Monday, April 14, 2008

Obama spits in America's face

Sometimes we say things we don't really mean. With that in mind I've been waiting for Barack Obama to apologize for or explain away his recent diarrhea of the mouth when he said that the people of rural Pennsylvania,

"..cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Instead of admitting that he was wrong, Obama has been trying to divert attention from the real issue by insisting that he was right about people’s frustration.

The idea that Americans are concerned about immigration, or believe in the second amendment, or “cling to their religion" (i.e. take their Christianity seriously) merely because they are “frustrated,” is so offensive, so condescending, so utterly stupid, that it is hard to imagine a politician could be so ignorant as to say such a thing publically (even if it does express his true feelings toward most rural Americans). I feel like Obama just spit in my face!

40 comments:

Alcamadus said...

Personally, I feel as if his opponets and the media are taking this too far (almost like attack dogs waiting for him to screw up).

In terms of the statment, it sounds like he was just blaming the past administrations for making claims and not holding up to them and thus leaving the rural towns bitter. I think he was just trying to understand the demographic, not demoralize them. It's like when we all try to understand someone else and maybe find some negatives through the analysis, but it helps us figure out who they are and how to help them.

I guess I just saw him trying to be honest. And personally, when I heard Hillary Clinton lie through her teeth about how we need a president that will work hard for their families, jobs, etc... I feel like I was spit on by her. We all know she is just lying to get more votes and turn the tables to make herself look better. I don't want someone who is going to lie to my face and say "I've got your back" and then leave me high and dry. I wan't to hear someone's opinion on the real situation and figure out a solution.

Brent said...

Obama has acknowledged that his comments did not come out the way he intended. Alcamadus is correct except for one thing: the word "almost" can be removed from the first paragraph. John McCain can't even understand basic (yet crucial) points such as the differences between Shia and Sunii, and who might or might not be helping al-Qaida, but the media ignores it. They're busy waiting for something they can blow out of proportion coming from Obama. McCain might as well start moving his things into the White House now, with the kind of help he's getting.

Robert said...

Don't worry about it Obama supporters. The Media and Obama's cheerleaders are giving him a total pass on this.

L'oiseau said...

Robert,

The media is NOT giving him a pass, the American people are. The talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News discussed this to death, but when the people of PA were polled, not only did they not feel offended by Obama, they AGREED with him.

It's all about context and Obama's opponents are taking his comments out of it.

Brent said...

Well said, L'oiseau, every last word of it. It's laughable that a McBush supporter would have the nerve to complain about the media giving a candidate a free pass.

Dennis said...

l'oiseau,

You need to cite the source of your poll. Everything depends on what the people were asked.

Obama and his spin doctors have succeeded in re-framing the discussion to be about whether or not the American people are frustrated. So if you ask voters, "Are you frustrated," of course you're probably going to get a big response. But that is NOT what the issue was about.

The issue was about Obama saying that people "cling to guns" because they are frustrated.
That's just plain stupid! How can a man running for president possibly be so stupid?!

People may believe in owning guns because they like to hunt, or because they want to be able to defend themselves or their familes, etc., but so say that they cling to their guns becuase they are frustrated or bitter is shear ignorance!

Another issue was when Obama said that people cling to their religion because of frustration!

Some of the least angry and frustrated people in the world are religious people! People may be religious for any number of reasons but for Obama to say it is because they are bitter or frustrated shows that he is incredibly out of touch. L'oiseau, you've claimed to be a Christian---I just can't believe you don't find this condescending and offensive.

Or then there's the "anti-immigrant sentiment." Of course it just can't be that many Americans are concerned about all the gang-bangers and possibly terrorists coming up from the border.

Or it can't be that we are concerned about hospitals on the boarder closing their doors because they can no longer afford to stay in business.

It MUST be because we are just bitter! For a presidential candidate to be so out of touch and to treat so many Americans with such contempt is absolutely unbelievable!

Frankly, I cannot understand the spell that Obama has on people. They don't seem to care that he is associated with corrupt thugs.

They don't seem to care that he's gone to a racist church for 20 years.

They don't care that he says one thing in public and another in private.

They don't care that there is no way on earth he could even begin to fulfill all his promises without bankrupting the country.

They don't even care when he insults them and-figuratively speaking--spits in their face!

I can't remember anyone who had such a spell over people since the days of Adolf Hitler! (no, I'm not saying Obama is anything like Hitler--except in his ability to cast a spell over the crowds).

L'oiseau said...

I was referring to the Gallup poll and others which are showing Obama's numbers in PA to be the same as they were post-"Bittergate" meaning that this nontroversy did nothing. I still haven't figured out how to embed links...

Don't worry, I've heard the Hitler comparison before. Mostly from 13 year old Ron Paul worshipers online, but feel free to say what you think.

You are taking Obama's comments completely out of context and then getting in a tizzy about it.

Obama was answering a question about working-class voters economic conditions and why they seemingly vote against their own interests.

He answered by saying that administrations from both parties (Clinton and Bush) have failed/betrayed them in this regard, so they have no faith in politicians anymore. Instead, when voting, they "cling to" other things that are important to them i.e. religion, guns, etc.

This is not offensive to me as a Christian because when I look around at many of my Christian friends, I do see many of them "clinging" to the Republican party because of things like abortion or gay marriage, without even considering other issues like the environment, health care, or the economy. I think this fact is pretty indisputable.

This is the same thing that Democratic politicians have been saying for years. He apologized for being unclear and for his wording. End of story in my book.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but calling Obama "stupid" is just making you look angry and bitter, which is what you're trying to say you aren't. Just a thought.

I'm looking forward to your next blog about Obama's elite orange juice v. coffee beverage choices.

L'oiseau said...

Also, I'd LOVE it if you'd apply that lovely laundry list of Obama's flaws to your candidate and see what you come up with. If you could look at both candidates without the rose-colored glasses, you might be surprised.

Brent said...

Dennis, if you're familiar with Godwin's Law, you know you've already lost the argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Godwin's_law)

Dennis said...

l'oiseau,

Yep, when some stupid politician tries to tell me that the REASON I "cling" to my faith, or my view of guns or my view of immigration is because I'm frustrated and bitter, you're right--THAT makes me angry!

Obama apparently hasn't got a clue about why so many Americans hold the views they do, and that demonstrates him to be the left-wing elitist he is and it also makes him makes him a very scarry presidential candidate.

And Brent, you if you think Godwin's law means that I've lost the debate, you apparently don't understand Godwins law. "The rule does not make any statement as to whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate."

The ONLY point of comparison was oratory ability and the ability to mesmerize an audience.

Robert said...

Brent -

Don't confuse me for a McCain supporter or a Bush supporter. Neither have my "support" except on a few issues.

Obama has clearly shown himself to be an socialist elitist. Over the last few days, the media has given him a pass in that they've written tons of stories trying to show how what he said was just "the truth" or acceptable in some way. But the fact is, he basically was saying that those who believed in religion or owned guns were clinging to them as though they were some mindless idiots who needed to be propped up.

Obama is just another political hack. He's no different than any other far left politician. The media is so in his pocket that at this point, I suspect there isn't anything he could say to lose their support short of agreeing with Bush on everything.

L'oiseau,

You said:
This is not offensive to me as a Christian because when I look around at many of my Christian friends, I do see many of them "clinging" to the Republican party because of things like abortion or gay marriage, without even considering other issues like the environment, health care, or the economy. I think this fact is pretty indisputable...

I think it's very disputable. What I see as the case is that Democrats are fully willing to hand over their responsibilities to the government or that they look to the government for their problems, that they just can't see eye to eye with someone who just wants the government out. On the issue of abortion, for me, I see it as basically legalized murder. I can't support a candidate who supports killing the most innocent and that pretty much rules out the Democrats.

Brent said...

"..there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law."

L'oiseau said...

Dennis,

Well apparently no amount of logic, reason, or context is going to free you from your anger, so I'll leave you to it.

Robert,

And I, as a Christian, actually see the killing of thousands of innocents in Iraq as an evil equivalent to abortion. Imagine that.

Also, the fact that this administration condoned torture disgusts me beyond what I can say. I'm ashamed of our country participating in torture in the same way that I am ashamed that abortion is legal. I'm ashamed that the Republican Bush administration couldn't or wouldn't do anything about abortion.

Dennis said...

Anyone who has any interest in Godwin's law can just read the entire article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law and see for themselves that Brent has just pulled one phrase out of context.

Regardless of what some newsgroups may erroneously conclude, the fact is that "The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate."

Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with Robert.

Robert said...

l'oiseau,

One of the major differences is that I don't support the Bush administration whereas you wholeheartedly support Obama. Additionally, you seem to be totally blind to the fact that Obama has consistently shown himself to be not only comfortable with hate, but tacitly supporting it (e.g. Wright, Million Man March, and his various relationships with other hate mongers).

On Iraq, it's not even remotely equivalent to the mass murder going on with abortion; not numerically or morally. Not that this even should need saying, but the US prosecutes those soldiers who kill indiscriminately or murder innocents. On the other hand, Democrats applaud women who have abortions as being independent and in control of their lives. The fact that Iraq is even compared to abortion is pretty amazing...

Brent said...

That's OK, we can disregard an informal Internet understanding if that will make you happy (although I stand by my point). That's not my main point. But the fact remains that bringing up Hitler reeks of desperation, and we all know what you were shooting for when doing so. This isn't the first time you've been overly dramatic while discussing Obama, and it won't be the last.

Alcamadus said...

Obviously, the upset is over Obama not giving the people the credit that they may have a foundation for what they believe.

I would agree that making brushstroke statments like he did is not the best idea, but taken at face value there are people who cling to ideals solely based on fear, resentment, anger, bitterness. After 9/11 people flocked to churches, synagogues, and mosques. They went to religion. Now, does this apply to everyone, no. But it definitely did happen. I think Obama is making the same connection. Now, obviously, there are plenty of people like Charlton Heston (Rest in peace) who believed in gun rights, had honest reasons, and fought for them, and for that I respect his cause. But I don't think anyone can deny that people do cling to ideals because of fear, resentment, anger, or bitterness...

If Obama was a conservative I doubt you would have much of a problem with his oratorary promise and ability to inspire the masses. But because he the "enemy" you rage toward him with the fire's of mordor. Your Hitler comparison is meant for fear, shock, etc... I think you forget that FDR and JFK had a similar effect on people and they are considered great leaders in America. Was their ability to capture the masses attention...evil?

I think you are making a brushstroke assumption that most people who support Obama are mindless and don't have reasons why they support him. I would suggestion you reevaluate your position on that matter. I would agree there are some who are blindly following (as there will always be blind sheep) but thinking all Obama supporters don't have reasons for supporting him is erroneous...even stupid. ;P

I do have to agree though with Robert on the abortion issue. Comparing it to the war in Iraq seems rather weak and two completely different issues. But this blog has nothing to do with Abortion so I will leave it at that.

Dennis said...

I guess the bottom line is that we all know Democrats would be singing an entirely different tune if McCain had said, "People who cling to their secularism, anti-war rhetoric and dreams of universal health care, do so because they are bitter.

Alcamadus said...

I agree. Both sides are at fault for bias, hatred towards one another, and division.

Robert said...

alcamadus,

The problem is, Obama is supposed to be a unifier. Instead, he's another agent of divide; deep divide even in his own party.

There is a reason people hate politicians - Republicans and Democrats alike. It's because they typically put their self-interests first. Not surprisingly, Obama has no problems denegrating others when it's to his benefit.

L'oiseau said...

Robert,

To me, death is death, so yes, taking innocent children's lives is equivalent to taking children's innocent lives.

Just because I wholeheartedly support Obama does not mean that I agree with every "i" he dots and "t" he crosses. I am pro-life, ideally, but I do support his stance that young single mothers should be given every opportunity to birth and raise their children.

I also disagree with his stance on the death penalty, among other things. I think it should be completely removed from our society whereas he just wants to reform it.

These things are neither here nor there, I just find it odd that you imply that I must agree with every word he says in order to support him.

I've addressed the Wright/Farrakhan situation here before. It doesn't do much, so I'm not going to again.

L'oiseau said...

Robert,

I did find a link that I thought especially valid in your reference to the Million Man March. It's from a Jewish blog.

http://www.forward.com/blogs/bintel-blog/13058/

(I don't know how to embed here, sorry)

Obama has consistently been FOR lifting people up (including African-Americans, shocker) and against tearing people down. His statements from 1995 reflect that.

vicit said...

This is the same guy who called his own grandchild a "punishment", when the God Barack claims to follow says that child is a blessing... and maybe the hicks in Pennsylvania cling to their belief in God is because they ACTUALLY believe in that God... unlike Obama who embraces what the God of Christianity hates:

Maybe they cling to their guns because the murderous leftist totalitarian regimes in this century all had something in common: they removed guns from the citizenry? Logical? yep...

Maybe they cling to illegal immigration because we have a sovereign nation with borders and they think that laws should be enforced...?

On the face of it Obama is clearly a fool, and the kicker is that he is elitist about it...

Marx and Hitler both ALSO just like Obama boiled everything down to an issue of economics, they'd both also LOVE Obama's willingness to murder his own grandchild in the womb come to think of it...

vicit said...

l'oisseau:

Is not the murder of the innocent a "deal breaker" for you with Obama? I understand we are not just "1 issue" voters but if you are willing to support his radical stance on LIFE AND DEATH matters, then what issue could possibly be more crucial?!

Are you willing to support what God hates just because a guy is willing to steal from your neighbor to buy you some very poor inefficient national health insurance?

Is this really the price you would sell your soul for?

Robert said...

L’oiseau,

Obama might be able to get a pass from me on Wright if he were some sort of distant relative or it were an isolated incident… but Wright’s not a relative and it’s not an isolated incident. Unfortunately, Wright isn’t the only hate monger from Obama’s past. Obama chooses to surround himself with people who are racist, or hate mongers, or people who advance themselves through spreading of hate, mistrust, and discontent. He has consistently chosen relationships that reveal something about him. When confronted with that reality, he then diverts the issue by claiming white people are guilty too (or in his case his grandmother) as if that some how excuses his situation.

Additionally, killing with intent to murder and killing by accident are two entirely different things. Surely you understand that? Are you implying our soldiers are simply walking around shooting people? I hope you recognize that the terrorists are the ones targeting innocent life. They’re the ones we’re attempting to stop. In this case, we really are the ones attempting to stop the loss of innocent life.

On the abortion issue, there can be no doubt that the people involved in it fully intended to kill the child. There is no ambiguity. So, if you’re telling me you see a moral equivalency with an accidental death versus an intentional homicide, I guess we really have no common ground in regards to murder. We (the US) are not randomly killing people in Iraq. We’re attempting to stop those that do. Inside the US, the Democrats are the ones openly advancing the policy that indiscriminately allows the murder of infants as a form of birth control. Any argument linking the moral equivalency of Iraq and abortion is simply untenable.

vicit said...

If one cannot tell the difference in proportion between:

33,000 UNINTENTIONALLY killed by coalition forces (Human Rights Watch estimate)

AND

In the SAME 5 years 1.1 million INTENTIONALLY killed in the womb then ones moral compass is broken to the point of pathology.

FURTHERMORE, Obamas support of his apostate church of hatred, including Wrigyt has gone on for over 20 years, and Obama ave $27,500 to that church last year... wow, now thats such an isolated incident... (sarcasm intended).

L'oiseau said...

Sorry, um. I respect you guys, (well, Robert and Dennis) but it's impossible to talk about this anymore. I maybe shouldn't have even commented on this thread.

These things that you hate about Obama are so ingrained in you right now that I don't think anyone will ever convince you otherwise, so I feel that I shouldn't waste my time.

I want you to think about how you view me. You probably think I'm some crazy left-wing nutcase with all this "stupid" Obama propaganda.

Now, if you can imagine for a second that you're not you...how do you think YOUR remarks come off? I can basically predict what you're going to say. It's as if it came right Right-wing playbook, word for word.

I don't know, maybe we're both being fooled. I don't think either side is perfect, by a long stretch. But I do take offense when my "moral compass" is defamed because I am choosing a Presidential candidate.

Dennis said...

l'oiseau,

Well, I for one, don't think you are a "crazy, left-wing nutcase." I always appreciate your thoughtful arguments even though we disagree.

I think you have tapped in, however, to some of the "angst" many of us feel about Obama.

In fact, its more than angst--it's terror! Some of us are absolutly terrified by the prospect of an Obama presidency.

I for one am not exaggerating when I say that I think it will be the very worst thing that has ever happened to this country! It scares the snot out of me!

If Democrats had any interest whatsoever in uniting our country, they would drop Obama like a hot potatoe.

If they can't bring themselves to support Hillary, then pick someone else--like Harold Ford(D) of Tennessee, for example. I disagree with Harold Ford's politics, but at least I think he is--as far as I know--an honest, somewhat sensible, man of integrity. But Obama is the most polarizing candidate to hit the pike since George McGovern!

Alcamadus said...

Robert,

I never said that I believed Obama would bring unification. In fact, I have never bought into that because usually being the most liberal senator in Congress is pretty good sign against such a notion even if he says otherwise.

I know defending someone makes me look like a supporter. I wouldn't make that assumption. Trust me.

I know that Obama will push his liberal agenda and not cross party lines, because he hasn't done it before and hasn't shown any sign of doing so.

Brent said...

"I for one am not exaggerating when I say that I think it will be the very worst thing that has ever happened to this country! It scares the snot out of me!"

Worse than slavery? Worse than the Civil War? Worse than World War I? Worse than World War II? Worse than any of our presidential assassinations? Worse than Pearl Harbor? Worse than 9/11? Worse than the suppression of the rights of women and minorities? Worse than the corruption of the justice department by the Bush administration? Worse than Oklahoma City? Worse than the Iraq war? Worse than the Depression? Worse than Vietnam? Worse than Watergate? Worse than the San Francisco earthquake? Worse than two presidential impeachments? Worse than the Trail of Tears? Worse than the assassination of Martin Luther King? Worse than the assassination of Robert Kennedy? Worse than Hurricane Katrina (and the absolute government incompetence that followed)?

I for one am not exaggerating when I say that I think you sound downright nutty when you make glib, overly dramatic comments like that about any presidential candidate.

L'oiseau, hang in there, you present your thoughts intelligently. But that's not always rewarded on this blog, especially when it's 3 against 1 (or worse). I've been there.

Alcamadus said...

In the past years I have begun to question the devout and unwavering devotion toward Abortion when voting for a candidate. I remember when I was in grade school I had a teacher that said, "I don't care who the candidate is. If they are pro-life then I will vote for them."

The problem is what happens if the candidate supports OTHER issues that could be much more damaging. Do we just follow anyway? Do we elect a person who is a bad leader, a bad thinker, a bad decision maker, but merely because they don't support abortion that lets us sleep better at night?

Also, as a voter against abortion I would like to see results and so far I have yet to see any. I suppose that doesn't mean give up, but it also could give us a hint that stating they are Pro-life is just a way to get more votes. How are we supposed to hold them accountable?

Finally, I think the logical connection that voting equals full agreement with a candidate is a fallacy, as L'oiseau seemed to indicate. We are never going to find a perfect candidate and by supporting a candidate who subsequently supports abortion doesn't make you support the deaths of millions of babies. Just as being against the war doesn't make you against the troops or unpatriotic.

Personally, I think abortion is an abomination. However, I wonder as Christians if we should take a step back and start taking social action putting our resources toward centers that encourage women to have the babies, to start helping at orphanages, and doing what we can to be a light in a country that is going to be evil, sinful, and corrupt. Just as the Christians in the Roman times went around adopting the babies that were thrown away because they were not accepted, we too should play a part in bringing about light in the darkness.

That's all I'm going to say on the issue.

Dennis said...

Yes, Brent, worse than each of them. Seriously. We survived all those things. If Barack Obama gets a Democratic Congress, I don't believe our freedom will survive an Obama presidency.

I think you will see the first time in U.S. history when Christian leaders will be fined or jailed for their beliefs and I think the country may go bankrupt.

I think Obama's foreign policy naivete may be deadly. I think what he will do to the Supreme Court will wreck havock on America for the next 50 years!

Of course there's really not much point debating these issues. Let's talk about them in about four years if Obama becomes President and if he gets a Democratic congress.

Brent said...

Ummm ... OK. And if a Democrat said a Republican being elected was worse than everything I listed, you would come straight to your blog and complain about how they are disrespecting dead soldiers, civilians, etc. etc. etc. We both know you would.

Anyway, if you're really that far off the reservation, I'm not sure there's much point in us debating anything. I've been reading this blog to gain another perspective, but there must be more sensible Republicans out there somewhere. Please, someone tell me there are!

vicit said...

l'oiseau:

Sorry you don't respect me. I was just calling you out, thats all. I feel that my observations and questions are quite legitimate ones.

It seems you are not the slightest bit interested in finding what is true, rational, or just. I raised some very concrete and well founded, WEIGHTY criticisms of Obama, and your hysterical illogical devotion to him.

If you even refuse to begin to answer these then I guess I can consider you slam dunked and pointless. *NOTE: Not a "bad" person, or less valuable to God than me, just completely given over to some sort of pathology.

If I'm so obviously wrong I dare you to demostrate it with some intelligible argument... it should be easy. I GUARANTEE, IF YOU SHOW ME HOW I AM WRONG IN MY THINKING I WILL CHANGE MY IDEAS, but instead you won't even give me the basic human dignity of enlightening me.

I am not a "right wing playbook" guy, I'm just a seeker of truth and believe that my ideas need to be subject to God's opinions in scripture. I do not take a persons faith the slightest bit seriously when they embrace ideas that the God of The Bible hates...

So, no, I can't respect someone's ideas who holds opinions irrationally rather than logically especially when those ideas support a demonstrated 1. Anti-semite, 2. Racist. 3. Pro-abortion radical, and 4. Socialist... that simple

Brent said...

Vicit, just a friendly word: Even if you truly believe that you are the only one morally justified in your beliefs; that you are the only one who sees things as they really are; that anyone who votes for a Democrat will burn in hell for all eternity: the way you go about making your arguments will not convince anybody. L'oiseau has responded to topics on this blog in an intelligent, polite way, even going out of her way to thank the author of this blog and others for informative exchanges. Maybe you could learn a lesson from her.

L'oiseau said...

Brent,

Thanks for your encouragement:)

Vicit,

I'm not really sure who you are or where you came from to be attacking me this way.

First, you attack my "moral compass", and call me pathological, which is why I chose not to RE-post my thoughts on Rev. Wright, abortion, etc., which I have been posting on here for quite some time, because you could easily scroll down and read them for yourself.

I hope you don't feel that your ad hominem in this most recent post (i.e. hysterical, illogical, questioning my personal faith in God) entitles you to a rational, logical argument of the issues.

vicit said...

Brent and l'oisseau...

Okay, first of all I was being purposefully provocative. If you read my blog at indyideasinc.blogspot.com you would see that I am a guy looking for any excuse to vote for Obama. The reason being that I think the racial healing that would occur would be WATERSHED for our society. And, I am a libertarian so I am terribly unhappy with the Republican party right now, and specifically John McCains trouncing our freedom of political speech through campaign finance reform.

So, I was HOPING to get a plausible, if not the slightest bit profound answer to 1. why has this guy for 20 years attended, and funded ($27,500 in 2007) an apostate, racist, anti-semitic church. I'm sorry if its extreme to expect a plausible answer from a guy who wants to be the most powerful man in the world. I read your stuff and it was all in the "ass-covering" excuse mode, like people who have drank some sort of "kool-aid". And, 2. Why does this guy prefer to abort his own grandchild (his words, in full-on context) over his daughter carrying the child, THATS EXTREME! I'm sorry, but MY OBSERVATION THAT SOMETHING IS EXTREME SHOULDN'T MEAN I GET ATTACKED BY YOU GUYS AS EXTREME.

Instead of anything resembling a legitimate rebuttal I get Brent pretending to know whats in my heart (and of course if I disagree with him, of course its because I am a bad guy), and l'oisseau who thinks that if someone makes a strong point that it's beneath her lofty perch to need to engage in discussion.


I am also trying to shock you guys out of your current zombie-like state.

NOTE: WHEN SOMEONE TURNS THE LIGHTS ON IN YOUR ROOM, THANK THEM, DON'T ATTACK THEM. But it seems your minds are closed, air-tight shut.

The truth about Obama IS EXTREME, and OFFENSIVE don't blame me for observing it. And especially don't expect me to observe pathology (not "crazy", or "bad person" just that which points to a major flaw in reasoning...) and then call it "intelligent". I won't lie to you just so you'll like me.

I fell like the "Christian" angle is a part of this since Obama quotes the Bible quite freely. And I got the impression l'oisseau was claimimg to be coming from that perspective. Obviously if you are not claiming to be a Christian Its a non 'sequitir to use the Bible, or God in any arguments. So, sorry. But some things in scripture are crystal clear such as "thou shalt not kill"... one does not need to be a flaming fundamentalist to hold the view that purposely killing another person is wrong, and one dies not have to be a Bible scholar to assume that "thou shalt not kill" means that "God hates murder"...

So, if confronting your error with light does "nothing to convince anyone" then I pity you. I could care less whether or not I convince anyone of anything, the truth can do that on its own, I just fear a nation full of people who have lost the ability to think, and will vote for a guy who has given me every logical reason to think he's a racist, anti-semite, and radically pro-abortion. I have to be honest, I am currently biased, part of my emotional disappointment with Obams is the fact that the day he said that stuff about preferring his grandchild being aborted rather than his daughter being "punished" was shortly after my wife and I brought our new baby home from the hospital. I was holding her and every atom of every part of my being cried out inside with the (yes, I'll admit "hysterical") thought "oh, my God, how could anyone have killed this beautiful baby girl a few months ago, and think it was in any way okay... what a horror!"... So, yep, I think hysterically sometimes too

Robert said...

I think it's important to discuss the issue without personally attacking the posters themselves. I hope we can all agree to keep on topic without the need to attack each other.

I think the thread has more or less run its course, but I do think there is a fundamental disconnect on the part of the Democrats supporting Obama, Obama himself, and the rest of the population.

Obama does strike me as a man of his convictions but I don’t think he represents what is best for America. He is a very typical socialist and an elitist who has succeeded thus far by telling people what they want to hear in a very eloquent way. His supporters seem oblivious to the serious defects of his proposed policies and the fact that he represents an almost insurmountable chasm of ideals between freedom and the obligatory service socialism demands.

I think there are ideologues that truly believe what he says and they’re so happy to hear someone saying it that they’ll ignore the reality of the person speaking. They’ll ignore the hate the surrounds Obama. They’ll ignore the warning signs. They’ll dismiss the concerns as those of “racists”, “bitter republicans”, or “insane right-wingers.” All the while, Obama plays the audiences and presents an agenda which will further move us towards a society that shackles us to the state, denies the individual a chance to live their life as they see fit, and points us in a direction that if left unchecked virtually ensures that our children will live worse off than we do.

Finally, I’ve never considered myself a “single-issue” voter. There are times I’ve held my nose and voted for someone. I just recognize that there are some issues (like being pro-life) that stand above others as one of the most important things we do today. 100 years from now, I hope that we look back in shame for our part in what we did and that we have developed a more civilized look at abortion. This barbaric act should have been stopped long ago and I pray that we convince our politicians (Democrat or Republican) that its time has been extinguished in a civilized world.

Brent said...

Vicit, I wasn't presuming to know your heart or calling you a bad guy. I apologize if you saw my comments as an attack, that was not my intent. I was just asking for a little civility, something that is sorely lacking on a lot of Internet forums but has generally been present on this one. But apparently civility is too much to ask, since you take pride in being the way you are. That's fine, but don't expect people to want to talk to you. Would you expect a stranger you met face to face to want to spend time with you if you spoke to them the way you talk here?

But I agree with Robert that this discussion has run its course, so I will bow out.

vicit said...

Wow, you live in this "drive by" world where you take your cheap shot, and bow out. How the (expletive) can I NOT call that a cowardly act without being a liar? MY CALLING SOMETHING WHAT IT IS IS NOT MY FAULT THAT IT'S CONSIDERED MEAN SPIRITED.

The irony here in all your sanctimony was that I described l'oisseau's REACTIONS, and APPROACHES as involving a level of pathology or hysteric. I never called her a name. The only person that was personally attacked was me, you insulted me based on my religious beliefs.

If one compares 1.1 million deaths to 33,000 deaths and says the 33,000 is worse, then on the face of it, strictly numerically speaking, the person who cannot discern that 1.1 million is greater than 33,000 has some sort of issue!? So I used the term "moral compass is broken". Sorry, I don't know how that assertion is mean. You have a WIDE OPEN FORUM TO TELL ME I'M WRONG HERE... Instead YOU UNILATERALLY DECIDE THE THREAD IS DONE... How can I not observe that is childish?? you tell me, once again I'd have to lie to you to say it's not... I won't do that.

But because I asked for the tiniest level of human dignity to be engaged or even rebutted in my assertions I get insulted and dismissed? Okay... I'm out...