Obama supporters. I have one question
- Thread starter darthtang aw
- Start date
stdreb27
Active 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.
It isn't slander if it is true. And you have yet to refute much of the serious problems with Obama.
The harrykong and obama's sidestepping is ok I guess. Not something you can continue really harping on. And doesn't weight much into my decision not to vote for obama.
I think you have misunderstood alot of what we are saying. Obama stands for alot, my contension is that he is running on nothing.
the problem is what he does stand for.
You have yet to address how more government control will this time be more benificial to our economy.
You have yet to make a case how Obama economic policies will work, when these same control concepts lead to 20% inflation, double digit unemployment, during the 70's and 80's.
You have yet to adress how raising taxes on corporations will not translate to higher prices for the "middle class" and lower wages. (long term)
You have yet to address how controlling CEO's pay will help the average tax payer.
These are serious policy issues.
http:///forum/post/2492942
So now you all are equating Obama with Hitler...
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.
It isn't slander if it is true. And you have yet to refute much of the serious problems with Obama.
The harrykong and obama's sidestepping is ok I guess. Not something you can continue really harping on. And doesn't weight much into my decision not to vote for obama.
I think you have misunderstood alot of what we are saying. Obama stands for alot, my contension is that he is running on nothing.
the problem is what he does stand for.
You have yet to address how more government control will this time be more benificial to our economy.
You have yet to make a case how Obama economic policies will work, when these same control concepts lead to 20% inflation, double digit unemployment, during the 70's and 80's.
You have yet to adress how raising taxes on corporations will not translate to higher prices for the "middle class" and lower wages. (long term)
You have yet to address how controlling CEO's pay will help the average tax payer.
These are serious policy issues.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2493103
Once Obama's record becomes better known it will bring out people from the right in droves. Obama has gotten a free pass up till now in the press, it's starting to end.
Let me put it this way, I am not even a "Right Winger" in fact if you dig around you will find a post I made here a few months ago saying if it came down to Rudy and Obama I would vote for the Unity 08 candidate because I didn't THINK there would be much difference between the two. Once I started looking I found 3 immediate deal breakers for me.
1 Obama has in writing supported an all out hand gun ban and banning all semi automatic riffles.
2 Obama voted against a bill making it a crime for a non parent or guardian to take a minor child across state lines to avoid parental notification laws concering underage abortions.
3 Obama favors giving drivers licenses to people in the country illegally
Any one of the three is a deal breaker for me. Just for the record, I am NOT pro-life, I am not against reasonable laws regarding gun ownership and while I think the policy needs some tweaking I am not against allowing "law abiding" Illegal alliens to gain legal status in this country.
McCain aint my guy. I wasn't excited about any of the Republican choices this year. However I will be giving him the maximum contribution which isn't exactly an easy check for me to write. I know several others who feel the same way.
Money wont be an issue and turn out shouldn't be either. McCain is going to get some of those independent Obama votes. If he runs a good campaign he's going to get a whole lot of them.
I think they both will get independent votes.
1. He has backed off his gun stance, he realizes this is something that won't change and that legal gun users have the right to have them.. I understand his initial view and agree with it in theory... most gun violence.. accident or criminal are done by handguns... and not weapons a hunter would typically use. He has said he will uphold your 2nd Amend rights
2. So if a sister, a brother, a uncle, grandparent...best friend.. etc took this person across statelines who was 16 ... it would be a crime? I would like to know more specific info on the bill... instead of the vague summary of it.
3. Illegal immigration is a difficult issue.. I think by alllowing them to drive gets them in the system.. I think his view is a humanitarian view... I'm trying to remember his exact words on the issue... I'd have to look them up. One thing I'll point out is look at what McCain's proposal was... he wanted to grant ammnesty w/o securing the borders.He's backed off because it would be political suicide.
http:///forum/post/2493103
Once Obama's record becomes better known it will bring out people from the right in droves. Obama has gotten a free pass up till now in the press, it's starting to end.
Let me put it this way, I am not even a "Right Winger" in fact if you dig around you will find a post I made here a few months ago saying if it came down to Rudy and Obama I would vote for the Unity 08 candidate because I didn't THINK there would be much difference between the two. Once I started looking I found 3 immediate deal breakers for me.
1 Obama has in writing supported an all out hand gun ban and banning all semi automatic riffles.
2 Obama voted against a bill making it a crime for a non parent or guardian to take a minor child across state lines to avoid parental notification laws concering underage abortions.
3 Obama favors giving drivers licenses to people in the country illegally
Any one of the three is a deal breaker for me. Just for the record, I am NOT pro-life, I am not against reasonable laws regarding gun ownership and while I think the policy needs some tweaking I am not against allowing "law abiding" Illegal alliens to gain legal status in this country.
McCain aint my guy. I wasn't excited about any of the Republican choices this year. However I will be giving him the maximum contribution which isn't exactly an easy check for me to write. I know several others who feel the same way.
Money wont be an issue and turn out shouldn't be either. McCain is going to get some of those independent Obama votes. If he runs a good campaign he's going to get a whole lot of them.
I think they both will get independent votes.
1. He has backed off his gun stance, he realizes this is something that won't change and that legal gun users have the right to have them.. I understand his initial view and agree with it in theory... most gun violence.. accident or criminal are done by handguns... and not weapons a hunter would typically use. He has said he will uphold your 2nd Amend rights
2. So if a sister, a brother, a uncle, grandparent...best friend.. etc took this person across statelines who was 16 ... it would be a crime? I would like to know more specific info on the bill... instead of the vague summary of it.
3. Illegal immigration is a difficult issue.. I think by alllowing them to drive gets them in the system.. I think his view is a humanitarian view... I'm trying to remember his exact words on the issue... I'd have to look them up. One thing I'll point out is look at what McCain's proposal was... he wanted to grant ammnesty w/o securing the borders.He's backed off because it would be political suicide.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2493176
It isn't slander if it is true. And you have yet to refute much of the serious problems with Obama.
The harrykong and obama's sidestepping is ok I guess. Not something you can continue really harping on. And doesn't weight much into my decision not to vote for obama.
I think you have misunderstood alot of what we are saying. Obama stands for alot, my contension is that he is running on nothing.
the problem is what he does stand for.
You have yet to address how more government control will this time be more benificial to our economy.
You have yet to make a case how Obama economic policies will work, when these same control concepts lead to 20% inflation, double digit unemployment, during the 70's and 80's.
You have yet to adress how raising taxes on corporations will not translate to higher prices for the "middle class" and lower wages. (long term)
You have yet to address how controlling CEO's pay will help the average tax payer.
These are serious policy issues.
Well if you want to debate the policies than lets compare them... what I'm sick of is the slanderous personal attacks. .
1st issue.. he said he will discontinue corporate tax breaks for companies who take jobs overseas.. and give tax breaks to those that invest in America.
http:///forum/post/2493176
It isn't slander if it is true. And you have yet to refute much of the serious problems with Obama.
The harrykong and obama's sidestepping is ok I guess. Not something you can continue really harping on. And doesn't weight much into my decision not to vote for obama.
I think you have misunderstood alot of what we are saying. Obama stands for alot, my contension is that he is running on nothing.
the problem is what he does stand for.
You have yet to address how more government control will this time be more benificial to our economy.
You have yet to make a case how Obama economic policies will work, when these same control concepts lead to 20% inflation, double digit unemployment, during the 70's and 80's.
You have yet to adress how raising taxes on corporations will not translate to higher prices for the "middle class" and lower wages. (long term)
You have yet to address how controlling CEO's pay will help the average tax payer.
These are serious policy issues.
Well if you want to debate the policies than lets compare them... what I'm sick of is the slanderous personal attacks. .
1st issue.. he said he will discontinue corporate tax breaks for companies who take jobs overseas.. and give tax breaks to those that invest in America.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2493263
Well if you want to debate the policies than lets compare them... what I'm sick of is the slanderous personal attacks. .
1st issue.. he said he will discontinue corporate tax breaks for companies who take jobs overseas.. and give tax breaks to those that invest in America.
1st issue how about you answer academically the problem issues issues I've already proposed...
But address the economic and foreign policy positions. Also what needs to be addressed is why his plans with work even through history has proven liberal, keynesian policies as failures.
http:///forum/post/2493263
Well if you want to debate the policies than lets compare them... what I'm sick of is the slanderous personal attacks. .
1st issue.. he said he will discontinue corporate tax breaks for companies who take jobs overseas.. and give tax breaks to those that invest in America.
1st issue how about you answer academically the problem issues issues I've already proposed...
- Wage and Price controls
- Church preaches United States of White America (this is not a personal attack, if racism is on the table, then this church affiliation is on the table)
Government Mandated Healthcare plan
Not an emissary of change.
You have said he is willing to be a democratic team player. His foundational platform contains all the same items that have been in the democratic agenda in recent history.
1. Abortion
2. Expansion of entitlement programs
3. Redistribution of wealth.
4. Raising taxes
5. Iraq position
What is different than what has been preached by the left for recent history?
But address the economic and foreign policy positions. Also what needs to be addressed is why his plans with work even through history has proven liberal, keynesian policies as failures.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2492991
I'd be more interested in comparing the two presumptive nominees than going back and forth with the silly chatter that so many others have posted. I was just looking on McCain's site, and it did lack substance on many issues..
Yet you didn't list a single issue. Just made a great speech.
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2493047
Lets look at McCain vs Obama
$42 million receipts w/ $2.9 million on hand
$103 million w/ $18.6 on hand.
Once Hillary is out... his contributions will increase
Currently the republicans have more money by far than the democrats waiting for the presidential nominees. See what you fail to realize is many republicans contribute to the party...where McCain's finances will greatly increase for the main election because we donate there. Not on a "might be" candidate.
http:///forum/post/2492991
I'd be more interested in comparing the two presumptive nominees than going back and forth with the silly chatter that so many others have posted. I was just looking on McCain's site, and it did lack substance on many issues..
Yet you didn't list a single issue. Just made a great speech.
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2493047
Lets look at McCain vs Obama
$42 million receipts w/ $2.9 million on hand
$103 million w/ $18.6 on hand.
Once Hillary is out... his contributions will increase
Currently the republicans have more money by far than the democrats waiting for the presidential nominees. See what you fail to realize is many republicans contribute to the party...where McCain's finances will greatly increase for the main election because we donate there. Not on a "might be" candidate.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2493303
Yet you didn't list a single issue. Just made a great speech.
Currently the republicans have more money by far than the democrats waiting for the presidential nominees. See what you fail to realize is many republicans contribute to the party...where McCain's finances will greatly increase for the main election because we donate there. Not on a "might be" candidate.
Its not the fact that Repulicans don't contribute... but that Obama is getting historical support from many more supporters. I guarantee that Obama will have more dollars and more contributors than McCain if they go forward with current setup.
http:///forum/post/2493303
Yet you didn't list a single issue. Just made a great speech.
Currently the republicans have more money by far than the democrats waiting for the presidential nominees. See what you fail to realize is many republicans contribute to the party...where McCain's finances will greatly increase for the main election because we donate there. Not on a "might be" candidate.
Its not the fact that Repulicans don't contribute... but that Obama is getting historical support from many more supporters. I guarantee that Obama will have more dollars and more contributors than McCain if they go forward with current setup.
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2493098
So do you want to go as far as saying Democrats are Nazi's too?
Do you even know what "Nazi" means?
It means National Socialist, or did your school forget to teach you that?
The current Democrat party is Socialist. They are beholden to the L wing/moveon/Soros money. So, yes, in that way they are similar to the Nazi party.They are for huge government, huge taxes and class warfare. Obama and Clinton read from the Marx playbook. Social strife and inequality, class envy and warfare ( through taxation and mandated government wealth redistribution). Katrina is the fault of liberals, replacing the individual with the government, and the sense of entitlement, not liberty and independance. Liberals have fractured the family, feminized the male role, or removed it completely, and excommunicated the Church. What we have left are a bunch of wandering souls without anyone to look to but the government.
Today, JFK, with his strong stance on Cuba and tax cuts would not fit into the Dem party. I'd compare JFK and McCain, not JFK and Obama.
You still dodge the question, are Clinton/ Obama socialists in your mind?
Can socialism be Constitutional, and in line with what the founding fathers wanted? Where in the Constitution is the large federal government we have today?
One day my dad sat me down, and taught me the facts of life.
1. Life is not fair
2. Never lie
3. There are 3 answers to give, and only 3 answers: "Yes, Sir. ", "No, Sir.", and "No excuse, sir."
I've done well, basing my life on those 3 things, I'll teach my children the same, and I will teach them the government CANNOT induce fairness in a free society.
Socialism/ Communism tries to induce fairness, that's like trying to stop entropy. Is it fair I'm not able to play baseball like A-rod, and make 1/4 of a billion dollars? Should the government take his money and distribute it to us? No!
I pray to God, we do not become a socialist state, and we are well on the road.
http:///forum/post/2493098
So do you want to go as far as saying Democrats are Nazi's too?
Do you even know what "Nazi" means?
It means National Socialist, or did your school forget to teach you that?
The current Democrat party is Socialist. They are beholden to the L wing/moveon/Soros money. So, yes, in that way they are similar to the Nazi party.They are for huge government, huge taxes and class warfare. Obama and Clinton read from the Marx playbook. Social strife and inequality, class envy and warfare ( through taxation and mandated government wealth redistribution). Katrina is the fault of liberals, replacing the individual with the government, and the sense of entitlement, not liberty and independance. Liberals have fractured the family, feminized the male role, or removed it completely, and excommunicated the Church. What we have left are a bunch of wandering souls without anyone to look to but the government.
Today, JFK, with his strong stance on Cuba and tax cuts would not fit into the Dem party. I'd compare JFK and McCain, not JFK and Obama.
You still dodge the question, are Clinton/ Obama socialists in your mind?
Can socialism be Constitutional, and in line with what the founding fathers wanted? Where in the Constitution is the large federal government we have today?
One day my dad sat me down, and taught me the facts of life.
1. Life is not fair
2. Never lie
3. There are 3 answers to give, and only 3 answers: "Yes, Sir. ", "No, Sir.", and "No excuse, sir."
I've done well, basing my life on those 3 things, I'll teach my children the same, and I will teach them the government CANNOT induce fairness in a free society.
Socialism/ Communism tries to induce fairness, that's like trying to stop entropy. Is it fair I'm not able to play baseball like A-rod, and make 1/4 of a billion dollars? Should the government take his money and distribute it to us? No!
I pray to God, we do not become a socialist state, and we are well on the road.
ozmar
Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1 http:///forum/post/2492991
I'd be more interested in comparing the two presumptive nominees than going back and forth with the silly chatter that so many others have posted. I was just looking on McCain's site, and it did lack substance on many issues..
Oh, and after your initial comment... you were the 1st one to mention Hitler... so you loose... Goodwin's Law
No I wasn't. That was 1journeyman, in this post:
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/t/306986/obama-supporters-i-have-one-question/400#post_2491807
And I called him on it in this one:
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/t/306986/obama-supporters-i-have-one-question/440#post_2492910
Then you complained about it in this post:
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/t/306986/obama-supporters-i-have-one-question/440#post_2492942
After which I quoted you as an example of what I was talking about when I told 1journeyman that referencing Hitler was a bad idea:
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/t/306986/obama-supporters-i-have-one-question/440#post_2492942
(That is to say that your post is an excellent example of the type of reaction one can expect when they bring Hitler into a debate. Dismissive refusal to engage on the issues.)
If you can't get your facts straight on the little things like this, how do you expect anyone to trust you on important matters?
-Ozmar the Fact Checker
P.S. We can start talking issues any time you like. Obama wants to socialize our health care system. BIG mistake! McCain says he'll never retreat in the face of Islamic Radicalism, and I believe him. Any other issues you want to discuss?
I'd be more interested in comparing the two presumptive nominees than going back and forth with the silly chatter that so many others have posted. I was just looking on McCain's site, and it did lack substance on many issues..
Oh, and after your initial comment... you were the 1st one to mention Hitler... so you loose... Goodwin's Law
No I wasn't. That was 1journeyman, in this post:
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/t/306986/obama-supporters-i-have-one-question/400#post_2491807
And I called him on it in this one:
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/t/306986/obama-supporters-i-have-one-question/440#post_2492910
Then you complained about it in this post:
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/t/306986/obama-supporters-i-have-one-question/440#post_2492942
After which I quoted you as an example of what I was talking about when I told 1journeyman that referencing Hitler was a bad idea:
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/t/306986/obama-supporters-i-have-one-question/440#post_2492942
(That is to say that your post is an excellent example of the type of reaction one can expect when they bring Hitler into a debate. Dismissive refusal to engage on the issues.)
If you can't get your facts straight on the little things like this, how do you expect anyone to trust you on important matters?
-Ozmar the Fact Checker
P.S. We can start talking issues any time you like. Obama wants to socialize our health care system. BIG mistake! McCain says he'll never retreat in the face of Islamic Radicalism, and I believe him. Any other issues you want to discuss?
ozmar
Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2493080
A Black Value system is not racist... Its holding your group or congregation to be accountable for things or attitudes in the black community. Its about uplifting your community...Nothing in it is racist.
I'm sure the KKK feel the same way: nothing "racist" about a White Value system, upholding the community for White Values and uplifting the purity of the White Community.
It always amazes me that such blatant racialism expressed in these terms is seen for what it is if the word is "white", but doesn't cause people to bat an eye when the word is "black".
Sorry, people are people, no matter what their skin color, and that means we need to hold everyone to the same standards. If its wrong for a white guy to promote white unity, then its wrong for a black guy to promote black unity.
That's the ideal of a color-blind society that MLK Jr. fought for. I'm with MLK Jr. It used to be white racists that caused most of the social divisions, but today, most of the division comes from the rhetoric black (and white) liberal racists.
We need a president to unite us, not divide us!
-Ozmar the Unifier
http:///forum/post/2493080
A Black Value system is not racist... Its holding your group or congregation to be accountable for things or attitudes in the black community. Its about uplifting your community...Nothing in it is racist.
I'm sure the KKK feel the same way: nothing "racist" about a White Value system, upholding the community for White Values and uplifting the purity of the White Community.
It always amazes me that such blatant racialism expressed in these terms is seen for what it is if the word is "white", but doesn't cause people to bat an eye when the word is "black".
Sorry, people are people, no matter what their skin color, and that means we need to hold everyone to the same standards. If its wrong for a white guy to promote white unity, then its wrong for a black guy to promote black unity.
That's the ideal of a color-blind society that MLK Jr. fought for. I'm with MLK Jr. It used to be white racists that caused most of the social divisions, but today, most of the division comes from the rhetoric black (and white) liberal racists.
We need a president to unite us, not divide us!
-Ozmar the Unifier
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2493269
1st issue how about you answer academically the problem issues issues I've already proposed...
But address the economic and foreign policy positions. Also what needs to be addressed is why his plans with work even through history has proven liberal, keynesian policies as failures.
http:///forum/post/2493269
1st issue how about you answer academically the problem issues issues I've already proposed...
- Wage and Price controls
- Church preaches United States of White America (this is not a personal attack, if racism is on the table, then this church affiliation is on the table)
Government Mandated Healthcare plan
Not an emissary of change.
You have said he is willing to be a democratic team player. His foundational platform contains all the same items that have been in the democratic agenda in recent history.
1. Abortion
2. Expansion of entitlement programs
3. Redistribution of wealth.
4. Raising taxes
5. Iraq position
What is different than what has been preached by the left for recent history?
But address the economic and foreign policy positions. Also what needs to be addressed is why his plans with work even through history has proven liberal, keynesian policies as failures.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2492942
So now you all are equating Obama with Hitler...
... now he is a racist...
Wow, who did that? Tell me a post number or quote it...
http:///forum/post/2492942
So now you all are equating Obama with Hitler...
Wow, who did that? Tell me a post number or quote it...
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Ozmar
http:///forum/post/2493426
I'm sure the KKK feel the same way: nothing "racist" about a White Value system, upholding the community for White Values and uplifting the purity of the White Community.
It always amazes me that such blatant racialism expressed in these terms is seen for what it is if the word is "white", but doesn't cause people to bat an eye when the word is "black".
Sorry, people are people, no matter what their skin color, and that means we need to hold everyone to the same standards. If its wrong for a white guy to promote white unity, then its wrong for a black guy to promote black unity.
That's the ideal of a color-blind society that MLK Jr. fought for. I'm with MLK Jr. It used to be white racists that caused most of the social divisions, but today, most of the division comes from the rhetoric black (and white) liberal racists.
We need a president to unite us, not divide us!
-Ozmar the Unifier
Previously he stated that we just didn't understand Black people when we made this arugment.
http:///forum/post/2493426
I'm sure the KKK feel the same way: nothing "racist" about a White Value system, upholding the community for White Values and uplifting the purity of the White Community.
It always amazes me that such blatant racialism expressed in these terms is seen for what it is if the word is "white", but doesn't cause people to bat an eye when the word is "black".
Sorry, people are people, no matter what their skin color, and that means we need to hold everyone to the same standards. If its wrong for a white guy to promote white unity, then its wrong for a black guy to promote black unity.
That's the ideal of a color-blind society that MLK Jr. fought for. I'm with MLK Jr. It used to be white racists that caused most of the social divisions, but today, most of the division comes from the rhetoric black (and white) liberal racists.
We need a president to unite us, not divide us!
-Ozmar the Unifier
Previously he stated that we just didn't understand Black people when we made this arugment.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2492991
I'd be more interested in comparing the two presumptive nominees than going back and forth with the silly chatter that so many others have posted. ...
Rylan, what do you define as "silly chatter"? (I suspect "silly chatter" is anytime any one of us posts facts that completely repudiates one of your baseless statements.)
http:///forum/post/2492991
I'd be more interested in comparing the two presumptive nominees than going back and forth with the silly chatter that so many others have posted. ...
Rylan, what do you define as "silly chatter"? (I suspect "silly chatter" is anytime any one of us posts facts that completely repudiates one of your baseless statements.)
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2493080
. A Black Value system is not racist...... .
We can argue as to whether or not it is racist, but we cannot argue over whether or not it is Christian.
Sorry, Rylan, the New Testament makes very clear what a Christian is to use as his/her value system. It has nothing to do with race. In fact, just the opposite. The Great Commission, clearly states to go to all of the nations.
Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations..."
Mark 13:10 "And the gospel must first be preached to all nations..."
Luke 24:47 "..and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations..."
Acts 1:8 "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
Furthermore, when the Apostles began to show favoritism to race the Apostle Paul dealt with it : Galatians 2:11 " When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong..."
Obombus makes a big deal about being Christian and not Muslim, yet he belongs to a church, lead by a hate filled pastor, whose very mission statements contradict the New Testament teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
McCain has never been a friend of Christians, but at least he doesn't try to play it otherwise.
http:///forum/post/2493080
. A Black Value system is not racist...... .
We can argue as to whether or not it is racist, but we cannot argue over whether or not it is Christian.
Sorry, Rylan, the New Testament makes very clear what a Christian is to use as his/her value system. It has nothing to do with race. In fact, just the opposite. The Great Commission, clearly states to go to all of the nations.
Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations..."
Mark 13:10 "And the gospel must first be preached to all nations..."
Luke 24:47 "..and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations..."
Acts 1:8 "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
Furthermore, when the Apostles began to show favoritism to race the Apostle Paul dealt with it : Galatians 2:11 " When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong..."
Obombus makes a big deal about being Christian and not Muslim, yet he belongs to a church, lead by a hate filled pastor, whose very mission statements contradict the New Testament teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
McCain has never been a friend of Christians, but at least he doesn't try to play it otherwise.
ozmar
Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2493455
Previously he stated that we just didn't understand Black people when we made this arugment.
Oooohhhhhhh.... well, I guess I just don't get it, then.
-Ozmar the Ignorant
http:///forum/post/2493455
Previously he stated that we just didn't understand Black people when we made this arugment.
Oooohhhhhhh.... well, I guess I just don't get it, then.
-Ozmar the Ignorant
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2493255
I think they both will get independent votes.
1. He has backed off his gun stance, he realizes this is something that won't change and that legal gun users have the right to have them.. I understand his initial view and agree with it in theory... most gun violence.. accident or criminal are done by handguns... and not weapons a hunter would typically use. He has said he will uphold your 2nd Amend rights
2. So if a sister, a brother, a uncle, grandparent...best friend.. etc took this person across statelines who was 16 ... it would be a crime? I would like to know more specific info on the bill... instead of the vague summary of it.
3. Illegal immigration is a difficult issue.. I think by alllowing them to drive gets them in the system.. I think his view is a humanitarian view... I'm trying to remember his exact words on the issue... I'd have to look them up. One thing I'll point out is look at what McCain's proposal was... he wanted to grant ammnesty w/o securing the borders.He's backed off because it would be political suicide.
The fact that 10 years ago this man was willing to ignore the bill or rights and ban guns speaks volumes. He now changes his tune because its politically advantagious in a national election. Bama also voted against a bill that would have provided immumity for people who used a handgun to defend themselves in a locality that had banned handguns. The first amendment can't be invaladated by certain localities, neither can the second. Someone who really believed in the second amendment would have cast a vote to minimuze the damage done by an gun ban,
2. If a sister, uncle grandparent etc. were the designated guardian then no, they wouldn't be prosecuted but then again if they were the guardian they wouldn't need to go to another state. This law did only apply to adults so an underage sibling or friend couldn't be prosecuted. Even a non custodial parent was shielded. Pretty reasonable law. TThe whole idea of the law was to prevent people from skirting parental involvment laws.
3. Big difference. HUGE DIFFERENCE between creating a path to citizenship aka granting amnesty and issuing drivers licenses to illegal alliens. How is giving them a license a "Humanitarian" issue? Nobody here illegally should ever come in contact with a government agency and still be in the country. They don't have the right to be here.
http:///forum/post/2493255
I think they both will get independent votes.
1. He has backed off his gun stance, he realizes this is something that won't change and that legal gun users have the right to have them.. I understand his initial view and agree with it in theory... most gun violence.. accident or criminal are done by handguns... and not weapons a hunter would typically use. He has said he will uphold your 2nd Amend rights
2. So if a sister, a brother, a uncle, grandparent...best friend.. etc took this person across statelines who was 16 ... it would be a crime? I would like to know more specific info on the bill... instead of the vague summary of it.
3. Illegal immigration is a difficult issue.. I think by alllowing them to drive gets them in the system.. I think his view is a humanitarian view... I'm trying to remember his exact words on the issue... I'd have to look them up. One thing I'll point out is look at what McCain's proposal was... he wanted to grant ammnesty w/o securing the borders.He's backed off because it would be political suicide.
The fact that 10 years ago this man was willing to ignore the bill or rights and ban guns speaks volumes. He now changes his tune because its politically advantagious in a national election. Bama also voted against a bill that would have provided immumity for people who used a handgun to defend themselves in a locality that had banned handguns. The first amendment can't be invaladated by certain localities, neither can the second. Someone who really believed in the second amendment would have cast a vote to minimuze the damage done by an gun ban,
2. If a sister, uncle grandparent etc. were the designated guardian then no, they wouldn't be prosecuted but then again if they were the guardian they wouldn't need to go to another state. This law did only apply to adults so an underage sibling or friend couldn't be prosecuted. Even a non custodial parent was shielded. Pretty reasonable law. TThe whole idea of the law was to prevent people from skirting parental involvment laws.
3. Big difference. HUGE DIFFERENCE between creating a path to citizenship aka granting amnesty and issuing drivers licenses to illegal alliens. How is giving them a license a "Humanitarian" issue? Nobody here illegally should ever come in contact with a government agency and still be in the country. They don't have the right to be here.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2493382
Its not the fact that Repulicans don't contribute... but that Obama is getting historical support from many more supporters. I guarantee that Obama will have more dollars and more contributors than McCain if they go forward with current setup.
and naturally you go with the comment that allows you to reflect an unproveable opinion.
I ask again. which issues of McCains lacked substance? I am giving you the opportunity to go on the attack and you won't take it. You won't back up why you feel McCain is bad for American and Obama is better.
I am coming to the conclusion you are voting because of race and nothing else.
http:///forum/post/2493382
Its not the fact that Repulicans don't contribute... but that Obama is getting historical support from many more supporters. I guarantee that Obama will have more dollars and more contributors than McCain if they go forward with current setup.
and naturally you go with the comment that allows you to reflect an unproveable opinion.
I ask again. which issues of McCains lacked substance? I am giving you the opportunity to go on the attack and you won't take it. You won't back up why you feel McCain is bad for American and Obama is better.
I am coming to the conclusion you are voting because of race and nothing else.
reefraff
Active Member
This was a classic exchange. Obama says he will pull the troops out of Iraq. When pressed he said he would reserve the right to reinvade if Al Qaeda established a base there.
Once pointed out that Iraq already has Al Qaeda there Obamas respose was "Well they weren't there before Bush and McCain invaded" and the Obamidites cheer with glee.
These people are not smart enough to figure it out. Obama looks to the left and says he's ending the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home and then he loooks to the right and says "but I will invade again if Al Qeada comes back.
So what is it Barry, you bringing the troops home or are you going to wipe out Al Qeada first?
Once pointed out that Iraq already has Al Qaeda there Obamas respose was "Well they weren't there before Bush and McCain invaded" and the Obamidites cheer with glee.
These people are not smart enough to figure it out. Obama looks to the left and says he's ending the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home and then he loooks to the right and says "but I will invade again if Al Qeada comes back.
So what is it Barry, you bringing the troops home or are you going to wipe out Al Qeada first?
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2492929
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... .
Of course, he's not above using HopeFund (the PAC Obombus chairs) to buy endorsements from other Democrats... http://www.chicagotribune.com/servic...,7744024.story