Printable View
This picture demonstrates how hypocritical liberals are.
Obama?s main support from whites are collage educated socialists who are not religious and in some cases atheists. Yet here he is standing at a pulpit with a cross behind him. If he was white these same liberals would be nailing him to a cross.
http://www.cbn.com/images5/cbnnews/b...bamaKY_PVW.jpg
<font color="#CC6600" size="1">[ May 14, 2008 03:36 PM: Message edited by: gae ]</font>
Or maybe just having a private moment of reflection, for the death of the republican party.
No, more like a moment of silence for the death of common sense given the number of misguided fools who are supporting his agenda.
If I may respectfully dissent from my learned friends Trav and GL....I don't get too excited about these things. I mean, it's politics, plain and simple. Neither ideology nor party affiliation have anything to do with it. Every politician has to come out and harp about how much they love the baby Jesus.
When politics, by its very nature, is about as unholy a racket as can exist. Sure he's pandering to the voters. But they all have to. And in his case, especially since he has been accused of being a Muslim in Christian's clothing, he has to do stuff like this.
If Hillary were nominated, she'd be telling us about how powerful her faith has been in her life.
As will McCain, he'll trump out Jesus when necessary.
I think it's a joke whenever you see these photo-ops where a politician is coming out of a church or praying. It's like, how could you ever reconcile politics with "Christian" values?
What do you know the homo is back from Canada.
Enjoy your vacation? Bet sitting down hurts
Obama is an admitted cocaine and marijuana user, yet the leftist press in this country has skipped over that fact as if it doesn't matter in the least. Yet in 2000 they spent weeks raking President Bush over the coals on whether he ever did it or not. President Bush and V/P Cheney should have both resigned last year and let Pelosi take over the office. It would have been the surest guarantee of a GOP victory come November. But I guess making Osama bin Barack Obama your candidate will do the job just as well...
Leftist Media Bias
Yet the same exact media was screaming about "once a user always a user" when Bush was suspected of having used cocaine when he was younger. What equals the mentality of a Democrat these days = whiny, spoiled 3 yr old.
Also take into account the persistent rumors about Obama being a Muslim, I think such actions by him are fair.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Obama cleared the air ahead of time...didn't wait until the media got ahold of it. He put it in a book...pretty much put it out in the open.Quote:
Originally posted by Beachcomber:
Leftist Media Bias
Yet the same exact media was screaming about "once a user always a user" when Bush was suspected of having used cocaine when he was younger. What equals the mentality of a Democrat these days = whiny, spoiled 3 yr old.
Same can't be said for Bush, who apparently had alcohol addiction problems and an unexplained absence from his stint "flying planes." Not to mention, that Obama hasn't wrapped himself with God and all those feel good family values republicans like to talk about but typically ignore in their personal lives.
POLITEX: BUSH PLAYING GAME OF "OBFUSCATION" ABOUT DRUGS. While Bush has told reporters that he doesn't want to play the Washington, D.C. game of "Gotcha," he wants reporters to play the Austin, Tx. game of "Obfuscation." Just as Bush says U.S. citizens are sick of "Gotcha," Politex says Texans are sick of "Obfuscation" Take Funeralgate. In a July affidavit Bush indicated that there was no need for him to honor a subpoena because he has "had no conversations with SCI officials, agents, or representatives concerning the investigation or any dispute arising from it.'' .Over a week ago the content of a brief (20 seconds, we've been told), conversation between Bush and Funeral-Home boss Robert Waltrip was quoted by Waltrip's lawyer. Neither Bush nor his spinners contradicted the specifics of the conversation, and they have said all along that the conversation had nothing to do with a citizen's suit against Texas and Waltrip. On Wednesday the lawyers for the suit claimed that, based on the quotations provided by Waltrip's lawyer, Bush filed a false affidavit regarding the conversation. On Thursday Bush "said he could not recall what was discussed" in his conversation with Waltrip. (Reuters, 8/19/99 ) Here's another. Early in the week Texas Rep. Glen Maxey (D), the only openly gay Texas legislator, told the Houston Chronicle that during the session Bush " put his hands on my shoulders and he pulled me in where almost our noses were touching, It's almost an uncomfortable level where he gets really close and personal, nose to nose. And he says to me, 'I value you as a person and I value you as a human being, and I want you to know, Glen, that what I say publicly about gay people doesn't pertain to you,' '' Bush has yet to deny Maxey's report, but Bush spinner Scott McClellan claims it never happened: ""He congratulated him on passing the Children's Insurance bill. That was the extent of the conversation.'' McClellan did not reveal the source of his information.
Now, we wonder how long it will take the nation to get sick of Bush's game of "Obfuscation." Here's how it has worked with his cocaine crisis. According to Washington Post reporter Dan Balz, "Bush has privately reassured some top supporters that his 'youthful mistakes' did not involve hard drugs and would not disqualify him to be president, according to several sources." If that's really the case, why can't Bush assure the American people? Is it because the only people that really count in Dubya's world are people with big money? Why can't Bush tell the average citizen that "his 'youthful mistakes' did not involve hard drugs"? Why is he playing "Obfuscation"? With respect to his drip-feeding of cocaine facts to the American people, few TV talk show reporters have addressed Bush's reason for providing information as he did. Those who have addressed that topic suggest that the Bush temper took over his common sense, and once the original "Not in 7 Years" story was out of the bag, Bush and the spinners spent the next 48 hours revising the story, evantually turning it into "Not in 25 Years." One scribe suggested that's what can happen at any time when Bush makes a campaign stop without one of his press spokespersons nearby. Another factor was that Bush was being pressed for an answer by the reporters and he grew angry. According to Balz, Bush's original "7 years" response was in answer to a a question about what he would do as President, not what he had done in the past, and Bush decided that it was relevant. By the following day, his spinners evolved the answer to cover the last 25 years, but Bush never said that, which is why the New York Times headline read that Bush "implied" 25 years. Wednesday and Thursdaay were filled with many statements, clarifications, and contradictions by Bush and his spinners, indicating how the game of "Obfuscation" is played in Texas. However, the final obfuscation is that Bush finally never really addressed his own question: could he pass the current White House test? Based on what Bush has said thus far, the answer is, no: "Bush's answer yesterday fell short of the standard required of senior government officials both in the Bush administration and in the Clinton administration, who must reveal drug use back to age 18," wrote Balz. Further, Bush has never addressed the specific question reporters have been asking for months: Did he ever use cocaine? "Yes" or "no" would suffice. We don't want to play the Austin, Texas game of "Obfuscation." 8/21-23/99
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hillary is white, and she has made much of her faith in God. Ted Strickland, our very liberal Democrat governor was once a minister, yet I don't hear liberals complaining about that. And much has been made of Obama's affiliation with his church, so standing in front of a cross doesn't exactly seem unusual...unless you are a dyslexic freak who can't read the printed word and doesn't have a grasp of current events.Quote:
Originally posted by travelinman:
This picture demonstrates how hypocritical liberals are.
Obama?s main support from whites are collage educated socialists who are not religious and in some cases atheists. Yet here he is standing at a pulpit with a cross behind him. If he was white these same liberals would be nailing him to a cross.
http://www.cbn.com/images5/cbnnews/b...bamaKY_PVW.jpg
<font color="#CC6600"><font size="1">[ May 14, 2008 03:36 PM: Message edited by: gae ]</font></font>
Come to think of it, I never heard YOU complain when Bush said God told him to invade Iraq. Never mind it was probably a drug flashback.
<font color="#CC6600"><font size="1">[ June 10, 2008 12:11 AM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font></font>
<font color="#CC6600" size="1">[ June 10, 2008 11:12 AM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>
Actually, yesterday's Wall Street Journal's editorial section had a good article on Obama and his view of religion. Unfortunately, I don't have it handy, but one particular quotation taken from Obama is that he believes one cannot separate moral conviction from implementation of laws and that we are a nation based on judeo-christian values.
Check it out.