a job as a good thing, rather than having to keep looking for one a bad thing.

    I was also just starting out in the world 8 years ago – so I’m biased in that sense because I can wait it out. As long as I keep my job I’m not as worried as my parents who are semi-retired and watching the money they planned to live on shrink away. When it’s all said and done, I’ve got less debt and more savings than I did 8 years ago.

  63. Jennifer (Conversion Diary)
    January 21st, 2009 @ 3:52 pm

    This post made my day. I was about to throw up on my keyboard from all the posts I was reading that started with “I’m pro-life, but…” and degenerated into fawning talk about what a beautiful day yesterday was. It was especially rich to hear about how great it was to see the joy from the black community…I assume we’re talking only about the people in the black community who were not ripped limb from limb by abortions yesterday?

  64. Lily
    January 21st, 2009 @ 4:06 pm

    Brian said “While government policy was stupid, the government didn’t force banks to give out high risk loans or force people to take on high risk debt. Everyone said housing prices were way over inflated far before the collapse. It’s not like there weren’t obvious warning signs. Many people (not all) just got greedy. ”

    Actually, the government did force banks to give out high risk loans via the Community Reinvestment Act. This was a text book example of well meaning but fiscally ignorant, wishful thinking overriding common sense.

    The Act punished banks that didn’t make enough loans to people who do not have the credit, assets, income, or down payment to qualify for a normal mortgage. That, of course,is the sub prime market. You would not loan money to people who cannot pay it back, nor would I. But the gov forced banks to and threatened them with an array of penalties, if they did not.

    However, the CRA is not the only villain.

    McCain pushed for stronger oversight of Fannie and Freddie in 2005 as did GW in 2006 or 07 (too lazy to check which). Senate Democrats (including Obama) blocked reform. Between 2005 and 2007, Fannie and Freddie bought up a trillion dollars worth of subprime mortgages. Some they kept, some they repackaged and sold to Wall Street.

    While many on both sides of the aisle deserve blame, the Democrats are the the primary villains, just as they are the ones who primarily reaped the personal benefits and campaign donations from Freddie and Fannie’s executives.
    No matter how you look at it, it is a sordid story.

  65. Jeney
    January 21st, 2009 @ 4:45 pm

    As some one who laughs uncontrollably when an unsuspecting citizen walks into a (closed) sliding glass door:

    HYSTERICAL.

  66. Brian Walden
    January 21st, 2009 @ 4:53 pm

    Jahrta and Lily, I stand corrected on the government forcing banks to give out bad loans.

    I’m still not ready to blame one side more than the other.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links