I might like to make a few observations.
Let's go back to the beginning of the election. Barack was going through neighborhoods all over the country (with Soros', Reid's and Pelosi's money) in a revival type campaign calling people to vote for him. I know, he spoke at a "rally" here in my state. My liberal friends came to me all starry eyed and I was actually amazed at the transformation.
I was unsure how to really take it. At that point Barrack was a man running for president to me. It reminded me more of a church than a campaign. I guess liberals have their ways... There were three issues right off the bat to me. His name... I could not get past the part that I had heard that he went to a Muslim school briefly as a child and his name was clearly Arabic/Islamic.
THIS issue weighed very heavily in my mind. The wars in Iraq/Afghanistan and the radical Muslim hatred over the umpteen years I have not forgotten.
I am one who as a Christian I also revere Mohammed as a prophet of the church.
But I see the church as a peaceful place that unites, edifies, exhorts and comforts God's people with love and liberty.
What I witnessed in Reverend Wright church is radical Christianity at its worst. It is Christianity dressed in terrorism. It does not unite its sole purpose is to re-segregate and divide the races, to bring about chaos. To indoctrinate the young with a bigoted attitude of heart. Need I say more? This kind of religion is just as evil as Islamic terrorism (possibly even more sinister). Just because it hides behind the Bible does not mean it is the way of a loving God who creates the same measure of a divine image within ALL who call upon his name.
Now as this man Barack who came to the neighborhood near me and spoke, attended this hate fill church for 20 years? The preacher screams, damned America over and over and over!
When the preacher says this everyone else says AMEN! AMEN MEANS, BE IT SO!
I am an entertainer. I have stepped up on stage and PERFORMED for the public thousands of times.
It is a gradual process of learning but the show must go on.
I see a Barrack Obama presidency legitimizing these radical religions.
Suddenly nothing is out of bounds, an all out race war waged at the podium all in the name of "RACIST liberation theology". What we have seen from reverend RIOT is only the tip of the iceberg. Once Barack is president what is going to stop Wright from making any racist statement he wants to make then?
As long as "black" liberation is the focus and not human liberation the church is not only racist but also elitist to the exclusion of all other peoples and races.
What in the HELL are the dems thinking?
Oprah Winfrey fled the Church months before Barack left but Nancy Pelosi thinks Barack is a better choice than Hillary? Is Nancy Pelosi running for president or Hillary?
Is Hillary going to be running the White House or Bill?
I tend to think Hillary may have run the White House even back in Bill's terms there.
So I weigh the choices. Would I rather have Bill's infidelities in the news all the time or Barrack over in the Middle east "talking to our enemies"? I know Bill' and Hillary enemies are the same ones that America faces. I do not know this about Barack. Barack talks of pulling out regardless of the situation in Iraq. WHY? My thought is that is what the terrorists want. They want to turn the middle east into a haven for terrorÂ… It seems the left has already found a haven for terror in reverend Wrights Church homegrown terror dressed in Christian apparel.
I really don't care who Bill is seeing. I see that Hillary will actually have total control of the job. This vote is for Hillary not really Bill. Bill can campaign but everyone knows Bill and Hillary had disagreements while Bill was president. If Bill is not careful he may be the first spouse divorced in the White House too...
If Condoleezza Rice ran for president would she really need a spouse? The spouse will never assume the role of President in an twist of power anyway. The point is the spouse is not really the president. Now it does NOT figure that just because Bill is fooling around Hillary is too. Which only makes Hillary's situation even more unfortunate. It is no wonder. Hillary has feelings too.
Barack never even put his name on the ballot in Florida or Michigan so ALL the delegates should ALL go to Hillary. Would you let your opponents name be printed on all the ballots so when the Florida and Michigan voters went to the polls only Hillary's name was on the ballot on the dems side.
Does Barack really care about Florida and Michigan? Who does Barrack really care about? He did not care enough to go up to his preacher and tell him to "can the racist theology". He did not "denounce" the theology he just left it unresolved. He did not stand as a champion in his church and CHANGE it too. He left it in disarray and stewing in the stagnant cesspool of iniquity that Wright engrafted into it. Just like how he wants to handle Iraq. Just leave and let the problem grow. THAT IS NOT ENOUGH!
There is a moral imperative here that if you cannot fix the problems in your own back yard how can you expect people to trust you to fix problems on a much grander scale. Barack left the people of his church united in racism. Children being indoctrinated by RACIST HATE and division for YEARS! So what did Barack do to CHANGE this? Instead of confronting his dear mentor the less than honorable Mr. Reverend Wright he turned his back on the moral imperative. Was his work finished? Is that the same CHANGE and unity he envisions for the world? Haven't convinced me yet.
RexRed, All good questions. Most Obamaites seem sold on his message of change, but I don't see how he'll be able to meet his promise after he's elected, because he still has to work with a congress that's ineffective and nonproductive. There's good reason why congress gets a lower performance rating than Bush; they haven't produced anything positive for the American people since the democrats became the majority.
cicerone imposter wrote:RexRed, All good questions. Most Obamaites seem sold on his message of change, but I don't see how he'll be able to meet his promise after he's elected, because he still has to work with a congress that's ineffective and nonproductive. There's good reason why congress gets a lower performance rating than Bush; they haven't produced anything positive for the American people since the democrats became the majority.
Who says Barack even intends to work with congress? By his own admission he plans to hold unconditional talks instead with Iran, Cuba, Venezuela... Why would he need congress anymore (full of "typical white folk" anyway)? He can run the military in circles and pal up with our enemies leaving us completely vulnerable and open to attack.
While I'm on a roll...
As for the gas crisis...
Obama has said he wants to give people a thousand dollars check to help their gas bill crunch.
That is like putting a band aid on a cancer.
THAT IS NOT A SOLUTION!
A solution is to double the price of gas NOW. Make the people who are consuming this gas pay for a solution.
The solution will be in wind, water, solar, nuclear. Forget drilling for more oil.
We can use ethanol, hydrogen and electricity/solar to power cars.
We need the money NOW and the American consumer of these petrol products need to reach DEEP into their pockets and start paying for their future. We can heat our homes without oil.
I was saying this when gas was at fifty cents per gallon. At the time Europeans were paying several dollars for a gallon of gas. I was saying there needs to be LARGE gas tax to pay for the next generation of energy needs.
This extra money should pay for nuclear, wind, solar, water, wood pulp turbines and more powerful battery and charging systems. etc.
The government should subsidize the price of these cars to next to nil and encourage filling stations.
THAT IS A SOLUTION NOT A BAND AID.
RexRed wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:RexRed, All good questions. Most Obamaites seem sold on his message of change, but I don't see how he'll be able to meet his promise after he's elected, because he still has to work with a congress that's ineffective and nonproductive. There's good reason why congress gets a lower performance rating than Bush; they haven't produced anything positive for the American people since the democrats became the majority.
Who says Barack even intends to work with congress? By his own admission he plans to hold unconditional talks instead with Iran, Cuba, Venezuela... Why would he need congress anymore (full of "typical white folk" anyway)? He can run the military in circles and pal up with our enemies leaving us completely vulnerable and open to attack.
He plans to hold talks with despots and tyrants, but he wont go to Iraq and meet with the american and Iraqi leaders there.
That position doesnt make sense to me.
mysteryman wrote:RexRed wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:RexRed, All good questions. Most Obamaites seem sold on his message of change, but I don't see how he'll be able to meet his promise after he's elected, because he still has to work with a congress that's ineffective and nonproductive. There's good reason why congress gets a lower performance rating than Bush; they haven't produced anything positive for the American people since the democrats became the majority.
Who says Barack even intends to work with congress? By his own admission he plans to hold unconditional talks instead with Iran, Cuba, Venezuela... Why would he need congress anymore (full of "typical white folk" anyway)? He can run the military in circles and pal up with our enemies leaving us completely vulnerable and open to attack.
He plans to hold talks with despots and tyrants, but he wont go to Iraq and meet with the american and Iraqi leaders there.
That position doesnt make sense to me.
Sadly, our loyal military who are valiantly putting their lives on the line to protect Americans are not good enough for Obama.
mysteryman wrote:
He plans to hold talks with despots and tyrants, ...
He's going to meet with Bush and Cheney? When?
okie wrote:At least the Republicans don't have super delegates.
No, that would be a definite impossibility.
i can't believe i'm agreeing with rex red but the hig cost of gas is already making suvs and hummers obsolete and they are being replaced by small efficient vehicles... a step in the right direction...
RexRed wrote:Am I a soft republican?
Only your hairdresser knows for sure. Maybe a little toe tapping in a bathroom stall will get you revved up.
JTT wrote:mysteryman wrote:
He plans to hold talks with despots and tyrants, ...
He's going to meet with Bush and Cheney? When?
Barack has been "holding talks" every Sunday for the last 20 years...
Cycloptichorn wrote:okie wrote:Since when do some states delegates only get a half of a vote?
The Democrats can't even make logical and fair democratic rules for a primary election for their own party, and then follow them, let alone run a country. I think at the very least, they should rename their party to Democratic Partly Party. At least put an asterisk next to the name, Democratic, as in Democratic (*) Party.
Now, you are aware that the Republicans punished FL and a few other states - by taking half of their votes away? This cycle?
You going to insist on being the Republican* party?
too funny
Cycloptichorn
You think that's funny, Cy. Okie said that the Democrats don't know how to "run a country". He probably wants them to look to the Bush administration to see how that's done.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:i can't believe i'm agreeing with rex red but the hig cost of gas is already making suvs and hummers obsolete and they are being replaced by small efficient vehicles... a step in the right direction...
Bi Polar, let the market work, and it will work. It always has, so why not in the future? The worst thing that could happen is a bunch of do gooders sticking their nose into the market and messing it up royally.
okie wrote:
Bi Polar, let the market work, and it will work. It always has, so why not in the future? The worst thing that could happen is a bunch of do gooders sticking their nose into the market and messing it up royally.
Can you say Savings & Loan, Bear Stearns, Top repuglican donors reap millions from Bush's illegal invasion, ...
You really are too naive [extreme generosity] for words.
Is anybody else's arms tired from clinging to their guns and their Bibles?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080430155551AAJFOKn
JTT wrote:okie wrote:
Bi Polar, let the market work, and it will work. It always has, so why not in the future? The worst thing that could happen is a bunch of do gooders sticking their nose into the market and messing it up royally.
Can you say Savings & Loan, Bear Stearns, Top repuglican donors reap millions from Bush's illegal invasion, ...
You really are too naive [extreme generosity] for words.
Those poor dems could barely scrape together two coins for Obama's campaign... I hear granola sales are quite profitable these days.
The food of the progressive elite's Whole Grocer is twice as expensive as the other supermarkets. Is the progressive health care going to be the same?
Feed them cake!
RexRed wrote:JTT wrote:okie wrote:
Bi Polar, let the market work, and it will work. It always has, so why not in the future? The worst thing that could happen is a bunch of do gooders sticking their nose into the market and messing it up royally.
Can you say Savings & Loan, Bear Stearns, Top repuglican donors reap millions from Bush's illegal invasion, ...
You really are too naive [extreme generosity] for words.
Those poor dems could barely scrape together two coins for Obama's campaign... I hear granola sales are quite profitable these days.
Do you live in a cave Rex? Obama's campaign raised more funds than perhaps any candidate in history and it isn't over yet. Most of those people gave $50-100. Millions of people that can "barely scrape together two coins" can give a hell of a lot more money than a thousand people limited to $3000, or whatever the limit is. Obama will have 5 times the amount of money McCain for this election and all because of those millions of people you feel you need to denigrate.
parados wrote:RexRed wrote:JTT wrote:okie wrote:
Bi Polar, let the market work, and it will work. It always has, so why not in the future? The worst thing that could happen is a bunch of do gooders sticking their nose into the market and messing it up royally.
Can you say Savings & Loan, Bear Stearns, Top repuglican donors reap millions from Bush's illegal invasion, ...
You really are too naive [extreme generosity] for words.
Those poor dems could barely scrape together two coins for Obama's campaign... I hear granola sales are quite profitable these days.
Do you live in a cave Rex? Obama's campaign raised more funds than perhaps any candidate in history and it isn't over yet. Most of those people gave $50-100. Millions of people that can "barely scrape together two coins" can give a hell of a lot more money than a thousand people limited to $3000, or whatever the limit is. Obama will have 5 times the amount of money McCain for this election and all because of those millions of people you feel you need to denigrate.
I was being cynical... The repubs are so filthy rich huh?
