Things like this are why I'm voting for Obama

[Moonbeam]

Still think he's a troll? I stand by my original diagnosis of some sort of insane paranoid disorder.

Similarly, you need to argue his points not his mental illness no matter how challenging.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Still think he's a troll? I stand by my original diagnosis of some sort of insane paranoid disorder.

Similarly, you need to argue his points not his mental illness no matter how challenging.

It's difficult to argue political philosophies with someone so obviously conflicted. He claims to lament the plight of the "little guy," but hates women and minorities. He praises political freedom, but only when he agrees with the politics. He praises religious freedom, but only when he agrees with the religion. He praises the Founding Fathers, but only when he can use specific quotes. He praises Israel and Judeo-Christianity, but hates "liberal Jews." He claims to hate Hitler and fascism, but repeatedly praises how Mussolini treated horribly a particular Marxist whose ONLY crimes were being a Marxist and speaking out against Mussolini's government. And his preoccupation with homosexuals makes me think he misses all the times his daddy would take him out back to the woodshed.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I'm all for removing religion from politics completely.

I, for one, am sick of "pastors" and "reverends" and "churches" which are anything but, let alone their undue influence in our political system.

I totally agree. But, I doubt anything will be changed on these views.

Religion should never ever influence a persons right to vote how he/she chooses.

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: Butterbean



Romney Newsweek cover:
http://medialampoon.com/blog/w...10/Newsweek-Romney.gif

You realize this cover has been spoofed, right?

 

[halik]

Don't feed the troll...

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: halik
Don't feed the troll...

What troll where?

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: RKDaley

Originally posted by: Butterbean



Romney Newsweek cover:
http://medialampoon.com/blog/w...10/Newsweek-Romney.gif

You realize this cover has been spoofed, right?

Haha that's great. No I didnt realize it was spoofed when I grabed it thinking it was the original - but its practically the same as the original which said (same pic):

"A Mormon's Journey - The Making of Mitt Romeny"

http://cache.daylife.com/image...02vz5C4crUf6r/340x.jpg

They were still making a cover story/issue of Mitts religion (and not Bama's)

Time did the same thing:

"Sure He Looks Like president - But What Does Mitt Really Believe?"

Also this is lighter letters "Plus: The Debate Over His Mormon Faith"

http://hotlineblog.nationaljou...over_Mitt%20Romney.JPG


All the media was all over Mitt for his religion

Huckabey too:

"Holy Huckabee"
http://cache.daylife.com/image...07Ozb7dgU3ceq/340x.jpg



All this was on while Obama got zip because it was prior to Wright.

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: Vic
That's God showing everyone else what a moron you are.

Its good to see your a believer - I had my doubts once *High Fives Vic*

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It's speeches like this that may just lift the "religious vote" off their hands this fall and vote against him as he seems to purposely misrepresent Christianity. But I have no doubt that the secular people will eat this sort of thing up.

for the record, you claimed he misrepresents Christianity but you never backed that claim up.

Obama really creates a sense of panic and fear in his detractors. He speaks so much truth that it is shaking their faith and their comfort zones.

I love it.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
It's because most are not under the impression that they are allowed to FORCE that religion onto others and are rational enough to know that the country was founded on the principal that the practice of trying to do just that is illegal.

Nobody is "forcing their religion" on anyone. Different people get their belief structures from different places. Point being, we are all made up with a set of morals we get from somewhere, and just because someone chooses the Bible as the source for theirs, does not give them any less right to vote how they believe.

The Constitution and the 1st Amendment says otherwise. You can vote all you want, but the rule of law takes precedent.

Prove it.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Religion should never ever influence a persons right to vote how he/she chooses.

What should?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It's speeches like this that may just lift the "religious vote" off their hands this fall and vote against him as he seems to purposely misrepresent Christianity. But I have no doubt that the secular people will eat this sort of thing up.

for the record, you claimed he misrepresents Christianity but you never backed that claim up.

Obama really creates a sense of panic and fear in his detractors. He speaks so much truth that it is shaking their faith and their comfort zones.

I love it.

For the record, you must have missed my post where I addressed it. Do you wish for a theological discussion? I don't, but using those passages show he either doesn't understand Christianity or he purposely misrepresented it. From what I've seen from him so far I'm betting on misrepresenting.

As to the second part. There is no panic but yes I fear what he would do to America. His brand of "truth" is dangerous but does not come close to shaking my faith.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It's speeches like this that may just lift the "religious vote" off their hands this fall and vote against him as he seems to purposely misrepresent Christianity. But I have no doubt that the secular people will eat this sort of thing up.

Please explain how he purposefully misrepresents Christianity.

Did you listen to the first part of the clip? Sheesh.

I just listened to the first part of the clip...didn't see any misrepresentation of Christianity. Could you transcribe the section you're referring to?

Yes please do. I'm not a Christian so please enlighten me here on how he misrepresented Christianity.

I am a Christian and have to agree that he did not misrepresent Christianity. He's paraphrasing the Bible. Those books do have those passages in them. Obviously no one follows these passages, but he makes a strong point; how do we choose which passages to follow? As people, we have the capacity for intelligent thought every now and then. We can obviously recognize that books like Leviticus are full of nonsense, and that shit comes from the Old Testament anyway. Regardless, if we believe that it was a book written by God, then it is still part of the Bible.

:roll: you say he didn't misrepresent and then stated exactly why he misrepresented them. The doctrine involved with the points he pulled out do are not New Testament doctrine. His comments seem to suggest that they are part of it.
Meh, it's not worth getting into this discussion on the intarweb as there is way too much to go into. But I stand by my statement.

You know, why does the Christian bible even include the Old Testament if it is just going to pick which parts it wants to believe in and follow. Hell, same goes for the Torah, as most Jews would disagree with agree that some of the scripture Obama brought up shouldn't be followed.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It's speeches like this that may just lift the "religious vote" off their hands this fall and vote against him as he seems to purposely misrepresent Christianity. But I have no doubt that the secular people will eat this sort of thing up.

for the record, you claimed he misrepresents Christianity but you never backed that claim up.

Obama really creates a sense of panic and fear in his detractors. He speaks so much truth that it is shaking their faith and their comfort zones.

I love it.

For the record, you must have missed my post where I addressed it. Do you wish for a theological discussion? I don't, but using those passages show he either doesn't understand Christianity or he purposely misrepresented it. From what I've seen from him so far I'm betting on misrepresenting.

As to the second part. There is no panic but yes I fear what he would do to America. His brand of "truth" is dangerous but does not come close to shaking my faith.

good for you. :sun:

I will take my chances with BHO and his interpretation of Christianity.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Still think he's a troll? I stand by my original diagnosis of some sort of insane paranoid disorder.

Similarly, you need to argue his points not his mental illness no matter how challenging.

It's difficult to argue political philosophies with someone so obviously conflicted. He claims to lament the plight of the "little guy," but hates women and minorities. He praises political freedom, but only when he agrees with the politics. He praises religious freedom, but only when he agrees with the religion. He praises the Founding Fathers, but only when he can use specific quotes. He praises Israel and Judeo-Christianity, but hates "liberal Jews." He claims to hate Hitler and fascism, but repeatedly praises how Mussolini treated horribly a particular Marxist whose ONLY crimes were being a Marxist and speaking out against Mussolini's government. And his preoccupation with homosexuals makes me think he misses all the times his daddy would take him out back to the woodshed.

Difficult perhaps, but then this was a start. I think my point is that, like my criticism of Caddy, it is important to crystallize out of ones feelings, word that carry content, that articulate what it is more clearly what one feels. One can feel instinctively when somebody is bent or wrong, but finding words to express what it is with more precision is, I think, important.

Ross Perot chose a VP candidate whom I'm sure was a serious person, but in debate he was at a loss because he couldn't articulate much of anything. He did not have a well rehearsed analysis of all that would come his way.

Butterbean, in my opinion, is an opportunity for thought. And it strikes me his views are well practiced.

Also, a rebuttal of his views aren't for him so much as the rest of us.

We live in a free society with free speech and the answer to false speech in better speech.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It's speeches like this that may just lift the "religious vote" off their hands this fall and vote against him as he seems to purposely misrepresent Christianity. But I have no doubt that the secular people will eat this sort of thing up.

for the record, you claimed he misrepresents Christianity but you never backed that claim up.

Obama really creates a sense of panic and fear in his detractors. He speaks so much truth that it is shaking their faith and their comfort zones.

I love it.

For the record, you must have missed my post where I addressed it. Do you wish for a theological discussion? I don't, but using those passages show he either doesn't understand Christianity or he purposely misrepresented it. From what I've seen from him so far I'm betting on misrepresenting.

As to the second part. There is no panic but yes I fear what he would do to America. His brand of "truth" is dangerous but does not come close to shaking my faith.

Considering that Christians have been killing each other in the hundreds of millions for 2000 years, I'll go out on a limb and say it's OK for him and you to disagree about the same religion. Of course, you do realize that your's isn't the final interpretation, and neither is his. Just different opinions.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
The enemy of my enemy is my friend is the rule for them. Its bizarre that Islamofacists want to throw homosexuals off buildings (as per the Koran) and kill jews but the liberal jews and homosexuals will work with them in hatred for judeo-christian culture. Thats because they have the same seething lower nature. Not that I like the phony prechers on TV

The Koran instructs people to throw homosexuals off of buildings? Could you back that up with a quotation, please?

It's pretty amazing that you're making an argument for people to see the rationality of your point of view when in the next breath you say that you consider Muslims, 'liberal Jews' and homosexuals to have a "seething lower nature".

 

[Jhhnn]

Butterbean's POV pretty much speaks for and repudiates itself. Anybody who'll believe it was probably dropped on their head as an infant, or suffers from some other sort of organic brain syndrome.

GSG is by far the better propagandist.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It's speeches like this that may just lift the "religious vote" off their hands this fall and vote against him as he seems to purposely misrepresent Christianity. But I have no doubt that the secular people will eat this sort of thing up.

for the record, you claimed he misrepresents Christianity but you never backed that claim up.

Obama really creates a sense of panic and fear in his detractors. He speaks so much truth that it is shaking their faith and their comfort zones.

I love it.

For the record, you must have missed my post where I addressed it. Do you wish for a theological discussion? I don't, but using those passages show he either doesn't understand Christianity or he purposely misrepresented it. From what I've seen from him so far I'm betting on misrepresenting.

As to the second part. There is no panic but yes I fear what he would do to America. His brand of "truth" is dangerous but does not come close to shaking my faith.

You really addressed nothing, CSG, particularly not anything having to do with the modern Fundie Fringe, Dominionists, who lean very heavily on the Old Testament. Their POV has leached its way into many mainstream Christian Denominations, even though those who are affected seldom realize it. The notion that wealth indicates God's favor is very much Old Testament, as well, directly contradicted by Jesus' teachings. Nor have you addressed Obama's remarks wrt the Sermon on the Mount, possibly the most defining aspect of the Christ story.

The Bible, for example, makes no reference to abortion, at all, even though the practice was known and used even in biblical times. Yet it's been the cause celebre of the Christian Right for 30 years... Nor does the furor around it have anything whatsoever to do with the idea of personal salvation, supposedly the primary goal of Christianity in general.

It's not that Obama misrepresents Christianity, at all, but rather that he reveals its foibles and contradictions in a way that reminds us that a fundamental separation of Church and State have existed in this country from the very beginning. Many of the Founders weren't Christian, at all, but rather Deists, acknowledging the existence and the incomprensibility of God all at the same time... basically repudiating the whole structure and dogma of conventional religious practice and belief.

And you claim Obama's words are "dangerous", but only in a very generic way, leaving your audience to fill in the gaps- one of the most widely used propaganda techniques of all time. Dangerous to whom, and in what way? Specifically, what would be the negative consequences if more people thought the way he does, the way that many of the Founders thought?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Butterbean's POV pretty much speaks for and repudiates itself. Anybody who'll believe it was probably dropped on their head as an infant, or suffers from some other sort of organic brain syndrome.

GSG is by far the better propagandist.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It's speeches like this that may just lift the "religious vote" off their hands this fall and vote against him as he seems to purposely misrepresent Christianity. But I have no doubt that the secular people will eat this sort of thing up.

for the record, you claimed he misrepresents Christianity but you never backed that claim up.

Obama really creates a sense of panic and fear in his detractors. He speaks so much truth that it is shaking their faith and their comfort zones.

I love it.

For the record, you must have missed my post where I addressed it. Do you wish for a theological discussion? I don't, but using those passages show he either doesn't understand Christianity or he purposely misrepresented it. From what I've seen from him so far I'm betting on misrepresenting.

As to the second part. There is no panic but yes I fear what he would do to America. His brand of "truth" is dangerous but does not come close to shaking my faith.

You really addressed nothing, CSG, particularly not anything having to do with the modern Fundie Fringe, Dominionists, who lean very heavily on the Old Testament. Their POV has leached its way into many mainstream Christian Denominations, even though those who are affected seldom realize it. The notion that wealth indicates God's favor is very much Old Testament, as well, directly contradicted by Jesus' teachings. Nor have you addressed Obama's remarks wrt the Sermon on the Mount, possibly the most defining aspect of the Christ story.

The Bible, for example, makes no reference to abortion, at all, even though the practice was known and used even in biblical times. Yet it's been the cause celebre of the Christian Right for 30 years... Nor does the furor around it have anything whatsoever to do with the idea of personal salvation, supposedly the primary goal of Christianity in general.

It's not that Obama misrepresents Christianity, at all, but rather that he reveals its foibles and contradictions in a way that reminds us that a fundamental separation of Church and State have existed in this country from the very beginning. Many of the Founders weren't Christian, at all, but rather Deists, acknowledging the existence and the incomprensibility of God all at the same time... basically repudiating the whole structure and dogma of conventional religious practice and belief.

And you claim Obama's words are "dangerous", but only in a very generic way, leaving your audience to fill in the gaps- one of the most widely used propaganda techniques of all time. Dangerous to whom, and in what way? Specifically, what would be the negative consequences if more people thought the way he does, the way that many of the Founders thought?

This is a good post.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Butterbean's POV pretty much speaks for and repudiates itself. Anybody who'll believe it was probably dropped on their head as an infant, or suffers from some other sort of organic brain syndrome.

GSG is by far the better propagandist.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It's speeches like this that may just lift the "religious vote" off their hands this fall and vote against him as he seems to purposely misrepresent Christianity. But I have no doubt that the secular people will eat this sort of thing up.

for the record, you claimed he misrepresents Christianity but you never backed that claim up.

Obama really creates a sense of panic and fear in his detractors. He speaks so much truth that it is shaking their faith and their comfort zones.

I love it.

For the record, you must have missed my post where I addressed it. Do you wish for a theological discussion? I don't, but using those passages show he either doesn't understand Christianity or he purposely misrepresented it. From what I've seen from him so far I'm betting on misrepresenting.

As to the second part. There is no panic but yes I fear what he would do to America. His brand of "truth" is dangerous but does not come close to shaking my faith.

You really addressed nothing, CSG, particularly not anything having to do with the modern Fundie Fringe, Dominionists, who lean very heavily on the Old Testament. Their POV has leached its way into many mainstream Christian Denominations, even though those who are affected seldom realize it. The notion that wealth indicates God's favor is very much Old Testament, as well, directly contradicted by Jesus' teachings. Nor have you addressed Obama's remarks wrt the Sermon on the Mount, possibly the most defining aspect of the Christ story.

The Bible, for example, makes no reference to abortion, at all, even though the practice was known and used even in biblical times. Yet it's been the cause celebre of the Christian Right for 30 years... Nor does the furor around it have anything whatsoever to do with the idea of personal salvation, supposedly the primary goal of Christianity in general.

It's not that Obama misrepresents Christianity, at all, but rather that he reveals its foibles and contradictions in a way that reminds us that a fundamental separation of Church and State have existed in this country from the very beginning. Many of the Founders weren't Christian, at all, but rather Deists, acknowledging the existence and the incomprensibility of God all at the same time... basically repudiating the whole structure and dogma of conventional religious practice and belief.

And you claim Obama's words are "dangerous", but only in a very generic way, leaving your audience to fill in the gaps- one of the most widely used propaganda techniques of all time. Dangerous to whom, and in what way? Specifically, what would be the negative consequences if more people thought the way he does, the way that many of the Founders thought?

Oh puhleeze...:roll: the "fundie fringe" do not lean heavily on the old testament if they actually know Christianity. If they do lean on it, they are just as misguided as Obama on the subject. But if it helps you to rage on against Christians - so be it. I'm sure nothing anyone can say would change your mind.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Oh puhleeze...:roll: the "fundie fringe" do not lean heavily on the old testament if they actually know Christianity. If they do lean on it, they are just as misguided as Obama on the subject. But if it helps you to rage on against Christians - so be it. I'm sure nothing anyone can say would change your mind.

It is simply a fact that a large and vocal segments of Christians in our country DO in fact lean heavily on the old testament, particularly in how it relates so some hot button political issues. If you don't, great. Obama is speaking towards how America as a whole and particularly our political system operates however, and so his depiction of Christianity in those terms is correct.

If he is misrepresenting Christianity then it is the fault of the very real people that he is describing.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice dodge, CSG- You fail, of course, to actually address any of the questions raised, but doing that wouldn't suit your purposes, would it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice dodge, CSG- You fail, of course, to actually address any of the questions raised, but doing that wouldn't suit your purposes, would it?

I addressed the tangent but it takes the focus away from Obama which is what my comments were about.

And no eskimospy, you have little understanding of Christianity if you think today's political views by the Christians are from the Old Testament. His misunderstanding or misrepresentation may be due to what he thinks of Christians though... so that I'll mildly agree with you on. That is why I made my initial comments - his views are warped.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I addressed the tangent but it takes the focus away from Obama which is what my comments were about.

And no eskimospy, you have little understanding of Christianity if you think today's political views by the Christians are from the Old Testament. His misunderstanding or misrepresentation may be due to what he thinks of Christians though... so that I'll mildly agree with you on. That is why I made my initial comments - his views are warped.

Do you really need me to go collect a few dozen quotations from prominent Christian political leaders espousing views based upon the Old Testament?

Do you really? You know as well as I do how many are out there just from Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson alone.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
It's because most are not under the impression that they are allowed to FORCE that religion onto others and are rational enough to know that the country was founded on the principal that the practice of trying to do just that is illegal.

Nobody is "forcing their religion" on anyone. Different people get their belief structures from different places. Point being, we are all made up with a set of morals we get from somewhere, and just because someone chooses the Bible as the source for theirs, does not give them any less right to vote how they believe.

The Constitution and the 1st Amendment says otherwise. You can vote all you want, but the rule of law takes precedent.

Prove it.

You're asking me to prove that the rule of law takes precedent?

Anyway, the problem with you "religion is morality and the law" types is that you're always just obfuscating the point to make things more complicated for the sake of your religion and your religion only. IOW, you're trying to twist morality in order to justify using the power and force of the State to act immorally towards certain groups, i.e. different religious groups, minorities, those whose personal lifestyles you disapprove of, etc. You and Butterbean want them treated as though they were NOT every bit as human as yourselves. Which is the greatest immorality of all.
The irony in all this is that Jesus Himself defined morality and the law in a single sentence. Matt 7:12, Matt 22:36-40, etc. The Golden Rule. That and that alone is morality. All your other supposed moralities are just attempts to get around that.

So I repeat, vote all you want, but the rule of law of the Constitution takes precedent. This is a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy.