Another Comment About Comments

Last night this blog received a few comments.  One of them concerned a post from about a year ago, Searching for Judas, which dealt with Sen. Cuccinelli, Rep. Wolf, and the pro-life movement.  In the comment the respondent wrote:

You brought the bible into the discussion…

Where in the bible does God promote influencing government instead of people? Wouldn’t all of the money spent lobbying our government be better spent on individuals in need? Lead by example rather than force.

You say “Should I treat them as unrepentant heretics? Heaven forbid. Not only would I alienate myself, I would also condemn many otherwise fine and upstanding people that I respect and desire to work along side, not against. ”

In that short passage, you have usurped Gods omnipotent power to judge and bowed to the will of the people rather than God. Are you not aware that, as a believer, you are expected to be ridiculed?

Although I didn’t agree with the remark, I certainly would have allowed such a comment on this site.  Little did the respondent know, however, that the first time anyone posts a comment to my site, it has to be personally approved by me.  Now as it was sent while I was sleeping (at 12:33 last night), I didn’t see it until the morning.  Enraged by the fact that the comment did not appear, about two hours later the respondent commented again, this time solely to belittle my religious devotion.  I’m sure it won’t come as a surprise to tell you that I won’t be approving comments by this individual anytime soon.

Although I appreciate the comments you all make, please try to be civil.  Before you post, you should read A Comment About Comments.

Thanks!

5 Replies to “Another Comment About Comments”

  1. The baby-killing issue presents the Evangelicals and Republicans with a logical conundrum.

    If projections are true, without abortion (the state approval which provides a woman with a superior right to men, to freely commit murder) then we would have 60,000,000 more people in America.

    I don’t know if it is true, but those sixty million are said to be mostly poor, or drug addicted, or otherwise among the least productive segment of society. I suppose we could buy that argument that we may be killing off an Einstein among all those crack babies, but statistically that is just improbable.

    The conundrum is that the same folks who cry out to save the murdered babies, are more than happy to kill those babies later on, through state sponsored murder or life long prison terms. While all of the crack babies will not grow up to be murderers or drug dealers, it is logical that children raised in filth and squalor, are among the least likely to become productive.

    Yet the same folks who want to save these babies, are the least likely to vote for any of the social support programs to help lift them from the Hell in which they are born and provide a ray of hope. Oh, the Evangelicals will pray for them, but as for funding K-12 education programs, well that would be feeding ZOG, the leviathan government, so screw that.

    So, what is it going to be? You won’t pay for those sixty-million to join our welfare roles, but you don’t want those women to murder their babies either. You say you are pro-life, but you always vote for candidates who pledge to murder people convicted of crimes and who pledge to make other sentences life long in duration, and without parole, never mind if they are actually guilty, or not. After all, the government said they were guilty and you guys always trust the government, right?

  2. The belief of this conservative is that government has a limited role.

    That limited role does not include lending its endorsement, or allowing the taking of innocent human life, or the exorbitant expenditures of public funds for the idyllic notion of eradicating poverty at all costs.

    Neither does it exclude the police power necessary to the execution of justice for crimes of extreme violence, or heinous nature, by what ever punishments may be constitutionally enacted.

  3. “So, what is it going to be? You won’t pay for those sixty-million to join our welfare roles, but you don’t want those women to murder their babies either.”

    Why is it out of the question to expect them to get jobs?

    1. I’m a bit confused by your comment. Are you asking the question of me or of the quoted comment? Given your tone as well as your website, I assume you don’t support welfare or abortion. So who should get jobs? The children? The mothers? The fathers?

  4. The mothers. I’m quite acerbic. 🙂 I was mocking the commenter that believes that if we didn’t allow abortions and hand out endless welfare the streets would literally be full of starving children. I happen to believe in human nature, and I also believe that if we didn’t create incentives for fathers to abandon their children, they wouldn’t.

    It’s not that I don’t believe in charity – I do! I just don’t believe that the government should intentionally create a parasite class.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *