Obama picking up union endorsements (1 Viewer)

[Mamba]

Whoooooooooooosh

Expand on that, please.

 

[LSSpam]

Expand on that, please.

That was the sound of the post going over your head

 

[Mamba]

That was the sound of the post going over your head

If you think it went over my head, please enlighten me.

 

[LSSpam]

If you think it went over my head, please enlighten me.

Religious extremism exists everywhere. The idea of being concerned about electing a "Muslim" as if the generic term covered all parts of the spectrum, is laughable. Jazzjack illustrated the point brilliantly as he is a "Christian" and yet, I'm sure, electing someone of his caliber would be enormously dangerous.

It's clear you completely missed the point because you responded "Most US presidents were Christians" as if that were in opposition to my point, when in fact it completely supported it. That "Christian" encompasses an incredibly broad spectrum of beliefs from JFK, to Bush, to Clinton, to Jazzjack. Just like "Muslim" encompasses an enormous wide range of beliefs as well.

 

[DavidM]

Any inspiration I have has been given by my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. Having said that, I do feel the prior radio was a little harsh, but abounds in truth.

Want to dumb down America? Vote Democrat. The choice clearly is between satan and lucifer on the dems side. I don't see any improvement in any of the states they served in, oh wait, the states served them. "Femme nazi's vote clinton, minorities vote obama and intelligent people vote republican". Heard on a radio station, just curious for reactions. Sorry, I can't remember the name of the person saying it.

I did notice a lot of Obama bumper stickers in the DC area, yet strangley enough, not a fisk on any of those vehicles. Just an Christian observation.

Okay, so what truths are evident in the paraphrase of what you heard on the radio? That women with left-leaning views are unintelligent "femme-nazis" and minorities are dumb -- a simply-enough reached conclusion if "intelligent people vote Republican" and, from your shared radio blurb, "femme-nazis" and minorities are supporting Democrats. And if that is the case, why not make a sweeping generalization of the white men who will vote for a Democrat?

And are you certain your inspiration is derived from the teachings of Jesus? Also, can you point me to the Biblical reference that instructs followers to adorn their modes of transportation with Christian ornamentation? You know, it's just possible that many of those Obama stickers were on the bumpers of Christian believers -- despite the absence of "the fish."

 

[Mamba]

Religious extremism exists everywhere. The idea of being concerned about electing a "Muslim" as if the generic term covered all parts of the spectrum, is laughable. Jazzjack illustrated the point brilliantly as he is a "Christian" and yet, I'm sure, electing someone of his caliber would be enormously dangerous.

It's clear you completely missed the point because you responded "Most US presidents were Christians" as if that were in opposition to my point, when in fact it completely supported it. That "Christian" encompasses an incredibly broad spectrum of beliefs from JFK, to Bush, to Clinton, to Jazzjack. Just like "Muslim" encompasses an enormous wide range of beliefs as well.

Your post, in fact, did not go over my head. I knew what you were trying to insinuate and just wanted you to come out and say it. Otherwise, your first comment comes off as being "obtuse."

Too many people think "Christian" is a synonym for "Religious Right."

 

[LSSpam]

Too many people think "Christian" is a synonym for "Religious Right."

Yes but that wasn't my point, in fact directly opposite of my point and that you still can't figure that out shows i'm wasting my time

 

[FWtex]

Such is the nature of the pack animal. It must have it's herd. In the end those of us that don't consider ourselves as being that way really are. We may come to our conclusions differently but once we do we seek others that share them for the safety of the herd. It's our nature.

My simplistic view of many topics may not mesh well with others , but I don't think you have to make everything so difficult.

The herd phenomenom is what many politicians use to get elected. How many people do you think will actually take the time to research a candidate themselves? My guess is more than 70% of the herd are following what their friend, the media, or commercials are telling them.

Anyone heard about Obama's global poverty bill they tried to sneak through the senate?

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

So Obama wants me and you to pay for the bulk of world poverty and give the united nations the right to decide where this additional money goes. The dems don;t want us to be the worlds police but by all means we should be the worlds bankroll. Its easy for these multi millionaire politicians to make this decision for hard working people paying taxes.

Lets take a look at the reason for high oil prices. The increased advancement of India, China, and other developing countries. 1. As we help develop these countries our price of living will continue to rise because their will be more competition for the energy, food etc. Its may sound cold and hearltess but the dream for peace and harmony for all is impossible. You will have to take from peter to pay paul and the politicians are not going to take from themselves to do it. Proof is in the wealth of the people driving this country.

2. If this new world economy is doing so great for the rest of the world as the US is seeing a drop, why not ask them to pay more of their share to world peace and poverty. If they are consuming so much more Oil they must have the economy to pay more of their share. RIGHT? It cannot continue to be a one way river of money going into these developing economies.

My personal fear is that Obama's personal connection and sympathy for depressed countries along with the nature of the bleeding heart democrats will place the taxpayers of the US in more difficult times.

 

[Mamba]

Yes but that wasn't my point, in fact directly opposite of my point and that you still can't figure that out shows i'm wasting my time

Whoooooooosh.

I wasn't trying to make your point or restate it. I was simply trying to get you to acknowledge the ambiguity of your post which you eventually did through clarifying your remarks.

Why the condescension?

 

[Saint by the Bay]

My simplistic view of many topics may not mesh well with others , but I don't think you have to make everything so difficult.

What am I making difficult? Did you miss the part where I said "us" and "we" which, if my understanding of English holds, includes myself?

The herd phenomenom is what many politicians use to get elected. How many people do you think will actually take the time to research a candidate themselves? My guess is more than 70% of the herd are following what their friend, the media, or commercials are telling them.

I think the number is much higher than 70%.

Anyone heard about Obama's global poverty bill they tried to sneak through the senate?

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

So Obama wants me and you to pay for the bulk of world poverty and give the united nations the right to decide where this additional money goes. The dems don;t want us to be the worlds police but by all means we should be the worlds bankroll. Its easy for these multi millionaire politicians to make this decision for hard working people paying taxes.

I am aware, and don't agree with the legislation. However, your perspective that it's altruistic is misguided. It's about having leverage on the world stage by threatening to pull foreign aid. That's what almost all foreign aid is about.

Lets take a look at the reason for high oil prices. The increased advancement of India, China, and other developing countries. 1. As we help develop these countries our price of living will continue to rise because their will be more competition for the energy, food etc. Its may sound cold and hearltess but the dream for peace and harmony for all is impossible. You will have to take from peter to pay paul and the politicians are not going to take from themselves to do it. Proof is in the wealth of the people driving this country.

2. If this new world economy is doing so great for the rest of the world as the US is seeing a drop, why not ask them to pay more of their share to world peace and poverty. If they are consuming so much more Oil they must have the economy to pay more of their share. RIGHT? It cannot continue to be a one way river of money going into these developing economies.

My personal fear is that Obama's personal connection and sympathy for depressed countries along with the nature of the bleeding heart democrats will place the taxpayers of the US in more difficult times.

You seem well versed on Obama's "substance" for someone claiming he had none. Were you aware of all this when you claimed he's not saying anything? Not liking what someone has to say doesn't equal them not saying anything. So which is it? Does he say nothing, as you originally implied, or is he a socialist globalist as you are implying he is now based on the policies you claimed earlier he had none of?

 

[Shawn]

Whoooooooosh.

I wasn't trying to make your point or restate it. I was simply trying to get you to acknowledge the ambiguity of your post which you eventually did through clarifying your remarks.

Why the condescension?

Dude, I honestly had no idea what your point was, or is. Still don't.

LSSpam's point was abundantly clear, and wasn't in any way a swipe against Christianity, but a swipe about lumping people into stereotypical categories.

And I still don't undestand what you're getting at.

 

[RebSaint]

agenda's...agenda'

The liberale's are definitely ruining this country. Yeah, only if we can turn back to the clock to get back to some old fashioned American value's, then were aright.

 

[Sabine]

You seem well versed on Obama's "substance" for someone claiming he had none. Were you aware of all this when you claimed he's not saying anything? Not liking what someone has to say doesn't equal them not saying anything. So which is it? Does he say nothing, as you originally implied, or is he a socialist globalist as you are implying he is now based on the policies you claimed earlier he had none of?

Well, I don't recall hearing Obama stump on this, and but if he did it didn't register with everyone.

The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.

 

[Rugger]

Not too trite. Any inspiration I have has been given by my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. Having said that, I do feel the prior radio was a little harsh, but abounds in truth. Bleeding heart liberal dems with me agenda's, pro abortion, etc, etc agenda's will ultimately lead to a crippled country. While the troops are protecting everyone's liberties and fighting terrorism, dems bemoan and beseech their lack of benefits and civil liberties. Liberties which have increased the degradism and violence in this country. Let's get this country back to where our forefathers meant it to be "one nation, under God".

Right because the last eight years has inspired fields of cute bunnies and leprechaun quality heel-clickers.

As far as a president candidate with "substance"...

If we had anyway of holding politicians accountable to what platform they are campaigning on, than you may see more substance in their speeches and policies. The truth is not one president has fulfilled their promises once elected because that is an impossible task. They also have a good chance of losing votes if they become too specific. You hear every politician throwing out catch phrases and happy inspiring thoughts, because while they know what the nations wants, they also know that there is a very unlikely chance of making it happen. The "substance" or lack there of mantra that people are through out is nothing but agenda orientated.

Think about it. If a politician really has intentions of say balancing the budget, he is going to have to make cuts. He is not going to talk about the exact programs that he is planning to cut because he will lose votes. Instead he is going to run on simply "balancing the budget".

If you read the threads that have been posted about the current campaign, you will see a microcosm of the real nature of the problems with this country. The masses demand change, but when it comes to having to step up and demanding change, through voting and politician backing, the conditioned following of the pipe pipers exposes hypocrites.

Political parties have been preying on that herd mentality. People talk change, but when it comes time to put it on the table, they fall right back into herd. Good/Bad, Right/Wrong, A or B, One letter or the Other. It is not so much that political parties are trying to use the same cookie cutter for a lot of dough that is mind boggling, it is the dough that has a fanatical desire to be cut into a specific shape.

 

[Shawn]

Some guy on NPR yesterday pointed out that when Obama speaks, most of the crowds are typically so large and/or enthusiastic, that the mood is completely inappropriate to go down some 10 point plan laundry list of his agenda. The information is available in other places especially online.

He cited an example of Al Gore showing up in front of some wild crowd when he was running, and that as he launched into his campaign agenda, he completely lost the crowd and destroyed the mood.

Obama knows how to work a big crowd, and boring them to tears doesn't seem to be part of his plan.

Take it for what you will, but I thought it was an interesting point.