RSS
Barack Obama: Racist?
Obama disses Clarence Thomas. He wouldn't have nominated him and strongly implies he's not as smart as his white conservative colleagues.
Obama, who is half-white, is letting his racist DNA (he must've gotten it from his racist grandmother) get the best of him.
UPDATE: Nevertheless, Nancy "I'm Saving the Planet" Pelosi sees Obama as a "leader God has blessed us with at this time."
The Obamessiah has returned.
Obama, who is half-white, is letting his racist DNA (he must've gotten it from his racist grandmother) get the best of him.
UPDATE: Nevertheless, Nancy "I'm Saving the Planet" Pelosi sees Obama as a "leader God has blessed us with at this time."
The Obamessiah has returned.
posted by Spencerblog at
7:33 AM
111 Comments:
Obama never mentioned anything about race, it was implied by some hack at the WSJ editorial board.
Had Obama praised Thomas and dissed Roberts or Alito, the same hack would have said Obama stands by the Brothers.
And of course, Hannity-lite AKA Spencer, parrots this like a good little soldier.
This post has been removed by the author.
So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.
Hahaha! Love it!
This is just silly. Another trip into the spin zone. A post like this is just another attempt to insert race into the election. Fortunatly I've noticed that there are only half a dozen regulars on Spencerblog, and we all seem to have strong opinions, so I don't think any of the participants will be swayed by this weak accusation. As for your readers, who knows.
OK, the title was silly, but what was wrong with Bork?
Also, why were democrats so furious about a solid conservative black man in line for the seat?
Make no mistake about it, blacks in this country hate Clarence Thomas, when they should be looking up to him. In fact, years ago when he stated that he grew up poor and picked himself up by his bootstraps all of the black race hustlers in this country lambasted him. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that Hussein would take a shot at Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas has an intellect that is far superior to Hussein. The real problem Hussein has with Justice Thomas is that the black community never felt that Justice Thomas was down for the struggle.
Hussein keeps making these stupid statements and he continues to have supporters. Like Rush says, ignorance is our most expensive commodity - it is true.
Diano: Hussein says he profoundly disagrees with Justice Thomas' interpretation of the Constitution. I am sure that you do too. So my challenge to you is to state how you disagree with his ability to interpret what our founding fathers set forth in the Constitution. Don't name call or belittle, just stay on point and enage in an intellectual discussion.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
Mayor C. Scott,
Based upon arguements in previous posts, I think types like Diano feel that a modern constitution would be more effective. Either that or a bevy of amendments. Scary. (And I am omitting the marriage amendment which doesn't have a place in our constitution)
Justice Thomas is strictly interpreting our constitution, not utilizing foreign documents or legislating from the bench. Isn't that, after all, what we want?
Indeed B. Hussein Obama with what he said was winking at his fellow black militants in the “Thomas is a house n*****” crowd. He’s simply just not militant Angry Black enough for them. They see his butt as wasted in that seat.
Don't expect an honest answer from Dishonest Dave, Mr. S.
About the Supreme Court’s role, Libs disagree with us at the most profound level. They see the SC not merely as an interpreting body as it was intended but as the ultimate weapon to misuse and abuse to inflict their agenda on a resistant America. They WANT ideology to reign the Supremes, only, they want it to be only their Leftie ideology.
So once again we see that the battle is not a simple difference of opinion between the Right and Left but rather a battle between Right honesty and respect for protocol and Lib dishonesty and underhandedness. As usual.
Steve, you are right on. The libs want a modern living breathing constitution, not the original intent. They also, since Lawrence v. Texas, have been reaching across the pond for foreign precedent. However they are not looking to all of the precedent out there, like sharia law. It is the surrender of our sovereignty which is at stake here, especially when the only precedent that really matters is Roe v. Wade. Everything else is open for change inthe Supreme Court. All we need is one more conservative strict constructionist to stop this run away train.
Pro Christ Pro Gun said...
"The libs want a modern living breathing constitution, not the original intent."
Article 5 specifically refers to amendments to the Constitution. Amendments ensure that our Constitution can be modified as we evolve as a nation.
By your reasoning, we should never have added the 13th or the 19th Amendments.
And you call yourself a lawyer?
son of anon, why attack shields? others on this blog have noted that it's an "old document" hinting that a replacement is needed. Shields is not among them.
Son of Anon:
I should call you not so braveheart as you sit safely and anonymously behind your computer keyboard. The original intent of the founding fathers allowed for the Constitution to be amended, which it has over time. However, the libs on the Supreme Court circumvent that tedious, lengthy and almost impossible amendment process by doing it from the bench. There are many instances where the Court has created constitutional rights that are not enumerated, and there are many times that the court eliminated and/or curtailed rights that are enumerated.
So for instance, not so braveheart, my right to keep and beear arms is clearly enumerated in the federal constitution, and it should only be eliminated by passing an amendment. However, in the Heller decision we were one vote away from the Court saying it wasn't an individual right at all. All 4 of the most liberal justices said that it is not an individual right (shocking). The same can be said for free speech, you are only one vote away from the Supreme Court stating that you don't have a right to speak on matters that arouse anger in or offend people.
So yes, to answer your questions, I am a lawyer, and I will smoke your sorry ass on a debate about this or any other issue.
Lastly, not so braveheart, Hussein said it was above his pay grade to state when life should be protected. My question to you is, does life begin at conception and should the embryo be given human rights (like the embryo receives in Italy)? (Hint: you were once an embryo).
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
Like all amateur Libs, SoA has been programmed to blindly attack any and all Righties without thinking.
Good response Mayor. I am no gun enthusiast nor do I ever see myself becoming one, but the right to bear arms is a pretty clear statement - I don't see how four justices don't see what a simpleton like myself does. Legislating from the bench is a scary thought as we have little to no input in their decisions yet our lives would be altered as a result of their 'opinions'.
Strict interpretation, please!!!
Steve:
You are right, you have no input with the Supremes. Even scarier is that they are appointed for life and are not accountable to the electorate. They can only be impeached.
Scott
Diano:
How was Bork not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice? Try putting your blind partisanship aside for a moment and give me specifics. Personally, I think Bork was scuttled because of Ted Kennedy and Borks connection to the firing of Archibald Cox.
I am always amazed at how the dems will do everything in their power to scuttle the Supreme Court nominations of a president, and that the republicans do very little.
Scott
This post has been removed by the author.
Diano:
Bork was not confirmed because Archibald Cox was a friend of the Kennedys. He was hugely qualified. Also, the ABA is a joke of an organization too! What made Ginsburg qualified? Was it her ACLU position, or that she wanted to lower the age of consent for a female to 12? Even you have to admit she was way left.
As for Thomas, name one case where he authored an opinion and got it wrong. In fact, you probably cant do that so just name one decision he joined in and state clearly why he was wrong. Now I know that this will require a little thought, but I know you are up for the challenge.
(who will abandon his principles for his ideological beliefs at the drop of a hat)
LMAO! Dishonest Daves knows about this!
This post has been removed by the author.
spencerblog,
considering some of the posts here and threads you start and your tolerance of intolerance, i think
Spencerblog: Racist?
or
r: Racist?
would be better supported than trying to paint obama's criticism as racist.
Thomas was wrong in voting against the Gitmo detainees challenging their detentions in court.
Umm, no, DDD. The Lib Supremes were wrong for grants rights reserved for U.S. citizens to our non-citizen enemies so they can use our own laws and courts to their benefit and against us.
C. Scott
What do you expect to accomplish by your constant referal to Obama as Hussein? It only results in making you look childish and petty.
Bob:
Perhaps I look childish and petty to people that are childish and petty by using his name, Hussein. What is wrong with calling him by his name?
I know that political correctness abhors the use of his name so maybe we should stop being politically correct, and use a more suitable substitute that we can call honesty. What do you think?
Scott
C. Scott
Well, thats exactly my point. Subliminal suggestion. When you refer to Obama as Hussein, you are hoping others will make a mental connection between Obama and Saddam Hussein. I consider that dishonest. If you honestly believe his middle name should be a campaign issue, not only is it childish and petty, but it's stupid.
Bob:
I call him Hussein because that is his name. I am not making this up, and that is my point. You can characterize it any way you want and draw whatever inferences you want, but the TRUTH is that his name is Hussein. Got it?
If George Bush's middle name was Adolph do you think it would have ever been an issue? Hmmmmmmm... Be honest.
Scott
This post has been removed by the author.
scott,
if bush's middle name was adolph, you'd be the one complaining that it was dirty politics. that is some TRUTH for to you to swallow.
C. Scott
Do you really believe anyone is going to buy your reason for calling Obama by his middle name? You know damn well that you are trying to convince people that his middle name associates him with Saddam and terrorists. This is a dishonest practice, and you are a dishonest person for trying to pass this off as anything else.
From now on, I expect you to refer to McCane as SIDNEY. I'm disapointed. I expected more from someone who puts the tag "ESQ" at the end of his name.
Diano:
I have tried my best to be civilized with you and to refrain from name calling or other unpleasantries. I was thinking that you were a smart guy and that you could engage in dialogue in a more civil manner. Was I wrong?
My first name is Carter.
Diano, if Pres Bush or VP Cheyney had the middle name of Adolph, would the use of their names have been ruled off limits?
Scott
This post has been removed by the author.
Obama’s name is a legitimate issue. He himself admits to changing from using “Barry” most of his life to using “Barrack” in order to more identify with his Muslim side.
Funny how Libs are fine with electing an unknown with terrorist ties and they will defend him and attack any who dare offer reasonable question about him. Talk about dishonest blind partisanship… His name could be Barrack Kill All Americans Obama and these same blind LibDem sheep would be telling us to ignore it, that it’s just nonsense and meaningless.
In these times of war with Islam/ Muslims, do we really want a guy named Barrack Hussein Obama (Osama?) as our president? I say not.
Anonymous and Bob:
I could care less about what someone's middle name is and if Pres Bush's middle name was Adolph I would not be doing what the dems are doing to hide that fact or to shout people down who refuse to stop using their real name. When it comes to Hussein, he is off limits to any criticism, and only because of political correctness. Both of you must have been shocked when Biden referred to him as a clean well spoken black guy. What a double standard.
Scott
This post has been removed by the author.
scott (or rather carter),
if bush's middle name was adolph, you would not be calling him adolph. obama does not go by his middle name like you do. calling him that makes you sound like a bigot.
does the h in jesus h christ stand for hussein? :-)
either start acting like christ or please stop insulting real christians by claiming you are "pro-christ" and then making these divisive insults.
Carter
No, I'm afraid that it is you who has the double standard. Why is it that you don't constantly refer to McCane as Sidney? Obama has never tried to hide his middle name. You are dishonestly focusing on his middle name to convince people that Obama is an evil person. And it's worked! Just read RR's post. Dumb and Dumber!
Man, the Libs today are really grasping... and piling on... and childish...
Anon:
What is your name? Are you afraid to share your identity? How is it being un Christ like to refer to Obama as Hussein Obama? I am not telling a lie. As you would suggest it is not politically correct to use his middle name. I know that you are "offended" because you just played your PC "bigot" card. Well, I am not a bigot, and I will fight you to the end on the evil of political correctness and people like you that use it as a sword.
Come out from hiding and tell everyone who you are.
Scott
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Before all the defensive Lib PC BS of today, what do you suppose the likelihood would have been of our electing a president with the name of “Hitler” during WWII?
Diano:
Hussein is no more a god fearing christian than you are. I can't help but think and know that supporting the killing of the unborn will be dealt with by God on your judgment day. As hard as I try to help you understand that life means something, you continue to ignore. God will give me bonus points for trying to reach out to you and he will put you and Hussein on the same elevator down.
Wake up and be as passionate about the sancity of life as you are about you progressive ideologies.
Scott
Carter - Gil just recently started calling me Robert. Don't know why, but I'm fine with that. But I know that Gil prefers Gil to Gilbert, and I respect that. You obviously prefer Scott to Carter, and I'm sure you would appreciate people respecting that. McCane prefers to be called John, not Sidney. Who can blame him. I haven't heard any of Obama's people calling him Sidney. Obama prefers to be called Barack as opposed to Hussein. You should respect that. To pretend that your reason for calling him Hussein is legitimate is an obvious lie.
BTW, wre you named after Jimmy Carter? If so, you should be proud of that name.
What's the S stand for in David S. Diano? Stooge?
Boring Bob, you sound like a whiny little girl. Seriously. Let it go.
Carter
You should become Catholic. That way you can buy Gods bonus points.
Or he could become a dumb Lib and buy “carbon credits” from Algore!
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Oh brotha...
Bob:
But Hussein is his name. I bet that if you and your ilk started calling John McCain Sydney you would not be shouted down and called names. Same goes for me. I could care less if you call me Carter (a family name not associated with Hussein's first term as president - The Carter years).
Diano:
Hi Mr. Former Embryo, Hussein has no clearly established faith. Proclaiming you are a Christian does not make you a Christian. You have to accept Christ as your Savior. I have never heard Hussein say that. As for others that are born again, great! You should try it.
What makes you think that I am imposing my beliefs on you. I have never asked that Christianity be imposed on anyone, but I will share with you and others the good news. There is a difference but you don't see that. Christ was concerned about the poor, but not to the exclusion of everything else. I suggest that you read some of the best selling systematic theology books written by Dr. Wayne Grudem (I was in Rome with him participating in a conference on this very issue).
Funny thing for you though, and I understand where you are coming from and I understand your views. You don't believe there is a God or that Jesus died for our sins. I am sad for you that you don't know the TRUTH and that you continue to support of the worldview, which includes killing the unborn, promoting homosexuality, and denying any accountability to God for our actions here on earth.
Start paying attention before it is too late. You too can be saved.
Scott
Maybe it’s too late for Dishonest Dave?
Wouldn’t it be cool to see God smite him and watch Dave cry like a cowering little girl begging forgiveness like he was in a boxing ring with you, Mr. S?! Lol…
R:
Dave will get what is coming to him - for sure. I don't box, but I would love to play ice hockey with him if he is on the other team. He wouldn't be able to run and hide from me.
Scott
"God will give me bonus points for trying to reach out to you and he will put you and Hussein on the same elevator down."
"You too can be saved."
Wow, someone is off his meds and way up on the pulpit.
Tell me Carter, what is your opinion of the self proclaimed Rev. Phelps?
Dave
RR said "Wouldn’t it be cool to see God smite him and watch Dave cry like a cowering little girl begging forgiveness like he was in a boxing ring with you, Mr. S?! Lol" WOW. Do I detect RR worshiping a false idol? Beautiful!
Hi Anon:
Is Anonymous your name, or should I refer to you as "Im only tough when I am Anonymous" or can I call you "Former Embryo"? Why hide your identity?
I don't take meds and I am not on a pulpit. If you believe in God then you would know what I am saying.
As for Fred Phelps (I am assuming you are not referring to Michael Phelps), I know of him, and I have seen him in action. I don't agree with his methods, but I do agree that he has a first amendment right to engage in his activities.
Scott
Carter
If god created everything, then didnt he also create homosexuals?
If I'm born again will I get twice as many birthday presents?
The good news? That god and guns are a great mix?
Stop dancin Carter, and start answering.
Yes, Mr. S, answer Boring Bob's third grade questions!
Lol...
If god created everything, then didnt he also create homosexuals?
God did not create homosexuals! There is biblical and natural proof of this. Biblically, read Leviticus, Romans, Timothy, etc... Naturally, the proof is that homosexuals don't reproduce so they don't pass there "homosexual" genes to offspring. Even Darwin says they will die off.
If I'm born again will I get twice as many birthday presents?
If you are born again you don't get twice as many presents, but you do gain salvation. Having a relationship with your Saviour is better than birthday presents.
The good news? That god and guns are a great mix?
God and guns is a great mix!
Stop dancin Carter, and start answering.
Are you satisfied Bobby????
Scott
PS - who are you?
Actually, Obama being such a strong Christian gives me pause, considering the disaster a religious nut like Bush has been. But, Obama is from the branch of Christian faith that wants to emulate Christ's work and help the sick and the poor, so I'll give him a pass.
That may be the line of the day. Strong Christian? I guess it takes one not not for "God Bless America, but GOD DAMN America!!!" Emulate Christ's work indeed!!! And abort them babies!!!
Carter
Who am I? I'm the guy that was lucky enough to have parents that knew how to name a kid. Bob, Bobby, Rob, Robert. I get all four. I like em all. Middle name is good too. Daniel, Dan.
I really do enjoy having this back and forth with you, but your excuse for the use of Obamas middle name was pretty weak and pathetic. Why can't you just admit your real motives? When you campaigned for Mayor, did you make fun of your opponents name? Did he insist on calling you Carter? When you make Obamas middle name a campaign issue, you are participating in the dumbing down of the political process. You are redirecting attention from the real issues.
This is not something to be proud of Carter.
Lastly, why does it matter to you who I am?
C Scott Esq,
The founders created Article V in order for the Contitution to evolve, thus making it a living document. Thus as the document evolves, it becomes more modern and in step with the times. You specifically stated that was not the intent, thus you are wrong.
McDonald, perhaps we shoud replace the Constitition with something more agreeable to the likes of you, RR, and C Scott Esq. How about "The Turner Diaries"? You, RR and C Scott can get together for a slumber party and debate the merits of this book, it's probably your type of reading material.
C Scott Esq, you can call me Roy, you know, "Yipee, Ki, Ay, and all that...
This post has been removed by the author.
Good catch, S, calling DDD on his anointing of Obama as the New Black Christ!
I really think Dave is losing it! Lol…
Sure, JC was a Lib, but he was the old fashioned true do-gooder kind of Lib that bears no resemblance to the Libs of today. There is NOTHING Christ-like about Modern Liberalism.
I find it incredibly funny how Lying Libs try to lay claim to Christ much as they grasp to lay claim to our Founding Fathers who were all unquestionably Righties. Lib grasping for historical validation is funny!
Boring Bob doesn’t matter. And I can’t believe he’s still weeping about calling Obama by his middle name, considering all the things, much of it shrill, baseless and underhanded, he and the Left have said about the President of the United States for years now.
Are you sure you’re not really a weepy schoolgirl, BB?
I'm a weepy schoolgirl myself and since it takes one to know one, I know what I am talking about.
Anon:
Amending the Constitution is a far cry from allowing the Supreme Court to expand or restrict constitutional rights through judicial fiat. I would be happy to debate you on this issue.
Scott
Anon:
Speaking of amending the Constitution, since you point to Art. V, an the amendment process as the way that the Constitution is a living breathing document, does that also mean that you are against Roe v. Wade, which made abortion a constitutional right? Why did the pro abortion people not go through the amendment process to make abortion, through amendment, a constitutional right? Since the Court circumvented the process laid out in Art. V. in creating the right to abortion, does that make the amendment process superfluous? If yes, aren't you concerned that the Court may outlaw gun ownership or free speech without corresponding repealing amendments?
Scott
randal, the line had me laughing all night - "gives me pause" from someone who's been openly critical of those of us who believe in God. diano's soundling more and more like he'll be anyone's whore at the right price. And while I never got into C. Scott's/Bob's Jesus & handguns debate, I seriously doubt Jesus would have been there with a coat hanger during the Roe v. Wade massacre. diano, we've seen enough of wright's sermons on YouTube to know what kind of Religion Obama has there - we also know that "morals" was found to be a big deciding factor in 2004 that allowed a Texas Yokul to defeat a Mass. 'catholic' who openly shunned his religion for the dear old democratic party. Of course they're trying to insert religion wherever they can in their speeches, they need to for votes and the more moral, religious side has sided Republican!
Would it give you pause if I mention Jesus in every post? Mayor C. Scott, be sure to do that as well!
anon, I don't get your comment about changing the constitution, why change it? I'm not arguing for throwing out the existing for a new nor am I arguing for a boatload of massive edits. I think you may want to look in another direction here.
As expected, a dishonest Lib whose fragile feelings got hurt has impostered me here.
I can’t tell you how many times this has happened on various boards I’ve been on. Libs are so predictable, they all follow the same dishonest childish hurt feelings path.
Why don’t you stick to being Boring Bob? Oh, and stop stabbing your brave soldier son in the back too, you whiny little nothing. Lol…
I seriously doubt Jesus would have been there with a coat hanger during the Roe v. Wade massacre.
LMAO! S! I nominate this for Line of the Day!
Hey, Mr. S, how about the Pa LibDems calling for a constitutional convention and then turning around and trying to limit its scope by declaring some Lib things precious to them as being off limits. Libs are so slimy.
Anon:
Oh so brave one, where are you?
Randal:
Lib dems want what they want in terms of constitutional conventions and legislation, they demand that republicans capitulate to their demands, yet they do not compromise at all. Then, when they don't get their way, they start crying and name calling.
Scott
So true, Mr. S. I hate how the Right always takes the high road while letting the Filthy Ones get away with their crap. The LibDems regularly lie and misrepresent but they rarely get called on it. This is a big part of why we have lost the power we enjoyed there for awhile. Sometimes ya gotta sink to your enemy’s level. Or at the very least get more plainspoken and make noise every time the LibDems get to playing their dishonest games, much as I do to Dishonest Dave here. The Right needs to pick things up.
Spencerblog - RR is accusing me of posting under his handle to make him look foolish. All I can tell you is that RR does a fine job of doing that all by himself. Theres never any need for me to do it.
And you're sure you're not a woman, BB?
This post has been removed by the author.
C. Scott
Seeing as how the abortion issue is a top priority for you, how do you square away your support for McCane? A McCain quote from 1999-"But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
I also remember hearing McCain on more than one occasion stating that he would like to make exceptions for rape, of the mothers health. And I watched him express support of gay civil unions on Mathews one night, and then he tried to retract his statement after being chastised by his campaign manager during the station break. Do you really trust this man, or are you supporting him simply because he's a Republican?
Also, I don't know if you have a daughter, but if did, and that daughter was raped, would you insist on her giving birth to that child? Or what if the doctor told her that there was a good chance of her dying during the birthing process?
More blatant untruths and complete fabrications from Dishonest Dave.
Jeez, DDD, if I hurt your feelings so much that it causes you to resort to this sort of thing in a petty effort to sully me, you really are obsessed and should seek help for that.
This post has been removed by the author.
carter,
For the record, I dig dudes.
Diano the Dope:
Anonymous posts are the real problem because they are almost always attacks on conservative truth. People like "R" speak the truth, your problem is that you are too juvenile and indoctrinated to understand.
Scott
Bob:
I do not support McCain, and unfortunately, he is the only defense we have to the radical leftist ideology of Hussein.
I have 3 daughters and I will always support the life of a baby. If my daughter is ever raped I will not punish the life that is created, and if her health was at risk I would have to deal with that fact. Rape and health of a mother is an excuse for the libs to appear to want to cut down on abortions. The fact of the matter though is that rape rarely ever produces a baby, and a woman's health is rarely ever at risk as a result of a pregnancy.
Scott
Anon:
Oh so brave one, where are you?
I do have a job, don't have the luxury of sitting in a nice office posting on blogs all day.
As far as "debating" someone like you is concerned. I find it useless to engage with someone that believes..
1. The Holy Bible should be taken literally, word for word and is the absolute final source when it comes to religion or science.
2. Probably believes there were Velociraptors living in harmony with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden until that unfortunate incident with an apple.
3. Thinks the story of Noah and the Ark actually took place, and that there were dinosaurs on board to boot.
4. Thinks that just because you proclaim to the world that you have accepted Jesus as your Savior, you are entitled a ticket into Heaven. Sounds pretty arrogant to me.
5. Actually thinks that RR speaks the truth on any subject other than the amount of vile crap his mouth (or keyboard) is capable of. Does he have that right? Yeah, but he also deserves to be challenged on it, so stop with the "Libs wnat ot curtail free speech" mantra.
And yet the Dishonest Daves see nothing wrong with forcing doctors against their will and under threat to perform procedures with which they may not agree. So much for religious freedom…
Is Roy Anon:
I belive in God and that Christ is my Saviour. Period. I also believe in the Bible and creationism.
As for science, I belive that God gave us the ability to explore, think and reason in an effort for us to maximize our potential as beings created in God's likeness0.
Your issue is that you don't belive in God so you don't understand. Sort of like why I don't understand why you don't belive in God. The difference is I don't name call people like you because you don't have the same belief system as me.
Scott
R:
More so than religious freedom, what about freedom of conscience on religious or secular grounds. How would Diano like to be forced to do somethin against his conscience? For example, if Diano was a printer and he was forced to print literature that states that homosexualtiy is sin. Would the same rules apply to him if he refused on conscience grounds?
Scott
That's because the God folks are better people than the filthy godless Libs.
I would expect the Medical community to be up in arms about being forced to perform procedures under threat of retaliation by Lib legislators forcing their ideology on others. But then, many in that community are pro-baby killing Libs themselves so we don’t hear much from them about this injustice.
This post has been removed by the author.
C. Scott
You said "If my daughter is ever raped I will not punish the life that is created, and if her health was at risk I would have to deal with that fact.". Im still trying to understand your take on this. This answer is rather vague. So correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying that if your daughter was raped, you would insist that she go through with the pregnancy, but if your daughters life was at risk, you would consider letting her abort?
This post has been removed by the author.
Bob:
If a woman is raped and it produces a baby I would not support aborting that baby, as it is a life. If my daughter were having a child and there was a medical emergency where the birth would jeapordize her life I would have to weigh all of the info at that time.
Scott
C Scott Said
"Your issue is that you don't belive in God so you don't understand. Sort of like why I don't understand why you don't belive in God. The difference is I don't name call people like you because you don't have the same belief system as me."
Well first of all, I never said I did not believe in God, but given the way people who say they are "Christian" but act opposite, it tends to cast doubt on the whole concept. There are a lot of religions in the world, all claiming to be the one true way to salvation. Everyone can't be right, but everyone can be wrong.
Second, since I don't believe the same as you means you won't call me names? Does that mean if we thought the same way, you would be calling me names? BTW, I never called you any names.
Ray Bob:
The name calling is a reference to Diano.
There are many religions out there but there is only one way to God, and that is through Christ. That is what I believe in.
Islam, hinduism, judaism, buddhism, etc... are all wrong according to what I believe. Please don't take that the wrong way either, I just pray that they begin to see and believe in what I believe in. By the way, all religions other than Christianity think I am wrong. I am willing to take that chance.
Pro Christ Pro Gun said...
Ray Bob:
The name calling is a reference to Diano.
There are many religions out there but there is only one way to God, and that is through Christ. That is what I believe in.
Islam, hinduism, judaism, buddhism, etc... are all wrong according to what I believe. Please don't take that the wrong way either, I just pray that they begin to see and believe in what I believe in. By the way, all religions other than Christianity think I am wrong. I am willing to take that chance.
Typo'd the vowel, sorry.
I'm not going to pass judgement on anyone's religious beliefs, they are yours to follow, as it should be as desired by the founding fathers in the first amendment, and the often forgotten, especially today, Article VI.
BTW, you said you were willing to that that chance that your faith was the right one. Stating that you would "take a chance" could be perceived as having some doubt, but then again you have your faith, right? Nothing wrong with that.
As for me, I've seen too many crooked, rotten, morally bankrupt acts committed by those who claim to be "wholesome" because of their faith, not to be specific as to which one. My view is one of skepticism, which, according to the founding fathers, is my right.
C. Scott
You realize of course, that had you been born in Saudi Arabia, you would probably be Sunni. If in Israel, Jewish, or in India, Hindu.
You were born into a Christian family, possibly Catholic? That should give you even more respect for Obama. He was born into a Muslim family, but he chose Christianity.
As for the abortion issue, I think it would be cruel and unusual to make a rape victim carry a baby full term if they chose not to, and I detect some hesitation in your answer when it comes to a choice between the life of the mother or the baby. Having three daughters, do you really want
legislation dictating what your daughters can and cannot do if confronted by either of those situations? And doesn't that go against the conservative line of having less government in our lives? Either way, I hope your daughters never have to deal with either issue.
This post has been removed by the author.
I don't have a middle name. Well I do have a Catholic Confirmation name of Anthony.
P.s. All the serial killers in the world seem to all have middle names. John "Wayne" Gacy,Henry "Lee" Lucas,The "Uni" Bomber,The "Boston" Strangler, Jack "The" Ripper, the list goes on and on!
Jack "The" Ripper
Lol...
If Dave were born a Muslim he would be a female suicide bomber. And he would hate America and Bush and Christianity... he's already half way there!
So he’s doing all he can to get a Muslim into the White House this Novemeber.
This post has been removed by the author.
...says the lying Apologist.
So anyway, to answer the original question… Yes, Obama is a racist. Not so much for his calling Clarence Thomas a house n***** but because he hangs around other black racists, like marching with Farrakhan, and attended a black racist church for many years. By his own admission in his book he is a one-time Black Militant. Such things if done in the racial reverse by a white would unquestionably disqualify them from any public office, let alone the presidency. This is the Lib Racial Double Standard being advanced and promoted by the Left in this “historic” election and the Affirmative Action Candidate, Barry Hussein Obama, has taken full advantage of it.
“Change”?? “Unity”?? I’m not seeing it. It sure seems like the same old divisive racial crap from the black and Left to me.
This post has been removed by the author.
Oh, stop. He didn’t “go to observe”; he went to stand with he brothas just as he sat with them in that church for 20 years. I was perfectly capable of observing the Million Homie March from here without physically going there.
And what about his attending Wright’s Black Militant Racist Church for so long? And what about Obama’s admission of having “dabbled in black militancy”? These are not minor gaffs by any dishonest Apologist Lib stretch.
You cannot tell me that had McCain “dabbled in white supremacy” and attended a KKK church for 20 years that this would not forever disqualify him for public office in your eyes and those of the entire country. You would start every post about him with that sentence! For you to consciously look the other way on Obama’s past racism and give him a pass you are actively advancing the Racial Double Standard.
Black racists hate you for the color of your skin just as much as they hate me, they just see you apologists as useful idiots. The same goes for our terrorist enemies with which you Libs misplace your sympathies as you turn against your own country. Why can’t you dopes understand this?
This post has been removed by the author.
Mc is a white supremacist because he opposed the Affirmative Action Holiday?? Hahahahahaaaaa!!!!
Witness the depth of the Apologist Liberal mind, folks! And to them anyone who opposes Affirmative Action is a “racist” too!
Hey, DDD, do people who don’t like black cars racists too?! Lol…
Obama is a black racist. A blind, guilt-ridden apologist useful idiot merely lying otherwise on a silly blog board changes not this fact.
This post has been removed by the author.
Diano:
No propaganda or racial remarks out of my mouth (keyboard). I am a different kind of republican, I call it as I see it. That means that Hussein is his name. I will stop calling him that after he changes it.
Also, Hussein picked one of the biggest asses on this earth for VP. In fact, Biden was the first to interject race into this election. Oh well, he gets to be with a mainstream clean well spoken black man now.
Some blacks also don't think that Hussein is authentically black (LA Times). What do you think? Is Hussein down for the struggle?
Well, he sure as hell ain’t white, Mr. S! Obama can be plenty black when he wants to be. Plenty, yo.
That Biden pick indeed raises all sorts of fun questions and challenges. Hehehe… This is gonna be easy!
peripheral supporter of any non pro-US movement
LMAO! You mean traitors like you who try to cloak your blatant treason as being mere “dissent” and “free speech”?! Hahahaha!!! What a wordy wiggle! You’re a funny dope, DDD!
You indeed did try to paint McCain –and all whites who oppose the Affirmative Action Holiday- as being racists. You’re a bigoted apologist liar like that. Always.
The only side to use race in this election has been from the Black Candidate’s camp. The near daily race-baiting has been nothing short of disgusting. Some “change”, that. Once this “historic” election is all over, Obama should be charged with ethnic intimidation for all the harm his baseless racial accusations have caused race relations.
Can you start drawing up the charges, Mr. S, for me to present to my congressman and the AG?
This post has been removed by the author.
More dance-wiggle-and-spin from our resident Apologist Liar.
There is nothing inherently wrong or racist with someone opposing the Affirmative Action Holiday anymore than there is with godless nonbelievers like you who disregard Christian-based holidays. (Not that you denounce and refuse to observe, say, Christmas. Hypocrites are like that.)
But you are correct about one thing: Blacks will continue their blind racial solidarity support for they black brotha Obama no matter what. Were whites to vote race like this –not that we ever do- it would rightly be called “racism”, as it is when blacks do it.
Let’s get something perfectly clear: It is just as wrong to vote FOR someone just and only because of their race as it is to NOT vote for them because of their race. This goes for everyone, blacks and whites alike. Apologist Liberal Racial Double Standard be damned.
Tell us, Traitor Dave, how does it feel knowing that the ONLY thing preventing the FBI from kicking in your door and whisking you away to the Gitmo Hotel with your buddies is ONE sentence fragment written in 200 year old ink in a document you hold zero respect for? That can’t make for very restful sleep. Hehehe…
Post a Comment
<< Home