MaryanneAZ's Comments (4434)
Obama's Poll Numbers Dip Below 50 Percent: What It Means
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 17:28:48 in Politics
“President Obama made a campaign "promise" to re-shape the Afghanistan war and re-prioritize it in the battle against Al Qaeda. Obviously, adding troops where he said repeatedly that that battleground had been under-manned was an expected move on his part. Your whining about the cost of war now ignores the entire issue of funding war by supplementals by the prior Administration and the fact that they left the wars off the books in every Budget they passed. The fact that we are concerned about the cost of war is a positive in my book. We either believe that there are 9 / 11 perps out there that need to be rounded up and brought to justice and Af/Pak is the place where we will find them or we do not. If we do, then we need to fund the effort to round up these perps that were allowed to roam free during the prior Administration.”
Obama's Poll Numbers Dip Below 50 Percent: What It Means
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 17:18:40 in Politics
“That is exactly the problem with most naysayers -- they have NOT read his books. Anyone who reads his books will find he is a centrist who relies heavily on compromise and consensus. He is neither Hawk nor Dove. He is exactly the same today as his books portray his philosophy and agenda. If anyone wants to know where the President is going, his books are the best starting point to understand his moves. Many also mistakenly believed that the President was their champion on single issues. They were wrong, and they are disappointed now to realize this. Their problem, not his.”
thrdr replied on Nov 24, 2009 at 18:19:29
“Obama plays to whichever side is politically expedient. He will play to AIPAC one night, the ACLU the next, "clean coal" supporters on another day and unions the next. People project whatever they wish to see onto the vague screen he very consciously erects to cover his position--which is for the most part to maintain what he sees as the economic, social and political status quo. That is not a centrist position; it is a conservative one.
I have not read his books, true enough. Perhaps doing so would alter my views; perhaps not. I am basing my opinions upon his actions--or inactions as the case may be--and his words in the broader media; his actions have included escalating a pointless war in the Middle-East, an utter failure to take a firm and courageous stand on healthcare for all Americans when the support for such change is close to an all-time high; the appointment to key positions in his administration of persons of Right-wing disposition along with the virtual shunning of persons of a Leftish persuasion.
On occcasions--I can count them on my fingers--Obama in his public statements has yielded to what seems a more liberal impulse--e.g. on the plant takeover in Chicago awhile back. His statement about critics of the Honduran military coup on the other hand could have come from a Fox Spews pundit. I suppose that's what makes him a "centrist."”
I have not read his books, true enough. Perhaps doing so would alter my views; perhaps not. I am basing my opinions upon his actions--or inactions as the case may be--and his words in the broader media; his actions have included escalating a pointless war in the Middle-East, an utter failure to take a firm and courageous stand on healthcare for all Americans when the support for such change is close to an all-time high; the appointment to key positions in his administration of persons of Right-wing disposition along with the virtual shunning of persons of a Leftish persuasion.
On occcasions--I can count them on my fingers--Obama in his public statements has yielded to what seems a more liberal impulse--e.g. on the plant takeover in Chicago awhile back. His statement about critics of the Honduran military coup on the other hand could have come from a Fox Spews pundit. I suppose that's what makes him a "centrist."”
Tulka2 replied on Nov 24, 2009 at 17:35:01
“You are on to something profound here. Obama really believes in the American legislative system. He believes in the American rule of law and the three branches of government as outlined in the Constitution.
Bush's eight year usurpation of executive power corrupted many Americans. They might have voted for Obama for President, but they were actually hoping for an antidote to Bush. They were actually hoping for a philosopher king. I wonder if Obama is aware of the disconnect?”
Bush's eight year usurpation of executive power corrupted many Americans. They might have voted for Obama for President, but they were actually hoping for an antidote to Bush. They were actually hoping for a philosopher king. I wonder if Obama is aware of the disconnect?”
Obama's Poll Numbers Dip Below 50 Percent: What It Means
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 17:12:24 in Politics
“Cool, and thanks.”
Obama's Poll Numbers Dip Below 50 Percent: What It Means
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 17:08:14 in Politics
“I think many people who think they represent President Obama's base were never members of the base at all. If they had read his book The Audacity Of Hope, then they would have known he was not a far left wing politician. He is not a Dove, but advocated smart war against actual attackers. Everyone wanted to claim President Obama as their champion going in, but never appreciated his real positions and agenda. Re-read his book. He really has not changed at all from his starting point.”
MyNameIsJames replied on Nov 24, 2009 at 17:35:53
“Maryanne -
The President's base are the people who consistently voted for him and supported his Presidential bid from the beginning.
Unfortunately for the President -- his base is on the Left - while he wants to govern in the Center.
You don't always choose your base - your BASE chooses you!”
The President's base are the people who consistently voted for him and supported his Presidential bid from the beginning.
Unfortunately for the President -- his base is on the Left - while he wants to govern in the Center.
You don't always choose your base - your BASE chooses you!”
Coinyer101 replied on Nov 24, 2009 at 17:16:27
“He used to be a single-payer advocate, too.....,”
Obama's Poll Numbers Dip Below 50 Percent: What It Means
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 17:02:52 in Politics
“Absolutely spot on! Of course, the naysayers will not comprehend a word of your very well reasoned comment. Even if the naysayers understand your comment, they will continue to spout their nonsense and spread a meme of wavering support. Keep up the good work of speaking the truth.”
Obama's Poll Numbers Dip Below 50 Percent: What It Means
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 16:56:59 in Politics
“What utter nonsense! Dems are not going to go into their corner and sit out the vote in 2012 nor are they going to vote GOP because they are frustrated that their agenda has not been accomplished so far. The question is what and who is the alternative. The answer in 2012, based on the current data, is President Obama. There is no clear GOP messenger, message or even a unified base. The chances of a GOP win in 2012 is zero. The Congressional races will likely have a different answer in some States and Districts. People moaning about individual decisions are speaking in the heat of the moment, but once the heat dies down reality and the needs of the future will take precedence. Obama/Clinton 2012”
nbanflfan replied on Nov 24, 2009 at 17:00:41
“Hi MaryanneAZ. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to fan you back.”
Sealed With A Kiss: Dems Unite To Beat GOP Filibuster
Commented Nov 23, 2009 at 15:18:02 in Politics
“You are totally wrong about my personal situation. I am just recently approved for SSDI after 35 years on the job. I was hurt on the job causing my disability. When one is approved for SSDI there is a two year exclusion period for Medicare. I do not qualify for Medicaid due to my assets and disability income level. I am paying Cobra premiums to cover continuation of my BC/BS policy. I, more than many who complain on this thread, have a horse in this race. If I could switch to a less expensive plan than my ex-employer's BC/BS during these two years, then I could afford life's other necessities (utilities and food). I too obviously have a pre-existing condition, live in Red State Arizona (which will opt out of the public option), and I only have Cobra continuation of my old insurance so long as I can afford the premiums. Insurance companies will ostensibly be required to devote the largest portion of each premium dollar to health care services under the House Bill. What would be the point of raising premiums if they will simply have to use them for health services? I understand the mandate full well, and still believe it is the best manner to cover all and to spread the cost of health services for all. It just does not stand to reason that the Dems would risk their political future by passing a bad Bill that would hurt voters.”
fishingriver replied on Nov 24, 2009 at 10:05:00
“Sorry to hear about your plight. I apologize for misjudging your situation. The mandate isn't going to help you, or me, or the democrats. Big insurance will be the only ones to benefit and they don't care about anyone but themselves.”
Sealed With A Kiss: Dems Unite To Beat GOP Filibuster
Commented Nov 22, 2009 at 16:38:28 in Politics
“Typically, zingers are short sentences and phrases. Real discussion is substantive and often verbose. Developing a full idea or argument is seldom done in soundbytes.”
Sealed With A Kiss: Dems Unite To Beat GOP Filibuster
Commented Nov 22, 2009 at 16:34:15 in Politics
“It is a method used to try and garner additional votes, especially from the minority Party. Depending on the legislation under consideration, it sometimes works to gain votes. The Amendments will be shed once it is clear that those votes are not viable.”
Sealed With A Kiss: Dems Unite To Beat GOP Filibuster
Commented Nov 22, 2009 at 16:31:44 in Politics
“I suspect this is akin to those who screech at using mandatory seat belts. Many people CHOOSE not to purchase employer offered insurance or refuse to buy their own catastrophic policy. They figure that they will file bankruptcy in the event of a major illness or injury. Better yet they will just let others absorb their costs with higher premiums and charges on our bills. The mandate is included with good reason. We are all finite human beings subject to illness and injury. There will be subsidies available for those who truly cannot afford health insurance. People manage to afford many, many things that are nowhere near as necessary to life and well-being as health insurance. The only way a mandate will work is to have a penalty for not following the mandate. The same principle governs taxes. We all must pay taxes and file returns above a certain income level. If we do not do so, then there are penalties. If the insurance companies were so enamored of mandates and the Bill in general, then why are they spending millions to fight its passage? The fact is with the mandate and the regulations preventing dropping expensive insureds the insurers stand to lose a lot of their profits. Covering everyone means that they have to cover the sickest and that means they will have to use the premiums for health care services and not profit margins.”
Sealed With A Kiss: Dems Unite To Beat GOP Filibuster
Commented Nov 22, 2009 at 16:23:09 in Politics
“People who do not pay taxes are below the income threshold to owe taxes. Those people would be the ones who are eligible for subsidies to buy insurance if they work or are already enrolled in Medicaid or other government health services programs. The working poor who do not earn enough to owe taxes very obviously would be subsidized to purchase insurance and would not ever go to prison. This is just fear-mongering hysteria on your part.”
PJay1 replied on Nov 22, 2009 at 17:42:33
“Many will fall through the cracks as they do now.
Probably even more than now.
You are wrong that the working poor don't pay taxes.
It depends who you classify as 'poor'.
Many people work and can barely make ends meet, but they still pay taxes and make too much to qualify for medicaid.
So you can call it 'fear mongering hysteria' all you want.
For tens of millions of people, it's a very real concern.
And if you watched that clip that I linked above, President Obama has no problem with penalties. He compares health insurance to auto insurance.
Big difference -- for starters, we can choose not to have a car, AND there is competition with auto insurance.”
Probably even more than now.
You are wrong that the working poor don't pay taxes.
It depends who you classify as 'poor'.
Many people work and can barely make ends meet, but they still pay taxes and make too much to qualify for medicaid.
So you can call it 'fear mongering hysteria' all you want.
For tens of millions of people, it's a very real concern.
And if you watched that clip that I linked above, President Obama has no problem with penalties. He compares health insurance to auto insurance.
Big difference -- for starters, we can choose not to have a car, AND there is competition with auto insurance.”
Sealed With A Kiss: Dems Unite To Beat GOP Filibuster
Commented Nov 22, 2009 at 16:09:42 in Politics
“The mandate is included with good reason. We are all finite human beings subject to illness and injury. There will be subsidies available for those who truly cannot afford health insurance. People manage to afford many, many things that are nowhere near as necessary to life and well-being as health insurance. The only way a mandate will work is to have a penalty for not following the mandate. The same principle governs tax returns and payments. We all must pay taxes and file returns above a certain income level. If we do not do so, then there are penalties. If the insurance companies were so enamored of mandates and the Bill in general, then why are they spending millions to fight its passage? The fact is even with the mandate and the regulations preventing dropping expensive insureds the insurance companies stand to lose a lot of their profits. Covering everyone means that they have to cover the sickest and that means they will have to use the premiums for health care services and not profit margins. They can see that this insurance product is not going to be as lucrative for them once the Bill passes. I am entirely for the mandate. I am pre-Medicare on a disability income and will have to purchase insurance until 2011. Most people, however, will not see any difference once the Bill passes as 85% of us are already covered under some form of insurance.”
fishingriver replied on Nov 22, 2009 at 17:49:29
“We all pay taxes to the government which we own, not Big insurance. Your comparison might be worth mentioning if we all had access to a public option. As it is now, you are confusing corporate servitude with a citizens obligation.
You stated- "The fact is even with the mandate and the regulations preventing dropping expensive insureds the insurance companies stand to lose a lot of their profits. Covering everyone means that they have to cover the sickest and that means they will have to use the premiums for health care services and not profit margins".
Wrong- They have to cover them, but they can charge whatever they want in premiums. So just like now, they will charge enough to make covering those people profitable. There are no price or cost cutting commitments or obligations in this bill. You are straight up...wrong.
Of course you are for the mandate you don't understand. You are on disability and already in line for state funded help. I don't have insurance, have a pre-existing condition and live in a red state that is likely to opt out of the public option. How selfish of you.”
You stated- "The fact is even with the mandate and the regulations preventing dropping expensive insureds the insurance companies stand to lose a lot of their profits. Covering everyone means that they have to cover the sickest and that means they will have to use the premiums for health care services and not profit margins".
Wrong- They have to cover them, but they can charge whatever they want in premiums. So just like now, they will charge enough to make covering those people profitable. There are no price or cost cutting commitments or obligations in this bill. You are straight up...wrong.
Of course you are for the mandate you don't understand. You are on disability and already in line for state funded help. I don't have insurance, have a pre-existing condition and live in a red state that is likely to opt out of the public option. How selfish of you.”
Rep. Patrick Kennedy Banned From Receiving Communion By Bishop Thomas Tobin
Commented Nov 22, 2009 at 15:20:25 in Politics
“Why is it that the Catholic Church only singles these legislators out during the specific season of a Bill or election they do not support? They did the same thing with Kerry, and then dropped it when the election ended. It seems their objection is only situational. Situational faith. Interesting. Since when does the Church examine individuals in public and make public determinations on their ability to participate in the sacraments? The Catholic Church is shrinking, as is true of many other churches. Do they really want to drive away their remaining membership? How can the Church judge a man's heart and faith? It is typically up to the individual to determine his worthiness for communion at the time it is offered. I wonder why they do not go after individual parishoners? Surely they do not believe that only non-Catholics use and buy birth control or ab.ortion services. Talk about out of touch.”
SonofLiberty1 replied on Nov 22, 2009 at 15:24:34
“Abortion is not a Catholic teaching.
Can you understand that?
And just because one Bishop may say that, not all Bishops or Priests will agree.”
Can you understand that?
And just because one Bishop may say that, not all Bishops or Priests will agree.”
dim replied on Nov 22, 2009 at 15:23:44
“It is because the congregations are shrinking that they are so rabidly against contraception etc.
Brainwashing the hopefully plentiful offspring of current catholics (when not molesting them outright) is about the only way to keep up the numbers.”
Brainwashing the hopefully plentiful offspring of current catholics (when not molesting them outright) is about the only way to keep up the numbers.”
Old Folks To Senate: Vote For Cloture Already
Commented Nov 21, 2009 at 17:12:20 in Politics
“At that point, the many who criticized his strategy and that he stayed out of the legislation writing process will have to eat crow. Of course, they won't. We are just too impatient and inclined to fist fight our way through everything.”
Old Folks To Senate: Vote For Cloture Already
Commented Nov 21, 2009 at 17:09:20 in Politics
“It is really not rocket science, C Pollard. State statutes must be revised to reflect changes in Federal law. Insurers will have to rewrite their bylaws, applications and rules as well. It takes time to set up a new public insurance company and to have it functional. The rules prohibiting refusal of an application due to a pre-existing condition, dropping paid up consumers who become sick, or huge out of pocket caps will go into effect immediately. Even in this age of instant everything, some things just take real time and there's no big conspiracy behind the time lag.”
Old Folks To Senate: Vote For Cloture Already
Commented Nov 21, 2009 at 17:03:25 in Politics
“AARP has a membership of 40 MILLION. It regularly gains and loses members, especially when reviewing and endorsing controversial issues. From July 1, 2009, the organization lost 60,000 members who specifically cited AARP's health reform support as their reason for ending their membership. By the numbers alone, the HUGE majority of seniors agree with AARP on the issues and enjoy the benefits of membership. AARP has a lot to lose if it wrongly endorses a Bill. Benefitting seniors is the whole reason for its existence as an organization. What would be the benefit to sell out its members? AARP is a non-profit. AARP's reps do not sell insurance. Affiliates and subsidiaries of AARP engage in for-profit business, and AARP can and does lend its trademark name to endorse the products and services of other entities. It has been repeated over and over that the anticipated Medicare "cuts" are reductions in fraud, waste and abuse and ending the subsidies to private insurers who want to serve seniors along side Medicare proper. Why should we have to pay private insurers to entice them to offer their products to seniors? They are entirely free to offer their products, but will not longer be subsidized to do so.”
DNC Raises $11.5 Million In October, Outpacing RNC
Commented Nov 21, 2009 at 16:30:14 in Politics
“His hands are tied by the Obama directive not to accept funds from various contributors. While the directive is laudable, it is a lot harder to raise money if you cannot tap the big corporations, PACs, etc. Of course, that also limits the influence of those who would buy senators and reps and their votes. I also suspect that strategy may be at play here. If you tap small donors too early, then they get contribution fatigue. If you wait until the formal election cycle begins, then you have your fresh sources to tap. This would be especially true if we get health care reform passed. A win is a win even if the Bill is not everything people want. Winners inspire donors.”
DNC Raises $11.5 Million In October, Outpacing RNC
Commented Nov 21, 2009 at 16:25:25 in Politics
“In light of President Obama's directive concerning contributors and the frustration of supporters, I find this intake of funds amazing. Many of us are not contributing to the DNC, including me, and will continue to directly fund specific candidates. It takes twice as much effort to fundraise if you disallow contributions from corporations, PACS, etc. Honestly, however, it gave me a momentary lift to read that the DNC had outraised the RNC. You have to love that outcome regardless of how ticked you are with their support of DINOs who are frustrating OUR agenda.”
White House Rebuke: Angry Dems Shut Down Vote
Commented Nov 20, 2009 at 15:56:45 in Business
“People want jobs not handouts. Handouts are short term and limited. A job keeps the money rolling in every payday. My argument was that businesses need money from banks to maintain and grow their businesses. Jobs are not really within the purview of the WH or Congress directly.”
CREW Files FEC Complaint Over Landrieu's $25,300 'Donation' To The U.S. Treasury
Commented Nov 20, 2009 at 15:47:49 in Politics
“Most do not consider her a Dem, but a Republican who ran as a Dem to get elected (DINO). There is a lot of that going on in politics today. It is not easy to qualify as either Dem or GOP these days.”
xlntcat replied on Nov 20, 2009 at 16:04:58
“No she facilates with whoever is in office in Baton Rouge. She can go both ways. After the horrid management of Katrina in LA by the Dems., they became a much redder state and elected a GOP governor.”
White House Rebuke: Angry Dems Shut Down Vote
Commented Nov 20, 2009 at 14:35:35 in Business
“It seems absurd to me that the CBC believes that the Administration is holding back job creation for some unknown reason. Do they really believe that there are jobs being kept from their constituents that the WH has any control over? What jobs do they think the President can order created or restored? Can Congress make a law requiring businesses to hire more people? The foundation of our businesses is their ability to borrow and spend. Without regulations in place, banks and investment companies will be able to continue their business as usual and businesses will be out of luck for investment capital. No one is going to hire unless there is a demand for their product/services and they have the ability to borrow capital to maintain and grow their business. We Dems certainly do not need enemies to thwart our agenda, we are our own worst enemies.”
markhas replied on Nov 20, 2009 at 16:33:56
“It seems absurd to me that the CBC believes that the Administration is holding back job creation for some unknown reason.
Apparently CBC is more astute about business and the world then you can ever hope for.
Do they really believe that there are jobs being kept from their constituents that the WH has any control over?
Yes the WH has a lot of control over jobcreation, where, how they are created. The main control is Tax Code and it is the reason all the jobs went out of the country.
What jobs do they think the President can order created or restored?
Any job that fills a demand. Does not include derivatives, you can't eat, wear, of be sheltered by a derivative.
The foundation of our businesses is their ability to borrow and spend. Without regulations in place, banks and investment companies will be able to continue their business as usual and businesses will be out of luck for investment capital.
Well as one or your idols says, this is bass ackwards! Are you really this clueless?
No one is going to hire unless there is a demand for their product/services and they have the ability to borrow capital to maintain and grow their business.
There are a lot of companies that don't need to brorrow, but banking is needed.
We Dems certainly do not need enemies to thwart our agenda, we are our own worst enemies.
Your Democrat!? Really!? Sound like something else...”
Apparently CBC is more astute about business and the world then you can ever hope for.
Do they really believe that there are jobs being kept from their constituents that the WH has any control over?
Yes the WH has a lot of control over jobcreation, where, how they are created. The main control is Tax Code and it is the reason all the jobs went out of the country.
What jobs do they think the President can order created or restored?
Any job that fills a demand. Does not include derivatives, you can't eat, wear, of be sheltered by a derivative.
The foundation of our businesses is their ability to borrow and spend. Without regulations in place, banks and investment companies will be able to continue their business as usual and businesses will be out of luck for investment capital.
Well as one or your idols says, this is bass ackwards! Are you really this clueless?
No one is going to hire unless there is a demand for their product/services and they have the ability to borrow capital to maintain and grow their business.
There are a lot of companies that don't need to brorrow, but banking is needed.
We Dems certainly do not need enemies to thwart our agenda, we are our own worst enemies.
Your Democrat!? Really!? Sound like something else...”
vippy replied on Nov 20, 2009 at 14:46:10
“Not that absured when you read in the same paper here that our congress gave money to foreign countries for green projects. Money our companies could have used to hire local people!
How stupid is that. Sometimes I wonder why we have these idiots in Washington but then again,
we keep voting for them over and over. Nothing is too far fetched with our leaders.”
How stupid is that. Sometimes I wonder why we have these idiots in Washington but then again,
we keep voting for them over and over. Nothing is too far fetched with our leaders.”
patrickmcdougal replied on Nov 20, 2009 at 14:45:21
“If we ram through the Rebuild America Program , rebuilding our schools, infrastructure, Smart electric grid. That will grease the wheels. These people will spend money in their communities, by the products that will encourage the manufacturers to hire more , and so n and so on. It isn't deficit spending when it put's the middle and lower class back to work. That money will recycle itself and unstick main street.”
flamflurm replied on Nov 20, 2009 at 14:37:53
“They want huge handouts to do nothing, but aren't union members yet.”
Rachel Maddow, Frank Schaeffer Discuss The Latest In Thinly-Veiled Evangelical Christian Obama Death Threats
Commented Nov 18, 2009 at 18:35:09 in Politics
“Me too. I even left the Christian Party, otherwise known as the GOP, when I saw the direction the Church was taking. I literally got emails about voting GOP, Bush and later McCain as my Christian duty. They have drunk the wine and believe that they can make this a "Christian Nation," instead of a Nation peopled by Christians. They can skip the Great Commission and just legislate Christian behavior and values. It's a very scary "NEW Commission" and plan.”
Rachel Maddow, Frank Schaeffer Discuss The Latest In Thinly-Veiled Evangelical Christian Obama Death Threats
Commented Nov 18, 2009 at 18:09:01 in Politics
“What you witnessed was the backlash of the Southern Strategy. The GOP decided to court the Southern Christian vote by promoting hot button cultural issues (gays, abortion, etc.) to add them as a major portion of their base. They were hugely successful. If you were Christian, then you were also a Republican full stop by the 80's. Then the church realized that since they were such an important voting block that THEY had huge power to legislate christian values on to the Nation. Why can't we just push for a law to stop federal funds for abortion? Hyde Amendment, check. Why can't we just push for a law to declare marriage as a sacred rite between one man and one woman? DOMA, check. "Hey, if we keep going eventually this will be a Christian Nation." The GOP created a monster. They never saw it coming. They cannot call it back. Now that the Talibangelicals have tasted victory they will continue to push on in their quest for a Christian Nation. Hence, the threats to our President. He understands that this can be a Nation peopled by Christians (and other faiths), but not a Christian Nation. He defends that Constitutional principle.”
KOSMOCITIZEN replied on Nov 18, 2009 at 21:42:16
“it make sense what you say
i moved to Florida from NY 8 years ago
and i was in a culture shock (i still am)
yap they create a frankestein...”
i moved to Florida from NY 8 years ago
and i was in a culture shock (i still am)
yap they create a frankestein...”
Rachel Maddow, Frank Schaeffer Discuss The Latest In Thinly-Veiled Evangelical Christian Obama Death Threats
Commented Nov 18, 2009 at 17:41:57 in Politics
“The cited verses make sense in historical context. King David had enemies who accused him unjustly (backbiters). While it may seem unnecessarily severe for David to pray for his enemy’s untimely death and for his family to suffer for his sins, David’s petition is based upon the principles and practices of the Old Testament. God said that the sins of the fathers would be visited on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate God (Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9). Also in the Law of Moses God warned that certain sins would bring consequences on the families of the sinner: “You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless” (Exod. 22:22-24). The last time I checked, we are not under the Law but Grace. The Christian faith teaches that Jesus' coming did away with the Law, but the Law sure is handy for these Talibangelicals to pull verses out of context to incite harm against our President.”
Rachel Maddow, Frank Schaeffer Discuss The Latest In Thinly-Veiled Evangelical Christian Obama Death Threats
Commented Nov 18, 2009 at 17:20:14 in Politics
“There is definitely a Talibangelical element in the evangelical christian church (mainly Baptists and like denominations) who view President Obama as an enemy of God and Christians. They are indoctrinated to believe that they as ji.hadists, and those they elect to government, should be at work to make this a Christian Nation (they have rewritten our founding history in several ways). Of course, they miss the entire directive of the Great Commission. They want to legislate their faith and values on to the rest of us. They can pass on the embarrassing winning others to their faith by testimony and conversion. There never was an intention of the founding fathers to create a Christian Nation. Rather, they envisioned a Nation where all faiths and no faith could live and worship freely, and the Government would run independent of any one particular faith based on the Constitution. The most they can hope to attain is a Nation peopled by Christians converts. They just have to do the work to win them.”
tm22 replied on Nov 18, 2009 at 17:58:59
“"The just have to do the work to win them [converts]"???
Are you suggesting that the evil (and they are evil) evangelical fundamentalist just have to just "work" a little harder to convert followers so they can create a "christian nation"? Do you realize they are not much different than the People's Liberation Army of the 60's in their pursuit of lunatic fanaticism to change society? Do you realize that most of evangelical proselytizing is based same exact techniques Rev. Moon used in the 60's? Have you noticed how they try to mainstream their extremism as a wholesome, normal lifestyle that everyone will adore once they win all hearts and minds?
This is unabashed christian rehash; bring back the hippy jesus movement that failed in the 60's.
These people are so uncreative that they are re-treading their efforts a second time, hoping no one will notice...as in the Anita Bryant pageant queens, the Nixion-esk rallies, the big lie of the end days...they have a world of ugly, past lives all wrapped up in their collective little mindset. Why is it they always long for the good old days of beating up hippies and lynching people of color as the dominant focal point of Americana? Work harder to win converts...they need to leave and find some other piece of property. Real Americans are all sick and tired of their "founding father" phobia.”
Are you suggesting that the evil (and they are evil) evangelical fundamentalist just have to just "work" a little harder to convert followers so they can create a "christian nation"? Do you realize they are not much different than the People's Liberation Army of the 60's in their pursuit of lunatic fanaticism to change society? Do you realize that most of evangelical proselytizing is based same exact techniques Rev. Moon used in the 60's? Have you noticed how they try to mainstream their extremism as a wholesome, normal lifestyle that everyone will adore once they win all hearts and minds?
This is unabashed christian rehash; bring back the hippy jesus movement that failed in the 60's.
These people are so uncreative that they are re-treading their efforts a second time, hoping no one will notice...as in the Anita Bryant pageant queens, the Nixion-esk rallies, the big lie of the end days...they have a world of ugly, past lives all wrapped up in their collective little mindset. Why is it they always long for the good old days of beating up hippies and lynching people of color as the dominant focal point of Americana? Work harder to win converts...they need to leave and find some other piece of property. Real Americans are all sick and tired of their "founding father" phobia.”


