Indexes
November 2nd, 2009
November 7th, 2009
November 6th, 2009
November 5th, 2009
November 4th, 2009
November 3rd, 2009
November 2nd, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Bible is entwined with American civic life (135)
- I predict: A conservative tide will rise in 2010 (74)
- David Diskin is first to give an invocation under new city of Lodi policy (70)
- The Treaty of Tripoli hoax (60)
- Universal health care solves big problems (54)
- Stuck in neutral? Hardly! (37)
- Here's what my father knew about the assassination of JFK (35)
- Words from our forefathers (27)
- Majority cannot deprive the minority (25)
- City of Lodi staff looking into possibility of limiting number of taco trucks (24)
ADVERTISEMENT
Obama is a leader, not elitist
Saturday, May 24, 2008 5:50 AM PDT
I find it interesting that presidential candidate Barack Obama, who is black, is often referred to as being an elitist.
More power to him. A little over 50 years ago members of his race were forced to sit in the back of a bus, use separate toilet facilities, and on and on. Today we have a black gentleman with a chance of becoming the president of the United States. I don't believe that makes him an elitist. I believe it makes him a leader.
Angelo P. Bocchi
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Lodian wrote on Jun 1, 2008 10:30 PM:
" Jess, Come on, work with me. Its not about condeming the church. Its about knowing, living, worshipping in a place for 20 years KNOWING the rantings of the wack jobs in the pulpit are hateful to others. If parishioners in the catholic church KNEW about the pedophile actions of the priest before them and stayed, shame on them. There are bad people out there Jess, some in the open and some hiding. "
JF: There are still many many people that worship at the Catholic church in Lodi that know all about what happened with O'Grady and the children he molested. Does this make them bad people? "
Lodian wrote on Jun 1, 2008 10:24 PM:
Brian wrote on Jun 1, 2008 3:18 PM:
" marie, so you are saying your priest speaks for you when it comes to your religious beliefs? If he sleeps with a nun, he is speaks for your beliefs? If he has homosexual sex with an alter boy, he speaks for you?
Interesting.
You want to know my religious beliefs? Ask me. Not my minister. "
Jess, interesting you would suggest that Marie's priest does all those things. Do you have some inside scoop
on who Marie confides with for spiritual guidence?
I really don't think the the priest or minister that Marie confides in does any of the sort.
Why you would want to suggest anything of the sort is quite rude and absoulutely disgusting. What did Marie do to you to deserve this? "
Brian wrote on Jun 1, 2008 3:07 PM:
Obama acts like Obama.
Nothing new. "
jess wrote on May 30, 2008 5:30 PM:
Interesting.
You want to know my religious beliefs? Ask me. Not my minister. "
marie wrote on May 30, 2008 5:16 PM:
jess wrote on May 30, 2008 2:15 PM:
I would not call you a liar because you were part of a church that hid and still hides pedophiles. I would take your word on your beliefs.
Try listening to Obama's words, not the snippets on the news played over and over trying to brainwash you. "
JF wrote on May 30, 2008 1:19 PM:
jess wrote on May 30, 2008 11:19 AM:
Of course not, JF. That would be condeming your church and you for allowing it to happen. "
jess wrote on May 30, 2008 11:17 AM:
Maybe it is that they do not want to believe it to be true or just that that they will not admit. That is their decision. "
girard74 wrote on May 30, 2008 10:22 AM:
You mean to say that even after all the actual 'evidence' has been put forth your parents reject the notion that children were molested by one of their priests? I can understand they do not want to believe it; but to reject it? Thats a problem.
If so, then I'm afraid that I must reject your notion that '[t]he sins of those catholic leaders are not the sins of my parents.' Without further information regarding your parents' mental status, I would have to conclude that anyone who, after being presented with undeniable proof of such crimes, continue to deny such crimes, may very well be complicit in the reoccurring of these same types of crimes if the perpetrators are set free to strike again. Such a stance is incomprehensible to me. "
JF wrote on May 30, 2008 10:05 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 30, 2008 10:03 AM:
Is it just me or are we becoming a society where anyone can utter anything they desire, knowing it to be incendiary and disgusting, and then be absolved with the simple statement of, 'I'm sorry?'
Usually someone apologizes for 'mistakes' or 'errors.' Certainly this priest knew exactly what he was going to put forth in this church long before he arrived. I would go so far as to insist that he practiced his 'sermon' in front of a mirror numerous times to make sure his physical antics would be in line with the inflammatory words he would speak.
I've heard more apologies for purposeful disgusting remarks during this primary season that I have during the last ten years or more.
This priest must go. Let the defrocking begin. "
jess wrote on May 30, 2008 9:53 AM:
Now that Catholics and Jews are offended he rejected the endorsement he chased after for so long. Rumor has it the evangelicals wants him to take back the endorsement and just reject the offensive statements. "
jess wrote on May 30, 2008 9:48 AM:
I was told by the newsman what a terrible racist remark I was going to view. My opinion was that it did not belong in church (the minister apologized), that it was not racists (IMO), and that it was hillarious (again IMO). "
jess wrote on May 30, 2008 9:45 AM:
They are still in denial. They believe it never happened. "
girard74 wrote on May 30, 2008 9:37 AM:
I'm not Catholic, but I was raised to respect all leaders of religious denominations. Rightfully we hold these people to a higher standard than comedians. Pfleger, while wearing the collar that denotes his position within the Catholic Church made derogatory statements about another human being in such a manner as to anger even me; and I don't like Hillary Clinton one bit.
Behavior like his does nothing to further the cause of Christianity or the Catholic Church. The Pope himself should become involved in the defrocking of this disgraceful excuse for a priest. Your admission that you could not stop laughing causes me to wonder about you as well, although I firmly believe that you dont care either. "
girard74 wrote on May 30, 2008 9:31 AM:
jess wrote on May 30, 2008 9:29 AM:
I could not stop laughing. I would have stood up and clapped too had I been there. I do not think the preacher was being racist. I thought he was trying to be funny. I agree that church is not a place for that, but had he said the same thing on Jay Leno's show, you would have found it hillarious too. Lighten up. Don't vote for Obama because you do not agree with his policies, but not because of his skin color or because you did not like the guest speaker at his church. "
jess wrote on May 30, 2008 9:22 AM:
We listen to our spiritual leaders, but they are not who define us as people. The sins of those catholic leaders are not the sins of my parents. "
JF wrote on May 30, 2008 8:07 AM:
Obama is either a bad dude or extremely stupid and lacking good judgement or the b--ls to leave a bad situation, another priest of his comes out in print today with some racist hate speech comments made in Obamas church against Hillary and expands it to "white people" and the priest is white! Obama is amazing, his posse not only hates across ethnic lines but inside them too! Yet Obama stayed with the church! That my friends is no leader! "
girard74 wrote on May 30, 2008 6:38 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 30, 2008 6:36 AM:
There are many people who believe according to their religion that homosexuality is an affront to God. The institution of 'marriage' is considered by many to have been created by God Himself to consist of a union between a man and a woman only. As such, any argument regarding these two issues (and many others as well) on a non-sectarian level will usually be fruitless.
In my view, such beliefs are completely acceptable if they are kept within the confines of their religious convictions, as long as they do not expect others who do not share those beliefs to be forced to adhere to theirs AND vice versa; I find it equally egregious when others attempt to change the minds of the religious faithful with disparaging and hateful remarks directed at their core beliefs. Clearly the intent of the foundation of our nation was built upon the premise of individual freedoms, especially as they pertain to belief in supernatural powers greater than us and its expectations placed upon those who do believe. "
Leonard wrote on May 29, 2008 8:55 PM:
So far, no luck.
Perhaps, if I were to move to West Virginia, my voice would carry more weight but that is just a price I am not willing to pay. "
girard74 wrote on May 29, 2008 8:49 PM:
Actually I think if you rang up Robert Byrd in West Virginia, he would be able to give you as much KKK information as you might want. :) "
voter wrote on May 29, 2008 8:27 PM:
Still smiling here. "
Leonard wrote on May 29, 2008 8:10 PM:
:) "
girard74 wrote on May 29, 2008 7:54 PM:
My reason for asking is that I have a GREAT dvd made by them about the Iraq war. I would love to share it. But if you think it is biased it would be a waste of your time.'
Actually, despite popular belief, I actually try and evaluate as many broadcasts as I can as objectively as possible. While Hillary Clinton learned that FoxNews can, in fact live up to its 'Fair and Balanced' claims, there are those within that organization who do not always follow that creed.
As we discussed months ago, there is much on PBS that is very enlightening as well as entertaining, so I would be interested in what you have. As I am sure you understand my position regarding the guilt or innocence of officials in the Bush administration with regard to Iraq, I would leave it up to you to determine whether or not I might find it to be overly biased. "
girard74 wrote on May 29, 2008 7:47 PM:
Inconvenient for Democrats as well. Keep in mind that the primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky were decided primarily by race. There are just as many 'racists' in the Democrat ranks as there are within the Republican. "
girard74 wrote on May 29, 2008 7:43 PM:
Since the subject of Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein used as an indirect reference to his 'possibly' being Muslim (which I do not believe) was posted awhile back here, this is what I assumed. Also, my reference in this regard was how radical Islam portrays Allah. From what I have learned since 9/11, the Koran describes innocents as those who are outside the faith, regardless of gender or age; and the radical sect of the faith has insisted that it is their duty to rid the earth of such infidels.
As for the Old Testament, yes I understand the scriptures relating to many things that the New Testament discarded. In fact, any violation of the Ten Commandments was rewarded with a one-way ticket to hell. And while many of us 'try' to follow those directives, I know of no one who is successful in never disobeying them. Certainly the 'thou shall not covet' restriction was difficult for me when mini-skirts were in vogue. Since that time, of course I have been completely innocent. "
Leonard wrote on May 29, 2008 7:31 PM:
Hillary herself has already infused this campaign with racism as she attempts to pursuade the so-called 'super' delegates to support her in her soon-to-be failed bid for the presidency. Now while I don't perceive Clinton as being a racist in the general sense of the term, her tactics could nevertheless be described as shall I say a 'lesser' form of racism.
Hillary, no doubt, worked hard to be sure that the issue of race was on voters minds but I am talking about the real fringe groups, the Klan, the Skinheads, the militias and the Aryan Nation.
This campaign is going to be a dream come true for these groups. There will be cross burnings, Skinheads marching and God knows what else.
To be clear, I don't think this is a particularly partisan issue. The GOP may be a haven for the armchair racists but the hardcore guys dismissed the Republicans as "zionist pawns" decades ago. These guys would have gone just as hard against Powell or Rice if they had been their parties nominee.
Still, their presence will be inconvenient for Republicans.... "
sam wrote on May 29, 2008 6:54 PM:
My reason for asking is that I have a GREAT dvd made by them about the Iraq war. I would love to share it. But if you think it is biased it would be a waste of your time. "
voter wrote on May 29, 2008 6:47 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 29, 2008 6:34 PM:
Is this a typo, or are you putting us on notice that you've discovered some new, more powerful deity?' in response to a comment made by JF.
While not directed to me, I can safely conclude that JF is drawing distinctions between whomever 'his' God may be and those whose God allegedly calls for the killing of people in 'his' name. Specifically, radical Islam purports to worship a God that insists on such action to be taken against those outside of their faith. As such, I would also find the need to emphasize the difference when attempting to discuss the matter. "
sam wrote on May 29, 2008 5:54 PM:
voter wrote on May 29, 2008 5:31 PM:
" I pray to MY god . . ."
Is this a typo, or are you putting us on notice that you've discovered some new, more powerful deity? "
JF wrote on May 29, 2008 5:29 PM:
JF wrote on May 29, 2008 5:22 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 29, 2008 3:51 PM:
Hillary herself has already infused this campaign with racism as she attempts to pursuade the so-called 'super' delegates to support her in her soon-to-be failed bid for the presidency. Now while I don't perceive Clinton as being a racist in the general sense of the term, her tactics could nevertheless be described as shall I say a 'lesser' form of racism. "
SportsGuru wrote on May 29, 2008 3:15 PM:
I'll say it again for those that missed it...
Having leadership skills and attributes makes one a leader, not WHERE their ancestors may have sat on a bus. "
SportsGuru wrote on May 29, 2008 3:11 PM:
To Leonard:
I thought you were smarter than your last two posts imply.
The HUMOR in all of this IS THE FACT that Barack HUSSEIN Obama has a CHRISTIAN PASTOR.
Ironic, isn't it?
Turn off your defense mechanisms and just enjoy the post for what it was intended - humor. "
Leonard wrote on May 29, 2008 3:04 PM:
McCain has repeatedly repudiated anyone who even hints at this sort of defamation but it there will inevitably be many groups that he can not control. "
Leonard wrote on May 29, 2008 3:01 PM:
Sort of a bigots twofer. "
Leonard wrote on May 29, 2008 2:59 PM:
Barack Hussein Obama
Enough said. We've got where you're coming from. "
SportsGuru wrote on May 29, 2008 2:45 PM:
I think Barack Hussein Obama is considered by some to be an elitist because he is a liberal democrat who has a pastor (the Reverend Wright) that believes his followers (or members of their religious group) deserve special treatment because their ancestors (hundreds of years ago) were subject to slavery. "
SportsGuru wrote on May 29, 2008 2:41 PM:
Angelo,
Having ancestors who were "forced to sit in the back of a bus, use separate toilet facilities, and on and on" does not make someone a leader.
Having leadership skills and attributes makes one a leader, regardless of where their ancestors may have sat on a bus. "
girard74 wrote on May 29, 2008 1:53 PM:
Books like [McClellans] however, do raise an interesting point. If someone of more respectable status, say Colin Powell publishes a book after the conclusion of the Bush administration with similar opinions as to the way matters were handled from the White House, will he (or others) be equally as pilloried from both sides for his (their) lack of courage to come forward at an earlier time? "
girard74 wrote on May 29, 2008 10:42 AM:
I would find it difficult to believe that someone with the obvious intelligence, integrity and common sense of a natural leader such as Colin Powell would have stood in front of the United Nations to deliver the administration's contentions as they related to Iraq without performing a modicum of independent research of his own (which he would have had every right and responsibility to do). As an officer in the Army, Powell would have been absolutely justified in refusing to carry out an order if he believed that order to be illegal; this applies to all members of the armed forces.
As a civilian he was under no such restriction that the 'order' be illegal in order for him to mount an objection. But once again, 'if' Powell was so compelled by his bosses to advance what he knew (or had a very high reasonable suspicion) to be false, I will be incredibly disappointed in him if he reveals this information at such a late date; the delay of which could very well have caused the death of but one soldier or citizen based upon illegal acts.
McClellan, on the other hand is no Colin Powell, neither by reputation nor intelligence. Perhaps that might be his excuse for not coming forth before now, although (again) he's not revealing anything new and what he has written is apparently based upon things other than evidence, that tricky little thing necessary to prove wrongdoing.
NEWS FLASH - Evidently McClellan today did modify his book by stating that he does not assert that anyone actually lied as it relates to some (I am not sure what this includes) of the matters set forth in his book. It will be interesting to follow this story to its end. "
sam wrote on May 29, 2008 10:08 AM:
You are right. there. I feel Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield (BCR) did that to Powell. They "used" his reputation to sell the BCR War. "
girard74 wrote on May 29, 2008 9:34 AM:
And if that is how you interpret it, then fine. That fact is, McClellan's book (allegedly, I have not read it) puts forth much of the same accusations that we've been hearing for the past few years, with no proof to substantiate his claims.
One example is McClellan's belief that something must have been 'afoot' because Libby and Rove were meeting in private during the Plame investigation. Now McClellan himself admits that he doesn't know what they were actually talking about, but since the Plame matter was 'hot,' he assumes that they 'must' have been discussing it. Absent any real proof to support his claims, McClellan appears to be nothing more than a mind reader, and not a very good one at that.
My reliance upon Powells integrity has only been reinforced by the lack of evidence from anyone regarding controversial matters stemming from this administration. Over the course of the past few months I have stated that I am waiting for the administration to end which would provide a logical time for people like Powell to come forth with more intimate details of the inner workings of the Bush White House. Since I dont know for certain what did or did not happen behind those walls, Powell more than likely does know. Believing that his honor and character would not permit one illegal death to occur within our military or within the general population as a result of policies or activities within his grasp, I am as confident as I can possibly be that there were no crimes. Therefore, I anxiously await Powells authentication of my beliefs. And as I just said, if I am wrong, I will be terribly disappointed in General Powell. "
girard74 wrote on May 29, 2008 9:20 AM:
Are you suggesting that Powell (or anyone else for that matter) had to have resigned due to the administration committing illegal acts or by attempting to force him or others to do so? If so, then there's a lot of investigating that needs to be done to determine the reasons for other administration resignations in not only this one, but at least the last three administrations. "
Leonard wrote on May 29, 2008 9:11 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 29, 2008 9:09 AM:
And this comment coming from someone with one-dimensional thinking. 'If' Colin Powell were to reveal illegalities, deceptions and lies by providing proof that these acts were committed by the president, vice-president or others in the current administration, and continued to serve in a position that furthered these crimes, then I will unfortunately need to add General Powell to the list beneath McClellans name.
My contention all along regarding Powell is that I believe him to be a man of principle and honor. I cannot fathom the idea that he would remain in a position that required him to set forth statements, ideas or policies that were completely contrary to his character and those high ideals of which he has exhibited throughout his esteemed career.
As such, because there has been no 'proof' brought forth so far to support the criminal claims advanced by the left and the likes of people like McClellan, I wont be surprised if Powell reveals that he was not completely adoring in his description of life in the Bush Administration. Certainly he was at 'odds' as men and women of such high caliber often are when placed in subordinate positions, but I submit that those disagreements would have ended with his immediate resignation had he been 'forced' to do things that violated his core beliefs about right and wrong and life or death. In addition, if Powell believed that any illegal policies and/or activities continued after his departure, I would further assert that he would not wait one moment before doing all he could to stop such atrocities.
Im a simple guy. I insist on a simple thing known as evidence before convicting or condemning anyone, especially the President of the United States. Anyone who harbors such proof and has withheld it thus permitting crimes to continue and the perpetrators to go unpunished has no honor and are criminals themselves. Colin Powell, by my estimation is no such person. I will be greatly aggrieved if I am proved wrong. "
Leonard wrote on May 29, 2008 8:24 AM:
I just do not think it is right to agree to work as someone's confidant and then turn around and write a book to revel all. It is clear to me he did this not to come clean, but to make a buck.
I suspect McClellan would counter that it is not right to hire someone as you confidant and then not only lie to them but also force them to destroy their own credibility by passing off your lies as the truth.
This man was used by the President and the President's handlers.
He has every right to be angry. "
sam wrote on May 29, 2008 8:02 AM:
Cheney on Meet The Press talking about the "smoking gun" being a mushroon cloud... Condie Rice on the today show... Bush giving a press release...etc... over a period of 4-5 days they flooded the airways with their fear driven message making us believe that we HAD to go to war... or else. "
sam wrote on May 29, 2008 7:57 AM:
I do believe what Scott McClellan has said is true. In fact does anything that has been revealed over the news shocked you?
I just do not think it is right to agree to work as someone's confidant and then turn around and write a book to revel all. It is clear to me he did this not to come clean, but to make a buck. "
sam wrote on May 29, 2008 7:51 AM:
I agree with you 100%. This man has no honor. Personally I was going to read the book, but as of yesterday I made the decision to boycott the book. "
Leonard wrote on May 29, 2008 7:15 AM:
There is no honor in what Scott McClellan has done.
This from a man who is waiting for Colin Powell to tell the "real story". "
Leonard wrote on May 29, 2008 5:11 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 29, 2008 3:35 AM:
It must have been a tremendous relief for Mr McClellan to finally come clean. I am sure he will be heavily criticized by the few remaining Administration apologists, just as anyone who tells the truth about these crooks is. "
girard74 wrote on May 28, 2008 9:13 PM:
Although it has been stated ad nauseum here and through the news outlets, if this guy had such reservations while performing his job, the noble thing would have been to resign and immediately provide his reasons for doing so.
To 'pretend' that he is on board with whatever the policies were in the White House only to attack once safely beyond the confines of the administration is much like a snake in the grass. There is no honor in what Scott McClellan has done. I am hopeful that his book will be a dismal failure, although I'm afraid there are many who will purchase it if only for curiosity sake.
Welcome to the 'permanent' unemployment line, Scott; although this is also wishful thinking. "
sam wrote on May 28, 2008 6:14 PM:
McCain/Obama... I would love that. "
leonard wrote on May 28, 2008 6:09 PM:
Leonard wrote on May 28, 2008 6:07 PM:
I am particularly excited by this idea of the traveling debates. Imagine the two candidates actually discussing the issues together, not just once or twice on national TV but over and over again all across the country. "
voter wrote on May 28, 2008 5:50 PM:
SAM wrote on May 28, 2008 5:43 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 28, 2008 5:39 PM:
That may be so, but I was responding to Leonard's assertion that this vitriol and malice is somehow now originating from within the Republican Party against poor, pitiful Obama.
Since the debacle that was the 2000 election, Bush was never left alone from the unwarranted attacks. Even Carter enjoyed a 'honeymoon' period during his first few months in office.
Except for a few scant weeks directly following 9/11, the left has been relentless in its rancor toward this president. "
SAM wrote on May 28, 2008 5:30 PM:
voter wrote on May 28, 2008 4:15 PM:
"Now while I do not believe in 'tit for tat,' you might want to explain exactly what happened during the seven+ years of the Bush administration at the hands of the 'Democrat Machine.' "
For what it's worth, girard, I think the "Democrat Machine' was pathetically ineffective. It would seem that the most damage done to the current administration came at the hands of party loyalists and white house insiders, starting with Clarke, and then an almost monthly tell-all book or scathing interview, leading up to the McClellan book that's out this week. "
girard74 wrote on May 28, 2008 1:53 PM:
Now while I do not believe in 'tit for tat,' you might want to explain exactly what happened during the seven+ years of the Bush administration at the hands of the 'Democrat Machine.' "
girard74 wrote on May 28, 2008 1:50 PM:
As for Obama's 'errors' (I laughingly type), if this was the first example of his inability to be honest, then it wouldn't be much of a problem. There is no doubt, however that this is one of what is now many examples (a pattern) that shine a glaring light upon his capability to effectively lead this nation.
Now, if you wish to place your head in the sand in this regard, then by all means, be my guest. And while I'll never be so crass as to utter the words, 'I told you so,' when after the first year or so of the Obama administration that he also delivers a speech designated as 'Malaise II,' somehow I won't be too surprised. Of course, only time will reveal this man's true capabilities or lack thereof. I just hope his on-the-job training won't be too expensive an exercise. "
Leonard wrote on May 28, 2008 1:41 PM:
I read once that the first Civil War became inevitable when the North and the South reached the point that they no longer shared any common vision of the nation's future.
I really do wonder whether we are not headed in a similar direction today. "
Leonard wrote on May 28, 2008 1:37 PM:
Today Obama is ill prepared. By November he will be the Devil Incarnate.
By next November the conservatives will be screaming for impeachment and his head on the platter.
It wouldn't really matter if the nominee had been any one of the other candidates, the machine has been launched and it will not be stop any time in the next 8 years. "
Leonard wrote on May 28, 2008 1:32 PM:
Evidently it was rather important that this man returned home from the war, retired to the attic and didn't reappear for six months. That's rather specific, don't you think? I would expect that the actual concentration camp that he helped to liberate would not be considered so insignificant.
Based on that reaction, six months in the attic, it doesn't sound like he probably spent a lot of time telling stories about his experience.
I suspect that Obama probably heard whatever stories were told in his family regarding his Uncle's experience second hand.
I think you are reading a little too much into this. "
girard74 wrote on May 28, 2008 1:09 PM:
As he stated during his speech on Memorial Day, this episode with his 'uncle' was a story that has been passed down through the years. Evidently it was rather important that this man returned home from the war, retired to the attic and didn't reappear for six months. That's rather specific, don't you think? I would expect that the actual concentration camp that he helped to liberate would not be considered so insignificant. Yet as I stated before, no one confuses Auschwitz with any other concentration camp in Europe during World War II - no one.
The person that becomes president is expected to at least give the appearance of honesty and preparedness while communicating with the people he represents. Failure to do so exposes weaknesses that may not be as 'forgivable' once he assumes the office and begins to communicate with foreign leaders as well as the Congress in an effort to govern in actuality. Right now he's 'practicing,' for the position and he's doing a lousy job. "
Leonard wrote on May 28, 2008 11:15 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 28, 2008 11:14 AM:
Obama had Uncles. Some of them served in WWII. One of them liberated an atrocious death camp.
All of this is honorable and it all makes a perfectly acceptable subject for a Memorial Day speech.
My Grandfather served in the Army in the Philippines during WWII. I am proud of his service but honestly I don't know anything more about the details than what I said above. He didn't like to talk about it and I learned, after questioning him once or twice, not to ask about it. "
girard74 wrote on May 28, 2008 11:08 AM:
Actually Leonard, I was being polite. 'Gaffe' defined, is 'a social blunder; faux pas,' and/or 'a blatant mistake or misjudgment.' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gaffe)
Both Obama's and Clinton's 'gaffes' were hardly 'mistakes,' as defined above. No, many of their blunders were calculated to produce one thing - votes. The apparent Democrat nominee's statements that have received unprecedented coverage for the past few months weren't mistakes at all - they were intentially made to either deceive or mislead the voters. To suggest otherwise is intellectually insulting. "
girard74 wrote on May 28, 2008 10:17 AM:
Actually you included me (Girard) as part of a group that desired Hillary Clinton to oppose McCain in the fall, insisting that I '...will cling to her like a drowning man clinging to a life preserver.'
By voting for Obama in the California primary (switching parties to permit me to cast my vote in this way), the only life preserver I was attempting to toss to Hillary would have been made of lead.
There are those who have such hatred for both candidates that they truly believe that McCain 'will' beat Clinton. I am not so confident. All one need do is to look at recent history in the Democrat contests. Consequently, I would much rather take the chance of Obama becoming president than to place any bet, no matter how great the odds, on Hillary losing in November against McCain. I vehemently believe that Hillary Clinton is incredibly dangerous to the nation. "
girard74 wrote on May 28, 2008 10:09 AM:
That's a rather difficult question to answer as I am ideologically opposed to most 'liberal' causes supported by the majority of Democrats. Of the nine candidates that started out, none would make my list. Sorry.
However, if forced to choose from those who chose not to run, I suspect that Mark Warner would be the least distasteful choice (not meant to be a ringing endorsement). Since he is allegedly on Obama's short-list for Vice President, we may very well find out just how well this man adjusts to national politics.
I also do not believe John McCain to be the best that the Republicans can do either; I hope you didnt miss that subtle point. I was referring to the entire field of presidential contenders. As with whatever hidden Democrat waiting out there for the right time, I suspect there is a Republican counterpart in the wings as well. This is where I do have hope for our national political future - perhaps the campaign climate might be altered to allow for a more civilized contest or more courageous candidates may choose to step up and perform their civic duty. "
Leonard wrote on May 28, 2008 9:53 AM:
Actually Leonard, as you might recall I detest Hillary Clinton
That's exactly my point. Hillary was the perfect foil for whoever the GOP might have chosen to nominate. "
girard74 wrote on May 28, 2008 9:53 AM:
Although Angelo had up 2300 characters to get his point across, I am curious as to why he failed to submit any 'leadership' qualities that Obama possesses other than the fact that he is black; a fact Angelo sets forth as the only reason why he believes Obama to be a leader. "
Leonard wrote on May 28, 2008 9:52 AM:
There are many better-qualified people out there to actually 'lead' this nation
Just out of curiosity, who would you have preferred as the Democrat nominee? "
girard74 wrote on May 28, 2008 9:08 AM:
The only reason we're 'lucky' to have these choices is simply because the garbage that better people would need to endure in the political arena is untenable to them. As usual were merely settling for our candidates.
There are many better-qualified people out there to actually 'lead' this nation. While McCain at least has leadership experience, Obama, according to the Democrat mandate needs to do nothing more than 'carry' his voters. We truly have become a nation of entitlement - what ever happened to JFK's immortal admonition that as United States citizens we should, Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country?' Since then this notion set forth by Kennedy has been turned on its head to the detriment of our nation. "
girard74 wrote on May 28, 2008 8:59 AM:
Actually Leonard, as you might recall I detest Hillary Clinton. Rarely am I able to discuss her or her husband on any rational level. I've made that abundantly clear over the course of this campaign here on these blogs.
While there are Republicans who do believe Hillary to be the best candidate to lose to McCain, I simply would not want to take that chance. In fact, I voted for Obama in the California primary as a vote against Hillary. Even as Rush Limbaugh has moved forward with his Operation Chaos lunacy in 'support' of Clinton over Obama because of this apparent belief, the risk for me is too great to play such silly games.
No, I would much rather have Obama as president (which thankfully appears more doubtful as each day passes) than to allow the slightest opportunity for Hillary Clinton to squeeze herself into the White House with her pathetic husband in tow. "
Leonard wrote on May 28, 2008 8:45 AM:
I would argue that Hillary is more of an issue than Obama will ever be.
Clinton was the dream nominee for the GOP. I think that the partisan's on the right are very unhappy to see her leave the race. Consequently, folks like Girard will cling to her like a drowning man clinging to a life preserver. "
Leonard wrote on May 28, 2008 8:43 AM:
Frankly, I think McCain and Obama are excellent candidates and we are lucky to have this choice to make. "
girard74 wrote on May 28, 2008 7:01 AM:
It's funny when anyone discusses what a Democrat politician states that it becomes an 'attack.'
So, we're simply to permit such statements by any candidate to pass by without the least amount of scrutiny? Are we to apologize for such gems as this personally delivered by the candidate himself?!?
Obama made a number of 'mistakes' in his recent Memorial Day address as it pertains to his 'uncles' experience.
First, no one (and I mean NO ONE) confuses Auschwitz with any other concentration/work camp. The only exception is people under the age of 10 who have never cracked a history book that discusses the atrocities of the 20th century. Yet Obama referred to this event as a 'story' apparently passed down over the years since this relative of his returned from the war.
Since Obama is relying upon his family members to fill in for him regarding his lack of military service, the attention should now be directed to those very 'story tellers' to determine exactly when Buchenwald became Auschwitz. From what I've been able to determine, these two camps were at least 500 miles apart, in two separate and distinct countries. Further, Auschwitz was liberated in January of 1945 and the unit Obama's great uncle served with didn't march into Buchenwald until about four months later.
Alone, this could be considered a mistake either on his part or that of his family's collective memories. Yet when combined with the other misstatements, errors or (dare I say) lies perpetrated by this presidential wannabe, it becomes clearer each day that Barack Obama is not ready to become the President of the United States. No, he's going to need a lot more experience behind him if he's to truly be able to compete with his party's incredible 'deceitful duo', the Clintons.
By the way, there have been presidents that have never served a day in military uniform that have gone on to be truly remarkable commanders-in-chief. Likewise, there have been presidents who have graduated from our highly-esteemed military academies that have performed dismally in that role. Obama would best be served if he would simply acknowledge that McCain has more experience in this regard rather than attempt to create some sort of military experience of his own, including bolstering himself with things his 'uncle' may or may not have done. "
girard74 wrote on May 28, 2008 6:44 AM:
Perhaps in Texas Hillary is no longer an issue in this election. From where I sit in Lodi she's wielding a tremendous amount of force in this race. This woman is much more than the distraction that many now categorize her as.
The Clintons, regardless of their pathetic campaign waged this year are still a driving force in the Democrat party. As such they, probably more than anyone else will be setting the tone for years to come. My point was apparently lost (maybe on purpose) that during this so-called time of economic crisis Hillary (who WILL lose the nomination) has absolutely no compunction against asking (begging) for ordinary Americans to send their hard-earned and much-needed cash to her to do nothing more than retired her massive debt under the guise of desiring that every vote should count.
This little exercise of Hillary's is indicative of just how liberals operate. She stands in front of a crowd, that silly smile pasted on her face and while uttering something that she desperately wants the crowd to acknowledge with applause and cheering, slowly and deliberately begins this obnoxious nodding of her head as if to say, 'Ok, now is the time to recognize my words as exceptional and incredibly important. You may begin your unreserved recognition of me now.' She does this while she (and Bill too) slip their hands into the back pockets of those poor, deluded lemmings as they continue their unabashed chanting.
I would argue that Hillary is more of an issue than Obama will ever be. Almost each time this ridiculous youngster opens his mouth we're treated to yet another Obama-ism sure to delight anyone with an I.Q. above 75. With each 'gaffe' (as this word has found its permanent place within our language to identify Democrats statements), Mr. Obama finds himself further away from the Presidency in November. It is Barack Obama who is fast becoming 'irrelevant.'
This primary (for the Democrats) will go down as one of the most poorly-conceived and terribly-executed of all time. And it aint over yet! Remember, Hillary has vowed to take this campaign as far as the people want her to. Yeah, right!! As if any of the Clintons give a hoot about the people. And it has become apparent that Obama feels much the same way. "
Leonard wrote on May 28, 2008 4:04 AM:
I am saying that Socialist Corporate elites are reinforcing a method of bringing in more Marxists from poor 3rd world countries.
Have you ever considered joining the John Birch Society?
The JBS is a great organization with a long tradition of helping people with concerns like yours marginalize themselves into irrelevancy. "
Leonard wrote on May 28, 2008 4:02 AM:
Obama and Hillary only want residency on Pennsylvania Avenue for their own personal gain, certainly not for anything as noble as working hard for the people they purport to want to serve.
Interesting. I like the way you make this attack on Obama and then proceed to back it up with three paragraphs about Hillary.
Hillary is over. She will not be the VP and I predict that she will not continue to be a major influence on the Democrat Party once she returns to her role as junior Senator from NY. Your efforts at distraction not withstanding, Ms Clinton is irrelevant. "
giovanina wrote on May 27, 2008 9:16 PM:
" Too bad there isn't another republican candidate so McCain would have to continue to work hard for the nomination. I'd like to see him up against another rep candidate. "
He is still going to have to work for it as many Republicans are telling him that they won't vote for a Pro-amnesty candidate, which includes him. "
giovanina wrote on May 27, 2008 9:15 PM:
" giovanina wrote on May 27, 2008 6:56 AM:
the Socialist corporate elites
Chuckle...
So, you are saying that capitalism is all a socialist plot? "
No, Leonard, you are saying that.
I am saying that Socialist Corporate elites are reinforcing a method of bringing in more Marxists from poor 3rd world countries.
Are you saying that Socialists can't use capitalism for gain? Maybe someone should tell that to the Communist Party in China. "
jess wrote on May 27, 2008 9:12 PM:
I have to agree. I love how Republicans concede and fade away gracefully. What is with this wheeling and dealing?
"I am a loser so I will fade away for a few million bucks and please make me VP or a judge."
What a scam ! "
girard74 wrote on May 27, 2008 8:33 PM:
No, I'm simply using common sense.
This Democrat primary season has revealed that these two 'candidates' will do whatever it takes to win. There is no honor or sense of service in their quest; Obama and Hillary only want residency on Pennsylvania Avenue for their own personal gain, certainly not for anything as noble as working hard for the people they purport to want to serve.
Both have proved that they cannot be trusted with the simplest of matters. I, for one cannot trust them with the keys to the most powerful position on earth.
As I stated before, this just keeps getting more and more ridiculous; and watching their supporters go along with their nonsense is near nauseating.
I have a question - in this climate of economic doom, does anyone find it 'interesting' that Hillary, well aware that her presidential aspirations this year are in the tank, has no reservations whatsoever about asking for and taking money from her supporters, the very people she 'cares' so deeply about that are suffering so terribly financially? I know this to be true because I receive her begging e-mails on nearly a daily basis as well as from her husband, daughter and other minions.
I suspect that the only reason she remains in the running is to collect as much money as she can to retire her multi-million dollar debt. Where else than in America can someone run for president, lose and then continue to extract hard-earned money from people who apparently are unable to afford it to pay off her personal debts?
Gotta hand it to those Democrats!! They sure know how to run a legal scam! "
marie wrote on May 27, 2008 8:09 PM:
Lodian wrote on May 27, 2008 6:04 PM:
Leonard wrote on May 27, 2008 5:59 PM:
That's what I always called them when I was a kid. My Great Uncle Bill was "Uncle Bill" not "Great Uncle Bill".
G, I think you are reading malfeasance where there is only custom. "
Leonard wrote on May 27, 2008 5:56 PM:
the Socialist corporate elites
Chuckle...
So, you are saying that capitalism is all a socialist plot? "
girard74 wrote on May 27, 2008 4:55 PM:
Now we've got Obama declaring on Memorial Day that his uncle helped to liberate Auschwitz near the end of the war in Europe. It seems that he was 'mistaken' in his recollection of the story passed down through his family.
No, it was actually his great-uncle (Obama had no 'uncles') and it wasn't Auschwitz (which is in Poland) but a sub-camp of Buchenwald (in Germany) called Ohrdruf that was liberated by American forces some four months or so after the Soviets freed what was left of those alive at Auschwitz.
So which is it this time? 'Forgetfulness,' 'mistakes,' or maybe Obama's handlers are getting very sloppy in the handling of their candidate. Regardless, this latest little faux pas doesn't bode well for the apparent presidential nominee for the Democrats.
And the hits just keep on coming!! "
marie wrote on May 27, 2008 1:11 PM:
Lodian wrote on May 27, 2008 11:22 AM:
marie wrote on May 27, 2008 11:02 AM:
Lodian wrote on May 27, 2008 9:07 AM:
Brian: It's funny how you use "crosswords" as some kind of jab. LOL
You have plagiarized a lot lately. Maybe it's time for you to take a break from the blogs and get some perspective....and some original thoughts. "
giovanina wrote on May 27, 2008 6:56 AM:
giovanina wrote on May 27, 2008 6:56 AM:
Any candidate that caters to NCLR, or any other group that supports amnesty, is also catering to the Socialist corporate elites. So that would be all 3 candidates.
The Socialists, in this country, are doing whatever they can to bring in as many Marxist as they can. There are plenty of 3rd world countries that have people that would work for cheap but it appears that the ones that have the most Marxists are targeted. Meanwhile, our universities are creating more Che followers. "
Brian wrote on May 27, 2008 6:49 AM:
" voter: Brian can't answer you until he finds some other writings to plagiarize. Then he will post a response. Guess we'll just have to wait till he's done searching the net for his thoughts on the issue. LOL "
Lodian, that's the farthest from the truth and you know it.
Go back to your crosswords.
"
marie wrote on May 26, 2008 9:12 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 26, 2008 8:29 PM:
I meant the matter of the recent specific case of the parents who withheld medical treatment as it pertains to the law and standard of proof should be debated on another day.
Nevertheless, I've moved out of this particular blog, but I did wish to clear up this one loose end. "
s & W 500 wrote on May 26, 2008 7:35 PM:
I am not saying McCain is perfect, but where would we be if Gore got elected last time around. Bahabadah haddab "
Cogito wrote on May 26, 2008 10:51 AM:
Lodian wrote on May 26, 2008 10:42 AM:
Lodian wrote on May 26, 2008 10:39 AM:
Brian wrote on May 26, 2008 9:37 AM:
" You were the one who contradicted yourself, Brian.
Voter, perhaps I do at times. I'm not running for president, though.
Obama has issues. He has a hard time admitting to his contradictions. He also doesn't like to be held accountable for his actions. "
voter wrote on May 25, 2008 7:19 PM:
Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 7:09 PM:
" Brian wrote, "I don't know why Obama's change is so much different. There's nothing in his agenda that's any different than the typical liberal. Actually, the radical changes he wants are to the left of Hillary."
You have made some contradictory statements here. Please clarify. He can't be both "typical" and then "radical" and to the "left of Hillary" all at the same time. "
Voter, Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He contradicts himself all the time. You haven't figured this out yet?
Actually, I haven't found a politician
who is consistent across the board on issues. Whether it's conservative, liberal, Moderate, radical, extreme, etc. The problem with Obama is he doesn't recognize his inconsistencies. "
Leonard wrote on May 25, 2008 6:18 PM:
I'm just curious. Have you supported George W. Bush over the last 4 years?
"
Leonard wrote on May 25, 2008 6:15 PM:
L-I never said it was a partisan site.
YOU have the problem admitting you are wrong. You know fro a fact snopes has never been wrong?
Of course they have been wrong and, when it has happened, they have admitted it and corrected their mistake.
They are not wrong in this case, however, as their debunking has been confirmed by several other mythbusting groups.
Perhaps you should learn from their lesson, admit that you were wrong and correct your mistake. "
voter wrote on May 25, 2008 5:52 PM:
oldguy wrote on May 25, 2008 5:38 PM:
voter wrote on May 25, 2008 5:29 PM:
" Voter: and what conclusions have you come up with? I hope it is not that we will spend ourselves into prosperity. "
No oldguy, I think spending ourselves into prosperity was the Bush plan and we know how that worked out.
Read the whole Obama plan--it's something like 60 or 70 pages long. "
voter wrote on May 25, 2008 5:20 PM:
You have made some contradictory statements here. Please clarify. He can't be both "typical" and then "radical" and to the "left of Hillary" all at the same time. "
oldguy wrote on May 25, 2008 5:19 PM:
jess wrote on May 25, 2008 5:16 PM:
Voter, I had to write this one down. What a quote. I am still laughing. "
voter wrote on May 25, 2008 5:15 PM:
voter wrote on May 25, 2008 5:11 PM:
oldguy wrote on May 25, 2008 5:11 PM:
Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 5:04 PM:
I don't know why Obama's change is so much different. There's nothing in his agenda that's any different than the typical liberal. Actually, the radical changes he wants are to the left of Hillary. He's a wild card. We know what to expect from McCain or Hillary. I'm not going to vote for a wild card when so much is at stake. "
Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 4:53 PM:
" Brian, you really do have a difficult time following a discussion thread.
Voter, NO, you have a difficult time admittng that Obama will say anything to get votes and win the election. What part of he's just another lying politician don't you understand?
If you actually believe he's going to fulfill all his promises for change you're as stupid as they come. I'm AMAZED that you would think that Obama's agenda is not partisan politics. He's going to cater to his base because he wants their votes. The campaign promises he does fulfill will satisfy his base.
Are you that stupid that you think
his grooming in one of the most corrupt political climates does not make him self-serving? All politicians are self-serving. Perhaps in 4 or 8 years I might consider him. Right now, he's so full of himself it clouds his ability to make the right decisions if he was elected. If he can't handle the scrutiny his wife is getting how can we expect him to handle the scrutiny he will get on a daily basis as President?
We are talking about the highest political position in the U.S. It takes a little more than someone with a rockstar status to be President.
"
Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 4:34 PM:
" Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 2:39 PM:
" Leonard, Snopes has been called on many of their claims
Chuckle.... you really are just incapable of admitting it when you are wrong, aren't you.
They (Snopes) are just another media site with an agenda.
Yes, their agenda is exposing urban myths. I have never heard anyone claim that Snopes is partisan site.
The only people who have anything to fear from Snopes are liars. "
L-I never said it was a partisan site.
YOU have the problem admitting you are wrong. You know fro a fact snopes has never been wrong? You rely on your crystal ball too much. "
voter wrote on May 25, 2008 3:43 PM:
At 11:21 you posted a plagiarized comment claiming that the candidates would not articulate just what they meant by "change." I posted a link to Obama's blue print for change--proof that your statement was WRONG. Obama has clearly mapped out what he means by change. Now, you are saying what? That what Obama has written regarding change doesn't count as his position on change because his website is partisan? You are about as mixed up as a fart in a fan factory, Brian. "
Leonard wrote on May 25, 2008 3:25 PM:
" Leonard, Snopes has been called on many of their claims
Chuckle.... you really are just incapable of admitting it when you are wrong, aren't you.
They (Snopes) are just another media site with an agenda.
Yes, their agenda is exposing urban myths. I have never heard anyone claim that Snopes is partisan site.
The only people who have anything to fear from Snopes are liars. "
Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 2:39 PM:
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. "
Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 2:35 PM:
However, that email I sent to you on the Iraq economy would have never have happened had we had Gorey or Scarry Kerry in office. We would have went into Iraq had either of these two been Pres. but they would have cut and run long ago before any good could be accomplished in Iraq. "
Leonard wrote on May 25, 2008 2:32 PM:
L-My friends are conservative. Unlike you, they find Pelosi a piece of work.
So much so that they have to fabricate stories about her and then pass them off to their gullible friends as fact?
Maybe you need to rethink who your friends are if they are setting you up to look the fool with silly stories that can be shot down with a simple link to Snopes. "
Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 2:29 PM:
" Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 12:31 PM:
So, are you going to make a blanket statement that all my contacts plagarize too?
Well, obviously one of them does.
Was this, by any chance, the same fine source from which you got that Pelosi email?
L-My friends are conservative. Unlike you, they find Pelosi a piece of work.
I can only hope that you don't have unconditional support for her looney agenda. I sure don't have unconditonal support for the right. I can disagree with them. "
Leonard wrote on May 25, 2008 2:27 PM:
Voter, the liberal media likes to advance this notion that McCain is the third term of Bush. Do you have any original thoughts on McCain?
For what its worth, I think McCain would be MUCH more competent than Bush.
A third of Bush's failures have been due to the complete wrongheadedness of the President and his goons. The rest of his initiatives have failed due to the omnipresent corruption and absolute incompetence that have characterized his Administration.
I honestly can't imagine a McCain Administration experiencing the complete breakdown of leadership that followed Hurricane Katrina. McCain is just two competent and capable to ever let such a disgraceful catastrophe occur. "
Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 2:24 PM:
Obama would never lie or do anything wrong. To say that a man that has been groomed by the most liberal of liberals
in the most corrupt political climate as Chicago is the most outrageous thing to think. "
Leonard wrote on May 25, 2008 2:22 PM:
So, are you going to make a blanket statement that all my contacts plagarize too?
Well, obviously one of them does.
Was this, by any chance, the same fine source from which you got that Pelosi email? "
Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 2:17 PM:
" Brian, the Obama website is what is known as a primary source. It is not "news." "
Voter, you really are ignorant. To say that Obama won't put anything on his website to get elected is like saying McCain or Clinton won't put anything on their website to get elected.
Site me someone running for political office who hasn't renigged on some of their campaign promises. "
voter wrote on May 25, 2008 12:54 PM:
voter wrote on May 25, 2008 12:50 PM:
Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 12:45 PM:
Voter, so you think Obama's website is not partisan?
Your ignorance is beyond laughable.
Unless something has change on Obama's site (and it hasn't) he takes things out of context on a regular basis from the McCain and Hillary camp.
And then you wonder why conservatives think Obama's followers think he is their saviour. "
Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 12:37 PM:
" Brian, it's funny that you would use the dirty underwear analogy to illustrate a candidates vision of "change." This seems like McCain's stategy--he doesn't propose too much that's new, just a rerun of Bush's dirty laundry.
Voter, the liberal media likes to advance this notion that McCain is the third term of Bush. Do you have any original thoughts on McCain?
I won't disagree with you that Obama wants change, though quite radical and in the wrong direction. If that sits well with you then I can't help you.
"
Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 12:31 PM:
" LOL!!!
Brian is at it again. I guess you are right, Brian, some things never change!
Brian's entire 11:21 post was lifted from another blog! Read it here (scroll down a ways.)
http://oldladylincoln.blogspot.com/
Voter, I got it from a friend, who, in turn got it from someone else. The site you contend it came from may be true.
So, are you going to make a blanket statement that all my contacts plagarize too? The whole issue of this plagarizing thing wouldn't be an issue if I copied and pasted things you agreed with. You'd be giving me virtual high fives if that was the case. "
voter wrote on May 25, 2008 11:52 AM:
Brian is at it again. I guess you are right, Brian, some things never change!
Brian's entire 11:21 post was lifted from another blog! Read it here (scroll down a ways.)
http://oldladylincoln.blogspot.com/
"
voter wrote on May 25, 2008 11:43 AM:
voter wrote on May 25, 2008 11:33 AM:
" The buzzword of this election is 'CHANGE.' Candidates toss it around
without saying what they want to change to. Just that we
need.....CHANGE!
Brian, I guess those of you who get all of your news filtered and analyzed by partisan sources would be missing that information, wouldn't you? Obama has clearly communicated the change he envisions in his books and speeches. You can read all about it on his website where he has posted his blueprint for change.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
"
Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 11:29 AM:
You lost me there.
One more thing: I do have original
thoughts. I wish you would stop implying that I parrot other people's thoughts all the time.
One could conclude that you never reitterate
what other people say and you just pull things out of the air.
Again, what else do you see in your crystal ball? "
Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 11:21 AM:
without saying what they want to change to. Just that we
need.....CHANGE!
This brings to mind the following illustration........
Years ago, there was an old tale in the Marine Corps about a major who
inspected his Marines and told the Gunny Sargent that they
smelled bad.
The major suggested that they change their underwear. The Gunny
responded, "Aye, aye, sir. I'll see to it immediately."
He went into the tent and said, "The major thinks you guys smell
bad, and he wants you to change your underwear. Smith, you change with
Jones, McCarthy, you change with Witkowskie, Brown, you change with Schultz
....everyone change, now get on with it.
And the moral of this story is:
A candidate may promise change in Washington...but the stink remains! "
Leonard wrote on May 25, 2008 9:40 AM:
The bible is a collection of the original Arabic scriptures.
Well, the OT was originally in Hebrew and the Gospels were probably composed orally in Aramaic before being recorded in Greek.
It has been altered and abridged over the centuries.
This seems to be a reasonable explanation why the bible is rife with contradictions. Or more simply: The bible is full of "he said she said". "
I think you are absolutely right. Furthermore, I do not believe that this diminishes the Bible's content or meaning in any way. If anything, I find it more meaningful. "
Brian wrote on May 25, 2008 8:42 AM:
The bible is a collection of the original Arabic scriptures. It has been altered and abridged over the centuries.
This seems to be a reasonable explanation why the bible is rife with contradictions. Or more simply: The bible is full of "he said she said". "
Leonard wrote on May 24, 2008 7:24 PM:
If the Bible were truly the literal and inerrant word of an all powerful god then it would naturally be internally consistent.
The fact is, however, that the Bible is a rife with contradictions as any ancient religious text. This alone, I think, is sufficient to demonstrate the absurdity of literalism. "
jess wrote on May 24, 2008 6:53 PM:
jess wrote on May 24, 2008 6:49 PM:
"
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 6:45 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 6:24 PM:
One fundamental of American law is that no one can be arrested, tried and convicted until an offense has been committed. This makes it very difficult for authorities to step in before damage has actually been done.
In answer to your question, I'll pose one to you. If any parent denies medical treatment to their child with the sincere belief that they did not realize that the child was in any danger, but the child dies anyway, how would you approach this problem? There are many serious maladies that appear benign or practically invisible until too late. This example removes the 'religious' aspect of the matter and places it squarely upon the belief of one human being based upon their knowledge and/or experiences of the situation at hand. I suspect that the specific instance of the parents withholding medical treatment for their daughter will not be as cut and dried as many would think, based upon our laws and the standard of proof. But that's a subject for another blog on another day (please).
It comes down to individual responsibility. "
sam wrote on May 24, 2008 6:24 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 6:12 PM:
Voter, I stated my position. You responded with specific 'things' that have been perpetrated in the name of religion. I answered those.
We do not live in a vacuum; just as people evolve, so does their understanding of the religions in which they choose to believe.
I have a lot of problems with many of man's laws and I believe that one day there will be a reckoning and we'll be forced to answer for our behavior.
My point has been simply that people should be permitted to believe as they wish; from my study of American history, this is a foundation upon which our nation was built.
When the subject of the antichrist was produced in this blog, it, along with those who believe in its existence was denounced as a fairy tale; I believe the word 'crud' was used to define Christian teachings in this regard. In fact, it was suggested (more like insisted) that those who believe in such ideas were 'uneducated.' The discourse has evolved to more complicated matters that simply cannot be discussed with any manner of congruity on a blog (or most anywhere else).
I bowed out earlier today recognizing that religion is incredibly difficult to discuss. I do apologize if I have not been clear. Rather than continue to tap on these keys I'll retire from this subject to allow other clearer minds to prevail. "
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 6:10 PM:
I don't think these two beliefs are compatible. A group that believes mental illness to be a demonic possession will often withhold medical treatment and subject the suffering and seriously ill person to rituals and treatments that cause more suffering. How is this any different than parents refusing to allow a surgeon to perform an appendectomy on a sick child? Mental Illness is a real illness. The mentally ill can not make reasoned decisions regarding their own care and are easily victimized. You can't be serious.
"
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 6:02 PM:
Those who demand tolerance for all seem to be so intolerant of those who disagree. I find that intellectually dishonest.
I am still curious as to what anyone here would think of Obama if it was revealed that he did, in fact believe in the Tribulation, including the Rapture, the Seven Seals, the antichrist, and the Battle of Armageddon prophesied to usher in the arrival of Jesus to reign over earth for the following 1,000 years.
From what I can tell Reverend Wright's church does teach this particular part of the Bible; I would doubt that Obama wasn't absent on those occasions.
Would such a notion change anyone's vote? "
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 6:00 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 5:54 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 5:50 PM:
As for those who get to decide, it is up to the leadership of 'organized' religions to set the standards based upon whatever authority believed to exist within their faith. For Christians that authority is the Bible. Individually, it falls upon each one's conscience and understanding of God's and man's laws.
Man's law is equally as valid as God's law at least as it pertains to Christianity. There are other sects who believe that their religious beliefs should be foisted upon all. At least in our country we don't permit such allowance to exist. Yet, those who violate the law here in the name of their faith (as you described in the beatings, denial of healthcare, etc.) also answer to the laws of the 'people. We have recently witnessed this with the parents who did allow their daughter to die based upon their religion. No responsible religion or congregant subscribes to such behavior; and I believe those that do are 'perverting' their faith.
Islam, which for me has been difficult to determine where the line between 'radical' and 'moderate' is drawn, is indicative of faith gone terribly wrong. As with almost anything else, common sense must be applied when it relates to what one person may perpetrate upon another.
In this particular instance, however the belief that demonic forces do exist should be of no consequence to those who do not believe in such things. I find it reasonable and acceptable for non-believers to assert that mental illness or some other thing must be the reason why certain people behave in such disturbing ways; I find it equally as reasonable and acceptable for believers of any religion to believe other forces may be responsible. Why can't these two beliefs exist on a single plane?
While I have every right to declare you or anyone else to be 'wrong,' based upon what I believe, that gives me no authority to deny you your own explanations for things that may be difficult or impossible to explain. This is the definition of 'tolerance.' "
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 5:26 PM:
"What you might find to be 'ridiculous notions' or 'superstition(s)' often are at the core of peoples' faith in something larger than them. The 'pain' and 'suffering' that you allude to isn't caused by those who believe such things. It is more often a result of the perversion of those faiths such as radical Islam, radical Christianity, radical anything."
A couple of questions. How can you say that people have not suffered or caused suffering due to their faith? Slavery, genocide, the subjugation of women, child abuse, and all manner of cruelties have been committed by mainstream believers (including Christian). These practices certainly wouldn't have been considered perversions at the time they occurred. In fact, they are all supported by various scripture. What do you consider perversion of faith? Who gets to decide? We have many commonly practiced faiths in the US which prohibit medical care to sick children, shame and beat children for touching their own bodies, force people to stay in abusive relationships, all based on their core beliefs. More forward thinking faith groups (read liberal) tend to avoid this kind of thing as new information proves old beliefs harmful. "
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 5:13 PM:
" Voter wrote, such as Galileo, who you eluded to.
Actually I was thinking more of Eratosthenes, although Galileo did have some good ideas. "
It surprises me that you meant Eratosthenes when you wrote about people whose ideas were thought to be ludicrous. Actually, it's my understanding that Eratosthenes was highly regarded in his time. The ancient Greeks valued philosophy, science, and all things cerebral. New ideas were good.
"
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 5:01 PM:
Actually I was thinking more of Eratosthenes, although Galileo did have some good ideas. "
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 4:35 PM:
What you might find to be 'ridiculous notions' or 'superstition(s)' often are at the core of peoples' faith in something larger than them. The 'pain' and 'suffering' that you allude to isn't caused by those who believe such things. It is more often a result of the perversion of those faiths such as radical Islam, radical Christianity, radical anything.
By believing that the future holds God's judgment for mankind is neither a ridiculous notion nor does it cause any pain or suffering for those who do not subscribe to its tenets. In fact, as this pertains specifically to the antichrist (where this discussion emerged), those who do not believe in such a thing should have no objection against those who do; how does someone's belief in these things cause any pain or suffering to those outside the faith?
Finally, when anyone uses the word seem as you did in your last sentence to bolster your reference to scientific evidence, this further supports the idea that all is not known; leaving the door open to other, non-scientific possibilities. "
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 4:23 PM:
Absolutely unbelievable. One definition of the word 'belief' is, 'the state of believing, conviction or acceptance that certain things are true or real.' (http://www.yourdictionary.com/belief)
You cleverly, yet obviously left out the word 'fully' in your response to my post in this regard. Faith/belief in something is not 'blind,' as you seem to suggest by the parsing of my words. There are many well-educated people who believe and have faith in what the Bible 'says' (its authority) in spite of not completely (fully) understanding the 'how' and 'why' of it all. For those who truly believe that there is nothing beyond this mortal coil this debate should be of no value to them aside from ridiculing those who have opposing ideas. However, those contributions demanding that those who do believe there is more beyond this life to be 'uneducated,' 'stupid,' or any other negative class because of their personal faith are, to say the least, grossly unfair and narrow minded. "
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 4:08 PM:
Actually this was taken from years of understanding the scriptures since I became a Christian in 1973; long before George W. Bush was in office anywhere. "
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 4:07 PM:
Don't sigh, Leonard. I did not take offense. I merely felt the need to respond directly to you since you posted your remarks based upon my verbatim quote.
Please don't assume emotions not in evidence. "
wtf wrote on May 24, 2008 3:34 PM:
Bob Loblaw wrote on May 24, 2008 2:41 PM:
dragonfaire wrote on May 24, 2008 1:53 PM:
Leonard wrote on May 24, 2008 12:45 PM:
anti-American racist socialists
Chuckle..... "
jeff wrote on May 24, 2008 12:22 PM:
'Mazie, IGNORE THE NAME CALLING because most of the people in these blogs are idiotic clowns with selfminded agendas.'
'it makes sense why so many anti-American racist socialists want Obama to become president'
nice.
nice. "
jess wrote on May 24, 2008 12:04 PM:
www.johnmccain.com
www.HillaryClinton.com
www.BarackObama.com
www.ronpaul2008.com
"
jess wrote on May 24, 2008 12:00 PM:
Leonard wrote on May 24, 2008 11:48 AM:
When one refers to Christianity (or any other faith) as 'crud,' they really mean to use the word 'sh&t.'
Lest anyone doubt, I also find these labels offensive when applied to Christianity as a whole.
"
bry wrote on May 24, 2008 11:47 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 24, 2008 11:47 AM:
" Leonard, since you quoted me it behooves me to request that you state where and when I've demeaned or belittled liberals (or anyone else).
Sigh....
G, I was not referring to you. I was just pointing out that the phenomenon you cited is not confined to one side of this discussion.
Please, do not be so quick to take offense. "
wtf wrote on May 24, 2008 11:35 AM:
VOTE RON PAUL!!!!
He **is** still in the race, you know. ;) "
bry wrote on May 24, 2008 11:31 AM:
wtf wrote on May 24, 2008 11:29 AM:
wtf wrote on May 24, 2008 11:22 AM:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
"
wtf wrote on May 24, 2008 11:19 AM:
Took the words right out of my mouth since this sure sounds like Bush, Jr. "
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 10:51 AM:
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 10:42 AM:
alumn95 wrote on May 24, 2008 10:37 AM:
Which positions doed he have. All I've heard is he wants change. He's not for the same ol' politics. What kind of position is that? What does he stand for? "
Billy Rubin wrote on May 24, 2008 10:37 AM:
In a word, yes.
Or, more accurately, YES!
Logically and literally speaking, anyone who forms an opinion and/or cleaves to a belief, without an understanding or comprehension of it, is, by definition, uneducated.
Logically speaking, when a person chooses to attribute their ignorance to ghosts, demons, magic, spirits, curses, superstition, etc., those persons may certainly and accurately be described as uneducated. "
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 10:22 AM:
When one refers to Christianity (or any other faith) as 'crud,' they really mean to use the word 'sh&t.' Note how I responded to that contention. I neither demeaned nor belittled anyone. "
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 10:14 AM:
The out of hand rejection of ideas deemed to be incomprehensible to us demonstrates ignorance and fear, nothing more. I celebrate those who had the courage to look their detractors in the eye and reject their narrow-minded views. Just where would be now without them?
Oh, I also submit that as a Christian, Barack Obama does believe in the Tribulation and all that God has written regarding it. Do you still want him to be the President of the United States? "
Leonard wrote on May 24, 2008 10:11 AM:
Yet is amazes me so that those who purport to be 'liberal' and all-inclusive of others so vehemently reject, demean and belittle those who believe in God and what He and his Word represents.
To be fair, it is also amazing how those who purport to be followers of Christ so vehemently reject, demean and belittle those who they call liberals.
I think there is more than enough blame to go around on both sides. As a Christian I am routinely shocked to see so called evangelical Christians living in a manner that is in absolute, complete, total opposition to the teachings of Christ. "
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 10:10 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 10:01 AM:
Yet is amazes me so that those who purport to be 'liberal' and all-inclusive of others so vehemently reject, demean and belittle those who believe in God and what He and his Word represents. I have never attempted to force anyone to believe anything; I have also never treated anyone's faith with such disdain as I have witnessed over the course of these blogs and during my lifetime. There was one here not long ago who did attempt to do that to the detriment of what he was trying to foist upon others. In fact, he behaved in much the same manner as a few here are right now.
Since I've been down this road before that leads to nowhere, as it pertains to religion I'll take the next fork that will hopefully lead me to more rational, intelligent and thoughtful discourse. "
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 9:59 AM:
How do you feel about Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? "
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 9:57 AM:
"
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 9:55 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 9:52 AM:
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 9:51 AM:
oldguy wrote on May 24, 2008 9:50 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on May 24, 2008 9:49 AM:
Adults are having an evening conversation and adorable little four year-old Juniper comes trailing out of her bedroom, favorite blankie in tow and usually bright eyes swollen with recent sleep.
As she wakes, little Juniper decides she wants to join the conversation and tell the room at large about her imaginary friends (in excruciating detail) who live in a complete, though imaginary, village she has constructed in her head.
The room is under what obligation to encourage Juniper's story telling?
This conversation is about a leading candidate for the office of president of the United States. It has nothing to do with demons and anti-christ figures.
Someone needs to lead Mazie gently by her little hand back to her bedroom where she can escape back to Dreamland, which is filled with magic and witchcraft and demons. "
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 9:49 AM:
Who's anti-intellectual? There are institutions of higher learning specifically designed for the study of theology. Do you suggest that these universities are any less 'intellectual' than those that specifically study art, history, science or music? If you don't, then I do not understand your prior posts or this particular question. "
jess wrote on May 24, 2008 9:48 AM:
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 9:47 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 9:45 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 9:43 AM:
We're about to enter a rather contentious area here. Without quoting any scripture I would suggest if Voter is correct then there are no 'educated' Christians in the Catholic Church, Baptist Churches, Methodist Churches, Episcopalian Churches, etc., etc.
A fundamental belief of Christianity is that Jesus will one day return. A precursor to that arrival will be the arrival of the antithesis to Him - the antichrist. He has been described as a demon and Satan-possessed. Are we now at the point where those who believe in things we are unable to fully understand and comprehend are considered to be 'uneducated?'
There a many subjects continued to be studied by learned people that have spawned theories or mere beliefs in what may be (the cosmos for example) that it would be foolish to characterize them as uneducated because of what they believe, nest pas? "
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 9:39 AM:
jess wrote on May 24, 2008 9:39 AM:
"
jess wrote on May 24, 2008 9:38 AM:
"
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 9:36 AM:
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 9:32 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 9:31 AM:
Normally such comments are made by very frightened people. Is that it? Are you scared? "
jess wrote on May 24, 2008 9:27 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 9:26 AM:
And if Obama had made this statement, it would futher the contention that he is an elitist. What happened to the concept of respect for what others believe, especially as it relates to their faith? No one here is attempting to force anyone's beliefs on another; we're simply discussing a little letter to the editor and following the tangents that 'naturally' follow. "
jess wrote on May 24, 2008 9:23 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on May 24, 2008 9:23 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on May 24, 2008 9:21 AM:
What a relief! I was afraid I was absorbing some of that crud. I'm gladdened to learn I'm as ignorant as ever. Whew! :-) "
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 9:18 AM:
While your tongue may have been planted firmly within your cheek with this remark, it does demonstrate your lack of knowledge on the subject. The 'rapture' starts off the seven years; it doesn't occur at the end of that period. "
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 9:16 AM:
Are you serious voter? There are many well-educated Christians who actually believe in what the Bible purports. Your dismissal of a conversation regarding specific elements of this faith smacks of elitism itself. "
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 9:12 AM:
As far as Mazie being 'serious,' about his/her belief that Obama is the antichrist, that is anyone's right to assert. What real difference does it make when anyone is accused of being the antichrist? If anyone here wants to accuse me of being this personification of ultimate evil, then be my guest. I am not - and that ends the conversation. "
Cogito wrote on May 24, 2008 9:10 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 9:08 AM:
Obama's infamous San Francisco speech where he described certain Americans as follows: 'And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,' could certainly cause many to believe that he places himself above other citizens.
Yet I don't believe he is elitist at all. He is a young, inexperienced presidential-wannabe who is simply not ready for big-time politics. This immaturity and navet will be his undoing in the fall if he does become the Democrat nominee, which looks very likely.
Of course he has other issues in addition to his west-coast speech that he won't be able to dodge once the national campaign is underway. Its going to be fun!
But in direct response to the author of this letter, Obama is 'not' a leader. Neither of the Democrats could be defined as possessing this one very important quality. "
Leonard wrote on May 24, 2008 9:05 AM:
" Jess: once a Muslim, always a Muslim.
Really, so when Christ said that his followers should work to bring others to the Truth, he meant others, except for the Moslems? "
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 9:01 AM:
jess wrote on May 24, 2008 8:58 AM:
Mazie wrote on May 24, 2008 8:57 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on May 24, 2008 8:57 AM:
Because we have ust lived through 7 years of horror and killing. "
girard74 wrote on May 24, 2008 8:51 AM:
Actually, 'the' antichrist is much more than someone who denies or opposes Christ. Biblically it is one person, a messenger from satan himself, sent to earth to usher in seven years of horror and murder culiminating in the second return of Jesus.
From the way this individual has been described in the Bible, I seriously doubt that Barack Obama is this messenger. That being said, there were many who believed that Ronald Reagan, Bush (both of them) and others were this demon-possessed monster as well. No, I don't think this guy has made his introduction into society as yet. It could be soon, though. "
jess wrote on May 24, 2008 8:50 AM:
"
Mazie wrote on May 24, 2008 8:47 AM:
And how do you figure me to be an elitist? "
jess wrote on May 24, 2008 8:32 AM:
The definition of an antichrist is one who denies or opposes Christ.
How does a 47 year old Christian man fit this bill? "
Leonard wrote on May 24, 2008 8:31 AM:
" Blacks have never been treated so well as they are in the U.S.... Personally I believe that Obama is the anti-christ.
LOL!!! You couldn't make material like this up. "
Billy Rubin wrote on May 24, 2008 8:26 AM:
Sometimes, after reading these posts, my mind boggles. And it's usually brought about by bloggers who bray like a jackass how conservative and moral they are. "
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 8:19 AM:
Cogito wrote on May 24, 2008 8:17 AM:
voter wrote on May 24, 2008 8:14 AM:
Mazie wrote on May 24, 2008 8:04 AM:
jess wrote on May 24, 2008 7:14 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.