South Carolina Mayor "Just Curious" If Obama is the Antichrist

McCain Supporter wrote:

<quoted text>
here we go. There were signs of WMD in Iraq. They found yellow-cake in Iraq which is used to make WMDS. If you need proof AGAIN, I would be happy to provide it for you!

Read carefully. I won't explain this again: The yellowcake in question had been stored in exactly the same spot since before the 1st gulf war, and U.N. inspectors knew exactly where it was:

"Uranium recently shipped from Iraq to Canada was left over from Saddam Hussein's defunct nuclear weapons program and had been in sealed containers, under guard, since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. Claims that this material is "vindication" for President Bush's WMD claims in 2003 are completely false."
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_it_...

You, like John McCain, need to face reality!

Hombre wrote:

<quoted text>....who cares?????????? Right don't let the facts get in the way. Sing a song of sixpense.....

that's right, who cares???? you repubs would be better served if you just told the truth....you don't want a black man to be president.

Cherokee wrote:

Many Americans aren't aware that we have also a domestic terrorist like Neo Nazi & KKK that disguise as Republican & Christian sect for past 8 years. Since 9-11 America has many close call domestic terrorist act with our nation like the "Anthrax". Many of my fellow Americans did not know that the United State is one major country that develop this kind of biological weapon. George Bush & Chaney is using this as a scared & feared tactics to us Americans for the past 8 years so they can stay in power at the White house. Fortunately, there are some Americans are smart enough to realized that this is our own product & the Administrator in the White House decided not to make a big publicity about the Anthrax.
Before the second presidential debate, we have witness the bail out plan to rescue our economy. At the same time, many Republicans are also bailing out the mess that they have cherish wth George Bush/Chaney for last 8 years.
I feel sorry for John McCain that he has no influence over his party before and most definitely he will get nothing this coming election from the same party members of whom he called hypocrite in Washington.
The Republicans knew it but John McCain just did not get it. He is being set up by his own party. Many CEO's that was help by John McCain & Republicans to deregulate our financial infrastructure are retiring comfortably.This is the same John McCain & his party that disabled our government regulator to audit government contractors & sub-contractors that wasted millions of American tax dollars & have produce little or nothing since the beginning of Iraq War.
Many Americans didn't care before, because we didn't realized the magnitude of the damage. Now 27 days before presidential election. The corporate CEO's & the Republicans who supported the scheme are bailing out.Everybody in Washington are panicking like the stock market. The days for Republicans are numbered. Republicans crooks will be arrested soon.

Love how you ignore that the major institutions in trouble right now have the majority of their ties to the Democratic party. Fannie Mae anyone?

Especially not a black Muslim.

phoenix falcon wrote:

<quoted text>that's right, who cares???? you repubs would be better served if you just told the truth....you don't want a black man to be president.

Johnal wrote:

Especially not a black Muslim.
<quoted text>

if only he were black and muslim.

phoenix falcon wrote:

<quoted text>if only he were black and muslim.

lol IF only ~

phoenix falcon wrote:

<quoted text>that's right, who cares???? you repubs would be better served if you just told the truth....you don't want a black man to be president.

These are some of the main reasons why I will be voting against Barack Obama.
*****
1. Barack Obama keeps company with people who hate America, like Ayers.

2. Barack Obama keeps company with racists who hate white Americans, like Rev Wright.

3. Barack Obama is very friendly with muslim people like Raila Odinga.

4. Barack Obama keeps company with crooks like Rezko.

5. As President Barack Obama will have access to America's most classified Military secrets, and will meet with America's enemies upon his own intiative, without pre-conditions.
This is not good for America.

6. Barack Obama is a TAX and SPEND LIBERAL who will cause the greatest Depression that most people living now will have ever known.
A TAX and SPEND LIBERAL like Obama, only knows how to do one thing, TAX and SPEND!
This is not good for America.

7. Barack Obama believes that America is just strafing villages and killing innocent victims and wants to be our Commander in Chief.
This alone disqualifies obama from getting my vote.

8. Obama has run the dirtiest Democratic campaign in history, and it is why next year I will formally become a registered Republican for the first time in my life.
I am currently ashamed to be a registered Democrat, and can't wait to re-register as a REPUBLICAN!
*****
Now please point out where I said I would not vote for Obama because he is BLACK!

takion, I agree not all repubs (and some democrats) are voting against obama because he is black there are many who are due to this reason. We cannot say it is wrong to vote for a woman simply because of her gender nor is it right to vote for a man due to his race but not speak out against those who are voting voting against either for the same reasons.

Obviously there are sensible republicans and democrats the same as some who are well...not so sensible. But avoiding the issues of race, sexism, nationalism, and religiousism (??) in this campaign is ignoring the truth. This race is bringing out a great many things about many Americans that we either have wanted to avoid or ignore - namely that there are still a great many of us who haven't 'come a long way baby'.

I might not agree with each (or any) of your points as reasons not to vote for Obama, but I can appreciate that you might be willing to vote for McCain if he were a black man and Obama were not.

So tell me, would you vote for McCain if he were not Christian? Just a question~

phoenix falcon wrote:

<quoted text>that's right, who cares???? you repubs would be better served if you just told the truth....you don't want a black man to be president.

Investigators probing ACORN have learned that an Ohio man registered to vote several times and cast a bogus ballot with a fake address, officials said yesterday, as they revealed that nearly 4,000 registration applications supplied by the left-leaning activist group were suspect.

MORE: Mac Tries To Rally Troops

MORE: Alaska Baby Daddy KOs Kooky Rumors

OPINION: The O Jesse Knows

The vote of Darnell Nash, one of four people subpoenaed in a Cuyahoga County probe of ACORN's voter-registration activities, was canceled and his case was turned over to local prosecutors and law enforcement, Board of Elections officials said yesterday.

Nash had registered to vote repeatedly from an address that belonged to a legitimately registered voter, officials said during a hearing at which the subpoenaed voters were to testify.

Not whey they have to lie and cheat but claim their the Messiah. If thats change Baby, I want no part of his world. I guess you know your reasons for wanting him, but my guess its personal and not country realated because liberals are all about me me me me me me me and not the we.

waterproof eyeliner wrote:

takion, I agree not all repubs (and some democrats) are voting against obama because he is black there are many who are due to this reason. We cannot say it is wrong to vote for a woman simply because of her gender nor is it right to vote for a man due to his race but not speak out against those who are voting voting against either for the same reasons.
Obviously there are sensible republicans and democrats the same as some who are well...not so sensible. But avoiding the issues of race, sexism, nationalism, and religiousism (??) in this campaign is ignoring the truth. This race is bringing out a great many things about many Americans that we either have wanted to avoid or ignore - namely that there are still a great many of us who haven't 'come a long way baby'.
I might not agree with each (or any) of your points as reasons not to vote for Obama, but I can appreciate that you might be willing to vote for McCain if he were a black man and Obama were not.
So tell me, would you vote for McCain if he were not Christian? Just a question~

Being a practicing christian is not a pre-requisite for getting my vote, as I am not a practicing christian myself.

But I would most certainly vote for the candidate who believed in God, as I do, as opposed to the candidate who believed in Allah.

Obama believes we are not a christian nation, and I believe that we are nation founded upon christian principles.

I can not in good conscience, vote for anyone who believes that we are not a christian nation.

I would have no problem voting for a black person with the proper values as I am not a racist.
Obama just does not have the proper values to get my vote.

BS! THIS NATION WAS NOT NOT NOT FOUNDED AS A SUPERSTITIOUS BACKWARDS (CHRISTIAN) NATION!

Jefferson, Franklin and many others went out of thier way to insure that this nation was founded without emphasis on any particular religion. This country was founded by many who were very very against religious nationalism and restriction, WTF would they get here and start religious extremism all over?..not real likely. In fact the majority of the framers of the constitution were Deists or Freemasons.
Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

MORE TO COUNTER THE BS:

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.
So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.")
Further, it is very easy to readily produce HUNDREDS of quotes from the founding fathers clearly defining the US as a non-denominational country.
There were Deists, Freemasons, Universalists and Agnostics as well as Christians authoring this country's original legislation. You may wish this country was founded as a Christian nation; that plays to the conformnity and compliance so prevalent in RW thought. The US was simply not founded as a Christian country.
Jefferson: Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
Jefferson: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

AND MORE BS ERRADICATION:

----------
and one more from Jeffeson, because he knew what idiots and sheeple believers are: History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
----------
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

(...and the above is only from one founding father, I can go on and on and on and on, lol)

Acts of rage, hate in McCain corner

The upcoming Hofstra debate will measure the two presidential candidates against the challenge of replacing a woefully incompetent commander of this luxury-liner republic that has sprung devastating leaks drawing us all into a titanic struggle to stay afloat.

The Nov. 4 elections are just that critical.

With everything at stake, Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain should lay aside trivial pursuits and engage the economic issues of debt, war, credit, and steadying global confidence. While the candidates' individual purposes may be served by fingering the villains who caused the wreck, the public interest is better served by indicating how this calamitous rupture might be repaired - and soon.

If recent trending of the campaign is a guide, however, the debate will showcase no such regenerative statecraft. If the Arizona senator discusses the economy, one aide said recently, he loses. McCain's fear of constructive engagement over the economy makes Obama downright giddy. Yet it frustrates his every attempt to debate the issues.

In the clutch of sagging poll numbers, the former POW has submitted himself to the incubus Karl Rove whose disciples have submerged "The Straight Talk Express" deep in the muck where the fish have no eyes. The dirty work has been assigned to Gov. Sarah Palin, the vice-presidential candidate McCain dragged in out of the Alaskan woods as a veritable wolverine in spectacles.

Palin's bland ferocity lends itself easily to vitriol of the type that inflames half-wits. A bald-pated Florida sheriff, one Mike Scott, got carried away under the swoon last week in Estero, Fla., in introducing Palin. Stressing Obama's middle name, Sheriff Scott paced the stage, in violation of police rules, while inciting the crowd in his full uniform adorned with colorful patches, stars and medals befitting a grand wizard of some mystic order of white knights.

At Clearwater, Gov. Palin lathered up the crowd herself. "You're going to have to hang on to your hats," Palin told the rally, according to The Washington Post, "because from now until Election Day it may get kind of rough." Linking Sen. Obama to a reformed radical of the '60s, Palin shrieked her signature smut line, "he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

"Kill him!" a man in the crowd reportedly responded to Palin's rabble-rousing. Her related attacks on the media had already whipped a frenzy among the crowd of about 3,000. Tempers rose to a boil when she blamed Katie Couric's questions for tripping her up as a seeming dimwit. The Post wrote, "Palin supporters turned on reporters ... waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse.... One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African-American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

As with McCain's fingering of Obama as "that one," in the last debate, supporters dismiss a white Southerner calling a black man a "boy," as mere words. Perhaps so, but, given the nation's sad, racial history, such language still elicits ire.

"Let's get it on" seems to be Palin's campaign refrain. "It's about time the pit bull got loose," the Post quoted Ken Gow, a 47-year-old police officer who was among the more than 10,000 people at a rally in Carson, Calif.

McCain struck the racial chord in the Nashville debate. When an African-American asked his question, McCain assumed that he was ignorant of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the entities the senator blamed for the Wall Street meltdown. "I'll bet you, you may never even have heard of them before this crisis," McCain said, telling the questioner, Oliver Clark, that he would "stabilize home values" - not particularly for him and his family, but - so that "Americans, like Allen [Shaffer] can realize the American dream and stay in their home." Shaffer was the white male who asked the earlier question. Neither had indicated that they owned a home or had a troubled mortgage.

This is the sort of racial profiling routinely spouted and acted upon by influential, white decision-makers far gone in racial denial such as Sen. McCain. With terminal cancers wrecking the body politic - problems we must all address together as Americans - McCain and Palin are lancing the racial boil to distract our attention from other grave problems.

This campaign behavior is curious; it is reckless and it is potentially dangerous.

takion1 wrote:

<quoted text>
The money will ultimately have to come from John Q. Taxpayer!
That is you and me.

That is really silly. The money is actually going to come from China and the Middle East. The people that are going to actually pay for everything haven't yet been born.

takion1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Being a practicing christian is not a pre-requisite for getting my vote, as I am not a practicing christian myself.
But I would most certainly vote for the candidate who believed in God, as I do, as opposed to the candidate who believed in Allah.
Obama believes we are not a christian nation, and I believe that we are nation founded upon christian principles.
I can not in good conscience, vote for anyone who believes that we are not a christian nation.
I would have no problem voting for a black person with the proper values as I am not a racist.
Obama just does not have the proper values to get my vote.

Allah is simply the Arabic word for God, the same as Dios is the Spanish word for God. Dios is not a separate God. In fact, the Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in the same God, I can't believe you wouldn't know that basic fact. Then again, I'm finding many that do not which is mind-boggling.