Obama: Facing ISIS Butchery, You Christians Are No Better

[Guest]

Comparing us modern-day Christians--who are the majority of U.S. citizens and legal immigrant residents--to ISIS butchery as if we are no better because of the INQUSITION that started in the 12th Century, and slavery is not only insulting to all Christians and our NATION, but grossly prejudiced, too!

Obama: People of faith must confront insults to religion - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/5/obama-people-faith-must-confront-insults-religion/#ooid=ducmo2czpCtpDsmjuYOpHEbee4zYgNB9)

[Guest]

Sounds like a Muslim with an agenda and a world wide stage to work it!

He duped (twice) those that elected him. And of course now with no election risk he is free to totally ignore the majority and the will of the people and continue his agenda.

[Guest]

He was born in Kenya and has father was a jihadist Muslim. No legitimate birth certificut was ever proven to be shown.

[Guest]

Sounds like a Muslim with an agenda and a world wide stage to work it!

He duped (twice) those that elected him. And of course now with no election risk he is free to totally ignore the majority and the will of the people and continue his agenda.

Right. That rhetoric has gone the way of the dinosaur. More people have been killed in the name of God than any other. It is the heads of these religions that have blood on their hands. That being said, it was really dumb and bad timing to even throw those thoughts out there by Potus. And who are " we the people", it certainly is not the marginalized tea party extremists?

[Guest]

It didn't take long for this group to take the birthed route. Wow

[Guest]

So was that message of comparison meant to indicate that it is okay today - hundreds of centuries later - to accept/condone such barbaric behavior; rather than rise up to defeat it because we have learned from our past that such barbarism is not right?

I failed to see where the speech endorsed rising up to conquer barbarians. Did anyone hear that; could I have missed that declaration?

[Guest]

It didn't take long for this group to take the birthed route. Wow


or "the marginalized tea party extemists". We are all smart enough to do better than this.

[Guest]

His goal is to bring this country to it's knees where he believes we belong. Not sure he will be happy till we are under Sharia law.

[Guest]

I almost, not quite, take exception to our President in all most all ways, HOWEVER, as I said on here in 2007 and 2008, he has NEVER worked at a real job...now do not jump on me...I mean he is of the academic world. He taught Alinsky and organized neighborhoods for action. That was his background before getting into politics.

That is all ok....and please...I do not mean he does not work. It is just who he is and he cannot change. He lectures...he believes what he says, and has no patience for anyone who may have another opinion. He brings out the Alinsky with his constant attacks no matter the stituation. It is just who he is.

I do not see him as phoney.....he really believes in his heart that HIS ideas are the only ideas and has no patience for anyone who may have a different opinion. Any book written about him since he became President, whether from the right or left makes that very point and very clearly.

When he speaks "off the cuff" so to speak, he reverts back to LECTURING and that is all he is doing. He is not even trying to relate to what is happening.....what he said and says is from the classroom. He has very little background from which to draw on anything else and is surrounded by nothing but yes men.

He has always been that way, and will not change. I stopped even criticizing him for what he says, because it is just him.

Recall how loud and dramatic his words when he drew that famous "red line" on Syria. Practicing theory and not being realistic, and we all saw what happened there.

His words mean nothing any longer, but he will keep preaching.

BUT.....sometimes his "theories" make sense as in the economic struggles....but foreign policy, he refuses to accept reality and will say all the same things in the classroom.

[Guest]

This would all be fine if it weren't so damaging to our country.

[Guest]

This would all be fine if it weren't so damaging to our country.

I know. We have people posting here about how this President is dissrespected yet you could write a small book with all his offensive quotes that he has made.

I still do not think it is purposeful...he honestly does not understand what he does to the pysche of folks with comment like this recent one.

Seems when he does it, he spends a lot of time either ignoring or just walking it back and making it worse (SEE RED LINE IN SYRIA)

I still think he should be judged not on these stupid statements he always makes, and you are right about the far reaching effects that these comments have, but concentrate on our policy and how he is managing that.

Geez....listen to me defending him :)

[Guest]

This would all be fine if it weren't so damaging to our country.

That's the goal, consumating the Alinsky and Cloward-Piven strategies.

Overload it with debt and BEGGARS who vote, and promise them the world. Crush it, then come to the rescue. And they then eat out of his hand.

The narcissist's ultimate dream.

[Guest]

He not only refuses to accept reality, and certainly had no qualifications for this office, he was very carefully handled and groomed when "serving" in the Illinois state senate. Rather than being involved, he is the only Illinois senator whose voting record shows he never took a stand on anything. His complete record consists of only voting "present" on every vote for which he was there. Very convenient when he was promoted via a slick presentation of a well-written speech at the Democratic convention. He is at best totally incompetent and at worse, a very dangerous puppet.

[Guest]

///

[Guest]

Some posters refuse to do any research so they try and dredge up old informationan that is JUST NOT FACTUAL.

For example, saying President Obama voted "PRESENT" for his complete voting record in Illinois.

"Here are the facts: According to reports by both The New York Times and the Associated Press, Obama voted "present" 129 times as a state senator. The AP reported that Obama said the votes represented a small portion — a little more than 3 percent — of the "roughly 4,000" votes he cast as a member of the state Senate."

[Guest]

Some posters refuse to do any research so they try and dredge up old informationan that is JUST NOT FACTUAL.

For example, saying President Obama voted "PRESENT" for his complete voting record in Illinois.

"Here are the facts: According to reports by both The New York Times and the Associated Press, Obama voted "present" 129 times as a state senator. The AP reported that Obama said the votes represented a small portion — a little more than 3 percent — of the "roughly 4,000" votes he cast as a member of the state Senate."

And we should believe your statistics...why?

[Guest]

And we should believe your statistics...why?

It is not true that he only voted present while in Illinois. This from the NY Times in 2007 may help you believe that..

"http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

It specifies the number of time, but also questions his votes on certain issues and the WHY he voted how he did.

Most imortant to me would be not only that hypocritical part of his life, but many others....his attendance in the US Senate was the very worst.

BUT, he was elected President twice and is President now. Folks should have payed attention during the election of 2008 and 2012.

He was a shrewd politician with not much in the way of scruples, but was AND IS a very shrewd politiian. He does know how to play the game and in my opinion, that has served to harm our country.

Any debate on the Illinois voting record, however is not relevant any longer.

[Guest]

Link in the last post did not work....a bit of the article...

"In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

n the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.

The record has become an issue on the presidential campaign trail, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, has seized on the present votes he cast on a series of anti-abortion bills to portray Mr. Obama as a “talker” rather than a “doer.”

Although a present vote is not unusual in Illinois, Mr. Obama’s use of it is being raised as he tries to distinguish himself as a leader who will take on the tough issues, even if it means telling people the “hard truths” they do not want to hear.

[Guest]

Some posters refuse to do any research so they try and dredge up old informationan that is JUST NOT FACTUAL.

For example, saying President Obama voted "PRESENT" for his complete voting record in Illinois.

"Here are the facts: According to reports by both The New York Times and the Associated Press, Obama voted "present" 129 times as a state senator. The AP reported that Obama said the votes represented a small portion — a little more than 3 percent — of the "roughly 4,000" votes he cast as a member of the state Senate."

And then there are posters who purposely ignore Obama on HIS "high horse", lecturing and scolding Christians for atrocities a thousand years ago, instead of UNIFYING our nation in resolving to eradicate the medieval, torturous ISIS butchers!

He insults and denigrates modern-day Christians, the largest constituency this nation has to defend us from these butchers.

[Guest]

In an interview last night David Axelrod said that he believed the President knew what he said at the prayer breakfast would be provocative. Well I guess that pretty much sums it up - he just doesn't give a dam.

[Guest]

He was born in Kenya and has father was a jihadist Muslim. No legitimate birth certificut was ever proven to be shown.

His goal is to bring this country to it's knees where he believes we belong. Not sure he will be happy till we are under Sharia law.

That's the goal, consumating the Alinsky and Cloward-Piven strategies.

Overload it with debt and BEGGARS who vote, and promise them the world. Crush it, then come to the rescue. And they then eat out of his hand.

The narcissist's ultimate dream.

He not only refuses to accept reality, and certainly had no qualifications for this office, he was very carefully handled and groomed when "serving" in the Illinois state senate. Rather than being involved, he is the only Illinois senator whose voting record shows he never took a stand on anything. His complete record consists of only voting "present" on every vote for which he was there. Very convenient when he was promoted via a slick presentation of a well-written speech at the Democratic convention. He is at best totally incompetent and at worse, a very dangerous puppet.

Now it is clear why no names are allowed. It is surely in order to protect intellectual midgets, conspiracy theorists, birthers et al to be protected from self-exposure. Makes one ashamed to be of the same species.

[Guest]

In an interview last night David Axelrod said that he believed the President knew what he said at the prayer breakfast would be provocative. Well I guess that pretty much sums it up - he just doesn't give a dam.


According to today's Daily Sun Op-ed, 46% of people agree with the president compared to 41% who disagreed. This was according to a recent Rasmussen poll.

[Guest]

And we should believe your statistics...why?





Probably because the poster (not me) proved you wrong.

Please show us proof of your statement. Should be easy for you.

[Guest]

Now it is clear why no names are allowed. It is surely in order to protect intellectual midgets, conspiracy theorists, birthers et al to be protected from self-exposure. Makes one ashamed to be of the same species.

I think it had more to do with this type of post - where name calling and put-downs ensued. I think opinions about the topic in discussion are allowed, even if some don't agree with or like them.

[Guest]

I think it had more to do with this type of post - where name calling and put-downs ensued. I think opinions about the topic in discussion are allowed, even if some don't agree with or like them.

Exactly. Unfortunately, the kind that make these posts obviously are unable to understand issues.

Now,they are correct in some arenas....lots of folks have theories which have been debunked. They do not have to refer to them again....

These folks, like this poster, got hold of this thing and apply it to everything that is said in politics. The reason, I have to suppose, is they are unable to understand what is happening in the world, cannot communicate for sure and thus this kind of posting on her is all they can do.

Just skip these kind of posts...they are talking among themselves.

[Guest]

Now it is clear why no names are allowed. It is surely in order to protect intellectual midgets, conspiracy theorists, birthers et al to be protected from self-exposure. Makes one ashamed to be of the same species.

And name calling is so erudite and un-5th-grade.

[Guest]

In an interview last night David Axelrod said that he believed the President knew what he said at the prayer breakfast would be provocative. Well I guess that pretty much sums it up - he just doesn't give a dam.

I've often thought that the president said things to be purposefully provocative. I don't think it's because he doesn't give a damn. I think he does it because a lot of his biggest critics get all foamy mouthed denouncing him, making themselves look rather idiotic.

[Guest]

I've often thought that the president said things to be purposefully provocative. I don't think it's because he doesn't give a damn. I think he does it because a lot of his biggest critics get all foamy mouthed denouncing him, making themselves look rather idiotic.

That is one way of looking at it.

I think he learned early in his tenure as POTUS that he really did not have the authority as a King to do as he pleases.
Once his legal training allowed him to figure the way, he the embarked upon the mode of not being bi-partisan (but say he is) and not working through the congress (but say they won't act so it is their fault) thus leaving him to take executive action or what ever else his dodge and weave method allows. As a lawyer he knows just how far the thin ice goes and uses, abuses or hides behind the letter of the law.

He is an egotist of major caliber. When something is done that is viewed as good he is the first to take a bow and very quick to claim credit with the "I/me" speeches.

Anything with the least bit of controversy is presented either by Josh or the media as "...the WH said or states or claims, etc...".

And if there is a very serious event there is either no comment or involvement by him at all. Or he comes out weeks later after he has time to evaluate a position that maintains his agenda.

I personally could care less except for the fact that very little is said or done that represents the will of the people. In fact too many times he does the exact opposite portraying that long ago sought position of the King.

That is how I see what and how he operates.

[Guest]

I've often thought that the president said things to be purposefully provocative. I don't think it's because he doesn't give a damn. I think he does it because a lot of his biggest critics get all foamy mouthed denouncing him, making themselves look rather idiotic.

If what you say is correct...

When a President of the United States is saying things to simply be provocative and stir his critics, and preaches to everyone, I do not think the listeners look idiotic !

[Guest]

Now it is clear why no names are allowed. It is surely in order to protect intellectual midgets, conspiracy theorists, birthers et al to be protected from self-exposure. Makes one ashamed to be of the same species.

And name calling is so erudite and un-5th-grade.

Sorry, I forgot to mention science deniers.

[Guest]

Now it is clear why no names are allowed. It is surely in order to protect intellectual midgets, conspiracy theorists, birthers et al to be protected from self-exposure. Makes one ashamed to be of the same species.

Clear synopsis of the thoughts and feelings of the "intellectualists" present and dominating this forum. Omg we are doomed!:BigApplause:

[Guest]

Some posters refuse to do any research so they try and dredge up old informationan that is JUST NOT FACTUAL.

For example, saying President Obama voted "PRESENT" for his complete voting record in Illinois.

"Here are the facts: According to reports by both The New York Times and the Associated Press, Obama voted "present" 129 times as a state senator. The AP reported that Obama said the votes represented a small portion — a little more than 3 percent — of the "roughly 4,000" votes he cast as a member of the state Senate."

I wouldn't believe anything the NYT OR the AP reported they are bunch of elite Leftist towing the Democratic Party line. They along with current Teachers/Professor's From Kindergarten to Phd. created bunch of blind indoctrinated sheep. Democrat's do nothing but think about votes and control of congress. They will say anything to stay in office and power. Some of there favorite tactic's are to blame everything on the other party and there blind babbling sheep follower's have got the clue what they are being feed.

Until we have term limits and get rid of PARTIES the BS will NEVER stop. NOBODY Should be in Congress longer than 8 years period. But you thing they are going cut off their own lavish life style at taxpayer's expense, under the table millions through lobbing, union under the table money kickbacks, and who knows what else.

By the way I am independent. I vote for the best Flim-flam-man of the two liar's and crooks. :beer3:

[Guest]

Now it is clear why no names are allowed. It is surely in order to protect intellectual midgets, conspiracy theorists, birthers et al to be protected from self-exposure. Makes one ashamed to be of the same species.

yourself included right?

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1011489]Now it is clear why no names are allowed. It is surely in order to protect intellectual midgets, conspiracy theorists, birthers et al to be protected from self-exposure. Makes one ashamed to be of the same species.

yourself included right?[/QUOTE

Think he was referring to you specifically.

[Guest]

Now it is clear why no names are allowed. It is surely in order to protect intellectual midgets, conspiracy theorists, birthers et al to be protected from self-exposure. Makes one ashamed to be of the same species.

yourself included right?

Nothing about me is right!

[Guest]

Some posters refuse to do any research so they try and dredge up old informationan that is JUST NOT FACTUAL.

For example, saying President Obama voted "PRESENT" for his complete voting record in Illinois.

"Here are the facts: According to reports by both The New York Times and the Associated Press, Obama voted "present" 129 times as a state senator. The AP reported that Obama said the votes represented a small portion — a little more than 3 percent — of the "roughly 4,000" votes he cast as a member of the state Senate."

What does that have to do with his idiotic comments on the Crusades. Even rational liberals cringed at that. Obama obviously dislikes the Country we were all lucky enough to be born in.

[Guest]

What does that have to do with his idiotic comments on the Crusades. Even rational liberals cringed at that. Obama obviously dislikes the Country we were all lucky enough to be born in.


I stlll haven't seen Ben Gazzy's birth certificate.

[Guest]

I stlll haven't seen Ben Gazzy's birth certificate.

You have a knack for non-sensical replies I must say ... congrats