WOOOT BARRACK OBAMA

[ZoologyGirl]

But often times it becomes a mob of harassment, and gets overwhelming.

What I mean is...there is nothing wrong with that. People have their choice to like the guy or not...and if they want to 'harass' him then so be it. And you certainly have the option of defending him. I can tell you I've done my fair share of harassing George W. Bush, and plenty of it believe you me. And most people have, I'd venture to guess that even you have. But that is exactly what I mean by politics being hypocritical. Is it ok to harass Bush...but not Obama? (ok... in a perfect world I'd like to say yes to that :laugh

 

[Michael823]

What I mean is...there is nothing wrong with that. People have their choice to like the guy or not...and if they want to 'harass' him then so be it. And you certainly have the option of defending him. I can tell you I've done my fair share of harassing George W. Bush, and plenty of it believe you me. And most people have, I'd venture to guess that even you have. But that is exactly what I mean by politics being hypocritical. Is it ok to harass Bush...but not Obama? (ok... in a perfect world I'd like to say yes to that :laugh

I got ya', I can understand people disagreeing with some of Obamas policies, and respect peoples choice to do so. I try not to come across as a blind supporter, and resent it seeing it was my first time being able to vote for pres, and I really tried to do my research. I really only get bothered when the accusations have nothing to do with his political agenda, and it turns into racial problems, him being a "socialist" or "muslim", etc...

 

[starsevol]

What I mean is...there is nothing wrong with that. People have their choice to like the guy or not...and if they want to 'harass' him then so be it. And you certainly have the option of defending him. I can tell you I've done my fair share of harassing George W. Bush, and plenty of it believe you me. And most people have, I'd venture to guess that even you have. But that is exactly what I mean by politics being hypocritical. Is it ok to harass Bush...but not Obama? (ok... in a perfect world I'd like to say yes to that :laugh

My view is, while I may disagree with the POLICIES of one or the other, and will talk about policy decisions, I won't let myself attack a President on a personal level. Whether I disagree with President Bush on the war, or President Obama on the stimulas package, or whatever, I don't agree with attacking a person.

I know the past 8 years must have been Hell on earth for the Bush girls. No matter what, he's their daddy. What people said about the man personally (who they've never even met), must have hurt them horribly.

So I won't go there. Or at least I try not to go there....

 

[ZoologyGirl]

I really only get bothered when the accusations have nothing to do with his political agenda, and it turns into racial problems, him being a "socialist" or "muslim", etc...

Believe me, I understand where you're coming from. When people like Limbaugh or his callers go on his show rambling about socialism and him being muslim (and acting like being muslim was a bad thing) well it irks me too.

I know the past 8 years must have been Hell on earth for the Bush girls. No matter what, he's their daddy. What people said about the man personally (who they've never even met), must have hurt them horribly.

So I won't go there. Or at least I try not to go there....

I'm with you. Though *try* is probably the key word for me. I know I've made plenty of fun at his expense.

 

[vetusvates]

I, too, am happy that Obama won...and more than likely I'll vote for him again when the time arises. However, that does not mean that I agree with everything he does. One thing I hate about politics is that people seem to "pick a side" and the candidate on that side can do no wrong. I see it on both sides, Republican and Democrat. You ever listen to political talk radio? I do all the time (both sides...Limbaugh, Miller, Ed Scultz, Randi Rhodes and I used to love Franken's talk show when it was on). But let me tell you they're all just a bunch of hypocrites when it comes right down to it, every single one of them.

I think this is messed up. We should not be bobble heads, agreeing with everything the politician on "our side" says and does. Instead, we should be questioning every politicians decision, whether they are "on our side" or not. They are working for us...we're not working for them. They are not our buddies; they're our leaders, our representatives, our spokesmen. To go along with this idea...one of my favorite quotes ever is from the movie V for Vendetta. "People shouldn't fear their governments, governments should fear their people".

And finally, it is good to have a sense of humor. You'll give yourself an ulcer.

This, for instance:

...hilarious.

Well, my dear, I cannot rep you so I will quote you. I confess to being less 'observant and listening' than you.
But you make excellent points, and I have my own point of views that do not conflict with yours. Not that the point is 'not conflicting'.
I've never been guilty of calling a politician an intellectual, nor have I ever seen an intellectual the least bit interested in embarking on a career in politics.
My two litmus test points (for any candidate) are 1) Roe vs. Wade, and 2) equal legal rights and protection under the law for gays (inheritance, insurance, and others).
[Note, in my experience the right 2 or 3 litmus test points will make taking the temperature of a given population a simple and telling thing.]
Not yet in history has there been a brave bold warrior to dare to stand up valiantly and vocally for these ideas, and the people and principles they represent. It just doesn't make for good politics, nor get someone elected. Yet. So since 18, I've been voting for who I believe will do least harm on these points, which are major indicators of freedoms, choices, and human rights. Voting for who will do least harm...it took a while to embrace that, but it's realistic and practical.

Yes, I am a true sagittarius. A fiend for my freedom. Take away my freedom, and you're left with a fiend.

EDIT : The older I get, and particularly since 9/11, I am strongly considering adding litmus test number 3) Who makes me feel the most Safety for my family, friends, fellow citizens, and me. And/or...LOL...who will do the least harm on this front.

 

[kathylove]

I have to agree that I seldom get to vote FOR a candidate I like. I am generally voting AGAINST the one I think will do the most harm.

I do vote FOR Libertarian candidates if: 1. They have a real chance of winning, such as in smaller races, or: 2. The two major candidates are both so bad that I really don't care which one gets elected. In that case, I vote FOR somebody instead of against, and that is usually the Libertarian. In big, important races, it just amounts to a protest vote, but if both "Republicrats" are bad enough, then a protest vote it is!

Lest you think I would blindly vote for Libertarians, I DO check their records / platforms. But in all of my checking, I can't remember EVER finding one Libertarian I favored less than EITHER Republicrat candidate. It is just the "nature of the beast" - either you believe that government knows best regarding your finances and / or morals, or you believe you know best. There is not 100% agreement on all issues, even amongst Libertarians, because of that little item of "your rights stop where your neighbor's rights begin". Sometimes there is not universal agreement on where that line is. The Libertarian agreement is, that once you place the line, the government shouldn't be interfering on YOUR side of the line!

In answer to an earlier post:
Although I couldn't care less if a candidate is black, white, or purple, his philosophy certainly does matter. (Actually, if, and ONLY if, all other things were equal, I would prefer a president who is not a white male, at least now and then. That is simply because I think it is good to shake up the ol' status quo once in a while). If he is a socialist, he is VERY unlikely to believe in the libertarian ideals that I believe in. So why WOULDN'T that be a matter of importance?

As far as religion, that may or may not be important. I guess it depends on how he applies his religion to the rest of his life. I have met Christians who seemed to live up to the best of their religious ideals of love, tolerance, and helping one's neighbor. And I have met Christians who embraced the least tolerance and most narrow minded aspects, as well. I am guessing there would be representatives of both ends of every other religion. I don't personally know anyone of the Islamic faith, but if a follower was very tolerant and open minded, I would hope he could provide a bridge to help each side to understand the other. If not, then he would prove to be very divisive, instead.

So I think these may be valid points for discussion.

 

[Chip]

I really only get bothered when the accusations have nothing to do with his political agenda, and it turns into racial problems, him being a "socialist" or "muslim", etc...

Him "being socialist" has EVERYTHING to do with the political agenda! Please note I'm not calling Obama socialist here, nor do I think he is muslim... which is a vile religion and sucks in every way*. You don't have to data mine the Koran nor news reports to make this case.


*Obviously, I am aware that ALL Muslims aren't bad people. Perhaps they gloss over the evil parts of their holy text.

 

[ForkedTung]

*Obviously, I am aware that ALL Muslims aren't bad people. Perhaps they gloss over the evil parts of their holy text.

Could you elucidate here?

 

[Michael823]

Him "being socialist" has EVERYTHING to do with the political agenda! Please note I'm not calling Obama socialist here, nor do I think he is muslim... which is a vile religion and sucks in every way*. You don't have to data mine the Koran nor news reports to make this case.


*Obviously, I am aware that ALL Muslims aren't bad people. Perhaps they gloss over the evil parts of their holy text.

Possibly to the extent of some of the evil parts in our text? I have no dislike towards Muslims or the Koran, nor do I think it's an evil religion. Hitler acted on his interpretation of the Bible, but his evil acts weren't a reflection of it. Just as Plenty of Muslims and Christians do plenty of great things because of their interpretation of their religion. This thread keeps digging a little deeper, and I think it's exposing some real issues here!

 

[Chip]

Could you elucidate here?

Here are a few:

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends
of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them.
God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

Allah will humble the unbelievers. ...Proclaim a woeful punishment to the
unbelievers. - 9:2-3

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find
them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for
them. - 9:5

Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of
Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41

Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the
unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to
enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29
Last but not least, Mohamed's message from Allah:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

And I'm not even getting into women and their "place" in Islamic view.

Possibly to the extent of some of the evil parts in our text?

"Our" text? To what are you referring? Unless it's the Corn Snake Manual, I don't think you and I share a text.

I have no dislike towards Muslims or the Koran, nor do I think it's an evil religion. Hitler acted on his interpretation of the Bible, but his evil acts weren't a reflection of it. Just as Plenty of Muslims and Christians do plenty of great things because of their interpretation of their religion. This thread keeps digging a little deeper, and I think it's exposing some real issues here!

I do not care one bit what someone's religion is until they take actions that impact others; whether that is through suicide bombing a crowded pizzeria or imposing legislation. Just read the Koran like I have. It makes the old testament (which is grizzly) read like Pat the Bunny. Oh, and let's not forget:








\

 

[ForkedTung]

Chip, The Bible is filled with similar language and ideas towards many including women.
If you want to hold the words/books liable for the actions of their "followers" then look to the Crusades etc...many more died...
I won't hold the actions of theses scumbag terrorists as representative of the words of their book.
It is intolerance towards others that breeds hate and the cycle continues.
"Judge not..."

 

[ForkedTung]

Plenty to quote there as well...

Ezekiel 9:6 "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women . . . "

Isaiah 13:16 "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."

Deuteronomy 13:15 "Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly . . . "

Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death . . . "

Exodus 32:27 ". . . Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour."

Deut 21:10-12 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; "

Exodus 31:15 " . . . whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

Deut 21:21 "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die . . . "Nahum 1:2-8 (New International Version)

The Lord 's Anger Against Nineveh
2 The LORD is a jealous and avenging God;
the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath.
The LORD takes vengeance on his foes
and maintains his wrath against his enemies.

3 The LORD is slow to anger and great in power;
the LORD will not leave the guilty unpunished.
His way is in the whirlwind and the storm,
and clouds are the dust of his feet.

4 He rebukes the sea and dries it up;
he makes all the rivers run dry.
Bashan and Carmel wither
and the blossoms of Lebanon fade.

5 The mountains quake before him
and the hills melt away.
The earth trembles at his presence,
the world and all who live in it.

6 Who can withstand his indignation?
Who can endure his fierce anger?
His wrath is poured out like fire;
the rocks are shattered before him.

7 The LORD is good,
a refuge in times of trouble.
He cares for those who trust in him,

8 but with an overwhelming flood
he will make an end of Nineveh ;
he will pursue his foes into darkness.

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2, NIV. 1
bullet "...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." Deuteronomy 20:16, NIV. 1

 

[Roy Munson]

Chip, The Bible is filled with similar language and ideas towards many including women.
If you want to hold the words/books liable for the actions of their "followers" then look to the Crusades etc...many more died...
I won't hold the actions of theses scumbag terrorists as representative of the words of their book.
It is intolerance towards others that breeds hate and the cycle continues.
"Judge not..."

I agree. However, almost every extant religion is a cheap knock-off of something that came before it. For milennia, you could almost track the crap sequentially. We've become fairly innovative in the past few centuries (Mormonism is fascinating, and elucidating, if worthless).

 

[ForkedTung]

Mormonism is fascinating, and elucidating, if worthless

What about when they practiced polygamy?...lol

Did you read "Under the Banner of Heaven" Dean?

 

[danielle]

Religion as a whole no matter which one has been mankinds biggest threat period. Every war or extreme act committed in one way or another was "gods" work and not the act of the sicko behind it. Anyone who has bothered to dig deeper than their own bible has found out in truth religion started to guide and control man when no laws existed. It was a way to take over the land of others, make man pay its government, and instill a moral consensus on right and wrong by whomever was in power at the time. It has been used as an excuse to judge, kill, and maim; contradicts itself when it wants to and allows others to feel better than the next just because their god is better than yours. I can't even think of another ideology that has single handedly divided a people for millions of years or sparks such anger, outrage, and violence when a people feel their god is not being respected. Its not just Muslims its religion as a whole that dictates who is worthy, who can commit a crime, and in whose name. In an intelligent society which I believe we have become one would think people would have figured this out, but alas we still point fingers, go to war, and feel our religions are holier than thou. If there were a god and only one a lot of people are going to hell thats all I have to say,lol

 

[Roy Munson]

What about when they practiced polygamy?...lol

Did you read "Under the Banner of Heaven" Dean?

I don't have to, Kyle. Smith's lies were so similar to Mohammed's. I find that interesting. Of course, the biblical authors' lies were similar to their predecessors' in exactly the same way...

Of course, George Lucas's lies (i.e., "fiction") were similar to the Arthurian lies/fictions. But only a few whackos consider either to be religion...

 

[Chip]

Chip, The Bible is filled with similar language and ideas towards many including women.
If you want to hold the words/books liable for the actions of their "followers" then look to the Crusades etc...many more died...
I won't hold the actions of theses scumbag terrorists as representative of the words of their book.
It is intolerance towards others that breeds hate and the cycle continues.
"Judge not..."

That would be a great argument, but I don't believe that book either! But I understand there is a difference. In the bible, you don't cut the tongue out of the backtalking wife and beat her with a stick less than one inch in diameter for a fortnight. Okay, I made that up, but I can find a Koran verse about the subject just as bad or worse just opening the book- AKA without Googling.

And for those who say "Oh, it's just one percent or so who hold those fundamental views." I wish that were true. In a world wide survey conducted by Pew, 25% of US male Muslims between 18 and 35 (prime suicide bombing age) said violence in the name of Islam was OK.

In Britain, a third of male Muslim students said the same thing, and 40% of them want to live under Shira law.

This is a violent, hateful, racist, misogynistic religion, and while the fanatics are a minority, they are a very significant minority of it’s practitioners. To ignore this in the name of tolerance is, well, ignorant.

 

[Ricky87]

That would be a great argument, but I don't believe that book either! But I understand there is a difference. In the bible, you don't cut the tongue out of the backtalking wife and beat her with a stick less than one inch in diameter for a fortnight.

Would if we could wrap all Muslims into one general depiction of women hating, terroristic people, but everybody is different and to what levels they carry out their faith is just as diverse. If you polled devout Christians on how many of them would destroy all Muslim people if they could, I'm sure the numbers would be upwards of 99%. How can anyone compare what one people finds immoral to another. Most Christians believe that if you are a homo-sexual then you will "burn eternally in the lake of fire", yet somehow we overlook that little detail. The fact is that good people use the Koran to live a sound life, and raise a happy family, whereas bad people use it to destroy all non-Muslim people. If your good you live well, if not then you do bad things. The Koran in no way turns good people bad. Thats just how some people see it!.

And for those who say "Oh, it's just one percent or so who hold those fundamental views." I wish that were true. In a world wide survey conducted by Pew, 25% of US male Muslims between 18 and 35 (prime suicide bombing age) said violence in the name of Islam was OK.In Britain, a third of male Muslim students said the same thing, and 40% of them want to live under Shira law.

Until they poll every Muslim in the whole world about how they feel inside, and what they would do for Islam, I cannot possibly take those numbers as accurate. People are more than poll numbers, and I'm sure their would be some disturbing numbers about Americans ethics if we were asked certain questions about Muslims, or people of the world in general.

This is a violent, hateful, racist, misogynistic religion, and while the fanatics are a minority, they are a very significant minority of it’s practitioners. To ignore this in the name of tolerance is, well, ignorant.

Not if your trying to make a point, and are trying to dis-prove claims that have little to no factual backing. Don't get me wrong, their is a lot of bad in the Muslim religion, but that falls on individual people and not a whole nation of people. Until every Muslim in the world commits crimes against humanity, I will continue to say that it is not the religion; it is up to the people to define right and wrong, and as it has always been, some choose right and some choose wrong. We're all that way, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Mormon, etc.

 

[Chip]

Ricky, I offer you the best advice you will ever read when arguing online: "Your" = possessive as in "your feet stink." When saying "You are," you use a contraction, such as "You're naive about the world around you, go pour dirt in your enemy's gas tank."

 

[KJUN]

I got ya', I can understand people disagreeing with some of Obamas policies, and respect peoples choice to do so. I try not to come across as a blind supporter, and resent it seeing it was my first time being able to vote for pres, and I really tried to do my research. I really only get bothered when the accusations have nothing to do with his political agenda, and it turns into racial problems, him being a "socialist" or "muslim", etc...

Ummmm, it doesn't sound like you researched the issue very well. How does his administrations actions that lean towards a socialistic-like government have NOTHING to do with his political agenda? My question is, do you think I'm a complete idiot to think he isn't doing what he is doing, have you not looked at his actions/agenda, or have you never looked up the definition of socialism. It has to be one of those since your post is as preposterous as saying, "The fact that a catfish is an aquatic species has nothing to do with the fact that it is usually found in freshwater!"