|
Post by dj on Sept 20, 2010 1:31:51 GMT -5
Looks like he just "cut" one to me. I can't believe this is headline news. Obamas attend Sunday services at Episcopal rch
OMG maybe this means he's not a muslim. Me thinks he is trying to upgrade his image because most people STILL believe he is Muslim and faking being a Christian.Don't know where you're from but where I'm from, 20% isn't "most people." And the way that breaks down is that 33% of conservatives think Obama is a Muslim. About 18% of Independents believe that. And less than 10% of liberals believe he's Muslim. Obviously, even in conservative circles the idea that Obama is a Muslim is rejected 2 to 1. There is no "why now" about it. He and his family have gone to St. John's in Washington six times now, about once every 3 months since he was inaugurated. This does not count any of the services attended at the chapel on Camp David, which the family prefers because there is less hoopla than at the much more public St. Johns.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 20, 2010 12:05:10 GMT -5
www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/09/odonnells_religion"While Ms O'Donnell's views on evolution do not flow from her Catholicism, it seems that her views on masturbation and lying do. Now, Joe Biden, a former Delaware Senator, also adheres to the Roman Catholic faith, but nobody titters discussing his moral convictions, and he evidently had no problems getting elected to the Senate in Delaware. Could it be that Catholic doctrine is a risible barrier to office only if one is willing, as Ms O'Donnell clearly is, frankly to defend it in public without a hint of embarrassment?"
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 20, 2010 13:06:55 GMT -5
www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/09/odonnells_religion"Ms O'Donnell is apparently sceptical of the well-confirmed theory of evolution by natural selection, as well as of the reliability of carbon dating, the standard method for estimating the age of fossils. However, most have focused on Ms O'Donnell's youthful anti-masturbation advocacy. That it is widely considered preposterous actually to defend the official position of Roman Catholicism, the largest single religious denomination in the United States, is quite interesting. However, I am rather more captivated by the fact that Ms O'Donnell believes it is always morally wrong to lie—even to Jew-hunting Nazis inquiring about the whereabouts of their quarry!' IN DEFENSE OF LYING As this columnist notes, lying can be an essential, and even moral tool in the right situation. To expand on what he says, lying is totally necessary to protect oneself and others in a totalitarian society, such as the old Soviet Union. And of course lying is an essential tactic in wartime, as deceiving and misleading your enemy in any way possible is your patriotic duty. Even in peacetime lying to potential adversaries is stock and trade. Who would send a diplomat to Tehran who wasn't willing to lie to Admer-whatshisname? And here in the workplace, which is like a totalitarian regime with it's dictator, I mean boss, what kind of a creep wouldn't lie to his boss to protect a co-worker? Nobody, well few people, like a rat. Also, I dare you to tell your wife how fat that dress makes her look. And what kind of abusive brute tells a kid how stupid he is even if he is?
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Sept 20, 2010 14:22:31 GMT -5
Liberals will attack anything. They attack Mitt Romney for being a Mormon and now this attack on O'Donnell. They will attack anyone Christian, but, will support anything Muslim.
What lowlifes.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Sept 20, 2010 17:52:04 GMT -5
Liberals will attack anything. They attack Mitt Romney for being a Mormon and now this attack on O'Donnell. They will attack anyone Christian, but, will support anything Muslim. What lowlifes. I look at the majority of them as friggin hypocrites, they were okay with Obama doing lines and toking. He also admitted to having a problem with alcohol in High School, fine example of a man, but I’m off topic.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Sept 20, 2010 19:35:47 GMT -5
He and his family have gone to St. John's in Washington six times now, about once every 3 months since he was inaugurated. This does not count any of the services attended at the chapel on Camp David, which the family prefers because there is less hoopla than at the much more public St. Johns. Nope, according to meat-head Gibbs prior to Sunday he had been to rch 3 times, now that's 3 times more than me, but I don't pretend to be a Christian. And to be honest if he goes or not I don't care. I do care when he is pandering. But did anyone catch the Obama's leaving the rch? Here's a clue, if you missed it, she's a W---I---D---E BODY
|
|
|
Post by dj on Sept 21, 2010 1:34:29 GMT -5
He and his family have gone to St. John's in Washington six times now, about once every 3 months since he was inaugurated. This does not count any of the services attended at the chapel on Camp David, which the family prefers because there is less hoopla than at the much more public St. Johns. Nope, according to meat-head Gibbs prior to Sunday he had been to rch 3 times, now that's 3 times more than me, but I don't pretend to be a Christian. And to be honest if he goes or not I don't care. I do care when he is pandering. But did anyone catch the Obama's leaving the rch? Here's a clue, if you missed it, she's a W---I---D---E BODY I'll call your 'nope' and raise you a 'not even' It is six times. Three times in DC in 2010 and three times in DC in 2009. It's been in all the papers every time. In April it was noted as the 5th, in December 2009 it was noted as the 3rd... And by the way that's only in public DC rches. This is not counting any attendance at the chapel in Camp David which by all accounts he does "fairly regularly." If he was truly pandering or being dishonest he would waltz into a DC rch every Sunday. I say this is unfounded criticism. So this is the heated issue of the week, eh?
|
|
|
Post by dj on Sept 21, 2010 1:46:30 GMT -5
Liberals will attack anything. They attack Mitt Romney for being a Mormon... Good gravy. The vast bulk of all the criticism and blowback which Romney received regarding his Mormonism was by the evangelicals during the Republican nomination process in 2008. Apparently there is a little disagreement between the Romney and Huckabee camps as to the definition of "true" Christianity. I imagine lots of liberals do care about him being a Mormon, but not because of the part about being Mormon but because of a distrust of ANY politician wearing his religion on his sleeve. The same distrust is pointed to Huckabee. And the same distrust is pointed to the folks attached to the numerous hands which went up at the Republican debate in 2008 when the question was asked as to whom does not believe the theory of evolution. And Hatch, about this: "Liberals will attack anything... What lowlifes." Isn't that kind of a broad brush?
|
|
|
Post by nikki on Sept 21, 2010 1:53:20 GMT -5
Nope, according to meat-head Gibbs prior to Sunday he had been to rch 3 times, now that's 3 times more than me, but I don't pretend to be a Christian. And to be honest if he goes or not I don't care. I do care when he is pandering. But did anyone catch the Obama's leaving the rch? Here's a clue, if you missed it, she's a W---I---D---E BODY I'll call your 'nope' and raise you a 'not even' It is six times. Three times in DC in 2010 and three times in DC in 2009. It's been in all the papers every time. In April it was noted as the 5th, in December 2009 it was noted as the 3rd... And by the way that's only in public DC rches. This is not counting any attendance at the chapel in Camp David which by all accounts he does "fairly regularly." If he was truly pandering or being dishonest he would waltz into a DC rch every Sunday. I say this is unfounded criticism. So this is the heated issue of the week, eh? He prefers to "pray" in private at Camp David. There he can meet with the likes of Jim Wallis. Much more his style. He has not been in public in rch since Easter. This was just a photo-op instructed by the idiots who advise him. But , hey, he got in a game of golf afterwards. You are right, it is not a heated issue. Most people with a brain have figured this guy out. It is just another aside on what a fraud this guy is.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 23, 2010 23:52:37 GMT -5
There is only a tiny number engaged in killing non-believers, the rest, like most people, just want to get along and go about the business of living. I will dispute the "tiny number"! There are so many Muslims that if a "tiny" percentage, say 1%, were to be used they are still talking about MILLIONS of radical Muslims! THAT is no "tiny number". An email received discusses the "passiveness" of people and how it allows evil to flourish (i.e. radical Islamists). A German's View on IslamA man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.' We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march...It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'? History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life. Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. Once again, someone trying to tell me who my enemies are. I'll pick my own enemies, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 24, 2010 0:15:26 GMT -5
Once again, it's in the eye of the beholder. I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing it. What I do see is the wealthy people in this country living it up while the poor stand in unemployment lines, and an Islamic threat used as a distraction. Americans enjoy a higher standard of living due to our constitutional rights. We are a republic based upon entrepreneurialism. We do not sit with our hands out hoping someone will give to us. We work LONG hard hours, we take less vacation time and we take pride in our work. For other countries to EXPECT us to downgrade our quality of living or to give away that which we worked so hard to gather - is not only coveting thy neighbor's goods - it is jealousy, laziness and greed. They could create the same in their countries but CHOOSE not to. Communism and socialism are placing humans & secularism as gods. Any time a human or an object is valued above the betterment of one's self - then we are back to sacrificing life to false gods. We regress rather than evolve. I do not want to regress. I fight HARD to retain what I have and to grow what I have. You may envy my status in life - yet you have no right to steal it from me. You have not earned that right in any form. Another point - a large volume of the rich in this country consists of your side of the line. Liberals who want to continue life in the luxurious lane AND they expect the rest of us to bow down to them and give up what little we have. At least the conservatives do not expect the poor to give up their sole income/food/belongings/self-worth. It is your liberals who want money, money, money from us to support the poor of other countries. I say - They should give up all of their own monies to support their own causes. They should not seek to rope me into THEIR cause. I have my own causes to tend to. So stop casting stones - JD. Get off your pedestal and look at life with reality staring you in the face. People are poor because they choose to be. How cold of me to say that - Yes. Yet, prove me wrong and I will prove you wrong. In the Bible it is written - You will always have the destitute with you, but you will not always have me. This includes heeding God's word as we are with God. Care for one's self and one's family (parents, spouses, children), work hard, covet not, don't be lazy, sloth, sloven, greedy, don't kill or steal. Care for God & God's teachings. Those words have been re-interpreted by many wise philosphers and people throughout time. Be positive, surround yourself with those whom you wish to be like, be honest, take care of yourself/your family/your belongings - don't injure others unnecesarily. Common sense. No where does it say - lay down and let a violent way of life kill your spirit and way of life. No where does it say - give up what is yours and give it to the lazy one over there... or the one without faith or the one that covets it. That would be like saying - so and so covets your wife so you give her over to them. tsk tsk tsk. My two cents worth - just so you know I am still around and not ignoring y'all. *grin* I hope you are still around, because I finally have thought about your comments enough to address them. And there is nothing here I can argue with, because it is what you believe. It's like arguing with someone about whether they believe in God. You can't say "You can't not believe in God", and I can't say you can't believe what you've said. Even the inflammatory "the poor choose to be poor" can't be argued with, because that would be arguing about the existence of Free Will, which, like God, either you believe in or you don't. I do know in the oldie times you conservatives would allegedly try to take us back to (actually only YOUR VERSION of oldie times), many people would see the poor and say "There but for the grace of God go I". But in these modern times few people have that attitude anymore. So be it. If your attitudes stated above work for you, who am I to disagree?
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Sept 24, 2010 0:55:36 GMT -5
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. Once again, someone trying to tell me who my enemies are. I'll pick my own enemies, thank you. Not at all, love them all you want! But the highlighted sentence above makes the statement. One must be wary, these types of government changes come upon one very quickly and quietly if the watchers don't raise the alarm. Even when raising the alarm, as they do now, it won't help if people just ignore it because they "don't believe" it is happening or it won't affect them!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 24, 2010 3:28:55 GMT -5
Once again, someone trying to tell me who my enemies are. I'll pick my own enemies, thank you. Not at all, love them all you want! But the highlighted sentence above makes the statement. One must be wary, these types of government changes come upon one very quickly and quietly if the watchers don't raise the alarm. Even when raising the alarm, as they do now, it won't help if people just ignore it because they "don't believe" it is happening or it won't affect them! If the don't believe it, of course they will ignore it. Are you so sure the true believers are correct? I don't believe they are. And contrary to that guy's opinion, ignoring it all might be the best course of action. It's the tit-for-tat that drives nations into unnecessary conflicts.
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Sept 24, 2010 8:09:45 GMT -5
... And Hatch, about this: "Liberals will attack anything... What lowlifes." Isn't that kind of a broad brush? Oh, hell no, DJ! At least not this close to the November elections.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Sept 24, 2010 11:07:38 GMT -5
|
|