Silly.But of course, I would much rather watch A Charlie Brown Christmas than listen to Barry speak! ;-)
guess we have plenty of skeletons in the CoC denomination
President Bush was attacked for eight years and I don't remember you ever calling anyone out for it.It does seem to me that Obama shows more respect for Muslims than Christians.
Was what the guy said on his Facebook page totally wrong? Yes, but Chris is right on this one. RC
RC and chris, whenever I could, I commended President Bush, for example on this 10-yr plan to end homelessness, etc. But frankly, I never remember anything so absurd being said about President Bush. Had there been such a comment, that the President of the USA conspired to keep Americans from watching Peanuts as a way to undermine the family and turn us away from Christianity, I can assure you I would have said something about it. If I am wrong, please provide me an equivalent example of stupidity and I will apologize. Possibly President Obama's willingness to engage all people, especially our fellow citizens in the US, is off putting to some who post here. I find it very refreshing and totally in line with the preinciples of the U. S. Constitution and the founding fathers and mothers of the nation--Jefferson and Roger Williams come to mind. Someone mentions here that this mayor is a member of the Church of Christ. I left that part out, but I understand that it is true. Sad, indeed; very sad.
Larry,What the guy from Arlington was wrote was stupid and reflective of the way many people feel. I read the Commercial Appeal online just about every day, and when the first article appeared there were over 800 responses by readers. That is unprecedented for the CA. The sad thing is that his facebook statement brought to life just how divided we are as a nation. I am scared to death of his policies. I do not believe he is a Muslim. I think he is like the vast majority of politicians, not much of anything religiously. Remember something about this guy. He wrote what he wrote on facebook, not an oped for the New York Times. President Bush was called a murder and liar for being in Iraq. Wasn't he? To say that nothing was said about Bush rose to the level of what one knucklehead said on facebook makes me want to chuckle. It is going to be interesting to see how the preacher of the church where the good mayor attends handles the situation. RC
Yes, the "good" mayor...what makes him "good" after placing this bigoted diatribe for all to see?Many people were "scared to death" of Saint Bush's policies, RC. He did more to destabilize our national security than any president in recent history. Mur*der: the unlawful act of killing a person with intent.Li*ar: a person who says things to conceal the truth.Bush did both of those things. He violated Iraqi sovereignty under false pretences. To 90% of the world, he lied and colluded in murder.All of this blind allegiance to neoconservative principle is sickening, especially since much of the American church has been co-opted into this militant politicalization of the gospel message.
PS, RC... there is a HUGE difference between demonizing Bush for disagreement in political policy and exuding racial and religious bigotry towards someone. The former is wrong, but since you are a white, male, Christian, I don't think you will EVER understand how much more wrong and offensive the latter is. To somehow equate the two -- well that just communicates a total lack of understanding of oppression.
Anonymous:I rest my case, and by the way, I used the term "good mayor" sarcastically. RC
RC, here's the difference. Think about it. The charges against President Bush re WMD in Iraq could not be defended by me or anyone else successfully because a) too many voices in his own administration left and then spoke and/or wrote about the inner workings of the administration re the charges, including Colin Powell and b) the charges were backed up by the fact that Iraq had no WMD. The Mayor of an American city making such proposterous charges is in fact by the sheer weight of its foolishness very fair game for rational people to shoot down. I'll have to say that the mayor's comment was also loaded with bias and prejudice. I am amazed by your fear of this President and I believe you are wrong about him, especially in regard to his own faith walk. It is clear to me that he is a man of principle and faith, and I have that on good authority from at least one very good friend from ACU who teachs in a seminary and who worked for Mr. Obama. His view of the man is the opposite of yours.
RC I don't know what good a smug response like that does, other than show your complete unwillingness to to understand the experiences of people who have a vastly different background than your own. Your insistence on denying fair criticism of Bush every time someone makes a bigoted comment about the president is sheer lunacy.One President is challenged and attacked for the choices and actions he makes as policy.The other is attacked and denigrated based on the PERCEPTION of who he is -- a black, socialist, muslim.It is clear in all of this that there is a large swath of American people who are uncomfortable with someone not of their own race becoming president. So they try to distance themselves in any way possible -- through race, religion, or extremist political labels. (I don't think you realize how moderate Obama is compared with Clinton, JFK, Carter, or any other D in the last 40 years.) You must be watching a lot of conservative talking points, because the fear is completely unfounded.People bashed Jimmy Carter, but for many reasons besides race and religion. It is becoming clearer to me that much of America still can't accept a black president.
People also said that President Bush was a man of deep Christian conviction. Larry, do you believe this about him? I am skeptical of almost all politicians. Maybe I shouldn't lump President Obama with all the rest. I do believe that he has a good family and I admire the job that he and his wife are doing in raising his children, but I do hate what I perceive he is doing to our country. This is just how I feel. I also do not support what this mayor said.RC
People can believe me or not, but I have no problem what so ever with the color of President Obama's skin. I am not bothered by his religious views, just his political views. Mr. Anonymous, whoever you are, please don't think you know me. I am also amazed that you would call Obama moderate compared to JFK and Clinton. To the best of my knowledge they were both fiscal conservatives or at worst, moderates. President Obamais spending trillions of dollars we don't have. I am going to make it clear with this post who I am. I often sign "RC" just because it is quicker, but I have nothing to hide. Anon 6:27, what about you? Let us know who you are.
Are you kidding, RC? Obama did not start the spending spree. I don't like it either, but he really didn't have a choice. You are blind if you want to go one claiming that Bush and the Republicans are fiscal hawks.Saint Bush is the one who came in to office with a balanced budget (thanks to Clinton), cut taxes and ramped up huge war debts (which one war we've already determined to be on fraudulent charges). Every one of Bush's budget increased the national debt by a minimum of 3.5%. His last two budgets had $500 bln and $1 trillion dollar deficits, respectively. And all of the corporate bailouts started under Bush's term. Keep in mind, the 2009 fiscal year's budget, which ended in September, was Bush's.So please don't spew boldfaced lies about who the fiscal hawks are. Bush's poor fiscal management will plague the Obama administration for years. However, preliminary CBO estimates suggest he will pull the debt spending in line with GDP by 2011/2012.And since I know you always act like people aren't citing facts, all of the data can be found on the wikipedia entries for: U.S. public debt, National debt by U.S. Presidential terms, and United States federal budget.Please look at those three pages before you try to play the game of claiming Republicans are the fiscal conservatives. Republicans claim to be the fiscal hawks, but they always end up cutting taxes while ramping up spending. Larry is right, your fears are grossly negligent (and are the result of listening to too much cable news, in my opinion).
P.S. I believe Bush had a strong conviction from his faith. I just believe it was very misguided at times.
Anon:I don't think I mentioned Bush in my last post, and I never suggested that he started the spending. He is just adding fuel to the fire. Bush was no conservative. I also compared Obama to Clinton and JFK, not to Bush. I refer to President Obama as the President because I have great respect for the office, yet you insist on calling President Bush, Saint Bush. What is that all about? Am I a liar for calling Clinton and JFK fiscal conservatives. You need to do two things. First, you need to have the guts to identify yourself and not hide behind the safety of the Anonymous tag, and Second don't call me a liar.
"Our rebels have contemptuously rejected American values and way of life. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutilized, and corrupt. They are right." Sauk Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, 1971This was from a fellow Chicago community organizer from which Obama learned much. We have reason to be very afraid of Obama.Since Obama signed the Pork bill in Feb.,the economy has lost 3 million jobs. Obama has destroyed millions of small businesses. He has destroyed management. He's destroying assembly lines. He is destroying opportunity and hope and liberty for future generations.He hasn't created or saved a thing. The only jobs he's created are government jobs. He has confiscated taxpayer money, with no accountability. He has taken money from the private sector and put people on the government payroll, paying them to do his bidding so he can take even more.It's all being done on purpose. This Administration says, "We want to fundamentally transform America." They want to remake it. None of Obama"s allies like the way this country was founded or established; they despise the way it is constituted.The threats to this country have always been external. Today, the threat is internal. The Democrat Party has been so radicalized that it is out to essentially re-found this nation. They want more and more power and control. They want more and more people totally dependent on them and the government they run. They view that as the way to stay in perpetual power because you'll obviously vote for those you believe are responsible for your very survival.When that happens, you are no longer a citizen; you have become a serf.There are people all over this country who are striving and working hard, trying to defeat the Democrats from implementing what can only be described as tyranny. I have faith that we will win. I count myself as one of them.These are dark days for this country. I have never seen it under attack internally this way. I never dreamed that in my lifetime we would have a President who dislikes this country as much as he does, and holds as much of it in contempt as much as he does. I would never dream that we would have a President who is doing everything he can to destroy the very engine that creates prosperity and freedom in this country, the American private sector and capitalism.Obama campaigned on promises of "transparency" vowing to conduct his health care negotiations "around a big table" on C-SPAN, he never meant it. It has all come down to three Senators working behind closed doors. The whole Administration is one big lie. The Democrats know that if they conduct the debate in the open they won't have a bill ever.Obama thinks that this country should be "brought down" to the level of the rest of the world, because the rest of the world lives in poverty because of us. This is what the entire crowd of leftist Alinskyites believes: we've stolen the riches of the world, we've used our imperialism to dominate the world, we're unjust and immoral. If Obama could rip up the United States Constitution, he would. It's an obstacle.The ultimate outcome of his agenda will be to smother the individual. As an individual American, you will be so busy working your way through the maze of rules imposed on you by his health care legislation, and all the rest of his policies, you won't have time to think for yourself. (THINK 2,000 pages)But they are outmatched--for over230 years we have believed that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." We must see that it does not.
RC, What difference does it make who I am? If I tell you my name is Gary, does that somehow change the discussion? Or are we just avoiding debate?You stated that Obama was ramping up spending. I am simply pointing you to the fact that Obama did not CHOOSE this path. It was inherited. Frankly, I don't think any of us understand how much it sucks to be him, and I think we should cut him a little slack and realize that sometimes he has to do things which he would rather not.Here's another factoid you'll love from wikipedia's National debt by US presidential terms: Since 1945, every Democratic president has left office with a lower national debt (as percentage of GDP) than when they started. In that time, every Republican save Nixon and Eisenhower ballooned the debt. Bush/Bush Sr./Reagan were all the same. They didn't care about the bottom line, only advancing their political agenda.P.S. Given the economic circumstances, I find it absurd to judge the president after 10 months of service. But you have my vote for president.- Ano Nymous
Chris:It must truly be scary to inhabit the world you describe. It's like some political version of The Road. Brrr ... scary! Where did you say you're from? I'm glad it's not the same place I live!Please, all you neo-cons, please tell me you can see how much you sound like the left during the Bush years. Same wildly exaggerated claims, just from the completely opposite perspective. From where I sit in the political middle, I had no fear Bush was "destroying" America, and I have no fear Obama is either. The pendulum is just swinging, like it always does.KenDallas, TX
I hear they're going to play A Charlie Brown Christmas again tonight. I hope it makes everyone feel better.
Larry - i completely 100% disagree with your comment that Obama is "willing to engage all people". Nothing could be further from the truth ( in my opinion), unless by "all people" you mean democrats who agree with him. To date, he has shown a willingness to eagerly ignore those who disagree with his politics, as evidenced by his recent meeting with Senate Democrats to amend the health care plan and excluding any Republicans from being present. Whether you like it or not, a very large part of the US population believes Obama wants nothing more than to be the President for the liberal minded and to hell with the rest of the country. He is no different than any other hard-edged politician. His promise to rid Washington of partisanship and divisiveness and govern for all has been outed as a ruse to get votes. I am convinced by their actions that President Obama and the rest of the liberal democrats could not care less about " engaging all people". Unfortunately, I have seen politics as usual with Obama and his chronies, reid, Pelosi, and Frank. The only good thing that will come out of this is that America will get a good taste of liberal politics and the impact on our country for the next 4 years and then those who voted for " a change we can believe in" will learn their lesson and vote all of them out of office.
Anon 5:14, of course you lifted my phrase out of its setting so that my meaning could be lost. If you look back to my comments in reply to Chris, you'll see that I was referring to the President's habit of including people of all faith traditions in his conversations. This is often interpreted, as Chris did, as an indication that he is not Christian or that he doesn't like Christians or that he is a follower of Islam. It was in this way that I used the phrase "President Obama's willingness to engage all people." But, I expect you already know that.
Post a Comment