Obama Just Compared Christianity With Islam…At National Prayer Breakfast

[NYcarbineer]

Because she's a lying fuck, got caught at it, and is now trying to cover her sorry ass.

And how do you expect to correct the conflict?
By accusing someone of the very thing you despise.
How is this approach going to correct anything?

NYC is spinning out of control because he got caught misrepresenting what I said, so he has to keep attacking and attacking.

It's a rather unattractive personality defect, but I suppose he can't help it.

Your attempts to pretend you're not a garden variety anti-Muslim would be somewhat more effective if the forum wasn't a written record of it.

Consider the following:

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...and many more by this bigot on that subject.

Hahahahaha! You are getting desperate. But I am flattered that you are spending so much time rereading my posts, which (at the risk of sounding immodest) I must admit are chock-full-o discerning perception and impeccable good taste. It's just a shame that you aren't able to grok them.

I was merely showing E that you are a garden variety anti-Muslim bigot and that you've left a record here to prove it.

 

[boedicca]

Because she's a lying fuck, got caught at it, and is now trying to cover her sorry ass.

And how do you expect to correct the conflict?
By accusing someone of the very thing you despise.
How is this approach going to correct anything?

NYC is spinning out of control because he got caught misrepresenting what I said, so he has to keep attacking and attacking.

It's a rather unattractive personality defect, but I suppose he can't help it.

Your attempts to pretend you're not a garden variety anti-Muslim would be somewhat more effective if the forum wasn't a written record of it.

Consider the following:

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...and many more by this bigot on that subject.

Hahahahaha! You are getting desperate. But I am flattered that you are spending so much time rereading my posts, which (at the risk of sounding immodest) I must admit are chock-full-o discerning perception and impeccable good taste. It's just a shame that you aren't able to grok them.

I was merely showing E that you are a garden variety anti-Muslim bigot and that you've left a record here to prove it.

Your record shows that you are an intellectually dishonest and disingenuous hypocrite, on almost all topics.

 

[Iceweasel]

I was merely showing E that you are a garden variety anti-Muslim bigot and that you've left a record here to prove it.

By equating modern Christians with Islamofascists of today that makes obama an anti-Christian bigot. Which is particularly distasteful since he got his career jump started from a supposedly Christian church.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is where Emily's premise fails: "where is his ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that his health care bill passed "in the name of the law" violates the law, and by the party of choice and inclusion, instead "excludes free choice."

The law passed by the guidance of how we make laws under the Constitution.

That you dislike the law does not make it illegitimate.

IMPORTANT JakeStarkey and rightwinger
Since Jake and I were trying to come to an agreement that this above
is NOT what I am saying at all, Can you please correct this misstatement
so that it is NOT "bearing false witness against a neighbor"

1. It is NOT that I just "don't like" a law but that it violates BELIEFS that people have a right not to be discriminated
against by govt. Not just an expendable opinion but an INHERENT BELIEF.
2. and NOT that I don't respect the Constitutional process in making laws,
but that I recognize that a step was skipped at the front of this process,
where it is NEVER Constitutional to preclude and discriminate against a person's beliefs or creed in making laws.

this mistake was also made with passing defense of marriage laws that BANNED gay marriage
which was unconstitutional from the start. Even Clinton admitted AFTERWARDS that this law should not have been passed.

So there is something wrong if parties cannot admit these things
until after they leave office. there is a political conflict of interests with BELIEFS,
so this is discriminatory.

where I thought Jake and I agreed on was that I was using the interactive process
to form a CONSENSUS or AGREEMENT on points that DON'T violate the beliefs of either side.

And THEN implementing these through the legislative or legal processes
AFTER an agreement is reached. NOT pushing conflicts through the system and imposing one political belief over the other.

Can we agree on what I am saying and what I am NOT SAYING as
what was grossly misstated above as a misunderstanding of my intent and beliefs.

Jake and rightwinger, if your beliefs are so engrained that you cannot see
what I mean by a consensus in advance, that includes and protects all views equally,
I understand this is due to YOUR political beliefs, and is not my beliefs which you cannot even see for your own.

You remind me of atheists who because THEY cannot see or hear God as others do,
they assume such beliefs are invalid and false and don't deserve equal protection of the laws.

I believe in a consensus on laws, and just because other people don't believe in this standard,
then the "majority rule" keeps precluding this belief and even mandating laws biased against consensus.

So I am saying to form an agreement first, and then laws can be written that avoid imposing
bias against people's beliefs.

Jake there is a DIFFERENCE between inherent beliefs and just opinion.
If it was merely a Christian's or atheist's opinions if there was a God or not, then yes
govt can be used to agree on majority rule to pass laws that affect such an opinion that is expendable for expedience.

But since these are people's inherent BELIEFS then they will be compelled by conscience to defend
their beliefs against infringement by govt, so this causes infractions and discrimination if a bias is imposed by laws.

And same with prochoice arguments defending the choice of abortion without penalties overregulated by govt
and the proliberty arguments defending choice of health care without penalties overregulated by govt.

There are inherent beliefs involved, and until these are recognized equally, how can we provide equal protections by law?

We are not coming to consensus, Emily, about these laws.

They are lawful, they are constitutional, and that you think otherwise in no way invalidates them or your responsibility to obey them until they are repealed or amended.

 

[emilynghiem]

And how do you expect to correct the conflict?
By accusing someone of the very thing you despise.
How is this approach going to correct anything?

NYC is spinning out of control because he got caught misrepresenting what I said, so he has to keep attacking and attacking.

It's a rather unattractive personality defect, but I suppose he can't help it.

Your attempts to pretend you're not a garden variety anti-Muslim would be somewhat more effective if the forum wasn't a written record of it.

Consider the following:

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...and many more by this bigot on that subject.

Hahahahaha! You are getting desperate. But I am flattered that you are spending so much time rereading my posts, which (at the risk of sounding immodest) I must admit are chock-full-o discerning perception and impeccable good taste. It's just a shame that you aren't able to grok them.

I was merely showing E that you are a garden variety anti-Muslim bigot and that you've left a record here to prove it.

Your record shows that you are an intellectually dishonest and disingenuous hypocrite, on almost all topics.

Ok boedicca and NYcarbineer I get it I get it
You both see each other as hypocritical and dishonest in how you defend one thing
but then your records show you contradict yourself. fine. I accept that as people criticize me when I come
across that way, too.

Now, how do you suggest we correct this?

Do we start with correcting ourselves and agree to try harder
not to come across as disingenuous hypocrites?

What do you need to see from each other
to trust that each other is trying to correct this mutual problem?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily writes that, "Libertarians I know preach about CHECKING govt by enforcing Constitutional limits,
check and balances, and separation of powers."

So do good Republicans and Democrats.

Many libertarians I know want to limit effective laws against certain criminal activities, and thinking America is very well aware of that.

 

[emilynghiem]

This is where Emily's premise fails: "where is his ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that his health care bill passed "in the name of the law" violates the law, and by the party of choice and inclusion, instead "excludes free choice."

The law passed by the guidance of how we make laws under the Constitution.

That you dislike the law does not make it illegitimate.

IMPORTANT JakeStarkey and rightwinger
Since Jake and I were trying to come to an agreement that this above
is NOT what I am saying at all, Can you please correct this misstatement
so that it is NOT "bearing false witness against a neighbor"

1. It is NOT that I just "don't like" a law but that it violates BELIEFS that people have a right not to be discriminated
against by govt. Not just an expendable opinion but an INHERENT BELIEF.
2. and NOT that I don't respect the Constitutional process in making laws,
but that I recognize that a step was skipped at the front of this process,
where it is NEVER Constitutional to preclude and discriminate against a person's beliefs or creed in making laws.

this mistake was also made with passing defense of marriage laws that BANNED gay marriage
which was unconstitutional from the start. Even Clinton admitted AFTERWARDS that this law should not have been passed.

So there is something wrong if parties cannot admit these things
until after they leave office. there is a political conflict of interests with BELIEFS,
so this is discriminatory.

where I thought Jake and I agreed on was that I was using the interactive process
to form a CONSENSUS or AGREEMENT on points that DON'T violate the beliefs of either side.

And THEN implementing these through the legislative or legal processes
AFTER an agreement is reached. NOT pushing conflicts through the system and imposing one political belief over the other.

Can we agree on what I am saying and what I am NOT SAYING as
what was grossly misstated above as a misunderstanding of my intent and beliefs.

Jake and rightwinger, if your beliefs are so engrained that you cannot see
what I mean by a consensus in advance, that includes and protects all views equally,
I understand this is due to YOUR political beliefs, and is not my beliefs which you cannot even see for your own.

You remind me of atheists who because THEY cannot see or hear God as others do,
they assume such beliefs are invalid and false and don't deserve equal protection of the laws.

I believe in a consensus on laws, and just because other people don't believe in this standard,
then the "majority rule" keeps precluding this belief and even mandating laws biased against consensus.

So I am saying to form an agreement first, and then laws can be written that avoid imposing
bias against people's beliefs.

Jake there is a DIFFERENCE between inherent beliefs and just opinion.
If it was merely a Christian's or atheist's opinions if there was a God or not, then yes
govt can be used to agree on majority rule to pass laws that affect such an opinion that is expendable for expedience.

But since these are people's inherent BELIEFS then they will be compelled by conscience to defend
their beliefs against infringement by govt, so this causes infractions and discrimination if a bias is imposed by laws.

And same with prochoice arguments defending the choice of abortion without penalties overregulated by govt
and the proliberty arguments defending choice of health care without penalties overregulated by govt.

There are inherent beliefs involved, and until these are recognized equally, how can we provide equal protections by law?

We are not coming to consensus, Emily, about these laws.

They are lawful, they are constitutional, and that you think otherwise in no way invalidates them or your responsibility to obey them until they are repealed or amended.

sorry JakeStarkey
but the way that slavery was overcome
and also the bans against gay marriage were overcome
started by people's beliefs these were unequal and unfair.

All change has started by people believing in higher justice.
And yes, we do not stop pushing until there is a consensus on laws.
I have never known any human being who didn't keep seeking truth and change
on the side of restoring their sense of security, consent, peace justice and freedom.

What do you think drives human nature and conscience?
We all want our free will and peace, and what to defend that from infringement by others.

That is why the beliefs of NEITHER party can just be "overruled" and expect to be done with it.
No, people will keep defending their beliefs which are necessary for them to feel equal justice is served.

What do you think this battle is about?
People believe in their beliefs, these are not just made up.

 

[boedicca]

NYC is spinning out of control because he got caught misrepresenting what I said, so he has to keep attacking and attacking.

It's a rather unattractive personality defect, but I suppose he can't help it.

Your attempts to pretend you're not a garden variety anti-Muslim would be somewhat more effective if the forum wasn't a written record of it.

Consider the following:

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...and many more by this bigot on that subject.

Hahahahaha! You are getting desperate. But I am flattered that you are spending so much time rereading my posts, which (at the risk of sounding immodest) I must admit are chock-full-o discerning perception and impeccable good taste. It's just a shame that you aren't able to grok them.

I was merely showing E that you are a garden variety anti-Muslim bigot and that you've left a record here to prove it.

Your record shows that you are an intellectually dishonest and disingenuous hypocrite, on almost all topics.

Ok boedicca and NYcarbineer I get it I get it
You both see each other as hypocritical and dishonest in how you defend one thing
but then your records show you contradict yourself. fine. I accept that as people criticize me when I come
across that way, too.

Now, how do you suggest we correct this?

Do we start with correcting ourselves and agree to try harder
not to come across as disingenuous hypocrites?

What do you need to see from each other
to trust that each other is trying to correct this mutual problem?

Thank you for your concern, but it really isn't necessary for you to arbitrate peace talks here. We can't stand each other, and never will. I can live with that as long as I am free to call him out for being an complete and utter moonbat tool.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is where Emily's premise fails: "where is his ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that his health care bill passed "in the name of the law" violates the law, and by the party of choice and inclusion, instead "excludes free choice."

The law passed by the guidance of how we make laws under the Constitution.

That you dislike the law does not make it illegitimate.

IMPORTANT JakeStarkey and rightwinger
Since Jake and I were trying to come to an agreement that this above
is NOT what I am saying at all, Can you please correct this misstatement
so that it is NOT "bearing false witness against a neighbor"

1. It is NOT that I just "don't like" a law but that it violates BELIEFS that people have a right not to be discriminated
against by govt. Not just an expendable opinion but an INHERENT BELIEF.
2. and NOT that I don't respect the Constitutional process in making laws,
but that I recognize that a step was skipped at the front of this process,
where it is NEVER Constitutional to preclude and discriminate against a person's beliefs or creed in making laws.

this mistake was also made with passing defense of marriage laws that BANNED gay marriage
which was unconstitutional from the start. Even Clinton admitted AFTERWARDS that this law should not have been passed.

So there is something wrong if parties cannot admit these things
until after they leave office. there is a political conflict of interests with BELIEFS,
so this is discriminatory.

where I thought Jake and I agreed on was that I was using the interactive process
to form a CONSENSUS or AGREEMENT on points that DON'T violate the beliefs of either side.

And THEN implementing these through the legislative or legal processes
AFTER an agreement is reached. NOT pushing conflicts through the system and imposing one political belief over the other.

Can we agree on what I am saying and what I am NOT SAYING as
what was grossly misstated above as a misunderstanding of my intent and beliefs.

Jake and rightwinger, if your beliefs are so engrained that you cannot see
what I mean by a consensus in advance, that includes and protects all views equally,
I understand this is due to YOUR political beliefs, and is not my beliefs which you cannot even see for your own.

You remind me of atheists who because THEY cannot see or hear God as others do,
they assume such beliefs are invalid and false and don't deserve equal protection of the laws.

I believe in a consensus on laws, and just because other people don't believe in this standard,
then the "majority rule" keeps precluding this belief and even mandating laws biased against consensus.

So I am saying to form an agreement first, and then laws can be written that avoid imposing
bias against people's beliefs.

Jake there is a DIFFERENCE between inherent beliefs and just opinion.
If it was merely a Christian's or atheist's opinions if there was a God or not, then yes
govt can be used to agree on majority rule to pass laws that affect such an opinion that is expendable for expedience.

But since these are people's inherent BELIEFS then they will be compelled by conscience to defend
their beliefs against infringement by govt, so this causes infractions and discrimination if a bias is imposed by laws.

And same with prochoice arguments defending the choice of abortion without penalties overregulated by govt
and the proliberty arguments defending choice of health care without penalties overregulated by govt.

There are inherent beliefs involved, and until these are recognized equally, how can we provide equal protections by law?

We are not coming to consensus, Emily, about these laws.

They are lawful, they are constitutional, and that you think otherwise in no way invalidates them or your responsibility to obey them until they are repealed or amended.

sorry JakeStarkey
but the way that slavery was overcome
and also the bans against gay marriage were overcome
started by people's beliefs these were unequal and unfair.

All change has started by people believing in higher justice.
And yes, we do not stop pushing until there is a consensus on laws.
I have never known any human being who didn't keep seeking truth and change
on the side of restoring their sense of security, consent, peace justice and freedom.

What do you think drives human nature and conscience?
We all want our free will and peace, and what to defend that from infringement by others.

That is why the beliefs of NEITHER party can just be "overruled" and expect to be done with it.
No, people will keep defending their beliefs which are necessary for them to feel equal justice is served.

What do you think this battle is about?
People believe in their beliefs, these are not just made up.

You are using the stale old arguments of the South in days by gone and recent.

Yes, the laws are Constitutional.

You have to change them by constitutional procedure.

Good luck.

 

[sealybobo]

[

In a religious context, Christians are now less 'savage' than Muslims because the Reformation allowed rank-and-file Christians to slowly re-align their practices more closely with the fundamental or basic or Core Teachings of their Founder, rather than continuing to allow misguided clerics to do their thinking for them in a religious context.

In the case of Christianity, when one re-aligns one's practices more closely in keeping with those of the Founder, one more closely approximates the ideals of "Love thy neighbor" and "Turn the other cheek".

.

That is false. Christian dominated cultures have become more peaceful as they have increasingly secularized.

But our religion prophecised that this war would some day happen.so they seem to want to get it on.

There are, indeed, enough Christian Apocalyptic Nutters floating about to be cause for concern.

Nolo contendere.

But their size and influence within the domains of Christendom pale by comparison with that of their counterparts within the domains of Islam.

Just keep in mind they are a powerful voting block and the GOP hopefuls will go along because its war for profit and they love that.

Today the Detroit news listed the GOP contenders. There are some bible thumpers even running for president that believe the war in middle east was prophicized

 

[Kondor3]

Obama didn't compare Islam and Christianity, he compared people who used these religions to justify slaughter.

Since there are no longer any Medieval Crusaders running around or slave owners, he was talking about contemporary Christians when he said not to get on a high horse. The left's attempt to polish this turd is embarrassing.

The Left's attempt to DEFEND this turd is even MORE embarrassing.

 

[sealybobo]

Bibi has been after them since 1992, and no he wants America to go after Iran. If I were Iran I'd be very afraid of Israel with their nukes and trigger happy fingers and their nuke subs all around Iran. Why do you think Bibi is coming here, on a peace mission?

Silliness. If Israel has had nukes since the 1970s as rumored, she has already proven to be rational and stable enough to have them. Does anyone here doubt that the day some Islamic state can deliver one to Israel they will hesitate?

Iran would not.

 

[SAYIT]

Bibi has been after them since 1992, and no he wants America to go after Iran. If I were Iran I'd be very afraid of Israel with their nukes and trigger happy fingers and their nuke subs all around Iran. Why do you think Bibi is coming here, on a peace mission?

Silliness. If Israel has had nukes since the 1970s as rumored, she has already proven to be rational and stable enough to have them. Does anyone here doubt that the day some Islamic state can deliver one to Israel they will hesitate?

Iran would not.

Nah ... the slimy Iranians will do it the same way they now run their war against Israel ... by Syrian or Hezbollah proxy. Thanks for playing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Iran will not give the bomb to proxies, because it knows that it will die as a country if an atomic weapon is ever detonated in Israel.

You jihadists need to understand that the Americans and Israel are willing to outlast you for hundreds of years if necessary.

And if a nuclear weapon is exploded over Israel, the Muslim ME will die in a sea of molten radioactive glass.

 

[sealybobo]

Bibi has been after them since 1992, and no he wants America to go after Iran. If I were Iran I'd be very afraid of Israel with their nukes and trigger happy fingers and their nuke subs all around Iran. Why do you think Bibi is coming here, on a peace mission?

Silliness. If Israel has had nukes since the 1970s as rumored, she has already proven to be rational and stable enough to have them. Does anyone here doubt that the day some Islamic state can deliver one to Israel they will hesitate?

Iran would not.

Nah ... the slimy Iranians will do it the same way they now run their war against Israel ... by Syrian or Hezbollah proxy. Thanks for playing.

Are they the ones giving them rocks to fight the Jew with?

 

[SAYIT]

Bibi has been after them since 1992, and no he wants America to go after Iran. If I were Iran I'd be very afraid of Israel with their nukes and trigger happy fingers and their nuke subs all around Iran. Why do you think Bibi is coming here, on a peace mission?

Silliness. If Israel has had nukes since the 1970s as rumored, she has already proven to be rational and stable enough to have them. Does anyone here doubt that the day some Islamic state can deliver one to Israel they will hesitate?

Iran would not.

Nah ... the slimy Iranians will do it the same way they now run their war against Israel ... by Syrian or Hezbollah proxy. Thanks for playing.

Are they the ones giving them rocks to fight the Jew with?

You think Hezbollah and those in Syria fight with rocks? You truly are monumentally ignorant but thanks for playing.

 

[sealybobo]

Bibi has been after them since 1992, and no he wants America to go after Iran. If I were Iran I'd be very afraid of Israel with their nukes and trigger happy fingers and their nuke subs all around Iran. Why do you think Bibi is coming here, on a peace mission?

Silliness. If Israel has had nukes since the 1970s as rumored, she has already proven to be rational and stable enough to have them. Does anyone here doubt that the day some Islamic state can deliver one to Israel they will hesitate?

Iran would not.

Nah ... the slimy Iranians will do it the same way they now run their war against Israel ... by Syrian or Hezbollah proxy. Thanks for playing.

Are they the ones giving them rocks to fight the Jew with?

You think Hezbollah and those in Syria fight with rocks? You truly are monumentally ignorant but thanks for playing.

A few RPG" s bfd

 

[Jroc]

Bibi has been after them since 1992, and no he wants America to go after Iran. If I were Iran I'd be very afraid of Israel with their nukes and trigger happy fingers and their nuke subs all around Iran. Why do you think Bibi is coming here, on a peace mission?

Silliness. If Israel has had nukes since the 1970s as rumored, she has already proven to be rational and stable enough to have them. Does anyone here doubt that the day some Islamic state can deliver one to Israel they will hesitate?

Iran would not.

Nah ... the slimy Iranians will do it the same way they now run their war against Israel ... by Syrian or Hezbollah proxy. Thanks for playing.

Are they the ones giving them rocks to fight the Jew with?

You misspelled rockets

Iran boasts of rocket aid to Palestinians Hezbollah The Times of Israel

 

[SAYIT]

Iran will not give the bomb to proxies, because it knows that it will die as a country if an atomic weapon is ever detonated in Israel.

You jihadists need to understand that the Americans and Israel are willing to outlast you for hundreds of years if necessary.

And if a nuclear weapon is exploded over Israel, the Muslim ME will die in a sea of molten radioactive glass.

You lefties just don't get it. It only takes about 19 raging Jihadists (and there are many) to pull off one of their deadly scams and in the Arab/Muslim World they will get plenty of cooperation. BTW, there will be no American (or Russian, or French, or Chinese, or Pakistani) nuclear response.

 

[Synthaholic]

Again, since you ignored it the first time:

Is that why he spent the first 6 years of his administration compromising and bending over backward to accommodate Republicans?

Considering he had the House and the Senate all as D's in his first years.

Yes he did! And did he use that total control to implement a Single-Payer healthcare system like Liberals wanted, or did he accommodate Republicans by adopting the Right-Wing, Heritage Foundation, Romneycare?

I rest my case.

But if you need more . . .

Come on don't lie. Then he had Reid blocking in the Senate for the last couple of years?

"He" didn't have Reid do a thing. Harry Reid doesn't take orders, and Harry Reid certainly doesn't need a one-term Senator explaining to him how to run the Senate.

Harry Reid blocked House bills that contained poison pills and items included for the sole purpose of embarrassing the president.

Why aren't you concerned with Boehner blocking Senate Bills? Obama's Jobs bill that called for spending on infrastructure - not controversial - has been sitting on Boehner's desk since 2011.

Where's your outrage?

And he hates conservatives. He let's it be known all the time.

By beating them, politically? OK.

JFK was a Conservative (set by the far left standards of today), so do you hate JFK?

JFK was no more Conservative than Clinton or Obama.

Seriously you are nuts.

JFK was conservative. Or as I was in those days a classical liberal.

How was JFK a conservative?