 | Blogs > > Mercy > Member Deleted Post |
|
|||
|
|
Member Deleted Post | ||
9/3/2008 9:07 pm |
These are great Dennis and I will be passing them on. Thanks. * Sin is sin. Careful what comes across your lips & out your finger tips!!! * We are all the Body of Christ. Let's treat each other as such, with the same respect we give to HIM!! * Relationship advice: DO NOT make someone a PRIORITY, when they ONLY make you an OPTION!! * A woman's heart should be so lost in God, that a man has to seek HIM in order to find her!!
| ||
9/4/2008 3:39 am |
you are welcome. I think they are self explanatory
| ||
9/4/2008 11:19 am |
Tropical_Man, I could make you sound like a graduate of The Hitler Youth if I took your writings out of context and reworded them as you have here. All of these passages are cherry-picked statements attempting to present Obama as a self-declared racist. They are devoid of context, and some of them are reworded from the original or are non-existent. You can go to snopes to see these full actual quotes in their context. Let me take just one of the distortions your present here. "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." This statement is a rewording of the passage from page 261 of The Audacity of Hope, in which Sen. Obama spoke of the importance of not allowing inflamed public opinion to result in innocent members of immigrant groups being stripped of their rights, denied their due as American citizens, or placed into confinement, as was done with the Japanese-Americans during WWII. The original contains no specific mention of "Muslims". " In the wake of 9 / 11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. " As a Christian and a Proud American I wholeheartedly agree with Obama on this and I'll bet John McCain would also agree with Obama.
| ||
9/4/2008 2:14 pm |
You know something. You do not know anything. I have studied who this person is for some time now. Joe McCarthy was a Hero. Snoopes is not always on the up and up. Barrack Obama sat under Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. Black Liberation Theology is not Christianity. Barrack indeed was a muslim and that has been validated by his half Brother Roy. Thats a fact. The profiling done in the United States in the 50's was a very good thing. Since it has stopped Marxist Hollywood has ran rampant. No one wants to believe that exists. We need to do that now with the Muslims in this nation. If you knew anything about them, you would realize there are 140 conflicts in this world. They are involved in all of them, and some instances against each other. Proud American? I certainly question that. Have you read his policies? They are marxist as is his voting. Barrack Obama is not an intelligent man. He spent 20 years in hatred. The sad part is you are white and he hates you because of it. He is caught in lie after lie. He would throw you under the bus quicker than he threw his grandmother. If you understood Islam, you would understand why profiling is needed. Some countries are having muslims leave. Thats a good thing.
| ||
9/4/2008 2:21 pm |
Obama's Lies [John Derbyshire] Not so much lies as a sort of slippery sleight-of-mouth. I'm starting to really dislike Obama. "Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation … came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land." Segregation was not "the law of the land" in the 1950s. It was the law in a minority of states. "For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger … occasionally … finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews." If, as Obama seems to be claiming, those are the sentiments only of Wright's generation, how come those whooping and clapping their approval in those sermon clips include lots of young people? "Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends." Fear of crime is not a legitimate emotion? Or is it just not legitimate for politicians to appeal to it? If, oh, say, some liberal Democratic governor of some state gives weekend furloughs to the perpetrator of a hideously callous murder who then, while on furlough, commits armed robbery and rape, why should criticism of that governor for that act be out of bounds in a political contest? Or should it only be out of bounds if the murderer is black? "But it also means binding our particular grievances … to the larger aspirations of all Americans — the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family." Well, I'm an immigrant, and I try hard to feed my family. And yes, I have grievances. For instance, I think I pay far too much tax in support of far too many public sector workers, most of whom do nothing useful. So … how will you bind your "particular grievances" to mine, Senator? Or am I somehow unrepresentative of immigrants? "This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care …" The lines in the Emergency Room at far too many U.S. hospitals are filled with illegal immigrants, preventing citizens from getting timely emergency help. What's your line on illegal immigration, Senator? Oh, right — you're fine with it, as is the rest of your party. "Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students." What on earth does this mean? It's true that there is widespread school segregation today. In my state, 60 percent of black students attend schools that are at least 90-percent black. From what I can see, the main reason for this is the great reluctance of nonblack parents to send their kids to schools with too many black students, which they assume are beset by all the problems associated with poorly run public schools. Do you think that they — actually we, as my wife and I share this reluctance — are wrong to think like this? How will you persuade us to think otherwise? Or will you depend on judicially-imposed forced integration of the schools? And so on. You can go through Obama's speech pulling out questionable points like that from nearly every paragraph. The speech is slippery, evasive, dishonest, and sometimes insulting. Sorry, Charles.
| ||
9/4/2008 2:27 pm |
wake up Amwerica wrote: Political opinion The other day we wrote a piece covering some of Barack Obama's bigger lies during his campaign and his political life, which included, his lies about his association with Tony Rezko, then his lies about how much money he received from Rezko, then his admitting to the fact that he received more than he originally said. Then we went to his NAFTA lies, and his lies about what he heard from his Pastor, Jeremiah Wright and when he heard it, as we showed his statement saying he never heard those controversial "God D*mn America" remarks as well as the racial remarks and anti-American remarks and just four days later, made a speech where he admitted he had her controversial remarks. He lies, then he lies to spin his way out of his previous lies and then when he can lie no more he tells part of the truth and ignores his previous lies. This has become a very bad habit which he has been shown publicly to have....a habit of a pathological liar. Now The Politico has just busted more Obama lies, wide open. During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion — positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he has projected during his presidential campaign. The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat. Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire. They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.” But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer. The two questionnaires, provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama’s presidential campaign, were later supplied directly by the group, Independent Voters of Illinois — Independent Precinct Organization. Obama and his then-campaign manager, who Obama’s campaign asserts filled out the questionnaires, were familiar with the group, its members and its positions, since both were active in it before Obama's 1996 state Senate run. Through an aide, Obama, who won the group’s endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved — or even read — the latter questionnaire. The Politico piece is three pages long, but it is worth the read. The longer Barack Obama is in the political spotlight, the better because the media has started to do some actual research and every time they do, they show his lies, his past lies, or his present lies which generally lead to his future lies to try to spin out of the wind for his original lies. The old expression about tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceived is quite appropriate here because Barack Obama is caught in the web of his own lies and he doesn't seem to be able to break free of one before the next set of them are brought to the publics attention. I love this comment from Hot Air's, Ed Morrisey: This makes no sense at all. If Obama’s handwriting is on the survey, then he filled it out. If the answers didn’t reflect his views, why didn’t he change them when he “jotted some notes” on it? If the answers were wrong, Obama would have “jotted some notes” to that effect, rather than allow such mistakes to get transmitted to IVI. And the “eleven years in public office” defense might make sense if Obama hadn’t spent much of that time voting “present” instead of taking actual stands. Once again, we have more evidence that Obama represents nothing more than the political winds. He has zero credibility, zero experience, and a penchant for telling people what they want to hear rather than any truth about what he actually believes. Either he lied to IVI or he’s lying now. In either case, it’s hardly the New Politics Obama has promised. I couldn't have said it better myself.
| ||
9/4/2008 2:34 pm |
Posted by Bill Hennessy March 1, 2008 Technorati Tags: rezko Thanks to Ed Morrissey, we have some details about Obama’s open admission to telling his supporters lies in order garner their support. On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama’s campaign called the Canadian government within the last month — saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously. [CTV.CA] Morrissey’s blog details Obama’s campaign’s refusal to refute the charge. Obama’s chief economic advisor, one Austen Goolsbee, told the Canadian government that Obama’s promise to overturn NAFTA was a lie for the benefit of votes. Now, Goolsbee refuses to talk, referring all press questions to the campaign headquarters. So far, Obama said he’d pull out of Iraq, then changed his mind in case al Qaeda establishes bases. Now, he’s lied about NAFTA to win favor with unions. One more populist lie, and we call him the Kingfish. UPDATE: Only a little digging, and you find more Obama lies. Of the felony variety. From the Chicago Sun-Times on June 14, 2007: On June 13, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Sen. Barack Obama (D-I  , while serving as an Illinois state senator in 1998, "did a political favor" for Chicago Democratic fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko by writing letters to state and local government officials in support of a Chicago housing project proposed by Rezko’s company, New Kenwood LLC. The Sun-Times asserted that the "letters appear to contradict a statement last December from Obama, who told the Chicago Tribunethat, in all the years he’s known Rezko, ‘I’ve never done any favors for him.’ ”Here’s the text of that interview, in pertinent part, from a written interrogatory submitted to and responded by Barack Obama: Q: Did Rezko or his companies ever solicit your support on any matter involving state or federal government? Did Al Johnson, who was trying to get a casino license along with Tony Rezko, or Rezko himself ever discuss casino matters with you? A: No, I have never been asked to do anything to advance his business interests. Direct contradiction. Obama is a fraud with friends in high security prisons. Well, former friends. According to the New York Times, Obama has cut-off Rezko like an unsightly skin-tag. Mr. Obama has portrayed Mr. Rezko as a one-time fund-raiser whom he had occasionally seen socially. But interviews with more than a dozen political and business associates suggest that the two men were closer than the senator has indicated. Mr. Obama turned to Mr. Rezko for help at several important junctures. Records show that when Mr. Obama needed cash in the waning days of his losing 2000 Congressional campaign, Mr. Rezko rounded up thousands of dollars from business contacts. In 2003, Mr. Rezko helped Mr. Obama expand his fund-raising for the Senate primary by being host of a dinner at his Mediterranean-style home for 150 people, including some whose names have since come up in the influence scandal. And when Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, bought a house in 2005, Mr. Rezko stepped in again. Even though his finances were deteriorating, Mr. Rezko arranged for his wife to buy an adjacent lot, and she later sold the Obamas a 10-foot-wide strip of land that expanded their yard. With Clinton Inc. growing desperate, the Rezko story could get very interesting. The Clintons "have people" in the federal prison system, you know. How long before some enterprising, young Chicago journalist uncovers the paper trail connecting Obama to Jay Grodner?
| ||
9/4/2008 2:39 pm |
Obama Lies By Jeffrey Lord Published 7/15/2008 12:08:20 AM "You arrogant so and so! You've killed US!" The line comes from an enraged Soviet Navy officer to his superior, Captain Tupolev, in the film version of Tom Clancy's thriller The Hunt for Red October. Clancy fans will remember Tupolev as the Soviet submariner tasked with destroying the Russian super-sub Red October, captained by Tupolev's old teacher, the defecting Marko Ramius (Sean Connery). Egotistical, obsessed with getting Ramius, in the heat of battle the not very bright Tupolev impulsively launches a torpedo against the advice of his senior officer. Too late he realizes the torpedo has been led back to a target other than the Red October. At the very last moment he understands the horrible truth as his senior officer screams the line above seconds before Tupolev's sub is destroyed -- by the torpedo launched with Tupolev's own hand. Barack Obama is now in the process of being Tupoleved by the American Left. More amusingly, the American Left is in the process of being Tupoleved by the American Left. The torpedo? Two simple words repeated ad nauseam now for years. The words? Bush lied. This is the driving narrative of the Bush administration as portrayed by the likes of the Huffington Post, the Daily Kos, MoveOn, and the rest of the perpetually outraged members of the Angry Left. An intelligence mistake in the Bush era like those missing WMD's? Bush lied! Changes of position by the administration? Bush lied! Bush and company, we are repeatedly informed, simply tell flat out lies. Big lies, small lies, medium-sized lies. These lies are told deliberately, from dawn to dusk 24/7 with the malice aforethought of cold-blooded liars possessing vastly ill intentions towards truth, justice and, well, all that stuff (they don't really like to speak of The American Way over on that side). Talk about the law of unintended consequences. The twist here is so delicious it almost deserves a Clancy thriller of its own. THE PROBLEM THE ANGRY LEFT has brought Tupolev-style both to the door step of Barack Obama as well as to its own is that having emphatically laid down the rules in the body politic as to what constitutes a lie it is suddenly finding the same rules are now being applied not only to their candidate but to themselves as well. Let's start with Obama. On issue after issue, whether confessing to a mistake or tailoring his latest position for political effect ("moving to the center" is what they call this in political lingo), Obama's words are now increasingly being received as bald untruths. His image is turning into that of presidential candidate as Pinocchio, the would-be president as habitual liar. Simply googling "Obama Lies" produces thirteen million references on the subject -- thirteen million! -- as opposed to just over a million references to "Bush Lies" and three million for "Bill Clinton Lies." Type in "McCain Lies" and you find a meager 213,000 entries. Among the Obama thirteen million are "Obama's Fifty Lies" and "More Obama Lies the Media Will Ignore" while You Tube features a video clip called "Barack Obama Lies to America." Others are busy cataloguing Obama statements as "bigger" or "demonstrable" lies, with an entire site devoted to Obama's "laundry list of lies." Presented as examples of Obama's blatant lying are everything from his descriptions of his personal relationships to his political positions. This includes his statements on his relationships with convicted felon Tony Rezko (something Obama called "a boneheaded mistake"), his controversial pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (a 20-year relationship which he has now disavowed) and his political supporter and fellow Woods Foundation board member, the Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers (Obama dismissed this relationship as "flimsy"). The portrait of Obama as liar also zeroes in on his every twist and turn in his political positions. This includes but is decidedly not limited to his sudden reversals on issues as varied as campaign finance reform, single payer health care, vouchers for District of Columbia school kids, Iraq, Israel, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), welfare reform, NAFTA and the building of a fence along the Mexican-U.S. border. With liberals having laid out very bright markers as to what constitutes a "lie" by the Bush administration -- mistakes, outright changes of position or anything that can remotely be interpreted as misleading -- it should be no surprise then that Obama's mistakes, sudden and/or repeated flip-flops, or misleading statements on issues are not taken, as they were with Senator John Kerry in the 2004 race, as a sign of indecisiveness or weakness. This time around, with the left's "Bush lied" mantra beaten into the public consciousness, what Obama presents as mistakes or as a "refining" of his positions are being seen as outright lies. PERHAPS MOST AMUSINGLY he is seemingly being held to these standards not just by his opponents. His creators and idolaters over there on the Angry Left profess to being shocked -- shocked! -- with his new political positions as well. Or so they say. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitas says, "There is a line between 'moving to the center' and stabbing your allies in the back," a polite version of calling his creation a liar. Arianna Huffington was so alarmed she wrote a Huffington Post "Memo to Obama" imploring him not to shift positions because to do so was to make "a very serious mistake" not to mention a "losing strategy." She stopped just short of using the "L" word. Over there at the Talking Points Memo the buzz phrase is "supporter discontent." Others on the left are now sneering that Obama "is just another politician" or that he is "betraying his base" by "caving in to Republicans." These too are barely polite ways of making an accusation their hero has lied to them. Two things: First, what is most striking in watching the "Obama lies" image take off is the left's inability to learn from their own history of the last several decades. This is not the first time they have launched a Tupolev. Carried away with a zealous lust to "get" this or that opponent, they consistently launched torpedoes that sooner or later honed in on their own leaders. Repeatedly deploying special prosecutors against both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, they were stunned and embittered to see Republicans successfully use the tactic Democrats had made so acceptable -- against the Clinton administration. In 1991's drive to smear Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas and deny him a seat on the Court, they launched a torpedo labeled "women tell the truth" when it came to claims of sexual harassment. A mere seven years later they were staggered to realize that their torpedo, freshly re-labeled "Paula Jones," almost sank the USS Clinton completely with an assist from another torpedo launched way back in the get-Nixon era: a special prosecutor-induced impeachment. Second. The lethal nature of all this to Obama's credibility ironically poses the real twist in this story. Because it isn't just his credibility that's at stake. A refusal to distance themselves from Obama as he mysteriously becomes a FISA supporter or a NAFTA cheerleader or when, as he did just the other day, disavows MoveOn.org and says he is "refining" his anti-Iraq war policy leaves his allies who brought him to this presidential nominating dance with a serious credibility problem of their own. Do all these Obama mistakes, refining of positions, and outright changes mean all these Obama-boosters got him wrong? Did they trust a guy who turns out to be not the restorer of Camelot but just another lying Chicago pol? Did they tell the rest of us something that wasn't true? In other words, to put it in the blunt terms they like to use, did Barack Obama lie to them? Or did they lie to the rest of us? And are they continuing to do so? IS IT JUST Obama who lies? Or are we watching a scenario unfold that tells us Huffington Lies, Moulitas Lies, MoveOn Lies and that their empires are now devoted to lying a man they know to be a liar into the White House? Having set out with not inconsiderable success to torpedo the Bush Administration by getting the public used to the idea that every word Bush utters is a deliberate, willful lie, the American Left is discovering too late that they have launched yet another Tupolev torpedo. This Tupolev torpedo is now hurtling straight towards the heart of Barack Obama's credibility. Not to mention the credibility of the American Left itself. "Obama lies" outvotes "Bush lies" thirteen million to one million on the Internet. There's an election result you won't hear much about in the media. The "arrogant asses" are killing themselves. And that's no lie. Can you say "BOOM!"?
| ||
9/4/2008 2:45 pm |
from the Confederate Yankee, and do you want this man as comander and chief after this? This clip is from cnn: A few points: Lieutenants command platoons. Captains command companies. The U.S. Army would not, under any circumstance, split up a rifle platoon and ship half of them to Iraq and the other half to Afghanistan. They train to work as a team. This simply would not occur, ever. There has never been a shortage of weapons or ammunition for U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. On occasion, American forces (especially Special Forces) have used Soviet weapon designs, but they have done so by choice, not necessity. In the clip above, everything Barack Obama said was a lie... probably including the part where he said he spoke with an Army Captain (has anyone checked to seek if Deval Patrick spoke with Jesse McBeth?). This leaves us with two possibilities. Barack Obama is a liar. He (or someone he plagiarized) simply made the tale up out of the whole cloth. Barack Obama is a rube. Anyone with any sense of how the military works at all would immediately sniff this out as a series of false stories. Perhaps Barack Obama, the man who would be Commander in Cheif, is so ignorant of all matters military that he could be easily fooled by a fraud. Neither possibility says anything good about Obama. Update: Over at ABC News Blog , Political Punch, Jake Tapper gets in touch with the officer in question and states that Obama's claim was therefore true. Uh, no. Obama claimed: "You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon," he said. "Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief." The captain confirmed that he was then a lieutenant when he took command of a rifle platoon of 39 men, and that 15 men that platoon were assigned to other units. While many of them ended up being deployed to Iraq as part of other units, that does not equate Obama's assertion that the unit was divided. We then find out that when this officer "didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees," he was referring to practice ammunition for two kinds of heavy weapons while in Fort Drum, New York. As for having to capture Taliban weapons he stated, "The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons," he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or "Dishka") on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal." Obama's most crucial, explosive claim, that ": They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief" remains utterly and completely false. And that part, it seems, he made up by himself. Go to YOUTUBE search for "Obama: U.S. troops using Taliban weapons to fight?" its under the user "pundital"
| ||
 |
 |
 |
| Become a member to comment on this blog | ||
 |
