Obamas Preacher vs. Bushes Preacher??

tourists24

Well-Known Member
This post cracks me up. The hypocrisy involved is humorous.



So in other words, once you have the job, bad judgement is ok even if its with a pole smoking homosexual on drugs?

I am curious, if in 2004 you knew that President Bush was hanging around with Ted Haggard and knowing what you know now about Ted Haggards disgusting life style, would you still have voted for him in light of this bad judgement??

OR

Are you just trying to keep Obama from the highest office in the land using whatever issue you can muster up?

Bad judgement is bad judgement before or after an election.

Just wondering.

Peace:peaceful:


Well if George Bush is the horrible President as I assume you think he is, then the correlation about him and Obama should warn you about wanting him as President.

Now I dont agree with the comparisons personally simply because Obama is a very progressive (liberal) politician with a socialist agenda. If this is what you want then you have your man. Bush on the other hand is just .... ::: ???... well somewhat conservative on a lot of things and is not a great communicator. He has been very affective on a lot of things but has not instilled confidence with the public. It IS a comparison of apples and oranges.
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
I have to agree with diesels response, it was well put and directly answered you on all phases of your previous post.

His positions are well stated and argued.

The problem I see is the extreme right winged ideology that prevents debate.

Listen to what diesels says as argument. GIve it some real thought.

Avoid the pat bucannan approach by disecting each line looking for an "AH HA" moment.

This isnt rocket science.

Peace:peaceful:

If you agree with his positions then you are clearly blind to the facts and have fallen for his liberal tactics of misinterpreting information as facts to back his conclusions. It's not possible to answer anything "directly" when using those tactics. There was no "idealogy" here. Unless you consider the Holy Bible idealogy and not truth then that is your problem. And apparently a problem among many on the left. I'm starting to think there are more Godless souls among you then people are admitting. There was no Pat Bucannan approach. I simply stated the truth, which seems to be the best weapon when debating Liberlas, when countering his wrongfull interpretations of the bible. So, yeah...you are right. This isn't rocket science. When Liberals stop twisting and misinterpreting the Bible and the Constitution then things are quite easy to understand.
 

BrownShark

Banned
Well if George Bush is the horrible President as I assume you think he is, then the correlation about him and Obama should warn you about wanting him as President.

Now I dont agree with the comparisons personally simply because Obama is a very progressive (liberal) politician with a socialist agenda. If this is what you want then you have your man. Bush on the other hand is just .... ::: ???... well somewhat conservative on a lot of things and is not a great communicator. He has been very affective on a lot of things but has not instilled confidence with the public. It IS a comparison of apples and oranges.


I am open to your suggestion tha GW Bush has been an "affective" president. would you kindly enlighten us to any successes hes had in 8 years leaving out the debacle in the middle east.

Go ahead, im listening.

Personally, I believe GW to be the WORST president in the history of the United States. Outrageous deficits, wall street taking all the wealth of the country, job losses to outsourcing, borrowing from social security just to pay the % interests payments on his deficits.

Scandals throughout his cabinet and appointments, rediculous mis-statements and false milestones, lies and deceptions onto the american public, corruption in his very office that resulted in a "commuted" sentence for a criminal best friend.

The list goes on and on and on.......and on and on....

So, I am ready to listen to the proven success stories of this president. Its your turn to list them.

Go ahead:

Peace.:peaceful:
 

BrownShark

Banned
If you agree with his positions then you are clearly blind to the facts and have fallen for his liberal tactics of misinterpreting information as facts to back his conclusions. It's not possible to answer anything "directly" when using those tactics. There was no "idealogy" here. Unless you consider the Holy Bible idealogy and not truth then that is your problem. And apparently a problem among many on the left. I'm starting to think there are more Godless souls among you then people are admitting. There was no Pat Bucannan approach. I simply stated the truth, which seems to be the best weapon when debating Liberlas, when countering his wrongfull interpretations of the bible. So, yeah...you are right. This isn't rocket science. When Liberals stop twisting and misinterpreting the Bible and the Constitution then things are quite easy to understand.

Ok, i get it, your a bible guy, however, in this democracy, your bible ideology and the ways of the state are to be kept separate and not intertwined. One problem of the republican party, is that they like to keep a panic button available to use on its followers each and every election cycle. If they truly wanted to end abortion, there would be tangilble evidence that they would want to end it in all states. Instead, they inflame those who view the bible to an extreme to do the dirty work for them every 4 years.

This is where you leave the tracks.

This year, again the republicans will put on the nov ballot in each state, at least 1 anti homosexual legislation and at least 1 anti abortion legislation just to get the bible thumpers to the polls.

They know however, that the legislation will have NO, ZERO, NADA chance of passing, but it gets people to vote. This is pathetic and you should feel used.

This democracy is not a theocractic society. Your religious beliefs cannot interfere with the governing of each state.

While you may believe with all your heart and soul that abortion is wrong, that is all that its worth. You must separate this from the position of the state.

No one is putting you down for your thoughts or opinions, they are just asking you to keep it in perspective.

That perspective is the separation of church and state.

Peace.:peaceful:
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
Ok, i get it, your a bible guy, however, in this democracy, your bible ideology and the ways of the state are to be kept separate and not intertwined. One problem of the republican party, is that they like to keep a panic button available to use on its followers each and every election cycle. If they truly wanted to end abortion, there would be tangilble evidence that they would want to end it in all states. Instead, they inflame those who view the bible to an extreme to do the dirty work for them every 4 years.

This is where you leave the tracks.

This year, again the republicans will put on the nov ballot in each state, at least 1 anti homosexual legislation and at least 1 anti abortion legislation just to get the bible thumpers to the polls.

They know however, that the legislation will have NO, ZERO, NADA chance of passing, but it gets people to vote. This is pathetic and you should feel used.

This democracy is not a theocractic society. Your religious beliefs cannot interfere with the governing of each state.

While you may believe with all your heart and soul that abortion is wrong, that is all that its worth. You must separate this from the position of the state.

No one is putting you down for your thoughts or opinions, they are just asking you to keep it in perspective.

That perspective is the separation of church and state.

Peace.:peaceful:

Separation of church and state? Oh here we go....LOL! It never ends! :) Liberals don't even know what that means and that's part of the problem.
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
All the righteous indignation and red-faced sputtering about Obama's crazy preacher might be a little more credible if wasn't all coming from the same source(s),ie, people who were never in a million years going to vote for him in the first place.

And the hypocrisy only gets clearer with each new justification of "well, our guy's crazy preacher isn't as bad as your guy's crazy preacher", or "your guy has been hanging out with his crazy preacher longer than our guy has been hanging out with his crazy preacher".

If there's a single person who is actually going to change their vote over this nonsense I've yet to hear from them. If anyone does they must be a clueless idiot, seeing as how the candidates have real differences over policy issues that actually matter (Iraq, the economy, etc), which is what the election should be about.

It's a sign of how pathetic our selection process has become, when we demand that our elected officials pay public homage to some guy who wears a dress on Sunday while he talks to his imaginary friend. When viewed in that light, it makes this current non-controversy seem all too predictable.
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
All the righteous indignation and red-faced sputtering about Obama's crazy preacher might be a little more credible if wasn't all coming from the same source(s),ie, people who were never in a million years going to vote for him in the first place.

And the hypocrisy only gets clearer with each new justification of "well, our guy's crazy preacher isn't as bad as your guy's crazy preacher", or "your guy has been hanging out with his crazy preacher longer than our guy has been hanging out with his crazy preacher".

If there's a single person who is actually going to change their vote over this nonsense I've yet to hear from them. If anyone does they must be a clueless idiot, seeing as how the candidates have real differences over policy issues that actually matter (Iraq, the economy, etc), which is what the election should be about.

It's a sign of how pathetic our selection process has become, when we demand that our elected officials pay public homage to some guy who wears a dress on Sunday while he talks to his imaginary friend. When viewed in that light, it makes this current non-controversy seem all too predictable.


I knew I wasn't voting on Obama about a third of a way through reading his voting record. That was enough for me but this crap with the preacher, along with anything else that comes up, is just icing on the cake.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
I am open to your suggestion tha GW Bush has been an "affective" president. would you kindly enlighten us to any successes hes had in 8 years leaving out the debacle in the middle east.

Go ahead, im listening.


So, I am ready to listen to the proven success stories of this president. Its your turn to list them.

Go ahead:

Peace.:peaceful:


Here are his first four years as President. You may not agree with things like the patients bill of rights, lower taxes, free trade, American Dream Downpayment act, fair and accurate credit transactions act, partial birth abortion ban, the keep children safe act, national flood insurance act,no child left behind, the expansion of NATO,or project bioshield but for the most part to liberals these programs are seen as successful. Most liberals see these things as such success that they want them expanded. Oh and I saw were you used GW Bush you should be careful your liberal buddy diesel will think you are racist for using an initial or middle name.
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
Here are his first four years as President. You may not agree with things like the patients bill of rights, lower taxes, free trade, American Dream Downpayment act, fair and accurate credit transactions act, partial birth abortion ban, the keep children safe act, national flood insurance act,no child left behind, the expansion of NATO,or project bioshield but for the most part to liberals these programs are seen as successful. Most liberals see these things as such success that they want them expanded. Oh and I saw were you used GW Bush you should be careful your liberal buddy diesel will think you are racist for using an initial or middle name.

Give it up man. There is no reason with some of these people. Besides....everyone knows that Jimmy Carter was the worst president in recent past. Plus, we all know that when the left bash Bush it's not because they really give a sh#$ about Iraq. It's because in order for them to when politically over here the U.S. has to lose over there.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
Give it up man. There is no reason with some of these people. Besides....everyone knows that Jimmy Carter was the worst president in recent past.


I know but isn't it fun anyway? It is great on this thread when someone used Time magazine as a source for something. Let's see they were wrong on the ice age, wrong on global warming, wrong on the Marines in Haditha, but they supposedly got something right about religion.
 

BrownShark

Banned
Give it up man. There is no reason with some of these people. Besides....everyone knows that Jimmy Carter was the worst president in recent past. Plus, we all know that when the left bash Bush it's not because they really give a sh#$ about Iraq. It's because in order for them to when politically over here the U.S. has to lose over there.


I see someone was hurt by my post enough to DELETE it from this thread.

Cowardly I say.

It is always the case of anyone defending GW Bush's record by saying that they CANT or WONT list any accomplishments in 8 years.

Of the list posted by AV8,
like the patients bill of rights, lower taxes, free trade, American Dream Downpayment act, fair and accurate credit transactions act, partial birth abortion ban, the keep children safe act, national flood insurance act,no child left behind, the expansion of NATO,or project bioshield but for the most part to liberals these programs are seen as successful.
i dont think these measure up to the standard of a successful presidency.

Lower taxes? Higher spending and larger federal budget deficits to be paid by americas future workforce down the road. The TAX increases for this wreckless act of a president and it republican house and senate will be burdened upon americas youth long after Bush leaves office.

Same fate that President Reagan left Bush 1. Remember , "read my lips, no new taxes".....

It matters not who takes office, raising taxes to pay for the abuse of power by the republicans in the first 4 years will be imminent.

This war by all accounts, including Bush's own counsel say it will cost taxpayers 3 trillion dollars when its done.

Not one dime has been spent paying for this war so far, and each day millions of dollars get added to an already skyrocketing open tab for a military blunder of the worst kind.

No child left behind act?? This has already by all accounts been proven to be a failed policy as cuts in funding for it are already in action.

Free trade? This has done in our manufacturing and industrial sectors. 71% of everything america now makes, is made in a foriegn country.

Patients bill of rights, vs the loss of citizens bill of rights. Evesdropping, unlawful searches and laws that allow a goverment to spy on political opponents.

Fair and accurate credit transaction act? Are you serious? have you seen the latest foreclosure numbers and those numbers projected to foreclise in the second quarter (1 million to go into foreclosure) This has been the biggest failure of the Bush administration in domestic policy.

I am asking for the real deal, what successes have separated this president from Jimmy Carter and the rest?

Not some meaningless junk that amounts to a wasted presidency.

Show something of substance, dont be afraid of your beloved presidents record....

Demonstrate it for all to see, maybe you can swing a few votes with the enlightenment.

Ill say it first, none of you can, wont and will only try and
argue without fact.

This election is about change and the american people will speak their minds on election day.

More of the same, or an ousting of a corrupt political party gone wrong on the road to fascism.

Peace.:peaceful:
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
I see someone was hurt by my post enough to DELETE it from this thread.

Cowardly I say.

It is always the case of anyone defending GW Bush's record by saying that they CANT or WONT list any accomplishments in 8 years.

Of the list posted by AV8,

i dont think these measure up to the standard of a successful presidency.

Lower taxes? Higher spending and larger federal budget deficits to be paid by americas future workforce down the road. The TAX increases for this wreckless act of a president and it republican house and senate will be burdened upon americas youth long after Bush leaves office.

Same fate that President Reagan left Bush 1. Remember , "read my lips, no new taxes".....

It matters not who takes office, raising taxes to pay for the abuse of power by the republicans in the first 4 years will be imminent.

This war by all accounts, including Bush's own counsel say it will cost taxpayers 3 trillion dollars when its done.

Not one dime has been spent paying for this war so far, and each day millions of dollars get added to an already skyrocketing open tab for a military blunder of the worst kind.

No child left behind act?? This has already by all accounts been proven to be a failed policy as cuts in funding for it are already in action.

Free trade? This has done in our manufacturing and industrial sectors. 71% of everything america now makes, is made in a foriegn country.

Patients bill of rights, vs the loss of citizens bill of rights. Evesdropping, unlawful searches and laws that allow a goverment to spy on political opponents.

Fair and accurate credit transaction act? Are you serious? have you seen the latest foreclosure numbers and those numbers projected to foreclise in the second quarter (1 million to go into foreclosure) This has been the biggest failure of the Bush administration in domestic policy.

I am asking for the real deal, what successes have separated this president from Jimmy Carter and the rest?

Not some meaningless junk that amounts to a wasted presidency.

Show something of substance, dont be afraid of your beloved presidents record....

Demonstrate it for all to see, maybe you can swing a few votes with the enlightenment.

Ill say it first, none of you can, wont and will only try and
argue without fact.

This election is about change and the american people will speak their minds on election day.

More of the same, or an ousting of a corrupt political party gone wrong on the road to fascism.

Peace.:peaceful:

If your post was deleted than it's not because someone is a coward. Its more likely because it was distasteful, vulgar, included personal attacks, threats, etc.. In other words you were in the wrong.
 

BrownShark

Banned
I know but isn't it fun anyway? It is great on this thread when someone used Time magazine as a source for something. Let's see they were wrong on the ice age, wrong on global warming, wrong on the Marines in Haditha, but they supposedly got something right about religion.

AV8,

wrong on haditha?? Man what are you smoking?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/03/AR2006060300710_pf.html

(CBS) This segment was originally broadcast on March 18, 2007. It was updated on Aug. 29, 2007.

On Nov. 19, 2005, United States Marines killed 24 apparently innocent civilians in an Iraqi town called Haditha. The dead included men, women and children as young as two years old. Iraqi witnesses said the Marines were on a rampage, slaughtering people in the street and in their homes. In December, four Marines were charged with murder.

Was it murder? Was Haditha a massacre? A military jury will decide. But, there’s no question that Haditha is symbolic of a war that leaves American troops with terrible choices. The Marine making those choices in Haditha was a 25-year-old sergeant named Frank Wuterich. He’s charged with 18 murders, the most by far, and he's accused of lying on the day it happened.

Wuterich faces life in prison. None of the Marines charged with murder has spoken publicly about this. Now, Staff Sgt. Wuterich tells 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley he wants to tell the truth about the day he decided who would live and who would die in Haditha.

"Everyone visualizes me as a monster - a baby killer, cold-blooded, that sort of thing. And, it's, you know, that’s not accurate, and neither is the story that most of them know of this incident. They need to know the truth," Wuterich tells Pelley.
Wuterich does not believe 24 dead civilians equates to a massacre.

"No, absolutely not… A massacre in my mind, by definition, is a large group of people being executed, being killed for absolutely no reason and that’s absolutely not what happened here," he says.

***

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5439816

You ex GI's will exonerate any soldier guilty of commiting a horrific crime just to save face.

As i said before, I can list all the CONVICTIONS for your beloved soldiers who behave in this fashion. all you have to do is ask.

If you truly support the troops, you must also embrace the guilty. There actions have to be held accountable by our country as they cost the american taxpayer 10's of millions of dollars every month in war reparations.

Currently, INDIVIDUAL (by person) war reparations have totaled over 20 million dollars. Collectively, reparations for the country have totaled 500 million.

Its amazing how people look the other way in light of murdering of innocent civilians just so the truth can be swept under the rug.

Our failures are just as important as our successes.

Maybe you think Haditha was justified? Unarmed women and children killed in thier beds by marines. A disgusting piece of american history to be written.

What about the soldier who raped the iraqi girl, did time magazine have that wrong as well??

FORT CAMPBELL, Kentucky (AP) -- A soldier convicted of rape and murder in an attack on an Iraqi teenager and her family was sentenced Saturday to 110 years in prison.
The military says Pfc. Jesse Spielman will also be reduced in rank and be dishonorably discharged.

The sentence was part of a plea agreement attorneys for Pfc. Jesse Spielman had made with prosecutors.
It set the number of years he could serve in prison, regardless of the jury's recommendation.
The jury had recommended life with parole, a sentence under which he would have to wait longer for the possibility of parole. He will be eligible for parole after 10 years.
Spielman was convicted late Friday of rape, conspiracy to commit rape, housebreaking with intent to rape and four counts of felony murder.
Military prosecutors did not say Spielman took part in the rape or murders but alleged that he went to the house knowing what the others intended to do and served as a lookout.
Spielman, 23, of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, received the longest sentence of four soldiers who have been convicted. Three other soldiers pleaded guilty under agreements with prosecutors for their roles in the assault and were given sentences ranging from five to 100 years.
Spielman's grandmother, Nancy Hess, collapsed outside the courtroom after the verdict was read; prosecutor Maj. William Fischbach ran to her side and called 911. Soldiers in Spielman's unit fanned the woman with napkins.

Spielman's sister, Paige Gerlach, screamed: "I hate the government. You people put him [in Iraq] and now, this happened."
Defense attorneys left immediately after the verdict was returned and could not be reached for comment.
Spielman had pleaded guilty on Monday to lesser charges of conspiracy to obstructing justice, arson, wrongfully touching a corpse and drinking. The 110-year sentence encompasses those crimes, too.
The case stemmed from the March 12, 2006, rape and slaying of Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, 14, and the killings of her parents and sister. The attack took place in Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad.
Prosecutors rested their case Thursday amid struggles to overcome a fellow soldier's recanting of a story that Spielman acted as a lookout.
Spc. James Barker said in earlier testimony that he had allowed investigators to draft sworn statements for him that implicated Spielman.
Barker testified Wednesday that several portions of the document were untrue, including references to Spielman's role in the conspiracy to attack the family and his knowledge of plans to rape the girl.
But Sgt. Paul E. Cortez testified that Spielman stood guard. Cortez said Spielman was within a few feet of the others as they held down the screaming girl and did nothing to stop them.
Barker, Cortez and another soldier, Pfc. Bryan L. Howard, pleaded guilty for their roles.
Steven D. Green, who was discharged from the Army before being charged, faces a possible death sentence when he is tried in federal court in Kentucky. He has pleaded not guilty to charges that include murder and sexual assault.
Barker and Cortez gave investigators conflicting statements about whether Spielman knew of the plan to rape the girl and whether he was present when they discussed it over whiskey and gin, according to testimony.
During their courts-martial, Barker and Cortez testified they took turns raping the girl while Green shot and killed her mother, father and younger sister. Green shot the girl in the head after raping her, they said.
The girl's body was set on fire with kerosene to destroy the evidence, according to previous testimony.

***
"are these the type of heroes you embrace AV8??"

Give me a break, I may puke.

Peace:peaceful:
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
AV8,

wrong on haditha?? Man what are you smoking?





Peace:peaceful:


What I am smoking would be called the truth. Do not confuse that with the lies that you so often post about the Iraq war.

"charges are being dropped against Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz, formerly accused of murder in the Haditha incident"

"The announcement of the deal with Dela Cruz is further evidence that the cases against the Kilo Company Marines and several of their superior officers are in deep trouble. It comes on the heels of postponements of Article 32 hearings slated for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the battalion commander and two of the enlisted men charged with murdering civilians in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005."

"Much of that evidence remains classified, but it includes videos of the entire day's action, including airstrikes against insurgent safe houses. Also included was all of the radio traffic describing the ongoing action between the men on the ground and battalion headquarters, and proof that the Marines were aware that the insurgents conducting the ambush of the Kilo Company troops were videotaping the action — the same video that after editing ended up in the hands of a gullible anti-war correspondent for Time magazine."

Look BS most people know Time magazine had this story wrong. Gullible people like you who are looking for anything they can to make our Marines look bad jumped on these baseless accusations of murder and ran with it. People like you and Time magazine have no regard for the truth you just look to advance your cause as you have proved numerous times on here with your posts by linking to stories that point to opposite conclusions.


Here is a piece not as friendly to the Marines but even they know murder was not commited.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/08/haditha-marines.html

The silence of the media is very noticable on this now.


But some have covered this story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6939337.stm
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august092007/haditha_marines_8907.php
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/08/24/another-haditha-marine-cleared/
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-haditha29mar29,0,3752011.story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/28/AR2008032801923.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/friend-news/1977783/posts
What Time Magazine said these men commited murder among other war crimes. BS says if you do not believe Time Magazine when they print those false statements I must be smoking something. Your agenda is no secret BS. You are blind to facts. The first pictures that Time ran even had disproved their allegations but you likely did not pay enough attention to detail to catch that either.


Go ahead and post the Time cover story about this from three years ago. Or maybe you can find the Murtha apology to these Marines to post.
 
Last edited:

tourists24

Well-Known Member
Personally, I believe GW to be the WORST president in the history of the United States. Outrageous deficits, wall street taking all the wealth of the country, job losses to outsourcing, borrowing from social security just to pay the % interests payments on his deficits.

Scandals throughout his cabinet and appointments, rediculous mis-statements and false milestones, lies and deceptions onto the american public, corruption in his very office that resulted in a "commuted" sentence for a criminal best friend.

The list goes on and on and on.......and on and on...
Worst president? Dont know how old you are but I guess you have overlooked Jimmy Carter....

Wall Street taking all the wealth? hmmm I'll let that question speak for itself. What kind of accusation is that? And Bush did it even if it made sense

Job losses to outsourcing,,, again you blame Bush, but I believe the previous president had something to do with this also. ( I dont like it whomever started it)

As far as deficits,,, Deficits are not the worst things in the world unless out of control (which is not where we are). Also, I prefer it to a surplus (sometimes known as overtaxing). As far as taking from social security, if congress would protect that money it wouldnt matter who the president was...

Geez, youre right, you could go on and on.... the only reason you dont like Bush is because he has an (R) beside his name. Im not a Bush fan, but Im not a party hack either and I dont buy in to everything Im told about Bush bashing; or any politician for that matter. Do your own researching and do things for yourself.
 
Top