John McCain’s latest Web advertisement is a spoof about an Obama fan club but continues to take a low road, visually linking Barack Obama to airheaded young white women in racially and sexually charged ways. Like the Paris Hilton/Britney Spears “celebrity” ad, this one features several women, with one admiring his “soft eyes” and the voice-over calling him “dreamy,” followed by the message “Hot chicks dig Obama.”
Sorry, but the nation deserves a more elevated debate than “Hot chicks dig Obama.”
Obama has responded to McCain’s celebrity ad with his own negative advertisement calling McCain “Washington’s biggest celebrity,” and showing McCain repeatedly hugging President Bush. He’s also running much more positive ads that emphasize job creation, etc.
It’s unclear whether Obama has found a way to effectively counter McCain’s attack ads while holding to his promise to run a different kind of campaign. And are voters even paying attention right now?
121 Comments
This nation, through its primary system is in the process of nominating an old man who’s mainly known for being a maverick, working against his party thereby becoming the darling of the MSM.
The other presumptive winner of his party’s nomination has ‘I’m not Hillary’ going for him and nothing else of note.
This country deserves exactly what it is getting as for as campaign adds are concerned.
Yeah, like the Obama campaign taking the ‘high road’ when it came to the classification of West Virginian voters as inbred, mouth breathing troglodytes.
Or perhaps classifying Kansans as a ‘red state’ where flat applies not to the land but the tops of Kansans head from lack of frontal lobes.
Perhaps if Scholfield wasn’t such a idol worshiper and butt washer for the Obama campaign he could see past the tip of his nose and examine the real issues like Obama’s lack executive experience.
I’m surprised Phillip BrownLIB hasn’t chimed in with another McCain bashing thread yet. Perhaps BrownLIB will have something on the proper method of tossing ‘rose petals’ in Obama’s path as he makes his way down the primrose destination of Progressive Liberal Utopia.
C’mon, what’s McCain going to do, run on his record? McCain is running his campaign like some kid in school running for class president. He only appeals to the dumb voter who makes decisions on purely an emotional level.
Can we please have a thread about how John McCain kicked his first wife to the curb because she was in a car accident and wasn’t pretty anymore?
Or maybe old John will make another commercial with a a sunset silhouetting an oil rig.
Yeah that’s what I want in my sunset.
Welcome to the Eagle/Schofield sponsored B.H.Obama Campaign headquarters
Get a life… the ad was amusing. As for the low road, I would say Obama is doing the low road in his speeches in saying the Republicans will say he doesn’t look like the presidents on the dollar bill, has a funny middle name, etc. I haven’t seen any ads like that have you?
“Get a life… the ad was amusing. As for the low road, I would say Obama is doing the low road in his speeches in saying the Republicans will say he doesn’t look like the presidents on the dollar bill, has a funny middle name, etc. I haven’t seen any ads like that have you?”
You clearly haven’t seen McCain’s ad where he puts Obama’s face on the $100 bill, Mt. Rushmore, etc. If you haven’t heard to Republican camp constantly making fun of Obama’s name then you are too out of touch to bother with anymore.
Self-professed Christians are even putting out videos asking people to pray for God to smite Obama and the Democratic convention with heavy rains and floods.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/13/dobsons-focus-on-the-family-humiliated-by-pray-for-rain-video/#more-31789
Good ol’ Christian love, hoping someone gets harmed just for a difference in political views.
It’s a funny add. And judging by Randy’s reaction to it very effective.
What would be more effective, in light of certain current events would be to show that photo of Obama playing huggy bear with Tim Kaine split screened or faded into Vladimir Putin’s cold scowl imposed over a Russian tank pumping rounds into a Georgian village.
Scare mongering? Damn straight, and it should scare you, even some of you Lefties.
Obama ain’t ready for the big show folks and it scares me that he may just get the job.
Little Barry doesn’t have much left in his resume, he’s thrown everyone close to him under the bus.
He even left Michelle-my-Belle home on his European victory tour. Was she too black for Germany? Too outspoken for England? Not pretty enough for France?
Do you think they’ll nominate the Hildebeast at the convention?
HEHEHEHE
“Do you think they’ll nominate the Hildebeast at the convention?”
I don’t know; do you think the Republics will replace Sidney with “magic underwear” Mitt?
Wow, it must just SUCK to be a republiCON these days.
KFG
SUCKs to be anyone with a brain this election cycle.
We have a choice between the cranky old guy with the crude sense of humor and the hopelessly dopey guy with not enough starch in his shorts.
yeah, it sucks.
Clinton said she will not support her name on the ballot at the convention. If she had, I feel the rift would have grown deeper. Damn ‘Stand Up’ of her not to support it.
“not enough starch in his shorts”
Maybe Mitt has some in his magic ones?
Hey farmgirl!
This little republiCON is as happy as a clam! My okra is tall enough that I can pick it each morning standing up!
And. . .according to my “Raising Ducks for Dummies” book, I’ll soon be up to my ass in duck eggs!
Ya see Hank, if ya read the book and don’t plant the duck seeds too deep, they’ll come up!
Congrats!
“SUCKs to be anyone with a brain this election cycle.”
Well, I agree with that. Too bad the majority of voters in either party dont have much of a brain if these two guys are the best they can do.
Hee hee heeeeee gster. I guess that’s what I did wrong. Planted the duck seeds too deep. I’m hoping for an invite for roast duck. Ummmmmmm.
“I’m hoping for an invite for roast duck. Ummmmmmm.”
Hope you’re able to travel at a moment’s notice! I’m using them to train the dog’s. Supper . . .I mean accidents happen!
If everything goes right it’ll only be eggs on the menu.
Heheheheh Hank. I have plenty of eggs, of the chicken variety, thank you very much! I’m sure the duck will be devoured before I get to Salina! Enjoy it and tell me about it. I live vicariously all the time.
Oh, and btw. I recommend a Port wine sauce.
Oh hell. Just eat the duck and drink the Port!
Oh darling,
I aggree that good port is good sauce. . .but. . .
I’ll just drink my Sandeman Reserve, thankyou very much.
I have a little Merlot in a box that’s good enough for sauce!
from an e-mail from a friend
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I know that some of you don’t like to read long drawn out missives…
so here’s the executive summary………
Congress Military
John McCain 26 Years 22 Years
Barrack O bama 143 days 0
Just think how great a professional of any kind you could
be with only 143 days of experience!!!
People want change so badly? . . . .. maybe we should lower the experience requirement for doctors, lawyers, airline pilots, etc. This would cause some change!
Obama’s 143 Days of Senate Experience
Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama
have in terms of actual work days? Not much.
From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United States Senator, to the time he announced he was forming
a Presidential exploratory Committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate.
That’s how many days the Senate was actually in session
and working.
The one single Senate committee that he headed never even met — once.
After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan.
Think about it…….143 days — 20.4 weeks — 4.7 months …
Our children spend more time in pre-school getting ready for kindergarten.
BJ
That picture was, most likely, of a SUNRISE behind an oil rig, not a sunset.
I love the smell of republican fear in the morning.
#
Predestined
Posted August 13, 2008 at 10:34 am | Permalink
I love the smell of republican fear in the morning.
———————-
Nope. That’s the freshly washed butt of Osama Obama, cleansed by the sprinklings of his loyal followers.
You gonna smooch it?
Ben
That “magic underwear” comment was beneath you.
That comment would be expected from one of the bigots on this Blog.
You now look like a political hack who justifies anything in the name of HIS political goals.
First, in the primary, you bash anyone who says anything bad about McCain, since you want McCain to win.
Now, you can not say anything nice about McCain, and you resort to religious bigotry, towards Mitt Romney, a possible McCain running mate?
Have you ever criticized the religious clothing of Moslems, Ben?
Of course not — You are the greatest Moslem sympathizer on this Blog!
And, you can not find anyone who has criticized Moslem clothing on this Blog, not even me, one of the worst critics of Islamic extremism!
Some things are off limits.
Heheheheh. Reading the subsequent posts, it seems my initial assessment was correct, Pre.
It sucks to be them these days.
“Of course not — You are the greatest Moslem sympathizer on this Blog!”
Wow, looks like paulie needs the waaaaambulance too if that’s what he thinks of Ben.
Uh, no Moslems are running for US preznit are they? And the mittster was, wasnt he? I’d say that makes mitty a different target than the entire Moslem religion?
And paulie cant tell the difference?
Hyperbole much?
Religiously based attacks are off limits, no matter what the office.
Ben looks like a true bigot right now. Ben is in the same category with BJ, who first used the “magic underwear” line of attack.
Ben is simply a little smarter than BJ.
The bigotry is just the same.
And, KFG
Obama DOES have ties to radical Islam.
To attack a person due to his radical associations, when some of those radicals believe that God has ordered them to kill Jews or kill Americans, is completely within the acceptable bounds of political debate.
Good grief paulie, you spun so fast and so far between 10:52 and 10:54 I gotta wonder if you fell off your swivel chair?
Magic underwear?
Randy Scholfield
Do your damn job!
If you think that this campaign should focus on issues and/or experience and/or political beliefs, why not tell us MORE about Obama?
Why not tell us about Obama’s training, to be a “neighborhood organizer” under a radical Marxist?
Why not tell us how Obama first got into office by kicking all of the other candidates off the ballot, with legal challenges?
Why not tell us how Obama did not believe that a baby, born ALIVE, after a botched abortion, deserved medical treatment?
Why not tell us about Obama’s “Moslem Outreach” director, who had to resign, recently, due to his terrorist connections?
Why not tell us more about Obama’s connections to the criminal, Rezco?
Why not tell us more about all of those times Obama voted “present” in the Illinois legislature?
In short, Obama has done a VERY good job of trying to hide his true beliefs. Obama has done a very good job in trying to leave very little, in the way of a real voting record.
However, on the rare occasions when Obama had the guts to actually take a stand on an issue, Obama has voted the way any radical leftist would be expected to vote.
Obama is outrageously unqualified for this job.
Obama has no resume.
Obama IS a JOKE, therefore, humor is the best way to attack Obama.
ZERObama.
How’s that workin’ for ya paulie?
“Ben is in the same category with BJ, who first used the “magic underwear” line of attack.”
That would be another lie on your part there paulie.
I was not aware of Mormon magic underwear until another poster made me aware of it.
I AM aware that Mitt Romney belongs to a church that baptizes dead people without their consent.
Either way? How is it bigotry to post factual information? The truth hurts?
So… let’s talk jokes.
You might be a mssame voter if….
hee hee heee heeeeeeee!
Some of these are pretty good!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×3788269
BJ
If you would attack the veils that Moslem women wear, or the skull caps that Jews wear, or the cloths that the Mennonites wear —
Well, to me, and to most people, that might indicate some religious bigotry.
BJ, A Spanish Olympic team is in hot water, for squinting their eyes during a photo shoot. They were making fun of the Chinese, of course. The Spaniards do not understand why anyone is offended, at present. I am guessing that they will soon apologize, however.
You and Ben? You don’t mind being offensive, so you offend at will.
that baptizes dead people without their consent.
How does one obtain consent from one that has expired?
“Ben is simply a little smarter than BJ.
The bigotry is just the same.”
Not so fast, Franklin!
I’m not sure any of the libs are any smarter than BJ. They never seem to have an argument with his outlandish observations.
“BJ
If you would attack the veils that Moslem women wear, or the skull caps that Jews wear, or the cloths that the Mennonites wear —
Well, to me, and to most people, that might indicate some religious bigotry.”
I have not done those things.
I DID inform that Mitt Romney’s church baptizes dead people and offered my personal opinion that I found that rather creepy.
“You don’t mind being offensive, so you offend at will.”
I won’t speak for Ben.
If you find the truth offensive that is your problem, not mine.
It is common practice, in the Catholic Church, to pray for the dead.
Actually, those who bring up this point are, and know what they are doing, are taking evil advantage of a split between Catholics and Protestants.
It is true that Catholics and Protestants both have huge differences with the Mormon Church. However, by stressing the issue that the Mormons do “pray for the dead” and even “baptise” the dead, the political hacks attacking Romney are trying for a trifecta:
The anti Mormon, anti-Romney attacks, based on “baptism of the dead” might also offend some Jews.
For the life of me, I do not understand why.
Mormons believe that the dead do not pass directly from life on Earth, to Heaven or Hell.
Therefore, prayer for the dead is useful, in their minds. They also believe that families should be united, in the afterlife. So, a family that converted from the Jewish faith to the Mormon faith might well pray for the souls of all departed relatives, and even “baptise” those who were not “Christian” in their minds.
What is the harm in this? None, really. It is hard to believe that anyone would be offended by a religious service done in their honor, for their “benefit” after death.
I am not Moslem or Hindu or Mormon or Jewish or Budhist, but I see no harm in those religions, if they wish to pray for me, now or after my death.
Jesus prayed for his friend Lazerous, after his death, and resurrected him. Where, exactly, did he go between death and resurrection?
The Book of Maccebees, a Greek text, was in all of the Bibles of the early Church, and accepted by the Jewish Faith at the time of Christ. Most likely, Maccabees books were in the temples where Jesus preached.
Martin Luther had a point. The Catholic Church had corrupted itself, with the selling of “indulgences” to absolve sin or to reduce time in “purgatory” —
To solve this problem, Luther thought that the “end justifies the means” and Luther stripped Maccabees, and some other things, from what had been the accepted text of the Bible, for centuries, up to that point.
Maccabees includes a “prayer for the dead” in its texts, among other things.
So, Jesus prayed for a dead man.
Sacred texts, in the Temples where Jesus prayed, had passages urging prayer for the dead —
But Protestants and Catholics disagree on this point, and some Jews get upset about the “conversion” of some, against their will, after death.
A reasonable response to this complaint?
You can NOT be “converted” after death, without YOUR consent.
If you believe in the concept of the soul, the soul STILL has free will, after death.
So, there is no controversy.
But, the Mormon haters will protend that there is one.
One UNIVERSAL Christian belief: We are ALL supposed to pray for our enemies.
Even you guys!
Riiiiiiight, JR.
I’ve never understood the champions of “tolerance” on the left’s attacks on Romney’s religion. Except to note, as usual, that those same champions of tolerance are generally only tolerant of ideas they agree with.
Free speech (or religion) for me, but not for thee. As usual.
JR, you simply rationalize your bigotry while condemning others.
Log in your eye, there is. Speck in others, perhaps. Which needs removing first?
And I have no idea what “magic underwear” refers to, nor frankly do I care.
The Mormon faith requires men to wear a kind of “uniform” under their cloths, the purpose of which is to remind them of their faith.
I think such a subject is off limits.
Making fun of such things is bigotry.
“The Mormon faith requires men to wear a kind of “uniform” under their cloths, the purpose of which is to remind them of their faith.
I think such a subject is off limits.
Making fun of such things is bigotry.”
Why should making fun of religion be off limits? In that case Paul I declare that you cannot criticize anyone in the Democratic party.
I believe that the term “magic underwear” was actually invented by a radical atheist.
I am hopeful that people of faith will unite against religious bigotry.
The radical atheists are the most hateful and intolerant bunch around these days.
http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2007/03/04/magic_underwear_mitt_for_prez
Maggot
You, too, are a bigot.
Making fun of religous beliefs is bigotry.
“The radical atheists are the most hateful and intolerant bunch around these days.”
I know, we’re just issuing so many death threats and committing acts of violence because we are so offended by cartoons and wafers.
Mormons do wear magic underwear hows pointing that out bigotry? heck Many evangelical groups dont even consider them Christians. Many people consider them a cult whether you want to find any basis in that would be open to debate. to me their not much difference than Scienologist one was founded by a 2Oth huckster the other by a 19th century one
Paul,
I was probably the first one to use the “magic underwear” term. I got it from my cousins when we were kids. They thought it was funny as hell. They’re Mormon, by the way.
Like most Cons, you need to pull whatever crawled up your a$$ and died out.
And lose the phony outrage, SourPuss.
“Making fun of religous beliefs is bigotry.”
No it isn’t. If you sincerely believe that wearing an octopus on your head and singing Rick Astley songs backward will cause a bald person’s hair to grow back is it bigoted to say such a belief is idiotic? Nope, it’s simply stating the obvious.
I read the story too about the college kid who got physically attacked, and death threats for not eating a cracker. or yesterday seen a story about a mother who starved her kid to death for not saying amen at the dinner table and her family defends her
Tom (and the Democrat Bigots on this Blog)
Show me where a SINGLE conservative, on this Blog, has made fun of Mormons?
It is the left, and the radical atheists, that laugh at faith.
Democrats are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.
Mormons believe their underwear is magical and will protect them from harm.
“The reasons for Mormons to keep their garments on far outweigh the reasons for taking them off. Blessings of physical protection are one reason. Although Mormons avoid too openly sharing personally sacred experiences, there have still been numerous reports of, for instance, a person’s outer clothing being chewed up in a chainsaw accident while the garment and skin remained perfectly intact; or a person suffering severe burns to the arms and legs in a fire, yet the bodily damage showed a distinct cutoff point right where the garment sleeves and legs began.”
From:
http://www.mormonolympians.org/mormon_underwear
I suppose those Mormons must be radical atheists for believing their underwear is magical.
“Democrats are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.”
Paul, I just stated that criticizing Democrats was off limits and there you go. Somehow it’s acceptable for you to criticize others but it’s off limits for others to criticize what you don’t want criticized. The hypocrisy is outstanding.
Democrats voted for a Mormon to be Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. If what you said was true then why wasn’t he run out of the party?
And Mohammad was a child molester, and burkas are oppressive but Moslem’s get a pass cause it part of their religion?
You are taking the argument to the absurd, Tom.
There will always be people who abuse power, or abuse the law, civil law or religious law.
There will always be mental instability, people who claim to be acting on behalf of God when they are delusional and harmful to society.
Where the beliefs of a true, established faith do NOT conflict with goodwill and the general welfare?
That particular tenant of belief should be off limits, for purposes of humor or political debate.
The Mormon faith requires men to wear a kind of “uniform” under their cloths, the purpose of which is to remind them of their faith.
If so, how is this different than wearing a crucifix or a marmaluk (is that spelled correctly?)? Or saying the rosary? Or taking communion? What do you think the reaction from the left would be if those were ridiculed, especially a conservative?
We all know; the left, and the MSM would go ballistic, and rightfully so.
So . . . the rule, apparantly, is that ridiculing religious belief and practice is OK, as long as the subject of that ridicule and attack is a republican.
And the left’s fundamental hypocricy is stripped bare.
What else is new. On the left, it’s free speech (or religion) for me, but not for thee.
Because Atheists are so intolerant the publisher Random House refused to publish the novel, Jewel of Medina because of the feared violent outbreaks from intolerant Atheists.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/08/censoring_islam.html
“That particular tenant of belief should be off limits, for purposes of humor or political debate.”
Why should criticism of your opinions or the opinions of others be off limits?
Tom
Child molesting IS against the general welfare, it does harm society.
Therefore, bringing up that subject, as it relates to the founder of Islam, IS acceptable, in my mind.
Y’all want to talk religion? Great. Let’s talk about Black Liberation Theology. Let’s talk about its base. Marxism.
I’d rather have some ‘magic underwear’ in the oval office that one who chooses to follow a Marxist, racist and murderous religion.
Maggot
You are being foolish now.
Liberals do kiss up to radical Islam, because liberals do not wish to defend America, or Jews or Christians, from radical Islam.
that should be
“especially by a conservative.”
Sorry for any confusion.
Sheesh the hypocrisy!
“Franklin” is all the time dissecting for us how much Barack Obama is an Arab vs. how much he is a Muslim.
And I guess inviting us to be afraid of Obama for either or both.
Now HE wants to say what is off limits?
Franklin
Posted August 13, 2008 at 11:49 am | Permalink
There will always be people who abuse power, or abuse the law, civil law or religious law.
_________________________________________________
Indeed. We call them NeoCons.
There will always be mental instability, people who claim to be acting on behalf of God when they are delusional and harmful to society.
_________________________________________________
You jsut described most republicans.
Where the beliefs of a true, established faith do NOT conflict with goodwill and the general welfare?
That particular tenant of belief should be off limits, for purposes of humor or political debate.
__________________________________________________
Sez who? Where does it say that?
Only in your deluded mind.
Paul says,
“Child molesting IS against the general welfare, it does harm society.
Therefore, bringing up that subject, as it relates to the founder of Islam, IS acceptable, in my mind.”
No, it’s beneficial to society. Muhammad married children and molested them in order to bring unity and peace between tribes. Therefore such criticism is off limits. The Bible mentions that God told his followers to ransack cities and take the virgin females for themselves (after all others in the city were to be slaughtered, including the livestock). If God ordains child molestation as acceptable then it’s off limits for anyone to criticize child molesting since it’s a treasured religious belief. So sayeth Paul.
I heard the term “magic underwear” first when watching a christian fundamentalist video.
Sol Dev
EXACTLY!
It is almost always the LEFT that tells us, on this Blog and elsewhere, what we can and can not talk about.
It is the left who love to call people “racist” when anyone comes up with a complaing against Obama.
The left is constantly telling us that our comments are out of line —
But the left wants to make fun of the religious clothing of a religion that has NOT advocated terrorism against the United States?
Obama’s religious and political friends have DEFINATELY attacked the United States, violently, as well as with their words.
Mitt Romney’s religious beliefs are absolutley no threat to the general population.
Therefore, his beliefs are between him and God.
Paul whines,
“Liberals do kiss up to radical Islam, because liberals do not wish to defend America, or Jews or Christians, from radical Islam.”
Why do you have a problem with this? If you believe religious views are off limits from criticism then you can’t criticize the views of those who you label as “radical Islam”. To even label them as radical is, in your opinion, bigoted. Why the hypocrisy?
“But the left wants to make fun of the religious clothing of a religion that has NOT advocated terrorism against the United States?”
Um?
Correct me if I am wrong.
Didn’t the Mormon church once declare war on the United States?
Maggot
“your right to swing your fist stops at my nose”
I do not worry about Mormons flying airplanes into buildings.
I DO worry about Moslems flying airplanes into buildings.
Big, big difference.
If the tenants of your faith urge violence towards the rest of society?
Then we have an obligation to confront you on those beliefs.
If your beliefs are private, and you can not get much more private than “underwear” — well, then It is pure bigotry to make fun of such a harmless belief.
“Didn’t the Mormon church once declare war on the United States?”
Yup. And Mitt Romney’s grandpappy was involved in the slaughter of Missourians traveling through Utah to get to California.
BJ
The Mormons were hunted down like animals, in many areas of the country.
Mormons certainly had faults of their own, every race of humans, every nation, has made mistakes.
However, we put those times behind us.
Are you saying you hold some kind of grudge, against Mormons, for things that might have happened even before Utah joined the Union?
Like I said on the air last week, McCain supporters have not only jumped the shark, they’ve thrown the gun as well!
“If your beliefs are private, and you can not get much more private than “underwear” — well, then It is pure bigotry to make fun of such a harmless belief.”
You still haven’t answered why some opinions should be off limits to criticism. Your rationale for not criticizing Christian religions (Islam apparently is perfectly acceptable for some illogical reason), is just the same as criticizing the Boston Red Sox for not being the greatest baseball team.
“Mormons certainly had faults of their own, every race of humans, every nation, has made mistakes.
However, we put those times behind us.”
How does that not apply to some Muslims who have mistakes. You are perfectly willing to judge a billion Muslims for the acts of a few. Why the hypocrisy?
On Barak’s chosen religion…
Islam and Black Liberation Theology
Barack Obama has closely aligned himself with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Black Liberation Theology (BLT). When viewed from the Christian point-of-view, BLT is a strange creed, but when seen from the standpoint of Islam, there is a very strong parallel.
Islam and BLT are theologies that have a political goal of making all politics submit to their demands. Submission is the political goal.
Islam and BLT are both based upon the principle of duality. The Koran divides up humanity into Muslims and the kafirs (unbelievers). BLT has a god that divides humanity into blacks and whites. But the duality is not the division, but a complete separation that is ethical, political, cultural and religious. The believer has nothing in common with the kafir/white. Allah loves the Muslim and a black god loves the blacks.
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/islam-and-black-liberation-theology/
“Are you saying you hold some kind of grudge, against Mormons, for things that might have happened even before Utah joined the Union?”
Not at all.
It’s just when I see you ram your foot down your throat I just can’t help pointing it out!
More on Barak’s chosen religion…
“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. ”
(Quoted in William R Jones, “Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology”, in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube.)
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010141.html
Does anyone wonder why Paul is making such a fuss since he still makes it a point to criticize the beliefs of Obama’s former pastor?
Let me just translate what Paul says, “Don’t criticize what I don’t want criticized but allow me to criticize whatever I want. If you criticize what I don’t like then you are a bigot, but I’m above bigotry so I can criticize whatever I like.”
Pine meadows massacre. and how Joesph Smith died their several theories one which is his own followers killed him and it wasn’t Atheists who persecuted Mormons but other Christians
“Pine meadows massacre. and how Joesph Smith died their several theories one which is his own followers killed him and it wasn’t Atheists who persecuted Mormons but other Christians”
Nonsense Tom. Paul already said Atheists are the most intolerant. Therefore Atheists were persecuting the same Atheists who slaughtered those people at Pine Meadows. To repeat established historical fact is bigotry so I’d advise you to rewrite history to point the finger at those who had nothing to do with the events.
I have a point, for nearly everything I do on this Blog.
My point on this thread?
All of you liberals have said that religion IS a valid subject to question, in politics and in humor.
So much for “Seperation of Church and State” — you hypocrites!
Hey, I think the Mormons are wrong, on several points.
I am not joining Romney’s church, I am saying that Romney’s political beliefs are very close to my own, and that his religious beliefs are absolutely no threat to me.
That is how our country is SUPPOSED to work!
Paul,
I’d hate to take you on in Twister.
I never knew you could contort yourself like that!
Atheists ARE the most intolerant people, today!
Intolerance, in the past, by any other political or religious group, does not justify the intolerance of atheists.
Also, as stated above, Obama’s religious associations HAVE been shown to be anti-American and radical.
Pastor Wright punched all of us in the nose.
So did Farrakhan!
One other point:
This thread oppened with the Eagle crying about how awful the Eagle thinks McCains advertising is, and the Eagle asking for McCain to stop the current line of attack.
The Democrats, on this Blog, respond by attacking Mitt Romney’s religious clothing?
More on Obama’s religion of choice…
“There is no denying, however, that a strand of radical black political theology influences Trinity. James Cone, the pioneer of black liberation theology, is a much-admired figure at Trinity. Cone told me that when he’s asked where his theology is institutionally embodied, he always mentions Trinity. Cone’s groundbreaking 1969 book Black Theology and Black Power announced: “The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people. . . . All white men are responsible for white oppression. . . . Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’. . . Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement.” Contending that the structures of a still-racist society need to be dismantled, Cone is impatient with claims that the race situation in America has improved. In a 2004 essay he wrote, “Black suffering is getting worse, not better. . . . White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it. It claims not to exist, even though black people are dying daily from its poison” (in Living Stones in the Household of God).
Wright agrees. When I asked him whether white Americans are right to maintain that the racial situation has improved since the days when Africentric Christianity was born, Wright pointed to the racist remarks by radio host Don Imus: “And you say things have improved?”
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/03/the-insanity-of-black-liberati.html
Yeah, but lets forget about Jackson dropping the ‘N’ bomb on Obama.
“So much for “Seperation of Church and State” — you hypocrites!”
I didn’t know my opinions designated new laws. I wonder what position I hold in office now. Call me Senator Maggot.
So ‘Magic underwear’ or racist hate. You decide.
Maggot
When a religious person makes a statement, on a social issue, on this Blog, we can all count on the radical atheist Democrats to cry “seperation of Church and State” —
What is good for the goose —
“Maggot
When a religious person makes a statement, on a social issue, on this Blog, we can all count on the radical atheist Democrats to cry “seperation of Church and State” —
What is good for the goose —”
I’ve never heard anyone state that. Care to provide an example or are you in lying mode again (switching from hypocrisy mode)?
Just shows where the old man’s thoughts are. Will your grandaugter be safe in a mccain presidency?
“Franklin
Posted August 13, 2008 at 10:44 am | Permalink
Ben
That “magic underwear” comment was beneath you.”
Perhaps. I probably should not have reacted in kind to “Little Barry” “Michelle-my-Belle” and the ever-popular “the Hildebeast”
However, I do tend to dish it back when the right dishes it out. As they say “what comes around goes around”
“Of course not — You are the greatest Moslem sympathizer on this Blog!”
I ’sympathize’ with my friends of many religions – various versions of Christianity (to which I am married BTW), Jewish, Islam, Hindu, Wicca, Buddhist, and none.
I think the Mormons call them undergarments not “magic underwear.” :D
Something that the adults wear after they do some ceremony or something or other. Was told once, but forgotten.
You are probably correct regular. They probably have a cleansing ceremony similar to those in Judaism and Islam.
For the record, it is called the “Temple Garment”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment_(Mormonism)
Glad that I do not have to wear it, but I respect anyone who tries to follow their true faith.
Ya know, I actually gave McCain the slightest tip o’ the hat for the silly Britney/Paris ad, as I thought it good to remind some folks that Obama’s charisma should not be the reason to vote for him, and more generally, the election should focus on issues, not fluff.
But it’s apparent now that McCain is only interested in focusing on fluff himself. The campaign is getting more Rovian by the day. Expect more symbolism (those are AMERICAN Harleys!) and less discussion of policy. Policy is a loser for McCain.
And for the unhinged nutcases ranting about black liberation theology and its supposed connection to politicized Islam yada yada yada, I would advise any perplexed observers to do their own independent research. Avoid suspect sources, such as political blogs with an obvious axe to grind.
Franklin says:
“Why not tell us how Obama first got into office by kicking all of the other candidates off the ballot, with legal challenges?”
If any of you members of the German Nationalist Party would like to learn more about telling half-truths, you couldn’t find a better teacher than one Paul F. Rosell.
The above statement is true. But ask yourselves, is Barack really a magic negro?… because, if he were able to have these opponents kicked off for commiting no wrong-doing, that would really be an act of magic.
See this fine source:
http://www.barackobamaforbeginners.com/
available on sale at your fine independent bookstore Watermark for more details on how and why Obama did what he did. I highly recommend this resource – I learned a lot I did not know about Obama.
If Obama is the magic negro, then mccain must be the great white hope.
Steven, they’re never going to buy that book. Here, folks, from the New Yorker:
When he returned home, he had more immediate problems. In December, 1995, the South Side coalition that he had cobbled together began to fall apart. Palmer’s congressional campaign was eclipsed by her Democratic-primary opponents—Jesse Jackson, Jr., who had star power, and Emil Jones, a longtime leader in the State Senate. Several weeks before the primary, a group of her supporters—mostly older black activists, not unlike those Obama had tangled with when he was running Project Vote—realized that Palmer was destined for defeat and summoned him to a meeting. The Chicago Defender reported that Obama was asked “to step aside like other African Americans have done in other races for the sake of unity and to release Palmer from her commitment”—so that she could reclaim her State Senate seat. Obama left the meeting noncommittal.
Palmer was soundly defeated by Jackson—she got only ten per cent of the vote—and there were more insistent demands that Obama withdraw. He refused, which angered Palmer and her husband, Buzz. Buzz Palmer was a founder of the Afro-American Patrolman’s League, a reform group within the Chicago police department, and the couple had many ties to the city’s black leadership. Palmer, announcing that she had been drafted back into the State Senate race, went from being Obama’s most important supporter to his chief challenger; the woman who had launched his political career now threatened to end it. “That’s Chicago politics,” Obama told a reporter—with a sigh, the account said.
The South Side political community was forced to choose. The Ackermans went with Palmer, the Dobrys with Obama. Emil Jones announced his support for Palmer. Alderman Preckwinkle stayed with Obama. “I had given him my word I would support him,” she told me. “Alice didn’t forgive me, and she’s never going to forgive me.”
. . . more . . .
But, almost as fast as the threat to his campaign appeared, Obama stamped it out. The Dobrys were surprised that Palmer had so quickly gathered the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot. They went to the Chicago board of elections and reviewed her petitions; as they suspected, they were filled with irregularities. One skill that the Independents had mastered in the years of fighting the first Mayor Daley was the machine’s tactic of challenging ballot petitions, and the Dobrys were experts at this Chicago ritual. Publicly, Obama was conciliatory about the awkward political situation, telling the Hyde Park Herald that he understood that some people were upset about the “conflict between old loyalties and new enthusiasms.” Privately, however, he unleashed his operators. With the help of the Dobrys, he was able to remove not just Palmer’s name from the ballot but the name of every other opponent as well. “He ran unopposed, which is a good way to win,” Mikva said, laughing at the recollection. And Palmer said last week, “Anyone who enters Chicago politics and can’t take the rough and tumble shouldn’t be there. Losing the seat was just that—not the end of the world.”
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=6
Nation deserves better than ‘hot chicks’ ad
As I think about it, why would we deserve better? Given our national character these days, it seems perfect.
Obama’s place on the democratic ticket tells us we care nothing about substance.
As long as the chicks are REALLY hot …
Obama has been running negative ads.
Simply ignoring them and only reporting on the ones McCain runs is getting pretty old EDITORS.
“visually linking Barack Obama to airheaded young white women in racially and sexually charged ways.”
I haven’t seen this dicussed. What in the world is meant by “racially” charged ways??
Franklin
Posted August 13, 2008 at 12:16 pm | Permalink
I have a point, for nearly everything I do on this Blog.
—
:lol:
Sure you do, Sparky.
Time for an “Old Chicks for Mccain” video. Are you listening editors?
Or, maybe “Old Chicks Gone Wild for Mccain”!
Better yet “cOLD Chicks Gone Wild for Mccain”
I’ve gotta million of ‘em!
“I’ve gotta million of ‘em!”
AH CHA CHA CHA! THAT’S MY BOY WHO DONE THAT!
If Hot Chicks support Obama do Ugly Chicks support McCain?
“TomPaine” –
Melanoma makes Republic Party chicks wet.
I just got back from the store, and saw my firs mccain 2008 sticker. I wouldn’t have noticed the sticker in the window except the old geezer driving in front of me couldn’t get the jeep past 30 mph in a 40 speed zone!
Mccain will talk dirty to them!
Sorry, but Obama is campaigning as the new Christ for America.
It is perfectly fine to bring people back to reason and clear thinking: The issues and experience count.
Not the theatrics of Obama swaying to a drunk crowd in Germany.
What does “Change” mean?
Do you libs KNOW yet?
Obama set up a trip to EU as a rock star.
McClaim has every right to pounce upon it.
Stop crying.
Fascinating that McCain continues making a point of using “The One” and the eagle insignia.
Perhaps the most puzzling scene in the ad is an altered segment from The 10 Commandments that appears near the end. A Moses-playing Charlton Heston parts the animated waters of the Red Sea, out of which rises the quasi-presidential seal the Obama campaign used for a brief time earlier this summer before being mocked into retiring it. The seal, which features an eagle with wings spread, is not recognizable like the campaign’s red-white-and-blue “O” logo. That confused Democratic consultant Eric Sapp until he went to his Bible and remembered that in the apocalyptic Book of Daniel, the Antichrist is described as rising from the sea as a creature with wings like an eagle.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1830590,00.html
Guess if you can’t shore up the end-times evangelicals any other way, then hint that the other guy is the Antichrist.
Just sayin’. I was actually somewhat skeptical of the Time article’s claim at first, but I’m not a big believer in coincidences of this magnitude.
Just sayin’.
Thanks, Rage.
Here ya go- ginyawine Mormon Magic Underwear. Buy it today and be protected!
http://www.cafepress.com/landoverbaptist.14757150