Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
libertyworld

The Word Is Authenticity

92 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

AztecInca

libertyworld and Guardsman Bass, please keep the discussion civil and constructive. Should you or any other member resort to personal attacks, name-calling or other offensive behaviour those responsible for such behaviour will be dealt with and the thread closed. It really is quite easy to post your own opinions and arguments in a civil manner. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cradle of Fish

We get it Libertyworld, you'll turn a blind eye to the evils of the candidate you want to vote for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
libertyworld
We get it Libertyworld, you'll turn a blind eye to the evils of the candidate you want to vote for.

"McCain has disappointed many a republican, (me included)..." (Libertyworld, though I'm actually an independent)

So it's wrong to support the ticket one believes will best represent ones concerns?

And one should join the chorus of those focusing on what's wrong with the ticket one supports?

And those supporting McCain / Palin turn more of a blind eye than those supporting Obama / Biden?

Seems quite the opposite to me, in the extreme.

The degree of blind eye turned from Obama / Biden by their supporters has been unprecedented.

As if a cult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler
"McCain has disappointed many a republican, (me included)..." (Libertyworld, though I'm actually an independent)

You're just an independent who votes for Republican tickets that disappoint you?

The first step is admitting you have a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
libertyworld
You're just an independent who votes for Republican tickets that disappoint you?

The first step is admitting you have a problem.

You read far too much into it.

Admitting someone has disappointed you at some time in the past does not necessarily mean you should vote for someone else.

Get real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aztec Warrior
You are so delusional. They're slimy politicians. Don't you get it. Not one of those four is a class act.

McCain is a hot-headed, rich senator who is using every smear tactic in the book to win the election.

Palin is a religious nut who jumped to power because of one man's pick and is now playing a helpless victim to get votes.

Obama is a another rich, elitest senator who is a great speaker and is easily manipulating the masses.

Biden is... not really a central issue... poor Biden...

:D We are all doomed. I going to brush up on my Russian now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustavo
He went to church twice a month so maybe he's telling the truth. Let's face it, the man has wanted to be president for years. He went to the church for political power in Chicago and as Giuliani pointed out last night, voted present on many different votes in the senate. He's been setting himself up to be president so I don't take his connections to Wright very seriously.

So for 20 years, twice a month, Obama sat in to listen to Wright and you are saying he is telling the truth with respect to not knowing Wright was a racist, America hater? Wow, now that is a stretch. Does that mean he didn’t have a clue about who Ayers was also? I believe he knew exactly who and what Wright is. Remember he is so smart. You can’t have it both ways, He is either a dolt who couldn’t even identify hate and racism or he is brilliant. I take his association with Wright as very serious. Just as I take his wife’s word that she has not been proud of her country until her husband ran for office. Her statement fits right in with 20 years of listening to Wright. Personally, one of the important qualifications to be president should be patriotism. Ayers is an America hater and so is Wright. Those who support such men are suspect as to their true allegiance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah
So for 20 years, twice a month, Obama sat in to listen to Wright and you are saying he is telling the truth with respect to not knowing Wright was a racist, America hater? Wow, now that is a stretch. Does that mean he didn’t have a clue about who Ayers was also? I believe he knew exactly who and what Wright is. Remember he is so smart. You can’t have it both ways, He is either a dolt who couldn’t even identify hate and racism or he is brilliant. I take his association with Wright as very serious. Just as I take his wife’s word that she has not been proud of her country until her husband ran for office. Her statement fits right in with 20 years of listening to Wright. Personally, one of the important qualifications to be president should be patriotism. Ayers is an America hater and so is Wright. Those who support such men are suspect as to their true allegiance.

If you're going to quote Sean Hannity you need to quote him as the source. But seriously, ignoring the staw man arguments you provided...

Based on his statement, we can conclude that he heard 480 of Wright's 960+ sermons. The clips that were played were taken from less than five sermons. Obama missed over 480 sermons. So mathematically speaking, is is highly probably that he did not see these sermons. Now, as I was saying before, he most likely attended that church for political reasons. So even if he did hear these sermons, there is a good chance he did not agree with them and stayed anyway for political ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
If you're going to quote Sean Hannity you need to quote him as the source. But seriously, ignoring the staw man arguments you provided...

Based on his statement, we can conclude that he heard 480 of Wright's 960+ sermons. The clips that were played were taken from less than five sermons. Obama missed over 480 sermons. So mathematically speaking, is is highly probably that he did not see these sermons. Now, as I was saying before, he most likely attended that church for political reasons. So even if he did hear these sermons, there is a good chance he did not agree with them and stayed anyway for political ends.

Did BHO register "present" in those sermons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustavo
If you're going to quote Sean Hannity you need to quote him as the source. But seriously, ignoring the staw man arguments you provided...

Based on his statement, we can conclude that he heard 480 of Wright's 960+ sermons. The clips that were played were taken from less than five sermons. Obama missed over 480 sermons. So mathematically speaking, is is highly probably that he did not see these sermons. Now, as I was saying before, he most likely attended that church for political reasons. So even if he did hear these sermons, there is a good chance he did not agree with them and stayed anyway for political ends.

I didn’t quote Sean Hannity. They were my thoughts. I guess great minds think alike. :) You are almost comical with your continued labeling of the actual facts as straw man arguments. Its ridiculous. Nothing personal but thats just silly. I brought up facts as reported by most news agencies, for or against Obama. Character counts to me when I’m voting. Are you so naive that you think that 480 sermons over 20 years wouldn’t reveal Wrights racism and America hate? You seriously think that the clips we have seen are the only instances of his racist America hate speak? Did Obama know that Farrakhan was a speaker there? Do you think Obama knows what Farrakhan is about? Please dont try your dishonest rationale with me. Making up your own data like he only went for political reasons. Where do you get off making that up and then presenting it as the closer for your argument. You gotta do better than that if you actually want to debate this. It’s a fact that Obama attended a racist, America hating church. It is all of our responsibility to use reason in our voting decisions, not made up facts like you are doing trying to paint a more palatable picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah
Did BHO register "present" in those sermons?

:clap: :clap: :clap:

If his voting present doesn't show you what kind of man he is, nothing will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah
I didn’t quote Sean Hannity. They were my thoughts. I guess great minds think alike. :)

I know you didn't. I said I wasn't being serious. Lighten up.

You are almost comical with your continued labeling of the actual facts as straw man arguments. Its ridiculous. Nothing personal but thats just silly.

The staw man argument you made that I referred to was,

Does that mean he didn’t have a clue about who Ayers was also?

I clearly didn't mention Ayers.

I brought up facts as reported by most news agencies, for or against Obama. Character counts to me when I’m voting. Are you so naive that you think that 480 sermons over 20 years wouldn’t reveal Wrights racism and America hate? You seriously think that the clips we have seen are the only instances of his racist America hate speak? Did Obama know that Farrakhan was a speaker there? Do you think Obama knows what Farrakhan is about? Please dont try your dishonest rationale with me. Making up your own data like he only went for political reasons. Where do you get off making that up and then presenting it as the closer for your argument. You gotta do better than that if you actually want to debate this. It’s a fact that Obama attended a racist, America hating church. It is all of our responsibility to use reason in our voting decisions, not made up facts like you are doing trying to paint a more palatable picture.

You are misrepresenting me. I don't support Barack Obama. I simply don't believe him to be a religious extremist. I believe him to be a power hungry manipulator who is willing to associate with religious extremists so he can achieve the power he so greatly desires. I believe you are misfocusing your attention, on his associations, rather than the things that are actually wrong with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
libertyworld
So even if he did hear these [about 500!?] sermons, there is a good chance he did not agree with them and stayed anyway for political ends.

If that is the case, then he is a phony, spineless worm in the extreme.

Such a prostituting of ones integrity, character, principles, self respect, manhood and very soul at the alter of expediency constitutes a scathing indictment of one fitness to be trusted with even the slightest access to elected office.

Nobody could attend about 500 seething rants disguised as sermons from such a hate mongering slave-master wacko as Wright and not know very clearly where said nutcase stood.

If, as BHO claims, he did attend for so long and still did not know where Wright stood, then he has what must be the poorest judgment ever evidenced in any such election in our history.

It has to be one of those two.

Either one could only come from the last person any sane country would support as a leader.

Either one more than earns these bitter ingrates a place on the ash heap of history in the eyes of real Americans.

...And gets them filed under "mental cases" in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah
If that is the case, then he is a phony, spineless worm in the extreme.

Such a prostituting of ones integrity, character, principles, self respect, manhood and very soul at the alter of expediency constitutes a scathing indictment of one fitness to be trusted with even the slightest access to elected office.

That's what politics has come to be about sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
libertyworld
That's what politics has come to be about sir.

So the Obama's are no worse than any others, is that it?

More of the usual moral equivalency card?

Speak for yourself...

I can only pity one who embraces such unbridled cynicism.

There are some good, adult people in this world and some of them are even in politics.

Neither McCain nor Palin would ever in a thousand years lower themselves to such a state of rank dishonor and moral poverty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler
Neither McCain nor Palin would ever in a thousand years lower themselves to such a state of rank dishonor and moral poverty.

You almost had me! It's tough to spot humor in online discussion forums, you should consider including one of those laughing emoticons after a statement like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah
So the Obama's are no worse than any others, is that it?

More of the usual moral equivalency card?

Speak for yourself...

I can only pity one who embraces such unbridled cynicism.

There are some good, adult people in this world and some of them are even in politics.

Neither McCain nor Palin would ever in a thousand years lower themselves to such a state of rank dishonor and moral poverty.

Sir, McCain has successfully deluded you.

There certainly are good people in politics. They simply never become president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustavo
I know you didn't. I said I wasn't being serious. Lighten up.

The staw man argument you made that I referred to was,

I clearly didn't mention Ayers.

You are misrepresenting me. I don't support Barack Obama. I simply don't believe him to be a religious extremist. I believe him to be a power hungry manipulator who is willing to associate with religious extremists so he can achieve the power he so greatly desires. I believe you are misfocusing your attention, on his associations, rather than the things that are actually wrong with him.

OK Ill lighten up... :) Actually this is fun and if I made it sound other than fun I appologize. To the point: His associations ARE one of the things that are wrong with him. My mention of Ayers absent your bringing him up doesnt qualify as strawman argument. I brought him up as corroborative of my position, not to misrepresent yours. Had I switched all my comments to be about Ayers, and somehow acted as though that is who you were talking about, you would have had a point. If we went with your pseudo description, ("I clearly didn't mention Ayers") I couldnt mention anything that you hadnt already mentioned and visa versa. ;) That would be dull wouldnt it.

Great post Libertyworld. Stinging and thoughtful. just the way I like em! :)

Edited by Gustavo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HKCavalier
Source?

Um, what would you call an adult who described sex acts to a 6 year old? I thought it was obvious what McCain was implying with his "sex ed for kindergartners" smear. I guess not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HKCavalier
Are those the same 20 years he was attending a church which subscribes to and preaches Black Liberation Theology? I wonder, since it seems, from what he's asking us to believe (that he never knew Pastor Wright was teaching this), if he must have somehow slept through all 20 years of sermons if he was actually awake during the times he was supposedly providing public service.

Look, y'know, this is seriously old news, but I guess y'all are actually getting a little desperate so you gotta dig. No one says Obama was not aware that he belonged to a Black Liberation Church. What he said was that he wasn't in church for the 4 sermons from which all the sound bites we heard on Youtube were taken. And, get this, he wasn't. ALL OF WHICH were sermons made soon after Sept. 11, 2001. The infamous "Not God bless America" sermon was given the very next Sunday after 9/11. Tempers ran high in those days, and people of every political stripe said crazy, hateful crap. One of my oldest friends was one of these "bomb Mecca and Medina, make the Mid East a glass parking lot" wackos for a few months--the horrific events of that day hit some of us harder than others.

Also, and this may be too humanistic for some of you, but Obama was raised by his white family almost exclusively. It makes perfect sense to me that he might join a very black church to, y'know, get in touch with that side of the American experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah
Um, what would you call an adult who described sex acts to a 6 year old? I thought it was obvious what McCain was implying with his "sex ed for kindergartners" smear. I guess not.

I didn't take it that way at all. I think the ad was attempting to paint Obama as anti-family. I didn't remotely see it as an attempt to portray him as promoting pedophilia and I don't think anyone else took it that way either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
libertyworld

S-trav and Blind-m...

Can you give us one example from McCain or Palin's past that comes anywhere near the Obamas' associations with so many hate filled sickos in the Finals of the Character Deficit, Moral Poverty and Dishonor Competition?

Never mind everything the rest of us have already heard because nothing there is even in the same league.

So unless you have something just discovered today and off the scale of moral depravity then maybe you should just do the old cut and run thing...

Neither bother giving us the tired old "no guilt by association allowed" defense because associations over time go directly to ones judgment and character, like it or not, they always have and they always will.

Few things in this world are as repulsive as those who associate over time with they who demonstrate such unmitigated hatred for one's beloved homeland and the welcoming openness and opportunity that is America.

Neither bother attempting a case against the fact that nowhere in the world or at any time in human history have blacks progressed further or faster than they have in the US because there just isn't one.

Few things in this world are as disgusting to sane and healthy adults as the perpetual-victimhood-mongering slave-master wannabes preaching their vile "Black Liberation Theology" poison after all the racial progress this country has made.

There has never been and never will be any escape from ones record of associations over time.

They are the true measure of ones character.

Were the Obama clan to make a complete and unconditional apology for and disavowal of their life record, then yes they would earn the right to be reconsidered as honorable adults 20-30 years from now, assuming they proved their words sincere between now and then.

Short of that, forget about it.

It's over.

...And the only hatred and racism that shares any significant blame for it is that so clearly demonstrated by the facts of their lives and the seething venom from their supporters, here and around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HKCavalier
I didn't take it that way at all. I think the ad was attempting to paint Obama as anti-family. I didn't remotely see it as an attempt to portray him as promoting pedophilia and I don't think anyone else took it that way either.

What? The ad says Obama wanted to teach "comprehensive" sex ed...to kindergartners! What is that other than adults describing sex acts to 6 year olds? And if you saw an adult describing sex to a 6 year old, what would you call it? I think that's why the Obama campaign described the ad as not only incorrect, but "disgusting." That's why I find it disgusting, because it implies that Obama wants to corrupt our children. I thought the ad was clearly designed to excite outrage and an urge to protect our children from the likes of Obama.

In what way is the ad saying Obama is "anti-family" if it's not implying that he wants to corrupt small children?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah
What? The ad says Obama wanted to teach "comprehensive" sex ed...to kindergartners! What is that other than adults describing sex acts to 6 year olds? And if you saw an adult describing sex to a 6 year old, what would you call it? I think that's why the Obama campaign described the ad as not only incorrect, but "disgusting." That's why I find it disgusting, because it implies that Obama wants to corrupt our children. I thought the ad was clearly designed to excite outrage and an urge to protect our children from the likes of Obama.

In what way is the ad saying Obama is "anti-family" if it's not implying that he wants to corrupt small children?

I do think it was saying he would corrupt small children. That isn't the same as adults having sex with children. He is simply playing into the social conservatives fear of the "liberal agenda to destroy the family."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HKCavalier
I do think it was saying he would corrupt small children. That isn't the same as adults having sex with children. He is simply playing into the social conservatives fear of the "liberal agenda to destroy the family."

Oh, I see. My definition of pedophilia is broader than yours, but I see your point. I didn't think the ad was suggesting that Obama was advocating sex acts either. But inappropriate talk can be just as damaging and confusing as inappropriate touching to a small child and can in some cases constitute abuse. I think the idea of any stranger talking to your small child about sex would be pretty worrisome to most parents and I think it is this perfectly understandable fear of pedophiles that this despicable ad was exploiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.