Is there anything wrong with this?
I would say no...IF..IF..
Obama and other Democrats didn't pretend to be religious, church-going, God-fearing people.
It is clear that anyone who needs their President to be actively religious can not vote for Obama.
They just can't
When he did go to church it was at a racists church who hates America
When he talks about religious people me mocks them and looks down at them
And he doesn't go to the most important mass of the year.
We all know that Dems have to pretend they are something they are not to get elected..we know that..but lets not get fooled again American, okay?
Monday, December 28, 2009
No Churchgoing Christmas for the First Family
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
O the entertainer is into entertainment areas...not into major concerns in the religious area...
"Obama and other Democrats didn't pretend to be religious, church-going, God-fearing people." Do you have any proof that he or other Democrats "pretended" anything?
"It is clear that anyone who needs their President to be actively religious can not vote for Obama." I suppose that's true, and if you need to have that and don't think Obama meets your needs, vote someone else. I don't think that a significant number of voters voted for Obama in 2008 because he was "actively" religious. And I doubt that a significant number voted against him because they felt he wasn't.
"When he talks about religious people me mocks them and looks down at them" That's a complete falsehood and I challenge you to come up with anything other than the already discredited "bitter people clinging to their guns and religion" bit. This was misinterpreted purposely by Obama opponents.
He's not catholic. And what is Easter Sunday mass? Chopped liver?
"We all know that Dems have to pretend they are something they are not to get elected." No we don't and no they don't. See above about reasons for voting for Obama.
Even if he paid a visit to YOUR church you'd still kvetich about SOMETHING.
Assuming YOU go to a church...
Scorpion would actually have a point if Obama were elected to be Pope. Here's a clue- he was elected president, a secular office.
Scorpion always has a point for anyone realistic who has a bit of common sense...no imagination in that...ever...
Wow. Another factual rebuttal by Scorpion to add to the books....
Thank you...the power of observation of the O the entertainers supporters who in the past have provided the comedy relief at this RIGHT ON site always is appreciated and certainly enjoyed...
Jim,
I'm truly curious. In what way was Obama's statement regarding middle America "misinterpreted"? What do you say he actually meant? Please link to the actual in context comment of his if you can, as that would be helpful. I'll try to find it on this end.
Obama was saying what I and many others have said for years. The GOP takes advantage of many Americans' bitter feelings of powerlessness by channeling this bitterness into "they're gonna take your guns", "they're gonna make your son a homo", "they're gonna make your daughter abort her child", "they're gonna stop you from praying." So vote for us.
Since GOP policies rarely if ever coincide with the economic interests of lower and middle income families and have done little or nothing about "guns" and "religion", those people are voting against their own interests when they fall for the GOP "message".
You can agree with this or not, but that's what Obama was talking about. He wasn't mocking anyone's religion. Brit Hume, on the other hand...
Jim,
That's about the goofiest defense of an Obama statement I've ever heard. Perhaps you could now list a few examples of how the GOP has said ANY of those things. More accurate would be to say that people who are on the right already know those things are true. It wasn't right-wingers who came up with all these goofy control laws, because right-wingers know that good people don't abuse weaponry or commit crimes.
It hasn't been right-wingers presenting students with tips on "fisting" and where to find bath houses or pretending it's "just another lifestyle choice" (after saying it ain't a choice in the first place). It doesn't take a genius to understand that when you take away the moral conflict, that is, to proclaim what was once forbidden is now OK, some who might have resisted temptation will no longer feel oblidged to resist at all, and still others might decide to experiment after being brought up in an environment that doesn't prohibit a behavior. This has happened with hetero sex since the "sexual revolution" that has lowered the bar of morality in this society. If you were a child of the 50's and 60's, you would have a harder time finding a girl who would have sex. You could find them, but not as easily. The virgin to slut quotient was a noticably different. Nowadays, TV shows highlight teens having sex and they call it love when mature adults know it's lust. So yes, liberal tolerance for homo behavior will result in more homos if society further loosens it's sense of moral purity than it already has. Another example would be pot. Though I'd love it to be legal, I have absolutely no doubt that many people who frown upon it's use now will go ahead and give it a try if it's made legal. It's a slam dunk.
It hasn't been right-wingers who have championed the falsely labelled "right to choose". And it hasn't been right-wingers who think too many people on the planet is a bad thing, as if we're anywhere near having too many now. Only lefties and lefty radicals support abortion and/or encourage it. Barry has at least one joker in his cabinet that thinks forced sterilizations and abortions is a good thing.
And it wasn't right-wingers who bastardized the Jeffersonian concept of "a Wall of separation between church and state" to mean no prayer in schools or no manger scenes in public buildings, etc, etc.
We on the right see these things happening in one form or another and do not pretend they bode no ill for the nation, never mind to what degree.
And furthermore, with over 50 straight months of positive growth since GW Bush's tax cuts, along with a constant 4-5% unemployment rate, GOP policies, that is, conservative policies coincide perfectly with the economic interests of, not just the middle class, but all Americans. Had he been even more conservative, vetoing heavily pork laden bills (I don't think he vetoed more than five bills in his eight years--trying to please the opposition, as well as corrupted Repubs, an area where he was indeed less than brilliant), things would have been even better. It wasn't until he adopted foolish lib ideas like stimulus packages and bailouts, during that period when the Dems took control of congress, that things began to really go south. Now, with lefty shitforbrained Dems running everything, it's worse than ever before and likely to stay that way for quite awhile. Like the father of all buffoons, FDR, Barry's prolonging our suffering and the middle class and lower class are feeling it big time. I know having been the former and now decidedly more the latter and after a year STILL can't get even jobs I would never have considered two years ago.
deja moo!
GWBush and that trillion dollar tax cut sure helped the middle and lower class, didn't it? All those jobs created...oops. It will take a while for Barry to turn this listing ship around.
Why do "anon" people make the dumbest comments ever?
Tax cuts help everyone, they created millions of jobs, and if Democrats didn't give a safety net to mortgage companies to give loans to people who did not deserve them we wouldnt have such a big recession.
How is that stupid, worthless "stimulus" going?
Post a Comment