Sociopaths for Obama, Part Deux

MSM, confronted by obvious Obama lies and incompetence, chooses to think about something else, because hating on some obscure Christian pol is so much easier than dealing with the fact that Your Man is an incompetent liar, as well as a cold-blooded murderer of 4 year old Pakistani kids.

Obama Supporters: How. Can. You. Sleep. At. Night?

  • Paul

    Because.There.Is.No.Alternative.

    • Mark Shea

      You and the people insisting we have to capitulate to Romney are peas in a pod. Have the courage to say no this ridiculous charade. And, by the way, it’s utter BS that you have “no alternative” to remaining silent or offering Klein levels of whoring for the murder of children. You did it easily enough when Bush was Prez and you’ll do it again when Romney, God help us, is Prez. So grow a pair and do while your God King is eviscerating women and children for your precious Hope and Change. Or call yourself a gutless coward and slave.

  • http://moss-place.stblogs.org Pansy Moss

    Ambien. Lots of Ambien.

  • victor

    They’ve done studies and it turns out that smugness covers a multitude of sins.

  • Will

    If we do not care more about the environment, there is going to be much more environmental collateral damage, affecting people of all ages.

    • Kris

      Will, 4000 people a day are aborted legally in the US alone right now. How about we fix issues that are currently taking place, while also planning for the future? It’s not either/or, you know.

  • Irenist

    Not an Obama supporter, but it seems like the way that they sleep at night if they should be among the miniscule minority that actually cares about the unjust warfare practiced in our name would be reasoning analogous to that of the Catholic political thinker who was giving advice to a caller on Ave Maria radio the other day, and said that, in a hypothetical wherein the caller was confronted with only two candidates (one pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, the other pro-choice and pro-traditional marriage), it would be licit to vote for the latter, since both candidates are pro-choice so the issue washes out (IIRC): here, the Obama-supporter would probably imagine himself confronted with a pro-drones, pro-Obamacare candidate and a pro-drones, anti-Obamacare candidate, and then pull the lever for Obamacare, thinking that the drone issue canceled out. It’s not how you or I might think of it, Mark, but I think that’s how it works. Hope that’s helpful.

  • Zeb

    I’m not an Obama supporter and I’m still deciding how to vote, but I’m baffled by Mark Shea’s “vote for what the act makes of you” philosophy. It’s appealing, but it reminds me of the “welfare takes away the spiritual benefit of charity” argument. The purpose of welfare is to help the poor and the purpose of voting is to determine governance, I think. I’m leaning more towards Irenist’s view – Obama is Bush with healthcare (which I think is a weak but necessary first step toward a good thing) and Romney is Bush with more tax cuts for the rich. I really hated the Bush presidency and though I wasn’t expecting anything from Obama he’s been worse than I expected, so I’m certainly not an Obama supporter. But the fact is I’d much rather have him as president than Romney (since I don’t expect either to have any significant impact on abortion in practice.) The question is, what IS a vote? Is a vote a pledge of allegiance to a platform or agenda? If I look at it that way I may vote for Joe Schriner if my state is locked for Obama (it is now but could shift in two weeks). Is it saying, here is the person I think should have the power of the presidency? Thing is, honestly I don’t want Schriner to actually be president. Even if he holds all the right positions on the issues he’d be totally incompetent and it would be a disaster. So is a vote just a practical act? As you’ve pointed out, my vote serves absolutely no practical purpose, since even if my state is in play it will not be decided by my vote. No doubt I will make many more consequential moral decisions on November 6, including whether to buy a Coke and which store to buy it from. If I look at it that way I would rather not vote at all, but the Church pretty much commands me to. Right now I am leaning toward looking at that vote as an instance where I am asked to tell the truth – of all the possibilities who realistically have a chance to be president, which do I prefer according to conscientious discernment? That’s Obama. Shouldn’t I tell the truth about that in the ballot box? If I could try him for war crimes right now I would, but that’s not my option. Anyway, that’s how I sleep at night having voted for Obama in 2008 and leaning towards doing so again. But I really am asking the above questions and really am considering all possibilities at this late date. Even Romney, though that’s a maybe 2% chance for me right now.

    • Ted Seeber

      “The purpose of Welfare is to help the poor”- then, like advancing technology, I’d have to say welfare is a miserable failure. It does nothing to solve the five basic habits that keep people in material poverty:
      1. You don’t know what good food tastes like, how to cook it, or have time to cook it.
      2. Money is perishable and can’t be saved.
      3. A subset of #2: the need to spend money on gifts now, because you might not be able to be generous later.
      4. Wasting excessive time and resources on the bookkeeping
      5. Spending only with the short term in mind because goods, like money, are perishable

      All of these are wrong from a materialist point of view, and not a single one of them is helped by getting a bonanza from the government on a regular basis.

      The trouble is, I’m not sure that all 5 aren’t the actual Christian way to act, that richer people have forgotten.

  • http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/ Zippy

    If I look at it that way I would rather not vote at all, but the Church pretty much commands me to.

    No, it doesn’t.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X