May 23, 2008

Presidential Candidate John Sidney McCain III Wishes Homosexual “Every Happiness” on Announcement of Her Gay “Marriage”.

by @ 5:18 pm. Filed under Nuts on Parade

OK, I’ll just let the video run first and then I’ll comment on why this is one of the massive number of examples displaying why YOU CAN’T BRIBE ME WITH MONEY to vote for John McCain!

Ellen Degeneres Vs. John McCain: Gay Marriage

OK, so issue #1 is the very fact McLame is on the couch with openly unrepentant homosexual Ellen Degeneres in the first place. And my dear Christian brothers and sisters, I know as you do that Christ sat with some sinful people, Luke 7:34. However, Christ was preaching the message of salvation everywhere He went. John McCain went on Ellen Degeneres’ show for nothing but simple political pandering. Attempting to win some support from an audience supportive of the homosexual agenda, while also trying to tightrope walk for support of people who are against it. He did not offer the message of salvation in Jesus. So don’t even dare try and compare McCain’s actions with the ministry of the Lord Jesus.

McCain basically claimed his only issue is a matter of terminology. He’s all for homosexuals having all that would be considered “marriage” in terms of function, while he’s simply against it being called “marriage”. Again he’s trying to walk a tightrope to please all sides. He knows some of the money and votes in his party is totally against homosexual “marriage”, but he wants to please everyone for as many votes as possible. So he attempts to cater to all sides. This is not the example of a strong man of conviction who is ready to lead a nation, but rather a people pleaser, a McLame.

Then Degeneres attempted to compare the abomination she endorses to Blacks in the civil rights movement and Women’s suffrage. This is because sadly, Ellen Degeneres is an unregenerate reprobate and speaks as one. So she is incapable of understanding that she is engaged in abominable deeds and they do not at all compare with someone having a certain color skin or being female. She feels homosexuality is a born trait. Well what if I felt that I was born wanting to sleep with 12 women a night and desire government sanction me to “marry” 12 women at once. Should I say this is blessed by God because I feel it was how I was born and seek society’s acceptance of it? I think not. The issue here, is that there is an effort to promote abominable behavior as being normal when it is not. These people are speaking of how THEIR FLESH FEELS and so they feel it is God endorsed. The pedophile feels the same about his/her feelings, it does not make them right either. Basically there is a massive effort afoot to have the nation submit to the law of FLESH which is no law at all, rather than considering the Law of God. Man is trying to do it without God and has created his own false god called secular humanism, which will be thrown in the lake of fire with all that worship that false god. It is blazing insanity that causes Ellen to say what she is saying, Romans 1. She does not know how evil her words really are, but she will be held to account for each word spoken from her mouth. Only repentance by grace through faith on the Lord Jesus can save her. We can only pray to the Father that He might grant her repentance in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Because she really does not know what she is saying and doing.

Then Ellen went on to claim we are “all the same” and “love” the same. To which John McCain who claims to be a Christian continually nodded his head. 1 John 3 proves we are not all the same and John McCain did nothing to speak against the lies Ellen was speaking. Because he’s showing fruit of someone who is not a true follower of the Lord Jesus. He’s showing fruit of a simple publican.

So after Ellen gave her ramble and proclamation that she was going to have a ceremony, to have the state of California affirm her sin. McCain responded that while he disagrees with her on the topic of so-called “gay marriage” he:

I along with many others wish you every happiness.

He basically gave her union of abomination his personal blessing. Which she gladly received. It’s not at all godly to offer blessings to something you know is sinful. If a man is going off to rob a bank, do we wish him “every happiness” in his endeavors? Nope. And even from a raw political standpoint, for McCain to say such betrays the stance he claims to hold on the issue.

I thank God I don’t live in California. For people in abomination to hear that the “State of California” affirms something on them, means the entire state by way of government is conferring it upon them. Since in legal terms, the government “represents” the people. I am sure this tortures righteous souls, much the way righteous Lot felt torment of his soul in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, 2 Peter 2:4-11 [click to expand link].

77 Responses to “Presidential Candidate John Sidney McCain III Wishes Homosexual “Every Happiness” on Announcement of Her Gay “Marriage”.”

  1. ncatina Says:

    Thanks for the post. I did see portions of this “interview” on TV newscasts. This bull only demonstrates the bold arrogance and hideous misguidance that homosexual activists engage in to gain acceptance. What many people don’t realize is that we have a group of people that have created an IDENTITY based soley on a CHOSEN deviant behavior. This is why, to that end, there are increasing numbers of legal statues passing to build safeguards against “discrimination” to the same degree as racial bias. To have their justification for acceptance placed on the same plane as Blacks for civil rights is absolutely insulting!

    I have yet to see any other demographic rise up and seek acceptance from society at-large based on identifying themselves as pedophiles, rapists, robbers, extortionists, embezzlers, murderers, arsonists, liars, adulterers, drug runners and money launderers. Simply shameful.

  2. AngloGermanicAmerican Says:

    I discovered your site today, and enjoyed reading a number of posts – actually, I couldn’t stop, which is a problem, since I was at the office and should have been using the last hour or two of the day to finish work. My little break, turned into a big break.

    I’m home now, but I emailed your site home, so here I am, posting. While I wish that I could post on the articles where I agreed with you, or where you wrote something that either sharpened or enlarged my view, I find myself commenting on a post with which I disagree, or at least, have a different perspective.

    You write:

    McCain basically claimed his only issue is a matter of terminology. He’s all for homosexuals having all that would be considered “marriage” in terms of function, while he’s simply against it being called “marriage”. Again he’s trying to walk a tightrope to please all sides.

    Actually, I think that he’s pleasing no side, at least on this issue. His position is the one that I am most inclined to adopt. I say inclined, because I am a procrastinator, and until the issue is up for a vote, I won’t really commit to a position. Its just my nature. Anyhoo, you continue:

    Ellen Degeneres is an unregenerate reprobate and speaks as one. So she is incapable of understanding that she is engaged in abominable deeds and they do not at all compare with someone having a certain color skin or being female. She feels homosexuality is a born trait. Well what if I felt that I was born wanting to sleep with 12 women a night and desire government sanction me to “marry” 12 women at once. Should I say this is blessed by God because I feel it was how I was born and seek society’s acceptance of it? I think not. The issue here, is that there is an effort to promote abominable behavior as being normal when it is not. These people are speaking of how THEIR FLESH FEELS and so they feel it is God endorsed.

    While I may be persuaded to agree with your assessment of Ellen, I differ with you regarding your view of homosexuality. My belief, and I stress belief, is that it is indeed innate or congenital. While I am able, conceptually, to see how, given a different upbringing, I may be persuaded to marry multiple wives (I usually serve myself more food than I can really eat too), or be persuaded to reject the institution of marriage altogether, no one is going to persuade me that the abomination, as you put it, of two men together is something that I might want to try. It isn’t, and I won’t, period. Male homosexuality is utterly abhorrent to me, and female homosexuality, while interesting perhaps to contemplate at times, is equally abhorrent when presented as a tangible reality.

    But, I don’t think that that is the appropriate inquiry. The proper inquiry, from my perspective, is to ask myself why I am heterosexual. Is this something that I can take credit for? Is this in any sense volitional? I wrote a paper in college (years ago) where I articulated my sense that I was born to be married. I required a mate, someone with whom I could share sunsets, share intimacy, share dreams and share life with. None of that was, at least in my case, volitional or in any sense a choice. It was simply my nature. I have never patted myself on the back for choosing to dig chicks. To the contrary, I have wondered why…
    [Edited by IndependentConservative: Rest of comment removed, because it’s a very lengthy dissertation of what is already above and starts getting into more details that are unnecessary.]

  3. GaryV Says:

    Beautifully said IC……….frankly, the Bible makes it clear that people get the leaders they deserve. This is what we as a nation deserve. And I can’t vote for any of the three. Thusfar, I’ve resolved to vote as is my duty, but I’m writing in Duncan Hunter.

  4. IndependentConservative Says:

    AngloGermanicAmerican, do you consider yourself to be a Christian? And if so why?

    If not, what do you feel will happen to you once you die and by what authority do you come to your conclusion?

  5. healtheland Says:

    Some people are born homosexual? Well fine. Some people are born liars, some people are born murderers, some people are born thieves, other people have been liars, homosexuals, gossips, and thieves so long that it is as much a part of their nature that they may have been born in it. Big deal. The work of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit overcomes both nature and nurture, genetics and environment.

    Folks like you have two issues going on.

    1. You reject the reality of miracles. Salvation is a miracle, a supernatural extranatural occurrence. I had asthma, kidney problems, and was co – dependent on my medication not long ago. God healed both. So if God could work a miracle and heal my body of asthma and kidney disease and drug dependency, why cannot he change the nature, the genetics, of a homosexual?

    2. You think that nature is more powerful than spirit, man was more powerful than God. You do not think that God can – or that he should – change someone, so you believe that God should change to suit man. So, the god that you have created has no power. This god that you created had the ability to create the universe but lacks the ability to change it! Your god could create a universe, but cannot change a person’s behavior! Unless you think that who a person chooses to get into bed with is more important than the existence of planets, stars, comets, black holes, etc. then it is a gigantic logical contradiction.

  6. Lennie Says:

    We don’t have any candidates that are living a truly Christsian life and it is possible that we may never again havea a candidate living a Christian life and holding moral viewpoints.

    I for one will not, however, allow myself not to vote. It is a right that I must exercise.

    I agree that none of them are embracing Jesus and are instead saying what is politically expedient for them to say.

  7. IndependentConservative Says:

    When one looks throughout American history and every President’s beliefs, it’s hard to name ones that really were Christians.

    Not only are we facing possibly “never again” seeing a Christian that may win, but it’s possible we might have never had one.

  8. Lennie Says:

    I am not a presidential historian so I’m not sure about past presidents.

    You make a great point in that it certainly is possible we have never had a born again Christian in the office. Reagan and Bush certain claimed to be born again. Hmmmmmm…I don’t see the evidence but god knows the heart.

    Hopefully, back in the 1800’s at least one president knew God. I certainly hope!

  9. tleira Says:

    People are complaning about John Mccain. What alternatives do we have? MCain is a wimp but what does that say about the other side?

  10. IndependentConservative Says:

    tleira – Do you see that word INDEPENDENT at the top of this blog’s name?

    It’s about time you stop allowing yourself to remain LOCKED in a 2 party mindset. And feeling like you just HAVE TO vote for the D or the R. Frankly, not a single person reading this can cite me a single Bible verse that DEMANDS any Christian has to vote at all. (And even if a bazillon people died for “me to vote”, not a single one of them is God, so I DON’T OWE THEM ANYTHING. Just the same I always vote because that is my personal choice to do so.) And frankly our level of involvement in politics is highly inconsistent with church history. Many are OK with putting poison in their own water and claiming they were somehow fearful of “the other candidate”, but I’m not that kind of person. I don’t knowingly inject myself with poison and I won’t take poison-R just because some claim it might kill slower than poison-D. Poison is poison. Open borders are open borders, candidates that pander to the wrong things are not going to suddenly be better once in office. My Bible does not say that if I vote for poison-R the Antichrist won’t come, my Bible says what will come will happen as ordained by God, Romans 13. And we’re not promised a utopia before Christ’s return. So I vote for who I feel is best regardless of their odds of winning and say THE LORD’S WILL BE DONE! And I KNOW it will.

    I trust the Lord, not men, so I don’t fear who might win an election.

    The alternatives you have are to vote for a candidate that REALLY expresses your views. They might not be part of the major debates, they might not have the odds to win, but if you’re going to watch your country go down at least you can know you didn’t put the poison in.

  11. Lennie Says:

    IC, I hear what you are saying but I believe that many of us would rather pick our own poison.

    I’ve had evil, atheist teachers when in college. The wicked ones are out there.

    But with John McCain boasting about a 100 year war (then pushed it up to a thousand years, trying to be cute), that’s a poison I don’t want.

    I believe young men deserve a normal life, free of having limbs shot off in a ridiculous war. I firmly believe that John McCain is mentally ill.

  12. IndependentConservative Says:


    IC, I hear what you are saying but I believe that many of us would rather pick our own poison.

    I never said you cannot. I don’t know why you took my comment personally as if I was addressing you. Tleira asked a question which I responded to. I was not making any demands towards you. And you know I have not been floating around your blog trying to sway you towards my opinion. We both have made our views clear, so no further debate is required.

    But since you’ve decided to bring it up, I believe your buddy Obama is just as evil as John McCain. McCain can say he wants 1 million years of war, so what. He’s got 8 years max.

    Regardless of McCain or Obama, the outcome is open borders and dead babies.

    And speaking of war, even Obama has asserted that “all options are on the table” regarding Iran. So don’t go thinking he’s going to avoid war, no more than Bill Clinton who sent American into several military actions including Iraq before Bush.

    I almost find this report to be humorous: Inquiry: Hospitals couldn’t handle terror attack

    What they’re not saying, is that in MANY major cities those hospitals are filled because they are servicing ILLEGAL ALIENS WHO WOULD NOT CREATE THIS PROBLEM IF BORDERS WERE BETTER MANAGED.

    But enjoy your “poison”.

    Both McCain, Hillary and Obama are all CFR pawns ready to toss America further down a globalist pit. The only difference is that the Right plays it on “terrorism” while the Left plays it on supposed “global warming”. Both Left and Right are totally pressing for a North American Union and to fill your pockets with Ameros.

  13. IndependentConservative Says:

    And Lennie, I find it interesting that you now post daily endorsing Obama. When you once stood against him because you know his views on killing babies in the womb and the issue addressed in this very blog post, so-called gay “marriage”.

  14. AngloGermanicAmerican Says:

    Yes, I am a Christian. I am a member of the Reformed Church in America, a Calvinistic denomination. Although this is your site, and you have both the right and ability to edit, I feel that you missed a big part of my position and its basis if you think that the latter parts of my original comment were merely redundant or unecessary.

  15. AngloGermanicAmerican Says:


    I do not reject the reality of miracles, and I can tell you that I personally have experienced them. Regretably, you would not have written your reply if my original comment had not been truncated. I’m not saying that you would agree with me, but our discussion would be different.

  16. IndependentConservative Says:

    I doubt it would be any different at all and to prove it, I will e-mail healtheland your entire comment.

  17. IndependentConservative Says:

    AngloGermanicAmerican – You have not said a single thing to me that affirms you are a Christian.

    Being a “member” of a Reformed Church of a “Calvinistic” denomination does not make one a Christian.

    So I’m going to let you take another stab at it. Since you claim to be a Christian, please tell me why? How do you KNOW that you’re a Christian?

  18. AngloGermanicAmerican Says:

    I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only son, our Lord, who was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate,was crucified, dead, and buried. He descended into Hell. The third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sitith at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
    I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting. Amen.

  19. IndependentConservative Says:

    AngloGermanicAmerican – Thank you.

    Now that we have established that I can address you as a Christian and you’ve made it known that you prescribe to doctrine that holds to Sola Scriptura, one seriously has to wonder why you allow yourself to be duped.

    You should be fully aware of the TOTAL DEPRAVITY of man. So for someone to claim they were “born” gay does not make it any less a sin for them to indulge such a feeling any more than the person who feels they desired to steal things since their birth. Homosexual behavior is SIN no matter who is engaging in it.

    Given it is sin, given scripture thoroughly rejects it, because God totally rejects sin. We Christians should not do anything to invite Sodom and Gomorrah by giving such reprobate behavior any affirmation. Do you not think that people were claiming to be “born” homosexual back when God had Paul to write 1 Corinthians 6:9-11?

    As I’ve stated, what Ellen is missing is that she has not been washed, justified and sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. So she is not aware of what she’s doing. On the other hand, you and McCain claim the name the Lord Jesus. You are not to affirm sinful behavior, neither is he.

    Now, top all that I’ve said off with the fact that scientists still can’t find the so-called gay gene AND many people who are homosexual were victims of various abuses during their youth. And we find the “born” homosexual argument is on weak standing even in secular terms. Wasn’t it Ellen’s former “girlfriend” who left her for a man?

    You’ve said yourself that depending on your upbringing, you might have been OK with some things you don’t endorse personally now. So this is not a matter of “born” a certain way, because we’re all degenerate prior to salvation. All in sin before being born again. So we should not affirm any homosexual behavior and it’s not something God sees as being good in any person. It is as much an abomination now as always.

  20. AngloGermanicAmerican Says:

    My original comment and my present view is limited to a hypothetical individual who lacks affinity for the opposite sex and whose only attraction is for the same sex. Surely there are those who are or claim to be bisexual, and my comment does not address them. No one has duped me; either I have duped myself or been lead astray by he who is capable of appearing as an angel in white. I do not so believe, but you are free to draw your own conclusions and to advocate against, even admonish, mine.

    As I stated in my lengthy original comment, I have had it impressed upon me that my love for my wife is imperfect. No, neither of us has had an affair, we are simply depraved. Our love, as good as it is, is imperfect and but an approximation of God’s love for us. The funny thing is, when I think about my love for my wife, I don’t thing about sex; but at the same time, sex is a part, even an integral part of that relationship. No coincidence then (in my opinion) that those to whom the Word was revealed would describe Christ as the bridegroom, or Israel as the unfaithful bride (I realize that these do not go together) when endeavoring to convey what God has revealed about his relationship with us.

    My position hinges completely upon my belief, my conclusion, that homosexuality is the result of the physical crossing of wires. I do not believe that it is a moral failing – for the simple reason that I am not tempted in the slightest. In every other sin category, I can see where I might be tempted. I can conceive of the temptation to steal, to covet, to idolatry (once we understand what that means), even to kill, but I am completely unable to see the temptation to abuse myself with mankind. Nor do I believe that a change in upbringing would change my orientation, and I only have to look at my three sons who inherently mock and ridicule homosexuals to know that, unlike other moral failings, homosexuality is not communicable. I fear that the church has taken a class of persons with a physical defect and withheld from them the means to approximate “love.” In this regard, I am thinking more of the book of Job than Paul’s letters to the Corinthians.

  21. IndependentConservative Says:


    You are speaking much about your own personal “experience” and “feelings”. That fails the measure of Sola Scriptura.

    When someone is unsaved, as Ellen, certainly we want her to come hear the gospel message. However, for anyone claiming to actually follow the Lord Jesus, such as you and John McCain, to advocate that someone claim to follow Jesus and live continually in a homosexual life as if it’s not sinful is to make God a liar. We know from Romans 1 that Ellen’s issue is not some mere “wire crossing” but the result of man’s rebellion against God. (The place with a higher percentage of homosexuals than we even see in America today was ancient Rome.)

    You claim to be a Christian. You claim Reformed doctrine, yet on this you’re speaking outside of scripture. In what is written DIRECTLY TO THE CHURCH, we are instructed to excommunicate anyone who lives immoral openly as if it’s God approved if they claim to be a “brother”, 1 Corinthians 5:6-13. Then in the VERY NEXT CHAPTER, it is noted that NO homosexuals will enter the kingdom of God. I hope you’re actually reading the scripture I’m linking to in the post and my comments to you.

    If you can’t square your “opinion” with a letter to THE CHURCH and you have not, the issue is with you and you would want to reconsider your opinion.

  22. AngloGermanicAmerican Says:

    If I am to read your quote to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 literally, then I am to understand that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the Kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

    Am I to understand that an effeminate person ceases to become effeminate upon sanctification? God hates sissies? Of course not. (Indeed, there’s a footnote “Effeminate by perversion” that someone other than Paul placed there). In my opinion, Paul is either wrong here with respect to both homosexuals and effeminate men, or there should be a footnote “by perversion” to both. The error is easy to understand, as I myself, formally would have embraced this as the Gospel truth. Homosexuality, to any full blooded heterosexual, is obviously against both the laws of God and the laws of nature. As you stated, it is obviously an abomination. I say that sincerely, and I can easily see how one inspired with the Word of God would be overly inclusive in providing examples of unrighteousness. After all, we believe that the Word is inspired, not written, by God. Did we follow Paul’s dictates to the letter when we considered women’s role in the modern church?

    “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:26

    I am afraid of becoming a stumbling block for God’s effeminate or homosexual children. When I open my heart and become as a child, I realize that I neither understand nor choose my sexual orientation. I will not condemn those persons to a lonely, celibate life or alternatively, to a depraved life in gay bars, rest stops, etc. We heterosexuals have everything going for us, the institution of marriage, a permissible, blessed outlet for our sexual and intimacy needs. They have none of it.

  23. IndependentConservative Says:

    AngloGermanicAmerican – We have finally reached the true root of your problem and it goes much deeper than your view on this one issue. You don’t see scripture as the infallible Word of God, to be taken wholly literally.

    You see it as something written by men, who had some idea of what to write, but invoked their own bias, opinions and standards. Basically a flawed work and something you just use as sort of a guide, but not the true literal final authority.

    Again, not at all the “Reformed” doctrinal standard of Sola Scriptura. Which is why you don’t quote much from it. You’ve decided Paul could have wrote in something of his own mistaken mind and wrote in error. You feel either Paul was in error or scripture needs some added “footnotes”, to make the passage mean what you would like for it to mean.

    Using your logic, the churches in Corinth would have continued in their sins of homosexuality and other sins, by claiming they were not doing it of “perversion”.

    You’ve got some MAJOR issues, that I hope others reading will pray the Lord help you with.

    You are a PRIME example of why homosexuals will overrun most every church group in America. Why there will be homosexuals in the pulpit and you’ll affirm it, because you’ll say they were “born” that way. That is the doctrine of a false god, a false god that OKs abomination.

  24. healtheland Says:


    The key problem with your thesis … which I am not totally unsympathetic to by the way … is the undeniable explosive increase in homosexual and bisexual people within this last generation. In the 1950s, for instance, the vast majority of communities in the United States had virtually no open homosexuals and very few closeted ones. The behavior was so rare that it was almost never spoken of. Now, you have large metropolitan areas where 1/3 of the male population is homosexual or bisexual. Reasons for this include but are not limited to:

    A. the media glorifying and normalizing fornication (heterosexual and homosexual)
    B. the rapid increase in single parent families
    C. the huge rise in the prison population.
    D. the heavy increase in and popular acceptance of pornography

    (I should point out that some scientists have made a very good case for the idea that environmental pollution has played a role, but unfortunately there is no one about to advocate it … liberal scientists can only claim that homosexuality is genetic and conservative scientists are loathe to admit that there is anything wrong with dumping billions of tons of toxic chemicals into our water, ground, and air annually).

    Now let us look at C. I am sorry, AngloGermanicAmerican , but C. blows your whole thesis out of the water. I am sad to say that as the result of my background (growing up in a poor, heavily minority area) I have a bit of familiarity with folks who are in and out of jail. Lots of those fellows enter prison only being interested in the opposite sex, but come out being interested in both. I count among them the no small amount of fellows who come out of prison and still exclusively want to date girls, but only want to do with those girls what they used to go with guys in prison and have no interest in any other form of intimate activity.

    Actually, you do not even have to know any former prison inmates to verify that this is true. Listen to any gangsta hardcore rap music made between, say, 1990 and 1998. (I can’t speak to anything made before or after then, because I did not listen to the stuff prior and have not since.) Now as you may or may not know, that music genre is dominated by former prison inmates. It is EXTREMELY HOMOEROTIC (one of the reasons why I stopped listening to it). It is rather cleverly masked though. The homosexual feelings that these jokers have towards MEN are either expressed in a manner where the undiscerning heterosexual listener either thinks that they are talking about beating and murdering a man or having unnatural sex with a woman. Every now and then, something very directly homosexual slips out, though, and all of the heterosexual rap fans pretend not to hear it or pretend that there is some ambiguity as to what it means!

    But the clearest sign is the vile hatred that these fellows have towards natural activity with females. Guys who are into that are referred to as the lowest form of life … lower than police officers, informants, and racist whites. Nope, they make it clear that women exist to be unnaturally used, abused, and violated and then abandoned immediately after the “act” is over in favor of “socializing” with your ALL MALE FRIENDS, THE ONLY TRUE FRIENDS THAT YOU HAVE IN THIS WORLD!”

    It was amazing how these rappers would in the very same song go from delivering brutal verbal assaults on women – ESPECIALLY those who wanted to spend time with them and get married, those were the worst! – to tender expressions of love, affection, sacrifice, and heartfelt devotion to their PRISON CELLMATE.

    Not surprisingly, black male homosexual and bisexual activity has SKYROCKETED since our kids began listening to that evil. And hey, AngloGermanicAmerican, does your Christian belief system include evil spirits? Mine does, because the Bible makes it clear that they exist, and that they are strongly associated with immoral activity of all stripes. So yes, I do fully believe that if a kid starts listening to those explicit pornographic homosexual love songs that make up hardcore rap music from infancy (yes, I said INFANCY because PARENTS play that unmitigated evil around their kids) then even if that child isn’t genetically homosexual (which by the way has never been proven scientifically but I am conceding that point to you) then that child will either be conditioned into homosexuality or pick up an evil spirit of sexual immorality. If that fails, having all of that hate, rage, anti – social attitudes, etc. pumped into him will turn him into a criminal (and also make him unable to develop normal social or emotional relationships with ANYBODY, ESPECIALLY WOMEN), he will go to jail, and become a pervert with unnatural affection the same way that those rappers that he grew up listening to did.

    AngloGermanicAmerican, God’s homosexual children are SINNERS who need to be CHANGED just as do the adulterers, liars, thieves, gossips, murderers, atheists, you name it.

    Hey, did you know that there are also more atheists in addition to being more homosexuals? Why? Because of the media and the schools of course. Now did the notion of becoming an atheist ever occur to you? Is the idea that there is no God absolutely so repulsive to you that you would not even consider it? Would you never dream of abusing yourself spiritually by failing to believe in God?

    I bet that your answer is that you are much more capable of imagining yourself an atheist than imagining yourself homosexual. If that is the case, that is precisely how far from the Bible you are. Now that should have been my coup de grace, but regrettably my comments are generally not organized into outline form so I will go back to the subject of how homosexual/bisexual prison fellows abuse women. Do you know any healthcare professionals? They will tell you that the number of women that are allowing this evil to be done to their bodies has DRASTICALLY INCREASED over the last decade or so, and that these women are experiencing MAJOR HEALTH PROBLEMS as a result. Now … do you think that these women naturally want or desire to be treated in this manner? Do you condemn a woman for allowing herself to be abused in the same fashion that a homosexual male allows himself to be? Or does the fact that she is a woman make it any less unnatural or sinful? Are they “wired to” allowing this to be done to them? Do they enjoy it? (They certainly don’t enjoy the after – effects of it!) Or are they just giving in to the wicked desires of their boyfriends in order to retain what little companionship that they can from them?

    The reality, AngloGermanicAmerican is that it is not the Christian position that is simplistic and naive. It is the position of the gay rights advocates. They are the ones who do not deal with the obvious increase in homosexual activity in this country in the last few years. They do not deal with the fact that there are plenty of countries where there is virtually no homosexual activity. They don’t deal with the obvious changes in sexual activity that occur in men (and women) before they go to jail, while they are in jail, and after they get out. They also don’t deal with the fact that there is no biological explanation for how a ton of women now routinely allow guys that they have just met to do to them what most women would have rather died than allow their HUSBANDS to do to them just a couple of generations ago.

    The only reason why these foolish theologies exist is because the people that buy into them haven’t so much as talked to a prison doctor or a public health nurse or looked at the data – to the extent that it is kept – on aberrant sexuality. They are able to have these untenable theories precisely because of ignorance of what really goes on in the world.

  25. AngloGermanicAmerican Says:

    I do see the scripture as the infallible Word of God, but they were inspired, not written, by God. They also require interpretation and, yes, I disagree with your suggestion that it is “to be taken wholly literally.” For example, did God create the earth in 7, 24 hour days? Is the earth truly a mere 10,000 years old? If your faith was even the size of a mustard seed, you could tell a mountain to move and it would, literally? Perhaps, with respect to the last one, but the Word is tough to navigate with a hardened heart, for someone could well say that unless one can move mountains, literally, one has no faith. I am not interested in those debates, nor in personal attacks about problems and failings. I do welcome your prayers, though, seriously, as I am trying to do the best that I can.

    What I feel about Paul being either “in error or scripture need[ing] some added “footnotes” to make the passage mean what [I] would like it to mean” is irrelevant. My point was that someone put a footnote, and without the footnote, effeminate men will not enter the Kingdom of God, according to the literal letter of Paul. Additionally, such effeminate men will no long be effeminate once sanctified by faith. Whoever placed the footnote was not comfortable with that concept, and that really is the only point I was trying to make. I would put the footnote on both homosexuality and effeminate, you apparently would not place any footnote.

    I feel that it is appropriate to close this discussion with the following Q and A, as it represents an accurate statement of what I believe.

    1. What is thy only comfort in life and in death?

    That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death, am not my own, but belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ, who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me, that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must work together for my salvation. Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready henceforth to live unto Him.

  26. AngloGermanicAmerican Says:


    I am grateful for your appreciation that mine is a “thesis.” My thesis hinges entirely upon the notion that homosexuality is innate, and I am concerned about the hypothetical individual whose mental wires are crossed and for whom there is no cure, either medical or spiritual. My life’s experiences lead me to conclude that it is innate. Nor do my life’s experiences suggest to me that there is reason to fear that this behavior can be learned. As a boy, I remember when I realized what the term faggot meant. I remember thinking that the term was ingenious, because it was tantamount to calling someone so screwed up that they actually liked guys. It was probably a year or two later when I realized that it was not a hypothetical condition and that there really were people like that. Additionally, I’ve never preached to my children about the evils of homosexuality, yet they naturally use “gay” as a derogatory term.

    Your prison stories give me pause and are more than a little disconcerting. You have established that it can be learned and is in fact being learned. My view is limited to the situation where it is not learned, nor would I say that a bisexual person should feel free to swing both ways. It assumes that there are persons out there who seek to pursue what I have with my wife and are unable to do so except with the same sex. I am against, and regard as sin, the behavior you set forth in you comment in the context that the behavior occurs.

  27. IndependentConservative Says:

    Well AngloGermanicAmerican, you said one thing right and that is that the discussion is now closed. You have fallen into heresy and made a shipwreck of your faith. Turning to fables and doctrines of demons. Showing that like those in John 6, that once you heard more of the truth you were not really following Christ, but a false christ of your own imagination. You claim a false christ that approves of homosexual behavior in the circumstances you have deemed to be appropriate. You now serve a false god of immorality and sinful behavior.

    As I’ve said earlier in this exchange and in a newer post here on the blog, you are only worthy of excommunication. You and all who embrace your false doctrines. Given this, although this is simply a blog, not a church, your access to this blog has been revoked. Unless and until God wills you come to your senses and stop spreading this false teaching you speak, that goes squarely against the Word of God. This is not a place were heresy is allowed to freely continue proclaiming false doctrines. 2 witnesses have reasoned with you from scripture and you rejected it continually. Two witnesses affirmed with scripture that you are in great error, Deuteronomy 19:15.

    Knowing the age of the earth, while a worthwhile study, is not what the Apostles of the Lord Jesus recommended Gentiles who claim to follow Christ focus on. We need to know God created it all through Jesus Christ and the movement of His Holy Spirit. (I will show you what Gentiles were told to focus on later in this comment.) Perhaps you have not seen any mountains move, given you seem to lack faith to take God as His Word. But healtheland let you know of a mountain he’s seen moved by faith. We know it all comes as the Lord wills, because we take the Word in full and respect James 4:13-17 as well. So what will stay or go is as the Lord wills, but we know by faith all things are possible as He wills to occur. Just the same, we know that we are never to call evil good. Never to call sin acceptable behavior.

    I find it sadly humorous, that you claim someone can have a feeling towards the opposite sex or the same sex, but you’re against them having equal attraction to both. It makes you a hypocrite to your own:

    “wires are crossed and for whom there is no cure, either medical or spiritual”


    There is a cure, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Which is why God, through Jesus Christ, by way of the Holy Spirit, had Paul note of those who are redeemed:
    1 Corinthians 6:11 (New American Standard Bible)

    11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

    Someone redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ is no longer to indulge fleshly feelings that are outside the commands of God. If they still have sinful urges, that is of the flesh and to be fought against, Galatians 5. All in flesh who are Christians fight against the flesh, but none who claim the Lord’s name should claim sin of flesh is desired of God.

    You were not taught of Jesus in the way you claim now. You admit you were taught all homosexual behavior is evil and now you feel otherwise. (Personally I don’t readily use the term “faggot” because I’m not trying to burn anyone, but you can look that up.) This puts you squarely against the truth.

    Ephesians 4:17-24 (New American Standard Bible)

    17 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind,

    18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;

    19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.

    20 But you did not learn Christ in this way,

    21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus,

    22 that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,

    23 and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind,

    24 and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.

    You embrace a false doctrine that caters to lusts of deceit, although you were not taught Christ in that way. So it seems you have heard of Him, but you don’t really believe His Word. You believe your heart.

    AngloGermanicAmerican, you stand squarely against the most basic of instructions to Gentiles who claim the Lord’s name.

    Acts 15:28-29 (New American Standard Bible)

    28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:

    29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”

    1. Abstain from things sacrificed to idols.
    2. Abstain from eating blood.
    3. Abstain from eating things strangled, because this related to point #2, strangulation causes blood to be retained in meat.
    4. Abstain from fornication, that is all forms of sexual immorality.

    On point 4 I’ve already given you details in all the scriptures I’ve already cited for you above. But you have embraced your own eisegesis. You would have no problem with a homosexual in church leadership, so long as they are a homosexual in a way you find fitting, which is not at all fitting to God, because NO homosexuality is fitting to God.

    So goodbye AngloGermanicAmerican. You can’t comment here any longer, but perhaps one day you will know the truth. Yes I will continue praying for you.

    And by the way, men wrote scripture and Jesus affirmed EVERY JOT is true and to be taken wholly and literally, Matthew 5:18. His Word fully contains His Law. You can’t say it is infallible and then imply that because it was written by hands of men, that God somehow did not use those men to say His Word fully correct, to be taken fully and literally. Unions are only to be of one man and one woman, as Christ Jesus commanded Mark 10. So the Christian is to endorse nothing but that in terms of what we have discussed here.

  28. Lennie Says:


    I’m glad I came back to visit today; otherwise, I never would have imagined that you had so misunderstood the intent of my post.

    That post was not an accusation to you. It was simply me stating that since none of the presidential candidates are perfect, many of us (myself included) who choose to vote, want to pick our own poison.

    I agree that all of them have serious issues. I’m always afraid of saying who is and is not saved though because only God knows the heart.

    I won’t say that any of them are or are not saved. I’ll only say that none of them are esposing the types of beliefs I would like for them to.

    I wanted Huckabee to win. I was very clear about that, as I found him at least bold enough to mention Jesus and to stand up for Jesus. He did so with boldness.

    However, once he was forced out by lack of vote, I had to choose between McCain (100 year war, plus senile), Hillary the witch, and Obama, who has the typical democratic views of accepting abortion, etc.

    Between the three “bottles” of poison, I chose the Obama poison.

  29. IndependentConservative Says:


    And why do you only consider those 3? There are other candidates.

    If you don’t mind, please explain how you came up with “all options are on the table with Iran” and totally OK with abortion Obama?

    Huckabee and other Republicans were just as much in agreement with McCain on the issue of war, but you were more supportive them. I’m not seeing how a comment he has no control over and he won’t even live 100 years can be your reason for not only voting for Obama, but you’re very active posting in support of Obama. Clearly you’re not posting “against McCain”, you’re very actively posting FOR OBAMA. At least that’s what I’ve seen when viewing your blog. You also mentioned of McCain, that you feel he is “sick looking” and “looks like hell warmed over”. Now aside from the fact he’s released his health records and they come back rather clean, don’t you feel it’s a bit erratic, to speak of the looks of a man who spent 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam and lived to tell about it? Isn’t that just a bit disrespectful that a man would endure such LITERAL PHYSICAL TORTURE and having survived it in remarkably good health, that would be one of your main lines against him?

    If you’re against McCain, can you point us to some posts on your blog of actual substance, where you speak about more of McCain’s actual actions? I mean I really would like to see some substantive reasoning for your choice, because I’ve found many of your statements to be full of ad hominem.

  30. Lennie Says:

    IC asked: And why do you only consider those 3? There are other candidates.

    Lynn’s Response: I vote either democrat or republican, so as not to throw away my vote. If you are referring to Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney, no, I won’t be voting for either.

    IC Said: If you don’t mind, please explain how you came up with “all options are on the table with Iran” and totally OK with abortion Obama?

    Lynn’s Response: I had three bottles of “poison” to choose from. Hillary was out. Definitely out. McCain strikes me as senile. Anytime he needed Leiberman to help him repeatedly with facts, there was a problem there. He is not even a consideration for me.

    IC Said: Huckabee and other Republicans were just as much in agreement with McCain on the issue of war, but you were more supportive them.

    Lynn’s Response: Huckabee uplifts my Lord and Savior and does so with a boldness. If he was in the race, I’d vote for him again. I already voted for him once. At a minimum, I believe he prays to Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

    IC Said: I’m not seeing how a comment he has no control over and he won’t even live 100 years can be your reason for not only voting for Obama, but you’re very active posting in support of Obama.

    Lynn’s Response: Bush has devastated this country. McCain respresents Bush’s third term and then some. Under no circumstances will he get my vote. The thought of it for me is laughable.

    IC Said: Clearly you’re not posting “against McCain”, you’re very actively posting FOR OBAMA.

    Lynn’s Response: True. Once my candidate, Huckabee was voted out, I had a choice to make. I rarely even mention McCain on my blog. Our next president is going to be a democrat. Hillary is a lunatic. I’ll take Obama.

    IC Said: You also mentioned of McCain, that you feel he is “sick looking” and “looks like hell warmed over”. Now aside from the fact he’s released his health records and they come back rather clean, don’t you feel it’s a bit erratic,

    Lynn’s response: Erratic? In a free country, I have the right to choose my own candidate without being accused of being “erratic”. You said you don’t plan to vote, so why do you care about McCain one way or the other? No, I see what I see. I really don’t care how many wars he has been in or how obsessed he is with keeping this country in a trillion dollar battle. And I don’t care really about his medical records. I don’t want Bush in office a third term. Besides, McCain suffers dizzy spells and possibly even flashbacks. But I’m less interested in his health than I am about “4 more years” of the bush administration, which is what he represents.

    IC said: If you’re against McCain, can you point us to some posts on your blog of actual substance,

    Lynn’s Response: Where in the rule book does it say that I have to sit down posting articles about McCain? I have chosen my candidate and although I don’t care who others choose to vote for, I won’t insist that they explain to me why they are making their choice. My sister is supporting Hillary. I don’t like Hillary, but I respect her right to choose who she wants in office. It’s the “American Way”.

  31. IndependentConservative Says:

    Good morning Lynn,

    Lynn’s Response: I vote either democrat or republican, so as not to throw away my vote. If you are referring to Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney, no, I won’t be voting for either.

    The “throw away” line is very much a matter of perception. People in KY who voted for Obama in the Democratic Primary there could be viewed as having tossed away their vote given the overwhelming odds and votes that went in Hillary Clinton’s favor.

    There are Conservative candidates who profess Christianity. Not that I’ll be voting for their candidate, but the Constitution Party always seats a candidate. This year they have decided on Charles O. “Chuck” Baldwin. Personally I’m no fan of people who claim they were called to lead in the House of God AND feel they are to lead in man’s government, but that’s my view of things. So I won’t be voting for Mr. Baldwin.

    So are you saying you feel you must vote for the “D” or the “R” no matter what, rather than voting based on who best reflects how you feel government should be run?

    You mentioned McCain making what is known as a “gaffe”, that Leiberman corrected. If the issue is someone making gaffes and it reflecting their mental aptitude, you better look again at Obama, because he’s made way more than John McCain.

    You’ve said you’d support Huckabee, but in your own endorsement of Obama you stated:

    I am a conservative who would have voted Republican had Huckabee or any other decent Republican won for the party.

    Can you please tell me who the other “decent Republican” candidates where in your opinion?

    And you noted Huckabee professing to follow Jesus, while Obama spent 20 years with a man who teaches the hate of Black Liberation theology. Which has been branded heresy by very many theologians. That’s not exactly uplifting of the Lord Jesus, but a false god of race. Now for the cameras, Obama claims to feel differently. There’s something obviously smelly there.

    You mention McCain would continue Bush’s policies. And Huckabee would have done differently than McCain how? Will you please offer some policy substance? How policy wise would Mike Huckabee have been different from McCain? They are so alike regarding their policy proposals, that Huckabee is very much pulling for McCain, not Obama. So I’m still not able to grasp in terms of policy or legislative record, how your claims measure up. Perhaps you can clarify with actual asserted policies proposed by Huckabee versus McCain in comparison with what Bush has been doing?

    You said you don’t plan to vote, so why do you care about McCain one way or the other?

    Where have I ever said I don’t plan to vote? That is never something I have ever said. I have made it clear I won’t be voting for McCain or Obama, but I never said I won’t be voting at all.

    As you’ve said, it’s a free country, so I can freely assert and question on my blog. You decided to stop by, so I’m wondering why a man can face literal physical torture and instead of us being happy he survived, he’s branded as “looks like hell warmed over”? I’m just trying to see how McCain policy wise makes for an inferior candidate in your view and Huckabee was so much better? And I’m not seeing how Obama has shown himself superior, he’s “all options are on the table with Iran”.

    Yes I feel your attacking McCain’s physical appearance is shallow and lacks any substance regarding the duties of the job. It’s on par with someone saying they won’t for Obama because his skin is brown. Attacks based on looks rather than substance. McCain has decades in the US Congress and you’re resorting to attacks on his looks as one of your points against him. Why not look at those decades of his time in the US Congress and speak to more of that instead of his looks being one of your main points on contention with John McCain?

    Where in the rule book does it say that I have to sit down posting articles about McCain? I have chosen my candidate and although I don’t care who others choose to vote for, I won’t insist that they explain to me why they are making their choice.

    There is no rule book. You’ve come claiming how you feel about a candidate and seeing you’ve posted much ad hominem, I was wondering if you have anything of actual substance to offer.

  32. Lennie Says:

    IC SAID: Can you please tell me who the other “decent Republican” candidates where in your opinion?

    LYNN RESPONDED: I liked Huckabee and that’s the only Republican in this race that I have ever uplifted. I honestly don’t even recall the other ones other than Romney.

    Regarding “substance”, that’s all a matter of perception. This very thread talks about how see through McCain is—smiling in Ellen’s face and talking out of two sides of his mouth.

    Bottom line. No, I won’t be voting for John McCain. He was never even a consideration for me.

  33. IndependentConservative Says:

    But there’s still that matter of the fact you’re promoting a guy who is just as evil.

    The substance is, both McCain and Obama regardless of who might win will have an administration that has already made it clear “all option are on the table regarding Iran”, both want open borders, both promote every other globalist agenda including “climate change” initiatives that are also bad for our economy and standing on junk science while ignoring science that proves it wrong, and worst of all, both will have a pile of dead babies to the hilt and won’t do a thing about it.

    That’s not perception, that’s reality.

  34. SteelGator Says:

    IC: McCain is a opportunist at heart. He will pretty much say anything to get into power…..He would do some things I totally disagree with but he is better than the alternative, Obama. Obama and his party want to nationalize everything….including the oil companies. That is the last thing we need.

    America is on the fast track to full socialism….I for one just, at least, want to slow this process down.

  35. IndependentConservative Says:


    McCain is just about as Liberal as Obama and that’s why he’s always able to get along with the Demos in so many “bi-partisan” efforts.

    Anti-conservative indeed. Who opposed the tax cuts? Democrats AND John McLame. That shows you who wants socialism, BOTH.

  36. SteelGator Says:

    IC: I totally agree….As a student of history, I can not seem to find one that is clearly a “born again” Christian. Reagan comes to mind but only because his son, Michael Reagan said his Dad led him to Christ. Lincoln because he got on his knees and cried out to God. I don’t know if he actually accepted Christ. The closest President that I find to being a Christian is John Adams (and no…I did not watch the HBO movie about him). He claimed to be “born again” and in many ways (he did not own slaves, found slavery deplorable, loved his wife dearly etc) he acted as a Christian. However, God only knows if these few men were saved.

    I don’t think we will ever have another “born again” Christian President. The three that are running right now are definitely not!

  37. SteelGator Says:

    You can hardly call a POW hero a wimp. While Obama was being educated in a Islamic Madrasa (sp) and Hilldabeast out hanging out with Communists and bashing America, John McCain was being beaten and tortured in the Hanoi Hilton. McCain does have his flaws but being a wimp is not one of them.

  38. SteelGator Says:

    IC: I can’t argue with that….However, McCain at least has been against earmarks and did not ask for any in the last budget. McCain has been a “hawk” on cutting spending.

    Like I said earlier…..America will become socialist because most Americans are lazy and don’t want to think for themselves. They want the government to do everything for them. McCain will just make the road to socialism a little slower than Lennie’s buddy Obama.

    I also hold out hope that McCain will give us at least “one more strict constructionist” on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade.

  39. SteelGator Says:

    Lennie….if I may, why are you voting for Obama? How can one go from supporting Huckabee to Obama. This is like supporting Churchill one day and the next supporting Lenin.

    I have a feeling Lennie, like many other minorities, is going to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin. Before you get your feathers ruffled, I know many whites that will not vote for Obama because he is black. I also know many old people that are going to vote for McCain because he is old. The arguments that you use against McCain are just as shallow as the whites not voting for Obama just because he is a black man.

    Before you pull that lever, you might want to read the following.

    Republicans do a terrible job of courting the black vote.

    Finally, I find it ironic that blacks vote overwhelmingly vote Democrat when the “white liberal elites” are just using blacks.

  40. IndependentConservative Says:

    SG, you know I have not seen footage where anyone asks McCain much on the faith he claims. I speak of what I’m seeing, but I don’t know if anyone has sat McCain down and straight out asked him if JESUS REALLY IS THE ONLY WAY as Bush was found lacking.

    I did find this video McCain did, but it’s pretty empty. I mean a Baal worshiper could have said that. (I almost made a post about it when I first saw it.) And “Judeo-Christian principles” are not salvific and theologically speaking, Judaism is not at all Christianity.

    I’d really like to see someone sit McCain down and question him about some of these things. Or if someone has already, please provide a link.

    He’s using the “I don’t advertise” line, but why would a Christian hold back on letting the world know its ONLY means for salvation?

    So I can only speak of the fruit he bears, because he intentionally avoids saying much. I have not made a “Why we know John McCain is not a Christian” post, because he won’t tell me exactly in full detail what he fully believes. And Baptist church membership does not save, no more than the person who said they went to a “Reformed and Calvinistic” church. And with further discussion it was found they have made up their own false doctrine.

  41. IndependentConservative Says:

    Mr. Gang of 14 nominate a strict constructionist, yea right 🙄 .

    McCain and Obama should just run together, one can be Pres every other day and the other VP. Nobody will notice any difference because they’re much the same in too many ways.

  42. SteelGator Says:

    To be honest, you have to admit that McCain and Obama are very different. Obama is the most liberal (socialist) member of the U.S. Senate. McCain has had a career track record of being a fiscal conservative and a strong supporter of the pro-life movement.

    We know Obama will put a liberal (legislate from the bench) Supreme Court Justice in and there will NEVER be another chance for Roe v Wade to be overturned.

    At least with McCain, we at least have the chance that he will put a strict constructionist on the bench. He voted to confirm Alto, Thomas, Bork, Scalia, and Roberts so he does have a track record of supporting pro-life, strict constructionist jurists.

    Obama will pull out of Iraq (his words not mine), and McCain will continue the war against Islamofacists.

    They may both be lame on some fundamental issues, but McCain is way better than Obama on other ones.

  43. IndependentConservative Says:

    SG, you know I’ve already refuted that Team McCain speak you’ve said before, so I defer to my previous comments rather than repeat myself.

    And you know there are several other threads with much of the same.

  44. IndependentConservative Says:

    And SG, do I really need to comment on this one?

    McCain says he and Obama should visit Iraq together

  45. SteelGator Says:

    IC: Now you have gone too far….lol. You really don’t believe that McCain and Obama see eye to eye on the war in Iraq, do you? You obviously did not even read the article you posted. McCain knows the surge is working and has pledged to keep fighting the Islamofacists how ever long it takes. Obama supports retreat and defeat!!

    I think McCain should take Obama with him to Iraq. Maybe, the candidate for “hope” will actually learn something. We are winning in Iraq and the surge is working. To pull out like Obama, Hilldabeast and Democrats endorse would not only be dangerous but disastrous to both our allies in the Middle East and to our own national security. The liberal media just isn’t telling you what is really going on. Take a look at this article….

    As for Homosexual marriage, maybe, you, IC, should stop watching Ellen and start reading about the differences between Obama and McCain on same sex marriage.

    I could go down a list of around 100 things that McCain and Obama are different on. I won’t waste my time because you don’t care anyway.

    You and I probably disagree with McCain on 15-20% of the issues. We probably agree with McCain on the other 80%. Conversely, I disagree (and if you are a true conservative, you disagree with him as well) with Obama probably (I’ll be nice) 95% of the time and I am sure it is more. However, you have tried to paint McCain and Obama into the same corner and if you are intellectually honest, you can’t do that. We can agree that neither McCain nor Obama are our Christian brothers. However, when push comes to shove, McCain is much better qualified to be the “Commander and Chief” than the Marxist and 1960s retread Barrack Hussein Obama.

  46. SteelGator Says:

    I would never vote for Chuck Baldwin….This guy is a loose cannon. He also calls himself “Dr. Baldwin”. Needless to say, he never has earned a doctorate. His doctorates are honorary and he uses them as if they are actually degrees he earned. Anyone that calls themselves a doctor but never did the actual academic work to achieve one is disingenuous and deceptive.

  47. SteelGator Says:

    I don’t see McCain saying naive and ignorant things like this.

    An Obama presidency is a scary thing to ponder.

  48. IndependentConservative Says:

    Don’t get up tight with me. Your guy invited Obama to tag along for a field trip.

    McCain acts Conservative, but is Liberal and the historical record proves no known Conservative had word one to say good about him till he won a primary or 2! Which separated the Conservatives from the Republicans.

  49. SteelGator Says:

    IC: LOL…I’m not uptight nor bent out of shape with you. In fact, I like your hard nosed approach. I am probably just as if not more conservative than you.

    I think it is fine that McCain invited Obama to tag along to Iraq. Maybe, Obama will finally learn the truth about the U.S. successes in the war against Islamofacists.

    McCain has been to Iraq more than any American leader. The troops respect McCain and he spends a great deal of time in the danger zone with the troops. I don’t see any Democrats (other than Lieberman) doing the same.

    The historical record actually shows that most conservatives did have good things to say about McCain until around 1996-1998. This is when McCain spent time trying to come up with his MAVARICK persona. From then on, he has spent a great deal of his time conspiring with the liberal Democrats instead of working with his own party.

    I really wish we had another candidate to choose from, but someone is going to win between Obama and McCain….I would rather have a liberal leaning McCain than a Marxist Obama.

  50. IndependentConservative Says:

    SG said:

    I am probably just as if not more conservative than you.

    I’m not trying to claim I’m better for it, but you’re voting for McCain and nobody would catch me dead in a voting booth pulling for him. So that might indicate something in terms of being “conservative” or something…

    I think it is fine that McCain invited Obama to tag along to Iraq.

    Yea it’s his younger political twin, so why not have him tag along?

    You can make excuses for the time line, but we all know:
    Who Helped Keep Your Gas Prices High By Not Promoting Enough Domestic Oil Drilling? John McCain!

    Globalist John McCain, in the Pocket of International Bankers and Pushing Man-Made Climate Change Junk Science.

    Arnold Schwarzenegger Straddles the Fence on the Truth of Marriage. Fronts for John McCain

    John McCain Says, Using Some Babies as Guinea Pigs is OK With Him!

    Obama Idolatry, Babies Forsaken and More McCain Flip Flops

    But What Else is Wrong With John McCain? Plenty!

    I would rather have a liberal leaning McCain than a Marxist Obama.

    I would rather the Lord’s will be done, without me having their mess connected with me. I’m still having to see the stuff Bush is being caught in.

    Coulter: I’ll campaign for Hillary if McCain is the nominee“>McCain is so “conservative” that those known in mass media as “conservatives” have to debate what he really is. I’m not a big Coulter promoter these days, but it can’t be denied that she can pull the facts and she’s correct, McCain’s a Liberal.

  51. SteelGator Says:

    IC: As for conservative, you can’t say that I am not as conservative as you or anyone else. I supported some real conservative folks and worked for some real conservative folks in GOP primaries and local elections. Some of these folks make Reagan look left leaning.

    Just because I am supporting McCain over a Marxist does not show that I am not conservative. I will agree that McCain is left leaning but he is better than the alternative. Not to mention, the Dems are going to gain more seats in both Houses of Congress. We need somebody that is more conservative than Pelosi and Reid in the White House.

    As for Ann Coulter, she is lying. She just said that she would not vote for McCain to get her name back in the headlines. Ann is far from a real conservative. She just acts like one (just like Bill O’Reilly) because she makes BIG $$$ off of it. A woman that dated Bill Maher is not a conservative.

    I agree I would rather the Lord’s will be done, and it will. I just feel the Lord would rather have me vote for McCain who can potentially do some good for our beloved nation rather than a Marxist Obama. Not to mention, there is not another candidate worth a darn (independent or otherwise) out there. Chuck Baldwin….LOL….Bob (Im the poster child of the ACLU) Barr…..The Green Anti-God candidate….Ralph (the tree hugger) Nader?????????? All ot those folks make McCain look like Reagan (not really but you get my point).

    There are no other choices……left leaning McCain or Marxist Obama (who refuses to go to Iraq to see ALL the success that our boys (and girls) are going on the War on the cult of Mohammed. This is why McCain invited him….not because they are politically a lined and you know it.

    You say you can’t vote for McCain…..Then give me some names of some good alternatives and I will consider them.

  52. SteelGator Says:

    IC: Did you run off Lennie by calling her out on voting for Obama?

  53. IndependentConservative Says:

    She is free to come and go as she pleases. I won’t make any assumptions. But you know where her blog is if you wish to converse with her.

  54. IndependentConservative Says:

    SG, you’re a great Republican. Even when they put up a Liberal you’ve got lines at the ready to defend your party’s man.

    You’re a Republican. When is the last time a Republican was running and you voted AGAINST the Republican? (Not including Republican primaries where you voted for one Republican over another Republican.)

    While I plan to vote in November, I feel no need to have to vote for President if I find no suitable candidate. You on the other hand MUST and talk all you want, you’d vote McCain no matter what Independent candidate I present to you and I just might have a name for you, in time. Of course that would come as a future post if I find a running Presidential candidate that I’d vote for. At this point I’m still looking, it’s not election day yet.

    So SG, of all those Republicans that were running, who did you really desire to win the nomination? I’ve made it known I would have voted for Duncan Hunter.

  55. IndependentConservative Says:

    Some straight talk about John McCain:
    GOA Ratings For John McCain

  56. SteelGator Says:

    No…I am a great conservative….In fact, I have voted for a few CONSERVATIVE Democrats in my lifetime over liberal GOPers. In fact, if JFK were running against McCain….I would probably vote for the more conservative JFK.

    I actually supported Fred Thompson. I like Duncan Hunter as well, but I thought the lazy, tired Fred Thompson can revitize the nation. Needless to say, I think he ran the worst Presiential campaign in the history of mankind.

    I am upset with both Dems and Reps….I have even considered just re-registaring as an independent, but that would not allow me to vote in primaries.

    We don’t need a Marxist so I will vote for McCain. Unless, you can show me a better solution. I just don’t see one out there.

  57. SteelGator Says:

    McCain has been very bad on 2nd Amendment issues from 1998 on (as I posted above, this is when he really started to lean left.)…..However, he is still better than Obama.

    Like I said….find a better candidate and I will consider how I might vote.

  58. IndependentConservative Says:


    Unless, you can show me a better solution. I just don’t see one out there.

    I’ve told you, given God will ensure He gets the glory from this degenerate world, you don’t have to endorse any evil at all. I mean if you see that it’s messed up, you’re not under any compulsion to promote evil A over evil B.

  59. IndependentConservative Says:

    Oh he’s bad on more than 2nd Amendment. This very post is not about the 2nd Amendment, but if he becomes Pres, he’ll show you.

    I just wanted to mess with you a little 😀 . I mean I don’t have to say “hey SG, look at this”. All I have to do is say something about McCain and you’re all over it 😀 .

  60. Lennie Says:

    Steel Gator asked: Lennie….if I may, why are you voting for Obama?

    LENNIE’s Response: Because I want to and I’m still free to choose my own candidate. I certainly am not in a cult and I don’t engage in cult thinking. So I voted for Huckabee and now that he’s out, I’m voting for Obama. I’m not the type to keep going in circles. I’m through with this debate because otherwise, it becomes redundant. And regarding your question about me being “run off”, I visit a TON of blogs. I visit IC’s blog about once per week unless there is a topic that really catches me. Also, I write my own blog. I have not been here in a few days because I’ve said all I have to say on this topic. IC and I debate all the time. You should see some of our email debates. I’m not the type to be “run off” and IC is honest enough that if he wanted me to leave, he’d tell me. And besides, just as he told you…you know how to find me, my blog and all my views.


  61. SteelGator Says:

    For a while there, I was thinking about entertaining voting for Bob Barr, but he came out against DOMA so all the gays are gushing over him. When Barr opens his mouth, I remember why I can not vote for him.

  62. IndependentConservative Says:

    SG, DOMA is insufficient and you know it. You know the only way to end the issue is an amendment to the US Constitution. John McCain is against amending the US Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, which was the standard imposed on the state of Utah when they wanted to join the Union and they had to conform in 1890, but McCain is against placing it in the Constitution and look who is “gushing over him”. (The homosexual “Log Cabin Republicans”) And we’re right back on topic with this post.

    John McCain defies the very historical foundation of this nation’s handling of the issue of marriage.

    One of many reasons you would never even catch my cold dead hands near a John McCain endorsement!

  63. SteelGator Says:

    I know DOMA is insufficient. My former college room-mate is a lobbyist in D.C and he has helped conservatives author the Constitutional marriage amendment. I also know McCain has been opposed to this.

    Barr is also. It is also one of many reasons that I will not vote for Barr. There are actually people in the libertarian party that are afraid that Barr is a right winger. Maybe, in his past, but since he joined the ACLU, he has backtracked on many of his previous conservative positions.

    McCain is what he is. I can’t defend him on his week stance on marriage so I am not going to attempt to do so. If you asked me a year ago if I would vote for McCain I had serious doubts. Now that Obama(the most liberal Senator in the US Senate) has a chance to win in November, I have no choice but to hold my nose and vote for McLame.

    Regardless of whether McCain wins or loses, the conservative wing of the Republican party has to rebuild and regain control of the party. This happened in 1976 and by 1980 Reagan and the conservatives controlled the GOP. Some are calling for us (conservatives) to leave the party. Not a bad idea if we can stomach becoming a political dinosaur and die a slow death.

    Whether we like it or not, the U.S. is a two party system. The only way conservatives can once again have a voice is by retaking control of one of the major parties. The rebuilding must start immediately.

  64. SteelGator Says:

    I don’t know what blog you run. Just let me know and I may stop by.

  65. SteelGator Says:

    I can’t wait to see who McLame will pick for V.P. If it is Romney and/or gay boy Charlie Crist, I am sure IC will be going crazy on McCain.

  66. IndependentConservative Says:

    Just click on her name and you’ll go right there.

  67. SteelGator Says:

    Thanks IC…I found it.

    Lynn still can’t give a good reason she is voting for the Marxist. If she is a conservative, how can she do so. Just saying that I got a right to pick whom I want does not give good reasoning as to why the “so called” conservative Lynn is voting for the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate.

  68. IndependentConservative Says:

    And I’m sure no matter who he picks, you’ll be here making your continual laundry list of excuses of why you’re voting for him.

    Now you’re pulling the old “but Obama might win” card, again, for zillionth time.

    SG, here’s some food for thought:
    The Religious Right: A Roman Catholic Plot Of Pat Buchanan Hatched In 1966!

    Maybe you’re in a ONE party system? Antichrist.

  69. IndependentConservative Says:

    SG, I don’t find “because Obama might win” a good reason why any so-called Conservative would vote for John McLame who you KNOW is Liberal on so many issues.

    Which is why I disagree with you both 😆 😛 .

  70. SteelGator Says:

    IC: Got no choice. We can let the Marxist appeasement crowd win or we can vote for a true War Hero that wants to destroy the Islamofacists and who might actually put a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court. You do know that McCain was a close personal friends with the late William Rehnquist. He also confirmed and voted to confirm Scalia, Thomas and Bork. He was part of the gang of 14 (not good) but that did at least allow for a full Senate vote on Alito and Roberts which McCain voted for. Not withstanding the Gang of 14 deal, McCain has always supported strict Constructionists for the Federal and Supreme Court vacancies.

    Go ahead IC…..throw your vote away. Put your head in the sand because things will get done under Obama (the wrong things). How can you find anyone to vote for. Seems to me that you are looking for someone that agrees with you on every single issue. I used to be naive like this but this is not how our Representative Republic works. Politics in this country has gotten to who is the best of the worst. Sad to say, but good men like you and I don’t want to run for office any more. Who in their right mind would want to. Maybe, if you would run, I would be definitely vote for you over McCain.

    In November we got a choice….a left leaning McCain or an all out race baiting, socialist that will ensure “retreat and defeat” in the war on Islamfacism. Socialized medicine, more taxes, more government spending and waste. 30+ years of more innocent babies being slaughtered with the approval of the U.S. government.

    I will not give up. I will fight to the end for what I believe and I will stand up to evil in it’s time. When McCain does something wrong, I will be glad to call him on it (and I called sorry Republicans on many things over my political lifetime). McCain is WRONG on the immigration issue and he and his buddies got beat by the American people. He is wrong on right now, on the support of marriage and I have called him on it. I also frequently send letters and make calls to my representatives and even ones that do not stand for what is right. My choice is to vote for a third party that WILL NOT win or vote for the candidate that CAN win and is closer to my views than the other candidate.

    You try to say Obama and McCain are the same and you are either playing the devil’s advocate, your ignorant or just like to make things up.

    You can’t give me any other decent choice than McCain. Until you can, there is no reason to keep reiterating the same stuff over and over. You either don’t want to get it or you can’t get it.

    Peace and love brother. Just pray for the Lord’s quick return

  71. SteelGator Says:

    Come on IC….don’t put words in my mouth. You also didn’t do your do diligence to see if Chain Gain Charlie is a gay or not…..You just take negative rumor as truth if it fits your views. Rumor has it that he is or was. Now he is running around with a pretty gal pal on his arm. I don’t know if she is a real girlfriend or just for show. Time has a way of catching up with folks.

    It does not matter who McLame picks for VP…you will be there to bash him anyway.

    I am starting to think IC is a closet Obama supporter. Can’t vote for McCain, can’t give us any other good choices so he might just skip the presidential spot on the ballot. Then, his boy Obama gets in the back door.

    Scary that you don’t care enough about our troops or the slaughter of babies to man up and insure the evil Obama is kept from the White House.

  72. SteelGator Says:

    IC: For some reason I can’t read the link that you posted about the Christian Right Plot. I do have a blocker on my computer that won’t let me open any conspiratorial stories. You probably believe that 9/11 was in inside job and there….oh no…..there are BLACK HELECOPTERS OUTSIDE MY OFFICE WINDOW…..


  73. IndependentConservative Says:

    SG, brother, have you noticed how this blog has far more recent posts about our faith in the Lord Jesus and contending for the faith. While you seem to show up more often with comments that are politically related?

  74. IndependentConservative Says:

    Brother, you can think of me what you wish. My conscience is clear.

    If I felt 9/11 was an inside job, you’d be able to find plenty of posts here where I say that. So I leave it to you, to find the posts where I make such an assertion or endorse either McCain or Obama. Their selected running mate would not change my position of not endorsing either. I’ve detailed where I stand regarding them both. I’ve also detailed my position on the other issues.

    If you feel I must endorse your candidate to care about certain things, I refuse to endorse your candidate and leave you to think of me whatever you wish.

  75. SteelGator Says:

    You are correct my friend. I am very passonate about politics. I get very upset with my Christian brothers and sisters that don’t seem to give a darn about them (not pointing at you). I believe our government can have a positive or negative effect on Christians. Whereas guys like Eddie Long are bad and the flock needs to be warned of them, most of our political leaders are also bad. The difference is that Eddie and the pimps don’t have a personal affect on me. Our poor government leaders do and all Americans including Christians should understand this.

    On a side note, I thought you might want to listen to this wonderful clip of the “smartest man alive” and his speech about healthcare. You know if this were Bush or an elephant, the libs would be all over them.

  76. SteelGator Says:

    Try this link….

  77. IndependentConservative Says:

    SG, one day Lord willing, you’ll realize that what is more important is what directly impacts your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ no matter where they are. Primarily what is happening within rather than outside of the church. This is why Paul’s epistles are all about matters of the church and not the government of man.

    In order to assist you with this issue, comments on this thread are now going to be cut off.

    If your preoccupation is politics, you’re on the wrong page.

Independent Conservative - Copyright 2008 - Copyright Notice

[powered by WordPress.]

53 queries. 0.486 seconds