Obama and Clinton

For all of your non-fishing related conversations. If it's not about fishing, or you want to "test" the forum, post it here.
User avatar
A9
Rear Admiral One Star
Posts: 3668
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:04 pm

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by A9 » Thu May 01, 2008 12:38 pm

Gisteppo wrote:
Sam, I would implore you to spend a little time getting to know McCain. You might not find him particularly well suited to the conservative ticket. He is more of a media darling than a true conservative, regardless of what he spews. If you want to really dig deep, look up articles and editorials from Arizona newspapers specifically. He was lauded on his arrival, and administered the boot on the way out of office there. He was highly unpopular toward the end of his tenure, and was considered to be ineffectual as a leader. On the national stage, his policy is truly to continue such pursuits as the Iraq occupation, the concurrent mid-east destabilization we are experiencing now (hillary is doing this as well), and the use of tax breaks for economic stimulus while not reducing spending. This places the burden of debt squarely on your generation, with which the dollar continues to lose value. I can't recommend enough for you to go to europe for a stint, even if it is for a few weeks. See their government and the way in which people live there. Public transport, infrastructure, press, media, all of it has a bias to the people, and commensurately high numbers of SMALL business. Corporations don't have the toehold in government there like they do here, and it benefits the populous tremendously.

E
I'm not thrilled by McCain by any means at all. I just don't love Obama or Hillary because they are so far to the left....Not to mention I just can't stand Hillary...

If there was a moderate dem running, he'd have my vote no doubt...
Don't chase reports...Be the report others chase....

User avatar
lskiles
Commander
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:51 am
Location: Vancouver, USA

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by lskiles » Thu May 01, 2008 2:33 pm

Gisteppo wrote:First off, Mike's comment is just an offhanded troll. No content, no opinion, just an attempt to get someone to get angry. It deserves no further consideration.

... because Bush was never really president. How could you be with Chaney's hand stuffed that far in your ass?

E
First off, Gisteppo's comment is just an offhanded troll. No content, no opinion, just an attempt to get someone to get angry. It deserves no further consideration.

You people who make comments like this make me shake my head and ignore you. There is no substance, no fact, just name calling and Bush-bashing.

Secondly I have made that same comment, in a different way about the Democrats in general. I do not believe I have ever used the term anti-christ, but when you break it down it is a very useful term.
1. Both of them are Democrats.
2. Both of them are anchored to the Democrat platform.
3. That platform always includes the “right” of a woman to kill her unborn child.
4. Killing innocents is certainly antithetical to the teaching of Christ.

Beyond all of this if we get either Billary or Obama in the Whitehouse they will both try, and probably succeed, in "bringing home the troops" from Iraq (AKA Cut and Run). Note what the bleeding hearts and artists did for the people of Viet Nam when we pulled the plug there. This time, though, we will not only see the extremist slaughter of the people there, but they will come here and bring with them the car bombs and homicide bombers they are so fond of. If we get a Dem in office you will start to see more and more sales of flak jackets on Ebay.
I noticed in one of Obama's TV spots he talks about negotiating with our enemies. It is not possible to do when we have nothing they want. What they want is all of us dead. We have nothing to offer them for peace.
Last edited by Anonymous on Thu May 01, 2008 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Awoods
Warrant Officer
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:29 pm
Location: Tacoma
Contact:

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by Awoods » Thu May 01, 2008 3:11 pm

Main Point: To win a war, it's not about the mortality rate, it's about controlling the others economy. Iraq I'm sure doesnt havea good economy, but they sure are doing a good job of breaking our economy. I think this is their main goal. They are going to run America into the ground, until we are no longer a country. There are many reasons to support the war, but there are also many reasons to be against the war. If MCcain has a good strategy to manage the war and the economy then keep the troops in Iraq, but I think it's most beneficial for our economy to keep the troops here.

User avatar
kevinb
Rear Admiral One Star
Posts: 3182
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:43 am
Location: Lake Whitman

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by kevinb » Thu May 01, 2008 4:00 pm

My rant

Like so many others out there,I was fooled into supporting this war at the begging. All this war is based on lies by Cheney and his puppet Bush. Does anyone remember what this war was really about?.....Rember yet?...Weapons of mass detruction and the meeting of a 9/11 hijacker and a Iraqi agent. Which have now been proven to be "Knowingly False"
Don't give me any crap about fighting Al Quada....Al Quada was never there prior to our arrival.
So lets pretend we only kill a couple thousand more of our troops and we win the war. Turning Iraq into a decent self supporting country. Do you think we are safe? No more terrorists? No way,..were fighting an idealogy.

Meanwhile President Doofus is wandering up Capital Hill to ask for more money to fight the war. I wonder if he's embarrased about his great photo shot with "Mission Accomplished" in the background. I guess it doesn't really matter. While Cheney and Bush are breaking Federal Laws and laying in dirty oil company money(Don't forget Haliburton money) Are troops have to worry about roadside bombs,snipers and plenty of other crap. We are no safer today but Bush does a good job on getting the general public paranoid. I'm not sure why people take the bait. There will be more terrorist attacks,thats how life will be for awhile. Winning the war in Iraq will not change that.

If your not outraged,your not paying attention!!!!

This is just my rant and opinions. Not an attack on anyone. We knew this thread had the potential.Lets keep well intended.
Thanks
Kevin
Last edited by Anonymous on Thu May 01, 2008 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
leahcim_dahc
Commander
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Graham, Wa.

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by leahcim_dahc » Thu May 01, 2008 4:02 pm

Awoods wrote:Main Point: To win a war, it's not about the mortality rate, it's about controlling the others economy. Iraq I'm sure doesnt havea good economy, but they sure are doing a good job of breaking our economy. I think this is their main goal. They are going to run America into the ground, until we are no longer a country. There are many reasons to support the war, but there are also many reasons to be against the war. If MCcain has a good strategy to manage the war and the economy then keep the troops in Iraq, but I think it's most beneficial for our economy to keep the troops here.
Interesting. I think military operations in general are a drop in the bucket as far as the economy is concerned. They definitely don't help by any means. I tend to think without the current operation, we would still be in economic trouble...we shoot ourselves in the foot most of the time. Spend what we don't have.

It would definitely help if we weren't spending the billions we have and will continue to spend in current operations. I think the biggest issue, from my perspective, is the logistical and tactical nightmare having U.S. troops spread over the entire globe with no real end in site. Whose watching our back as they're elsewhere doing what it is they have to do?


Chad
Chad

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. - Abraham Lincoln, 1809-1865

User avatar
Gisteppo
Commodore
Posts: 1016
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:26 am
Location: Lake Spokane (Long)
Contact:

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by Gisteppo » Thu May 01, 2008 9:13 pm

Iskiles, I still like you as a person, so please don't take this personally. I never Bush-bashed in the above, but I have much to bash him about if I so choose. This thread isnt about him, it is about candidates.
1. Both of them are Democrats.
2. Both of them are anchored to the Democrat platform.
3. That platform always includes the “right” of a woman to kill her unborn child.
4. Killing innocents is certainly antithetical to the teaching of Christ.
1) yes
2) Hil, yes, Obama, not so much. He tends to be a little too centrist economically for the true Left.
3) Ecclesiastes 6:3 "If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he." This is the verse which biblically states abortion is in the best interest of certain lives. Please, if you want to respond to the abortion issue, start a new thread
4) Would Christ condone the war in Iraq? Based, as kevin so eloquently posted above, on deceit? People continue to die for no military, territorial, financial, or political gain. Again, if you want to talk Iraq, start a new thread.

Sam, I completely feel you on the Hil thing, Im really not a fan myself. I would love to see you take a few minutes and read either Obama's website or some excerpts from his book to learn more about his domestic policy and his war policy. I think you might find aspects that benefit working class and students in ways the conservatives haven't even dreamed of.

Awoods, I like your economics of war theory, very interesting. Id like to see you expound on it.

E

User avatar
A9
Rear Admiral One Star
Posts: 3668
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:04 pm

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by A9 » Thu May 01, 2008 9:26 pm

Gisteppo wrote: Sam, I completely feel you on the Hil thing, Im really not a fan myself. I would love to see you take a few minutes and read either Obama's website or some excerpts from his book to learn more about his domestic policy and his war policy. I think you might find aspects that benefit working class and students in ways the conservatives haven't even dreamed of.

E
A lot of kids my age are very attracted to him. Many who are conservative actually support him now. I haven't looked into him much thus far, but will continue to do so leading up to the election. I just hope Hillary doesn't get the DEM nomination...

Obama's voters are black, white men, and young.
Hillary: women, older, latino...

Interesting note: In the California primary, Hillary's largest voting block was people who had no high school degree. She got 85% of them...
Don't chase reports...Be the report others chase....

User avatar
Gisteppo
Commodore
Posts: 1016
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:26 am
Location: Lake Spokane (Long)
Contact:

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by Gisteppo » Fri May 02, 2008 8:10 am

Another interesting fact is that in an open primary, requiring nothing more than to show up and vote (where republicans can also vote in the democrat primary), Hillary is more successful. Conversely, in caucuses like Wa state, Obama cleans up. Whats different is in a caucus, the people gather together in groups and TALK about the candidates, get invested in learning about them before they cast their vote, and it requires effort to come to the caucus meetings.

Those who do not have to get intellectually involved and vote based on advertising they saw during sitcoms or Nascar, Hillary....

Those who read the internet, listen to news broadcasts, and who go to a community event to debate the issues before casting their vote, Obama....

E

User avatar
kevinb
Rear Admiral One Star
Posts: 3182
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:43 am
Location: Lake Whitman

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by kevinb » Fri May 02, 2008 8:29 am

I may be side stepping a little on this thread.
But the thing I love about both candidates, a woman and a black man. We still have prejudice and will for awhile. But who'd a thought we would have an election like this. I think the a nation as a whole is thinking a little more on track and seems more educated. "My theory for racism,biggotry etc. is stemmed from the uneducated individual"
Anyway...thats my spat.....
Last edited by Anonymous on Fri May 02, 2008 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ndn
Petty Officer
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:11 pm
Location: Bellevue

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by ndn » Fri May 02, 2008 8:56 am

Interesting Article





>
> Obama's Society of Beggars
>
> Jeffrey Lord
> www.spectator.org
> 26 February 2008
>
>
> Oh pleeeeze, sir!
>
> In three words, this is the driving force behind Barack Obama's vision for
> America. A vision epitomized by the famous words written by Charles
> Dickens
> for the young Oliver Twist of 19th century England. "Please, sir, I want
> some more."
>
> As America is beginning to learn, the young prince of Chicago began his
> career as what is euphemistically called a "community organizer." One has
> to
> have grown up in the 1960s, I suppose, to know what this is. For those who
> missed out, a community organizer is someone who spends their time begging
> from the government. The motives, at least in theory, are always pure.
> Mrs.
> Jones needs heat, Joe Smith needs a job, Sally Bell needs milk for her
> baby.
>
> The problem, of course, is that after decades of practical experience it
> is
> now obvious to most Americans that the guiding light behind community
> organizing is some variant of socialism -- which is to say a philosophy
> that
> effectively guarantees a lifetime of poverty and dependence, always at the
> mercy of a government that by the very nature of big bureaucracies can be
> arrogantly uncaring if not deceitful, slow as molasses, frequently
> incompetent and, in the end, completely lacking in an ability to help
> people
> escape the grinding poverty in which they find themselves.
>
> Barack Obama made his first mark in Chicago by choosing to be a community
> organizer, inspired by left-wing theoretician Saul Alinsky, the so-called
> "father" of community organizing. As a United States Senator he has,
> according to the non-partisan National Journal, emerged as one of the
> Senate's most liberal Senators. This is another way of saying that Obama
> supports all those programs that keep community organizers busy with
> places
> to go begging, insuring from the top that all those on the bottom are
> effectively kept in a closed loop of poverty. Unable to break out, poorly
> educated by government-owned, union-run local schools, housed in
> government-owned, crime-infested public housing, dependent for everything
> from food to heat to a job, the cycle rewards dependency. Dependency on
> government, and in turn dependency on community organizers like Barack
> Obama
> once was and on politicians like Barack Obama now is.
>
>
> THE BEST PLACE to take a look at this cycle in terms of Obama is to read
> his
> writings and the glowing accounts in liberal journals that have been
> written
> about him by enamored journalists. They provide an X-ray of the way Obama
> sees what American life should be -- a life that effectively consists of a
> society of beggars. Here are but four selections.
>
> * From Ryan Lizza in the New Republic: "Obama's work focused on helping
> poor
> blacks on Chicago's South Side fight the city for things like job banks
> and
> asbestos removal."
>
> * From David Moberg in the Nation: "Often by confronting officials with
> insistent citizens -- rather than exploiting personal connections, as
> traditional black Democrats proposed -- Obama and DCP protected community
> interests regarding landfills and helped win employment training services,
> playgrounds, after-school programs, school reforms and other public
> amenities."
>
> * From David Moberg in the Nation: "One day a resident at Altgeld Gardens,
> a
> geographically isolated public housing project surrounded by waste sites,
> brought a notice about planned removal of asbestos from the project
> manager's office. Obama organized the community to find out if there was
> asbestos in their apartments. They persisted as officials lied and
> delayed,
> then took a bus -- with far fewer people than Obama had anticipated -- to
> challenge authorities downtown. Ultimately, the city was forced to test
> all
> the apartments and eventually begin cleaning them up."
>
> * From Barack Obama in "Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner
> City" first published in the August/ September 1988 Illinois Issues
> (published by then-Sangamon State University, which is now the University
> of
> Illinois at Springfield):
>
> "This means bringing together churches, block clubs, parent groups and any
> other institutions in a given community to pay dues, hire organizers,
> conduct research, develop leadership, hold rallies and education
> campaigns,
> and begin drawing up plans on a whole range of issues - jobs, education,
> crime, etc. Once such a vehicle is formed, it holds the power to make
> politicians, agencies and corporations more responsive to community
> needs."
>
> Listen to what is being said here.
>
> * "...fight the city for things like job banks and asbestos removal..."
>
> * "Often by confronting officials..."
>
> * "They persisted as officials lied and delayed, then took a bus -- with
> far
> fewer people than Obama had anticipated -- to challenge authorities
> downtown. Ultimately, the city was forced..."
>
> This is the language of a society of beggars. The need to "fight the city"
> or "confront officials" or persist "as officials lied and delayed" or
> "challenge authorities" is pre-eminently the language of human beings made
> to depend on government. To beg from it as Oliver Twist was made to beg.
> "Please, sir, I want some more." It may have once had a certain allure in
> the 1960s -- forty years ago and even longer before that -- but the idea
> of
> creating big government programs and then creating "community organizers"
> whose sole purpose is to make citizens more effective beggars of those
> government programs has long since been discredited by the results -- or
> lack thereof .
>
>
> YET THIS IS PRECISELY the vision that Obama wishes to extend across all of
> America. And the question that becomes relevant for Obama's vision is a
> version of the question Ronald Reagan once asked Americans about the
> presidency of Jimmy Carter: "Are you better off now than you were four
> years
> ago?" Is the South Side of Chicago better off today because Barack Obama
> and
> his fellow community organizers accepted the status quo of big government?
> Is the community where Obama "organized" better off today than it was when
> he arrived? Has he done anything with his philosophy that has lifted the
> people of the South Side of Chicago out of poverty, and has the philosophy
> itself worked anywhere else in America?
>
> One need go no further than the Nation magazine's same loving profile of
> Obama to learn this:
>
> "Despite some meaningful victories, the work of Obama -- and hundreds of
> other organizers -- did not transform the South Side or restore lost
> industries."
>
> In other words, the Nation answers the Reagan question in a word: No.
>
> This is important when understanding that Obama's vision of America is to
> make of America one big South Side of Chicago. A nation where he raises
> taxes ("Please sir, may I keep some more of my money that I worked for?"),
> bureaucratizes health care ("Please, sir, will you pay for my medicine?"),
> and tells automobile manufacturers how to make energy-efficient cars
> ("Please sir, may I make my car my way?").
>
> All of this is, of course, the same old, same old. It is nothing more --
> or
> less -- than the old socialist stew which has failed everywhere from the
> South Side of Chicago to the Ninth Ward of New Orleans to the North Side
> of
> Moscow. There is nothing new about any of this except the messenger. And
> the
> messenger, according to the impeccably left-wing pages of the Nation, has
> already served up this stew in Chicago and -- surprise, surprise --
> failed.
> He has been utterly unable to do in his own public service what he once
> advocated for others in Alinskian te

User avatar
kevinb
Rear Admiral One Star
Posts: 3182
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:43 am
Location: Lake Whitman

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by kevinb » Fri May 02, 2008 9:18 am

Society of beggars? I love the play on words. I guess it must be different when hearing this and your a member of the Washington State Republican Party(which I was) What is it called when Bush sticks his hand out for funding the war?
Oh yeah,...because if we lose the war...the terrorists will follow us home and if we win all is well.
Agree to disagree

User avatar
Gisteppo
Commodore
Posts: 1016
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:26 am
Location: Lake Spokane (Long)
Contact:

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by Gisteppo » Fri May 02, 2008 1:53 pm

NDN, you opened a door, so Im going to show you a few nooks and crannies:

Jeffrey Lord? Reagan's political director. Not terribly surprising that someone so steeped in the Right's demigod might feel a bit threatened by Obama. If you remember, Reagan wanted to run the government on the premise that if the programs were failures, he could prove that government programs failed. This way he could cut programs and reduce the size of government, also reducing the programs I will mention in the following.

* From Ryan Lizza in the New Republic: "Obama's work focused on helping
> poor
> blacks on Chicago's South Side fight the city for things like job banks
> and
> asbestos removal."
Id sure prefer keeping my asbestos. You realize that not treating the asbestos actually increases reliance on the government in that the poor would end up on medicare/medicaid, and would have asbestosis to treat, a very expensive chronic condition.
Often by confronting officials with
> insistent citizens -- rather than exploiting personal connections,
So doing politics differently, instead of the same old way........
* From David Moberg in the Nation: "One day a resident at Altgeld Gardens,
> a
> geographically isolated public housing project surrounded by waste sites,
> brought a notice about planned removal of asbestos from the project
> manager's office. Obama organized the community to find out if there was
> asbestos in their apartments. They persisted as officials lied and
> delayed,
> then took a bus -- with far fewer people than Obama had anticipated -- to
> challenge authorities downtown. Ultimately, the city was forced to test
> all
> the apartments and eventually begin cleaning them up."
Again, increasing the living quality of the poor. Wouldn't you remove asbestos from your home if you could? What if your landlord refused, wouldn't you like to be able to force their hand?
Once such a vehicle is formed, it holds the power to make
> politicians, agencies and corporations more responsive to community
> needs."
Accountable politicians... terrible....
And the question that becomes relevant for Obama's vision is a
> version of the question Ronald Reagan once asked Americans about the
> presidency of Jimmy Carter: "Are you better off now than you were four
> years
> ago?" Is the South Side of Chicago better off today because Barack Obama
> and
> his fellow community organizers accepted the status quo of big government?
> Is the community where Obama "organized" better off today than it was when
> he arrived? Has he done anything with his philosophy that has lifted the
> people of the South Side of Chicago out of poverty, and has the philosophy
> itself worked anywhere else in America?
>
> One need go no further than the Nation magazine's same loving profile of
> Obama to learn this:
>
> "Despite some meaningful victories, the work of Obama -- and hundreds of
> other organizers -- did not transform the South Side or restore lost
> industries."
If you ask those he helped, do you think you would get a different answer? Just because you don't bring vast new industries to a stagnant city does not mean your work was not positive or transformative.
The kerfuffle over Obama's tendency to plagiarize words from Massachusetts
> Governor Deval Patrick is perhaps more revealing than the simple
> plagiarism
> itself.
This one cracks me up specifically. Did you know that Obama and Gov Patrick are close friends? Did you know they actually have written speeches in the past TOGETHER? The nerve! They have been working together for years, and in all honesty Gov Patrick actually used Obama's words in MANY of his speeches. They have used them interchangeably.

I find much of the article interesting because Lord has to pull so much interpolation to make his theories stick its almost bordering on ridiculous. Since when is fighting for the lesser of us begging? Why would working on behalf of those who are, for example, in a foreclosure (40% of foreclosures are due to medical financing issues and disability). How dare he organize. And please don't forget your 40 hour workweek, required numbers of hours of break/lunch times, sick leave, family medical leave, disability, labor and industries protection, job retention, layoff rehire clauses, contracted wage and benefit structures, and programs such as COBRA when you lose your health insurance are all directly attributable to those infernal unions.

Eric Staggs
IAFF local 29

User avatar
cavdad45
Commodore
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:16 am
Location: beavercreek, or

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by cavdad45 » Sat May 03, 2008 2:07 pm

I was wondering when this ugly election would infiltrate wl.com. The top three candidates make me sick. I am really having a tough time this year because I feel that I have no choice. It's Horrible, Worst, and the Muslim. None of these candidates would have had a snowball's chance 20 years ago, as they are all unqualified and an embarassment to the United States.

I am looking more to see if one of them will produce a viable candidate for Vice president.

Barak Hussein Obama does give more material for humorists and comics.

I am just plain disgusted at the lack of quality available for the most important office in the world.

User avatar
Gisteppo
Commodore
Posts: 1016
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:26 am
Location: Lake Spokane (Long)
Contact:

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by Gisteppo » Sat May 03, 2008 5:00 pm

I rather enjoy political discussion as it causes you to research your vote more and become more invested in the process. For example:

I like the conservative talking point of making an effort to say his middle name each and every time they refer to Obama. For the information of anyone who doesn't have any arabic language information:

Husayn, Hussein, Hussain, Husain (Arabic:????), is an Arabic name which is the diminutive of Hasan, meaning "beautiful" or "handsome".

Nothing says "friend of terrorist" like the name handsome.

Secondly, calling him a Muslim is ironic. On one hand, this is the home of the free. We left mother england because of religious persecution and a lack of representation. Pointing out a specific religion is contrary to the Constitution, and was an effective tool in Nazi Germany in enabling the public to single out a mass of people hated only by Hitler in the beginning, but after a goodly amount of time, the Star of David became something sinister. On the other hand, he isnt a Muslim. Obama's blood father and mother divorced when he was 2, at which time he was taken by his mother. She was a very strong secularist, believing that religious extremism was a dangerous thing. Specifically his schooling was in question.

From a CNN article:
CNN has tracked down the school in question, the Basuki School in Jakarta, which a deputy headmaster described as a "public school" with no particular religious agenda. "In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment," he told CNN. A classmate of Obama's described the school as "general," with students of many religious backgrounds attending. Obama entered the school at the age of 8 and attended for two years
Another random quote I found from a blogger:
All this matters, for if Obama once was a Muslim, he is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed.
Hmm, not particularly a Muslim as well, and this is HEAVILY documented and researched across the web.

See, this is more information on the topic than I had previously, which I would have never known had I not been wanting to know more about the candidate and seeing something I believed to be incorrect.

E

User avatar
cavdad45
Commodore
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:16 am
Location: beavercreek, or

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by cavdad45 » Sat May 03, 2008 6:21 pm

...and true to his Muslim background he refuses to salute the flag, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, where the American flag lapel pin, or stand for the National Anthem. Under Muslim law these acts of respect toward or nation's flag are considered idolatry and like most other "crimes against Islam" is punishable by death. Actions speak louder than his denials.

User avatar
Gisteppo
Commodore
Posts: 1016
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:26 am
Location: Lake Spokane (Long)
Contact:

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by Gisteppo » Sat May 03, 2008 7:40 pm

Cav, you literally are making me smile....

The email/photo you are referring to is actually not the pledge of allegiance, but the national anthem being sung at an event in Indianola, Iowa. I think if you take a look around you at the next sporting event, it is not a Muslim trait, but actual standard practice. According to the US flag code:
a) Designation.— The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.— During a rendition of the national anthem—
(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart;
(B) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and
(C) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.
And this is the image:

Image

So theoretically ALL of them are in violation of the code. Nobody is facing the flag. Ironically, he seems to be doing just fine in this photo:

Image

I see him standing in both images as well.

If you can find me concrete evidence of him NOT reciting the pledge, please bring it out, Id love to see it. I have only heard this in propagandist emails.

Here is a link to a video of him being asked these questions directly:

KWX3ar6d02A

Did you know that idolatry isnt a specifically Muslim trait?
Deut 29:18 (NIV) Make sure there is no man or woman, clan or tribe among you today whose heart turns away from the Lord our God to go and worship the gods of those nations; make sure there is no root among you that produces such bitter poison.
Jonah 2:8 (NIV) "Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs."
And this one, specifically, I find very interesting in that when nation-states do things under, by, and for God, they directly violate an edict:
Jer 14:14 (NIV) Then the Lord said to me, "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds."
This is Christianity, and these actions are not punishable by death, they are punishable by not having life eternal in the kingdom.

E

User avatar
eustace
Lieutenant
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:06 pm
Location: Deer Park Area
Contact:

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by eustace » Wed May 07, 2008 5:31 pm

I don't even get into the politcal spectrum with friends, family or origanzations, I keep it at the booth. My feelings often overcome my common sense, I keep it between my ears and respect the views of others. Besides I would be writting from now to tomorrow on my views of the government and its leaders, remembering they are humans, full of mistakes, shortcommings and character defects.

I will say this, as much as I am unhappy with our country I still feel it is the greatest country in the world with the greatest documents ever written for mankind, the constitution and the bill rights. I count my blessings for being born to this land in the current times.

"God Bless America" and what it stands for forever and ever amen!
Well its not called Catching!

User avatar
HillbillyGeek
Captain
Posts: 755
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:50 pm
Location: Lake Stevens

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by HillbillyGeek » Wed May 07, 2008 6:42 pm

kevinb wrote:My rant

Like so many others out there,I was fooled into supporting this war at the begging. All this war is based on lies by Cheney and his puppet Bush. Does anyone remember what this war was really about?.....Rember yet?...Weapons of mass detruction and the meeting of a 9/11 hijacker and a Iraqi agent. Which have now been proven to be "Knowingly False"
Don't give me any crap about fighting Al Quada....Al Quada was never there prior to our arrival.
So lets pretend we only kill a couple thousand more of our troops and we win the war. Turning Iraq into a decent self supporting country. Do you think we are safe? No more terrorists? No way,..were fighting an idealogy.

Meanwhile President Doofus is wandering up Capital Hill to ask for more money to fight the war. I wonder if he's embarrased about his great photo shot with "Mission Accomplished" in the background. I guess it doesn't really matter. While Cheney and Bush are breaking Federal Laws and laying in dirty oil company money(Don't forget Haliburton money) Are troops have to worry about roadside bombs,snipers and plenty of other crap. We are no safer today but Bush does a good job on getting the general public paranoid. I'm not sure why people take the bait. There will be more terrorist attacks,thats how life will be for awhile. Winning the war in Iraq will not change that.

If your not outraged,your not paying attention!!!!

This is just my rant and opinions. Not an attack on anyone. We knew this thread had the potential.Lets keep well intended.
Thanks
Kevin
Dude! You read my mind!

I voted for GW the first time he ran -- but I didn't make the same mistake twice. Silly me, I actually believed what he was saying. Go figure. Once he was in office, I had the opportunity to observe his actions, while ignoring the BS that was coming out of his mouth. I am from the "show-me" state (Missouri), and GW has shown me that he is a total waste of skin.

I'll probably vote for McCain in the next election, but not because I think he'd be a great president. He's simply the least offensive of the three that are still in the running. He's certainly not a genius or a great speaker, but he's genuine. I remember him speaking in Detroit where he told a crowd of autoworkers that the automotive jobs that had gone overseas were not coming back -- which was very unpopular to say the least! The other candidates where promising that if they were elected, the government would help get those jobs back, which was a load of crapola. (They never explained exactly HOW they would get the jobs back, which is expected when someone is shoveling BS to the masses.)

Most folks already know what the Clintons are all about, so I don't need to go there. Obama, however, is still an unknown. On his show, Glen Beck recently dissected a few of Obama's speeches and it was a real eye opener. Obama is very good at telling people exactly what they want to hear. Glen compared Obama's speaking abilities to those of Ronald Reagan, who was a great orator. Eloquence does not qualify someone to be president. There has to be some substance under all that fancy talk. After all, Hitler was one of the greatest orators of all time... :^o
Piscatory Geekus Maximus

User avatar
Gisteppo
Commodore
Posts: 1016
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:26 am
Location: Lake Spokane (Long)
Contact:

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by Gisteppo » Wed May 07, 2008 8:00 pm

HG, you make some valid points, but I really hope you spend a few more of your precious free hours before the election getting educated on the runners. I think the death knell has been spiked into the Clinton campaign, so you can easily put that out of your mind. She has to win 85% of the remaining pledge delegates and around 70% of the supers to take the election away from Barak, which is fundamentally impossible. They would have to find a pile of bodies laying around his home for him to lose.

Lets look at McCain...

Here is an interesting quote from one of the debates:
Q: Should the oil industry be required to use some of their profits to help solve our energy problems?
A: I would hope that they would use those profits to further the cause of alternate energy, nuclear power, a lot of other ways that we have to employ in order to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

Q: Do you support drilling/exploration off the coasts of Florida and California? A: I wouldn't drill off the coast of Florida unless the people of Florida wanted to. And I wouldn't drill off the coast of California unless the people of California wanted to, and I wouldn't drill in the Grand Canyon unless the people in Arizona wanted to.

Q: But you wouldn't require the oil industry to use its profits to help pursue alternative energy?

A: I would not require them to. But I think that public pressure and a lot of other things, including a national security requirement that we reduce and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007
This, to me, is lip service. Do you see him pulling the trigger on anything, or just hoping big business bends to the will of the people and contrary to the shareholders?

Not particularly humanitarian as well:
Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas.
To provide for appropriations for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Vote on a motion to waive the Budget Act in order to adopt an amendment that appropriates federal funds for the LIHEAP program. A 3/5th vote is required to amand a budget bi
Reference: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program appropriation; Bill S.AMDT.2033 to HR 2863 ; vote number 2005-250 on Oct 5, 2005
Progressive on oil?:
Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%).
Amendment to improve the energy security of the United States and reduce United States dependence on foreign oil imports by 40% by 2025. The amendment seeks to reduce usage by 7.6 million barrels of oil a day, out of a total usage of 20 million barrels of oil a day. The bill without amendment seeks to reduce usage by 1 million barrels of oil a day.
Reference: Energy Policy Act of 2005; Bill S.Amdt. 784 to H.R. 6 ; vote number 2005-140 on Jun 16, 2005
He thinks that the health care crisis is due to inflation, not the spiraling insurance industry deregulation and profits:
The problem with health care in America is inflation
The problem with health care in America, it's not the quality. It is the inflation. In all due respect to your expert that we just saw, he's talking about the wrong aspect of this issue. The right aspect of this issue is inflation, if we could get it under control and get it reduced so that health care costs are reasonable, then those people will be able to afford it. They will be able to go out and choose their insurer, and they will be able to then to get affordable health care. But we have to make the recipient of the health care more responsible. We have to have outcome-based results for health care. We have to emphasize wellness and fitness. One of the most disturbing things in America is the increase in diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure amongst younger Americans. So we have to award wellness and fitness. We'll have a healthier nation and we will have less health care costs. Some people here in New Hampshire have been to Canada. I don't think they want that system.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Republican primary debate Jan 5, 2006
Prescription meds:
Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare.
Vote to establish a prescription drug benefit program through the Medicare health insurance program. Among other provisions, Medicare would contribute at least 50% of the cost of prescription drugs and beneficiaries would pay a $250 deductible
Reference: Bill HR.4690 ; vote number 2000-144 on Jun 22, 2000
Allowing corporations to export jobs:
Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore.
Amendment to repeal the tax subsidy for certain domestic companies which move manufacturing operations and American jobs offshore.
Reference: Tax Subsidy for Domestic Companies Amendment; Bill S AMDT 210 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-63 on Mar 17, 2005
Are we better off after bush?:
Q: Are Americans better off than they were eight years ago?

A: I think we are better off overall if you look at the entire eight-year period, when you look at the millions of jobs that have been created, the improvement in the economy, etc.

Source: 2008 Republican debate at Reagan Library in Simi Valley Jan 30, 2008
Improved economy?!? I really enjoy paying $3.75 for gas and watching my neighbors lose their homes due to predatory lending...

This one is a doozy:
Loss of economic strength leads to losing military strength
Q: Does our country's financial situation creates a security risk?
A: Of course, any nation that no longer has economic strength sooner or later will lose its military strength, so it's a national security issue. We have many trillions of dollars of unfunded liability. Obviously, we've been on a spending spree. If oil reaches $100 a barrel, which many people think it may, $400 billion of America treasure will go to oil-producing countries. Some of those monies will go to terrorist organizations.

Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican debate Dec 12, 2007
This is meant as just some information and a view into his opinions. Think about it yourself.

E

User avatar
HillbillyGeek
Captain
Posts: 755
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:50 pm
Location: Lake Stevens

RE:Obama and Clinton

Post by HillbillyGeek » Wed May 07, 2008 9:03 pm

Thanks for the info Gisteppo. All facts are welcome. Have you noticed that the information you provided clearly shows McCain opposes expanding the role of government? Is that a bad thing? Politicians inevitably screw up everything they touch. I like to think of it as the exact opposite of the "midas touch". The fewer things we allow them to touch, the better off we will be as a nation.

Keep in mind that it's impossible to please everyone. It is human nature to look out for our own personal best interests. For example, do you think the majority of people who live in states that get hit my hurricanes favor emergency assistance for hurricane-hit areas? You bet they do! What about people who live in the midwest? Hmm... they are more concerned with emergency flood assistance and don't give a crap about hurricanes. What about people on the west coast? We have our own problems with earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcano eruptions. Would it be possible to pass hurricane-specific legislation without the "non-hurricane" states wanting their piece of the "emergency assistance" pie? This is a much bigger issue -- especially since our nation is already floating trillions of dollars in unfunded debt... :-k
Last edited by Anonymous on Wed May 07, 2008 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Piscatory Geekus Maximus

Post Reply