Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13
  1. #11  
    John
    Guest
    I liked the article, its gripes with Hussein Obama Al-Illinois were right on, much more accurate than the article's view of history. There isn't anything of sustenance in Obama's message. He can't dazzle the American public with brilliance, so he's trying to baffle them with bullshit and vagueness. It might take them a while, but the people who actually vote and pay attention will catch on to this.

    My only bone to pick:
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    The United States was founded by people seeking religious freedom. Does the word “Pilgrim” ring a bell with anyone?
    Every time I read or hear this general message from someone who's writing or speaking to further conservative values I grind my teeth because it destroys the speaker's credibility. Anyone with a modicum of education knows that Pilgrims from any religious sect did not lay the foundation of this country. They settled here, and lived under their own country's government for a couple hundred of years. It was a few very famous, very libertarian, and not so religious men who founded this country when they convinced the colonials to dissolve political ties to the crown. That was when this country was born, not when the Mayflower landed. Yes, men like Adam's & Jefferson, did value religious freedom, but they did so because they valued total freedom, not the other way around.

    I just wish more of the writers and speakers, when speaking about religion and country, would state the fact that Americans value religion because a vast majority of Americans are religious, instead of the fiction that this country was founded by devout Christians, who based everything on religion. The only people who buy the fiction are other members of the religious right, and the author certainly doesn't need to persuade that group. To the people who do need to be persuaded, make believing that the Pilgrims founded the country based on religion is a red flag that just screams, 'This guy is an idiot'.
     

  2. #12  
    Super Moderator BadCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    In your dreams
    Posts
    15,616
    Quote Originally Posted by xavierob82 View Post
    False.

    He is where he is because he was a better candidate than Hillary or John Edwards, his 2 chief opponents in the 2008 Democratic primary.

    If dems wanted a black to be their candiate, they would have nominated Carol Mosley Braun or Al Sharpton a long, long time ago and they wouldn't have finished dead last in the caucuses and primaries of past Dem nominating contests.
    No, he is where he is because the left hates women more than it hates blacks.
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,941
    Quote Originally Posted by xavierob82 View Post
    False.

    He is where he is because he was a better candidate than Hillary or John Edwards, his 2 chief opponents in the 2008 Democratic primary.

    If dems wanted a black to be their candiate, they would have nominated Carol Mosley Braun or Al Sharpton a long, long time ago and they wouldn't have finished dead last in the caucuses and primaries of past Dem nominating contests.
    Obama was barely a year out of the Illinois State Senate when he started running for president. And in Illinois, Barry spent a great deal of his time voting "present" on big issues, and not yes or no. He voted "present" 130 times. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22335739

    Within a year of winning the Senate (when his Republican challenger was forced to drop out) Barry started running for President. Barry is Donna Brazile's little pet project and he was picked out by her, groomed to look like a president but not to have the substance.

    He was the WORST candidate running this year, NOT the best.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •