I am now blogging at a new blog: erdman31.com

If you post comments here at Theos Project, please know that I will respond and engage your thoughts in a timely manner.

Sunday, July 06, 2008

Signs of the Times

Friends, it has been approximately a month now since my Barack Obama sign went missing. Yes, it appears to have been stolen. I was honestly not all that surprised by the theft. This is a staunchly Republican area of the country.

I will now be forced to purchase another sign (probably much bigger!); however, in the meantime, this little caper provides for some very fascinating reflection.

One of the staple beliefs of most Republicans is the importance of respecting personal property rights. Indeed, the interpretation of the rights of personal property will certainly be one of the primary differences between the candidates in this upcoming election. The issue will weave its way into discussions of health care, taxation, the economy, and more.

It seems quote probable, then, that the person who stole my sign violated their own beliefs at the moment of the heist. The burglar no doubt was passionate about his belief in protecting personal property rights: "Get the damned government out of my back pocket!" If the rustler was of a religious inclination, then doubtless the protection of personal property rights also has a moral imperative: thou shalt not steal. And yet, at the instant of the crime, the thief found himself in the precarious position of having violating the very personal property rights that he believed in. Hence, our friend, the righteous Republican robber, found himself violating personal property rights in the name of preserving personal property rights!

Was it a calculated move? Did the burglar decide that he would commit this one violation of property rights in the name of preserving the property rights of the many? Did he make this one sacrifice of his integrity in the name of the greater good? Certainly this is possible, and in fact, we can imagine a scenario where one violates one's principles in the name of the greater good. These are calculated compromises.

Was this a calculated compromise?

Probably not. In all likelihood, the pilferer made a decision of emotion. Our bandit was so overcome by passion to defeat a "liberal" candidate that he snatched up the sign! I suggest that it was a crime of passion.

But was it passion for an ideal? No. It was passion for winning and a desire for his side to win. And this takes us to the real moral of the story: passion for our beliefs propels us into another dimension of thinking whereby our zeal to win is even more important than the beliefs themselves. We all do this; we are all the same. It is a part of our nature. We live under the illusion that we "take a strong stand" for our convictions; but in reality, our convictions are only a secondary, almost insignificant consideration. Our beliefs, in most cases, are only a bit of a bump in the road before we can get to the real business of fighting each other.

So, friends, get ready for the upcoming months of politics. The "issues" are not the issue. Elections are most certainly not about beliefs or convictions. It is politics, and politics is about winning and losing. Politicians can only win by creating a mob of supporters who feel so strongly about their convictions that they would do anything to advance their beliefs, even if that means violating such convictions.

But don't let me stop you, good neighbor. Carry on! March forward! Fight the good fight! Go into the political battle knowing that you are right and that your cause is just, and if your cause is just, then any means is justified for reaching that end...the end being victory for yourself and defeat of the others. It is only our political opponents who are irrational and unreasonable: we are the pure in heart. Our cause is right.


Melody said...

Absolutely, because taking your Obama sign will totally turn the tide for McCain.

Your sign thief is probably someone you know who thinks your reaction to the theft would be amusing (it is, incidentally).

Poor McCain, he needs better signage. Obama's is all freakin' amazing and McCain's just says "I'm old, so is my designer and so are my supporters".

At this point I'm thinking it's better if people don't see those signs out.

I've been thinking about just whipping up some designs of my own and sending them to McCain's people so no one has to die of yard-sign shame. Seriously, I shudder whenever I see his merchandising - it's just that depressing.

Jonathan Erdman said...

So, perhaps the theft indicates that Republicans secretly want to have cool signs like Obama.....hhhhmmmm....mimetic desire......As a side note, the logo you see that appears on the above signs was not something Obama originally wanted. I'm not sure I like it either, really; but it is easy on the eyes. It is simple without being boring or bland. Plus it incorporates the red white and blue theme, giving a nod to patriotism and the "I love America 'cause it's the greatest nation on earth" crowd.

Melody said...

The theft indicates that you have funny reactions to things. Stealing an Obama sign doesn't make McCain signs any cooler.

Well I hope Obama is thanking whoever made him use that logo. People love that sucker.

Plus it had the snowball affect of inspiring graphic designers to make some a-mazing posters for the campaign.

Now everyone within ten miles of "hipster" thinks Obama understands what matters to them - all because of that logo.

The design is good because it reminds you of his name, Obama. It's orginal, like Obama says he is. It's got movement, which Obama is promising to America. It is a new twist on patriotism, which is exactly what Obama is trying to convince people he is. It's kind of got this sun rising over the horizon deal, making a "new dawn" kind of look. The stripes are positioned so they kind of look like rows in a field - connecting it with America's "Heartland" - the people most likely to be staunchly republican and to not care that the design is spiffy.

Really, it's a fantastic design. I nearly cried the first time I saw it.

McCain's is pretty static. The star, I suppose, reminds us that he has the military experience to finish up the war and get us out.

He's gone a weird route with the non-patriotic colors. I mean, is he or is he not running for the American presidency?

Sometimes that gold is used as fringe on the American flag - he makes that clear on his website. So what's the message - he's the candidate for those on the fringe? It sort of works with his support for immigration, but it's a bit muddled.

The pointy things don't actually seem to have a point. They're a bit divisive and that certainly isn't a message McCain wants to send - he's Mr. Bipartisan (in action kids, not just in unsubstantiated retoric). McCain does have a reputation for sharp words, but is that really something he wants to remind us of on his sign? Probably not, even though he's not really known for apologizing for it either.

Ugh. The design isn't even that solid, which imo is one of McCain's biggest selling points.

That was a big selling point on Bush's signs. They weren't too refined, but they were strong looking and people wanted a strong leader. Kerry's were flimsy and reminded you how wishy-washy he seemed. Of course McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush, so that could be part of it.

This is hard election for me; substance over style isn't really how I roll, and yet...I can't vote for Obama...so...

chris van allsburg said...

Self deception is an incredible thing. In the case of the thief, at the most basic level, he has to make the conclusion that

a) it is NOT the case that the sign is mine,

and yet, at the same time,

b) it IS the case that the sign is mine.

We humans do this all the time from the most henious of crimes to aspects of personal pride and judgmentalism or minute methods of behavior that we both despise and espouse.

In the case of the alleged thief, he or she engaged in hypocrisy and self-deception.

Of course, it could have been a childish prank done by some teens or a drunk who knows nothing at all about politics...perhaps there is no difference to them between a real estate sign and an Obama one.

Jonathan Erdman said...

What are you saying? That you (Melody) typically base your voting decision on style over substance? And that this election you are voting on substance?

In this election my position is the opposite: I'm voting pure style over substance. I just want a candidate who looks good on tv. I've caught a lot of flack from my conservative friends for this position, but I've abandon the illusion that a Presidential candidate can posses real substance. They are all Manchurian candidates.

Btw.....why can't you vote for Obama?

Jonathan Erdman said...

Chris....good point about holding opposite beliefs simultaneously. I agree in that I think we all do this. That's one reason why I have suggested that the main purpose of the body of Christ should be based on intimate personal relationships aimed at truth....unfortunately, I've learned that such lofty ideals are a mirage.

Jonathan Erdman said...


To me, McCain's logo is just what you said: military.

It's like he wants us to perceive him as a (competent!) general.

Also, it almost feels "southern" to me. What do you think? Surely all the Texans will love the star!

Melody said...

Jon, I guess normally in politics style isn't something I base my decisions on. I mean, it matters to me a great deal, but I'm not willing to stake my say in what happens to the people across this country (and realistically speaking - people across the world) on it.

It's more every day life. I absolutely judge books by their covers. I buy things based on their packaging and the clever things the copy-writer has to say.

And since a good chunk of my life is spent designing things that’s usually ok - but it's a bit of a wrench to change tactics for this.

It hasn’t mattered for politics in the past because the Kennedies were the last politicians who had style and I wasn’t around for that.

Mostly it’s just jarring for me - Obama has a great campaign and I know it. It’s well put together and people are passionate about it and those things are big for me.

I’d like to like Obama. He talks a good picture.

But when I’ve looked into it he’s just not someone I can support. I don’t agree with him on education. I don’t agree with him on health care or spending or the war. I might agree with him on immigration - but I agree with McCain more.

I want to believe that he really does want democrats and republicans to work together - but he doesn’t have that kind of a track record.

I'm afraid he'll get into office and then continue on with what he's done in the senate - and don't agree with what he's done in the senate.

Granted, I don't agree with everything McCain's done in the senate - but at least I know he's not just putting a pretty face on things, he's never been that way. He can be mean - and that's a concern - but at least I know it up front.

And he has a track record of doing what he thinks is best, not just what works out best for him (which is surely what he's trying to remind us of with his unfortunate logo) - and I feel better than that than an Obama who says one thing to Planned Parenthood and another thing to Relevant Magazine and another thing to crowds at a public address - or who makes promises for things that might be good in the short term (thinking of his fuel solution) but will probably blow up in the country's face given time.

He's really well polished and I like that, but I don't see a good president underneath.

bernard n. shull said...

hi mate, this is the canadin pharmacy you asked me about: the link

Melody said...

Woo, a Canadin pharmacy - how can you resist?

So, Jon, I don't think you've really said why you are voting for Obama...what made you decide to give Obama your support?

I'm sure it's more than just the chance to freak out your neighbors (though that has to be a plus).

Matt said...

Ron Paul!!

chris van allsburg said...

i'm still voting for Ron Paul. I'll just write his name on the ballot.

Melody said...

Chris, why?

hoosier reborn said...

I have an alibi, twas not I who took your sign. Had I taken your sign, then, you see, I would have placed it in my front lawn....which likely is more visible than your front lawn and could have swayed even more voters to cast for Obama-particularly since everyone knows I'm an R. Ahh, you missed that possibility? A theft for the greater good for your own candidate?


Jonathan Erdman said...

Good catch, HR! I did consider the possibility that a Dem stole the sign to advance the cause (or just 'cause he/she liked it)....but I attached a low probability to this scenario!

chris van allsburg said...


I love the man! He's a strict constitutionalist, and I agree w/ so much of what he says on how to make our country better again, like repealing nafta, eliminating the death tax, eliminating government mandated health care, which has produced billion dollar hmo companies and squeezed the middle class (among the many other maladies in this particular crisis).

I'm going to vote for him to make a statement that as an American, I vote for who I think is best, and not for the candidate that is the lesser of two evils, and because I think he/she will most likely beat the other "more evil" candidate, as it were.

Mel, join the Ron Paul revolution!!
he has a great web site with a lot of his papers, proposals, etc.

chris van allsburg said...

dude, whoa...

matt and i both slated a Ron Paul promo at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME????


Melody said...

Mr. Paul did have some appealing things to say, but he's long out of the running.

I have to deal with reality - and the reality is that our president is going to be one of two men.
I have a say in which one that will be, I'm not going to waste it.

Jonathan Erdman said...

I'm voting for Obama because he is the best face on tv. The issues are simply irrelevant.

Melody says I guess normally in politics style isn't something I base my decisions on. I mean, it matters to me a great deal, but I'm not willing to stake my say in what happens to the people across this country (and realistically speaking - people across the world) on it.

Here's what I am wondering, though. In today's world, image really is everything. A leader must lead, and in the 21st century, the only way to lead is through the camera, with sound bites (chomp!!), and on the internet. So, PR and spin is 95% of the job as President. Policy and ideas are secondary, so much so, that they only make up a fraction of what it takes to be a good President.

Ultimately, there is no way we can "know" the real man behind the spin. All we have is the spin. All we have is the images. Was Huckabee a "sincere Christian"? Or did he just play one on tv? Well, the odds are that he's got demons in his closet like the rest of us and that he's made more compromises than anyone else. But we don't want to believe that b/c we all want to believe that "our guy" is the good guy.

Jonathan Erdman said...

Okay....maybe I will vote for Ron Paul...I'm undecided!

Melody said...

I'm voting for Obama because he is the best face on tv.

It's true, McCain could never pull off having his face on a t-shirt. But I gave you a real answer to your question - I kind of expected a real answer to mine.

Policy and ideas are secondary, so much so, that they only make up a fraction of what it takes to be a good President.

Example? I mean, are you saying that Bush could have handled the war any which way and it wouldn't have mattered as long as he'd had better spin?

I mean, some have suggested that it's not poor decision making, but poor explanations for his decisions that has dropped Bush's approval ratings.

But then again, are we evaluating the worth of someone as president based on approval ratings or do we have a different criteria?

Jonathan Erdman said...


It was a serious answer! People don't believe me when I tell them that I am voting for Obama b/c he looks better on tv, but it's true.

Re the Iraq war: yes, spin is everything. I think that if the Iraq people and the rest of the world saw the war in a more positive light, then it would be going a helluva lot better there. But Bush couldn't make the sell. Yet if he had sold it to the Iraq people and/or the rest of the world, then things would look very different.

A leader is able to inspire people to follow him/her. Multimedia is the way that leaders now communicate. I'm voting for the best leader. Hence, I'm voting for the best multimedia candidate.

Jonathan Erdman said...

As a side note....organization is also very very important for an American Prez. You can't do anything w/o having control of your peeps.

On that note, consider this:

All of this intrigue breeds discouragement among even those former McCain associates who do not dispute the notion that voters now might be getting an early glimpse of the messy, unstructured way in which a McCain White House might be managed. They are hard-pressed to explain why Mr. McCain tolerates this — or encourages this — or why he has trouble cutting ties with people who have not served him well over the years.

“I can’t answer the why,” said John Weaver, who was one of Mr. McCain’s closest advisers before being forced out in a shake-up last year. “It is just that way and for his own sake, he needs to finally, firmly decide where he wants to take this campaign.”


Melody said...

People don't believe me when I tell them that I am voting for Obama b/c he looks better on tv

Maybe because it seems more likely that you're doing it just to be contrary?

I think that if the Iraq people and the rest of the world saw the war in a more positive light, then it would be going a helluva lot better there.

How would it have gone better?

Would it be shorter? Would fewer people be dead? Would we be there for different reasons?

I'm not negating the importance of spin - you can see that clearly in the differences between how people felt/feel about WWII and Vietnam.

Then again, there were huge differences in what happened in those wars. How they started, why they were started, how they were handled. No amount of spin can change that.

If our president ruins public education (such as it is) or destroys health care (a very real possibility) or impliments socialism (it could happen) - a pretty face won't fix it.

Emily said...

I have to admit I'm w/ Melody on this.

Jon: A leader is able to inspire people to follow him/her.

Question: Was Hitler a good leader?

Emily said...

This is off topic, but it really bugged me a few months back when it was Barack and Hillary still trying to be the Democratic candidate. News shows included reporters asking people out and about who they preferred. Many clips were shown of African American women who were torn on the decision. A part of them wanted Hillary b/c she's a woman, but a part of them also wanted Barack b/c he's African American.

chris van allsburg said...


you can still join the Ron Paul revolution by getting involved in his new campaign for freedom. The man doesn't quit. He's like Barry Goldwater, who, though he lost, inspired Ronald Reagan, who was a great president (although I think 'trickle down economics' is a farse).

Nevertheless, join the revolution, it doesn't end just b/c someone drops out of the running!

chris van allsburg said...


Obama, does indeed hold the aethetics appeal.

He's better looking, and he's
VERY WELL SPOKEN--which is very nice for a change. !!

ktismatics said...

Brian Moore.

chris van allsburg said...

i think i'm on board with most of what brian moore stands for. but, I'm not ready to jump on the socialist horse yet.

thanks for the link, K.

Jason Hesiak said...

sorry erdmanian...i stole your sign. i liked its style.

ktismatics said...

Despite significant differences on individual versus collective endeavor, the libertarians and the socialists share some common ground. No more military adventurism abroad is maybe the most important one. I would think that eliminating barriers to free movement of workers across national borders would be another. The inheritance tax I could see going either way, since people who inherit vast sums of money get a free ride without having to work for it. Why shouldn't every generation get a fresh start?

One of the Socialist Party USA planks is employee ownership of business. As legislation currently stands, corporate management is obliged to work toward the best interests of investors, rather than of workers or customers or the good of society. This sort of policy in effect requires corporate management to outsource jobs overseas if it reduces costs and increases profits.

Regarding socialized medicine, just mandating that everyone carry health insurance seems mostly like a boondoggle for the health industry, since people would no longer be able to opt out of a wildly expensive proposition with no end to increasing cost spirals. What's needed is for the government to act as negotiators on behalf of ordinary citizens, who don't have enough clout on their own to fight cost escalation by drug companies, doctors, etc.

I have no interest in top-down Soviet-style totalitarian government. I want democracy run on behalf of the people, not in service of big-moneyed special interests.

Jonathan Erdman said...


From my knowledge of history, Hitler was a phenomenal speaker who electrified audiences. He was also politically ambitious and had an unshakable sense of his own authority.

He also had some fortunate circumstances that helped him gain absolute power.

So, yes, Hitler was a good leader. Obviously, as time went by, his agenda became a bit warped.

Melody said...

Yes, Hitler was good at leading - that's not the same as being a leader who is good, which would be more what Emily and I are concerned about.

Jonathan Erdman said...

But that's what I'm saying. Trying to elect a "good" leader seems a bit silly to me. When you talk about Prez candidates, there is no such thing as a "good" person. They are all compromisers and crooks. We will just all fool ourselves between now and November into thinking that our guy is the good guy and the other guy is the bad guy.

If you go into this election wanting to vote for "a good man," then you're just setting yourself up to be a sucker, like everyone else.

The phrase "character counts" is absurd, and only the naive believe that character is relevant in a presidential election. There are no "good guys" at this level of politicking.

Melody said...

They are all compromisers and crooks.

Just like the rest of us.
I'm not expecting to elect Jesus.

I am hoping to elect someone who's idea of a fantastic promise to the unwashed masses isn't something that gives me nightmares.

There are no "good guys" at this level of politicking.

Politicians aren’t more evil than the rest of us - we just count it more because they're in Washington instead of Wal-mart.

Jonathan Erdman said...

No. They are more evil than the rest of us. Most of us are limited in our evilness due to limited access to vice. If you are one of the powerful and have unlimited access to fulfill all of your "carnal" desires, then things change.

hoosier reborn said...

I'm going to agree with Erdman, as a former politician who never quite fit into the mix, I DO believe a practioner of politics IS more evil than the rest of us due to the influence they can exert.

And it doesn't just happen at state or national levels....it is dirty, right here in humble small town Indiana. And in my experience, as a Republican, Republicans are the worse because we believe we're on a holy mandate from God, so nothing we do could be wrong including stilling Erdman's sign.


chris van allsburg said...


i'm in agreement with your thoughts!

Thou almost convinceth me to become a Socialist...

i'm most likely ignorant of Socialism in it's elaborated form and tenets. Nevertheless, as a small govt proponent, the idea still sends a twinge of fear up my spine. I'm open to correction, however.


Jonathan Erdman said...

HR: Republicans are the worse because we believe we're on a holy mandate from God, so nothing we do could be wrong including stilling Erdman's sign.


Melody said...


So the person who stole your sign is more evil than the person who doesn't have the opportunity to steal it, but would have if it weren't already gone?

I'm not convinced that a person is more evil for having the opportunity to be evil and indulging in it, than they would be if they didn't have the opportunity.

The opportunity just shows us who we already were.

Granted some opportunities for evil would never come if we hadn't already done something evil. A man who does not rob banks never has to decide if he is going to kill the witnesses. But there again, the man who simply can't pull the heist off is not somehow more innocent than the man who can.

Jonathan Erdman said...


I question your assumption that there is a "who we really are" prior to actually doing something. Are you saying someone can have the heart of a thief, but never steal anything???? That may be true, but if it is so, does it mean anything? Scripture seems more interested in how our so-called "motivations" manifest themselves in action.

Perhaps one unfortunate result of our post-Freudian world is that we tend to think there is a "who I really am" apart from what we do. For example, athletes will screw up time and time again and say things like, "I made a mistake...but that's not who I am." But I say, "Dude, if you keep getting busted for DUI's, then you're a drunk with bad judgment." I'm not saying that the DUI athlete can't change; I'm just suggesting that we have no basis for thinking so until he actually does change.

I'm not sure I have all the answers here, but I've been questioning the whole split between "what we do" and "who we are" that seems so prevalent in our culture.

Melody said...


No, totally not what I’m saying. We are what we do. It’s no good saying you’re not a fire fighter if you spend all day putting out fires and it’s pointless to say you’re a nice person if your actions are mean.

My point was that holding an office does make you into more of an evil person it only gives you more variety in the kinds of evil things you can do. An evil man working at Wal-mart may steal from the company, cheat on his wife, and manipulate his children. An evil man in Washington has more options, but that doesn’t make him more evil.

You seem to be saying that if we took politicians out of politics and set them up as family men working 8-5 at Dalton that they would be the souls of integrity and honor.

Although it occurs to me, somewhat belatedly, that you might have been saying that only evil men are capable of making it in politics, which is an entirely different conversation.


daniel said...

'In Revelations 13, the nature of the opposition to Christ and His church, and to Christ and His law order, is given to us in greater clarity. A beast rises out of the sea, i.e. out of the unbelieving world, having seven heads and ten horns, whose horns rather than his heads are crowned, and upon whose heads are names of blasphemy. The fact that the horns rather than the heads are crowned signifies that in this world, power is the source of authority and sovereignty, and men give obedience, not to legitimate leadership, but to power as such.

"Might makes right", and might is worshiped and obeyed in its every implication. The names of blasphemy indicate that human governments arrogate to themselves the authority and sovereignty which properly belongs to God. This is true not only of kings and dictators but of democracies also, with their blasphemous doctrine, vox populi, vox Dei, the voice of the people is the voice of God. Majorities are therefore equated with righteousness, and appeal beyond the government and its courts is rendered null and void: "god" has spoken only through his approved voice, the government!'

- R.J. Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come, p. 169-170.

ktismatics said...

In the Institutes, Rushdoony supported the reinstatement of the Mosaic law's penal sanctions. Under such a system, the list of civil crimes which carried a death sentence would include homosexuality, adultery, incest, lying about one's virginity, bestiality, witchcraft, idolatry or apostasy, public blasphemy, false prophesying, kidnapping, rape, and bearing false witness in a capital case... Due to the work's perceived denial of the Holocaust and defense of segregation and slavery, it did not gain an immediate following. In the work, Rushdoony argued against "inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish."

- from the Wikipedia entry

daniel said...

What's wrong with Wikipedia

Thursday, March 20, 2008 by Dave Winer.

First, I point to Wikipedia pages often here on Scripting News and on Twitter. I also find it a useful personal resource. For example, I'm working my way through Battlestar Galactica and I find it helpful to read the summary of each episode after I've watched it. It's great that they have a common format. And they fill in blanks you might not have noticed but don't spoil the plot of upcoming episodes. I've been investing in ETFs lately, and Wikipedia has helped me learn how they work. So I don't question its value. It has value.

Wikipedia is therefore a puzzle to me. Because while it's helpful, it also hurts me, because my biography there is more of a vendetta, by anonymous people, who seem self-centered and immature, but it's impossible to tell what axes they have to grind, because they're largely anonymous.

chris van allsburg said...


Theonomists (Rushdooney, Bahnsen, et al) propose the theonomic state of the world wrought by means of regeneration, not political coercion or victory. In other words, the postmillennial view is that 99% of the world's population will be Christian and will indeed--want--such laws. Many misunderstand the vision of theonomists, believing it is a vision of crusaderdom, but quite the contrary, it sees the theonomic state of the world occuring by means of people's inmost desires because they are already Christian.


chris van allsburg said...

why do peole say, "Revelations," plural? Now they write it too. hmf.

chris van allsburg said...


from an ALLEGEDLY stolen sign to theonomic postmillenialism. sweeeet!

ktismatics said...

Now if you could just lose the "theos" part and the "nomos" part and stick with the postmillenialism, you might get my vote.

ktismatics said...

You're right though Chris -- a curious progression through the thread.

chris van allsburg said...

please ride the chrisvanallsburg fanclub train, cuz I'm postmillennial, but I'm not a theonomist. :)

although, i do support the death penalty for rape, murder, child molestation, and drunken vehicular homicide.

Jonathan Erdman said...

I only support the death penalty in cases of stealing political signs out of yards....in which case, I suggest a slow death that consists, in part, of forced viewings of the 18 hour Anne of Green Gables saga and the George Bush 2000 and 2004 Presidential debaterizing shows.

Jason Hesiak said...

erdmanian what if chris stole your sign because obama molested him as a child?

Jonathan Erdman said...

Well, Jason, the scenario you presented would complicate things. But I think the solution is still fairly obvious:

First, Chris should give me my sign back. Then, according to the law of lex talionis, Chris should get retribution and be given the chance to molest Obama. And third, Chris should be put to death for stealing the sign.

Jason Hesiak said...

not sure that would count as retribution in the eyes of Chris, but ok (guess we'd have to ask him?). as for Chris's death, it presents three problems with your proposal: a) Chris would be dead, thus unable to molest Obama, b) death for a sign might be more like two eyes and a jaw bone for an eye and a tooth, and c) Chris's anger at being molested by Obama would not only NOT be returned to its proper source (that nasty man Obama - he should be castrated!), but be left on your hands in the form of his very own blood!

Jason Hesiak said...

what if Jesus stole your sign as a funny joke, knowing you'll never ever ever ever find it...till you're in heaven (or however that works) and the campagn doesn't matter at all...except for providing you and Jesus with a good mutual giggle?

daniel said...

"Today we see the state destroying the foundations of the state, business destroying the foundations of business, labor destroying the nature and fabric of labor, and farming destroying the very soil that feeds it. In their greed they create conditions destined to bring their own collapse. This leads to the elimination of the very thing they desire, the death of the Babylon they try to create, to the undermining of the tower of Babel they try to build. (Revelation 18:13) And the flush season of the lust of thy life went away from thee; and all the fat things and brilliant things perish from thee, and no longer them shall they find.

"In the face of all this, one clear duty is presented to the saints of God: to rejoice. It must be presented to them, because it will be their temptation to share in the grief of their generation, and to bewail the just recompense of sin. But the plain commandment is (v. 20), "Rejoice over her... for God has avenged you on her."

Rushdooney, Thy Kingdom Come, p. 197