Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old June 13th, 2010, 10:28 PM   #101 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crude View Post
Don't worry about it, it went right over your head...or read some of what I've said here and you'll see that the whole "bush did it too" rubs me the wrong way.

Me, too. Bush was a far, far worse president than Obama is. To compare Obama's shortcomings to Bush's is very insulting to Obama.

Advertisements
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 14th, 2010, 01:37 AM   #102 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
Thread Author (OP)
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,834
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,901
Thanked 2,351 Times in 1,212 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
Me, too. Bush was a far, far worse president than Obama is. To compare Obama's shortcomings to Bush's is very insulting to Obama.
Lol? Seriously? See that way out there in the distance? Better go catch it. It's your credibility.
__________________
Useful links: The Rules | The Team | FAQ | Unanswered Threads |
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2010, 06:45 AM   #103 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Please. Bush II was the worst president in modern U.S. history. There are long, long lists of his big time failures, ranging from 9-11, his response to it, his simple-minded religious beliefs he pushed onto us to the environment, his response to Katrina, to health care costs, to the economy, to his anti-science stances, et cetera, so forth and so on, ad infinitum. To Bush's credit, he did expand spending on AIDs research.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2010, 01:22 PM   #104 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 487
 
Device(s): Sprint HTC Hero with 318 Hemi and Edelbrock headers.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 99
Thanked 38 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
Familiar with ultra-conservative christians who want to prevent women from obtaining abortions, and who want to blow up abortion clinics and kill abortion providers? They want their law in parts of America where they have strong numbers.
"Want" to? You read minds, do ya? Several liberals have admitted to posing as Tea Party supporters at rallies to yell crazy train slogans and racial epithets, all to try and make the Tea Party look bad. Given this, it is just as feasible that these people you accuse are of your own ilk. Like your savior taught for three years from the words of your bible "Rules For Radicals": "By any means necessary."

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
Here's a bit of recent christian sharia:
She was teaching at a private Christian school. Who'd a thunk they would hold their employees to their values? And you don't understand the word "sharia."

Epic fail on your part. Now, how do you feel about a Muslim madrassa?


Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
The woman is lucky Principal Jon Ennis didn't force her into the school's courtyard so she could be stoned to death.
Prove that Christians in America today stone people. Or is this just another of your smears against those that you don't agree with? I get it, you are showing the real values of the party of tolerance....
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
Homosexualize America?

How? Are gays going to be knocking on our front doors and same-sex-raping whoever opens the door?
Familiar with Kevin Jennings?

Quote:
In a 1990 "report" for the Massachusetts Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, it was Jennings himself who re-coined the very term "safe school" to mean a pro-homosexual school.Just as the word "gay" is forever tainted and can now rarely be used in its original sense without prompting the snickers or confusion of the listener, so the term "safe school" is now a post-op product of Jennings that bears no similarity to its original meaning.

His national template, used over and over in hundreds of districts and thousands of schools across the country, is to fabricate an epidemic of bullying and violence to homosexuals in schools, in part by citing bogus census or other statistics where classes of people are conflated to come-up with artificially high numbers of incidents of sexual-orientation-based "bullying", "harassment" or violence.

The next step is to contend that the only solution is to make "allies" out of 100% of the straight students in the school or district. "Allies" are made by implementing a usually district-wide "safe-schools" or "anti-bullying" curriculum that force-feeds homosexual propaganda to kindergarten through 12th grade.

While there is much controversy even among secular mental health professionals as to whether or not homosexuality is disordered, there is no such controversy as to heterosexuality. This is an additional, secular reason that all lifestyles should therefore not enjoy parity in school curricula. Why do the Jennings types fear the presentation of research data from all sides, rather than just their own? If indeed Jennings and company valued academic freedom and fearless intellectual inquiry, they would also present the findings of these prominent doctors, who have a lot of studies to back up their positions.

The term "ally", a play on Jennings' Gay-Straight Alliance, is another buzzword which denotes a straight student who worships LGBT's and unequivocally endorses their lifestyle, and who reports on any student who so much as voices an opposition to homosexuality. Such voiced opposition is punished as the "bullying" of a "hater". "Ally of the month" awards are then handed-out at monthly school assemblies.
American Thinker: Kevin Jennings' twisted terminology

It gets "better" -

Quote:
The "Fistgate" conference:
HERE'S what homosexual activists in schools do with children . . .


Students as young as 12 given graphic instruction in bizarre homosexual sex acts by state employees (and we were there to record it for the world)


Have you wondered what homosexual activists do when they are alone with kids in the tax-funded “gay clubs” in schools and other activities? It’s not pretty. In fact, it’s very disgusting. Now you can hear for yourself.
"Fisting [forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap....[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode."


The above quotation comes from Massachusetts Department of Education employees describing the pleasures of homosexual sex to a group of high school students at a state-sponsored workshop on during GLSEN's "Teach-Out" Conference on March 25, 2000 held at Tufts University. Approximately 200 young teens and 300 adults attended the day-long event. Kids were bussed in from high schools across Massachusetts.



These included: homosexual oral sex techniques, inserting one’s entire hand in someone else’s rectum, sado-masochism techniques, girls using “dildos” and rubbing their sex organs together for pleasure, and much more.

The "Fistgate" incident

"Homosexuality is normal" is being forced on students of all ages in our schools. Not just homosexuality, but fetishes in sexual relations are presented as normal, making students feel they should go out and perform these acts to be "normal."
Fenga Papit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2010, 07:45 PM   #105 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
Thread Author (OP)
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,834
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,901
Thanked 2,351 Times in 1,212 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenga Papit View Post
"Want" to? You read minds, do ya? Several liberals have admitted to posing as Tea Party supporters at rallies to yell crazy train slogans and racial epithets, all to try and make the Tea Party look bad. Given this, it is just as feasible that these people you accuse are of your own ilk. Like your savior taught for three years from the words of your bible "Rules For Radicals": "By any means necessary."

She was teaching at a private Christian school. Who'd a thunk they would hold their employees to their values? And you don't understand the word "sharia."

Epic fail on your part. Now, how do you feel about a Muslim madrassa?


Prove that Christians in America today stone people. Or is this just another of your smears against those that you don't agree with? I get it, you are showing the real values of the party of tolerance....


Familiar with Kevin Jennings?

American Thinker: Kevin Jennings' twisted terminology

It gets "better" -

The "Fistgate" incident

"Homosexuality is normal" is being forced on students of all ages in our schools. Not just homosexuality, but fetishes in sexual relations are presented as normal, making students feel they should go out and perform these acts to be "normal."
Homosexuality is not normal. It's not how we were/are created.

Quote:
Please. Bush II was the worst president in modern U.S. history. There are long, long lists of his big time failures, ranging from 9-11, his response to it, his simple-minded religious beliefs he pushed onto us to the environment, his response to Katrina, to health care costs, to the economy, to his anti-science stances, et cetera, so forth and so on, ad infinitum. To Bush's credit, he did expand spending on AIDs research.
Yep bush is worse because 9/11 was his fault. Right, he should have E.S.P.

Simple-minded religious beliefs? Pushed on to us how? I don't remember them being pushed on to us. And like it or not, this nation was a CHRISTIAN founded nation. Want proof? Look at your money.

Response to katrina? There was ample warning, people were told to get the eff outta town. They didn't. It was their own fault.

Health care costs? Obama is effectively going to kill health care for everyone. Period.

Anti-Science stance? Where?

Quit spewing blind rhetoric son. Guess you didn't catch up to your credibility yet, huh?
IOWA is offline  
Last edited by IOWA; June 14th, 2010 at 07:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2010, 07:53 PM   #106 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
Homosexuality is not normal. It's not how we were/are created.

I'm sorry, I guess I missed the post in which you outlined your C.V., the one that would qualify you to make such a pronouncement.

Oh, and how were we created, and what proof do you have to back that up?
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2010, 08:00 PM   #107 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOWA View Post
Simple-minded religious beliefs? Pushed on to us how? I don't remember them being pushed on to us. And like it or not, this nation was a CHRISTIAN founded nation. Want proof? Look at your money.
Look at my money? You mean the motto, "In God We Trust"?

First, the founders of this nation were long-dead before that motto appeared on a coin...that was in 1864. And it didn't become the motto of the United States until 1956. Second, the phrase doesn't refer to a Christian god...it simply refers to a god. Third, this country was most definitely NOT founded as a christian nation. Fourth, and most important, christianity, like all religions, is a creation of man, not god. If you think otherwise, I invite you to prove it.

Oh, please don't cite the bible as proof. The bible is a creation of man. To cite it as proof is nothing more than tautology.
hakr100 is offline  
Last edited by hakr100; June 14th, 2010 at 08:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2010, 10:31 PM   #108 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 40
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 7
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
Please. Bush was a moron, a wooden-headed puppet manipulated by dick cheney. Obama is far from perfect, but he inherited an incredible mess from Bush, and considering that the Republicans in Congress are doing everything they can to stymie him, I'm amazed he has posted any significant accomplishments, and he has.

I don't see anyone on the GOP side who would do half as well as Obama for this country. About all the Republicans would do is further destroy what remains of the middle class in order to further enrich the wealthy, just like they always do.
Please. You could hand pick 95% of anyone in this country to stand around, look like an idiot, read off a teleprompter and do far better than that tool has done.

And I hate to clue you in on this little tidbit, but if you're too blind to see, your messiah there? He and all his friends are "wealthy". What? Rahm Emanuel isn't rich. Oops! Wait, hedge fund millionaire. Yeah, but Eric Holder isn't....oh wait, millionaire lawyer. I promise you, the list goes on...and on. Psst, those dirty Goldman Sachs folks? Yeah...plenty of appointed people in offices relating to the white house. If you're so naive to ignore the fact that they're doing for them? Well, that's just plain old disturbing.
MK_9 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2010, 07:12 AM   #109 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 487
 
Device(s): Sprint HTC Hero with 318 Hemi and Edelbrock headers.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 99
Thanked 38 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Don't forget that BP gave Oilbama their largest amount of donations! And Shrieker Pelosi promised the most ethical congress ever! Must be why the Congressional Black Caucus is afraid of getting caught in ethics probes and are demanding that Pelosi re-write the rules.
Fenga Papit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2010, 07:56 AM   #110 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MK_9 View Post
Please. You could hand pick 95% of anyone in this country to stand around, look like an idiot, read off a teleprompter and do far better than that tool has done.

And I hate to clue you in on this little tidbit, but if you're too blind to see, your messiah there? He and all his friends are "wealthy". What? Rahm Emanuel isn't rich. Oops! Wait, hedge fund millionaire. Yeah, but Eric Holder isn't....oh wait, millionaire lawyer. I promise you, the list goes on...and on. Psst, those dirty Goldman Sachs folks? Yeah...plenty of appointed people in offices relating to the white house. If you're so naive to ignore the fact that they're doing for them? Well, that's just plain old disturbing.

Psst...here's a hint...almost everyone in national politics these days is wealthy, except maybe Joe Biden.

We do pretty good in this household, too.

I don't view wealth as a disqualification for public service.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 15th, 2010, 07:57 AM   #111 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenga Papit View Post
Don't forget that BP gave Oilbama their largest amount of donations! And Shrieker Pelosi promised the most ethical congress ever! Must be why the Congressional Black Caucus is afraid of getting caught in ethics probes and are demanding that Pelosi re-write the rules.

Sorry, I couldn't find a nice new animated BIG YAWN for this post of yours...
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2010, 08:09 AM   #112 (permalink)
Member
 
Zenze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 210
 
Device(s): HTC Inc
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
I don't view wealth as a disqualification for public service.
True but I think it sucks that in most cases you have to be pretty wealthy to get elected to any major office. Honestly I like the way that the British are required to run their campaigns.... also the fact that they don't have a 2 party system...
__________________
"Both politicians and diapers need to be changed frequently, and for the same reason." -Unknown
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
Zenze is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2010, 08:50 AM   #113 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenze View Post
True but I think it sucks that in most cases you have to be pretty wealthy to get elected to any major office. Honestly I like the way that the British are required to run their campaigns.... also the fact that they don't have a 2 party system...

When Americans are willing to provide a decent amount of money from the public treasury for campaigns and advertising for public office, and at the same time are willing to totally outlaw campaign contributions of any kind, then we will have a chance of doing what you want.

I don't see it happening.

As for a "many party" system, I'm not a fan of that.

I do like the British parliamentary system, though...the quick elections, the votes of confidence, et cetera. Had we had the latter, we could have dumped Bush and his criminal controller, Cheney, before their terms were over.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2010, 09:57 AM   #114 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
Sorry, I couldn't find a nice new animated BIG YAWN for this post of yours...
Yes, your contributions to most discussions are sorry once you've run out of talking points provided by movement of "everyone who questions what the administration is doing is a bunch of christian fundamentalist, racist haters!" That is worthy of the big yawn that you seem to think is your witty rebuttal to everything you disagree with.
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2010, 10:01 AM   #115 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Au contraire. I think it is important for Americans to question what their politicians are doing, but i also think it is important to do it reasonably, and without the cultural-racial-religious slurs that are far too common these days.

I don't take seriously these sorts of comments:

"Don't forget that BP gave Oilbama their largest amount of donations! And Shrieker Pelosi promised the most ethical congress ever! Must be why the Congressional Black Caucus is afraid of getting caught in ethics probes and are demanding that Pelosi re-write the rules"
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2010, 11:03 AM   #116 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ballisticn8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Gender: Male
Posts: 760
 
Device(s): VZW Note 3
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 190
Thanked 158 Times in 98 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
Au contraire. I think it is important for Americans to question what their politicians are doing, but i also think it is important to do it reasonably, and without the cultural-racial-religious slurs that are far too common these days.

I don't take seriously these sorts of comments:

"Don't forget that BP gave Oilbama their largest amount of donations! And Shrieker Pelosi promised the most ethical congress ever! Must be why the Congressional Black Caucus is afraid of getting caught in ethics probes and are demanding that Pelosi re-write the rules"
that type of response is typical from you i guess...

earlier in this very thread you called bush a wooden headed moron and in the same sentence you mentioned Dick "Call Me Darth" Cheney and then you want to go whine about not taking seriously others comments.

typical hypocrite response that everyone has come to expect from you i guess, ball up and look for a yawn image or play the you call people names and I cant take those responses seriously although i do the same thing.

Here hakr, i have an image for you:



__________________
*Insert witty line here*
ballisticn8 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ballisticn8 For This Useful Post:
Fenga Papit (June 15th, 2010)
Old June 15th, 2010, 11:13 AM   #117 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
Au contraire. I think it is important for Americans to question what their politicians are doing, but i also think it is important to do it reasonably, and without the cultural-racial-religious slurs that are far too common these days.
That's reasonable. We really should have a lot more respect for our officials and certain public servants certainly should make an effort to be more respectable (it doesn't matter that the annoying cameraman probably was a plant from the republican party, he was acting no different from Michael Moore and you shouldn't have gotten physical.)

Don't you all just feel like kicking your own asses when we try to tell children to grow up and behave while this nonsense is going on? If I had kids, the little brats would look at me and say "and which grownups would those be? Do you mean Glen Beck or our president who wants to 'kick some ass?'" Yeah, even my imaginary children are insufferable.
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2010, 11:17 AM   #118 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ballisticn8 View Post

earlier in this very thread you called bush a wooden headed moron and in the same sentence you mentioned Dick "Call Me Darth" Cheney and then you want to go whine about not taking seriously others comments.
Indeed I did. Bush is a wooden headed moron, and Cheney should be in prison.

Have a nice day.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2010, 11:24 AM   #119 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ballisticn8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Gender: Male
Posts: 760
 
Device(s): VZW Note 3
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 190
Thanked 158 Times in 98 Posts
Default

So once again you find it perfectly acceptable to call political figures whom you do not like or do not agree with their views names but then when someone does the same to insult your preferred candidate you throw out the "I refuse to respond to someone that makes those types of derogative comments" post?

Like Iowa said, your credibility is kind of getting away from you, maybe fix your own posts before you try to call others out for what they write eh?

ballisticn8 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2010, 11:33 AM   #120 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ballisticn8 View Post
So once again you find it perfectly acceptable to call political figures whom you do not like or do not agree with their views names but then when someone does the same to insult your preferred candidate you throw out the "I refuse to respond to someone that makes those types of derogative comments" post?

Like Iowa said, your credibility is kind of getting away from you, maybe fix your own posts before you try to call others out for what they write eh?

Once again, au contraire. I like Dubya. I simply think he was an awful president. His presidency was a failure, as evidence by the mess we are in today.

As for Cheney, well, I've already stated I believe him to be a criminal.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 15th, 2010, 03:15 PM   #121 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 487
 
Device(s): Sprint HTC Hero with 318 Hemi and Edelbrock headers.
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 99
Thanked 38 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
Sorry, I couldn't find a nice new animated BIG YAWN for this post of yours...
You certainly are sorry, I'll give you that. This is the only response you could have because you could not defend Oilbama or Pelosi in that post. Everyone can see that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
Au contraire. I think it is important for Americans to question what their politicians are doing, but i also think it is important to do it reasonably, and without the cultural-racial-religious slurs that are far too common these days.

I don't take seriously these sorts of comments:

"Don't forget that BP gave Oilbama their largest amount of donations! And Shrieker Pelosi promised the most ethical congress ever! Must be why the Congressional Black Caucus is afraid of getting caught in ethics probes and are demanding that Pelosi re-write the rules"
Your hypocritical whining fools no one except the simple minded and yourself.
Fenga Papit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2010, 07:18 PM   #122 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
Thread Author (OP)
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,834
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,901
Thanked 2,351 Times in 1,212 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default Re: I thought obama was supposed to be transparent?

I guess candidates/political officers have to equal obama's "standards" to not get called names. You know, taking vacations during critical times, spending more than any other president in history, expanding welfare programs so the lazy can stay at home and live off the government. And hell, let's give them healthcare too!(thank god that was blocked). Also someone who lies about what religion they practice so they can win an election, and make empty promises and promote socialism. That's the kind of person hakr endorses

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 17th, 2010, 06:00 PM   #123 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 40
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 7
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pryomancer View Post
Please show me the proof of this. I've googled the question, and multiple sources including a reputable newspaper have reported that he is a christian.

His father was muslim, but his mother raised him christian. Apparently his father decided to no longer be a muslim before Barack was even born.

And don't argue that I should be the one to find the proof; it's your argument, you back it up.


And anyway, what does it matter if he were a muslim? I thought you were intelligent, it seems you're just another bigot.
YouTube - Get the Race Card Advantage (PJTV's 'Left Exposed')
MK_9 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MK_9 For This Useful Post:
Fenga Papit (June 17th, 2010)
Old June 17th, 2010, 06:29 PM   #124 (permalink)
Mr. Logic Pants
Thread Author (OP)
 
IOWA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,834
 
Device(s): GS5 GS4 TF101 GS3
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 1,901
Thanked 2,351 Times in 1,212 Posts
Ask and ye shall receive!
Default Re: I thought obama was supposed to be transparent?

Awesome video haha

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.
IOWA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2010, 12:59 PM   #125 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Funniest video I've seen lately is of that moron congressman from texas, apologizing yesterday to BP. He sorta apologized for his apology, but his outburst should haunt him the rest of his life.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2010, 02:52 PM   #126 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,362
 
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Now if only that congressman who is so worried that Guam is going to capsize would get his...
3devious is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2010, 10:13 PM   #127 (permalink)
Member
 
scoty777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 112
 
Device(s): HTC Eris
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 5
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

I love debate as long as it remains intelligent and civil. You can look up many sources that refer to those founding Fathers as being devout men of faith, and they were; yet on one site, there were writing of their criticism of "orthodox" Christianity. This site used their criticism as a point in fact that our nation was not built on Christian principles when in fact it was. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a basic Christian and biblical principle; another point, if I asked does the constitution state anywhere: "separation of church and state"? It does not; the Russian Constitution does. The purpose of separation of church and state was to allow everyone the freedom to follow their own faith, not to eliminate faith from the state. We forget our or we are being taught bad history. As we banter our points of view, lets back our opinions up with facts. I'm not going to here because it is irrelevant to the topic. I would like to ask another question: "Why would we boycott BP? IF we do, they will go bankrupt and we will all have to pay for the damage with more debt and increased gas prices as the burden is shifted to other oil companies. I say buy BP as much as you can so they can honor their contract to pay their debt and promise of repair. But hey, I hate to make sense. Why support global warming when the science has been proven to be faked and the emails have been published to prove it? The formulas used were placed to make them work to the favor of those wanting to push this agenda, and the studies were not verified as all research should be; of the thousands of tree samples taken around the world to prove global warming; only those which proved their outcome were used and published; the other-'normal' trees were not used in the research. Why is OK to allow illegals to work? That means if someone commits any crime, they should be allowed to work-how do you put a 'value' on one crime over another? crime is crime and illegal is illegal. Why is that if I shoot a lady who is pregnant today and kill her and her baby I am liable for 2 murders, but if she gets an abortion the next day that is OK? I am not trying to give one point over another-merely questions for discussion. Thanks
__________________
"Here is the test to find whether your mission on Earth is finished: if you're alive, it isn't."
Richard Bach
scoty777 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 25th, 2010, 06:39 AM   #128 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
hakr100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,005
 
Device(s): HTC/Verizon Incredible
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoty777 View Post
I love debate as long as it remains intelligent and civil. You can look up many sources that refer to those founding Fathers as being devout men of faith, and they were; yet on one site, there were writing of their criticism of "orthodox" Christianity. This site used their criticism as a point in fact that our nation was not built on Christian principles when in fact it was. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a basic Christian and biblical principle; another point, if I asked does the constitution state anywhere: "separation of church and state"? It does not; the Russian Constitution does.

I think you have every right to promote your beliefs in a civil manner, but i don't believe you have the right to try to force your beliefs or your religion on me.
hakr100 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 25th, 2010, 12:12 PM   #129 (permalink)
Member
 
scoty777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 112
 
Device(s): HTC Eris
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 5
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100 View Post
I think you have every right to promote your beliefs in a civil manner, but i don't believe you have the right to try to force your beliefs or your religion on me.
I'm not forcing anything hakr100; that's the point of separation of church and state is so no one can force religion on you, it was not to take religion out of the state but to allow men to practice what ever they believed..Sorry if the reply sounded "in typed word" any different-don't be so defensive...I love ya man!! In a friendly brotherly or sisterly sort a way I personally don't allow parking in the rear...but to each his own...I AM NOT IMPLICATING ANYTHING...JUST TRYING TO BE FUNNY....SMILE Dude or Dudette...SMILE
scoty777 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 25th, 2010, 04:21 PM   #130 (permalink)
Member
 
Zenze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 210
 
Device(s): HTC Inc
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 15
Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoty777 View Post
I love debate as long as it remains intelligent and civil. You can look up many sources that refer to those founding Fathers as being devout men of faith, and they were; yet on one site, there were writing of their criticism of "orthodox" Christianity. This site used their criticism as a point in fact that our nation was not built on Christian principles when in fact it was. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a basic Christian and biblical principle; another point, if I asked does the constitution state anywhere: "separation of church and state"? It does not; the Russian Constitution does. The purpose of separation of church and state was to allow everyone the freedom to follow their own faith, not to eliminate faith from the state. We forget our or we are being taught bad history. As we banter our points of view, lets back our opinions up with facts. I'm not going to here because it is irrelevant to the topic. I would like to ask another question: "Why would we boycott BP? IF we do, they will go bankrupt and we will all have to pay for the damage with more debt and increased gas prices as the burden is shifted to other oil companies. I say buy BP as much as you can so they can honor their contract to pay their debt and promise of repair. But hey, I hate to make sense. Why support global warming when the science has been proven to be faked and the emails have been published to prove it? The formulas used were placed to make them work to the favor of those wanting to push this agenda, and the studies were not verified as all research should be; of the thousands of tree samples taken around the world to prove global warming; only those which proved their outcome were used and published; the other-'normal' trees were not used in the research. Why is OK to allow illegals to work? That means if someone commits any crime, they should be allowed to work-how do you put a 'value' on one crime over another? crime is crime and illegal is illegal. Why is that if I shoot a lady who is pregnant today and kill her and her baby I am liable for 2 murders, but if she gets an abortion the next day that is OK? I am not trying to give one point over another-merely questions for discussion. Thanks
Wow you kinda went off on a bunch of different tangents but I'll just comment on the one you started with... religion and how it relates to government.

First of all the quotes "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" does not come from any Christian source. Where in the bible does it say this? It is common knowledge that it originated with the philosopher John Locke when he wrote about the rights every man has to "life, liberty, and property." They just changed property to happiness. In fact there are quite a few ideas in our constitution borrowed from Locke.

Also to say that the founding fathers were devout Christians is either inaccurate or a gross overexploitation. There is significant evidence to suggest that most of the founding fathers were Deists, including Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and George Washington.

For example Benjamin Franklin wrote in his autobiography:
Quote:
"Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist. My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins and Ralph; but each of them having afterwards wrong'd me greatly without the least compunction, and recollecting Keith's conduct towards me (who was another freethinker) and my own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me great trouble, I began to suspect that this doctrine, tho' it might be true, was not very useful."
Also I don't care what any person's religious beliefs, or lack of, happen to be. However as soon as it is incorporated into any part of the government it is inherently going to have a effect on the citizens of that government, and I am strongly against that.

Also, use the enter key. A wall of text is really annoying to read
Zenze is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 25th, 2010, 10:02 PM   #131 (permalink)
Member
 
scoty777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 112
 
Device(s): HTC Eris
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 5
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenze View Post
Wow you kinda went off on a bunch of different tangents but I'll just comment on the one you started with... religion and how it relates to government.

First of all the quotes "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" does not come from any Christian source. Where in the bible does it say this? It is common knowledge that it originated with the philosopher John Locke when he wrote about the rights every man has to "life, liberty, and property." They just changed property to happiness. In fact there are quite a few ideas in our constitution borrowed from Locke.


Also to say that the founding fathers were devout Christians is either inaccurate or a gross overexploitation. There is significant evidence to suggest that most of the founding fathers were Deists, including Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and George Washington.



For example Benjamin Franklin wrote in his autobiography:
Also I don't care what any person's religious beliefs, or lack of, happen to be. However as soon as it is incorporated into any part of the government it is inherently going to have a effect on the citizens of that government, and I am strongly against that.


Also, use the enter key. A wall of text is really annoying to read
I didn't say it came from a biblical source, I said it was a principle as in freedom of bondage and the establishment of a people and nation; fortunately and unfortunately they felt a need for a king to rule over them which was both beneficial and non-beneficial. I am sure the strife for freedom is in many religious doctrines. John Locke did say life, liberty, and the pursuit of property and the original writers wanted to place that in the constitution as written.

I also know that there was deep prayer prior to each 'session' where the founding fathers looked for guidance as they proceeded with their decisions on behalf of the colonies and the colonists. Do you feel or believe many of them were Free Mason's?

I disagree here just a little I don't agree with social relativism or humanism as social mores change; I feel without some conscience of morality; society dwindles as seen with many previous republics such as Greek and Roman societies. Here lies the dilemma faced by many philosophers. How and who dictates and oversees this factor of the governed?; Religion should not but precepts of humanity from religious kindness and how to treat each other should be. Many Laws are changed as societal mores change; is this good or bad? An adulterous woman can still be beheaded for her transgressions in Islam; Old Testament Law she was stoned to death; today, she has many secret partners or is divorced.

At what point does a society say this is enough or that is enough? I don't think women should be beheaded by the way; stoning on the other hand...kidding!!! I learned during my Master's degree to sometime just write stuff to stir debate and controversy-it's fun that way... OMG would someone actually do that?
scoty777 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:20 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.