Obama supporters. I have one question

stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2492670
I don't let the whole church thing bother me.
Otherwise, I would classify all watchers, revival attendees, members as
700 club - Pat Robinson -Bigots
Jimmy Swaggart - Supporters and purchasers of prostitution
PTL - Jim and Tammy Fae Baker -Supporters of greed and infidelity
Catholic Church - hiding of child molesters
I certainly don't believe anyone that attended or went to any of those are any of that. As I find it just as insulting to see subtle and vague comparisons to HITLER....
(pat robertson really doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the other folks) If you have a problem with his belief structure then that is fine, but he hardly is a bigot because of it.
WOW, there really isn't much comparison between what Obama's church is teaching and your examples. People aren't perfect, even pastors and preachers, and these people screwed up which is unfortunate, or used religion to manipulate people. But they didn't advocate prostitution from the pulpit, preach on how to swindling gullable morons out of their money, or how to molest an alter boy.
The problem I have is what Obama's pastor is advocating from the pulpit.
As a member of that church you are saying you support and believe the message the pastor is teaching.
That is a big difference from a pastor going and picking up a hooker, or swindling some money, or a church covering up some child molesters.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2492690
(pat robertson really doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the other folks) If you have a problem with his belief structure then that is fine, but he hardly is a bigot because of it.
WOW, there really isn't much comparison between what Obama's church is teaching and your examples. People aren't perfect, even pastors and preachers, and these people screwed up which is unfortunate, or used religion to manipulate people. But they didn't advocate prostitution from the pulpit, preach on how to swindling gullable morons out of their money, or how to molest an alter boy.
The problem I have is what Obama's pastor is advocating from the pulpit.
As a member of that church you are saying you support and believe the message the pastor is teaching.
That is a big difference from a pastor going and picking up a hooker, or swindling some money, or a church covering up some child molesters.
Point made most excellently
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2492685
I just saw and listened to another Obombus commerical:
"We want an end to this war. And we want diplomacy and peace."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds a lot like offering to surrender to me.
Diplomacy and peace; with the monsters that attacked us? Does anyone here want diplomacy with Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.?
Lets not forget Obama promised to get the troops out within a year.
And the next day his staff offered a clarification that it was a goal not a promise. That is a significant difference.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
How about Obamas SIGNED pledge to only use public financing in the general if the Republican agreed too as well. Now Mr Hope they don't see me change says he has to meet with McCain to see if they can hammer out an agreement. McCain has already said he would do it, whats to hammer out? Its going to be interesting to see what kinda Bullbama excuse they will come up with for not using public financing. I heard one Democrat opperative actually say Obama would be crazy to take public financing because he can out raise McCain. At least that person was honest enough to tell it like it is in the minds of the left. Win at all costs, you dont need to be honest or keep your word, just win.
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2492679
Obama's preacher has delivered numerous racially heated sermons. There is a distinct difference. The sins of an individual are bad, but it's a whole different level when it's being preached.
I don't let the whole church thing bother me or more so the Minister. It's not the church leader but the person.. I think Obama said "I reject and renouce" as regards to Farrakhan issue as well...
Since you asked - Sorry, it's mostly Jerry Falwell, but Pat concures on this one. http://youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I&feature=related.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2492709
I don't let the whole church thing bother me or more so the Minister. It's not the church leader but the person.. I think Obama said "I reject and renouce" as regards to Farrakhan issue as well...
Since you asked - Sorry, it's mostly Jerry Falwell, but Pat concures on this one. http://youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I&feature=related.
If you dont let the whole church thing or the minister bother you why do you keep throwing Pat Robertson up? What Robertson (and Falwell) said like it or not is theologically based. I don't recall racism being taught in the bible.
But the fact is I wouldn't belong to a church Falwell or Robertson ran because I don't care for their tactics.
Maybe my ethical standards are just a lot higher than Obama's
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2492681
You're leaving off how many years (or in Obama's case months) each has served on these committees. I'd also like to see how many meetings Obama has missed as a junior Senator.

I take it by the question on experience and wanting to know years- You must find Obama's memberships to be much more impressive than the other two.
Otherwise, I would hear how insignificant they are, correct? Ambition and wanting to be a part of
Senate Foreign Relations
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security
State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration (Ad Hoc)
Senate Veterans' Affairs
This is some how insignificant when you have years of experience to protect the nation in all aspects with things like:
Senate Armed Services
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Consumer Affairs, Insurance, and Automotive Safety
Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security
Senate Indian Affairs
Actually I like McCain and Obama - It's the extreme right and tactics that are starting to turn me away from McCain.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Ambition without experience doesn't mean a thing. We know Obama has ambition, he's been running for president since his first year in the Senate.
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2492724
Ambition without experience doesn't mean a thing.
If it were experience based by your and other's remarks... Then Ron Paul would be the Republican nominee over McCain. Based on start year in politics though there were a break or two in years served US publicaly and private sector....
Rep. Ronald Paul -will be 20 for 08
2007 2008 Representative TX Republican
2005 2006 Representative TX Republican
2003 2004 Representative TX Republican
2001 2002 Representative TX Republican
1999 2000 Representative TX Republican
1997 1998 Representative TX Republican
1983 1984 Representative TX Republican
1981 1982 Representative TX Republican
1979 1980 Representative TX Republican
1975 1976 Representative TX Republican
Sen. John McCain - will be 26 - for 08
2005 2010 Senator AZ Republican
1999 2004 Senator AZ Republican
1993 1998 Senator AZ
1987 1992 Senator AZ
1985 1986 Representative AZ Republican
1983 1984 Representative AZ Republican
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2492720
Actually I like McCain and Obama - It's the extreme right and tactics that are starting to turn me away from McCain.
I'm not sure what "extreem right and what tactics" you are talking about.
But if you want to talk tactics, this is a perfect example. No where in this thread that I've read has anyone suggested a voting for someone ENTIRELY based on "experience." Yet you take the very valid argument of experience (something that both obama and hillary lack) and attempt to discredit it, by finding an absurd example and changing the experience argument to fit your example.
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2492729
If it were experience based by your and other's remarks... Then Ron Paul would be the Republican nominee over McCain. Based on start year in politics though there were a break or two in years served US publicaly and private sector....
Rep. Ronald Paul -will be 20 for 08
2007 2008 Representative TX Republican
2005 2006 Representative TX Republican
2003 2004 Representative TX Republican
2001 2002 Representative TX Republican
1999 2000 Representative TX Republican
1997 1998 Representative TX Republican
1983 1984 Representative TX Republican
1981 1982 Representative TX Republican
1979 1980 Representative TX Republican
1975 1976 Representative TX Republican
Sen. John McCain - will be 26 - for 08
2005 2010 Senator AZ Republican
1999 2004 Senator AZ Republican
1993 1998 Senator AZ
1987 1992 Senator AZ
1985 1986 Representative AZ Republican
1983 1984 Representative AZ Republican
 
perfectdark

perfectdark

Active Member
Im not really poilitically savy, I dont keep up with politics as much as I should. I do know I like McCain more than Clinton or Bomba, for reasons possibly less important to others than to me. However I still cannot get passed the fact that we as a country maybe electing a president that wont pledge allegence to our flag...Based on that alone I find his candidacy sicking. jmo.
 
ozmar

ozmar

Member
Just a note: this item from the Corner should prove interesting for anyone who is concerned about Obama's candidacy for president.
I'll reprint it here, to save you the trouble of following the link.
Originally Posted by Mark Steyn
Jonah writes today about some of Senator Obama's livelier chums:
'Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon."
This excerpt from William Ayers' memoir appeared in the New York Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 — a few hours before Al Qaeda terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Ayers, once a leader in the Weather Underground — the group that declared "war" on the U.S. government in 1970 — told the Times, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough."
Ayers recently reappeared in the news because Politico.com reported Friday that Barack Obama has loose ties to him.
Click to expand...
Jonah wants to know how such people can be regarded as, in Cass Sunstein's words, as "legitimate members of the community." Well, the left is deeply invested in counter-tribalism, as John O'Sullivan calls it. Hence, Michelle Obama's statement that her husband's campaign is the first thing in her four decades plus on this earth that's made her "proud" of America. She has been blessed to live a life that almost anyone else on the planet would envy and she could only have lived it in the United States. But so what? If you accept this counter-tribalism, as the left does, as a kind of harmless alternative lifestyle, it's not that big a leap to indulge violent (if largely ineffective) sedition. In a sense, someone like William Ayers, who acted on his convictions, validates the far larger number of campus radicals who simply leveraged them into cosy lifelong sinecures.
Takeaways: Unrepentant members of the radical Weather Underground are not legitimate members of our community. They are open enemies of America. Michelle Obama, Barack's wife, apparently has internalized the leftist ideology which finds itself ashamed to be a part of our great civilization. Barack hangs with some unsavory people. Is this someone that we want leading our country?
-Ozmar the Sharing
 
ozmar

ozmar

Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2491913
actually that is ironic. Think about it. The last time a politician was able to muster this much support so fast without out background to go off of was in the 1930's with Hitler.
Ironically Farracan(sp?) (a known racist) has now given his endorsement of Obama as well....
Keep your guns handy!
Hitler was able to seize power in part because Germany at the time was an unarmed populace.
An armed citizenry is a free citizenry.
-Ozmar the Freedom-lovin' Gun Nut
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2492706
How about Obamas SIGNED pledge to only use public financing in the general if the Republican agreed too as well. Now Mr Hope they don't see me change says he has to meet with McCain to see if they can hammer out an agreement. McCain has already said he would do it, whats to hammer out? Its going to be interesting to see what kinda Bullbama excuse they will come up with for not using public financing. I heard one Democrat opperative actually say Obama would be crazy to take public financing because he can out raise McCain. At least that person was honest enough to tell it like it is in the minds of the left. Win at all costs, you dont need to be honest or keep your word, just win.
This is true.. he would destroy McCain.... however, Obama fund raising has been a difference from the past...essentially he is running a public funded campaign because he is not taking donations from lobbiest or PAC's... 90% of his donations are from donors contributing $20, $50, $100... His average is $109 per donation. I just believe you see an opportunity here because you know this is a clear disadvantage for your party.... Its not win at all costs... because he has already held himself to a higher standard than other candidates. Now if they can iron out a deal than fine, but as he stated in the debate last night... there are many loopholes that have to be addressed.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
So now you all are equating Obama with Hitler...
... now he is a racist...

keep it up

What I've come to realize is that all l of you who are slandering Obama believe that this is the only way McCain has a chance at winning...In the debate lastnight he answered all your criticisms about alleged connection with Farrakahn, substance, and so on. He showed his intelligence and he was strong on his positions on Iraq and Foreign Policy.
I'm looking forward to him putting on a butt whipin on McCain in their debates to come.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
We equated his speeches to Hitler and the ability to whip a crowd into a frenzy...that is all. In a sense it is a compliment...Obama can speak, I will give him that...
But his dirty laundry is starting to come out...don't think it will be the cake walk you believe it to be. The dems would have been better off with Hilary to be honest.
 
ozmar

ozmar

Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2492942
So now you all are equating Obama with Hitler...
... now he is a racist...

keep it up

What I've come to realize is that all l of you who are slandering Obama believe that this is the only way McCain has a chance at winning...In the debate lastnight he answered all your criticisms about alleged connection with Farrakahn, substance, and so on. He showed his intelligence and he was strong on his positions on Iraq and Foreign Policy.
I'm looking forward to him putting on a butt whipin on McCain in their debates to come.

See? I told ya! Godwin's Law!

Anyway, I just want to make it clear that I disagree with Obama fundamentally on all of his policy proscriptions. If you want to talk policies, then I'm your man. His ideas are bad for America. Ergo, he should not be our president.
-Ozmar the Ideological
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top