Pray for Obama

[I_luv_saber]

Exactly. Where were all these people complaining about the encroachment of the federal government during the last years when the expansion of unitary, concentrated power was actually happening?

There were some of us here . Really, Americans in general weren't causing as much of a stir as they should have been but, well, there it is...

[erik_blank]

@OP

It doesn't matter what anyone says, God put President Obama in the position he is in. Nothing happens without His knowledge and permission. They can pray for President Obama's destruction all day and all night if they'd like. God is righteous, He doesn't answer evil prayers. You can quote the whole Bible if you'd like, but that prayer won't be answered.

When David wrote that Psalm, he was in trouble. He was praying to God to deliver him from his enemies.
(snip)

Thereom: Thank you. It is prety refreshing to see the entire quote an see this as a request to be delivered from false accusers... Rather makes the entire "prayer" thought from this out of context quote from David a bit... sacrilegious?

Of course there will be those that will decide that since you are not quting from the KJV that you are speaking blasphemously...

[Purple Fencer]

Of course there will be those that will decide that since you are not quting from the KJV that you are speaking blasphemously...

Like that church was held a book burning of different bibles recently???

[lindajdunn]

Like that church was held a book burning of different bibles recently???

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569121,00.html

This one? But they only burned the non-KJV Bibles since KJV was the one true Bible.

[Bayou Bum]

It doesn't matter what anyone says, God put President Obama in the position he is in. Nothing happens without His knowledge and permission.

Your lack of knowledge of religion is outstanding!

[jeff]

There were some of us here . Really, Americans in general weren't causing as much of a stir as they should have been but, well, there it is...

Yeah - some few people have been consistent, and that's valuable.

I can appreciate principled opposition to government policies, and I respect those who adhere to their principles regardless of who is in office. (A Quaker doesn't oppose war only when the other party is in the White House)

OTOH, it's hypocritical when people who claim to be against government encroachment and expansion only discover those principles when the party they voted for is out of office, when they happily ignored even larger encroachments on liberty when their party ran the show. Then you know it's really not about their alleged principles - they really don't care about them at all, but instead deface them by using them as partisan weapons.

The other thing that is despicable is the blatant falsehoods and smearing that has become the oppositions primary tactic. There's a way to be a "loyal opposition" - trying to de-legitimize the current president as a Nazi, non-citizen, or dictator is not part of that.

[I_luv_saber]

OTOH, it's hypocritical when people who claim to be against government encroachment and expansion only discover those principles when the party they voted for is out of office, when they happily ignored even larger encroachments on liberty when their party ran the show. Then you know it's really not about their alleged principles - they really don't care about them at all, but instead deface them by using them as partisan weapons.

Yes. There are far too many people blindly following a party without stopping to think if it's really representing their ideals. It's become about the fight rather than about trying to actually accomplish something. Almost akin to two rival football teams with rabid fans. (Does this mean we can start using the term "fanboy"? "GOP fanboy", "Democrat fanboy", etc. Seems reasonably apt. )

The other thing that is despicable is the blatant falsehoods and smearing that has become the oppositions primary tactic. There's a way to be a "loyal opposition" - trying to de-legitimize the current president as a Nazi, non-citizen, or dictator is not part of that.

I think what's worse is the attention they're getting. We all know these sort of people have been around at all times... but I'm wondering if there is an actual large increase in the numbers of extremists, or if the greater amount of media exposure just makes it seem that way. It is flashier news after all. Sort of like the morbid entertainment from reality shows. I think this at least play a part - whether or not it's actually the main reason I don't really know.

They're receiving validation from the media (all outlets) that they don't really deserve.

[telkanuru]

I noticed that certain moronic nutjobs have replied to several posts after this, but not this.

Way to dodge the question. I guess that's the only response to being wrong.

Oh yes, certainly. We don't need a system of checks and balances. We definitely need the Imperial Presidency. Sure, you can wire tap my phones, arrest me without cause, and imprison me indefinitely with not trial. It's definitely OK to invade countries under false pretenses and lie to the world about why we did so. Let's make sure no one can take any substances that they'd like, nor allow women to dictate what happens to their own bodies.

But God help us if you want to give me healthcare?

[Inquartata]

Because they do so very well in their own sectors, don't they.

We don't know, because none of them are free from the tentacles of government interference as it is. Hard to judge how free enterprise behaves from an observation of regulated enterprise...

AFAIK white people are not recently known to have been lynched due to racism.

They have been lynched for cattle-stealing. So that's racism against the Irish, at a minimum.

Where were all these people complaining about the encroachment of the federal government during the last years when the expansion of unitary, concentrated power was actually happening?

Apropos of which, I was just reading the other day about how Mr. Obama has continued merrily on with the Bush policy of attaching signing statements to legislation detailing which provisions he does not believe are binding on the power of the Executive and so on. A policy which IIRC he condemned before the election and said that he would end when he was President.

Plus ça change we can believe in, plus c'est la même chose, no?

[erik_blank]

Your lack of knowledge of religion is outstanding!

Seems to me that his knowledge of many forms of religion is spot on. Since many tenants of western/Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions hinge on the idea that God is directly involved in what happens in the world, and nothing happens without Gods will. This makes his statement that it was God that placed Mr. Obama into the position of President of the USA right in line with any of the religions that subscribe to predetermination. That would include many of the Calvinistic churches.

[Slim]

I noticed that certain moronic nutjobs have replied to several posts after this, but not this.

Way to dodge the question. I guess that's the only response to being wrong.

Quoting yourself? You must think you wrote something profound.

"Imperial Presidency" aint the best way to try and start a rebuttal if you're actually looking for a reply. The rest of the rant didnt help either. You've obviously gone past the point of no return and really not worth responding to...on this topic anyways.

I chuckle at the folks here who scream "GOP doesnt want to give people health care" and in the next very breath whine about those spreading lies and falshoods.

Thanks again for the tagline.

[Slim]

The other thing that is despicable is the blatant falsehoods and smearing that has become the oppositions primary tactic. There's a way to be a "loyal opposition" - trying to de-legitimize the current president as a Nazi, non-citizen, or dictator is not part of that.

You're not really that naive to think this is something new, are you?

[Purple Fencer]

You're not really that naive to think this is something new, are you?

It's never been to this level before...at least not in the last 100 years or so. (now back in say, Andrew Jackson's day....those campaigns and his tenure got pretty nasty)

The only example i can think of off the top of my head was the assertoin that JFK would be a tool of the Vatican.

[jeff]

You're not really that naive to think this is something new, are you?

I'm not naive enough to believe you represent any form of loyal or even rational opposition.

Don't you have some crow to be eating for having been recently caught flagrantly passing BS? You wimped out after being caught red handed ("I checked" in the Fox News thread) And ran away in in the Lou Dobbs thread. As Migopod said, you represent "Trolling 101", and nothing coming from you should be considered to have any value at all.

[telkanuru]

Amazing. You take a point, ridicule it, and try to move on, but don't ever actually respond.

Let's see if this can penetrate.

Why/how do you believe that the Obama White House is assaulting civil liberties while simultaneously upholding the idea that the Bush White House did not?

Oh right, you can't which is why you never actually answered the question to begin with.

Quoting yourself? You must think you wrote something profound.

Thanks again for the tagline.

It's nice that you think it's funny. Too bad for you the end joke is on you.

[jeff]

Yes. There are far too many people blindly following a party without stopping to think if it's really representing their ideals. It's become about the fight rather than about trying to actually accomplish something. Almost akin to two rival football teams with rabid fans. (Does this mean we can start using the term "fanboy"? "GOP fanboy", "Democrat fanboy", etc. Seems reasonably apt. )

Good analogy. As Sara P would say "You betcha!". Go for it.

I think what's worse is the attention they're getting. We all know these sort of people have been around at all times... but I'm wondering if there is an actual large increase in the numbers of extremists, or if the greater amount of media exposure just makes it seem that way. It is flashier news after all. Sort of like the morbid entertainment from reality shows. I think this at least play a part - whether or not it's actually the main reason I don't really know.

They're receiving validation from the media (all outlets) that they don't really deserve.

I thought about this some (what? thinking before posting? Is that allowed on f.net?) and I think you make a valid point. What I don't see is how this is really different from media frenzy in previous years. Remember Abbie Hoffman? That fool wouldn't have left a ripple IMO if the media hadn't made him bigger than he was. The difference is that today we have "advocacy journalism" on an scale not seen since Hearst, where some news outlets pitch in as pitbulls for the sides they advocate. You know who I mean

The other thing that's different, and this also goes back to the 60's/70's, is that the fringe elements are adopted and endorsed by a major political party. Look back at the Weathermen. Those violent nutjobs (and their Yippie clown friends) despised Republicans and Democrats equally, and the feeling was mutual. The anti-war movement reviled both LBJ and Nixon. But in today's situation, you have the worst elements egged on, validated, and sponsored by the Republicans. That would have been unthinkable in previous periods, and is a real shame.

[Slim]

I'm not naive enough to believe you represent any form of loyal or even rational opposition.

Don't you have some crow to be eating for having been recently caught flagrantly passing BS? You wimped out after being caught red handed"I checked" in the Fox News thread? And ran away in in the Lou Dobbs thread. As Migopod said, you represent "Trolling 101", and nothing coming from you should be considered to have any value at all.

If I pouted every time I posed a question to someone here that didnt directly respond to it...well, I'd spend a lot of time pouting.

Since you couldn't be bothered to check yourself, I couldn't be bothered to acknowlege the mistake.

I'm not terribly concerned what your or your liberal buddies here consider "valuable" or not. Seriously, did you ever? (other than my positions on Israel)

I think my rep points here show I'm a bit more than a just troll. After all, given the nature and tone of my posts, how'd I get so many points if there were not a lot of people quietly agreeing with a lot of my positions?

Silly liberal.

[jeff]

All you've shown is how inadequate you are. When you get challenged on anything, anything at all - you just wimp out, make pathetic excuses, and do some name calling. Pathetic.

Just so we all know what you are.

[Slim]

Amazing. You take a point, ridicule it, and try to move on, but don't ever actually respond.

Let's see if this can penetrate.

Why/how do you believe that the Obama White House is assaulting civil liberties while simultaneously upholding the idea that the Bush White House did not?

Oh right, you can't which is why you never actually answered the question to begin with.


It's nice that you think it's funny. Too bad for you the end joke is on you.

1. It was a hysterical way to try and present a point. It deserved no response, IMO. I can only speak for myself

2. You deserved to be mocked and ridiculed for quoting yourself.

If you want a response, pose a legitimate question or statement.

[Slim]

All you've shown is how inadequate you are. When you get challenged on anything, anything at all - you just wimp out, make pathetic excuses, and do some name calling. Pathetic.

Just so we all know what you are.

I think you know better that that. Go back and take a look at some past threads. There's a pretty decent history at this point. :-)

And who is this "we"? You're the voice of f-net? Hahaha.

Pompus as ever. Try not to take yourself so seriously.