Religious fundamentalism in politics, or picking candidates because of Faith in God

[garage sale GT]

Whatever the right says about Obama, he grew past an islamic indoctrination which occurred to him at an early age. (While many claim he is still a Muslim because they think it will smear him, it is not widely questioned that he was one for some of his formative years.)

He learned to see through the promises.

In stark contrast to those I am about to describe, he learned that his Imams simply knew how to evocate wonderful feelings of a better life and a posthumous reward when they spoke of the practice of religion and of heaven (and I am not saying they promised something outlandish like 72 virgins).
In fact, he learned to evocate those same feelings of hope himself, as a public speaker and author, and use them to convince a bunch of saps to vote for him.

Haw, haw, haw, the rise of the fundamentalist Islamic-inspired religious left. They have Hope which surpasses all Evidence. Nice going, guys.

 

[slovakguy]

Originally Posted by garage sale GT .

Whatever the right says about Obama, he had an Islamic upbringing and learned to see through some of the promises. While many claim he is still a Muslim because it's supposed to be a smear, it is not widely questioned that he was one for most of his formative years.

He learned to see through the promises.

In stark contrast to those I am about to describe, he learned that his Imams were just evocating feelings of the hope of a wonderful reward when they spoke of heaven (and I am not saying they promised something outlandish like 72 virgins).

In fact, he learned to evocate those same feelings of hope himself, and use them to convince a bunch of saps to vote for him.

Haw, haw, haw, the rise of the fundamentalist Islamic-inspired religious left. They have Hope which surpasses all Evidence. Nice going, guys.

your logic is impeccable. this is the same thinking that is making the russian mob such charitable and wonderful people. because they were raised under the communist system and educated in soviet schools preaching marxist-leninist philosophy, the russian mob has jumped to the forefront of social progressiveness. do you espouse true christian values in your life or those of the diluted, grab as much for yourself christianity that holds sway in the religious right?

 

[jhuskey]

Just so everyone is clear about me , I am a sinner. No pretense just a low down, low life sinner.I tried being righteous but it was boring.

 

[garage sale GT]

Originally Posted by slovakguy .



Quote: your logic is impeccable. this is the same thinking that is making the russian mob such charitable and wonderful people. because they were raised under the communist system and educated in soviet schools preaching marxist-leninist philosophy, the russian mob has jumped to the forefront of social progressiveness. do you espouse true christian values in your life or those of the diluted, grab as much for yourself christianity that holds sway in the religious right?

Thanks for your contribution. Would you like to tell us how it's the same?

 

[slovakguy]

just hoping to point out to you that our upbringing, while an important component in what results as the grown person, is just a part and not always the determining factor. your point, from what i can glean from your twists and turns in assertions and evidence is that the president and those who voted for him are true believers in or those who were duped by an islamist religious left. while i find this new tack amusing since it combines so many of the fox news watching fears under a new heading (the radical fundamentalist islamic left--i believe you may have given the mujaheddin a chuckle), i can't wait to see how you prove through insinuation that marx, lenin and stalin were all behind the curtain, indoctrinating the young obama in indonesia where he attended that hotbed of radical fundamental islamic leftist teaching, the francis assisi school in jakarta! so now we know that his fundamental islamic radical socialist mindset has been perverted by yet another left wing, bomb throwing educational organisation, the franciscans!

sport, in fine, watch all the fox news and read all the new york posts you want, but remember this at least, you are the one being played by the right. ask yourself how all these facts about the president play upon american fears of the foreign, the different, the outsider. karl rove and lee atwater's disciples are the ones you should be wondering about.

 

[garage sale GT]

Originally Posted by slovakguy .

just hoping to point out to you that our upbringing, while an important component in what results as the grown person, is just a part and not always the determining factor. your point, from what i can glean from your twists and turns in assertions and evidence is that the president and those who voted for him are true believers in or those who were duped by an islamist religious left. while i find this new tack amusing since it combines so many of the fox news watching fears under a new heading (the radical fundamentalist islamic left--i believe you may have given the mujaheddin a chuckle), i can't wait to see how you prove through insinuation that marx, lenin and stalin were all behind the curtain, indoctrinating the young obama in indonesia where he attended that hotbed of radical fundamental islamic leftist teaching, the francis assisi school in jakarta! so now we know that his fundamental islamic radical socialist mindset has been perverted by yet another left wing, bomb throwing educational organisation, the franciscans!

sport, in fine, watch all the fox news and read all the new york posts you want, but remember this at least, you are the one being played by the right. ask yourself how all these facts about the president play upon american fears of the foreign, the different, the outsider. karl rove and lee atwater's disciples are the ones you should be wondering about.

No, no, no. Way off.

Let's say he had heard Lenin talk and cribbed his ability to rile up the masses. That's all that's being insinuated here, except that he may have cribbed from preachers rather than politicians. Note that the insinuation would work equally well regardless of his political leanings. Sport, indeed.

Tell me something, sport. Would you have felt all those warm fuzzies of "Hope&Change" if the left wing of the Democratic party had written you a brief describing what it wanted to do in 2009-2013, and Obama had just said he'd sign off on it just like he had voted along with his party while in the Senate?

 

[slovakguy]

you mean would i have been thirsting for change after the eight years of the bush-cheney attack on the constitution? yes.
after the eight years of revisionist american history the right wing has been pushing? yes, again.
after the eight years of right wing wailing concerning "activist" jurist while they cheer on the right wing nut job judges who legislate from those benches? yes.
and after all the many other instances of republican hypocrisy, yes.

i signed on for change. i signed on for hope that the international community would again see us as a nation of laws applicable even to those in the highest places of power instead of the epitome of cowboy diplomacy.

quite honestly, i signed on to obama-biden in the hope that the bush-cheney policies would be routed and that their actions while in office would be given a thorough examination and possibly prosecution. as it is i still hope that interpol detains either or both of them to stand trial for their actions. and, as both bush and cheney feel they've done nothing wrong (i,e., torture), they shouldn't fear a fair trial under international law, no? simply put, obama has been far too conciliatory for my taste.

am i disappointed in the performance of the present administration? most assuredly yes, but i will never want to return to the days of unbridled hypocrisy of the bush-cheney years. hell, they couldn't even admit that the worst terrorist attack in the history of this country occurred while they were in office. you, my friend may long for their leadership, but i won't.

 

[tonyzackery]

Originally Posted by slovakguy .

you mean would i have been thirsting for change after the eight years of the bush-cheney attack on the constitution? yes.
after the eight years of revisionist american history the right wing has been pushing? yes, again.
after the eight years of right wing wailing concerning "activist" jurist while they cheer on the right wing nut job judges who legislate from those benches? yes.
and after all the many other instances of republican hypocrisy, yes.

i signed on for change. i signed on for hope that the international community would again see us as a nation of laws applicable even to those in the highest places of power instead of the epitome of cowboy diplomacy.

quite honestly, i signed on to obama-biden in the hope that the bush-cheney policies would be routed and that their actions while in office would be given a thorough examination and possibly prosecution. as it is i still hope that interpol detains either or both of them to stand trial for their actions. and, as both bush and cheney feel they've done nothing wrong (i,e., torture), they shouldn't fear a fair trial under international law, no? simply put, obama has been far too conciliatory for my taste.

am i disappointed in the performance of the present administration? most assuredly yes, but i will never want to return to the days of unbridled hypocrisy of the bush-cheney years. hell, they couldn't even admit that the worst terrorist attack in the history of this country occurred while they were in office. you, my friend may long for their leadership, but i won't.

Well said.

Amazing how dull the memory can get...Fact is Obama only got into office because the ineptitude of his predecessor left the door wide open and the country open to a drastic change in ideology...

 

[garage sale GT]

Originally Posted by slovakguy .

i signed on for hope that the international community would again see us as a nation of laws applicable even to those in the highest places of power instead of the epitome of cowboy diplomacy.

"I signed on because I was totally unaware that UN resolution 678 left member states authorized to act on violations of UN 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions!"

 

[garage sale GT]

Originally Posted by tonyzackery .



Quote: Originally Posted by slovakguy .

you mean would i have been thirsting for change after the eight years of the bush-cheney attack on the constitution? yes.
after the eight years of revisionist american history the right wing has been pushing? yes, again.
after the eight years of right wing wailing concerning "activist" jurist while they cheer on the right wing nut job judges who legislate from those benches? yes.
and after all the many other instances of republican hypocrisy, yes.

i signed on for change. i signed on for hope that the international community would again see us as a nation of laws applicable even to those in the highest places of power instead of the epitome of cowboy diplomacy.

quite honestly, i signed on to obama-biden in the hope that the bush-cheney policies would be routed and that their actions while in office would be given a thorough examination and possibly prosecution. as it is i still hope that interpol detains either or both of them to stand trial for their actions. and, as both bush and cheney feel they've done nothing wrong (i,e., torture), they shouldn't fear a fair trial under international law, no? simply put, obama has been far too conciliatory for my taste.

am i disappointed in the performance of the present administration? most assuredly yes, but i will never want to return to the days of unbridled hypocrisy of the bush-cheney years. hell, they couldn't even admit that the worst terrorist attack in the history of this country occurred while they were in office. you, my friend may long for their leadership, but i won't.

Well said.

Amazing how dull the memory can get...Fact is Obama only got into office because the ineptitude of his predecessor left the door wide open and the country open to a drastic change in ideology...


First of all, I am surprised you guys are unaware that Bush didn't run again in 2008, even if you are unaware that the 22nd amendment said he couldn't. You should have noticed a lack of campaigning on his part because it would have been in the news./img/vbsmilies/smilies/redface.gif

Second of all, we had a democratic congress during many of the Bush years, and you elected a guy who had shown himself to want to just go along with them politically while he was in the Senate.

Third, why didn't you find someone with evidence of "eptitude"? Where is it now?

Fourth, if they couldn't admit about the terrorist attack, why did they attack the Al-Quaeda camps in Afghanistan?

What you did was sign on for a guy who would sign off on Reid and Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic left. And that's business as usual.

Which brings us back to my point: All this was obvious during the campaign. How did he get this magical glow of hope&change?

 

[slovakguy]

Originally Posted by garage sale GT .

First of all, I am surprised you guys are unaware that Bush didn't run again in 2008, even if you are unaware that the 22nd amendment said he couldn't. You should have noticed a lack of campaigning on his part because it would have been in the news./img/vbsmilies/smilies/redface.gif

Second of all, we had a democratic congress during many of the Bush years, and you elected a guy who had shown himself to want to just go along with them politically while he was in the Senate.

Third, why didn't you find someone with evidence of "eptitude"? Where is it now?

Fourth, if they couldn't admit about the terrorist attack, why did they attack the Al-Quaeda camps in Afghanistan?

What you did was sign on for a guy who would sign off on Reid and Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic left. And that's business as usual.

Which brings us back to my point: All this was obvious during the campaign. How did he get this magical glow of hope&change?

well put. but i am (and i would bet tony is as well) aware that bush-cheney could not run for a third term any more than reagan-bush or clinton-gore could. the republicans can pat themselves on the backs for that one. which brings us to the alternative the republicans did offer in that election--mccain-palin. and with that in mind, again, i'm more than happy that i can say "president obama and vice president biden". as for what we've seen of mccain lately, i really can't see you promoting him as much different than bush. which brings up this point...has mccain shown himself to be all mavericky lately? nope. just seems to be in lockstep with the right. as a matter of fact, in this last campaign he seems to have had to make himself even more right than the tea party mook who ran against him. such conviction senator mccain has shown. really stuck to his principles. and as for palin, well, you can keep her. give me a nudge when that woman actually has a position on any issue. and is willing to defend it in the presence of someone not wearing a "fox news" lapel pin. she is an intellectual coward. president obama is and has sat down and had discussion with those who criticise him most loudly.

as for the democratic party holding sway in the house and senate during the bush years...one party seems to want to move the country forward through co-operation and compromise so that all benefit from the riches this country has to offer regardless of party affiliation rather than have those benefits available only to the few, while the other major party seems to say "no." you go and figure out which is which. as for president obama just going along with him/them whoever it is you reference, not exactly a sin localised in him is it. and let's not neglect to notice that in his term so far, he has accomplished deeds which did not have unanimous consent in our party. he knows how to win a share for all. my dissatisfaction is in i believe he could lead us much farther to social equality than he has allowed himself to do so far.

quite frankly, your point 3 has me baffled. i have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. not the easiest task under the best circumstances with your posts, but that point is particularly obscure.

point four, all you have to do is reference what those who worked for bush-cheney and those figures themselves have said concerning the 11 sept attacks. they have minimised their responsibility for having dropped the ball as much as they can. donna perino (if i remember correctly) has said in an interview that the country was kept safe from terrorist attack during the bush administration. she said that with a straight face. no, seriously, a straight face. and these people ran the country. just reference my signature. the quote is an appreciation of bush's intelligence. and you folks who voted for him listened to him. so let's not get in on this who bamboozled the country when that **** had the supreme court give him the first election and then used alert level reds to get him elected the second term (not to mention all the voting machine errors in ohio). at least this election there was little suspicion of election shenanigans.

as for reid, pelosi and obama and their concerted efforts at changing the country... are you serious? you are talking about the democratic party. we agree on nothing in our party. to quote will rogers, "i am a member of no organised party--i'm a democrat."

which brings us to your last point...yes, it's politics as usual. the magical glow of hope and change came about because bush-cheney drove the economy in the ditch and we, as a country, wanted to earn our livings. so, in fine, take your clap trap socialist slams and stuff them until you can actually point to a concrete fact. all you are doing is employing crypto-racism wrapped up in the cloak of a socialist charge and hoping that there others willing to listen to your baseless assertions. which brings us back to your original silliness about how he is a secret islamo-fundamentalist-socialist alien.