I repeat...religious fanatics scare me!
Posted By: Agnostic on 2008-09-07
In Reply to: Christian beliefs - sm
I don't care what religion they are. If they are fanatic about their chosen religion, they are not independent thinkers, and I find that frightening.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Religious Fanatics are FAR more dangerous
You are absolutely right. You can tell that just by reading 99.9% of the posts on this board.
At the risk of being called one of the religious fanatics....
and lumping everyone together in one pile is not fair may I say...you believe in choice. You are taking choice away from the child. If the child was able to speak I am relatively sure it would not choose to be exterminated like vermin. You want to give all the power to the woman over her body...perhaps she should take some responsibility for that body and not fall back on extermination as a method of birth control. If abortion was stopped for all but rape, incest, and endangering life of the mother hundreds of thousands of babies would be saved every year. What happened to responsibility? Why was that abandoned in the name of choice? If you can speak for the choice of the woman, why can't some of us speak for the right to life of the child? If she has it and drowns in 10 days later, she is tried for murder. What a difference 10 days makes, eh??
As far as jobs going overseas...when our government taxes businesses into oblivion (happens in every Dem admin) jobs go overseas. Because we have the next to highest business taxes in the entire world. That discourages businesses coming here also...and the jobs those businesses would create...as well as sending jobs from here offshore. Or they close completely, and jobs are lost. I have gone up steadily in earnings since the Clinton administration. I am doing much better now than I was then.
Socialism (redistribution of wealth) does not work either. It never has. Cuba, Venezuela...it never works. All that happens in socialism is eventually the middle class disappears, and all you have is the upper crust (govt and cronies) and the rest of the people. And in that case the money stays at the top...it never quite gets to the "people" where it was promised it would go. I imagine the Venezuelan people are still waiting for their oil checks since the government took it over. Socialism doesn't work. It is a myth to get people to give over the power to the power brokers...in our case, the DNC. Be careful what you ask for....
Don't think so. The fanatics have not been
on this forum in the past. You may want to take a look into the archives over the past couple of weeks....it has dominated. In fact, they revel in the conflict that ensues after bringing this subject up, unlike the majority of Americans who understand the need for us now to overcome our divisions and work together to address the very critical issues we face, beginning with the economy.
The lack of response is to the dead horse beating. There is no real answer to your question since O has nothing to hide and unlike the fanatics, most rational people do not get their kicks speculating about paranoid delusions.
Repeat - Factcheck is not a reliable source, Repeat - no reliable
You keep citing Factcheck and we keep having to tell you Factcheck is not reliable. Why is it not reliable? Because it is funded by the Annenberg Foundation in which Obama is part of. AND because Obama was Chairman of the Board. It really is like talking to a wall. So let me repeat and read this nice and slow. Factcheck...not a reliable source. Cheese-o-Pete...you might as well just say you asked Michelle Obama and she said it's real. Additionally....the b/c they put up there was found to be a forgery. So...once again...factcheck not reliable...b/c submitted was a forgery.
So are you a fortune teller? You don't know if he will be elected or disqualified and neither do I. If the SC comes back and says he is legite I will drop the subject. If they find anything out of the ordinary then I will most likely say I told you so. If they say he's not legite but we'll change the constitution just for him, then I will be madder than a hornet and you'll hear from me. But all in all I will be satisfied with what the SC says. We won't know what their decision is until they make it.
If it comes back that he is ineligible and he lied, he better do some explaining to this country about why and he better calm his worshippers down. I think overall the country will be okay. For as many supporters that he has there are an equal number of people who don't support him and view him to be ineligibile. There are even people who support him, but are saying...wait a minute here, things are not adding up. Just show us the certificate and be done with it. In fact more so now since all this info came out and many people upset about it that they didn't know ahead of time.
As for what I think will happen. I really don't know. I do believe that quite possibly Hillary will step in and become President because she is the one that he wronged by campaigning when he knew he did not meet qualifications. So I believe probably she will become the next President and Biden will remain VP, or Biden will step in as President and she becomes VP.
I highly doubt the SC will just elect McCain because the republican party did not win and now that we have a congress/senate that's all democrat (or mostly democrat) they would prevent that somehow.
As for McCain? Heck no I didn't want him in there. I wanted one of the following - Chuck Baldwin from the constitutional party (but he had no chance whatsoever). I was also interested in Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. I really like Dennis Kucinich. I agreed with a lot of his ideas (especially impeachment of Bush) and I have agreed with a lot of what he has voted on in the past.
So maybe what I would really like to see happen is if the O is disqualified to have another "mini" campaign. All the candidates can run again and then the public decides after one or two months of campaigning. So, instead of having a President inaugerated in January they could be inaugerated in February or March. It would be different, but nothing like this has ever happened before.
I'll just say this on the whole b/c issues and this is why I say this and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
1. Let me first say I voted for Obama in the primaries. So in no way do I hate him or a racist or whatever else people want to throw out. I voted for him because he has some ideas I thought were good (thought is the key word).
2. After he was elected I read about the stolen election from Hillary (even though I was way so not supportive of her). I started learning about his lies to the people. His dealings with Ayers, ACORN, Wright, Farrakhan etc, etc.
3. He funds different groups who create websites to detract from the issues.
4. The media treated him like a prince while trashing McCain/Palin. I was no fan of theirs by all means but what happened to them was uncalled for.
5. The b/c he put up on the "factcheck" site was found to be a forgery.
6. We find out he's born in Kenya and legally goes and has the records sealed, along with his school records. He is hiding something and that is not very reassuring for over half the country here.
7. His grandmother was in the room when he was born along with his sister and brother.
8. His sister mentions multiple hospitals he was born at, while Obama mentions something totally different.
Those are only a few of the issues that are my concerns about his legitimacy.
On the other hand you have the issues/policies of his that I don't agree with and am finding out more and more how unsafe our country is going to be.
The incident in India has the you know what scared out of me and the thought of that happening here in our country is a real issue for me.
I was in the US Army. I spent 8 years in the service defending the country. It just makes me a bit upset to hear that people don't care if the Constition is not upheld, just so Obama gets in no matter what. All I want is the Constituion protected. That's all I'm asking for. Our founding fathers created it for a reason and we need to abide by it and not change it. I saw where Barney Franks tried to change it so that a foreign born could become president as long as they had been a citizen for 20 years (it was quite odd timing because not too much longer after that Obama decides to run and then we find there is a forged b/c. Timing of all this is just way too suspicious. All I say is let the supreme courts decide. That is what they are there for. I have read articles that say The Supreme Courts job is to protect the constitution and even if it means that a decision they make is not going to be popular, they are bound by their duty to defend the Constitution and they will.
So, once more I want to repeat that Factcheck is not reliable source because Obama/Annenberg Foundation and Factcheck are one in the same.
There are fanatics in any group
and usually they are an embarrassment to the rest of that group, and usually are the most hypocritical. I can't speak for other Christians, but I do apologize to anyone who has been made uncomfortable by one. Usually a "no thanks" should suffice. :)
The "religious fanatics" thing is a cop-out.
nm
BC fanatics, the broken record.
x
Don't hold your breath waiting for the fanatics
They're probably holding a blog conference on how to discredit/over-rule the Supreme Court.
not scare of her
Disturbed by her misrepresentation of her activities. disturbed about the way her far-far right beliefs could damage our country if given access to power.
Oh please, not another scare
The chance he could live well past his presidency is a possibility too.
Yes, they scare the holy
and I consider myself a Christian. I just don't see the Christian in a LOT of what these people advocate. Looks, smells, and feels more like a political power grab.
This is a good one:
Bush and the Bible: A Letter to George Bush
Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman. I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may ! not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
then again, they ALL scare me - all the candidates
   
I wasn't trying to scare you but if it does, I
--
Mostly just scare tactics
...
Can you say scare tactics? sm
I knew you could.
I hope your dad's phone has caller ID and that he reports this call to the authorities and to the telephone company.
I am still scare of BUSH
He still has enough time to do a lot of damage.
Will Palin Scare the Jews?
We think the conventional wisdom, now, is that Sarah Palin is a cynical appeal not to Hillary voters but to the Republican "base," which means religious white people. It's a last-ditch effort to win just one more with George W. Bush's coalition, not to bring in those moderates John McCain supposedly appeals to most. But here's the risk: the old, conservative Jewish vote McCain's had in the bag since day one? They might not like this lady so much. As you can see in this clip (attached below), even Ben Stein—the Nixon speechwriter so happy to pretend to be something other than an educated East Coast elitist that he'll hop in bed with creationists—is insulted and shocked by the Palin pick. This is just the beginning. The New York Sun, that probably doomed organ of intellectual Zionist conservatism, seemingly also can't quite believe this selection. Allow them to tell you about Sarah Palin's grand plans for The Jews!
The disclosure that last month Governor Palin's church hosted the executive director of Jews for Jesus, who told congregants that violence against Israeli Jews is God's punishment for their failure to accept Jesus, is going to be the next club that Mrs. Palin's leftist critics pick up against her. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency quotes Mrs. Palin's pastor at Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, as saying that he doesn't believe Jews for Jesus are deceptive. "Look at Paul and Peter and the others — they were Jews and believed in Jesus as the messiah," he told JTA. "There's gentile believers and there's Jewish believers that acknowledge Jesus as messiah. There's Swedish believers."
They go on to half-assedly defend Palin by mentioning Jeremiah Wright and how there's no "religious test" for the presidency, but the Jews For Jesus are far outside the mainstream even for practicing evangelicals. Jewish Defense League Anti-Defamation League [I do know the difference! Whoops!] head Abe Foxman is pretending it's not a big deal by invoking the Spanish Inquisition (done by Catholics, not Protestants!) but his own organization has a longer, richer history of warning people about the deceptive and offensive tactics of the Jews for Jesus.
Sarah Palin's Jews for Jesus setting up shop in Wasilla, Alaska almost reminds us of Michael Chabon's charming The Yiddish Policeman's Union, his detective novel set in an alternate universe in which Americans settled Jewish WWII refugees in Alaska and Israel died before it was born. The incongruous idea of a Jewish settlement in far-off Sitka gives the book much of its uneasy atmosphere, especially in the mentions of the current fictional President of the US, an evangelical Christian promising to finally kick those Jews out of the pristine frontier, "pledging to restore Alaska for Alaskans, wild and clean."
The Democrats more or less handed Florida over to the Republicans when they selected (sorry, we'll say it) a black man without a rich history of pro-Israel hawkishness (even though he saw the light and came around pretty dam quick). This, though, might actually put it back in play.
More like a voice of scare tactics.
XX
Just more scare-tactics propaganda. nm
.
More scare tactics...just in a rhyme!
Go Obama!
C'mon, GP.....maybe not scare tactics....
maybe honest concern. Just because Obama won, you think that all disappears? Of course not. Had Obama lost, would all your concerns about McCain just magically disappear? I would think, based on your posts, you could be a little more charitable about it. Your guy won. Don't expect the rest of us to embrace him immediately. We have a trust issue and it is up to him to work his way out of that. Being sniped at by his supporters does not help us in that journey. :-)
They scare me, as well, on a very dangerous level.
Nope. The only way to get them to confess is scare
nm
No scare tactics. Just pointing out that we don't live
If we don't start talking with some of these countries, and trying to find a way to get them thinking of other things to do with their artillery than aim it at us, then sooner or later, our little plastic bubble could get blown to bits. We're not invincible.
I think Palin IS a scare tactic. She & her fellow
believe in FREEDOM.
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of/from Religion.
Freedom of Association.
Pursuit of Happiness.
Marching in lock-step with America's religious Nazis somehow just doesn't fit with what our forefathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
Republican Mantra - Scare Tactics
You better vote for John McCain or the Boogeyman is going to get us. McCain couldn't even keep himself free from the enemy, how is he going to keep the entire United States free from them? Oh, I know, he is going to send Sarah Palin after the Boogeyman...she'll protect us!
Scare tactics!! Ohhh, be afraid, be very
afraid. You rightwingers are such wimps! Well, as Roosevelt once said and as Barack Hussein Obama repeats, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." The rightwingers have surely gotten to the skittish. I, for one, am very afraid of McPalin. Now there's reason to fear them. They have nothing to offer, just more of the same old politics and power-hungry greed. Get away from me! If you want to base your decisions on lies, then you all deserve whatever comes from McPalin, but the thing is that our country will be stuck in the mire for another four years. So big deal, McCain was shot out of the sky...so were hundreds of others, others have given their lives for this country but McCain votes against any bill that will cost anything to help them....some leader he will make. Makes me wanna puke! Country First...doubt it!!
It's a good way to scare other democrats from seeing the truth nm
x
Scare tactics or stern warnings.....sm
Just got to thinking about this after ExMQMT made the statements she did below about being scared. Now, I know there was an element of sarcasm in her post, and I can appreciate the dark humor of it.
However, I think people really should look at the big picture here and understand that, with all of the findings (and yes, they are documented) of Obama's associations and religious upbringing, he could very possibly be a threat to our nation in a lot of ways. When the Russians were "loaded for moose" back in the 1950s, people were warned about the danger, but a lot of them chose to call it scare tactics. Granted, Russia never blew us off the map, but knowing that they could and that they were a threat to our country made our citizens more aware that there was more to life than what was going on in their own secure back yard. Saying that Obama is a threat to us because of his associations and religious beliefs (Muslim or Wright-brand religion) is not a scare tactic to coerce people into voting for him. It is a stern warning that this man is a wolf in sheep's clothing and that we need to be aware of the implications of electing someone who is such a person.
This lame scare tactic is aimed at
twisting both the free choice of English language usage and the Bible verse/word of Jesus (who you claim is your Savior) to support the claims of a snarky cult. Back in the Puritan times, that was considered blasphemy and the ONES who chose to do this could be burned at the stake.
You make me ashamed to be associated with the Christian faith.
Scare tactics? If it was supposed to be scary....it wasn't...
it is just odd that the combination of the names worked out that way. Freaky, yes. Scary...not hardly. It it was meant to be scary it was lost on this Independent.
Word, semantics, when socialist doesn't scare...sm
people enough, it gets elevated to communist and nazi just being inflammatory. We are Americans first, democrats and republicans second, period.
Conservatives Scare More Easily Than Liberals, Say Scientists
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/fearmongering-h.html
A quick look at some of the posts on this board would seem to corroborate the above. 
repeat - sm
If checking the adoption records is part of the normal background check, then the only reason this is a problem is because the media is making it one.
Again, and I repeat. sm
This is NOT how MJF is every day! I thought I explained this above. I am not diminishing the disease. My mother-in-law died of it a year and a half ago. It's a terrible disease. But he controls much of the symptoms with medication, which he did not take, or so the word was last night. Now I am reading that he actually had overmedicated himself. Now, having said that, you have proved my point about apologies. I didn't hear anyone on the left mentioning when the famous leftie Ben Affleck, made fun of people with cerebral palsy. He never apologized either, that I know of. But, of course, that's different. It's only bad when conservatives do it. It's bad all the way around, I say.
repeat after me
fair and balanced . . . fair and balanced . . . fair and balanced . . . obama is a muslim . . . economy is fundamentally strong . . . fair and balanced . . .
Anything.... I repeat - ANYTHING! is better
Biggest embarrassment this country has ever had in office. Time for Retardo to HIT THE ROAD.
Let me repeat myself
Because you're not getting it.
"Where did I say in my post to watch Fox News"
Where??? It didn't.
"Better to stay silent and remain a food, then to speak and remove all doubt" - Benjamin Franklin
Looks like I have to repeat AGAIN -
Snopes.com is not a credible site to verify truths/falses. They have been noted time and time again to say something is false when it's true and vice versa. It is a site run by two very liberal people. So if I go and create a website with a relative of mine and we put up a bunch of false claims as long as it veers in the positive towards the viewpoint we like your going to start telling us that we are credible? I don't think so. If you want to believe Snopes, then you might as well tell people to go read it in the National Inquirer, Star or any of those other sites you can access on line.
Here's a repeat one more time for those that do not get it.... do not come back here and tell us that something is truth or fiction because it said so on Snopes. Research many many sites. Do not judge things just by a liberal or a conservative site. Read, read, read and judge for yourselves. Find out who is behind these websites and what agenda are they fulfilling. Then make up your mind.
I could care less that the article has to say right now. What I am telling you and others is that Snopes has been wrong about many issues time and time again. Do not believe them, or if you do pull up their site pull up other sites as well to verify information, but don't come here and try and tell us something is or is not true because Snopes said it was or wasn't. Okay, got it now???
Palin really seems to scare the loony lefties and mainstream media
One has to wonder why they continue to expend so much time and effort on trying to villify, ridicule and harass this woman - who isn't running for any office at the moment.
Personally, I think it's highly unlikely that Palin would be nominated or run in 2012, but why are the Democrats already worrying about the next presidential race? Hmmmm? Passing strange, if you ask me, considering what we've got on our plate to deal with right now.
I'm not judging. All I did was repeat what she herself said.
I don't wrap myself in the Bible and the flag and justify my actions by saying that Jesus doesn't care if I act like a hateful person because he forgives me for every single thing I do, giving me free rein to act like a thug. I take responsibility for my own actions.
I repeat...have as much right to be here and post as you do...
And until this becomes Venezuela North, I will exercise it. You can have all the opinions you want, and so can anyone else, along as they agree with you. If you have issues that are important to you, post them, defend them....don't spend so much time trying to silence me and put forth those issues that you are concerned about. No one is stopping you from doing that.
Will history repeat?
If Senator McCain is elected, wonder what excuses will be used to keep him away from the convention in 2012?
I repeat....there was no surplus...
that was just clever use of word. It was a "projected" surplus, and it was contingent upon a cap on federal spending for 15 years, and no added federal programs. There was no real "surplus" sitting around.
Mea culpa on the borrowing. I have already said Bush spent like a drunken sailor. Spending needs to be curbed. Neither candidate is willing to say what I think needs to be done...no more new programs and stop the ones that are not working. When we get back in the "black" again, then we can look at increasing programs. Throwing more money at stuff is obviously not the answer.
again why do i have to repeat this over and over WHO SAID IM CHRISTIAN!
IVE NEVER said that and in fact in my first post said "not all people against gay marriage are christian".
sacred to me means something i believe strongly in no matter what "faith" has to do with it, sorry you have nothing like that
Then I repeat...why doesn't your guy....
the prez candidate on the other ticket...go to a venue where actual Americans ask the actual questions and communicate with "us" directly??
Could you repeat the question?
Cause I can see Russia over there and they aren't too happy about having to loan Iceland money I can tell ya.
GP - how many times do we have to repeat
It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and is funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Obama, Bill Ayers, and Factcheck.org all have ties to the Annenberg Foundation.
Obama has ties to Factcheck.org. In 1995 Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Annenberg Chicago Challenge - A branch of the Annenberg Foundation.
Factcheck.org is part of the Annenberg Foundation. Factcheck was also chosen by the Obama campaign as the arbitrar of Obama's birth certificate.
Anyone can put two and two together and see that Obama and The Annenberg Foundation pays Factcheck.org to put out the false information.
Factcheck claims it has "verified" the O's bc, but other sites has found several inconsistencies which call into question whether the certificate is authentic.
Before you tell anyone they should quit reading blogs that have any useful information, you should not be citing a website that is clearly misleading people and feeding them false information, and that is paid for by the Annenberg Foundation which = Obama.
Disregard this repeat.
x
I repeat - take it offline if you want to
Otherwise, any post on this board is fair game for anyone to read and reply to.
...and how could I have guessed that an individual's qualifications to post on a particular topic (in this case, terrorism, 9/11 and related intelligence matters) would be meaningless to you? Well, because you've already proven that you're the kind who's invited to a steak dinner and prefers to eat out of the garbage can.
If you can repeat yourself a zillion times..
Hearings where grounds for impeachment are the only topic of discussion are accurately referred to as imjpeachment hearings. Your attempts to distract do not change anything. The issues and evidence are up there for you to read. The links are provided. Dennis Kucinich can do this better than any of them. Watch the CSPAN interview and then come back and tell me there's nothing there.
|
