NOTE: ScrappleFace editor Scott Ott writes columns at Townhall.com. Here’s a glimpse of his latest, and a link to read more…
- - - - - - - -
by Scott Ott at ScottOtt.Townhall.com
As Hillary Clinton slunk out of South Carolina last night, under
cover of darkness, having parlayed the world’s greatest political
brand name into a 2-to-1 primary pounding by a relative neophyte,
the exit polling reveals a possible way forward for the former
First Lady.
Sen. Barack Obama defeated Sen. Clinton in every age group and
every income cohort, among college grads and non-college grads,
among males and females, self-identified liberals and
conservatives, those who focus on issues and those for whom
personality is paramount, the Iraq cut-and-runners and they who
wish we would stay indefinitely.
Sen. Clinton can claim only one clear victory niche. Among those
who think the country is “not ready” for a black president, she won
handily (48-23).
READ THE REST AT ScottOtt.Townhall.com
15 responses so far ↓
1 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 27, 2008 at 10:01 am
God Bless America
2 conserve-a-tips // Jan 27, 2008 at 11:15 am
Excellent, excellent piece, Scott. You are a genius man! “It’s sad to see the party of equality and Civil Rights unable to get ebony and ivory to live together in perfect harmony.” Brilliant!!
Melodiya Fund: Money doesn’t just talk, it sings like a bird!
3 DrivebyMeteor // Jan 27, 2008 at 11:18 am
Wonder how “those who think the country is ‘not ready’ for a black president” feel about the latest version (Bill 3.0) of our first black president?
4 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 27, 2008 at 11:38 am
I consider it demeaning to both/all races to refer to Bill as “black” .
5 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jan 27, 2008 at 11:58 am
I hear Bill Clinton, the hopeful-future First Dude has signed up at The Al Jolson Black Face School of Tap Dancing. He is off to a good tappity-tap start but the problem he is having is keeping up with the music, since his hearing aids have muffled the sound.
Truth is, and don’t we all love the truth, he keeps the volume turned down so when the future, hopeful President starts yelling, no make that screaming, he will not hear the pant-suited-she devil.
So does Hillary see herself as the first black woman with bleached hair and fair complexion, once raised in a Republican household but educated in a all woman liberal college president.
be kosher: eat Hunts ketchup and Morton Salt on your Hebrew National Dinner Franks
6 conserve-a-tips // Jan 27, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Ms RightWing, Ink: No, make that screeching!
akin surrounds: My daily knee ordeal
7 everthink // Jan 27, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Acts 4:32
Among all those who had embraced the faith there was but one heart and soul, so that none of them claimed any of his possessions as his own, but everything they had was common property; while the Apostles with great force of conviction delivered their testimony as to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; and great grace was upon them all.
34
And, in fact, there was not a needy man among them, for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the money which they realised,
35
and gave it to the Apostles, and distribution was made to every one according to his wants.
Weymouth (NT)
WHERE THESE COMMUNISTS?
ET
8 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 27, 2008 at 1:17 pm
No.
9 Beerme // Jan 27, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I blame Clinton’s Vast White Wing Conspiracy!
10 conserve-a-tips // Jan 27, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Oh, Beerme - that was great!! Gold star, man.
buy suddenly: according to the gumment, what you are to do with your little rebate.
11 gafisher // Jan 27, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I’m gonna hate myself in the morning but …
et Re#7: “… and distribution was made to every one according to his wants.”
These were not Communists taking from one to give to another, but Christians sharing what they owned, socialists of a sort but voluntarily so. They were not commanded to sell “lands or houses,” but their enthusiasm is heartwarming and their example has been followed to a lesser or greater extent by Christians ever since.
Unfortunately, as has generally been the case with such experiments, in the long-term socialism failed and the rest of the New Testament follows Paul and others gathering offerings to support the bankrupted Church in Jerusalem. Paul later confirms that this was not to be considered a general economic principle when he wrote to the Christians at Thesselonica “For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” In the same letter he goes on to say “Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.” [1 Thess. 3:10,12 NKJV] Capitalism tempered by compassion is clearly the Biblical model.
Because the believers involved at the time of Acts 4 were overwhelmingly or exclusively Jewish, Mosaic Law mandated that the house or land which had been sold would revert back to the seller or his heirs at the next Jubilee Year. Scholars have suggested that the verses you quoted describe events which occurred during a Jubilee Year, and if so the sellers forfeited their property for the rest of their own lives, but their children or grandchildren would have gotten it back in 50 years or less. What Marx or Mao or modern liberals take is gone forever.
12 camojack // Jan 27, 2008 at 3:47 pm
→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→
Even considering the “Hussein” in Obama’s name, if I had to choose between him and Hillary, I’d pick him every time.
Fortunately, I don’t have to choose between them…
13 onlineanalyst // Jan 27, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Beerme: #9 was worth the price of admission to Scrappleface today. Funny. (See, we all get better with age. I hope that you celebrated in a big way on Friday.)
14 everthink // Jan 27, 2008 at 10:46 pm
gafisher,
You say: “socialists of a sort but voluntarily so.”
What then of Ananias and his wife Sapphira described in chapter 5?
ET
15 gafisher // Jan 28, 2008 at 6:18 am
et Re#14: “What then of Ananias and his wife …?”
That episode proves the point, et. Peter says of their property (verse 4) “While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?” That’s clearly Capitalism — there is not so much as a hint they, or by implication anyone, acted under any external compulsion either to sell their property or to donate the proceeds — it was purely voluntary. The problem here was that they implied they had given everything (verse 9), as some apparently had actually done, when in fact they “kept back part of the proceeds.”
It was not that they did or didn’t sell the property or donate the proceeds, but that they “agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord” by lying about it. In effect, they were welfare cheats.
You must log in to post a comment.