Barack Obama, our new appeaser

[red states rule]

Obamamanics scream how Sen Obama will unite the country. Well he can't even unite his own political party

Even as more racist comments made by Rev Wright comes out, Obama still defends him. He just wants to get along

So much for his leadership skills, his judgement, and his credibility

The terrorists are looking forward to a Pres Obama.


Barack Obama, our new appeaser
Sunday, March 30th 2008, 4:00 AM

For millions of Americans, the major attraction to Barack Obama is his call for national unity, a summoning to our shared values and common interests. With his charismatic eloquence, this inspirational ideal has single-handedly made him a political phenomenon and the Democratic front-runner.

But Obama's unity appeal, it turns out, has a weak link, one that is dangerous in a President. For revealing it, we can thank the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or, more precisely, Obama's tepid reaction to the outlandish, anti-American things Wright has said. The more he talks about Wright, the more troubling Obama's approach becomes. In a word, he is guilty of appeasement.

In a private context, his stubborn loyalty to his longtime pastor might be admirable. But as someone seeking the presidency, Obama has flunked a critical test of national leadership. By continuing to defend Wright even as he criticizes some of his remarks as "offensive" and "stupid," Obama refuses to draw the important value and factual distinctions a President must draw in a crisis. At heart, his is a "peace at any price" approach that has no business in the Oval Office.

Consider, for example, that Obama, alone among all major candidates this year, said he would meet our enemies without conditions, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. If his approach to Wright were applied, Obama would emerge from that meeting by condemning Ahmadinejad's threat to wipe Israel off the map while also condemning American and Israeli policies. This moral equivalency would be tacit support for Iran's warped grievances, and perhaps for its nuclear program.

After all, we have nuclear weapons and so does Israel, so who are we to deny Iran? Or, as Obama put it Friday when talking about race relations, "People all want the same thing."

for the complete article

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/03/30/2008-03-30_barack_obama_our_new_appeaser.html

[retiredman]

more cut and paste editorials from the king...

It would be interesting to read something that YOU wrote sometime that showcased your ability to express an opinion and then defend it with your own words.

Oh...I'm sorry...I forgot...you don't HAVE that ability!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

more cut and paste editorials from the king...

It would be interesting to read something that YOU wrote sometime that showcased your ability to express an opinion and then defend it with your own words.

Oh...I'm sorry...I forgot...you don't HAVE that ability!:laugh2:

Facts are facts MFM

Something you try to avoid at all costs

I see how you did not even try to defend your boy and his appeasement mentality

[retiredman]

Facts are facts MFM

Something you try to avoid at all costs

I see how you did not even try to defend your boy and his appeasement mentality


and opinions are not facts.

[red states rule]

and opinions are not facts.

Obama's own words are NOT opinions - they are facts

He, like you, wants to appease our enemies

[retiredman]

that, of course, is a standard RSR lie. Obama has no interest in appeasing any enemy of America.... not even YOU!

[red states rule]

that, of course, is a standard RSR lie. Obama has no interest in appeasing any enemy of America.... not even YOU!

from the post

snip

Consider, for example, that Obama, alone among all major candidates this year, said he would meet our enemies without conditions, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. If his approach to Wright were applied, Obama would emerge from that meeting by condemning Ahmadinejad's threat to wipe Israel off the map while also condemning American and Israeli policies. This moral equivalency would be tacit support for Iran's warped grievances, and perhaps for its nuclear program.

After all, we have nuclear weapons and so does Israel, so who are we to deny Iran? Or, as Obama put it Friday when talking about race relations, "People all want the same thing."

[retiredman]

from the post

snip

Consider, for example, that Obama, alone among all major candidates this year, said he would meet our enemies without conditions, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. If his approach to Wright were applied, Obama would emerge from that meeting by condemning Ahmadinejad's threat to wipe Israel off the map while also condemning American and Israeli policies. This moral equivalency would be tacit support for Iran's warped grievances, and perhaps for its nuclear program.

After all, we have nuclear weapons and so does Israel, so who are we to deny Iran? Or, as Obama put it Friday when talking about race relations, "People all want the same thing."


that he is willing to meet with Ahmadinejad is FACT. And that is the end of the facts. That bullshit about "If his approach to Wright were applied" is an OPINION.

YOU really need to learn the difference and be able to discern where fact stops and opinion begins.

[Pale Rider]

that he is willing to meet with Ahmadinejad is FACT. And that is the end of the facts. That bullshit about "If his approach to Wright were applied" is an OPINION.

YOU really need to learn the difference and be able to discern where fact stops and opinion begins.

You got no room to talk pin head. You wouldn't know facts or the truth if it kicked you in your pansy little fluffy fat ass.

[red states rule]

You got no room to talk pin head. You wouldn't know facts or the truth if it kicked you in your pansy little fluffy fat ass.

Very true Pale

Obama has said if elected president he will promptly attempt to “organize a summit in the Muslim world, with all the heads of state, to have an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows every day between Muslims and the West.” Obama insists that, at this summit, the U.S. “must also listen to the concerns” of these Muslim heads of states.

Appeasement did not work under the eight years of Clinton, and wil not work now

[retiredman]

You got no room to talk pin head. You wouldn't know facts or the truth if it kicked you in your pansy little fluffy fat ass.


have you really been reduced to following me around from thread to thread adding nothing more than sophomoric insults? don't you have a manifold to go clean, or some chrome to polish?:laugh2:

The point is.... RSR posted an opinionated editorial and tried to pass it off as fact... when I called him on it, he re posted a paragraph that has one small fact in the beginning followed by opinionated bullshit.

Come to think of it, did YOU write that? It is certainly in your style.

[theHawk]

Appeasement did not work under the eight years of Clinton, and wil not work now

It also didn't work for Carter, or any other liberal President in the last 60 years.

[retiredman]

It also didn't work for Carter, or any other liberal President in the last 60 years.


how did it work for Reagan when he ran away from Beirut like a frightened little girl?
:laugh2:

[Classact]

how did it work for Reagan when he ran away from Beirut like a frightened little girl?
:laugh2:The Mid East was managed quite differently in the Cold War era. Rather than having a direct retaliation other indirect actions were taken. Your little :laugh2 thingie isn't appropriate following the posting of USMC victims of terror. I would not think of a laugh when speaking about Black Hawk down!

[Classact]

Obamamanics scream how Sen Obama will unite the country. Well he can't even unite his own political party

Even as more racist comments made by Rev Wright comes out, Obama still defends him. He just wants to get along

So much for his leadership skills, his judgement, and his credibility

The terrorists are looking forward to a Pres Obama.


Barack Obama, our new appeaser
Sunday, March 30th 2008, 4:00 AM

For millions of Americans, the major attraction to Barack Obama is his call for national unity, a summoning to our shared values and common interests. With his charismatic eloquence, this inspirational ideal has single-handedly made him a political phenomenon and the Democratic front-runner.

But Obama's unity appeal, it turns out, has a weak link, one that is dangerous in a President. For revealing it, we can thank the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or, more precisely, Obama's tepid reaction to the outlandish, anti-American things Wright has said. The more he talks about Wright, the more troubling Obama's approach becomes. In a word, he is guilty of appeasement.

In a private context, his stubborn loyalty to his longtime pastor might be admirable. But as someone seeking the presidency, Obama has flunked a critical test of national leadership. By continuing to defend Wright even as he criticizes some of his remarks as "offensive" and "stupid," Obama refuses to draw the important value and factual distinctions a President must draw in a crisis. At heart, his is a "peace at any price" approach that has no business in the Oval Office.

Consider, for example, that Obama, alone among all major candidates this year, said he would meet our enemies without conditions, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. If his approach to Wright were applied, Obama would emerge from that meeting by condemning Ahmadinejad's threat to wipe Israel off the map while also condemning American and Israeli policies. This moral equivalency would be tacit support for Iran's warped grievances, and perhaps for its nuclear program.

After all, we have nuclear weapons and so does Israel, so who are we to deny Iran? Or, as Obama put it Friday when talking about race relations, "People all want the same thing."

for the complete article

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/03/30/2008-03-30_barack_obama_our_new_appeaser.htmlI think Hillary will point out all of Obama's weaknesses prior to the general election so we can have a President Hillary. I see a scorched earth plan in the making to identify all of Obama's faults for the general so he can be easily rejected by the super duper delegates.

[DragonStryk72]

you know, I think we could about get a tape recorder and play it instead of you posting and get the same amount of real debate, rsr.

Another, he's a dem, he's EVIL run, and it will never matter to you what he says, does, or accomplishes, you will never alter your opinion, regardless of facts, so a discussion with you on it is the biggest waste of my time, energy, and caring that I can come to. therefore, I choose not to.

[Hagbard Celine]

Obamamanics scream how Sen Obama will unite the country. Well he can't even unite his own political party

It's true. Obamamaniacs do scream. And they look like this when they do it:
http://www.mentalfloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/munch.scream.jpg


:rolleyes:

[retiredman]

The Mid East was managed quite differently in the Cold War era. Rather than having a direct retaliation other indirect actions were taken. Your little :laugh2 thingie isn't appropriate following the posting of USMC victims of terror. I would not think of a laugh when speaking about Black Hawk down!


"other indirect actions were taken"? I suppose that is a Reagan lover's way of saying "running away with his tail between his legs like a girlieman?

and if not, please feel free to enumerate a list of those "other indirect actions". Oh...and "throwing a hissy fit in the Oval Office" doesn't really count.

And my laughter was certainly not for the brave marines who died at the Beirut airport, but rather for fucking brown nosing republicans like you who will twist and turn and tie yourselves into knots before admitting that the demi-god Raygun ever did anything to harm America.... but will, in the next breath, jump all over Carter and Clinton when their transgressions were nowhere near as egregious nor viewed as anywhere near the sign of cowardice by the arab world that Ronnie's actions were. hypocrite.:laugh2:

[Classact]

"other indirect actions were taken"? I suppose that is a Reagan lover's way of saying "running away with his tail between his legs like a girlieman?

and if not, please feel free to enumerate a list of those "other indirect actions". Oh...and "throwing a hissy fit in the Oval Office" doesn't really count.

And my laughter was certainly not for the brave marines who died at the Beirut airport, but rather for fucking brown nosing republicans like you who will twist and turn and tie yourselves into knots before admitting that the demi-god Raygun ever did anything to harm America.... but will, in the next breath, jump all over Carter and Clinton when their transgressions were nowhere near as egregious nor viewed as anywhere near the sign of cowardice by the arab world that Ronnie's actions were. hypocrite.:laugh2:I'll agree with you that a direct reprisal with a US flag taking credit would have been my preference for the terror act. But, please don't try to excuse Carter and others for their weakness on foreign policy. The left has a resume almost equal to Carter and MoveOn is a clear power element of the Democratic Party.

I think we should nuke more cities when people do stupid stuff to our military forces and see if they strap cameras on and come to Disney World like the Japanese did. America retains the right to fire bomb any damned city is so desires and should do so when folks from that city use illegal methods to kill Americans.

[retiredman]

I'll agree with you that a direct reprisal with a US flag taking credit would have been my preference for the terror act. But, please don't try to excuse Carter and others for their weakness on foreign policy. The left has a resume almost equal to Carter and MoveOn is a clear power element of the Democratic Party.

I think we should nuke more cities when people do stupid stuff to our military forces and see if they strap cameras on and come to Disney World like the Japanese did. America retains the right to fire bomb any damned city is so desires and should do so when folks from that city use illegal methods to kill Americans.


so...beyond the oval office hissy fit, you couldn't come up with any indirect actions to the marine corps massacre in Beirut that would give you any credence when you try to put Reagan on some higher plane than Carter and Clinton?

I dind't think so.

and who would you bomb when our attackers are not associated with any country, per se, but only a radical branch of a religion?

and your comments about the japanese are crude and troglodytic.

[Classact]

so...beyond the oval office hissy fit, you couldn't come up with any indirect actions to the marine corps massacre in Beirut that would give you any credence when you try to put Reagan on some higher plane than Carter and Clinton?

I dind't think so.

and who would you bomb when our attackers are not associated with any country, per se, but only a radical branch of a religion?

and your comments about the japanese are crude and troglodytic.I'd nuke that place in Afghanistan that Obama says he would hit with the US forces and dare them to nuke me back. Make em glow in the dark... another 9-11 it would be like Japan needing two nukes and the other cities to get the point. Make em glow in the dark.

[retiredman]

I'd nuke that place in Afghanistan that Obama says he would hit with the US forces and dare them to nuke me back. Make em glow in the dark... another 9-11 it would be like Japan needing two nukes and the other cities to get the point. Make em glow in the dark.


wow. what an enormous cyber penis you have! you are so incredibly macho! so you think that dropping a nuclear weapon on a desolate mountain village would be the best use of our military arsenal? really???

and how are you coming on that list of Ronnie's "indirect actions"?

Or are you willing to admit that was just pure bullshit and that if you are going to castigate Clinton for Blackhawk Down or Carter for the the Tehran embassy, that you need to stand Ronnie Runaway right up there with them?

[Pale Rider]

have you really been reduced to following me around from thread to thread adding nothing more than sophomoric insults? don't you have a manifold to go clean, or some chrome to polish?
More do as I say not as I do from the liberal racist apologist. And just to point out, sentences start with a capitol letter.


The point is.... RSR posted an opinionated editorial and tried to pass it off as fact... when I called him on it, he re posted a paragraph that has one small fact in the beginning followed by opinionated bullshit.

Come to think of it, did YOU write that? It is certainly in your style.
Opinions are based in fact. You don't like this opinion because it points out more flaws in your messiah.

[Pale Rider]

wow. what an enormous cyber penis you have! you are so incredibly macho!



have you really been reduced to following me around from thread to thread adding nothing more than sophomoric insults? don't you have a manifold to go clean, or some chrome to polish?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds does it butt cake...

You have effectively reduced your standing here to nevadamedicII mfm. One smart mouth ignorant moron to replace another.

And by the way... I've found your church, and I'm going to be sending it some of your filthy comments from here. I do hope they enjoy them.

[red states rule]

Now Obama considers babies PUNISHMENT

Sen Obama does not consider a baby a gift from God, but a punishment.


Barack Obama: I Don’t Want My Daughters “Punished” With A Baby


“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

A child isn’t a punishment. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy it may be a consequence, but the term “punish” implies some third party sending the baby along in response to bad behavior. But that’s now how it actually works. An unwanted pregnancy can’t be a punishment because a child is the result of the actions of the parents.

Though I can see where a liberal like Obama would want to make it seem like those challenged with unwanted pregnancy are victims as that’s pretty much the liberal way. Nobody is ever responsible for their own actions. People don’t act, they are acted upon.

That’s the liberal way.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/barack_obama_i_dont_want_my_daughters_punished_wit h_a_baby/

[retiredman]

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds does it butt cake...

You have effectively reduced your standing here to nevadamedicII mfm. One smart mouth ignorant moron to replace another.

And by the way... I've found your church, and I'm going to be sending it some of your filthy comments from here. I do hope they enjoy them.

I made my point. I answered your question. YOU don't like the answer,,, that' ain't my fuckin' problem.

and do you REALLY want to take our disagreement out of cyberspace and bring it into the real world? You should remember that the Law of Unintended Consequences states that for any action one can will, there will always be some unintended consequences that result that are not intended to be. You should think twice before you cross over from cyberspace to life. Seriously.

[retiredman]

More do as I say not as I do from the liberal racist apologist. And just to point out, sentences start with a capitol letter.


tell it to e.e. cummings, dickhead!:laugh2:

[OCA]

you know, I think we could about get a tape recorder and play it instead of you posting and get the same amount of real debate, rsr.

Another, he's a dem, he's EVIL run, and it will never matter to you what he says, does, or accomplishes, you will never alter your opinion, regardless of facts, so a discussion with you on it is the biggest waste of my time, energy, and caring that I can come to. therefore, I choose not to.

Awesome post! RSR cannot see the forest for the trees.

[Hagbard Celine]

Obviously Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ. These are obviously the end-times.

[theHawk]

Now Obama considers babies PUNISHMENT

Sen Obama does not consider a baby a gift from God, but a punishment.


Barack Obama: I Don’t Want My Daughters “Punished” With A Baby


“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

A child isn’t a punishment. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy it may be a consequence, but the term “punish” implies some third party sending the baby along in response to bad behavior. But that’s now how it actually works. An unwanted pregnancy can’t be a punishment because a child is the result of the actions of the parents.

Though I can see where a liberal like Obama would want to make it seem like those challenged with unwanted pregnancy are victims as that’s pretty much the liberal way. Nobody is ever responsible for their own actions. People don’t act, they are acted upon.

That’s the liberal way.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/barack_obama_i_dont_want_my_daughters_punished_wit h_a_baby/


What do you expect? B.O. voted against a law to crack down on infanticide, he is the lowest of shitbag liberal politicians in this country that will do anything to maintain abortion on demand and even the right to kill off babies that survive abortions.

[red states rule]

More do as I say not as I do from the liberal racist apologist. And just to point out, sentences start with a capitol letter.


Opinions are based in fact. You don't like this opinion because it points out more flaws in your messiah.

Better grab your dashiki and head out for one of Wright's sermons. You can sit next to Obama. Dont be late to learn some more hate!

[retiredman]

Better grab your dashiki and head out for one of Wright's sermons. You can sit next to Obama. Dont be late to learn some more hate!

Rev. Wright retired....didn't you hear?

[Yurt]

Rev. Wright retired....didn't you hear?

bull, he is still senior pastor and on payroll :poke:

[retiredman]

bull, he is still senior pastor and on payroll :poke:


that's not what John Thomas says...

that's not what Otis Moss says...

but jewish lawyers from california usually DO know more about UCC churches than the pastors do [/sarcasm off]

[Yurt]

that's not what John Thomas says...

that's not what Otis Moss says...

but jewish lawyers from california usually DO know more about UCC churches than the pastors do [/sarcasm off]

you're melting down asshole.... calling me a jewish lawyer...WTF is that supposed to mean? and i already told you that only my father is jewish you ninny.

the website says he is senior pastor....they changed other items, but NOT this....

http://www.tucc.org/pastoral_staff.htm
http://www.tucc.org/pastor.htm

he is still on staff.......you have proof that contradicts their own website meltdown boy

[retiredman]

you're melting down asshole.... calling me a jewish lawyer...WTF is that supposed to mean? and i already told you that only my father is jewish you ninny.

the website says he is senior pastor....they changed other items, but NOT this....

http://www.tucc.org/pastoral_staff.htm
http://www.tucc.org/pastor.htm

he is still on staff.......you have proof that contradicts their own website meltdown boy

all the press accounts of his retirement. The video of John Thomas preaching at his goodbye ceremony.

The fact that a website isn't updated means diddly.

but.... you should know better than the current senior pastor at TUCC AND the president of the UCC, shouldn't you?

and trust me Yurt.... I ain't CLOSE to melting down...I am calmly sipping a delicious cup of decaffeinated green tea and poking at a dweeb on the internet.... and getting ready to go read a book.

[Yurt]

all the press accounts of his retirement. The video of John Thomas preaching at his goodbye ceremony.

The fact that a website isn't updated means diddly.

but.... you should know better than the current senior pastor at TUCC AND the president of the UCC, shouldn't you?

and trust me Yurt.... I ain't CLOSE to melting down...I am calmly sipping a delicious cup of decaffeinated green tea and poking at a dweeb on the internet.... and getting ready to go read a book.

so they updated the other parts, but oh so conveniently didn't update that.... you have nothing to counter their factual assertions that he is still STAFF and a pastor.

you are melting down, just look at the way you are talking to people lately, you're blatenly rude

[retiredman]

so they updated the other parts, but oh so conveniently didn't update that.... you have nothing to counter their factual assertions that he is still STAFF and a pastor.

you are melting down, just look at the way you are talking to people lately, you're blatenly rude


and all you have to counter the wave of press reports and statements is a website that hasn't been updated yet? :lol:


and I am actually not melting down at all. really I am not. Sometimes, people deserve how they are treated. and sometimes, people like you are hypercritical of some folks while giving others free passes. think about it.

[manu1959]

.... Sometimes, people deserve how they are treated.




i trust that you will have no issue with how you are now treated given your recent immoral comments.....

[Yurt]

and all you have to counter the wave of press reports and statements is a website that hasn't been updated yet? :lol:


and I am actually not melting down at all. really I am not. Sometimes, people deserve how they are treated. and sometimes, people like you are hypercritical of some folks while giving others free passes. think about it.

show me a press report that says he is no longer paid as being part of staff, this is the third time i've mentioned. i know he is still receiving checks for being a pastor . further, does really matter what countless other hearsay people claim when their website lists him still as pastor, eh him, senior pastor. i am positive that otis was listed as assistant pastor before this debacle. and why have they changed other critical parts but not this ONE very IMPORTANT piece of evidence to the world that he is in fact no longer staff/paid/pastor. they remark on all the other racist stuff, but not this....

prove i'm hypocrital...

[Yurt]

sure looks retired.....reverend

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright received a thunderous, standing ovation from members of St. Sabina Church, which hosted Angelou as she nears her 80th birthday, according to CBS2.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/867651,wrightcbs032908.article

he's um, yeah, um retired, but still gives sermons and is still called reverend wright......

[retiredman]

sure looks retired.....reverend

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright received a thunderous, standing ovation from members of St. Sabina Church, which hosted Angelou as she nears her 80th birthday, according to CBS2.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/867651,wrightcbs032908.article

he's um, yeah, um retired, but still gives sermons and is still called reverend wright......


I guess maybe rabbis aren't called rabbis anymore when they retire, but congregational ministers certainly are. He has retired as pastor of TUCC. But you hang onto the webpage....that's really critical.:laugh2:

[Yurt]

I guess maybe rabbis aren't called rabbis anymore when they retire, but congregational ministers certainly are. He has retired as pastor of TUCC. But you hang onto the webpage....that's really critical.:laugh2:

well...now the fourth time you ignore another issue, that makes 8 today mr. anxiety when i don't immediately respond to your questions....

where is your proof he is still not on payroll......there is nothing you have offered that says he is officially off payroll and their own website indicates he is still on payroll....you again are ignorant of the fact that the church amended their website to down play the racism, amended the website to offer explanations of wright, but oooops, left him up as "senior" pastor.....you further ignore my assertion that Otis was "assistant" pastor before, not pastor.

edit -- keep throwing the jew baiting talk up bigot....

[retiredman]

well...now the fourth time you ignore another issue, that makes 8 today mr. anxiety when i don't immediately respond to your questions....

where is your proof he is still not on payroll......there is nothing you have offered that says he is officially off payroll and their own website indicates he is still on payroll....you again are ignorant of the fact that the church amended their website to down play the racism, amended the website to offer explanations of wright, but oooops, left him up as "senior" pastor.....you further ignore my assertion that Otis was "assistant" pastor before, not pastor.

edit -- keep throwing the jew baiting talk up bigot....

your assertion as to Reverend Otis's title is just that.

YOu don't have access to TUCC payroll data and neither do I so quit asking silly questions.... are you calling the president of the United Church of Christ a LIAR?

[Yurt]

your assertion as to Reverend Otis's title is just that.

YOu don't have access to TUCC payroll data and neither do I so quit asking silly questions.... are you calling the president of the United Church of Christ a LIAR?

you're dense...he never said he was off payroll.....he may be only "retired" from "actively" being the lead pastor every week....it is entirely plausible (when you take off your cult glasses) that he is still on payroll and the church does in FACT consider him senior pastor, which he was only pastor before and the church's website confirms that.

nothing you have contradicts anything i have stated and proved to you.

btw, don't ever bring up rabbi or jew stuff with me again, unless it is about the greatest jew of all, Jesus. i'm not repeating my heritage, my beliefs, or this hate talk with you....got it

[retiredman]

you're dense...he never said he was off payroll.....he may be only "retired" from "actively" being the lead pastor every week....it is entirely plausible (when you take off your cult glasses) that he is still on payroll and the church does in FACT consider him senior pastor, which he was only pastor before and the church's website confirms that.

nothing you have contradicts anything i have stated and proved to you.

btw, don't ever bring up rabbi or jew stuff with me again, unless it is about the greatest jew of all, Jesus. i'm not repeating my heritage, my beliefs, or this hate talk with you....got it


you MAY have lots of theories as to his status. The president of our denomination said he was retired. And you got a website that has not been updated yet. go with that. Maybe you should change your screen name to Thomas!

[manu1959]

you MAY have lots of theories as to his status. The president of our denomination said he was retired. And you got a website that has not been updated yet. go with that. Maybe you should change your screen name to Thomas!

wanna bet he starts preaching again next spring.....how about that 10,000 sq .ft. house....nice retirement gift.....:laugh2:

[Dilloduck]

you MAY have lots of theories as to his status. The president of our denomination said he was retired. And you got a website that has not been updated yet. go with that. Maybe you should change your screen name to Thomas!

I see you've reduced another thread to silly semantics---Obama's church still loves the guy who damned America---retired or not.

[manu1959]

I see you've reduced another thread to silly semantics---Obama's church still loves the guy who damned America---retired or not.

i like the fact that the preacher took the lords name in vain during a sermon....

[retiredman]

I see you've reduced another thread to silly semantics---Obama's church still loves the guy who damned America---retired or not.

just think of all the good he must have done to grow that church nearly one hundred fold.... I can imagine a pastor like that would be well loved by his flock. certainly....and even forgiven for some over the top statements, no doubt.

[Dilloduck]

i like the fact that the preacher took the lords name in vain during a sermon....

typical black church----you gotta be one to understand em. :laugh2:

[manu1959]

just think of all the good he must have done to grow that church nearly one hundred fold.... I can imagine a pastor like that would be well loved by his flock. certainly....and even forgiven for some over the top statements, no doubt.

jim jones and david koresh had a lot of followers....so did hitler for that matter.....and pol pot....

[retiredman]

jim jones and david koresh had a lot of followers....so did hitler for that matter.....and pol pot....

are you comparing the members of Trinity UCC to followers of Hitler and Pol Pot?

[Yurt]

are you comparing the members of Trinity UCC to followers of Hitler and Pol Pot?

are you saying they didn't have lots of followers and that they started basically from scratch and gained followers a hundred fold?

[retiredman]

are you saying they didn't have lots of followers and that they started basically from scratch and gained followers a hundred fold?

and that is what happened to Peter and the disciples on Pentacost.

I am suggesting that a reverend who can grow a church from 85 members to 8500 members has got to be a pretty multifaceted pastor. And I can speak from some experience in that the preparation and delivery of a sermon each week is the easy part. His leadership was felt in a wide variety of positive and uplifting ways....and his positive impact was felt on a large number of people...but then, you really don't give a shit about that, because Wright has given you your ticket to selfrighteously bash Obama and convince yourself and everyone else that it had nothing to do with his race.

[manu1959]

are you comparing the members of Trinity UCC to followers of Hitler and Pol Pot?

nah.....you all are still alive......any reason the comparison to koresch and jones didn't bother you......

[retiredman]

nah.....you all are still alive......any reason the comparison to koresch and jones didn't bother you......

who said they didn't?

and I am not a member of TUCC.... but if I lived in south Chicago I would love to join

[manu1959]

who said they didn't?

and I am not a member of TUCC.... but if I lived in south Chicago I would love to join

you failed to mention them......you can always convert to catholic when you outsource your retirement.....

[retiredman]

you failed to mention them......you can always convert to catholic when you outsource your retirement.....


I am pretty sure there will be some demand for an itinerant UCC preacher where I am going.....small congregations.... nice fellowship afterwards. I don't think that I will ever give up the chance to fill in a pulpit every now and then.

[manu1959]

I am pretty sure there will be some demand for an itinerant UCC preacher where I am going.....small congregations.... nice fellowship afterwards. I don't think that I will ever give up the chance to fill in a pulpit every now and then.

you spelled insensitive wrong.....and you know ....given the way you behave here and the way you speak to people it does not surprise me in the least that you defend wright....you are just like him....

[Yurt]

and that is what happened to Peter and the disciples on Pentacost.

I am suggesting that a reverend who can grow a church from 85 members to 8500 members has got to be a pretty multifaceted pastor. And I can speak from some experience in that the preparation and delivery of a sermon each week is the easy part. His leadership was felt in a wide variety of positive and uplifting ways....and his positive impact was felt on a large number of people...but then, you really don't give a shit about that, because Wright has given you your ticket to selfrighteously bash Obama and convince yourself and everyone else that it had nothing to do with his race.

uh, never brought up his race until he and his pastor did :poke: nice try with the lies there....so they bring up evil whitey, but it is us who are racist :laugh2:

and yes they...he supports the church and its racist views and i already showed how his speech and following comments make him a racist...see my sig for starters...

[red states rule]

Obama says he was distressed over some of Rev Wrights comments (after he said he never heard any of them)

But now video has surfaced showing Obama and Wright signing books together one year ago. Obama did not seem distressed over the comments of his racist mentor in this video.

Money was being made, so he checked his outrage at the bank door



CBS 2 Chicago: 2007 Video of Obama and Wright Signing Books Together
By Warner Todd Huston | March 31, 2008 - 20:53 ET

**Video below the fold**

On Feb 8, 2007 Channel 2 News Chicago had a little puff piece on Senator Barack Obama discussing his soon to be launched presidential campaign. It happened to air just before Barack's "60 Minutes" TV interview and it focused on Barack's attendance at the Trinity United Church of Christ. The interesting thing about this video is that Barack is seen sitting side by side with Rev. Wright as they sign copies of Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope." This chumminess seems to make the lie to the claim that Barack was in any way upset at his "spiritual mentor," Rev. Wright.

It is curious why the CBS 2 video showing a beaming Barack and Wright has not been more widely played by the media, but it does prove that Barack only recently, in the middle of scrutiny and only in the last month, has found himself trying to claim he disagrees with the racist Rev. After all, he was still quite friendly with the ranting Rev. Wright in the CBS video of but a year ago.

for the complete article and to see the video

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/03/31/cbs-2-chicago-2007-video-obama-wright-signing-books-together

[red states rule]

I made my point. I answered your question. YOU don't like the answer,,, that' ain't my fuckin' problem.

and do you REALLY want to take our disagreement out of cyberspace and bring it into the real world? You should remember that the Law of Unintended Consequences states that for any action one can will, there will always be some unintended consequences that result that are not intended to be. You should think twice before you cross over from cyberspace to life. Seriously.

Why are you upset? Would you be embarassed if your fellow Church memebers were to read some of your posts, and see the other side of you?

[retiredman]

Why are you upset? Would you be embarassed if your fellow Church memebers were to read some of your posts, and see the other side of you?Who said I was upset? I merely point out that there is a law of unintended consequences. We all should take that into account when we think of taking cyberspace issues into the real world

[red states rule]

Who said I was upset? I merely point out that there is a law of unintended consequences. We all should take that into account when we think of taking cyberspace issues into the real world

I believe your fellow Church members would be very interested to read your ideas on cemetery maintance

As well as your language toward others who gave a different opinion

[retiredman]

I believe your fellow Church members would be very interested to read your ideas on cemetery maintance

As well as your language toward others who gave a different opinion

I think they wouldn't much care....but again, the law of unintended consequences might jump up and bite you in the ass in ways you clearly had not intended!

[red states rule]

I think they wouldn't much care....but again, the law of unintended consequences might jump up and bite you in the ass in ways you clearly had not intended!

I guess we all will have to wait and see

[retiredman]

I guess we all will have to wait and see


see what?

[red states rule]

see what?

The reaction of your fellow church members, and how you deal with it

[retiredman]

The reaction of your fellow church members, and how you deal with it

why? are you planning on contacting them?

[red states rule]

why? are you planning on contacting them?

I am sure Pale will keep us updated. You seem very worried about it. I wonder why?

[red states rule]

Back to the topic at hand. more of Obama the appeaser

From the WSJ


snip

Mr. Obama, as everyone knows, wants to remove American troops at a steady rate of one to two combat brigades a month, until they are all but gone, and "help Iraq reach a meaningful accord on national reconcilation." Mr. McCain, as everyone also knows, will do just about everything it takes to win in Iraq and is prepared, on the Korean, West German or Japanese model, to deploy soldiers to the country for a century to preserve the peace.

Yet what distinguishes Mr. McCain's foreign policy from Mr. Obama's is not about the nature of America's commitments in the Middle East. It is about their understanding of the consequences of defeat. Mr. McCain seems to have some. It's not clear whether Mr. Obama does.

In his speech, Mr. Obama rightly observes the paradox of Mr. McCain's position on Iraq. The Arizonan, he notes, argued in 2006 that the U.S. could not withdraw because "violence was up," whereas now he argues the U.S. cannot withdraw "because violence is down." "Success," says the Illinois senator, "comes to be defined as the ability to maintain a flawed policy indefinitely."

A fair point. But here are questions for Mr. Obama: Could there be something worse than the indefinite maintenance of a flawed policy? What if, following a U.S. withdrawal, Iraq collapsed into chaos? What if U.S. embassy personnel have to be helicoptered to safety from the roof of the Baghdad embassy? It's not as if this hasn't happened before.

Nowhere in Mr. Obama's speech is that scenario entertained, and one wonders why. Perhaps it is a function of biography. With the exception of a failed congressional bid in 2000, defeat has not formed a significant part of Mr. Obama's upwardly mobile life experience. Or perhaps it is a function of philosophy. Not everyone share's Mr. McCain's view that the defeat in Vietnam was a "disgrace," or that the result of a war carried out "Not In My Name" nonetheless has bearing on the worth of one's country.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120701366088479171.html?mod=todays_columnists

[retiredman]

I am sure Pale will keep us updated. You seem very worried about it. I wonder why?

I am not worried at all.... I am just wondering where I might need to send those "consequences"!

I didn't really expect you to be quite that foolish to do something stupid like that.... but, then, I certainly wouldn't lose a lot of money underestimating YOUR intelligence.

[red states rule]

Obama has more issues with the truth

snip

When Mitt Romney stated that he saw his father march with Martin Luther King Jr., there was wall to wall media coverage reporting how he had to start backpeddaling. Even after witnesses came forward claiming they had seen his father march with him, the media story of Mitt fabricating the story still persists.

Will Obama get the same media treatment with his lies? Don’t hold your breath. In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.

The Washtington Post Fact Checker delves deeper.

Addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Ala., a year ago, Sen. Barack Obama traced his “very existence” to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother.

The Camelot connection has become part of the mythology surrounding Obama’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. After Caroline Kennedy endorsed his candidacy in January, Newsweek commentator Jonathan Alter reported that she had been struck by the extraordinary way in which “history replays itself” and by how “two generations of two families — separated by distance, culture and wealth — can intersect in strange and wonderful ways.”

It is a touching story — but the key details are either untrue or grossly oversimplified.

Contrary to Obama’s claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama’s father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton acknowledged yesterday that the senator from Illinois had erred in crediting the Kennedy family with a role in his father’s arrival in the United States. He said the Kennedy involvement in the Kenya student program apparently “started 48 years ago, not 49 years ago as Obama has mistakenly suggested in the past.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/03/30/more-obama-lies-media-will-ignore

[Yurt]

I am not worried at all.... I am just wondering where I might need to send those "consequences"!

I didn't really expect you to be quite that foolish to do something stupid like that.... but, then, I certainly wouldn't lose a lot of money underestimating YOUR intelligence.

from the guy who whines like a baby when i tease him about his intelligence....what a sad hypocritter....

[red states rule]

from the guy who whines like a baby when i tease him about his intelligence....what a sad hypocritter....

and like the energizer bunny, he keeps whining, and whining, and whining