# Powell endorses Obama



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/powell-endorses-obama/?hp

In the appearance on "Meet the Press," Mr. Powell also said he was disappointed by the McCain campaign's decision to seek to tie Mr. Obama to William Ayers, who four decades ago was a domestic terrorist who violently protested the Vietnam War.


----------



## JayJay (Oct 8, 2007)

Powell outlined his reasons very clearly and thoughtfully. I think it well help Obama, but I don't think it will change enough minds at this stage of the game to make a significant difference.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Who cares? Powell is a has-been.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

A disappointment, but hardly a surprise. By many accounts he has been expected to endorse Obama for more than a few months.

Let's be honest. He's more liberal than conservative, and his endorsement naturally follows his feelings.

Will likely influence some independents, which is a too bad.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Relayer said:


> Will likely influence some independents, which is a too bad.


I guess that depends on who you're backing for POTUS!:icon_smile_big:

Seriously, this doesn't surprise me if you consider how poorly Powell was treated by the neo-cons in the Bush administration. Though I feel Powell is a honorble man with deep convictions, his endorsement of Obama does have an air of "gotcha" to it...but that's just my opinion.

Like WFB Jr., I think Powell's endorsement represents...maybe only to some minor extent...the frustrations of a lot of moderates. That told, I have never been convinced endorsements by celebrities and politicians really help all that much.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Powell on the false claims that Obama is a socialist:

The message this week is that we're going to call him a socialist. Mr. Obama's now a socialist because he dares to suggest that we ought to look at the tax structure that we have.

Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to the people who paid them, in roads, and airports, and hospitals, and schools, and taxes are necessary for the common good, and there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is, and who should be paying more or who should be paying less, and for us to say that that makes you a socialist is I think an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to the people who paid them, in roads, and airports, and hospitals, and schools, and taxes are necessary for the common good, and there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is, and who should be paying more or who should be paying less, and for us to say that that makes you a socialist is I think an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate.


Off thread...that reminds me of something my brother once said about infastructure and lower/no tax crowd: "Sure, I'd like lower taxes. I'd also like to lose wait by eating nothing but ice cream, but it ain't gonna happen."


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I think Powell needs to look at where the tax money actually goes. Infrastructure and education are a tiny part of government expenditures.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Powell on the false claims that Obama is a socialist:
> 
> The message this week is that we're going to call him a socialist. Mr. Obama's now a socialist because he dares to suggest that we ought to look at the tax structure that we have.
> 
> Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to the people who paid them, in roads, and airports, and hospitals, and schools, and taxes are necessary for the common good, and there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is, and who should be paying more or who should be paying less, and for us to say that that makes you a socialist is I think an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate.


The endorsement for Obama is a disappointment for me, but nothing any did not see coming for some time now. I think the biggest effect though, will be psychological on the McCain camp.

This quote shows Powell would have made a good politician. He obviously can mix enough truth to be convincing, while skirting the true issue and making the incorrect conclusion. I agree, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with examining the tax structure, and that taxes are needed for society to function. However, when you have stated you will raise taxes in a way to cause dead weight loss, but you plan to do it anyways out of "fairness," you lose the ability to say the reason you are doing this is to benefit society. We all know taxation that causes a large amount of dead weight loss on purpose is not done to benefit society, will not benefit society, and is likely to negatively effect the very people you proclaim to want to help.

Also, while poor JtP is currently having a media anal exam, he did get Obama to summarize his tax philosophy. "Spreading the wealth around." Certainly a much more leftward tax policy than many I can think of. And no matter what anyone tries to tell me, if you are paying $0.00 and you get a "refund"? That is welfare.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Pentheos said:


> Who cares? Powell is a has-been.


Powell, a has-been. Perhaps but, at one point Colin Powell could have waltzed right into the Oval office, but for his choosing to not do so and now we have One, who never was (or perhaps those of us who never were), judging him. By god, this must be the asylum...called America! 

PS: Should I choose not vote for McCain, it will be because of the slovenly, drag it through the mud, manner in which his campaign has been run!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I've heard little of possible cabinet choices from Obama. He needs to balance diversity with competence. Powell; military,republican and oh hey and he's black!
He may not want to clean up the Cheney/Rumsfeldt mess though, Harry Belefonte him a derogatory name for a antibellum house servant.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Powell endorsed Obama? I'm shocked. Guess I'll change my mind and vote for a Marxist with tendencies to support Radical Islam who is socially and politically indebted to an entire matrix of people who have one thing in common -- hatred of America. 

Carlos the Jackal wrote in "Radical Isalm" that only a coalition of Marxists and Islam could destroy America. Well, looks like the democrats found HIM!


----------



## JohnRov (Sep 3, 2008)

I would like to meet someone who changes their mind or makes up their mind on who to vote for based on an endorsement. It would certainly be interesting to see how their mind works.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

In years to come some former Bush appointees, particularly those in the foreign policy arena, will be in a hot and public pursuit of rehabilitating their image. Powell will probably be the biggest one. He's a human being and concerned about righting whatever wrong he may have had a hand in. 

In a way he'll become like a John Dean or David Gergen, former Nixonites who have spent nearly the last 30 years looking at every political decision through the prism of Watergate with a media just salivating and hanging on every word in an effort to make the Bush administration look as bad as possible.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Liberty Ship said:


> Powell endorsed Obama? I'm shocked. Guess I'll change my mind and vote for a Marxist with tendencies to support Radical Islam who is socially and politically indebted to an entire matrix of people who have one thing in common -- hatred of America.
> 
> Carlos the Jackal wrote in "Radical Isalm" that only a coalition of Marxists and Islam could destroy America. Well, looks like the democrats found HIM!


Just what are you planning to do when "_a Marxist with tendencies to support Radical Islam who is socially and politically indebted to an entire matrix of people who have one thing in common -- hatred of America_," takes command of the executive branch of the national government? Move? Mobilize the armed militia? Rant? Complain?

Buzz


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> Just what are you planning to do when "_a Marxist with tendencies to support Radical Islam who is socially and politically indebted to an entire matrix of people who have one thing in common -- hatred of America_," takes command of the executive branch of the national government? Move? Mobilize the armed militia? Rant? Complain?
> 
> Buzz


Maybe all of the above.

Of course, that's never going to happen. I've never seen a presidential candidate who is a "Marxist with tendencies to support Radical Islam . . ." and I doubt that we ever will.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Powell, a has-been. Perhaps but, at one point Colin Powell could have waltzed right into the Oval office, but for his choosing to not do so....


Unfortunately for many, he never had any real chance of that office or any choice in the matter due to associations that fell athwart history. In the upper levels of the Defense Department one always has mentors and proteges. Powell's mentor was Cap Weinberger who had to be given a Presidential pardon to stay out of what would have been very, very nasty legal proceedings concerning Iran-Contra against him and his top associates, which included Powell. Mr. Powell has every chance of being appointed to something but little chance of surving any kind of election with its zealous scrutiny of every facet of one's life.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

Powell was and is a well respected man on both sides of the aisle.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Liberty Ship said:


> Powell endorsed Obama? I'm shocked. Guess I'll change my mind and vote for a Marxist with tendencies to support Radical Islam who is socially and politically indebted to an entire matrix of people who have one thing in common -- hatred of America.
> 
> Carlos the Jackal wrote in "Radical Isalm" that only a coalition of Marxists and Islam could destroy America. Well, looks like the democrats found HIM!


That's a pretty ridiculous assertion since Marxism is inherently anti-religious. Also, believe it or not (I'm guessing you'll do the latter), Muslims aren't out there to 'destroy America'.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I'm not a scholar of Islam by any means, but doesn't the religion command its followers to establish Islamic government and Islamic law? And wouldn't that pretty much "destroy America"?


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I'm not a scholar of Islam by any means, but doesn't the religion command its followers to establish Islamic government and Islamic law? And wouldn't that pretty much "destroy America"?


Let's say Obama was a Muslim, which he's not. Let's also say that if he was, he would be in some position to bestow Islam on America. Nevermind that whole big thing called Congress that is made up of old, Christian white dudes. I'd argue that there isn't much difference between a Muslim imposing his religion on America and the millions of neo-conservative, right wing, religious wackos who feel God is a republican imposing their religion on the rest of us. There is a very fine line between islamic terrorists who blow things up and these crazy american neo-cons who think the war in Iraq is God's way of punishing the U.S. for not persecuting gay people. They are both examples of radical religious extremism and do nothing but F things up. These folks who still speak of Obama as a muslim are no different then the muslim terrorists they fear so much.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> These folks who still speak of Obama as a muslim are no different then the muslim terrorists they fear so much.


I absolutely agree that the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim or that he is sympathetic to Muslim terrorists are nothing short of despicable. But the statement quoted above is just nuts. There are gradations of wrong, and this false moral equivalency, like the one that asserts that fundamentalist Christians are comparable to Islamic terrorists, is sloppy reasoning at its worst.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> I absolutely agree that the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim or that he is sympathetic to Muslim terrorists are nothing short of despicable. But the statement quoted above is just nuts. There are gradations of wrong, and this false moral equivalency, like the one that asserts that fundamentalist Christians are comparable to Islamic terrorists, is sloppy reasoning at its worst.


No doubt there are different levels of wrong, at least according to our government and normal society, but maybe not according to standard Christian beliefs. The comparison is that they are both examples of radical religious extremism, and both of which are threats to destroy this country.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> No doubt there are different levels of wrong, at least according to our government and normal society, but maybe not according to standard Christian beliefs. The comparison is that they are both examples of radical religious extremism, and both of which are threats to destroy this country.


Standard Christian moral theology has always recognized that not all sins are equally grave. I am not aware of any denomination, including fundamentalist denominations, that asserts otherwise. Nor am I aware of any Christian denomination advocating violence to non-Christians or even the establishment of a Christian state, though certainly the Framers were fine with that on the state level. It was Christian leaders who led unpopular fights against slavery and for civil rights, and it is Christian leaders who today work to protect the unborn and the sanctity of marriage and the family. You, of course, are free to object to these efforts, but your statements smack more of anger and bigotry than measure and reason.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> Let's say Obama was a Muslim,


That is not what I was talking about. Someone said that "Muslims are not out to destroy America," which is, let's be honest here, not particularly true.



> I'd argue that there isn't much difference between a Muslim imposing his religion on America and the millions of neo-conservative, right wing, religious wackos who feel God is a republican imposing their religion on the rest of us. There is a very fine line between islamic terrorists who blow things up and these crazy american neo-cons who think the war in Iraq is God's way of punishing the U.S. for not persecuting gay people. They are both examples of radical religious extremism and do nothing but F things up. These folks who still speak of Obama as a muslim are no different then the muslim terrorists they fear so much.


Now you're just venturing off into crackpot land. And I really enjoy how so many people don't even know what a "neo conservative" is, but delight in ranting about them.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> ...Nor am I aware of any Christian denomination advocating violence to non-Christians or even the establishment of a Christian state, though certainly the Framers were fine with that on the state level. It was Christian leaders who led unpopular fights against slavery and for civil rights, and it is Christian leaders who today work to protect the unborn and the sanctity of marriage and the family. You, of course, are free to object to these efforts, but your statements smack more of anger and bigotry than measure and reason.


Perhaps you are thinking only of more contemporary history? The record since the Resurrection has been decidedly mixed. There was a very, very long time in which the Catholic Church advocated, supported and encouraged the slaughter of all infidels because, of course, "_Deos Lo Vult!_" That church also zealously pursued ultimate church control over all secular state affairs to the point of nearly endless warfare in pursuit of that goal. Fortunately their power waned with the rise of protestantism but even that had its rather bloody moments against non-protestants.

To be sure, the abolition of slavery and the birth of civil rights were greatly effected by those with a higher calling. The history of both movements shines with noble men and women who risked all, often including their lives, so that others might have a better life. Nevertheless for many years prior the justification for slavery and racism was provided by other Christian leaders who based their views on scriptures. (A very narrow and odd reading it seems today, but centuries ago it often held great sway.)

Today's Christian leaders are all over the spectrum. Some advocate traditional values, some march for civil rights for all, and some propose the radical theocratization of our society so that what was once seperately rendered to Caesar and to God should go only to God via his duly inspired government made up exclusively of those who share certain fundamentalist beliefs. Fortunately for everyone, more universal and secular values and the protections they engender for all seem to be prevailing in many places, including the wisdom of Colin Powell.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I'm not a scholar of Islam by any means, but doesn't the religion command its followers to establish Islamic government and Islamic law? And wouldn't that pretty much "destroy America"?


Having actually studied Islamic law, I can say that the above assertion is not true. Islamic law is certainly of importance in the faith, but it applies to Muslims in Muslim-dominated states, and even then comes from the people as opposed to top-down.

Additionally, Islamic law is not a set legal code per se - it is a set of guiding principles. There is fiqh (jurisprudence), which is set in such a way, but that deals only with religious actions (posture in prayer, time of prayer et cetera) - not with legal issues.

Unfortunately today's image of a so-called "Islamic state" is Saudi Arabia, which runs largely on innovations that haven't precedents in Islamic history.

While many militant groups and crooked governments will claim their duty to 'Islamic law' as a justification, they have not really done so. It has become a term to get popular support for gangsterism.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You know, I've spent enough time studying real law to recognize weaseling when I see it. Does Islam require Muslims to impose Islamic law and Islamic government on the country they live in, if they are able--yes or no?


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

I'm not weaseling.

In any case, the answer to your question is 'no', because 'asabiyah is discouraged.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Okay. Next question. Do a substantial number of Muslims believe that Islam requires them, if they can, to control the government and impose Islamic law?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Perhaps Osama Bin laden's last confirmed communicaee would satisfy the ignorant who believe world Islam is pivoting on a central bearing tenant of world Jihad ( itself a mistranslated word implying violent holy wars.)

Obama's message was a angry denunciation of world islam that had not embraced his war. The 6/6 cripple knows he faces apredator or a ever more ingominous futre.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

No. That numbers at about 6% of the Muslim population worldwide according to the Reuters survey. That's pretty on-the-mark as I can say given the years that my family was stationed abroad in Muslim countries.

The main principle of Islamic law is 'rule of law', which we've already got in the US so that is already met. This was to address the flaws of Arabia before Islam (and that it reverted to after the end of legitimate Caliphs) - in that time period and indeed today, women, slaves et cetera did not have legal rights, so the religion commanded that those rights be established. However, as I said, we've already got that in the US.

However, the problem is that that minority is very vocal. Indeed they do not even heed the criticism from Islamic scholars.

The Caliphates were basically guided by classical liberalism as Adam Smith type economic principles had been already established in the Islamic world by writers like Ibn Khalfun so the main interest was trade. The irony is that these were joint Judeo-Islamic ventures but neither group understands this shared history because of foolish political animosity between the two groups.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Abraham Lincoln said: "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

I thought this might be interesting to you from another veiw point. One of my aunts is a missionary in West Africa and knows many missionaries in Africa. A married couple who are missionaries in Kenya says

_Thanks for sending out an alert about Obama. We are living and working in Kenya for almost twelve years now and know his family (tribe) well. They are the ones who were behind the recent Presidential election chaos here. Thousands of people have been displaced by election violence (over 350,000) and I don't know the last count of the dead.. Obama, under 'friends of Obama' gave almost a million dollars to the opposition campaign who just happened to be his cousin, Raila Odinga, who is a socialist trained in east Germany ... He has been trying to bring Kenya down for years and the last president threw him in prison for trying to subvert this country! December 27th elections brought cries from ODM (Odinga Camp) of rigged election. Obama and Raila speak daily._

_As we watch Obama rise in the US we are sure that whatever happens, he will use the same tactic, crying 'rigged election' if he doesn't win, and possibly cause a race war in America._

_What we would like you to know is that the American press has been keeping a dirty little secret. Obama IS a Muslim and he IS a racist and this is a fulfillment of the 9-11 threat that was just the beginning. Jihad is the only true Muslim way. We have been working with them for 20 years this July! He is not an American as we know it. Please encourage your friends and associates not to be taken in by those that are promoting him. It is world wide jihad. All our friends in Europe are very disturbed by the Muslim infiltration into their countries._

_By the way, his true name is Barak Hussein Muhammed Obama. Won't that sound sweet to our enemies as they swear him in on the Koran!?_

_God Bless you._

_Pray for us here in Kenya . We are still fighting for our nation to withstand the same kind of assault that every nation, including America, is fighting. Takeover from the outside to fit the new world order. As believers, this means we will be the first targets. Here in Kenya , not one mosque was burned down, but hundreds of churches were burned down, some with people in them, burned alive._

_Jesus Christ is our peace, but the new world order of Globalism has infiltrated the church and confused believers into thinking that they can compromise and survive. It won't be so. I will send you a newsletter we sent out in February documenting in a more cohesive manner what I've tried to say in a few paragraphs._


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

WA said:


> Abraham Lincoln said: "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
> 
> I thought this might be interesting to you from another veiw point. One of my aunts is a missionary in West Africa and knows many missionaries in Africa. A married couple who are missionaries in Kenya says
> 
> ...


There is extremely little evidence that Obama is a Muslim. And so what if he is? There is absolutely zero evidence that he shares the values of Islamo-fascists. My problem with him is that he is a glib empty suit with vague and dangerous leftist impulses. This does not make him evil, just wrong and ill-equipped to be president in my opinion. But it looks like he will have an opportunity to prove me wrong, and I hope he does. I am frequently wrong, as my wife would be quick to point out.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

WA said:


> Abraham Lincoln said: "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
> 
> I thought this might be interesting to you from another veiw point. One of my aunts is a missionary in West Africa and knows many missionaries in Africa. A married couple who are missionaries in Kenya says
> 
> ...


Wow. That's got to be one of the most unhinged pieces you've posted yet. No facts. Just a supposed forwarded email from someone in Kenya.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

WA said:


> <snip?
> _What we would like you to know is that the American press has been keeping a dirty little secret. Obama IS a Muslim and he IS a racist and this is a fulfillment of the 9-11 threat that was just the beginning. Jihad is the only true Muslim way. We have been working with them for 20 years this July! He is not an American as we know it. Please encourage your friends and associates not to be taken in by those that are promoting him. It is world wide jihad. All our friends in Europe are very disturbed by the Muslim infiltration into their countries._
> 
> _By the way, his true name is Barak Hussein Muhammed Obama. Won't that sound sweet to our enemies as they swear him in on the Koran!?_
> _<snip>_


The whole post is basically worthless but this is especially galling.

You can view Obama's birth certificate here: https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html

You will see that the name on the birth certificate is Barak Hussein Obama II. No Muhammed listed on the official document from the state of Hawaii.

Obama is not a Muslim. He's attended a Christian church on the south side of Chicago for many years. In fact he was baptized 20 years ago in that church. Most rational people have concluded that he is in fact a christian.

Obama is not a racist. There is no evidence of him being a racist.

Not all muslims are radical muslims. Many muslims are peaceful people who worship their god with the same level of faith and devotion that a number of christians do with their god. For that matter, there are a number of peaceful muslims, mormons, christians, catholics, and hindu's. Radical muslims such as those who brought forth the terrible attacks on this country on September 11 are not the norm within the muslim community.

Just last week I might a handful of muslims who were voting for McCain.

I think that posts like the one quoted above need to stop. They are simply not true and I do not see the point in perpetuating lies. I believe the bible has some interesting things to say about those who do perpetuate lies. Maybe some of these supposed christians should spend more time trying to emulate the example of christ.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

To The Member Who Reported A Post Here:

The simple fact that you do not agree with what a poster says does NOT make you right, nor does it make the post you reported "further out there than most".

Once again, for newer members:

DO NOT REPORT INTERCHANGE POSTS TO THE MODERATORS UNLESS THEY CONTAIN SPAM, EPITHETS, OR OBVIOUS HATE SPEECH. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE READING WHAT IS POSTED ON THE INTERCHANGE, DON'T READ IT.

WE HAVE MUCH BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH OUR TIME THAN TO READ YOUR OPINION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S OPINION WHEN IT DOES NOT CONCERN THE CLOTHING WE CAME HERE TO READ ABOUT AND WRITE ABOUT.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

WA said:


> Abraham Lincoln said: "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
> 
> I thought this might be interesting to you from another veiw point. One of my aunts is a missionary in West Africa and knows many missionaries in Africa. A married couple who are missionaries in Kenya says
> 
> ...


I thought that I should also point out that the supposed information that you forward from your "Aunt" is verbatim from something that has been going around the internet for quite some time. You can find it debunked at:

https://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kenya.asp

There is also discussion of the various forms of this email discussed at:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/may/02/even-missionaries-botch-their-facts/

https://morrisao.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/more-evidence-barak-obama-may-be-a-manchurian-candidate/

https://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-109116

To attempt to pass along such an obvious forgery is disgraceful. I would hope that you would issue an apology to the members of this forum for your transgression and then promptly remove yourself from the ranks of the members this wonderful forum.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

JibranK said:


> No. That numbers at about 6% of the Muslim population worldwide according to the Reuters survey. That's pretty on-the-mark as I can say given the years that my family was stationed abroad in Muslim countries.
> 
> The main principle of Islamic law is 'rule of law', which we've already got in the US so that is already met. This was to address the flaws of Arabia before Islam (and that it reverted to after the end of legitimate Caliphs) - in that time period and indeed today, women, slaves et cetera did not have legal rights, so the religion commanded that those rights be established. However, as I said, we've already got that in the US.
> 
> ...


JibranK,

Your intelligent posts add substance to this side of AAAC though I am afraid your efforts may go unrewarded. 

Nonetheless they are much appreciated by some.


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

nolan50410 said:


> Let's say Obama was a Muslim, which he's not. Let's also say that if he was, he would be in some position to bestow Islam on America. Nevermind that whole big thing called Congress that is made up of old, Christian white dudes. I'd argue that there isn't much difference between a Muslim imposing his religion on America and the millions of neo-conservative, right wing, religious wackos who feel God is a republican imposing their religion on the rest of us. There is a very fine line between islamic terrorists who blow things up and these crazy american neo-cons who think the war in Iraq is God's way of punishing the U.S. for not persecuting gay people. They are both examples of radical religious extremism and do nothing but F things up. These folks who still speak of Obama as a muslim are no different then the muslim terrorists they fear so much.


I am neither republican nor conservative, but I think you went too far! It's easy to get carried away with absurd rhetoric:
1) Congress is made up of many other then "old white dudes": women, young and old, minorities, Jews and other religions... Just look who the speaker of the house is. 
2) Muslims at large do not impose their religion on America. There are radical muslim elements who seek to destroy the US. 
3) "Religious wackos who feel God is a republican imposing their religion on the rest of us" do not seek to destroy America, only reshape it according to their morals. On the other hand there is a large majority, including many Christians who oppose their view. It is this majority, not some fringe elements, that block the changing of America into a radical, religious country. 
4) Its election time. Some genuinely believe Obama is muslim, others exploit their fear. It will change after election day.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Quay said:


> JibranK,
> 
> Your intelligent posts add substance to this side of AAAC though I am afraid your efforts may go unrewarded.
> 
> Nonetheless they are much appreciated by some.


Thank you.
I notice in your quote that I spelled Ibn Khaldun wrong (with an 'f' in place of a 'd'). My apologies, I typed that on my phone while on the school bus.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

I am really worried about the insidious efforts by radical Christians to take over our country. Their philosophy is driven by religious zealotry which impels them to take control of our homes and our bodies. They want to dictate what we can do in our own bedrooms and to take control of our own bodies for their religious purposes. They want to interfere in decisions between you and your doctor. They want to force our children to bow to their gods in school. They want their un-elected leaders to decide what you can and cannot read and what books can be on your library shelves. They are already well on the way to taking over the Supreme Court and they are seeking to place their storm troopers in every seat in Congress and to establish hegemony over the White House. I would hope that all of us, especially our armed militia, are alert to this threat and will do everything we can to repel these radical Christian invaders.

Buzz


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> gods
> 
> Buzz


There is only one and it is capitalized; God.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

obiwan said:


> There is only one and it is capitalized; God.


Well, actually, it depends upon one's point of view. Some religions...perfectly respectable faiths...have multiple gods. You of course are entitled to refer to your God or Gods however you wish and I do not think that anyone should infringe upon that right of yours.

Buzz


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

hurling frootmig said:


> Wow. That's got to be one of the most unhinged pieces you've posted yet. No facts. Just a supposed forwarded email from someone in Kenya.


I don't know what Obama is and where he has been his whole entire life. What we hear and read in the US is not everything about what Obama is and has said and done. And we all change our minds about somethings and so were not always what we were in the past. Does he have relatives in Kenya? Who are they? And, what do the stand for? Has Obamas groups ever donated large sums of money to them? And what for? Does he visit over there? And to them what does he say he is?

You say Obama is a Christian- how do you know that? The Church he went to for so many years and the Preacher he sat under all of a sudden he disclaims, so why did he go to that Church for all of those years? Since the beginning of Church there have always been people who went to Church for reasons other than God and Church. Power has been one reason to use Church and plenty of people have used Church as a false front. Organized crime has launder drug money and other money in the name of Missions for probably over a hundred years, does that make them Christians or Missionaires? So, people going to Church and professing to be a Christian doesn't mean a thing.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> I don't know what Obama is and where he has been his whole entire life. What we hear and read in the US is not everything about what Obama is and has said and done. And we all change our minds about somethings and so were not always what we were in the past. Does he have relatives in Kenya? Who are they? And, what do the stand for? Has Obamas groups ever donated large sums of money to them? And what for? Does he visit over there? And to them what does he say he is?
> 
> You say Obama is a Christian- how do you know that? The Church he went to for so many years and the Preacher he sat under all of a sudden he disclaims, so why did he go to that Church for all of those years? Since the beginning of Church there have always been people who went to Church for reasons other than God and Church. Power has been one reason to use Church and plenty of people have used Church as a false front. Organized crime has launder drug money and other money in the name of Missions for probably over a hundred years, does that make them Christians or Missionaires? So, people going to Church and professing to be a Christian doesn't mean a thing.


Let me ask you the same question I have asked the Turkey. Can you prove that you weren't abducted by aliens and subjected to hideous experiments in their flying saucer? How can we be sure that the aliens did not excise your brain and replace it with the brain of a creature that lurks farther down...much farther down...the aliens' evolutionary tree? I think we deserve to know.

Buzz


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> Let me ask you the same question I have asked the Turkey. Can you prove that you weren't abducted by aliens and subjected to hideous experiments in their flying saucer? How can we be sure that the aliens did not excise your brain and replace it with the brain of a creature that lurks farther down...much farther down...the aliens' evolutionary tree? I think we deserve to know.
> 
> Buzz


Perhapes you ought to read Shakespeare instead of those childish alien books.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> Perhapes you ought to read Shakespeare instead of those childish alien books.


I have read all of Shakespeare, including the sonnets. Perhaps you should answer the question.

Can you prove, Wa, that you were not abducted by aliens and subjected to hideous experiments in their flying saucer? How can we be sure that the aliens did not excise your brain and replace it with the brain of a creature that lurks farther down...much farther down...the aliens' evolutionary tree?

Buzz


----------



## Title III Guy (Mar 18, 2007)

hurling frootmig said:


> The whole post is basically worthless but this is especially galling.
> 
> You can view Obama's birth certificate here: https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html
> 
> You will see that the name on the birth certificate is Barak Hussein Obama II. No Muhammed listed on the official document from the state of Hawaii.


I am reluctant to get involved with this "Obama birth certificate conspiracy" theory, yet still, one can't help but notice that the certificate referenced in the link above is clearly computer-generated. So how can it possibly be Mr. Obama's birth certificate from 1961? I'm not suggesting it's a forgery. It may indeed be the "official document" from the state, but it clearly is not the original. Is the original extant? What does Mr. Obama claim about this? Has he made the original document available for examination? If not, why not?

I must assume some of this has been addressed somewhere, but I haven't seen it - admittedly from lack of trying.

Kind regards,
T3G


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> I have read all of Shakespeare, including the sonnets. Perhaps you should answer the question.
> 
> Can you prove, Wa, that you were not abducted by aliens and subjected to hideous experiments in their flying saucer? How can we be sure that the aliens did not excise your brain and replace it with the brain of a creature that lurks farther down...much farther down...the aliens' evolutionary tree?
> 
> Buzz


Hmmmm hmmmm sputter tinkle bang putt putt bang answer coming up answer coming up bang shua shuage putt putt sputter tinkle kaboom If you have to ask, then, No! If you already know then your mind has already been exchanged, but by a different planet of aliens. Don't worry your planet will loose and mine shall take the prize earth and your life will get much better.

What!? You haven't read *Isaac Asimov* books?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

*To all members of the forum*

I have on good faith received your name from a trustworthy friend from my Oxford days. Allow me to introduce myself.
I am Barrister K.A.V. Ngumbeydoll and sadly have 6 weeks to live, being diagnosed as having moth infested epidermal layers. I must also confess to living a precarious existence in a car, my father, the late Prime Minister being violently assassinated in a scurillous military coup. The reports of his demise in an airline crash are falsehoods! It was the Clintons!Chelsea pulled the trigger herself as Hilary ducked from the recoil.

Before my dear father's death he secreted $16,000,000 USD in Washington Mutual under the name Barrack Hussein Obama, knowing no american would ever bear such an unusual name. I need a trusted intermediary to secure these funds, for which I will advance you the sum of 10% as payment via cerified cheque.

Please reply with your name, address, email, S/S # and 3 C/C #s along with a money order for $500 as funds to initiate proceedings.

Thankyou and may God bless you always!


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

WA said:


> I don't know what Obama is and where he has been his whole entire life. What we hear and read in the US is not everything about what Obama is and has said and done. And we all change our minds about somethings and so were not always what we were in the past. Does he have relatives in Kenya? Who are they? And, what do the stand for? Has Obamas groups ever donated large sums of money to them? And what for? Does he visit over there? And to them what does he say he is?
> 
> You say Obama is a Christian- how do you know that? The Church he went to for so many years and the Preacher he sat under all of a sudden he disclaims, so why did he go to that Church for all of those years? Since the beginning of Church there have always been people who went to Church for reasons other than God and Church. Power has been one reason to use Church and plenty of people have used Church as a false front. Organized crime has launder drug money and other money in the name of Missions for probably over a hundred years, does that make them Christians or Missionaires? So, people going to Church and professing to be a Christian doesn't mean a thing.


I think it is rather revealing that you haven't yet addressed your obviously faked letter from your "Aunt".

You have no credibility and you seem to lack the good sense to admit that you attempted to foist upon the good people of this forum a fraud in the form of the supposed letter from your "Aunt".

You are just digging yourself into a deeper hole with every post.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

hurling frootmig said:


> I think it is rather revealing that you haven't yet addressed your obviously faked letter from your "Aunt".
> 
> You have no credibility and you seem to lack the good sense to admit that you attempted to foist upon the good people of this forum a fraud in the form of the supposed letter from your "Aunt".
> 
> You are just digging yourself into a deeper hole with every post.


It is ok if you say something against your hero. He really is not God, so has no club to hit you with, yet.

As far as being a fraud you really think my spelling and grammar is that good?

I never said I believed everything in it or any of it. Life isn't always what we want it to be, and hopefully some of that letter, if not all of it, isn't true. But sometimes the box of facts is bigger than what we want.

It is good to read veiw points from different parts of the world because US news companies are so homogenized. When you listen to Canandian or British or Mexican or anywhere else around the world the view points are different, sometimes very different.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, are you familiar with the propaganda tool called 'THE BIG LIE?'


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> WA, are you familiar with the propaganda tool called 'THE BIG LIE?'


Yeah! I meet you.

Here is Raila Odinga blog.

It is rather interesting.

https://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kenya.asp
https://www.lorendavis.com/
https://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78035
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2105857/posts?page=56
https://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/10/obama-cousin-raila-odinga-obamas-foreign-policy-experience/
https://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2649
https://donate.barackobama.com/page...n-search-nsw&gclid=CPv416-9v5YCFQJNagod-CiByw

Yeah. What a stupid "newletter". But I didn't fall for all of it, because some of it was to outrageous. But, there were concerns that I wanted other peoples opinions about. I had no idea it was scattered about the whole internet, including here now. This "missionary" is sort of industrial, which I generally consider most of them as cons. Whereas, my aunt lives in a small mud house and teaches in mud rooms with boards for tables and boards for benchs. She teaches reading and writing but mostly theology. For years she used one of those camp showers (hang up a bag of water and let the sun heat it up, about five gallons) no electricity and no running water. Somebody gave her solar power, which one night thiefs stold. Nowadays she has electricity and running water and a cell phone, but no internet connection (40-50 miles away and unreliable). If you were to look at her irs taxs your jaw would probably hit the floor. Yes, some people really do live on about 50¢ a day. Her yearly income, which varies according to donations, most people here at ask andy's spend in about 2 week.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

The most trivial lie occurs in the beginning of WA's post, but as long as we're piling on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._H._Boetcker


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

WA said:


> It is ok if you say something against your hero. He really is not God, so has no club to hit you with, yet.
> 
> As far as being a fraud you really think my spelling and grammar is that good?
> 
> ...


Obviously you are allowed to believe what you want. What I'm taking issue with is the fraud that was the post that you made. You specifically stated that your "Aunt" sent the message to you when in fact the words you pasted into the document were from a disproved Internet rumor from around April 2008. I have already supplied ample links that prove this point.

You willfully choose to misrepresent the facts of your post and now you aren't man enough to admit as much. In my book that not only makes you a fraud but it makes you a coward.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

"I had a home in Africa, at the foot of the Ngong hills.' 

WA, I can show you people, some in sight of 7 houses where the people have less.

I posed a civil question.

You replied like a wounded animal biting at anything, everything and itself.

500,000 people will descend on West Hollywood in a few weeks. Internet rumours are flying that Sarah Palin costumes have been banned. the same old drag queen will hang crucified on a cross thinking this has never been done.

That parade will have about as much reality as any other in this country.

I need a cup of coffee, make that two and a bear claw.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

hurling frootmig said:


> Obviously you are allowed to believe what you want. What I'm taking issue with is the fraud that was the post that you made. You specifically stated that your "Aunt" sent the message to you when in fact the words you pasted into the document were from a disproved Internet rumor from around April 2008. I have already supplied ample links that prove this point.
> 
> You willfully choose to misrepresent the facts of your post and now you aren't man enough to admit as much. In my book that not only makes you a fraud but it makes you a coward.


If one is going to accusing another of fraud, one should be careful about the facts. WA's post introduced the quoted missive as coming from a "married couple who are missionaries in Kenya." He predicated that attribution by separately noting that his aunt is a missionary in West Africa, which by the way is a region of Africa that does not include Kenya. I was the first person who criticized this missive on the merits. But I at least understood that the merits do not include falsely accusing WA of fraud and cowardice. Mr. Frootmig, you owe WA an apology.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Quay said:


> Perhaps you are thinking only of more contemporary history? The record since the Resurrection has been decidedly mixed. There was a very, very long time in which the Catholic Church advocated, supported and encouraged the slaughter of all infidels because, of course, "_Deos Lo Vult!_" That church also zealously pursued ultimate church control over all secular state affairs to the point of nearly endless warfare in pursuit of that goal. Fortunately their power waned with the rise of protestantism but even that had its rather bloody moments against non-protestants.


While the "history" of the Catholic Church includes many unflattering episodes, your cartoonish description is decidedly and surprisingly inaccurate. Perhaps you can share with us some citation for the notion that "the Catholic Church advocated, supported, and encouraged the slaughter of all infidels." I encourage you to conduct your research carefully, and with the fair and open mind I believe you to have.

All the best.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> If one is going to accusing another of fraud, one should be careful about the facts. WA's post introduced the quoted missive as coming from a "married couple who are missionaries in Kenya." He predicated that attribution by noting that his aunt is a missionary in West Africa, which by the way is a region of Africa that does not include Kenya. I was the first person who criticized this missive on the merits. But I at least understood that the merits do not include falsely accusing WA of fraud and cowardice. Mr. Frootmig, you owe WA an apology.


I respectfully disagree although I respect your opinion and views.

WA attempted to mislead with his cut and paste job. He didn't have the common decency to attribute it to any source but instead passed it along as if it came from a legitimate source. He ties the missionaries quoted to his "Aunt" which does not seem plausible. I'm more than happy to have him prove to us that his "Aunt" somehow knows the quoted dispelled Internet rumor. I don't see that happening. Presenting information in the manner that he did is still fraud as far as I'm concerned. That fact that he refuses to admit that he intentionally misled people strikes me as the act of a coward.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> Hmmmm hmmmm sputter tinkle bang putt putt bang answer coming up answer coming up bang shua shuage putt putt sputter tinkle kaboom If you have to ask, then, No! If you already know then your mind has already been exchanged, but by a different planet of aliens. Don't worry your planet will loose and mine shall take the prize earth and your life will get much better.
> 
> What!? You haven't read *Isaac Asimov* books?


I have read many books by Isaac Asimov...I can't imagine that anyone has read all of his books. I.A. is the only writer in history to have at least one book under each major catalogue heading of the Dewey Decimal System. But I digress. I have laso studied biochemistry with Asimov; he was a brilliant lecturer.

I am not sure why you are interested in whether or not I read Shakespeare and Asimov, but you certainly come up with interesting diversions to avoid answering direct questions. So I ask again...

_Can you prove, Wa, that you were not abducted by aliens and subjected to hideous experiments_...oh, never mind.

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

hurling frootmig said:


> I respectfully disagree although I respect your opinion and views.
> 
> WA attempted to mislead with his cut and paste job. He didn't have the common decency to attribute it to any source but instead passed it along as if it came from a legitimate source. He ties the missionaries quoted to his "Aunt" which does not seem plausible. I'm more than happy to have him prove to us that his "Aunt" somehow knows the quoted dispelled Internet rumor. I don't see that happening. Presenting information in the manner that he did is still fraud as far as I'm concerned. That fact that he refuses to admit that he intentionally misled people strikes me as the act of a coward.


Well, you are entitled to your opinion of course. But it "strikes me" that you are taking unfairly aggressive inferential liberties with WA's post. First you apparently inferred that there is a connection between his aunt and the quoted missive other than the expressed coincidence that WA has an aunt who is also a missionary in Africa, and then you essentially infer from the fact that you drew this incorrect inference that WA must have intended you to draw that incorrect inference. I cannot deny that it is possible that you are correct, but your conclusion is based on extraordinarily flimsy evidence. It strikes me that a gentleman would refrain from making such nasty accusations based only on such outlandish inferences. One of the things that forums and blogs do is tempt people who would otherwise behave as gentlemen to act otherwise by virtue of anonymity -- something I strive to avoid by posting under my real name -- a discipline a recommend to others.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> While the "history" of the Catholic Church includes many unflattering episodes, your cartoonish description is decidedly and surprisingly inaccurate. Perhaps you can share with us some citation for the notion that "the Catholic Church advocated, supported, and encouraged the slaughter of all infidels." I encourage you to conduct your research carefully, and with the fair and open mind I believe you to have.
> 
> All the best.


What a kind and savvy invitation! Thank you. In return I invite you to become more familiar with the vast, fascinating and rewarding history of the Catholic Church as you will see that while my description may have been succinct it is not at all "cartoonish" and is in fact terribly accurate. (Although a modern person may of course see such historical things as resembling a cartoon when they void the bounds of modern reality except as practiced by extreme fundamentalists.)

To give only one citation and example from a vast store of many, consider the history of the Papacy of Pope Urban II (1088-1099), the former noble who is credited with starting the Crusades. In one of his pronouncements duly recorded by attending scribes he said in his capacity as the Supreme Pontiff speaking on behalf of Christ to all of Europe (i.e., all of Christendom at the time):

_"I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it._ _"_ (1) [underline emphasis mine]

This pronouncement is not in doubt as historical fact. So how is a command by the Son of God that was carried out for many years to "destroy that vile race" not advocating, supporting and encouraging the slaughter of all infidels especially as it was also a command from the head of the Holy Church incumbent on everyone?

There are many more examples but Urban II is a great favorite of historians as he was a very well educated noble who could give a great speech as the above example from the infamous Council of Clermont in November of 1095 attests.

Source: (1) https://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Quay said:


> What a kind and savvy invitation! Thank you. In return I invite you to become more familiar with the vast, fascinating and rewarding history of the Catholic Church as you will see that while my description may have been succinct it is not at all "cartoonish" and is in fact terribly accurate. (Although a modern person may of course see such historical things as resembling a cartoon when they void the bounds of modern reality except as practiced by extreme fundamentalists.)
> 
> To give only one citation and example from a vast store of many, consider the history of the Papacy of Pope Urban II (1088-1099), the former noble who is credited with starting the Crusades. In one of his pronouncements duly recorded by attending scribes he said in his capacity as the Supreme Pontiff speaking on behalf of Christ to all of Europe (i.e., all of Christendom at the time):
> 
> ...


Ah, the Crusades. Rest assured Quay, I am quite knowledgable about Catholic Church history as it is a hobby of mine. Taken in context Urban's admonition is not remotely as offensive as it appears out of context -- as you must know having read the entire speech -- and as further explained by the following: https://www.thearma.org/essays/Crusades.htm


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

If you two are going to do a Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum fight, kindly get your protagonists right. The 'Catholic' church includes Orthodox and Coptic, Anglican and Marionites.

I think what you are trying to fight over is the ROMAN branch of world catholics.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Ah, the Crusades. Rest assured Quay, I am quite knowledgable about Catholic Church history as it is a hobby of mine. Taken in context Urban's admonition is not remotely as offensive as it appears out of context -- as you must know having read the entire speech -- and as further explained by the following: https://www.thearma.org/essays/Crusades.htm


I think you have a very rewarding hobby then. (And note to any cynics here who might be reading: one can be a hobbyist and still be very well acquainted with the subject. One need not make something a profession to know a lot about it.)

Also I shall rest accordingly and sometime soon look into the website you noted. At first glance it seems very interesting. Thanks for pointing it out to me as I am not familiar with it. I am very familiar with Professor Madden and his work and am most hopeful for one already prolific relatively early in his career. He has taken Christian apologetics and scholarship to new levels. In most of his histories and articles on the Crusades I think he does a great service to present complex histories in very readable prose, but without much regard for the effects of all that crusading. (In this he brings a smile to Urban II's lips.)

But back to Urban II. His command to all faithful was terribly offensive in any context, unless one thinks advocating total slaughter is acceptable under the right circumstances such as a response to an attack. In that case, and as Madden generally argues, a response to what he characterizes as a defensive situation such as this is acceptable.

If one studies Urban II for a while he starts to make much more sense as a diplomat and a strategist, someone who was quite aware of the effects of his speeches and policies and what would ultimately happen. He well knew what he was saying and doing and in some sense can be credited for creating the precursor to the modern sound bite or talking point, the thing remembered and vigorously acted upon when the rest of the speech is forgotten (and of course this can include the whole context of the speech.) Since he spoke for God and the Church it is not hard to see how it became the policy previously noted and how my description of it is accurate if admittedly too brief given the vast scope of the history in question. (From your participation in this sub-forum I think you might agree that running into someone with knowledge on a subject is a pleasant happening but not always the norm.)

Parenthetically, I think this is one of the delights of the modern world, where a discussion of a former General's political endorsement can bring up events of a thousand years ago.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Kav said:


> If you two are going to do a Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum fight, kindly get your protagonists right. The 'Catholic' church includes Orthodox and Coptic, Anglican and Marionites.
> 
> I think what you are trying to fight over is the ROMAN branch of world catholics.


Darling Kav,

There is no fight here. Your characterization of it as such, with an attempt at literary humor, is wild of the mark.

What church is being talked about is perfectly clear from the context and follows standard practices in the English speaking world, even if it annoys those with a different historical view. Perhaps in the future if "texting" infiltrates formal writing it will be made easier by having RCC and CC in widespread use. Until then in general discussions, Catholic Church will most likely refer to the one based in Rome as you have just pointed out by trying to qualify the term.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The 'annoyance' comes from a orthodox priest beheaded and a young boy crucified by islamic extremists angry over Pope Benedict's remarks. There is indeed a differnece, and teh word catholic by sloppy western usurpation results in religious oppression no Crusader could match in today's world.

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum AGREED to have a fight.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Kav said:


> The 'annoyance' comes from a orthodox priest beheaded and a young boy crucified by islamic extremists angry over Pope Benedict's remarks. There is indeed a differnece, and teh word catholic by sloppy western usurpation results in religious oppression no Crusader could match in today's world.
> 
> Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum AGREED to have a fight.


Kav, leaving aside that I'm pretty sure that this forum is not frequented by Islamic extremists, do you honestly think that when committing their mayhem such extremists are all that interested in the distinction between Catholics of the Roman Rite versus Catholics of other Rites in communion with Rome?

That said, I certainly appreciate not only your revulsion of these horrible acts but also the importance and richness of the Catholic faith and its several quite diverse rites.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

hurling frootmig said:


> Obviously you are allowed to believe what you want. What I'm taking issue with is the fraud that was the post that you made. You specifically stated that your "Aunt" sent the message to you when in fact the words you pasted into the document were from a disproved Internet rumor from around April 2008. I have already supplied ample links that prove this point.
> 
> You willfully choose to misrepresent the facts of your post and now you aren't man enough to admit as much. In my book that not only makes you a fraud but it makes you a coward.


Dear Mr. Frootmig,

You could be absolutly right, but on the other hand your box of knowlege maybe much smaller than you think. The missionary culture and charity culture are unique and often work together. These people come from around the world and get reports from relatives and friends about what is going on in the world. Some don't have or get weekly or even monthly Homogenized US news, much more getting it daily. Those from other countries tend to get more of the news -that they get- from the countries they come from. And then, of course, they are influnced by native news. No doubt many Muslims all around the world want Obama to win. So, when living in a Muslim world you hear Muslim views.

By the way, you do believe every leak against the Republicans don't you? Leaks are somebody said somebody said. So, what about this one.
_10/15/2008 According to several highly credible ex-ODM sources WND interviewed in Kenya, the $950,000 raised for Odinga's campaign came from a series of private meetings arranged for Odinga by Mark Lippert, a foreign policy adviser in Obama's U.S. Senate office. The meetings with top-dollar Obama fundraisers and donors took place during Odinga's 2006 trip to the U.S._
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2105857/posts?page=56
Leak or smear. Which is it? Do you think if it is aganist Republicans it is a leak and when it is against Democrats it is a smear? I'd like an honest answer.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> "I had a home in Africa, at the foot of the Ngong hills.'
> 
> WA, I can show you people, some in sight of 7 houses where the people have less.
> 
> ...


I didn't catch your question. Is it you should wear a Sarah Palin costume in the SF gay parade? Or, you only need a buck a year to buy salt for your food?

My answer is - Suit yourself in SF. And the second questions answer is- it is cheaper to get a bottle of salt water when at the ocean beach and pour that on your food- that way you don't need to earn a buck per year for salt.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Kenya is in West Africa and West Hollywood is in San Francisco. Ohhhhh----Kaaaaayyyy.

I get my salt reguirements at the ranch. See, I get down on all fours and run my tongue over the 50 lb salt block for my horses.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The Roman Catholic church is only in COMMUNION with itself. The eastern churches, holding the faith of a religion started in the EAST, has always born the brunt of western ignorance, from the sacking by crusaders of Constantinople to endtime Texas governors failing to secure an entire infrastructure except oil facilities, themselves bombed with regularity.
The word catholic, and I hope the irony of it's meaning isn't lost, is no more the exclusive venue of Rome than american is of any particular political party.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Kav said:


> The Roman Catholic church is only in COMMUNION with itself. The eastern churches, holding the faith of a religion started in the EAST, has always born the brunt of western ignorance, from the sacking by crusaders of Constantinople to endtime Texas governors failing to secure an entire infrastructure except oil facilities, themselves bombed with regularity.
> The word catholic, and I hope the irony of it's meaning isn't lost, is no more the exclusive venue of Rome than american is of any particular political party.


Wiki: The autonomous Catholic Churches in full communion with the Holy See are:

Of Alexandrian liturgical tradition: 
Coptic Catholic Church 
Ethiopic Catholic Church 
Of Antiochian liturgical tradition: 
Maronite Church 
Syrian Catholic Church 
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church 
Of Armenian liturgical tradition: 
Armenian Catholic Church 
Of Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition: 
Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church 
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church 
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church 
Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci 
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church 
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church 
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church 
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church 
Melkite Greek Catholic Church 
Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic 
Russian Byzantine Catholic Church 
Ruthenian Catholic Church 
Slovak Greek Catholic Church 
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church 
Of Chaldean or East Syrian tradition: 
Chaldean Catholic Church 
Syro-Malabar Church 
Of Western liturgical tradition: 
Latin Church

And Kav, it is true that Roman Catholic crusaders committed horrible crimes against their Eastern brethren, but the ignorance of which you speak is much more two-sided. Remember, most of the major heresies of the early Church were born in the east and most stubbornly supported there.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Not in communion with the patriarch of Rome:
The patriarch of Constantinople
The patriarch of Alexandria
the patriarch of Jeruselum
The patrairch of Antioch
the 'Great schism' arose because Rome, honoured as first among equals assumed supreme authority unilaterally and embraced the filioque.

Additonal national eastern Orthodox churches not in communion with Rome;
the Greek Orthodox church
the Bulgarian Orthodox church
the Romanian Orthodox church
the Serbian Orthodox church
the Russian Orthodox church 
the Georgian Orthodox church
the Poland Orthodox church
the Czech-Slovakian Orthodox church
Extensions of these autocephalous, national churches in other countries; America, China, Finland,Poland etc

The various churches you mention are in communion with Rome, but not with Orthodox Christianity.

Heresies have appeared throughout time and location.
It was the great councils that refuted these heresies.

The Protestant Reformation was with Rome, not the east. the continued fragmentation of Christianity in the west is still based on that conflict, not what Orthodoxy has been doing since day one.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> Kenya is in West Africa and West Hollywood is in San Francisco. Ohhhhh----Kaaaaayyyy.
> 
> I get my salt reguirements at the ranch. See, I get down on all fours and run my tongue over the 50 lb salt block for my horses.


Kenya is not part of West Africa last I looked. Did an earthquake move it into the west?

Why are you licking the salt blocks for your horses? Can't they do their own licking? And the strangest question I have ever asked in my whole entire life- How do the horses get the salt from you that you licked for them?


----------



## Chase Hamilton (Jan 15, 2007)

Oh, why even bother, WA?

You'd get more coherent responses from my Haitian cleaning woman, who doesn't speak a word of English.



Kind Regards,

Chase


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Chase Hamilton said:


> Oh, why even bother, WA?
> 
> You'd get more coherent responses from my Haitian cleaning woman, who doesn't speak a word of English.
> 
> ...


Just playing with Kav. He and some other guys here threatened me with buying me a book- Elements of Style by William Strunk and E. B. White. In this book it says never make a sentence were there are two complete different meanings which could confuse the reader. When Kav made that error I just couldn't resist.

Either way I'm sure he gets his salt reguirements. I see I have to correct one of his spelling errors, since I copied and pasted _salt reguirements_- it should be salt re*q*uirements.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

WA said:


> Kenya is not part of West Africa last I looked. Did an earthquake move it into the west?
> 
> Why are you licking the salt blocks for your horses? Can't they do their own licking? And the strangest question I have ever asked in my whole entire life- How do the horses get the salt from you that you licked for them?


WA,
I'm pretty sure that Kav was being sarcastic, that's all.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Kav said:


> Not in communion with the patriarch of Rome:
> The patriarch of Constantinople
> The patriarch of Alexandria
> the patriarch of Jeruselum
> ...


Kav, this exchange started with your gratuitous assertion that somehow the murders of two innocent Christians at the hands of Islamic extremists was caused by confusion regarding the name "Catholic." Don't you find it somewhat telling that the Churches in full communion with Rome almost all include the word "Catholic" within their name, but none of the Churches on your list do? As you should recall, what provoked you was my simple assertion that it was not realistic to think that the murderers in question would appreciate the distinction between the Roman Catholic Church and other Catholic churches in full communion with it. I stand by that.

And Kav, I am well aware that the Orthodox churches are not in communion with Rome (and the fact that the historical blame largely rests with Rome), and never suggested otherwise. It was you who wrote "the Roman Catholic Church is only in Communion with itself," and then went on to explicity hold it in contradistinction to the "eastern churches." I responded with a long list of Churches, many of them eastern, that are in full Communion with Rome. I do not see how the production of a shorter list of eastern Churches not in communion with Rome either impeaches my argument or advances yours.

Finally Kav, I really am angered at the notion I thought you suggested (perhaps I misunderstood?) of conservative celebrities threatening to leave or country of Obama is elected, and am still waiting for your list of these maroons.

Cheers,


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> WA,
> I'm pretty sure that Kav was being sarcastic, that's all.


I think WA was poking fun at Kav's grammar.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

WA said:


> Dear Mr. Frootmig,
> 
> You could be absolutly right, but on the other hand your box of knowlege maybe much smaller than you think. The missionary culture and charity culture are unique and often work together. These people come from around the world and get reports from relatives and friends about what is going on in the world. Some don't have or get weekly or even monthly Homogenized US news, much more getting it daily. Those from other countries tend to get more of the news -that they get- from the countries they come from. And then, of course, they are influnced by native news. No doubt many Muslims all around the world want Obama to win. So, when living in a Muslim world you hear Muslim views.
> 
> ...


Actually the link you include refers to an "article" that the discredited Jerome Corsi wrote for the ever amusing and normally wrong World Net Daily. So in this case my gut tells me it's just another one of Corsi's desperate attempts to smear Obama. I'd also note that I can't find any mainstream media outlets runnig with it. Not even Fox.

In the news there are credible sources and not so credible sources. Leaks come from a variety of sources and they differ from a smear. I don't reflexly believe everything I hear about people from either party. Do you?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Would you reread the entire thread, I replied to a comment. Another poster stated his 'conservative friends' were contemplating moving to Europe.' Nowhere have I used the phrase 'conservative celebrities.'
I would however note a good many people have moved their assets to offshore tax havens. Cindy McCain's $700,000,000 inheritance sitting in the Caymen Islands for one.

This is hardly the evil of rich conservatives or liberals. I was at a western horse show recently. The cowboy trucks all sported McCain bumperstickers. They also sported Utah license plates. I commented on the number of out of state entries and received a good laugh. Every one of them was local. It seems buying trucks in Utah saves big time on state taxes and initial licensing fees.

God bless America, just don't ask some people to pay for it.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Kav said:


> Would you reread the entire thread, I replied to a comment. Another poster stated his 'conservative friends' were contemplating moving to Europe.' Nowhere have I used the phrase 'conservative celebrities.'
> I would however note a good many people have moved their assets to offshore tax havens. Cindy McCain's $700,000,000 inheritance sitting in the Caymen Islands for one.
> 
> This is hardly the evil of rich conservatives or liberals. I was at a western horse show recently. The cowboy trucks all sported McCain bumperstickers. They also sported Utah license plates. I commented on the number of out of state entries and received a good laugh. Every one of them was local. It seems buying trucks in Utah saves big time on state taxes and initial licensing fees.
> ...


Kav,

1. You are correct. You did not use the term "conservative celebrities." On the thread asking how folks might react if Obama is elected you referred to "the gutless wonders who advocate leaving the USA in times of perceived trouble, left, right, up, down ...." I, apparently incorrectly, inferred that you were aware of some celebrities or notables on the right advocating such nonsense.

2. I would appreciate additional info re your statement on Cindy McCain, as I am puzzled. First, her reported holdings are estimated to be in the $100MM range, which would not seem to allow for a $700MM account in the Caymans. Second, US citizens are taxed on worldwide income, so any holdings in the Caymans are still subject to income tax. While I don't practice in the area of estate and gift tax, are you suggesting that one can avoid this tax by simply moving assets to offshore accounts? I find that very implausible. My Firm represents many multi-millionaires wealthier than Ms. McCain, and I've never heard of an estate plan using offshore accounts to avoid tax, other than those that involve persons who are not American citizens. This strikes me as either pure folklore or at the very least a shady practice that is far less common than you suggest.

3. It is true that one can often buy a vehicle in a low tax state for import into one's high tax home state, but one is then required to register that vehicle in one's home state at which point a compensating use tax will be levied. While I cannot certify that this is the regimen in all 50 states, it is certainly the norm -- and I have never heard of a state operating differently. To avoid such registration is a criminal violation, and such scammers had better hope they don't get so much as a parking ticket, since they'd have some explaining to do. Furthermore, one cannot title a vehicle in Utah simply by buying it there; a Utah residence must be proffered. These cowboys are being pretty clever if they are pulling this off without getting caught, but their cleverness may well land them in big time hot water.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Reed pretty much sums it up.

Sad, but no surprise.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

JRR said:


> Reed pretty much sums it up.
> 
> Sad, but no surprise.


That guy seems like a nut. Powell is not the only Reagan-era Republican to dislike the current path of the party and endorse Obama.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

JibranK said:


> That guy seems like a nut. Powell is not the only Reagan-era Republican to dislike the current path of the party and endorse Obama.


Who served in the Bush admin? Did you actually read the article?


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

I did read the article. It is well-recorded that General Powell disagreed with many Bush administration actions whilst serving in it.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

JibranK said:


> I did read the article. It is well-recorded that General Powell disagreed with many Bush administration actions whilst serving in it.


And that proves what?

Are there other Bush admin turncoats? None come to mind, esp anyone as high as a former Sec of State.

What's different with Powell?


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

JRR said:


> Reed pretty much sums it up.
> 
> Sad, but no surprise.


african americans almost always vote 90% with the democratic candidate. why is it only racist when that candidate happens to be black? if hillary, biden, edwards, or any other democrat besides obama had won, 90+ % of blacks would have supported them. also, if it was racism that led powell to endorse obama, was it reverse racism when duberstein and ken adelman did the same?


----------



## cjlee25 (Oct 13, 2008)

glad someone finally made the distinction that Muslim does not equal radical Islam. just as Christian does not equal abortion clinic bomber. unfortunately, in this country, the political discourse often devolves to the lowest and the basest, ignorance and fear-driven dichotomies.


----------

