Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 05:40 am
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Palin’s transparency proposal already exists in D.C. - Blogs from CNN.com



Day late. Dollar short.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,780 • Replies: 45
No top replies

 
BobbyVAguilarIII
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 02:52 am
@Sabz5150,
"Your actions speak so loud i can't hear a word you're saying."
Obama might have co-authored the Bill on Transparency but there are two things one may want to check out:
1. In the Senate deliberations, check the transcriptions on the Committee as well as the floor as to how he participated in it? Did he passionately pushed for it, was he actively pushing for it or was he merely there on a ride with a more senior Senator? Am not sure. There were over 10 other bills that he co-authored not initiated. Bandwagon effect.
2. During the primaries, Clinton, Obama and Edwards were all asked to submit documents about their activities in the Senate to put flesh into the "Transparency" issue. Clinton and Edwards obliged, Obama did not, giving as an excuse that there were many activities he was involved in to give details. Really? Hillary Clinton had submitted over 50,000 pages of documents. If one has nothing to hide and is efficient enough to document one's track records, this should not be any issue at all.

Also, this is Obama's 2nd term and for the past two years, all he did was campaign. Sometimes, ad administrator who runs the day-to-day affairs of a department or state is more effective than a demagogue or a Senator who is rich in rhetorics poor in actual experience.

This issue has been raised time and again in many surveys by independent pollsters about ordinary, working people across the nation. How do you respond to that?

Much more troubling is the fact that his wife declared in national TV when Obama was nominated that it was the one day that she was proud to be an American. Is this not racial prejudice?

Obama has not come clear nor convincingly honest about his Islamic ties. He could very well be the first Muslim president of the United States, in addition to being the first African-American president. As a matter of fact, he has raised more questions than answer some with his affiliations, including his book Audacity of Hope, which this author read.

As an American writer once said, "These are the times that try men's souls."

Laissez faire et laissez passer!
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 03:14 am
@BobbyVAguilarIII,
BobbyVAguilarIII;60076 wrote:
"Your actions speak so loud i can't hear a word you're saying."
Obama might have co-authored the Bill on Transparency but there are two things one may want to check out:
1. In the Senate deliberations, check the transcriptions on the Committee as well as the floor as to how he participated in it? Did he passionately pushed for it, was he actively pushing for it or was he merely there on a ride with a more senior Senator? Am not sure. There were over 10 other bills that he co-authored not initiated. Bandwagon effect.


"Am not sure"? Then how can you say either way?

Quote:
2. During the primaries, Clinton, Obama and Edwards were all asked to submit documents about their activities in the Senate to put flesh into the "Transparency" issue. Clinton and Edwards obliged, Obama did not, giving as an excuse that there were many activities he was involved in to give details. Really? Hillary Clinton had submitted over 50,000 pages of documents. If one has nothing to hide and is efficient enough to document one's track records, this should not be any issue at all.


So that's why I can see what money he's wanted earmarked, dollar for dollar, project for project, on his site. Riiiiiiiiight.

Quote:
Also, this is Obama's 2nd term and for the past two years, all he did was campaign. Sometimes, ad administrator who runs the day-to-day affairs of a department or state is more effective than a demagogue or a Senator who is rich in rhetorics poor in actual experience.

This issue has been raised time and again in many surveys by independent pollsters about ordinary, working people across the nation. How do you respond to that?


If all he did was campaign, how did he get a voting record during that time?

Quote:
Much more troubling is the fact that his wife declared in national TV when Obama was nominated that it was the one day that she was proud to be an American. Is this not racial prejudice?


Not at all.

Quote:
Obama has not come clear nor convincingly honest about his Islamic ties. He could very well be the first Muslim president of the United States, in addition to being the first African-American president. As a matter of fact, he has raised more questions than answer some with his affiliations, including his book Audacity of Hope, which this author read.



Ohhhhhhh, you're one of THOSE people, one of the ones that's actually been duped into the Muslim BS. Hear that? That's your credibility going down the tubes.

Quote:
As an American writer once said, "These are the times that try men's souls."


A man also once said "The bigger the lie, the more people believe it."
marcus cv
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 08:59 pm
@Sabz5150,
Source

What if?
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 09:23 pm
@marcus cv,
marcus;60257 wrote:
Source

What if?


Well, the link in question is rather questionable.

His enrollment in "Jakarta" schools is a misrepresentation. The schools are Muslim in the sense that the majority of their students are Muslim. It was an Indonesian public school.

PolitiFact | Obama attended an Indonesian public school



Even if Bam at one time were a Muslim, what's it matter?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Forget that little part? It's what lets you worship freely too.

Also, never forget Article VI, section 3:

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

But there IS a religious test, isn't there? Polls show that Americans prefer a president with strong faith, mainly THEIR faith, and it becomes a HUGE talking point. Sounds like a religious test to me!

In conclusion, I'd like to ask one thing: Where do these interviews and quotes you post come from? Is there an originating source, perhaps some videos of these people saying their piece? I'll be waiting...
marcus cv
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 09:37 pm
@Sabz5150,
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Forget that little part? It's what lets you worship freely too.


The religion implies the core of values. And if Obama was influenced by the Islam how it will impact on America?

In other words, [SIZE="3"]"America are you ready for Barak Hussein Obama?"[/SIZE]
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 10:28 pm
@marcus cv,
marcus;60259 wrote:
The religion implies the core of values. And if Obama was influenced by the Islam how it will impact on America?

In other words, [SIZE="3"]"America are you ready for Barak Hussein Obama?"[/SIZE]


This is similar to saying I have a "Gangsta influence" because I went to a school where the student body was 93% black and that I might break out my gat and pop a cap in somebody while huffing a blunt and choking back a fo'ty. It's laughable.

If religion implies core values, that says a LOT about this country's founders. They understood that religion should not be part of this country's inner workings because they saw the corruption that it caused.

Bam also went to a Catholic school. Does this imply that he has "Christian influence"? Is America ready for that?

There is no evidence to back up any "Islam influence" in regards to Bam. It's all chain emails and smears through blogs to put a cover on a single truth that scares the people who propagate them: they don't want anyone but a fundamentalist Christian in the hot seat. Gotta cling to that power.
marcus cv
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 11:00 pm
@Sabz5150,
You could be correct. I'm just hoping that we are not too rushing "for a change" and forgetting about all other criteria that usually would be taken into consideration.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 11:21 pm
@marcus cv,
marcus;60269 wrote:
You could be correct. I'm just hoping that we are not too rushing "for a change" and forgetting about all other criteria that usually would be taken into consideration.


Honestly, one's religion makes little difference when running the country to me. If you can keep it to yourself and not push it upon others, that's just fine. What I want from a president is somebody who can lead this country and can stand tall in the face of adversity. A person who can remain calm and composed in the harshest of situations, who doesn't jump the gun and make rash statements, putting us all at risk.

That's what we should be looking for in a president, not the results of his religious litmus test.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 07:43 am
@Sabz5150,
If you believe that then why are you still voting for Hussein?
BobbyVAguilarIII
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 06:46 am
@Sabz5150,
Historicity and context are two big words.
Americans generally do not have a good record on looking at historical records. This nation was established on what basis? Look at the currency. Look at the founding fathers. Look at the records of the past. One philosopher said, maybe Santayana, "Those who never learn from the mistakes of the past are bound to repeat theme in the future."
But because Americans are generally hedonistic and are concerned with the here-and-now and what-am-i getting from this mentality, change is effected. But at what price?
The economy was good during the Clinton era- and yet Clinton had oral sex done on him right at the Oval office (see transcripts of Ken Starr's investigation: Lewinski scandal). That means, it's OK to screw up at the highest office of the land because "It's the economy, stupid!" It also implies that when it is the economy that is at stake, ethics and morality do not really mean a rat's ass.
Try being the minority in Indonesia. In 1999, Chinese non-Muslims were looted, robbed, killed, and raped by Indonesian Muslims who said they were the cause of the economic collapse of the Suharto regime.
What are Obama's motives in becoming President of the U.S.?
Because "t's not the economy, stupid," it is the motive of the heart to lead a nation such as the US in these troubled times.
True, the Constitution guarantees religious freedom. It did not foresee: the 9/11 bombing of the Twin Towers by Islamic extremists, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and the many other Islamic places in the world that Americans, even without religious affiliation, are dying in and shedding their blood for.
Religious freedom has been used as a shield by humanists without conscience to exercise and flaunt their repugnance against faith while trampling on the rights of those who freely practice their faith. Remember Madeleine O'Haire who fought to ban prayers in school? The Roe vs. Wade? And given those, are we better off now as a society?
Explain the killing of Christians by Gothic youth in Columbine, as recently portrayed by two Finnish copycat gunmen fascinated by the account.
But then again, who cares about history? When our folks are old and unable to serve, we don't learn from the wisdom of their experiences, we dump them in nursing homes and get on with our lives in the here and now.
So, let's go ahead, let's campaign for Obama, let's campaign for Biden, and then we exemplify the lemmings: creatures who can't help but swim to their destruction.
MORITURI TE SALUTAMUS!
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 11:57 am
@Sabz5150,
Aguilar huh, Martinez here. Lots of wisdom in those words.
0 Replies
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 01:29 pm
@BobbyVAguilarIII,
BobbyVAguilarIII;60320 wrote:



True, the Constitution guarantees religious freedom. It did not foresee: the 9/11 bombing of the Twin Towers by Islamic extremists, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and the many other Islamic places in the world that Americans, even without religious affiliation, are dying in and shedding their blood for.
Religious freedom has been used as a shield by humanists without conscience to exercise and flaunt their repugnance against faith while trampling on the rights of those who freely practice their faith.


Since when is it a right to not be offended? Sorry, but it's not the governments job to protect your feelings, if you can't take being offended then that just too bad for you isn't it?

I won't tolerate freedom of speech being curbed because some oversensitive religious person got offended.
BobbyVAguilarIII
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 06:07 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
"I may disagree with what you say, but i will defend to death your right to say it."- Voltaire
This is the same guy who said about 200 years ago, that in 200 years, Christianity would be wiped out in the face of the earth. Well, Christianity is not only alive, well and kicking, it is far robust than it ever was before.
Again, historicity.
Being offended is different from being blown to bits and pieces by people who believe piloting an airplane into buildings to kill "infidels" is martyrdom. And it is not a matter of having the government protect your feelings because even as early as the 1st century AD under the Roman caesars (Nero, Domitian, etc.), people of Christian faith were thrown alive into lions, burned at stake as torches in the Imperial gardens, fed into ravenous wolves as entertainment for the Roman elite, beheaded and crucified upside down in crosses all over the Roman Way. Check them out. These are documented facts, not rantings of a rabid religionist.
Oftentimes, in our loss of the historical and cultural context of our identity and where we are standing, we forget that the soil we are standing on had been irrigated by the blood of our ancestors and forebears. We are here and we stand speaking out our ideas today because many have laid down their lives and shed their precious blood for the freedom we so enjoy. Ancestors and forebears who crossed the Atlantic so they can exercise their freedom after, you guessed it, being persecuted for their faith in England.
No respect, man. We just diss our elders, bro.
Also, our own opinionated ravings are inexorably colored by our own insatiable desires, prejudices, idiosyncracies, preferences and what-have-you. We are children of our times and we grow up as adults of our culture.
And it is not a matter of "oversensitivity" either. Many African-Americans in our midst who have been for centuries maligned, mistreated and generally made to suffer life and indignity found solace in the hope of their Christian faith. Go to the Deep South and witness how strong the Negro spirituals and Gospel music are amongst the poor, destitute and disenfranchised "colored" of Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia.
You still see it today among professional athletes, beyond the veneer and facade of athleticism and pride and self-glory, there is the acknowledgment that there is one sovereign God who is not nowhere, but is NOW HERE.
It is not religious freedom, it is rather experential, efficacious, practical faith in the God who "so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life."
Christianity was not established by the taking of lives but by the giving of that One Precious Sacred Life, the Son of God who loved us and gave Himself for us.
TEDEUM LAUDAMUS!
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 12:47 am
@Sabz5150,
Amen!
0 Replies
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 10:58 am
@BobbyVAguilarIII,
BobbyVAguilarIII;60353 wrote:
"I may disagree with what you say, but i will defend to death your right to say it."- Voltaire
This is the same guy who said about 200 years ago, that in 200 years, Christianity would be wiped out in the face of the earth. Well, Christianity is not only alive, well and kicking, it is far robust than it ever was before.
Again, historicity.


Does it surprise you that he cannot tell the future? Does his false predictions in any way discredit his quoted words?


Quote:
Being offended is different from being blown to bits and pieces by people who believe piloting an airplane into buildings to kill "infidels" is martyrdom. And it is not a matter of having the government protect your feelings because even as early as the 1st century AD under the Roman caesars (Nero, Domitian, etc.), people of Christian faith were thrown alive into lions, etc...


excuse me but i thought we were talking about freedom of speech!

Quote:
burned at stake as torches in the Imperial gardens, fed into ravenous wolves as entertainment for the Roman elite, beheaded and crucified upside down in crosses all over the Roman Way. Check them out. These are documented facts, not rantings of a rabid religionist.


The hands of Christians are not without blood on them.


Quote:
Oftentimes, in our loss of the historical and cultural context of our identity and where we are standing, we forget that the soil we are standing on had been irrigated by the blood of our ancestors and forebears. We are here and we stand speaking out our ideas today because many have laid down their lives and shed their precious blood for the freedom we so enjoy. Ancestors and forebears who crossed the Atlantic so they can exercise their freedom after, you guessed it, being persecuted for their faith in England.


Precisely my point, the framers did not risk life and limb only to create another theocracy for people to flee from.

Quote:
No respect, man. We just diss our elders, bro.


and how is that?


Quote:
And it is not a matter of "oversensitivity" either. Many African-Americans in our midst who have been for centuries maligned, mistreated and generally made to suffer life and indignity found solace in the hope of their Christian faith. Go to the Deep South and witness how strong the Negro spirituals and Gospel music are amongst the poor, destitute and disenfranchised "colored" of Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia.


what relevance has this?


Quote:
You still see it today among professional athletes, beyond the veneer and facade of athleticism and pride and self-glory, there is the acknowledgment that there is one sovereign God who is not nowhere, but is NOW HERE.


Because athletes are now philosophers?

Quote:
It is not religious freedom,

then you deny what is written in the bill of rights!
0 Replies
 
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 08:09 pm
@BobbyVAguilarIII,
BobbyVAguilarIII;60353 wrote:
"I may disagree with what you say, but i will defend to death your right to say it."- Voltaire
This is the same guy who said about 200 years ago, that in 200 years, Christianity would be wiped out in the face of the earth. Well, Christianity is not only alive, well and kicking, it is far robust than it ever was before.
Again, historicity.
Being offended is different from being blown to bits and pieces by people who believe piloting an airplane into buildings to kill "infidels" is martyrdom. And it is not a matter of having the government protect your feelings because even as early as the 1st century AD under the Roman caesars (Nero, Domitian, etc.), people of Christian faith were thrown alive into lions, burned at stake as torches in the Imperial gardens, fed into ravenous wolves as entertainment for the Roman elite, beheaded and crucified upside down in crosses all over the Roman Way. Check them out. These are documented facts, not rantings of a rabid religionist.
Oftentimes, in our loss of the historical and cultural context of our identity and where we are standing, we forget that the soil we are standing on had been irrigated by the blood of our ancestors and forebears. We are here and we stand speaking out our ideas today because many have laid down their lives and shed their precious blood for the freedom we so enjoy. Ancestors and forebears who crossed the Atlantic so they can exercise their freedom after, you guessed it, being persecuted for their faith in England.
No respect, man. We just diss our elders, bro.
Also, our own opinionated ravings are inexorably colored by our own insatiable desires, prejudices, idiosyncracies, preferences and what-have-you. We are children of our times and we grow up as adults of our culture.
And it is not a matter of "oversensitivity" either. Many African-Americans in our midst who have been for centuries maligned, mistreated and generally made to suffer life and indignity found solace in the hope of their Christian faith. Go to the Deep South and witness how strong the Negro spirituals and Gospel music are amongst the poor, destitute and disenfranchised "colored" of Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia.
You still see it today among professional athletes, beyond the veneer and facade of athleticism and pride and self-glory, there is the acknowledgment that there is one sovereign God who is not nowhere, but is NOW HERE.
It is not religious freedom, it is rather experential, efficacious, practical faith in the God who "so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life."
Christianity was not established by the taking of lives but by the giving of that One Precious Sacred Life, the Son of God who loved us and gave Himself for us.
TEDEUM LAUDAMUS!


Remind us again what happened to the Roman Empire. Also remind us what happened to the Mayan civilization. Care to take a swing at who had a hand in the destruction of the Library?

Those aren't the actions of the "One Precious Sacred Life".
0 Replies
 
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 08:11 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;60282 wrote:
If you believe that then why are you still voting for Hussein?


Who is this Hussein guy? I thought you killed him already... daddy should be proud.

Mickey needed to pause the world so he can handle a crisis. Not very presidential. Not in the slightest.
marcus cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Oct, 2008 03:55 pm
@Sabz5150,
Quote:
burned at stake as torches in the Imperial gardens, fed into ravenous wolves as entertainment for the Roman elite, beheaded and crucified upside down in crosses all over the Roman Way. Check them out. These are documented facts, not rantings of a rabid religionist.
Quote:
The hands of Christians are not without blood on them
.


It's not the concept of Christianity to kill, not in the Bible, as in comparison to the Quaran. We are called to give our lives and not to take others.
xj0hnx
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2008 07:00 am
@Sabz5150,
Sabz5150;60258 wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Forget that little part? It's what lets you worship freely too.


Oh please, don't pretend you care about the Constitution here when you are so blatantly anti-second amendment. Liberals love the Constitution when it suits their agenda.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama's Record
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 08:03:00