quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

Four months ago or not, he hasn't retracted it, therefore, it's still relevant...

And SwedishCovenant? I don't take homework assignments from you or anybody else. The comments are what they are, straight from the Obamas themselves that you so adore.

I am not surprised at all that you would fail to find them negative...

quote:

ORIGINAL: saved9201

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
saved9201,
Like I have indicated before, I am just not sure where you stand, so please forgive me if I call you an Obama supporter. I can't help but get that impression from your post from which I drew the above lines from.

First of all, just got back from a weekend at beautiful Myrtle Beach, SC.. I figured with the end of the world, Obamageddon, coming in November, I may as well enjoy myself until then.

Yes, I've defended him, that's all, because I think some of the attacks against him are ridiculous. Although I "know" Obama, I don't think he's qualified to be president. I don't "know' McCain and I don't like him, and I don't have to give a reason why, I just don't. I live in Georgia which will never go blue so it really doesn't matter who I vote for or if I vote at all. Besides, like I've maintained from the beginning, Obama doesn't stand a chance in the general election.

Anyway.

If I thought the standard from now on was that we would require candidates to prove their patriotism by wearing pins, that would be fine with me. If I thought from now on, that we would scrutinize their churches, their pastors, all their pastors sermons, all their visiting pastor's sermons, that we would scrutinize their neighbors and friends, that we would scrutinze any and everybody who endorsed them, that we would make them prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they were a born again, on fire for the Lord, non-compromising Christian, a member of a church that preached sound doctrine - and prove they're NOT secretly a Muslim or a terrorist, that would be fine. And if we decided that from now on, ALL candidates would be required to be humble - and not "arrogant" or presumptuous in their pursuit of the white house - never "acting" too presidential. That they act down to earth like regular people and not uppity or elitest or act like they're better than good old fashioned hard working people. If I thought that would be the new standard for presidential candidates, that would be okay with me. But I know deep down inside, that won't be the standard for all candidates. Just those you claim you don't "know".

And that's another reason I hope and pray he doesn't win: Because I know it won't stop if he's elected. Many people will never accept him as president. He'll never be allowed to govern. There will be people in the right wing media who will feel it's their patriotic duty to find out who B. Hussein O. really is. Dig deeper. There's got to be something. He's GOT to be hiding something. There will be an immediate crusade to impeach him - find something, anything. Yes, there will be plots to kill him.

No, in my opinion, it would be best if McCain wins convincingly so Obama and others that people don't "know" aren't encouraged to run ever again.

It's not worth it.

Now do you know where I stand?

- Julius

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

Oooh, blocked by a liberal....how will I face the dawn?

Suddenly, I have a healthy respect for our other friends on the left that frequent these boards, at least they don't run away from those who disagree with them....

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

Oooh, blocked by a liberal....how will I face the dawn?

Suddenly, I have a healthy respect for our other friends on the left that frequent these boards, at least they don't run away from those who disagree with them....

I'm really not sure how all of this apparent anger/bitterness helps your cause. Although I expect a response that involves talk about taxes, general anti-Americanism, and social liberalism, I am under the impression that liberals have done something a whole lot worse to personally offend and hurt you. Whatever that is, I'm sorry, and I hope we can make it up to you.

quote:

Although I expect a response that involves talk about taxes, general anti-Americanism, and social liberalism, I am under the impression that liberals have done something a whole lot worse to personally offend and hurt you.

quote:

if Tafkam wants to believe that Obama and his wife hate America, read Karl Marx each night before bedtime, and/or kidnap neighborhood kittens and hold them for ransom, then fine.

quote:

I'm hard pressed to see how any of the comments were "taken out of context" (a favorite phrase used by those trying to defend something that is usually indefensible).

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam
Oh, yeah, I'm sure the left has totally opposed any effort to villify John McCain by tying him to that awful "war monger" George W. Bush or any other DNC talking point you care to name.

It's a part of politics and both sides do it, so get over yourselves already...

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam
I would love for some of our Obama supporters on these forums to step forward and explain how ANY of Mr. Obama's stances line up with the word of God and what we are commanded to be as Christians.

I'm also curious why you would so wholeheartedly support someone for President who is so reluctant to find something even remotely positive to say about the nation he wishes to lead.

Of course I think we'll be waiting a while for that to occur....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
We are talking about the man and his political beliefs not his name. In Eastern culture a man's/ woman's name may mean something, but in Western culture it usually doesn't mean all that much, unless that man/woman is able to live up to his name. Most of the time people, in both cultures, do not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
Also, I suggest you reread the full context of the passage you quoted, because I seriously doubt it applies to what you seem to think it applies to. It applies to the spiritual Kingdom of God, not physical life on Earth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
I may aggree with you that maybe the word "threat" in the title should be changed. It just may be too great of an exaggeration of what his political philosophy may mean to America. Then too, it just may make some people feel a bit too uncomfortable, about the dangers may that may very likely be faced by this country if he wins and has an opportunity to carry through with his plans, and programs.

Trouble is, if the word was changed it would neither make sense, nor be truthful, in any sense of the title's meaning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam
I would love for some of our Obama supporters on these forums to step forward and explain how ANY of Mr. Obama's stances line up with the word of God and what we are commanded to be as Christians.

I'm also curious why you would so wholeheartedly support someone for President who is so reluctant to find something even remotely positive to say about the nation he wishes to lead.

Of course I think we'll be waiting a while for that to occur....

I've been waiting for years for Christians who supported the war on Iraq to explain how invading a country who posed no threat to ours, generating hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and turning over 4 million Iraqis into refugees (out of a nation of 25 million - that'd be about 48 million Americans turned refugees since America has 300 million people) is in line with the Word of God.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam
I would love for some of our Obama supporters on these forums to step forward and explain how ANY of Mr. Obama's stances line up with the word of God and what we are commanded to be as Christians.

I'm also curious why you would so wholeheartedly support someone for President who is so reluctant to find something even remotely positive to say about the nation he wishes to lead.

Of course I think we'll be waiting a while for that to occur....

I've been waiting for years for Christians who supported the war on Iraq to explain how invading a country who posed no threat to ours, generating hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and turning over 4 million Iraqis into refugees (out of a nation of 25 million - that'd be about 48 million Americans turned refugees since America has 300 million people) is in line with the Word of God.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton. Feb. 17, 1998.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry, D-MA. Oct. 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. Oct 10, 2002

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State. Feb 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others. Oct. 9, 1998.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

But the OP and a lot of people keep harping about HUSSEIN, HUSSEIN, HUSSEIN. Why is this being done? You just said in western culture it means nothing; since America is a western country, why are westernized American Christians harping on his middle name?

And in traditional cultures names MEAN something. The Arabs and Jews are semitic peoples and their languages are rich with meaning; look at either the Koran or Old Testament. Names mean a big deal. An example: Jacob's name was changed to... ISRAEL.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. Oct 10, 2002

quote:

ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. Oct 10, 2002

Oh goody a new message board where Cons try to spread blame for Bush's mistakes upon Dems by misquoting the Dems they are lying about.

Here is the REST of the Clinton speech out of which you carefully snipped a quotelet. You will note that WITH ITS CONTEXT, it OPPOSES war which is, of course, the exact opposite of what your careful editing is intended to imply, that she SUPPORTED war:

"Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all it's appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present fact is not a good option."
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant

Nope, try again - she was clearly arguing AGAINST war, which is not "each foot planted firmly on opposite sides of the fence! Even her own speech contradicts her".

quote:

"So Mr. President, for all it's appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present fact is not a good option."