Unbiased opion? Oh, gourdpainter, you're my new hero.
Posted By: sm on 2008-10-13
In Reply to: Campaign - gourdpainter
I mean, I thought that Macaque Obama was full of sh it. But, lady, YOU take the cake. I mean, YOU make Macaque look downright HONEST by comparison.
Maybe you could work for his campaign. I hear he pays REAL well. (You don't mind changing your name to Chicago Joe's Kid Kamp or Chi-Town Youth Enrichment or something, do you? 'Cuz then he could throw you HEAPS of money and no one would ever figure it out.
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
Hero of what? Hero to Wright, Rezko, Ayers, and
nm
You're right, gourdpainter............sm
Nor has there been an Asian American president or Mexican American president. I stopped voting by party or any other criteria than a candidate's platform, policies and what I perceived his character to be a long time ago. If a black candidate were running that had the qualifications I personally look for in a president (or any other elected office, for that matter) I would vote for him in a heartbeat. Obama just is not that person, but there may be one in the future as he has broken the ground for a black man to run.
gourdpainter - you're one to be calling someone hateful
x
GOURDPAINTER!!! I'm so glad you're back! I
agree with every single point made by Backwards Typist!!!
It's so good to see you return!  I hope you don't leave again.
I don't know that there is an unbiased
I don't watch a great deal of news anymore, but I do try to watch a variety of networks to get different takes on events. I also watch C-SPAN, especially for political speeches and events so I don't have to listen to commentators chatter.
Mostly, I do a lot of reading. I read international and national newspapers online, and I renew my subscription to The Economist every year for my birthday.
Uh...you got that FROM Air America. Not exactly unbiased I would say. nm
60 minutes is hardly unbiased....
I am sure the participants were screened, and anyone who had anything good to say about the war were not talked to or left on the cutting room floor. CBS is liberal media at its best. That is no secret. That being said, as I read in Brunson's post, yes I am sure there are a lot of soldiers who probably do not agree with what is going on....probably because the military was not allowed to fight the war LIKE a war (Viet Nam revisited). You know, if I believed liberals really wanted the soldiers home and safe because they wanted the soldiers home and safe, it would be different. But it is a political ploy...they really could care less about the soldiers. Otherwise they would not play directly into the enemy's hands by going public with the lack of will to carry on the fight. I find it really hard to listen to you crow about soldiers' dissatisfaction...you are actually happy when you hear we are losing. To me, that is as unpatriotic as it gets. THAT being said, let me say this: NO soldier WANTS war. War is sometimes necessary because, believe it or not, there are people out there who want to kill you and are not interested in peace with you, only with conquering you. That is a lesson none on the left have learned. I fear for our future if, God forbid, a liberal Democrat gets into the White House.
It cannot be heartening to any soldier on the battlefield to hear that a new man is in charge (confirmed unanimously by the Senate) and in the next breath have their funding threatened and a resolution from THEIR Congress that they are losing the war. No wonder they are depressed. And liberals fall all over each other wanting to drive that point home. And I think you should all be ashamed. But, that is just me.
And again...you said anti-war. Conservatices are not pro-war. No one in their right mind is pro-war. Conservatives just happen to have sense enough to realize that to give peace a chance the enemy has to also be interested in giving peace a chance. When was the last time you saw a Muslim carrying a sign to give peace a chance? When was the last time you saw a Muslim he/she could live beside a Christian in harmony? Or live beside a non-Muslim in harmony? They cannot even live next to each other in harmony.
As I have said before, my husband is certainly not pro-war. He is the gentlest person I know. But he also realizes the threat we face, has been lifelong military now retired and still serving as a civilian working for the Army. He started as an MP, then went into MI, then into force protection, etc. Believe me, he KNOWS the threat we face. And it breaks his heart to see the young soldiers damaged by the nonsupport from home. And whether you believe it or not, public backpedaling and spinelessness when the going gets tough is damaging to them. No wonder they want to come home. I can hardly blame them. Maybe this country, the way it has become, is NOT worth dying for anymore. And that is too profoundly sad to even think about.
"womenagainstsarahpalin", wow how unbiased
nm
Your opinion is about as unbiased as
.
I think your news isn't so unbiased either
This has NOT been about race, if anything, that is the one subject everyone has ignored. The only ones who bring up race is the Obama supporters who claim that's why the Republicans don't want him as president, forgetting the myriad other reasons why. Also, it seems that is why Obama is handled with kid gloves, rather than really anyone grilling him as to his plans. So, in that way, perhaps race HAS been a factor. In Obama's FAVOR.
Not exactly an unbiased source!
Charles Krauthammer isn't someone whose judgment I would trust. He's been 100% pro-war policy all the way. Not surprising at all that he'd opt for McCain. What we really see is a lot of former Bush policy supporters abandoning that destructive policy and endorsing Obama instead. Can anyone cite an instance of a well-known real Democrat opting for McCain over Obama? I've been keeping my eye out (fair is fair), but have yet to see one endorsement of that type.
Thanks for an unbiased link. (nm)
Totally unfair. Fox is the only unbiased
nm
Wow - local news from NY - how unbiased.
nm
Obama wants a thorough and unbiased investigation and so he sm
has called for a special prosecutor.... you know Acorn is signing up dems and repubs...these repubs are so desperate that they are even turning off their long time followers.
Al Jazeera? Oh, get real. They have no unbiased
nm
As totally unbiased as the smear campaign on the CON board....?
And before casting aspersions on others?
When your hero, Reagan,
he apparently made you blind. Remember this when more of our infrastructure (already started with levees in Louisiana) falls apart and you wonder why there are more pot holes and you can't afford basic necessities. Look around, it's already happening.
Poverty Increases as Incomes Decline Under Bush
September 21, 2005
By Gene C. Gerard
The day after Hurricane Katrina hit, exposing much of the public to the tragic conditions of poverty in America, the Census Bureau quietly released its annual report entitled, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. In some respects, it provided a demonstrable backdrop to the pockets of poverty common to New Orleans and other cities. It also explained why, despite President Bush's assertion last month that, Americans have more money in their pockets, many people aren't faring as well as they once did.
The report indicates that in 2004 there was no increase in average annual household incomes for black, white, or Hispanic families. In fact, this marks the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years. Since President Bush took office, the average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent.
Black families had the lowest average income last year, at $30,134. By comparison, the average income for white families was $48,977. The average pretax family income for all racial groups combined was $44,389, which is the lowest it has been since 1997. The South had the lowest average family income in 2004.
Interestingly enough, as the Economic Policy Institute notes in their analysis of the Census Bureau's report, not all families did poorly last year. Although the portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year, the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent. And while the average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004, the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase.
Earnings also declined last year. This is despite the fact that Americans are working harder. Since 2000, worker output per hour has increased by 15 percent. Yet for men working full-time, their annual incomes declined 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798. This decrease was the largest one-year decline in 14 years for men. Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223, the largest one-year decline for women in nine years.
Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year. Clearly, the gender gap remains real and pervasive. In all major industry sectors, women earned less than men. In the management of companies, women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services.
Not surprisingly, the report revealed that poverty increased last year. There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty, an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003. This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. In fact, since President Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have found themselves living in poverty. There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003.
The average income last year for a poverty-stricken family of four was $19,307; for a family of three it was $15,067, and for a couple it was $12,334. The poverty rate increased for people 18 to 64 last year by 0.5 percent. The South experienced the highest poverty rate of all regions.
The Census Bureau report also demonstrated that health insurance coverage remains elusive for many Americans. Those covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004. Approximately 800,000 more workers found themselves without health insurance last year. The percentage of people covered by governmental health programs in 2004 rose to 27.2 percent, in part because as poverty increased, more Americans were forced to seek coverage through Medicaid. The percentage of the public with Medicaid coverage rose by 0.5 percent in 2004.
Last year was the fourth consecutive year in which employer-sponsored health insurance coverage declined. A total of 45.8 million Americans are now without health insurance. The uninsured rate in 2004 was 11.3 percent for whites, 19.7 percent for blacks, and 32.7 percent for Hispanics. Not surprisingly, the South had the highest portion of the uninsured population, at 18.3 percent.
Although we haven't heard President Bush say it much lately, he came into office as a self-professed compassionate conservative. But as the report by the Census Bureau suggests, which was sadly symbolized by the plight of many poor residents of New Orleans, the country hasn't seen much of that compassion in the last five years.
Many Americans are working harder, earning less, and without the benefit of health insurance. It's easy to understand why the report was released a day after the largest natural disaster in a century, when much of the country was distracted.
PK...You are my hero/shero! sm
Coming from another person who finds herself sitting in the middle of the road (seeming sometimes with no place to go :) you speak to the beat of my very heart where politics are concerned, and I'm glad you posted your story because I would have taken you as a hardline liberal. That just goes to show.
I only questioned the wire tapping because it has been an issue that I do not have a stance on. I can see the good in it and the bad that can come along with it, so versus reading an article I wanted to know in your own words what you guys felt about it. I definitely can see why checks and balances are in needed in this program, as with anythng in the justice system. It may take more work, but if there is legitimacy in the tapping then they should be required to get a warrant.
Thank you for sharing your views.
Even the hero of the RWNJ
Rush Limbaugh said Bill-O is the Ted Baxter of Fox news. Falafa, falafa, falafa.
Yes, a true hero (sm)
They gave him full immunity, because they counted on him flipping over on the the administration. So he gets full immunity, and then takes the all the blame unto himself, after shredding thousands of documents under the very noses of the investigators.
Not sure if this part is true, but I guess someone held up a piece of paper as evidence, and asked Oliver North what it was.
His response?
Damn, I must have forgotten to shred that one!!
MCCAIN: NO HERO
How does spending time in a prisoner of war camp make you a hero? You would really rather have had a man who is a "post-traumatic stress disorder" attack waiting to happen, with his hand on the big red button?
If being a POW is heroic, Guantanamo is the LAND OF HEROES.
On this first day of your new hero, you cant stop
nm
Yeah, TOTALLY unbiased. whooeee... Can't stand this shrew!
Charles Ferguson is a hero!
I finally had time to sit down and watch the movie No End in Sight. Finally! The truth is coming out. I encourage everyone to watch it, and considering I read a recent poll that 40% of Americans think that Sadam was behind 911 and that is why we invaded Iraq, tell everyone you know to watch it too.
Like Whorn, I was riveted. It angers me. President Bush, his administration, and Congress should be held accountable for allowing this nightmare to happen and to continue. President Bush in particular is complicit in destroying Iraq and should be brought out to answer a few questions to say the least. This is all at his feet due to ineptness to lead and putting the wrong people in charge of things they had no business being in charge of and not listening to the advice of those who knew best simply because he didn't want to hear it. I am rather surprised that there are not more protests marching on Washington. I think there may be before he exits the White House.
The most important thing for me is it solidified my belief that we need to pull out of Iraq posthaste. I was on the fence about pulling our troops out. I am no longer on that fence.
I could go on and on, it's a passionate subject. It is predicted that this venture will cost 1.5 trillion dollars. That should shoot the conservatives right up the wazoo. How could anyone possibly justify that? Who the heck is going to pay for it? Think our taxes will go up? I'd bet on it. Oh, probably not, they'll budget cut to cover the blunder and leave more of our children poorly educated. Over 3000 Americans dead, well over a half a million dead Iraqi's, the government won't disclose how many Iraqi are currently being detained. I could scream.
You've got to watch it.
Your hero Hillary's husband had ONLY...
executive experience when he went into the white house. Are you saying he did not function well as president?? As long as you watch the regular media McCain is going to be absent because they are card carrying members of the vote Democrat or die party before everything say whatever youhave to say even if that changes daily crowd.
And if you don't know the Clintons by now your head is further in the sand that mine ever thought about being, and all this yada yada democratic party line mantra....
and as far as her calling hillary a whiner...let me search the internet. I don't think she is the first. Let me also search the internet for what an MSNBC commentator called her during the primaries...didn't see you posting his name here.
Yep, we do agree....sweeetttttt. I am still excited. And will be until its over, and all this hard line party mantra mumbo jumbo is not going to dampen it. And if the ticket loses, I STILL SAY that Hillary Clinton can't carry Sarah Palin's water. Palin has more integrity in her little finger than the Clintons have in their whole bodies. I don't think she has ever committed felony perjury. Wanna talk about travelgate, whitewater...?
Geez. lol. sweeettttt.
hero does not equal presidential - nm
x
Oh, that was classy... not!. McCain was the hero
nm
There are more than one kind of hero in this world,
.
I was just saying to follow the lead of your hero
he lost but he is moving past it, unlike the RRs on this board
You said it - they are the true hero's of the country
Not any message really, just wanted to say the Navy Seals are true hero's. Willing to go into danger and even die saving other people they don't know. Navy Seals, Police, Fire, etc. People who selflessly lay down their lives to protect and rescue the innocent are the true hero's and I hope they are commended for this. - Okay, so I guess I did have a message. :-)
Another RICO suit from 911 hero/survivor.sm
William Rodriguez was the last known person out of the North Tower alive, and helped rescue people out of the tower.
Here is his story:
http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/Rodriguez.htm
Here is the link to the RICO
suit:
http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/RodriguezComplaint.htm
Ollie North, the 'true hero' - whatever....
Yeah-a real American Hero
He was on The View and he stated he lives in Mexico 9 months out of the year. He loves Mexico. He's against waterboarding and his answers to questions they asked him were way out there as if he hates the country.
He's a real patriot, isn't he...NOT!
Draft Dodger Cheney attacks War Hero
The words President Murtha are sounding pretty good!
DERRICK Z. JACKSON
White House plays chicken with a war hero
By Derrick Z. Jackson | November 19, 2005
THE WHITE House is so deluded, it actually believes it can turn a soaring hawk into a scrounging chicken. Stung by the call by US Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania to pull out of Iraq, Scott McClellan, President Bush's press secretary, said this week, ''It is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
Talk about playing the chicken-hawk card. A White House where most of the architects of war avoided combat in their own lives dared to associate two people who are worlds apart in world views. Moore made the anti-Bush ''Fahrenheit 9/11, which infuriated the right wing by breaking box office records for a documentary film. Moore was booed at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
Murtha is the 73-year-old recipient of two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for combat duty in Vietnam. He is a Democrat whose three decades in office are marked by support of President Reagan's policies in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Murtha was a top Democratic supporter of the 1991 Gulf War. He wants a constitutional ban on burning the American flag.
In a 2002 press briefing, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz termed the support of politicians like Murtha for the Pentagon as ''wonderful. In the 2004 vice presidential debate, incumbent Dick Cheney said, ''One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was secretary of defense was Jack Murtha.
For all those shows of patriotism, Murtha was skeptical about the rush to invade Iraq in 2003 of Iraq even though he voted to give President Bush the authorization to go to war. He publicly said Bush beat the war drums before building an international coalition. Murtha said he had not seen anything in intelligence reports that indicated an imminent threat. Murtha said Bush ''has put the country in such a box. He can say, 'You'll undercut me if you don't vote for this resolution.'
One month after the invasion, when no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found, Murtha warned that American credibility was at risk. By the September, the absence of weapons of mass destruction made him join the much more liberal House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, in calling for Bush to fire the planners of the invasion. Despite the proclamation that ''we achieved a marvelous military victory, Murtha became increasingly frustrated with the chaos of the occupation. This summer, Murtha said administration officials were ''not honest in their assessment that they were winning the ongoing battle.
Finally, this week, Murtha unleased a scathing attack on Bush's Iraq policy. He called it ''a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. He said he believed military officials when he visited Kuwait just before the war and they showed him where American forces would be attacked by weapons of mass destruction when they approach Baghdad. But now, with no end to the killing in sight, he said, ''The US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It's time to bring the troops home. . .They have become the enemy.
Murtha talked about soldier after soldier he has visited in hospitals, wounded and maimed by the invasion. Yet, there's more terrorism now than there ever was and it's because of what? Is it because of our policy? I would say it's a big part.
In perhaps the most humble admission of his press conference, Murtha said, ''The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress.
This came the day after Cheney threw mud in the direction of critics who gave Bush his war authorization. Cheney accused them of making ''irresponsible comments. He accused them issuing ''cynical and pernicious falsehoods to make ''a play for political advantage.
He said, ''The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory -- or their backbone.
This was the same Cheney who gave us some of the greatest falsehoods of this generation with ''There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction . . . We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons, and that we would be ''welcomed as liberators.
Murtha clobbered Cheney's words the next day, saying, ''I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.
This hawk still soars, above the scrounging chicken hawks.
Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com. ![src=http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif]()
War Hero Murtha wouldn't join military now
US Rep. Murtha says he wouldn't join military now
03 Jan 2006 01:00:32 GMT
Source: Reuters
|
WASHINGTON, Jan 2 (Reuters) - Rep. John Murtha, a key Democratic voice who favors pulling U.S. troops from Iraq, said in remarks airing on Monday that he would not join the U.S. military today.
A decorated Vietnam combat veteran who retired as a colonel after 37 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, Murtha told ABC News' Nightline program that Iraq absolutely was a wrong war for President George W. Bush to have launched.
Would you join (the military) today?, he was asked in an interview taped on Friday.
No, replied Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees defense spending and one of his party's leading spokesmen on military issues.
And I think you're saying the average guy out there who's considering recruitment is justified in saying 'I don't want to serve', the interviewer continued.
Exactly right, said Murtha, who drew White House ire in November after becoming the first ranking Democrat to push for a pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as it could be done safely.
At the time, White House spokesman Scott McClellan equated Murtha's position with surrendering to terrorists.
Since then, Bush has decried the defeatism of some of his political rivals. In an unusually direct appeal, he urged Americans on Dec. 18 not to give in to despair over Iraq, insisting that we are winning despite a tougher-than-expected fight.
Murtha did not respond directly when asked whether a lack of combat experience might have affected the decision-making of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their former top deputies.
Let me tell you, war is a nasty business. It sears the soul, he said, choking up. And it made a difference. The shadow of those killings stay with you the rest of your life.
Asked for comment, a Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Col. John Skinner, said: We have an all-volunteer military. People are free to choose whether they serve or not.
Our freedom of speech in this country allows all of us the opportunity to voice an opinion. It's one of our great strengths as a nation, he added in an e-mailed reply.
The White House had no immediate comment.
![src=http://www.alertnet.org/images/spacer.gif]()
Conservative outright spin and BS, spread on Fox by Gregg Jarrett, for the real whole unbiased story
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgif=/c/2009/101/02/ED151514UE.dtl, there was one slight recession in 1937-1938 because of spectacular growth when it took off, read the rest of the story. Pubs will say anything to rewrite history and try to save face. IMO
FYI. Paul Newman died today. What a guy! A hero of mine. God Bless! nm
.
gourdpainter...
We just finished a study of Revelation at our church. In the part you were talking about, "one man rising to lead them" it also says he will be diverse from the rest. He will be well liked, and many people will come to believe he is a "messiah".
Read this site just for face value, and just tell me if it doesn't make you cringe, just a bit.
http://www.theprophecies.com/antichrist.html
I pray that we do get our hiney's raptured right out of here before everything really goes down.
Oh please, gourdpainter.
Are you insinuating that Christianity is the only religion that believes in basic human values? Do you really think that anyone who is not a Christian automatically condones raping, killing, stealing, lying, or anything like it? We all have rights in this country, even minorities!
So okay, put it under gourdpainter
I'll stand by what I say. LOL
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Gourdpainter!
This man and the running mate he has chosen (which I bet now he is regretting) scare me to death. I have never in my life witnessed so much lying, hypocrisy and lack of integrity that these two people have have shown. Anyone watching his face as he speaks would have to see the glaringly clear dishonesty of this man!
Gourdpainter, why do you believe that?
I am just wondering why you feel so sure that McCain is going to win...
I don't know, gourdpainter.............sm
why Wright is not being talked about in the political circles. My initial thought is the difference between him and Ayers or the others is that he calls himself a preacher/reverend. While I definitely agree with you as far as Wright's political statements from the pulpit, maybe it is that McCain and Palin have not jumped on him because they were made from a pulpit and they view that as "protected" in some way??? In other words, they as politicians are not supposed to bring God into politics, so maybe this is an off limits kind of subject.
I notice you keep stating that you don't want Palin as president. GP, she is not running for president; McCain is. And while the chance exists that he could die in office (not necessarily of evil intentions but rather due to age) and Palin could step into the presidency, I would rather have her there than Obama/Biden any day. I can assure you that Obama will be the final ruination of this country if he is elected.
I'm sorry you can't sleep at night. Maybe you need to rethink your vote and vote for McCain. I've noticed others on this board who have said they can sleep at night now knowing that they are voting for McCain. ;o)
Gourdpainter
Sorry I didn't answer! It was farrier day at my moms so I've been gone all afternoon.
I respect your opinion, and I understand where you are coming from. Honestly at this point all we can do is pray. There is just to much stuff I've seen of O that rubs me the wrong way. I just believe voting for Mccain is the lesser of two evils. Yes, it may be the same. But I'd rather endure 4 more years of the same and pray during those four years for a godly candidate to come about than to risk voting for someone who we really do not know about. That's just a big issue I have. We really still do not know who Obama is. We know who he is portrayed as, but there has not been enough time for us to know who he truly is and what he truly believes in.
This is my other big worry...if, God forbid, Obama gets assassinated, and Biden dies or whatever (his health isn't much better than Mccain's I'm pretty sure) then we have Pelosi. THAT is frightening. I would take Palin over Pelosi any day. And Biden could possibly misspeak his way right into a nuclear war. Of course I know your view on Palin so we won't go there... :)
Your right, Mccain is not a godly candidate. If the reason he left his wife is true, it's despicable. But you know what, he's apologized. And I'm sure he has asked forgiveness. We all do things we are not proud of. Obama lies until he is backed into a corner (such as Rev Wright) and then when he finally can't back up anymore he then says "oh I condemn what he said." Not good enough to me. I don't care what the man says, he did not sit in that church for almost 500 Sundays and never once hear Wright preach hate. Straight up, he lied. He has been saturated with this hate. Yes, I believe he will bring change. While we don't know if he is a terrorist, I firmly believe he is anti-American. I believe he wants to bring about a "New America". While we have things wrong with this country, we are still a great country when you get down to the nitty gritty and I don't think every facet of American life needs to be changed. I think that is what he believes. He has his head in the clouds. Just look at how he is now saying "ohh don't get too excited". Why did he promise all that at the beginning? To get the votes. To get people to decide on him, because you know the majority of people aren't going to change their minds now.
He's promising you more days off from school and more vending machines in the halls knowing he can't give them to you. He has people following him now like lemmings on a cliff.
Also, I feel like there are a lot of big red flags coming up from the Bible. I feel like we are going to be face to face with Jesus and he's going to say "I TRIED TO WARN YOU!"
I understand what you mean though, about God not telling you. Sometimes I wish he would just make me a neon sign :). Just make sure you sit still and listen, because if you're like me sometimes he may be shouting at you and you just can't hear him.
I encourage you to definitely take some time to yourself and just sit and talk with Him, and see what he puts on your heart.
I understand the appeal of Obama, I really do. As a 22-year-old college student, I feel like one of a few of my age group that isn't voting for him. I really liked him at first, but the more and more I read about his association with Wright, his view of the "typical white woman", his view on abortion, etc., I just feel like he is not the man who is going to lead our country back to God, and ultimately, that is what we need. Like I said, Mccain probably won't either, but I fear with Obama there may not be a chance to elect another Christian president. I fear that he will go as far as to quiet our preachers and to limit what we can say as Christians. If he doesn't personally, the democratic congress will, and I don't believe he will say no to them. That's one thing I like about Mccain, you know he will say no if need be. I just think Obama owes to many people. He didn't make it up the ladder this quick without a lot of help.
Well, it's back to work for me. Take it easy!
I think gourdpainter has.
.
i, gourdpainter...
I asked this question already a while back and nobody answered it.
So I guess, it must have something do to with the 'uterus', perhaps?
LOL !
Another invention of the Republicans to proof that they are right?
Thank you, gourdpainter.
/
Oh, gourdpainter....sm
I know for a fact, that you yourself usually possess what my grandpa used to call, "good ol' fashioned horse sense."
It just amazes me that you don't recognize it in someone else.
Your mind is already made up, so I don't think I can explain it to you.
Gourdpainter...........sm
And all the other nay-sayers.
About the post below concerning the audio interview with Obama on the energy issue, did you even listen to the audio that was presented?
Not only did I listen to it, I went to the source web site and listened. Here is the link if you want to check it out further. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=32228
The entire interview was about 48 minutes long. It was Obama answering questions from several journalists on a number of issues. He was first questioned about energy at about 25:15 in the tape. The issue that was brought up in the post below that you called 'Horsefeathers' was discussed at about 40:30. I encourage you go listen for yourself and hear the words from the horse's mouth.
Other issues discussed along with the time markers for each discussion were:
Health care 10:38
Securities Industry 20:00
Iraq 29:18
Environment 39:55
Racial issues 42:24 (And this was a listener/reader question)
Voting system in the caucuses (sp): 46:09
Obama is, without doubt, a very intelligent man and eloquent speaker, but I fear he may be far too intelligent, possibly to the point that he cannot be reigned in if necessary, and that in combination with a Democratic House, Senate and Judiciary branch makes him a very dangerous man.
Wow Gourdpainter
you really opened the floodgates - LOL!
|
