The Yes We CAG Movement - Now to win the Presidency!
- Thread starter fullmetalfan720
- Start date
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='daroga']I just took the Glassbooth.org test and it came out as I expected from my digging around in the candidate's stances. Obama and McCain were very close to one another for me, coming at things from different perspectives (I obviously make a horrid Republican or Democrat); Clinton was pretty far removed from either of the other two.
If Clinton win the Dem's nomination, it's going to be a no-brainer come November. If Obama wins, it's going to take a lot of real wrestling with which issues are the most important / which candidates ideas have the most grounding in reality that they aren't just pie-in-the-sky dreams that will never, ever happen.[/quote]
If he was president, would Jesus go to war with Iran?
Yes -> Vote for McCain
No -> Vote for Obama
If Clinton win the Dem's nomination, it's going to be a no-brainer come November. If Obama wins, it's going to take a lot of real wrestling with which issues are the most important / which candidates ideas have the most grounding in reality that they aren't just pie-in-the-sky dreams that will never, ever happen.[/quote]
If he was president, would Jesus go to war with Iran?
Yes -> Vote for McCain
No -> Vote for Obama
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Obama is winning Wyoming easily as expected. 59% of the vote with 83% reporting per cnn.com.[/quote]
I wonder what the Clinton spin will be:
1. This is Cheney's state.
2. Nobody has phones or can tell time (3AM ad wouldn't work).
Add your own.
I wonder what the Clinton spin will be:
1. This is Cheney's state.
2. Nobody has phones or can tell time (3AM ad wouldn't work).
Add your own.
fullmetalfan720
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I wonder what the Clinton spin will be:
1. This is Cheney's state.
2. Nobody has phones or can tell time (3AM ad wouldn't work).
Add your own.[/QUOTE]
3. We won't win it in November, so no one cares.
4. I won the big states and no other ones matter.
That's pretty much what she will say.
1. This is Cheney's state.
2. Nobody has phones or can tell time (3AM ad wouldn't work).
Add your own.[/QUOTE]
3. We won't win it in November, so no one cares.
4. I won the big states and no other ones matter.
That's pretty much what she will say.
JolietJake
Banned
Cheney didn't even live in Wyoming until the 2000 election, he lived in Texas. He just needed an address in another state.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='N1c0_ds']Yep, go obama go!
-A canadian...[/QUOTE]
You needn't worry, the polls show that many Democrats are clamoring to make our country just like your's in many ways.
Canada used to always got made fun of for trying to just be like America, but it seems the opposite is true now.
-A canadian...[/QUOTE]
You needn't worry, the polls show that many Democrats are clamoring to make our country just like your's in many ways.
Canada used to always got made fun of for trying to just be like America, but it seems the opposite is true now.
[quote name='thrustbucket']You needn't worry, the polls show that many Democrats are clamoring to make our country just like your's in many ways.
Canada used to always got made fun of for trying to just be like America, but it seems the opposite is true now.[/QUOTE]
I will take slightly higher taxes just to get the incompetent crazy asses out.
Canada used to always got made fun of for trying to just be like America, but it seems the opposite is true now.[/QUOTE]
I will take slightly higher taxes just to get the incompetent crazy asses out.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If he was president, would Jesus go to war with Iran?
Yes -> Vote for McCain
No -> Vote for Obama[/quote]War / foreign policy are but one of the issues, my friend.
Were you just encouraging me to completely throw away the separation of church and state? I'm not real comfortable with that. Oh wait, was that a dig at me because I'm a Christian? Ha! That's awesome. Very, very clever.
Yes -> Vote for McCain
No -> Vote for Obama[/quote]War / foreign policy are but one of the issues, my friend.
Were you just encouraging me to completely throw away the separation of church and state? I'm not real comfortable with that. Oh wait, was that a dig at me because I'm a Christian? Ha! That's awesome. Very, very clever.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='daroga']War / foreign policy are but one of the issues, my friend.
Were you just encouraging me to completely throw away the separation of church and state? I'm not real comfortable with that. Oh wait, was that a dig at me because I'm a Christian? Ha! That's awesome. Very, very clever.[/quote]
Yes, but a war with Iran is the only thing that will seal America's fate.
How you choose to cast your vote is entirely up to you. You pick whatever factors you feel are important in your mind.
Assuming you knew that a vote for McCain would lead to many more millions of deaths compared to a vote for Obama, how would you justify it to your god at the beginning of your afterlife?
Were you just encouraging me to completely throw away the separation of church and state? I'm not real comfortable with that. Oh wait, was that a dig at me because I'm a Christian? Ha! That's awesome. Very, very clever.[/quote]
Yes, but a war with Iran is the only thing that will seal America's fate.
How you choose to cast your vote is entirely up to you. You pick whatever factors you feel are important in your mind.
Assuming you knew that a vote for McCain would lead to many more millions of deaths compared to a vote for Obama, how would you justify it to your god at the beginning of your afterlife?
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Yes, but a war with Iran is the only thing that will seal America's fate.
How you choose to cast your vote is entirely up to you. You pick whatever factors you feel are important in your mind.
Assuming you knew that a vote for McCain would lead to many more millions of deaths compared to a vote for Obama, how would you justify it to your god at the beginning of your afterlife?[/QUOTE]
Many "more" millions? Oh please. How many "millions" have died in the war that offends you so much? Oh yeah, less than one. It always amuses me to hear anti-war propagandists try to make it sound like Iraq is comparable to the holocaust. It sure is a bungled mess, but it's no holocaust.
Furthermore, how many nukes will Iran have to set off before you would concede something preemptive would have been a good idea? I'm not saying I think we should go to war with Iran. But I certainly wouldn't vote for anyone that makes it clear they would never go to war without being attacked first, that's insane.
Oh and another thing. It's usually not productive to try and scare someone into voting for someone that wants to delete or change the fundamental building blocks of this country they consider sacred by using the whole "vote for x and you vote for more death" argument. For two reasons:
1)You are dealing with people that consider pro-abortion legislation worse, since babies can't pick up guns and defend themselves, and are blameless.
2) When you are dealing with people that believe in life after death, you aren't going to motivate them with such "death" arguments as well as you could with hard-core atheists that believe death is the greatest motivator. because becoming nothing is scary.
How you choose to cast your vote is entirely up to you. You pick whatever factors you feel are important in your mind.
Assuming you knew that a vote for McCain would lead to many more millions of deaths compared to a vote for Obama, how would you justify it to your god at the beginning of your afterlife?[/QUOTE]
Many "more" millions? Oh please. How many "millions" have died in the war that offends you so much? Oh yeah, less than one. It always amuses me to hear anti-war propagandists try to make it sound like Iraq is comparable to the holocaust. It sure is a bungled mess, but it's no holocaust.
Furthermore, how many nukes will Iran have to set off before you would concede something preemptive would have been a good idea? I'm not saying I think we should go to war with Iran. But I certainly wouldn't vote for anyone that makes it clear they would never go to war without being attacked first, that's insane.
Oh and another thing. It's usually not productive to try and scare someone into voting for someone that wants to delete or change the fundamental building blocks of this country they consider sacred by using the whole "vote for x and you vote for more death" argument. For two reasons:
1)You are dealing with people that consider pro-abortion legislation worse, since babies can't pick up guns and defend themselves, and are blameless.
2) When you are dealing with people that believe in life after death, you aren't going to motivate them with such "death" arguments as well as you could with hard-core atheists that believe death is the greatest motivator. because becoming nothing is scary.
fullmetalfan720
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']Many "more" millions? Oh please. How many "millions" have died in the war that offends you so much? Oh yeah, less than one. It always amuses me to hear anti-war propagandists try to make it sound like Iraq is comparable to the holocaust. It sure is a bungled mess, but it's no holocaust.
Furthermore, how many nukes will Iran have to set off before you would concede something preemptive would have been a good idea? I'm not saying I think we should go to war with Iran. But I certainly wouldn't vote for anyone that makes it clear they would never go to war without being attacked first, that's insane.
Oh and another thing. It's usually not productive to try and scare someone into voting for someone that wants to delete or change the fundamental building blocks of this country they consider sacred by using the whole "vote for x and you vote for more death" argument. For two reasons:
1)You are dealing with people that consider pro-abortion legislation worse, since babies can't pick up guns and defend themselves, and are blameless.
2) When you are dealing with people that believe in life after death, you aren't going to motivate them with such "death" arguments as well as you could with hard-core atheists that believe death is the greatest motivator. because becoming nothing is scary.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so we should nuke Iran, and then watch as every city in the U.S, Russia, China, and every country in N.A.T.O, is turned into a fireball. That makes alot of sense. If we were to attack Iran, without Iran attacking us first, then the U.S./N.A.T.O. would end up at war with China and Russia. Attacking first is never a good idea, in this case.
Furthermore, how many nukes will Iran have to set off before you would concede something preemptive would have been a good idea? I'm not saying I think we should go to war with Iran. But I certainly wouldn't vote for anyone that makes it clear they would never go to war without being attacked first, that's insane.
Oh and another thing. It's usually not productive to try and scare someone into voting for someone that wants to delete or change the fundamental building blocks of this country they consider sacred by using the whole "vote for x and you vote for more death" argument. For two reasons:
1)You are dealing with people that consider pro-abortion legislation worse, since babies can't pick up guns and defend themselves, and are blameless.
2) When you are dealing with people that believe in life after death, you aren't going to motivate them with such "death" arguments as well as you could with hard-core atheists that believe death is the greatest motivator. because becoming nothing is scary.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so we should nuke Iran, and then watch as every city in the U.S, Russia, China, and every country in N.A.T.O, is turned into a fireball. That makes alot of sense. If we were to attack Iran, without Iran attacking us first, then the U.S./N.A.T.O. would end up at war with China and Russia. Attacking first is never a good idea, in this case.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Okay, so we should nuke Iran, and then watch as every city in the U.S, Russia, China, and every country in N.A.T.O, is turned into a fireball. That makes alot of sense. If we were to attack Iran, without Iran attacking us first, then the U.S./N.A.T.O. would end up at war with China and Russia. Attacking first is never a good idea, in this case.[/QUOTE]
Nuke Iran? I don't think anyone is proposing that. There are a myriad of aggressive options you can use without "going to war" that include espionage, diplomatic punishment, and many other subversive methods. Many of these have already been going on for at least 20 years. The point is to keep them in check, and we need a president that will keep them squirming until they can have a natural revolution.
But here is a news-flash for those of you that have a hard time reading between the lines: We've been at war with Iran for a very long time already, by proxy. Who do you think supplies, trains and coordinates just about every attack against American interests in that region? I know people that were in Iraq, they tell me everyone over there knows they are at war with Iran. Nearly all the arms and many soldiers come straight from there.
Nuke Iran? I don't think anyone is proposing that. There are a myriad of aggressive options you can use without "going to war" that include espionage, diplomatic punishment, and many other subversive methods. Many of these have already been going on for at least 20 years. The point is to keep them in check, and we need a president that will keep them squirming until they can have a natural revolution.
But here is a news-flash for those of you that have a hard time reading between the lines: We've been at war with Iran for a very long time already, by proxy. Who do you think supplies, trains and coordinates just about every attack against American interests in that region? I know people that were in Iraq, they tell me everyone over there knows they are at war with Iran. Nearly all the arms and many soldiers come straight from there.
fullmetalfan720
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']Nuke Iran? I don't think anyone is proposing that. There are a myriad of aggressive options you can use without "going to war" that include espionage, diplomatic punishment, and many other subversive methods. Many of these have already been going on for at least 20 years. The point is to keep them in check, and we need a president that will keep them squirming until they can have a natural revolution.
But here is a news-flash for those of you that have a hard time reading between the lines: We've been at war with Iran for a very long time already, by proxy. Who do you think supplies, trains and coordinates just about every attack against American interests in that region? I know people that were in Iraq, they tell me everyone over there knows they are at war with Iran. Nearly all the arms and many soldiers come straight from there.[/QUOTE]
A preemptive strike usually refers to a nuclear attack.
But here is a news-flash for those of you that have a hard time reading between the lines: We've been at war with Iran for a very long time already, by proxy. Who do you think supplies, trains and coordinates just about every attack against American interests in that region? I know people that were in Iraq, they tell me everyone over there knows they are at war with Iran. Nearly all the arms and many soldiers come straight from there.[/QUOTE]
A preemptive strike usually refers to a nuclear attack.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Fatherofcaitlyn, Thrustbucket...
... you guys don't really know/"get" anything about the people that you disagree with, do you?
... you guys don't really know/"get" anything about the people that you disagree with, do you?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']1)You are dealing with people that consider pro-abortion legislation worse, since babies can't pick up guns and defend themselves, and are blameless.
2) When you are dealing with people that believe in life after death, you aren't going to motivate them with such "death" arguments as well as you could with hard-core atheists that believe death is the greatest motivator. because becoming nothing is scary.[/quote]
1) The abortion issue has nothing to do with babies. The abortion issue is about fetuses.
2) From what I've seen Americans fear death plenty, belief in afterlife or no. And becoming nothing (or more accurately - elimination of the ego) is not scary, the scared ppl are the ones that do what religious leaders tell them to do because they are frightened that if they don't, they might not get into a spiritual paradise after they die.
2) When you are dealing with people that believe in life after death, you aren't going to motivate them with such "death" arguments as well as you could with hard-core atheists that believe death is the greatest motivator. because becoming nothing is scary.[/quote]
1) The abortion issue has nothing to do with babies. The abortion issue is about fetuses.
2) From what I've seen Americans fear death plenty, belief in afterlife or no. And becoming nothing (or more accurately - elimination of the ego) is not scary, the scared ppl are the ones that do what religious leaders tell them to do because they are frightened that if they don't, they might not get into a spiritual paradise after they die.
lol...Apparently the little girl shown in Hillary's "3 a.m." commercial is now 17 and is actually an organizer for the Obama campaign. Whoops!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xx...t-of-the-mouths-of-safe-and-asleep-babes.aspx
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xx...t-of-the-mouths-of-safe-and-asleep-babes.aspx
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='The Crotch']Fatherofcaitlyn, Thrustbucket...
... you guys don't really know/"get" anything about the people that you disagree with, do you?[/quote]
I'm just pulling daroga's chain to see how Christian he is.
He made some off the cuff comment about wanting to protect homos from their own sin.
I made fun of him.
Somebody complained it was off topic.
I put it back on topic by stating no real Christian would vote for McCain.
He disagreed.
I'm waiting on his rationalization for voting McCain and remaining a real Christian.
Regarding thrustbucket, I'll get to him later if I have the time.
... you guys don't really know/"get" anything about the people that you disagree with, do you?[/quote]
I'm just pulling daroga's chain to see how Christian he is.
He made some off the cuff comment about wanting to protect homos from their own sin.
I made fun of him.
Somebody complained it was off topic.
I put it back on topic by stating no real Christian would vote for McCain.
He disagreed.
I'm waiting on his rationalization for voting McCain and remaining a real Christian.
Regarding thrustbucket, I'll get to him later if I have the time.
I don't play with trolls looking only to stir crap up. 
Your understanding of the realms of church, state, and even Christianity in the most basic of terms kinda precludes us from having a productive conversation. Do some homework and we'll talk. Look up a few conversations that I've had with Crotch, Spaz, et al. to see how to handle yourself in a way that is even remotely mature. Disagreeing with someone's beliefs is one thing. Making fun of someone for it, as you so aptly put it, puts you on almost a 4th grade level!
I love the slippery-slope-based argument that a vote for McCain = death to the world and a vote for Obama = happy rainbows everywhere in the country. If you believe either, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. It's really nice!
Your understanding of the realms of church, state, and even Christianity in the most basic of terms kinda precludes us from having a productive conversation. Do some homework and we'll talk. Look up a few conversations that I've had with Crotch, Spaz, et al. to see how to handle yourself in a way that is even remotely mature. Disagreeing with someone's beliefs is one thing. Making fun of someone for it, as you so aptly put it, puts you on almost a 4th grade level!
I love the slippery-slope-based argument that a vote for McCain = death to the world and a vote for Obama = happy rainbows everywhere in the country. If you believe either, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. It's really nice!
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
I'm remotely mature!
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='daroga']I don't play with trolls looking only to stir crap up.
Your understanding of the realms of church, state, and even Christianity in the most basic of terms kinda precludes us from having a productive conversation. Do some homework and we'll talk. Look up a few conversations that I've had with Crotch, Spaz, et al. to see how to handle yourself in a way that is even remotely mature. Disagreeing with someone's beliefs is one thing. Making fun of someone for it, as you so aptly put it, puts you on almost a 4th grade level!
I love the slippery-slope-based argument that a vote for McCain = death to the world and a vote for Obama = happy rainbows everywhere in the country. If you believe either, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. It's really nice![/quote]
See better ways to disagree would have been ...
Politics wise, ...
Foc, a McCain presidency does not guarantee any additional wars or continued occupation of Iraq. Likewise, a Obama presidency does not guarantee a withdrawal from Iraq or suddenly friendly relations from countries with histories of hating the US.
Christian wise, ...
Foc, you and I are going to view the world differently. Rather than hope I know more about Jesus than you do, I'm going to turn the other cheek. If you feel the need to continue mocking my beliefs, knock yourself out. Most likely, I'll engage in other parts of the debate.
...
D, if you really want to impress me with your Christian behavior, learn how to handle persecution, treat your neighbor and what to do when you see a flaw in another person.
Trust me all the answers are there in your Bible.
Your understanding of the realms of church, state, and even Christianity in the most basic of terms kinda precludes us from having a productive conversation. Do some homework and we'll talk. Look up a few conversations that I've had with Crotch, Spaz, et al. to see how to handle yourself in a way that is even remotely mature. Disagreeing with someone's beliefs is one thing. Making fun of someone for it, as you so aptly put it, puts you on almost a 4th grade level!
I love the slippery-slope-based argument that a vote for McCain = death to the world and a vote for Obama = happy rainbows everywhere in the country. If you believe either, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. It's really nice![/quote]
See better ways to disagree would have been ...
Politics wise, ...
Foc, a McCain presidency does not guarantee any additional wars or continued occupation of Iraq. Likewise, a Obama presidency does not guarantee a withdrawal from Iraq or suddenly friendly relations from countries with histories of hating the US.
Christian wise, ...
Foc, you and I are going to view the world differently. Rather than hope I know more about Jesus than you do, I'm going to turn the other cheek. If you feel the need to continue mocking my beliefs, knock yourself out. Most likely, I'll engage in other parts of the debate.
...
D, if you really want to impress me with your Christian behavior, learn how to handle persecution, treat your neighbor and what to do when you see a flaw in another person.
Trust me all the answers are there in your Bible.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Trust me all the answers are there in your Bible.[/quote]
Have you actually read it?
Have you actually read it?
Not really feeling Obama at the moment. All his supporters seem blind to me. When asked what they like, they always mention change. Change for change's sake might be awesome now, but this has to last for four years. I think he's riding by on his charisma and that's pretty much it.
Whether or not I like Hillary is up for debate. However, true change would be putting a woman in a position of power. Black or not, Obama is still a man.
Whether or not I like Hillary is up for debate. However, true change would be putting a woman in a position of power. Black or not, Obama is still a man.
[quote name='davo1224']Not really feeling Obama at the moment. All his supporters seem blind to me. When asked what they like, they always mention change. Change for change's sake might be awesome now, but this has to last for four years. I think he's riding by on his charisma and that's pretty much it.
Whether or not I like Hillary is up for debate. However, true change would be putting a woman in a position of power. Black or not, Obama is still a man.[/quote]It seems to me that putting a woman into the office just because she's a woman and that would be a change is exactly the same "change for change's sake" that you mention above with Obama.
I think for now Obama is making himself up mostly of rhetoric. Should he win the nomination, he'll need to get a lot more specific on what "change" he foresees in all aspects of his hopefully-obtained duties. He's setting himself on a hype-train for the moment, but it will have to come down to brass tacks in debates, etc. before November.
Whether or not I like Hillary is up for debate. However, true change would be putting a woman in a position of power. Black or not, Obama is still a man.[/quote]It seems to me that putting a woman into the office just because she's a woman and that would be a change is exactly the same "change for change's sake" that you mention above with Obama.
I think for now Obama is making himself up mostly of rhetoric. Should he win the nomination, he'll need to get a lot more specific on what "change" he foresees in all aspects of his hopefully-obtained duties. He's setting himself on a hype-train for the moment, but it will have to come down to brass tacks in debates, etc. before November.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Have you actually read it?[/quote]
Yeah, I was Catholic for at least 20 years.
Yeah, I was Catholic for at least 20 years.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='daroga']It's ok, FoC. I forgive you. [/quote]
Thank you.
[/quote]Thank you.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']Many "more" millions? Oh please. How many "millions" have died in the war that offends you so much? Oh yeah, less than one. It always amuses me to hear anti-war propagandists try to make it sound like Iraq is comparable to the holocaust. It sure is a bungled mess, but it's no holocaust.
Furthermore, how many nukes will Iran have to set off before you would concede something preemptive would have been a good idea? I'm not saying I think we should go to war with Iran. But I certainly wouldn't vote for anyone that makes it clear they would never go to war without being attacked first, that's insane.
Oh and another thing. It's usually not productive to try and scare someone into voting for someone that wants to delete or change the fundamental building blocks of this country they consider sacred by using the whole "vote for x and you vote for more death" argument. For two reasons:
1)You are dealing with people that consider pro-abortion legislation worse, since babies can't pick up guns and defend themselves, and are blameless.
2) When you are dealing with people that believe in life after death, you aren't going to motivate them with such "death" arguments as well as you could with hard-core atheists that believe death is the greatest motivator. because becoming nothing is scary.[/quote]
From the opening bomb to now, I think the Iraq war was has cost roughly 2 million their lives on both sides of the conflict.
A war with Iran will be more costly since they have a bigger and better army than Iraq's dilapidated POS army and our army is stretched pretty thin.
Of course, Iraq isn't the holocaust. The holocaust was planned and over within a decade. Iraq is raw chaos and may never be made whole again.
Iran and any other country is allowed one nuke strike. Even if Iran was crazy enough to use one, does Iran have a nuke? Not according to our National Intelligence Estimate.
Preemptive strikes are a bust. If we hadn't attacked Iraq first, the US would be in much better shape. Furthermore, the cost of a Lunar Solar Power System capable of satisfying everybody's power needs on the Earth until the sun goes poof is 0.17-1 times the current cumulative expense of the Iraq war. (And it makes an awesome death ray.)
Scaring people works. Hillary won Texas and Ohio, didn't she?
Most truly religious people would strive to reduce the suffering caused by war. A diehard evolutionist recognizes war is a good method of thinning the herd.
Furthermore, how many nukes will Iran have to set off before you would concede something preemptive would have been a good idea? I'm not saying I think we should go to war with Iran. But I certainly wouldn't vote for anyone that makes it clear they would never go to war without being attacked first, that's insane.
Oh and another thing. It's usually not productive to try and scare someone into voting for someone that wants to delete or change the fundamental building blocks of this country they consider sacred by using the whole "vote for x and you vote for more death" argument. For two reasons:
1)You are dealing with people that consider pro-abortion legislation worse, since babies can't pick up guns and defend themselves, and are blameless.
2) When you are dealing with people that believe in life after death, you aren't going to motivate them with such "death" arguments as well as you could with hard-core atheists that believe death is the greatest motivator. because becoming nothing is scary.[/quote]
From the opening bomb to now, I think the Iraq war was has cost roughly 2 million their lives on both sides of the conflict.
A war with Iran will be more costly since they have a bigger and better army than Iraq's dilapidated POS army and our army is stretched pretty thin.
Of course, Iraq isn't the holocaust. The holocaust was planned and over within a decade. Iraq is raw chaos and may never be made whole again.
Iran and any other country is allowed one nuke strike. Even if Iran was crazy enough to use one, does Iran have a nuke? Not according to our National Intelligence Estimate.
Preemptive strikes are a bust. If we hadn't attacked Iraq first, the US would be in much better shape. Furthermore, the cost of a Lunar Solar Power System capable of satisfying everybody's power needs on the Earth until the sun goes poof is 0.17-1 times the current cumulative expense of the Iraq war. (And it makes an awesome death ray.
)Scaring people works. Hillary won Texas and Ohio, didn't she?
Most truly religious people would strive to reduce the suffering caused by war. A diehard evolutionist recognizes war is a good method of thinning the herd.
[quote name='davo1224']Not really feeling Obama at the moment. All his supporters seem blind to me. When asked what they like, they always mention change. Change for change's sake might be awesome now, but this has to last for four years. I think he's riding by on his charisma and that's pretty much it.
Whether or not I like Hillary is up for debate. However, true change would be putting a woman in a position of power. Black or not, Obama is still a man.[/quote]
People see what they want to see (or what they don't want to see), especially if they're looking to stump speeches and secondaries for detailed breakdowns of a candidate's positions. If you were to hold McCain to the same standard, for instance, you'd come away with what appears to be a gassy, grumpy old man with an affinity for mid-east wars and other old white guys. Oh, and also, "straight talk," whatever that is.
The burden is on you to do the legwork to find out the details of the candidates positions. That is much easier to do in the age of the Internets. But people are lazy and expect this information to be delivered to them personally, sans spin, via the mainstream media or possibly skywriting. It ain't going to happen.
Moreover, even if you do make the effort to learn the candidates' positions, they really must be considered approximations of how they would act as president. As much as people hate to admit it, you really ARE voting based mostly on personality, charisma, and your best guess as to your chosen candidate's judgment. Because they can run on the most elaborate, wonderful sounding health care plan or a pretty promise to cut taxes, but everyone knows that that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen when they get in office. Not because they would deliberately go back on that promise, necessarily, but because pushing policy through government is a difficult thing under the best of circumstances (see Hillary's health care plan, ca. 1994).
When I look at Obama, I see someone who I am confident would not have made the poor judgment of invading Iraq and someone who has not yet been indoctrinated into the "politics as usual" establishment, and would thus work to subvert that broken model. When I look at Hillary and McCain, I'm not so sure.
Whether or not I like Hillary is up for debate. However, true change would be putting a woman in a position of power. Black or not, Obama is still a man.[/quote]
People see what they want to see (or what they don't want to see), especially if they're looking to stump speeches and secondaries for detailed breakdowns of a candidate's positions. If you were to hold McCain to the same standard, for instance, you'd come away with what appears to be a gassy, grumpy old man with an affinity for mid-east wars and other old white guys. Oh, and also, "straight talk," whatever that is.
The burden is on you to do the legwork to find out the details of the candidates positions. That is much easier to do in the age of the Internets. But people are lazy and expect this information to be delivered to them personally, sans spin, via the mainstream media or possibly skywriting. It ain't going to happen.
Moreover, even if you do make the effort to learn the candidates' positions, they really must be considered approximations of how they would act as president. As much as people hate to admit it, you really ARE voting based mostly on personality, charisma, and your best guess as to your chosen candidate's judgment. Because they can run on the most elaborate, wonderful sounding health care plan or a pretty promise to cut taxes, but everyone knows that that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen when they get in office. Not because they would deliberately go back on that promise, necessarily, but because pushing policy through government is a difficult thing under the best of circumstances (see Hillary's health care plan, ca. 1994).
When I look at Obama, I see someone who I am confident would not have made the poor judgment of invading Iraq and someone who has not yet been indoctrinated into the "politics as usual" establishment, and would thus work to subvert that broken model. When I look at Hillary and McCain, I'm not so sure.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Blaine']I can't be the only one who thinks this every time I hear his name...
[/quote]
:lol: You're not. Of course, Hillary is Mileena. D, D, F, Block to put her in the acid pit.
:lol: You're not. Of course, Hillary is Mileena. D, D, F, Block to put her in the acid pit.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Most truly religious people would strive to reduce the suffering caused by war. A diehard evolutionist recognizes war is a good method of thinning the herd.[/quote]Fair enough. But we can't draw a dichotomy between "religious" and "irreligious" as being "anti-war" and "pro-war." In fact, in a lot of ways, I could see the atheist or humanist as being far more anti-war than a Christian or a Muslim.
I'd like to think that few people on this planet would want war for war's sake based on the chaos and destruction it causes. That's probably a tad naive, but I think most wars are used as a means, not an end. It's in what the war is trying to accomplish that people find their agreement or disagreement with it, religious or otherwise.
Wars will simply be around. Jesus says as much; anyone familiar with the pages of history apart from the Bible will quickly become aware that "world peace" isn't a reality that will ever come about.
"Truly religious people" will be far more concerned about a person's spiritual well-being than their physical, but certainly not at the exclusion of helping those in need. But helping people out with their material problems is certainly not the greatest purpose in such a person's life--though one who is unconcerned with such things would be of questionable motives as well.
In the end, a candidate who is for war is not automatically an offense to a religious or Christian person, nor is a candidate who is anti-war automatically the right choice for a Christian. A Christian will evaluate the motives for said war to determine whether or not it's a policy they can support.
And, like I said before, voting along one-issue lines such as war, or abortion, or whatever doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Gotta take each candidate as a package, policies and abilities.
I'd like to think that few people on this planet would want war for war's sake based on the chaos and destruction it causes. That's probably a tad naive, but I think most wars are used as a means, not an end. It's in what the war is trying to accomplish that people find their agreement or disagreement with it, religious or otherwise.
Wars will simply be around. Jesus says as much; anyone familiar with the pages of history apart from the Bible will quickly become aware that "world peace" isn't a reality that will ever come about.
"Truly religious people" will be far more concerned about a person's spiritual well-being than their physical, but certainly not at the exclusion of helping those in need. But helping people out with their material problems is certainly not the greatest purpose in such a person's life--though one who is unconcerned with such things would be of questionable motives as well.
In the end, a candidate who is for war is not automatically an offense to a religious or Christian person, nor is a candidate who is anti-war automatically the right choice for a Christian. A Christian will evaluate the motives for said war to determine whether or not it's a policy they can support.
And, like I said before, voting along one-issue lines such as war, or abortion, or whatever doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Gotta take each candidate as a package, policies and abilities.
[quote name='Tybee']People see what they want to see (or what they don't want to see), especially if they're looking to stump speeches and secondaries for detailed breakdowns of a candidate's positions. If you were to hold McCain to the same standard, for instance, you'd come away with what appears to be a gassy, grumpy old man with an affinity for mid-east wars and other old white guys. Oh, and also, "straight talk," whatever that is.
The burden is on you to do the legwork to find out the details of the candidates positions. That is much easier to do in the age of the Internets. But people are lazy and expect this information to be delivered to them personally, sans spin, via the mainstream media or possibly skywriting. It ain't going to happen.
Moreover, even if you do make the effort to learn the candidates' positions, they really must be considered approximations of how they would act as president. As much as people hate to admit it, you really ARE voting based mostly on personality, charisma, and your best guess as to your chosen candidate's judgment. Because they can run on the most elaborate, wonderful sounding health care plan or a pretty promise to cut taxes, but everyone knows that that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen when they get in office. Not because they would deliberately go back on that promise, necessarily, but because pushing policy through government is a difficult thing under the best of circumstances (see Hillary's health care plan, ca. 1994).
When I look at Obama, I see someone who I am confident would not have made the poor judgment of invading Iraq and someone who has not yet been indoctrinated into the "politics as usual" establishment, and would thus work to subvert that broken model. When I look at Hillary and McCain, I'm not so sure.[/quote]
I haven't found anything I dislike about him but so far I can't find anything concrete as to why to like him other than because he's "different". I've watched his debates with Hillary and I think the "politics as usual" pressure is starting to bear down on him. He's recently gotten nasty with press and was on the brink of doing it with Clinton. I hope they don't break the guy because he seems genuine but I think a lot of people clung to him because he's the total opposite of Bush. I'm just not sure that's a good idea. The best analogy I can give is with food. Say you're sick of all the negative effects of eating a bacon double cheeseburger so you get a salad from now on. It's fresh, it's new, and it's healthy. What happens when you realize that despite all the good the salad can do, it isn't enough? That's my only fear about Obama; that once the euphoria wears off, we'll be left with someone who doesn't have the experience of being firmly entrenched in politics.
The burden is on you to do the legwork to find out the details of the candidates positions. That is much easier to do in the age of the Internets. But people are lazy and expect this information to be delivered to them personally, sans spin, via the mainstream media or possibly skywriting. It ain't going to happen.
Moreover, even if you do make the effort to learn the candidates' positions, they really must be considered approximations of how they would act as president. As much as people hate to admit it, you really ARE voting based mostly on personality, charisma, and your best guess as to your chosen candidate's judgment. Because they can run on the most elaborate, wonderful sounding health care plan or a pretty promise to cut taxes, but everyone knows that that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen when they get in office. Not because they would deliberately go back on that promise, necessarily, but because pushing policy through government is a difficult thing under the best of circumstances (see Hillary's health care plan, ca. 1994).
When I look at Obama, I see someone who I am confident would not have made the poor judgment of invading Iraq and someone who has not yet been indoctrinated into the "politics as usual" establishment, and would thus work to subvert that broken model. When I look at Hillary and McCain, I'm not so sure.[/quote]
I haven't found anything I dislike about him but so far I can't find anything concrete as to why to like him other than because he's "different". I've watched his debates with Hillary and I think the "politics as usual" pressure is starting to bear down on him. He's recently gotten nasty with press and was on the brink of doing it with Clinton. I hope they don't break the guy because he seems genuine but I think a lot of people clung to him because he's the total opposite of Bush. I'm just not sure that's a good idea. The best analogy I can give is with food. Say you're sick of all the negative effects of eating a bacon double cheeseburger so you get a salad from now on. It's fresh, it's new, and it's healthy. What happens when you realize that despite all the good the salad can do, it isn't enough? That's my only fear about Obama; that once the euphoria wears off, we'll be left with someone who doesn't have the experience of being firmly entrenched in politics.
[quote name='davo1224']I haven't found anything I dislike about him but so far I can't find anything concrete as to why to like him other than because he's "different". I've watched his debates with Hillary and I think the "politics as usual" pressure is starting to bear down on him. He's recently gotten nasty with press and was on the brink of doing it with Clinton. I hope they don't break the guy because he seems genuine but I think a lot of people clung to him because he's the total opposite of Bush. I'm just not sure that's a good idea. The best analogy I can give is with food. Say you're sick of all the negative effects of eating a bacon double cheeseburger so you get a salad from now on. It's fresh, it's new, and it's healthy. What happens when you realize that despite all the good the salad can do, it isn't enough? That's my only fear about Obama; that once the euphoria wears off, we'll be left with someone who doesn't have the experience of being firmly entrenched in politics.[/quote]
Yes, but to follow your analogy through, I'd rather eat the salad and be alive and mildly dissatisfied, than gorge on politics-as-usual bacon double cheeseburgers and be dead.
I say again, Obama has very definite stands on the issues. You just have to be willing to go out and look for what they are. People are buying this argument that Hillary somehow has more "presidential experience" (whatever that is) and spends every moment of every day articulating policy positions. The fact is, she's often just as vague and rah rah as Obama, and lately, much more petty. And as for her experience, she had few or no security clearances when she was first lady, and had no practical involvement in the major national and geopolitical issues Bill was dealing with. For instance, she's claiming she played an instrumental role in bringing peace to northern Ireland, when in fact, all she did was host a 50-min. women's tea at a Belfast cafe.
True, she was tasked with shepherding through a new national healthcare plan, but we saw how that ended up, and only proved her propensity for deepening divisions between Republicans and Democrats (thus helping to precipitate the "Republican Revolution" in 1994). If anything, she seems even more enthused about going down that same old road again as president. So tell me exactly what all of her highly touted experience has taught her? Not much, apparently.
Yes, but to follow your analogy through, I'd rather eat the salad and be alive and mildly dissatisfied, than gorge on politics-as-usual bacon double cheeseburgers and be dead.
I say again, Obama has very definite stands on the issues. You just have to be willing to go out and look for what they are. People are buying this argument that Hillary somehow has more "presidential experience" (whatever that is) and spends every moment of every day articulating policy positions. The fact is, she's often just as vague and rah rah as Obama, and lately, much more petty. And as for her experience, she had few or no security clearances when she was first lady, and had no practical involvement in the major national and geopolitical issues Bill was dealing with. For instance, she's claiming she played an instrumental role in bringing peace to northern Ireland, when in fact, all she did was host a 50-min. women's tea at a Belfast cafe.
True, she was tasked with shepherding through a new national healthcare plan, but we saw how that ended up, and only proved her propensity for deepening divisions between Republicans and Democrats (thus helping to precipitate the "Republican Revolution" in 1994). If anything, she seems even more enthused about going down that same old road again as president. So tell me exactly what all of her highly touted experience has taught her? Not much, apparently.
hiccupleftovers
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Blaine']I can't be the only one who thinks this every time I hear his name...
[/quote]
Nope, you aren't. By the way, this little photoshop is awesome!!:lol:
Nope, you aren't. By the way, this little photoshop is awesome!!:lol:
I hate to say this, but to me it looks like Obama tried to pull a fast one on the American people.
Great charisma, great speeches.
But deep down I believe Obama very well may be racist & even anti-american. He has known this pastor and been part of his church for 20+ years. The pastor married him to his wife. He put the pastor *on his presidential campaign* as spiritual advisor.
And now we see what this pastor's beliefs are. 5 days after 9/11 his sermon about it being the fault of the America (and yes, that even includes everyone posting in this thread who lives in the USA as we are all Americans). Plus the anti-caucasian racist tirade sermons that have been released. Jeez.
Bottom line, Obama knows this man and what he stands for, yet he not only remained in the church and was married by him but on top of that put him in a position of power in his campaign.
Change? Yes we can? Can do what, move backwards a couple of decades by putting a bigoted person in high office? Racism towards ANY race is backwards progress, and at this time we certainly don't need more anti-american sentiment. I fear whatever "change" Obama and his pastor have in mind, now.
IMO, the democrats need to get the superdelegates to fast-track hillary to the presidential nomination or they will risk their presidential race as republican attack ads will literally tear apart Obama with the some of the sick comments made by his pastor in various sermons over the past 5-10 years.
"God Damn America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk3LXvVlsI4
"Hillary ain't never been called a n*****"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPjVp3PLnVs&feature=related
Great charisma, great speeches.
But deep down I believe Obama very well may be racist & even anti-american. He has known this pastor and been part of his church for 20+ years. The pastor married him to his wife. He put the pastor *on his presidential campaign* as spiritual advisor.
And now we see what this pastor's beliefs are. 5 days after 9/11 his sermon about it being the fault of the America (and yes, that even includes everyone posting in this thread who lives in the USA as we are all Americans). Plus the anti-caucasian racist tirade sermons that have been released. Jeez.
Bottom line, Obama knows this man and what he stands for, yet he not only remained in the church and was married by him but on top of that put him in a position of power in his campaign.
Change? Yes we can? Can do what, move backwards a couple of decades by putting a bigoted person in high office? Racism towards ANY race is backwards progress, and at this time we certainly don't need more anti-american sentiment. I fear whatever "change" Obama and his pastor have in mind, now.
IMO, the democrats need to get the superdelegates to fast-track hillary to the presidential nomination or they will risk their presidential race as republican attack ads will literally tear apart Obama with the some of the sick comments made by his pastor in various sermons over the past 5-10 years.
"God Damn America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk3LXvVlsI4
"Hillary ain't never been called a n*****"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPjVp3PLnVs&feature=related
fullmetalfan720
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='Ruined']I hate to say this, but to me it looks like Obama tried to pull a fast one on the American people.
Great charisma, great speeches.
But deep down I believe Obama very well may be racist & even anti-american. He has known this pastor and been part of his church for 20+ years. The pastor married him to his wife. He put the pastor *on his presidential campaign* as spiritual advisor.
And now we see what this pastor's beliefs are. 5 days after 9/11 his sermon about it being the fault of the America (and yes, that even includes everyone posting in this thread who lives in the USA as we are all Americans). Plus the anti-caucasian racist tirade sermons that have been released. Jeez.
Bottom line, Obama knows this man and what he stands for, yet he not only remained in the church and was married by him but on top of that put him in a position of power in his campaign.
Change? Yes we can? Can do what, move backwards a couple of decades by putting a bigoted person in high office? Racism towards ANY race is backwards progress, and at this time we certainly don't need more anti-american sentiment. I fear whatever "change" Obama and his pastor have in mind, now.
IMO, the democrats need to get the superdelegates to fast-track hillary to the presidential nomination or they will risk their presidential race as republican attack ads will literally tear apart Obama with the some of the sick comments made by his pastor in various sermons over the past 5-10 years.
"God Damn America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk3LXvVlsI4[/quote]
Since when is Obama's pastor Obama? So, if I have a friend that might be racist, now I'm racist? That makes no sense.
Great charisma, great speeches.
But deep down I believe Obama very well may be racist & even anti-american. He has known this pastor and been part of his church for 20+ years. The pastor married him to his wife. He put the pastor *on his presidential campaign* as spiritual advisor.
And now we see what this pastor's beliefs are. 5 days after 9/11 his sermon about it being the fault of the America (and yes, that even includes everyone posting in this thread who lives in the USA as we are all Americans). Plus the anti-caucasian racist tirade sermons that have been released. Jeez.
Bottom line, Obama knows this man and what he stands for, yet he not only remained in the church and was married by him but on top of that put him in a position of power in his campaign.
Change? Yes we can? Can do what, move backwards a couple of decades by putting a bigoted person in high office? Racism towards ANY race is backwards progress, and at this time we certainly don't need more anti-american sentiment. I fear whatever "change" Obama and his pastor have in mind, now.
IMO, the democrats need to get the superdelegates to fast-track hillary to the presidential nomination or they will risk their presidential race as republican attack ads will literally tear apart Obama with the some of the sick comments made by his pastor in various sermons over the past 5-10 years.
"God Damn America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk3LXvVlsI4[/quote]
Since when is Obama's pastor Obama? So, if I have a friend that might be racist, now I'm racist? That makes no sense.
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Since when is Obama's pastor Obama? So, if I have a friend that might be racist, now I'm racist? That makes no sense.[/QUOTE]
If you worshipped at your racist friend's church for 20+ years, had your racist friend marry you and your wife, and then to top it off made your racist friend the "spiritual advisor" of your presidential campaign - then yes, I think there is a good case you can make that you agree at some level with his racist views. Plus by putting your friend in that position of power you would knowingly give him a much larger platform to spew his racist views.
If you worshipped at your racist friend's church for 20+ years, had your racist friend marry you and your wife, and then to top it off made your racist friend the "spiritual advisor" of your presidential campaign - then yes, I think there is a good case you can make that you agree at some level with his racist views. Plus by putting your friend in that position of power you would knowingly give him a much larger platform to spew his racist views.
JolietJake
Banned
[quote name='Ruined']If you worshipped at your racist friend's church for 20+ years, had your racist friend marry you and your wife, and then to top it off made your racist friend the "spiritual advisor" of your presidential campaign - then yes, I think there is a good case you can make that you agree at some level with his racist views. Plus putting your friend in that position of power would give him a platform to spew his racist views.[/quote]That or you're a terrible judge of character.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Ruined']If you worshipped at your racist friend's church for 20+ years, had your racist friend marry you and your wife, and then to top it off made your racist friend the "spiritual advisor" of your presidential campaign - then yes, I think there is a good case you can make that you agree at some level with his racist views. Plus by putting your friend in that position of power you would knowingly give him a much larger platform to spew his racist views.[/quote]
Are you referring to his "God is damning America" sermon?
Is it really full of hate?
In the Old Testament, the god of the Jews damned them to be conquered every time they stopped worshiping him.
Is the minister trying to say the current lifestyle of most American citizens will damn this country?
You'll have to elaborate on some of his racist views.
Are you referring to his "God is damning America" sermon?
Is it really full of hate?
In the Old Testament, the god of the Jews damned them to be conquered every time they stopped worshiping him.
Is the minister trying to say the current lifestyle of most American citizens will damn this country?
You'll have to elaborate on some of his racist views.
fullmetalfan720
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='Ruined']If you worshipped at your racist friend's church for 20+ years, had your racist friend marry you and your wife, and then to top it off made your racist friend the "spiritual advisor" of your presidential campaign - then yes, I think there is a good case you can make that you agree at some level with his racist views. Plus by putting your friend in that position of power you would knowingly give him a much larger platform to spew his racist views.[/QUOTE]
Let's see here,
1. Obama did not hear about these racist sermons before
2. He denounced these remarks after he heard them.
Let's see here,
1. Obama did not hear about these racist sermons before
2. He denounced these remarks after he heard them.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']He denounced these remarks after he heard them.[/quote]
What were the remarks?
What were the remarks?
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Let's see here,
1. Obama did not hear about these racist sermons before
2. He denounced these remarks after he heard them.
[/QUOTE]
Bwahahahaha! He went to his church for the past 20 years, had the guy marry him, and appointed him as his spiritual leader for his campaign yet he never heard these sermons the preacher has been making over the past 5-10 YEARS which were also frequently advertised as available for purchase? LOL. Obama just looks like another politician caught in a lie, spinning and doing damage control now. Those comments Obama's wife made about her being the first time she was ever proud to be an American when Obama ran for pres make a whole lot more sense now.
1. Obama did not hear about these racist sermons before
2. He denounced these remarks after he heard them.
[/QUOTE]
Bwahahahaha! He went to his church for the past 20 years, had the guy marry him, and appointed him as his spiritual leader for his campaign yet he never heard these sermons the preacher has been making over the past 5-10 YEARS which were also frequently advertised as available for purchase? LOL. Obama just looks like another politician caught in a lie, spinning and doing damage control now. Those comments Obama's wife made about her being the first time she was ever proud to be an American when Obama ran for pres make a whole lot more sense now.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What were the remarks?[/QUOTE]
Watch both of these:
"God Damn America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk3LXvVlsI4
"Hillary ain't never been called a n*****"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPjVp3PLnVs&feature=related
They speak for themselves, full of hate, anti-american sentiment, and racism. About the only racist thing left he could have said worse is "KILL WHITEY," and his comments are not a far stretch from that.
Watch both of these:
"God Damn America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk3LXvVlsI4
"Hillary ain't never been called a n*****"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPjVp3PLnVs&feature=related
They speak for themselves, full of hate, anti-american sentiment, and racism. About the only racist thing left he could have said worse is "KILL WHITEY," and his comments are not a far stretch from that.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Ruined']Watch both of these:
"God Damn America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk3LXvVlsI4
"Hillary ain't never been called a n*****"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPjVp3PLnVs&feature=related
They speak for themselves, full of hate, anti-american sentiment, and racism. About the only racist thing left he could have said worse is "KILL WHITEY," and his comments are not a far stretch from that.[/quote]
Those two sermons turned you off of Obama?
In response to the God Damn America sermon, America has a long running tradition of propping up dictators and such. I'd say the pastor is entitled to his opinion, but when the US government treats the rest of the world like its toilet, there will be consequences.
In response to the Hillary sermon, Hillary rode Bill Clinton's coattails for decades. Her dad was present and quite successful. Barack, at worst, used affirmative action, but stayed in areas where his liberal politics would be an advantage. His dad appears to have abandoned him. I don't know anything about his stepfather. Honestly, Hillary has been called several names. Usually, these comments are uttered after listening to Hillary for five minutes.
Out of curiousity, did I miss the excerpt where the pastor was calling for violence against the US?
"God Damn America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk3LXvVlsI4
"Hillary ain't never been called a n*****"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPjVp3PLnVs&feature=related
They speak for themselves, full of hate, anti-american sentiment, and racism. About the only racist thing left he could have said worse is "KILL WHITEY," and his comments are not a far stretch from that.[/quote]
Those two sermons turned you off of Obama?
In response to the God Damn America sermon, America has a long running tradition of propping up dictators and such. I'd say the pastor is entitled to his opinion, but when the US government treats the rest of the world like its toilet, there will be consequences.
In response to the Hillary sermon, Hillary rode Bill Clinton's coattails for decades. Her dad was present and quite successful. Barack, at worst, used affirmative action, but stayed in areas where his liberal politics would be an advantage. His dad appears to have abandoned him. I don't know anything about his stepfather. Honestly, Hillary has been called several names. Usually, these comments are uttered after listening to Hillary for five minutes.
Out of curiousity, did I miss the excerpt where the pastor was calling for violence against the US?
[quote name='Ruined']They speak for themselves, full of hate, anti-american sentiment, and racism. About the only racist thing left he could have said worse is "KILL WHITEY," and his comments are not a far stretch from that.[/QUOTE]
I watched both videos and I did not see much to be outraged about. Even the statements that are somewhat inflammatory are for the most part true (barring the AIDs/Drugs nonsense).
The frigging glee and evil laughter you are getting from this news really does creep me out more than any remarks Wright made.
I watched both videos and I did not see much to be outraged about. Even the statements that are somewhat inflammatory are for the most part true (barring the AIDs/Drugs nonsense).
The frigging glee and evil laughter you are getting from this news really does creep me out more than any remarks Wright made.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='BigT']Imagine if a white candidate attended mass for 20 years at a church that preaches hatred against blacks or other minority groups... how fast would he have been run out of the election? [/quote]
In this alternative world, did Africans ship Europeans in bulk to the New World, go to war against themselves to keep Europeans slaves, pass hundreds of local, state and federal laws to keep Europeans as second class citizens well into the 20th century and, in ever shrinking areas of the country, still aggressively overprosecute and overpenalize Europeans for relatively the same behavior as Africans?
[/quote]In this alternative world, did Africans ship Europeans in bulk to the New World, go to war against themselves to keep Europeans slaves, pass hundreds of local, state and federal laws to keep Europeans as second class citizens well into the 20th century and, in ever shrinking areas of the country, still aggressively overprosecute and overpenalize Europeans for relatively the same behavior as Africans?
bread's done