 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Well doest thy name those last red fangs in the jaws of my vengeance. :rolleyes: Seriously though, is Obama telling of facts, immoral? Whom has judged him guilty? Is criticism that's already been addressed openly, not open? Can I ask more questions to answer other questions that have already been answered?
There's yet another new email chain going around. This time it propagates Ken Blackwell, a Columnist for the New York Sun, as the heralded Republican prophet of color. The email starts on the subject content with, "what a black columnist has to say about Obama," and finishes with notation at the bottom declaring Obama is the anti-Christ, according to the Christian book of Revelations.
**************************************************
"Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun
It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.
Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he l ost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francis co values, not Middle America values.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.
It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Subject: Kind of scary, wouldn't you think
Remember--God is good, and is in time, on time--every time.
According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is:
The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??
I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet...do it!
If you think I am crazy..Im sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the "unknown" candidate"
**************************************************
Run Republicans, run. The world will end if Jesus McCain is not be elected? :rolleyes:
Ken Blackwell appears to believes literally what is in the bible. That's enough for me to discount anything that comes out of his mouth.
He doesn't even know it's the Book of Revelation, not Revelations. Sheesh.
The original Blackburn article has no such reference at the end of the piece.
Beyond Obama's Beauty - February 14, 2008 - The New York Sun
Clearly this was a C/P from one of the many bloggs that posted it.
EDIT : I found the blog the email originated from but it is pass word protected . Bottom line is that the reference to the bible is a reader comment and not from the author .
I agree fully with the theme of the article . Obama's record as thin as it is must be examined but also we need to take full measure of all the candidates . The reality is that means that his associations and his philosophical viewpoints are relevant .
LOL, I know of one or two on this board that could use an eye examination (not referring to you of course).Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
And as I pointed out McCain has repeatedly made it clear since the day after receiving Hagee's endorsement that he was not endorsing Hagee's beliefs, yet it hasn't stopped the masses from raising the comparison in response to Obama's current dilemma. I believe you did, did you not my friend?Quote:
PART III. This is why Obama has said on several occasions, contrary to Republican verbiages and in-spite of their blatant deafness, that he does not agree with the Rev Wright on several of his remarks. Senator Obama, does not solicit Wright for his campaigning advice nor does he give him that exclusive privilege.
I raised the past because of Obama's claim that he was never present, never heard any of Wright's nonsense. The Newsmax story which is I admit in dispute at the moment, seems to show otherwise. I'd like to give Obama the benefit of the doubt but I have a really hard time believing that in 20 years he had never heard Wright say anything of the sort, especially considering he called him his mentor and they both, according to the NY Times, knew Obama would have to distance himself. Why? And what took him so long?
I'm firmly grounded in 2008, thank you, and this post I initiated is about Obama and his friend of 20 years, pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright - not Bush or Reagan. Obama knew this guy would cause problems for him before he ever announced his candidacy. He has run on the theme that words matter and that he has the judgment for the job. Do words matter or not? Does waiting over a year to distance himself from this guy show good judgment? Does lying about having never heard any of his controversial 'preaching' show good judgment?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again:
I don't know.
I bought electricity from Enron. I bought long distance service from WorldCom. I buy newspapers from Rupert Murdock. My physician is a political whacko. My attorney is a member of the ACLU. I bought a book by Ayn Rand, and one from David Duke too. I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh. I watch a TV made in China. I eat tomatoes grown in Mexico. My high school history teacher was a communist. My high school principal was a fascist. My paycheck comes from the federal government...
Uhhhh, so what?
excon
Ahem, this was not part of the column as tom pointed out:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Bobby's notice that this was an "email chain going around" should have been your first clue that this portion was added by the blogger, not the columnist.Quote:
*Subject: Kind of scary, wouldn't you think
Remember--God is good, and is in time, on time--every time.
According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is:
The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal... the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA?
I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet... do it!
If you think I am crazy.. Im sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the "unknown" candidate"
excon did you befriend David Duke and go to his white sheets meetings for 20 years ?
Hello again:
I read an email that said while John McCain was in the North Vietnam prison, he was brainwashed to take over the US and make it Communist.
Send this to everybody you know... We can't take a chance...
excon
I got that email too. I'm sending it to all. Mine also said that he has associations with racists in South Carolina and something about Keating scandal.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Did the email about McCain and the Keating scandal happen to mention that Robert Bennett, who would later represent President Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones case, was the special counsel for the Senate Ethics Committee . That he did not think that McCain should've been included in the Senators hauled before the committee but the majority Democrats needed a sacrificial Republican to prove the scandal was bi-partisan ?
The investigation found that he was the least culpable, along with Sen John Glenn. McCain attended the meetings arranged for Keating but did nothing afterward to stop Lincoln S&L from going out of business.Quote:
"In the case of Senator McCain, there is very substantial evidence that he thought he had an understanding with Senator DeConcini's office that certain matters would not be gone into at the meeting with (bank board) Chairman (Ed) Gray," Bennett said.
"Moreover, there is substantial evidence that, as a result of Senator McCain's refusal to do certain things, he had a fallout with Mr. Keating."
McCain received only a mild rebuke from the Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment" for intervening with the federal regulators on behalf of Keating .At the time McCain felt justified because Keating was a constituent .However it is undeniable that Keating was a campaign fund raiser for McCain and had done favors for him. There was no appearance of quid pro quo. Still McCain admits to anyone who listens that it was the biggest mistake of his public service. Since then he has been a champion of all types of reform related to lobbying and he correctly brags that he never asks for earmark spending . Can Obama and Hillary make the same claim ?
I don't bother to read any conspiracy emails, I hit the delete key.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Good news for all those Wright supporters out there, even though Obama is distancing himself, Cindy Sheehan is not and offers a stirring amen to Wright's messages.
People who have read advanced copies of the speech Obama will make today have confirmed that Obama admits to being in the church when Wright made some of these statements . But overall they say it is comparable to Romney's address ;although he takes shots at conservatives so reaction will probably still fall along party lines.Quote:
I raised the past because of Obama's claim that he was never present, never heard any of Wright's nonsense. The Newsmax story which is I admit in dispute at the moment, seems to show otherwise. I'd like to give Obama the benefit of the doubt but I have a really hard time believing that in 20 years he had never heard Wright say anything of the sort, especially considering he called him his mentor and they both, according to the NY Times, knew Obama would have to distance himself. Why? And what took him so long?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No, but I was married to rightwinger for 18 years. I don't think it's rubbed off, has it? And, I was pretty close to her...
I don't know. I don't think Obama has been rebuked by the Ethics Committee. Has he?? Nahhhh, he's rubuke free. You just want to make him look bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Do you want a president with the first name JOHN? Do you know what a JOHN is? How disgusting...
excon
Lol
WE have a bigger problem than that in the NY NJ area . WE can't seem to find Governors who can keep their pants up . That includes our new Governor sworn in yesterday David Paterson .
The Associated Press: Report: New NY Governor Admits Affair
excon there are plenty of things my wife and I disagree about. This is not the same . A better analogy would be you attending synagogue for 20 years and then claiming that it has nothing to do with your value system . I want him to explain how black liberation theology has shaped him ;just like Romney did when he defended Mormanism.
Hello again, tom:
I don't disagree. It's a problem for him. Let's see how he handles it today when he address this very issue. If he nails it, he's going to be president.
excon
That was the first story I heard today... right before I read about the alleged threesome in NJ, LOL. What do they put in the water up there tom?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The preemptive strike by both Paterson and his wife was smart though - Obama could have learned a thing or two from that.
Well, he nailed it - at least for those enraptured by the man. I'm not buying what he has to sell.
Well duh!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
That's your decision to turn down a good education.
Brilliant response as usual NK.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Thanks man. I'm known for my succinctness as I don't have nearly the free time as you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Not bad ; he almost nailed it . If I had a chance to ask him some questions here are a few off the top of my head
Senator you talk about the need to end segregation but you attend a church that advances the notion of seperateness. How do you explain the contradiction ?
I dispute your contention about the Reagan coalition.Reagan earned the votes of nearly 100 million Americans in his two landslide victories, and yet we're supposed to believe that his success was built on white racism.
Senator I won't quibble too much as to your timeline about the Constitutional convention . (it occurred in the heat of the summer... not spring )
Senator do you think that the acceptance of liberal paternalism has helped advance the lot of the black family ? How do you explain the upwardly mobile black community that has embraced rather than rejected "middleclassness" ;that has embraced "hope " rather than the victimization that your pastor Rev Wright exploits ?
I still maintain that his relationship with Rev Wright would be a disqualifier for anyone else. But he probably brought himself some time to prove that he and Rev Wright are at odds on the issues that the Rev rants about.
Bottom line for me will be in the details . He has yet to distance himself from the worn out liberal prescriptions that has I believe contributed to the lack of progress he outlined. So what will really change with an Obama Presidency ? A new face selling the same product ?
Bobby, come on, I know he's your guy and that's fine, but in over 40 years of attending church I have never, ever heard anything remotely close to the bile spewed by Wright - and yes I have attended black churches a few times as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
It doesn't take much of an education to know all along that Obama was lying over the weekend about what he knew of his pastor and mentor. You don't spend 20 years in a church and not have a really good idea of what goes on there, and for Obama to spin this as he has today. Kathryn Jean Lopez made a good point about Obama's speech:
They were not merely "controversial" statements they were extreme and outrageous. They offend me as a white man, as an American and as a Christian and give valid reason to question Obama's judgment. It was just 3 weeks ago that Obama said this of his church:Quote:
There's also this that bothers me: His loyalty to Wright seems to run a little too deep. As a friend e-mailed me during the speech: "I always thought what created a controversy was that statements made or positions held might be true, notwithstanding that they were unpopular and even bracing. In that sense, Wright's statements that Obama heard were crank statements, not controversial statements, no matter how hard he tries to sugarcoat."
I guess that depends on who "you" might be. Today, the pastor of this not "particularly controversial" church has "expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel," not to mention "divisive" and "racially charged."Quote:
“I don’t think that my church is actually particularly controversial. It is a member of the United Church of Christ. It’s got a choir. We sing hymnals. We talk about scripture. You would feel at home if you were there.”
Which is it? Time and again of late Obama and his campaign have been entirely inconsistent, on this issue, on NAFTA, on Iraq, and on why he disinvited Wright from giving the invocation at his announcement ceremony. Why am I to believe him now, and why should I believe his rhetoric about uniting the nation and healing racial divides? I need an education to spot this kind of inconsistency?
Peter Kirsanow at NRO makes a decent case that he will be selling the same product.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Victor Davis Hansen calls his speech An Elegant Farce about moral equivalence.
Thomas Sowell sums up the controversy this way:
My sympathies exactly.Quote:
The fact that Obama talks differently than Jeremiah Wright does not mean that his track record is different. Barack Obama’s voting record in the Senate is perfectly consistent with the far-left ideology and the grievance culture, just as his wife’s statement that she was never proud of her country before is consistent with that ideology.
Senator Barack Obama’s political success thus far has been a blow for equality. But equality has its down side.
Equality means that a black demagogue who has been exposed as a phony deserves exactly the same treatment as a white demagogue who has been exposed as a phony.
We don’t need a president of the United States who got to the White House by talking one way, voting a very different way in the Senate, and who for 20 years followed a man whose words and deeds contradict Obama’s carefully crafted election-year image.
My apologies. I retract my statement then.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Not a problem Skell. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
I really enjoyed that speech. Once again his words inspired me. They gave me hope that the US isn't as doomed as it sometimes appears to the world. Something that you guys see as hollow, I see as an unyielding desire to change the world as we see it.
If Obama is lying then he is one of the greatest actors of all time. But given the US's record of electing former / part time actors to government positions it shouldn't really matter :)
You've been out of the loop then. Obama did say he heard some comments, not just everything that has been brought up as news. He doesn't attend every service, he can't. He's running a campaign for heavens sake. Most all the candidates are sleep deprived with the exception for McCain, who looks like he never woke up. But for the record, Obama did re-address this all again today in a very educational speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Actually I think Skell got the point while others whiffed. Again the columnist had his say in the email and then a Republican supporter added to it that Obama was the anti-Christ. Yes. An email going around for perhaps thousands, maybe millions, that will read their sick dynamic duo view, as it circulates as a whole.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:44 PM. |