[relentless]

Doesn't seem that unreasonable.

(edited for filesize)

[Terez]

The reason people think he's the Antichrist is because of the Left Behind books, which (loosely based on prophecy which most Bible Belt citizens have not actually read much less comprehended) portray the Antichrist as an extremely charismatic leader with an agenda of peace and tolerance. And yes, people actually believe that stuff...

[Bent]

Not entirely Terez, you see, the whole world tour Barry took, scared alot of people. The world appears to love him, and this along with the fact that several journalists seem to have an orgasm when he talks has helped support this, personally I think he is nothing more than a puppet, but thats just me. And we all know that I never have been "quite right". Hee hee.

[Obdigore]

Bent;368797 said:

I livein the Bible belt. For those of you don't know what this is, it is a group of states in the southern part of the country that follow strict Christian guidelines. Where i live the census is that Obama is the anti-christ. Nothing to do with race, more simply the fact that he is the epitomy of pop culture, let anyone do anything as long as its fun etc. Are you sure you want to discuss it? lol.

Bible Belt + Heartland are just two words for the same thing. I'm happy MN is as liberal as it is.

Edit - didn't see this page! Umm yes, I know about the Left Behind books. I actually re-read most of Revelations, and it is translated (hopefully correctly) as a charismatic leader loved the world over, but I don't think Obama has any agenda to hunt and kill christians, as Revelations states.

[HoosierDaddy]

Obdigore;368812 said:

Bible Belt + Heartland are just two words for the same thing. I'm happy MN is as liberal as it is.

Huh-uh. The Bible Belt is the Deep South, ex-Confederate states. The Heartland is the Midwest/Great Plains states. I would never consider Indiana a Bible Belt state, despite its massive lean towards conservative politics.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

HoosierDaddy;368821 said:

I would never consider Indiana a Bible Belt state, despite its massive lean towards conservative politics.

PLus they worship Peyton Manning.

[HoosierDaddy]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;368825 said:

PLus they worship Peyton Manning.

Well, the sensible ones do. The people up in "the Region" (northwest IN) are Bears supporters for the most part.

Anyways, if you want a real quick explanation as to why I love Obama, look at the amount income brackets are taxed. The poorer you are, the more you are going to save, and the richer you are the more you will have to pay.

@RLY: Welcome back. Did you enjoy my thorough de-railing of your milk-carton back missing persons thread?

[Dolorous Menhir]

Bent;368766 said:

Whereas Obama lovers only need 1 reason to vote for im. He's not Bush. I mean really 143 days as a politition and liberals think he can save the world? Really?

Hi Bent. I think someone should make you aware of how fast you are losing your credibility by talking rubbish. To take the most obvious point, if you are going to criticise the length of Obama's tenure in office, you should find out what it actually is.

[Bent]

Dolorous Menhir;368828 said:

Hi Bent. I think someone should make you aware of how fast you are losing your credibility by talking rubbish. To take the most obvious point, if you are going to criticise the length of Obama's tenure in office, you should find out what it actually is.

I never had any credibility my friend, and can not be bothered to investigate these things. Honestly does it matter if it was 143 days or 189 days, less than a year is accurate and I could have said as much, but again, I am pretty lazy when it comes to actual research. I do however appreciate the kind way you said this.

~HA! DM thinks my post is stupid! I win.

[Bent]

Also, I think it ironic that this is the first time we have ever spoken to each other, of course, I stay in the Inn, where my shinanigans can roam free. Its a pleasure to finally talk to you though DM. I mean that, you have quite a rep. I hope to someday have the following you seem to have. And no I am not being sarcastic. I really mean that.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Bent;368840 said:

Also, I think it ironic that this is the first time we have ever spoken to each other, of course, I stay in the Inn, where my shinanigans can roam free. Its a pleasure to finally talk to you though DM. I mean that, you have quite a rep. I hope to someday have the following you seem to have. And no I am not being sarcastic. I really mean that.

Ok, I don't have a problem with that. Your earlier post though, I do. "Less than a year" is not accurate. Obama was sworn into his Senate post in January 2005. By your yardstick, that is roughly 1200 days.

Or by your other standard - "So what has Obama done to help Chicago in his half a year?" - we could measure it so: Obama has held an office representing (all or parts of) Chicago since 1996. This is more than 4000 days.

The only reason I don't find your ignorance (of which you seem proud) amusing, Bent, is that I am well aware of how typical your views and attitude are. What kind of person gets into a discussion about politics and then defends themselves with a statement like "I am pretty lazy when it comes to actual research"?

You see why people take a dim view of American politics? It's because it's filled with voices like yours.

[Bent]

Well, to be honest, my views of polotics are this....I DON"T VOTE! that way no matter what happens I can not say, see I told you the other was better! But I can have personal beliefs about a candidate based on reports of others.

I get some news from Rush, sure, he ammuses me, I don't agree with his Republican or die crap, however he has plenty of info to bring to the table, YES the drive-by news media (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) is biased FOR Barry. But I also gather news from other sorces. A radio DJ out of Chicago. Hell, even an anti government radio host. So while I may be too lazy to dig up the facts, I get them from more reliable sources, both biased and un-biased. And thus feel that I have the right to make personal observations as well as enter a discussion in which I feel is important. Again, I stress, I don't try to sway anyone, I just pop in bits of info that some may not know.

~Also, Global warming exists, but its not Man-made!

[Dolorous Menhir]

People are not familiar with your facts because they are not true.

[Bent]

Here is why people fear he is the Anti-Christ this was published in the NY Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle4392846.ece

I stand corrected, He logged in a total of 143 days in the Senate while he was a Senator, so he held office for longer, but only worked in the Senate Offices for 143 days. The point stands, no experience.
After delving deeper I find that this is a misrepresentation that the fact is in the 3 years of office he was present 225 days. Still The amount of time is relevant to political experience, not leadership experience. So I digress, that I was incorrect in my belief in sources. But my feelings of inexperience and puppetry are still valid IMO.

[Optimus Prime]

Bent I love ya man, but you're pretty much dead wrong on everything you've said in here.

Oh and I stand by this statement. You don't vote, you don't get to complain.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Bent, I'm just glad you've made the effort to back up your claims. So your actual point was that Obama has put in very few days work in the Senate, not that his tenure has been short.

That's an important distinction, and I'm not sure if you understood it when you first brought it up. I think you were just parroting something you had heard on the radio. (edit note - I don't know if your claim is true or not. Let's assume it is)

I suppose the counter-argument is that Obama is not running on his long legislative record in the Senate. Why not? Because he doesn't have one. That's not what he's about.

Let's turn this point around. Is John McCain campaigning on his 22 years in the Senate? Not really. Why? Because it's not a strength for him, is it. You don't win election in a environment like 2008 by emphasising how long you've been around.

So you've got two conclusions. You're criticising Obama for a weakness that doesn't seem very relevant to him or his opponent. Or you're simply applying a standard that says "I expect a presidential candidate to have X years of national political experience. Obama has less than X, McCain has more."

I can see where you are coming from if it's the second, though I do not consider it a fatal argument against Obama.

Ok, lets talk about your next wild assertion. Obama is a (gasp) SOCIALIST!

edited for grammatical errors

[HoosierDaddy]

Bent;368867 said:

Here is why people fear he is the Anti-Christ this was published in the NY Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle4392846.ece

I stand corrected, He logged in a total of 143 days in the Senate while he was a Senator, so he held office for longer, but only worked in the Senate Offices for 143 days. The point stands, no experience.
After delving deeper I find that this is a misrepresentation that the fact is in the 3 years of office he was present 225 days. Still The amount of time is relevant to political experience, not leadership experience. So I digress, that I was incorrect in my belief in sources. But my feelings of inexperience and puppetry are still valid IMO.

Bent, that is the Times of London, not the NY Times.

Secondly, if people really think Obama is the anti-Christ they have already decided: (1) there is a God, and most likely the Bible is his Word; (2) Republicans are generally more conservative and support things such as a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and to ban abortion and they will therefore support Republicans; (3) most liberals are evil and are going to Hell.

Third, why should someone who promotes peace in the world, a stark contrast to Bush pre-emptive action & bomb first ask questions later, be seen as evil? Do they believe that every popular hippy in the world is the anti-christ as well?

Four, Obama now has far more foreign policy experience than Bush II came close to before taking office. Bill Clinton had almost no foreign policy experience, and apart from his morality questions, oversaw 8 years of economic boom in the U.S. Which goes to show that experience is vasly overestimated.

[Obdigore]

That Clinton thing isn't a fair argument, as it takes 4-6 years for economic policys to change what they are shooting at. Clinton rode the coattails of Bush Sr for part of it.

Now, Bush Jr. is leading the country into a recession and has no clue how to fix it, but it is ok, because McCain is going to balance the budget through increased taxes and decreased educational expenses.

[HoosierDaddy]

Obdigore;368890 said:

That Clinton thing isn't a fair argument, as it takes 4-6 years for economic policys to change what they are shooting at. Clinton rode the coattails of Bush Sr for part of it.

Now, Bush Jr. is leading the country into a recession and has no clue how to fix it, but it is ok, because McCain is going to balance the budget through increased taxes and decreased educational expenses.

Keyword: "oversaw", meaning he didn't screw it up while it was happening.

[Bent]

I didn't say it was the NY times, I said it was PUBLISHED in the nY times.

1-3. Yes, I am a conservative, I believe in God, I don't think abortion is cool, and I don't think gays should be married, this however doesn't make me a republican.

Third(as you said) - Obama stated that he would be willing to negotiate with known terrorists, this isn't advocating world peace, this is saying, attack again without the thoughts of repercusion! If you are going to lead a nation you need to be able to make descisions that may cause people to die, in order to save innocent civilians. Obama's stance on this is backwards, allow a few innocents to die, to avoid war! I bet you still think we went to Iraq for oil too, huh? This is liberal thinking anyway, but talk to the soldiers who went over there and fought, they are nearly worshipped for taking out Saddam.

Forth - Obama's foreign policy experience is crap. While visiting Isreal, he told a large group of Isreali's that Isreal would remain undevided and Jeruselum would remain the capital of Isreal. After the palesinians on the outside started booing he retracted his statement as being"a poor choice of words." He was against a surge in Iraq, and give him credit, when asked by Katie Couric if knowing what he knows now(Since the surge worked) would he support the surge and he repeatedly said NO. He would have tried something else, even knowing that the surge would be successful, HE WOULD STILL NOT SUPPORT IT!

Again, not the leadership qualities that I am looking for. And again McCain isn't much better, but at least he knows how to lead(he supported the surge, even though EVERYONE in the democratic party said it would fail.) McCain never faltered, he replied, if it fails we move on, until then I support the surge.