17

Obama's prayer breakfast with a side of Christian guilt.

Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 2 months ago to Government
259 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ," Obama said. "In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 34
    Posted by Non_mooching_artist 5 years, 2 months ago
    I'm so sick of the doublespeak out of this whole administration perpetuated by the liar in chief. It's all just fine to slam white men, Christians, Jews, Patriots or any other group that doesn't fit his criteria of persecution. He really is the lowest of the low. He besmirches the very real discrimination that was a reality for far too long. But using that stick to keep beating the same drum, to use the race card to silence REAL discussion, shows just how very shallow his mind truly is.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 5 years, 2 months ago
      +1 more
      Doublespeak and Newspeak...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 2 months ago
        and historical revisionism. Well, maybe not true revisionism, but reliance on ignorance of history. He's relying on the majority of us not knowing that the Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression, they merely know that it was the Christians. Most don't even know that it is about liberating the holy lands of the middle east to all religions, where the Muslims had exterminated all other religions (like they are attempting to do in the present day).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jlc 5 years, 2 months ago
          Not accurate. The Muslims were expanding into other already-Muslim territory that was far from Europe - into various regions of the ME. Of the following crusades, the Holy Land Crusades, the Albigensian Crusade, the Aragonese Crusade, the Reconquista, and the Northern Crusades, the only ones fought against Muslims were the Hold Land Crusades and the Reconquista (which is something of a retroactive crusade - was not considered as such at the time it occurred). The Albigensian Crusade was fought against Christians, as was the Aragonese Crusade. The Northern Crusades were fought to exterminate the remaining pagans in the Baltic states. (Talk about religious suppression!)

          The European Crusades had to travel from Europe to the ME to fight. In order to fight in the Holy Land Crusades (liberate the Holy Land), crusaders from Central Europe had to travel 2000-3000 miles away from home to try to kill Arabs. I count this as a war of aggression.

          The good thing about the Holy Land Crusades is that the culture the crusaders brought back from contact with the literate and sophisticated Arabs effectively put a kibosh on the Middle Ages in Europe and were pivotal in introducing the Renaissance.

          Jan
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mccannon01 5 years, 2 months ago
            jlc, you are invoking a more generic and broadly applied definition of the term "crusade", which is incorrect in this context. "Crusade" here is in reference to the military expeditions from Christendom against Muslims of the Middle East in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the "Holy Land". The operative term here is "recover". They were poorly planned and poorly executed counter attacks against the Islamic slaughtering and enslaving that occurred earlier and was pressing into Europe. Oddly, the term "Crusade" is invoked in his context as if to end all argument on the subject and implicate those bad "Christians", while letting Islam off the hook by conveniently omitting their nasty history that led up to the Crusades in the first place. [Side note: I put quotes around the term "Christians" above because, personally, I differentiate between Christendom and Christianity, which may be a subject for future discussion.]

            Also, the average Islamic Arabs at the time weren't very literate or sophisticated as given credit for. Christendom and Islam were equally barbaric at the time. Much of what Islam had was sucked out of conquered peoples (as in Egyptians, Jews, or peoples of the Fertile Crescent) or from trading with the peoples of the Indus valley. Very little of the "gold" of the so-called golden age of Islam was Islamic in origin. The fall of the Roman empire left Europe a mess, but not entirely stupid.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jlc 5 years, 1 month ago
              "Son of the gun" -

              But all religions and peoples have nasty parts of their past. I have been reading about the slave taking habits of the Romans and the Germanic tribes during the Bronze and Iron Ages. We probably all have slave and slave-holder backgrounds in our lineages. So I am not trying to let anyone off the hook. But people who are trying to paint Muslims evil with a wide brush need to look into history further.

              Insofar as the degree of civilization that the Muslim countries had, my sources must be different from yours. I do think that their civilization was head and shoulders above what predominated in Europe. And if their civilization was derivative of and made from the merging of other cultures - this also is a point of commonality amongst all recent peoples.

              Robbie had stated that the Muslims had exterminated all other religions. My counter was to point out that Christianity also attempted to do the same (successfully - no Baltic pagans left), had its schism wars (Albigensian Crusade) and really had no right to a moral altitude.

              Interesting that you should mention the Indus Valley. Most folk forget about it.

              Jan
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by mccannon01 5 years, 1 month ago
                Hi, Jan:

                "Robbie had stated that the Muslims had exterminated all other religions. My counter was to point out that Christianity also attempted to do the same..." isn't a counter argument, it's a deflection. It's like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar and the first thing you do is whine that your sibling does it, too. Obama is employing the same tactic. I've seen it to be quite common. That is, whenever Islam is criticized, bring up the topic of the failings of Christendom and the conversation deflects away from the failings of Islam.

                I would suspect many of our sources are similar and some are different. I've seen where Islamic civilization was fawned over and where it was refuted. You have to decide for your self.

                I have to go so I'll leave with this: Whenever the people of Christendom discover their root, you get enlightened society, when Muslims discover their root you get ISIS.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 1 month ago
                  It is not Islamic civilization that is fawned over, but Arab (within which Islam took the greatest hold). Arab civilization, much older than Mohammed, was great. It began its slow decline about the same time as Mohammed started influencing them - I wonder if there's a correlation? :-S
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ jlc 5 years, 1 month ago
                  Well, I do not agree with your conclusion but I do love your logic and language. <whine> "But the cookies are GOOD."

                  Thank you for the interesting discussion.

                  Jan
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Maritimus 5 years, 2 months ago
            So, in your opinion, the Normandy invasion was an American war of aggression against the peaceful Germans? You better rethink.
            Just my opinion.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jlc 5 years, 1 month ago
              A good point, but if you want to extend the metaphor to include WWII, you would need to have Europe have been settled by the ME and still have those ties as part of its heritage. Then, when a part of the ME attacked another part of the ME, Europe could have been drawn into the Crusades to defend its ancient homeland.

              Now, there were migrations from the ME to Europe. (I am reading a fascinating book about the genetics of the settlement of Europe.) If you go back far enough, all of the migrations that came from Africa came through the ME at one point or another - which would mean that you were right. But these ties were ancient (30 - 50K years) and unknown til modern times and they did not play a part in the Crusades.

              Still, a very nice rebuttal and a good point to consider: when is aggression against a 'family fight' warranted. Obviously, there are times when it is. Your response made me think of the matter in a different way, and I like that.

              Jan
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jnnrd54 5 years, 2 months ago
      Unfortunately, the low information voter does not realize where his train is taking them. The commies have been at it for years, brainwashing the youth and rewriting history and now we see the fruits of their labor.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 17
    Posted by $ Technocracy 5 years, 2 months ago
    I am so sick of people prattling on like the US invented slavery.

    Slavery has existed throughout documented history and no doubt prior to that as well.

    It was ended in this country, something that cannot be said in some other countries even now, a century and a half after it was ended here.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 2 months ago
      And continues today in many parts of the world.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 2 months ago
        When I was way younger than 67, I never thought
        this world would still have slavery by 2015.
        In fact, I thought we would have the predicted colonies on the Moon and Mars by now.
        I now wonder if that will ever come to pass due to endless wars and the now incredible national debt.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by JoleneMartens1982 5 years, 2 months ago
      I am sorry but I must disagree with the statement you made here Technocracy. Anyone who believes slavery has ended is merely uninformed. The slave trade has simply moved underground. And since it no longer shows gender or racial bias, it is rarely presented for publication in mainstream media because it is not going to help anyside to move above the argument of another. However, though it won't shift political power it is still a very real problem worldwide. Where do you think people go when they are never seen again? In some cases, yes they are John Galt unseen but still present, but in some cases they are locked in a room, chained, and many times never to return. It is a sad truth.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Technocracy 5 years, 2 months ago
        Slavery exists now and likely has existed as long as man collected in groups.

        That said however, slavery as a socially accepted institution was ended in the US a long time ago.

        Americans are no longer permitted to own other humans. An individual's status as involuntary chattel is the primary fact of being a slave.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Technocracy 5 years, 2 months ago
        Slavery exists now and likely has existed as long as man collected in groups.

        That said however, slavery as a socially accepted institution was ended in the US a long time ago.

        Americans are no longer permitted to own other humans. An individual's status as involuntary chattel is the primary fact of being a slave.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by JaxGary 5 years, 2 months ago
      Slavery still exists in the USSA. It is no longer race based; but if you believe that losing the right of self-ownership is slavery, then our military qualifies as slavery because individual soldiers do not own themselves - they are government property! At least we ended military conscription and today's soldiers, sailors, and airmen now voluntarily enter into a state of servitude. We need to be open minded and call things what they are. If it quacks like a duck...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Technocracy 5 years, 2 months ago
        The fact that military service is voluntary rather than conscipted disqualifies it under the standard definition of slavery.

        In addition you position is insulting to both current service military and veterans.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JaxGary 5 years, 2 months ago
          I am retired after serving honorably for almost 27 years in our Navy. Facts should never be insulting to thinking persons. How do you define slavery if it is not ownership of another person?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by JaxGary 5 years, 2 months ago
            I will concede a small difference without distinction. Under British common law, an individual could indenture his services to another for a fixed period of time. And slaves who could buy their freedom do not fit the "standard" definition of slavery. But, here in the Gulch, I would think all would agree with me; the lack of self-ownership is slavery in a workable economic definition!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 2 months ago
              Then we are all slaves. You cannot legally end your life on your own terms/time, you cannot have medical procedures done on your body except by a gov't approved entity, if you use your body to create value and receive remuneration for same the gov't claims a portion of that remuneration, the gov't tells you what you can use your body for/or what you are prohibited from using your body for, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by JaxGary 5 years, 2 months ago
                I would disagree with your statement that we are all slaves. Please correct me if I am wrong; but suicide is not a crime in any state, the crime is attempted suicide if one survives the attempt. I freely admit our government is too intrusive, but a huge number of economic transactions continue to occur without government's knowledge. You are correct about medical licensing but that is supposedly not about government approval; it is an economic attempt to solve the problem of who is qualified so that a consumer can trust a licensed professional to be competent. Using the government-licensed professional does not make us slaves. The only purpose of government coercion is to either compel citizens to do what they would prefer not to do, or to prohibit them from doing what they prefer to do. There is no other reason for government's guns and badges.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ BeenThere 5 years, 2 months ago
              In the U.S. military, one is not "owned".......one serves, having voluntarily agreed (redundant) to complete a term of enlistment or a minimum number of years, after which, one can resign one's warrant or commission. Since one has the right to one's own life, choosing (not conscripted) to serve in the military can be rational and moral...........not "slavery".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by JaxGary 5 years, 2 months ago
                If one is not owned by the government, then please explain this charge under the Uniform Code of Military justice: destruction of government property for a service member who is unable to perform his duties due to a severe case of sunburn. The degraded property in question is a human body.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ BeenThere 5 years, 1 month ago
                  My post was speaking in principle. The particular case you cite (if it exists) is improper (destruction of government property being a person), but it may be that the military UCMJ has been degraded over the years. In the past, if a service member was found (after investigation) to have intentionally caused the inability to perform duty, then charges could be brought for such for the same reason as AWOL or desertion (though certainly not as severe). If the UCMJ has any wording pertaining to "destruction of government property" being able to be applied to the human body, please post edition and pages as I want to see for myself.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by JaxGary 5 years, 1 month ago
                    Sorry, I retired in 1993 and no longer have access to a copy of the UCMJ. It could have been a specification under Article 34, the general article. But I know from personal experience from 1966 to 1993 the ability to prosecute for destruction of government property existed.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Technocracy 5 years, 2 months ago
              Economic definitions do not realistically apply to a government agency.

              If real world economics did, Government and its agencies would have to function far differently than they do. Since they ensure their own funding by sovereign force, they don't worry about economics to any great extent beyond departmental/agency budgeting. And that honored as much in the breach as in the keeping.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 5 years, 2 months ago
        Interesting point on conscription. I was in the USAF - voluntarily - but no one I know in the Armed Forces (even if conscripted or sundownered) considered themselves a slave.

        Hmmm. The existence of conscientious objectors has to be taken into account. There were no 'conscientious objectors' to slavery.

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 14
    Posted by doubleJack 5 years, 2 months ago
    "Slavery has existed throughout documented history and no doubt prior to that as well. "

    I'm getting tired of liberals pretending America is the only country that held slaves. I'm getting tired of the Left calling me a racist when they are the ones who hung people from trees.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TahoeDagney 5 years, 2 months ago
      I'm new here, folks. Is there a glossary or lexicon that y'all use here (of course, the Ayn Rand Lexicon is highly useful). Have y'all agreed upon definitions for "freedom" & "slavery"?

      Galambos’ definition of freedom used in his Volitional Science courses is “that societal condition that exists when each individual has 100% control of his life and property (& zero control of anyone else’s” & “Slavery—The control of an individual’s property without his permission”.
      Jay Snelson’s, in his Human Action Principles Seminar is “FREEDOM exists when the individual’s discretion to choose is NOT confiscated by interventionism” … & “SLAVERY exists when the individual’s discretion to choose is confiscated by interventionism”.

      Thoughts?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 5 years, 2 months ago
        Seems to me that existence in the US in the present time would be as a slave. One cannot speak, for fear of becoming the target of the progressive media slander machine. One cannot outright own their home and property, due to property taxes. One cannot let their children walk home from a park without the police and child protective services inserting themselves between the parent(s) and child(ren). Sounds like slavery to me..
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by TahoeDagney 5 years, 2 months ago
          Is it likely that the Thug-Replacement Program (aka, voting out the bad guys & replacing them with the good guys) will work if the goal is lasting peace, prosperity and freedoim? I don’t think so. ‘twould seem more likely that the problem is the myth that we need the State at all. It took me 40 years of study, research & observation to graduate from Rand’s utopian minarchist myth to the voluntaryism of the Win-Win Free-Market Stateless Society idea.

          Anyone else in the Gulch seriously considering that concept?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 5 years, 2 months ago
      And I am tired of the fact that people overlook the black slave owners of the South. When given the opportunity, at least some blacks of the 19th century thought it just fine to own slaves.

      It is to the credit of the US that we thought the abolition of slavery so important we were willing to fight the most life-expensive war we have ever been in to abolish it.

      Jan
      (Who notes no war was fought to free women...)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 12
    Posted by Rocky_Road 5 years, 2 months ago

    Didn't Obama once say, "I've never met a Muslim that I didn't like" ?

    Oh wait...that was Will Rogers.

    Kidding aside, this man's insistence upon equating these barbarians with all the other faiths (mostly Christian) is getting annoying.

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 11
      Posted by woodlema 5 years, 2 months ago
      Obama is simply trying to justify HIS religion. Obama IS a Muslim, and according to HIS OWN book, they day will come when the winds blow he will stand with his Muslim brothers. Lets just hope it is AFTER Jan, 2017.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 2 months ago
        That isn't going to matter. He'll still be in control on Jan 21, 2017, mark my words.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • 11
          Posted by woodlema 5 years, 2 months ago
          I have been saying that for the last two years. People say Obama is stupid when he and Holder play race baiters but I an convinced this is his effort to start a race war, and create that ""Crisis" whereby he can suspend the constitution and declare himself Dictator in Chief.

          Let's hope if that type of thing happens the US Military and the People will not tolerate it.

          "Declaration of Independence":
          "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."

          Thomas Jefferson Quote:

          "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
          The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
          wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
          they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
          it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
          And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
          warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
          resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
          to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
          in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
          time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
          It is its natural manure."

          Obama and his ilk are most certainly MANURE!!!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Mimi 5 years, 2 months ago
          This is what you get from someone who spent twenty years in Rev. Wright’s church. I’ll mark your words, and hopefully get the chance to make you eat them. I’m really looking forward to attending the next swearing in. I’m going clap wildly when they use a singer at the event who doesn’t lip-sing their way through the biggest honor of their life. Tears of joy are going to fill my eyes that day.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 2 months ago
          This may hinge on whether Benghazi Killary the Klown is elected.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 2 months ago
            I'm not so sure. I don't think that this one will be willing to give up power even to a fellow progressive. But that might be the only scenario where it doesn't happen.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
              Oh my god, I agree with Robbie.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 2 months ago
                And who would your god be? ;-)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 2 months ago
                  The Christian dino capitalizes God unless I'm writing about some pagan god like Apollo or Thor or Ra, etc.
                  To write "your god would be" is A-OK with my delicate little tender sensitives, though.
                  I am dino--
                  Hear me ROAR!
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 2 months ago
                    As does this Christian. And even if I were writing about another's deity, I would show them a like respect. Since LS is an atheist, I feel no such compunction, nor do I see the lack of capitalization as a slight, since there could be none of one who does not believe in a deity.

                    This was my attempt to tweak LS's nose a bit on her continued use of verbiage that she knows is offensive to some. Just as I wouldn't use the N-word, or kike (funny how the N-word has such a connotation to it that we cannot even use it in reference, but derogatory terms for others is accepted), or slant-eye, or even gringo (also funny how so many non-Hispanics don't understand that is a derogatory term) just out of politeness, it seems that the atheists here (and everywhere, it seems) have no such reluctance to show their impoliteness merely because they don't agree with others. I choose to be polite.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 2 months ago
                      I was called a gringo one whole time in all my life.
                      Back in 1973, a brother and I were illegally camping by the Rio Grande River at Big Bend State Park in Texas. (Legal was crap unless you had a camper).
                      Some Mexican kid I couldn't see in what I up until then perceived to be only desert country across the river yells, "Hi, gringo!"
                      I simply yelled back "Hi!"
                      I found the whole thing amusing.
                      To camp by the Rio Grande today? No way, Jose!
                      My memory rattles on--
                      Back in the late 80s I was searching a cell shared by two inmates.
                      While doing so, I told them that inmates had called me everything but a "dirty screw" like in the old prison movies.
                      I told them I'd just love it if an inmate would call me that just one time.
                      They just stared at me. I think they were scared.
                      That was disappointing. I wasn't trying to trick them into being written up or anything.
                      I never brought that subject up again.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 2 months ago
                        I've been called much worse. I lived for a couple of years in Monterrey Mexico when I worked for John Deere. As part of that assignment I got Spanish language training, and :"practical" language training by my co-workers and factory workers. One time I was travelling back to the US for Christmas and was in O'Hare. Had to get on an elevator which was shared with some Hispanics. They said some rather derogatory things that they didn't think were being understood, me being a very white Northern European looking guy. As they got off the elevator I told them in very colorful Spanish that their mother would likely need to wash their mouths when they got home. Boy were they surprised.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 2 months ago
                          Yeah, I was beginning to think you were a guy instead of a girl.
                          I was becoming fond of a female Robbie I had a couple of dates with back in the mid-70s.
                          Then she with her whole family moved away.
                          Bummer!
                          During that same time I was a small town newspaper reporter. your story above caused me to recall a deaf dude who was was in charge of the printing press.
                          I was typing a story when the deaf dude and a visiting deaf friend came by and communicated with sign language. While doing that, they would point at me and laugh.
                          I said in a good humor "Very (expletive) funny!"
                          After reading my lips, they laughed as they slapped each other on the shoulder and walked away.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 5 years, 2 months ago
                        thanks for sharing... I think lol. Big Bend is maybe my favorite natl park. saw Hale Bop there shining over the Chisos. same trip saw 3 baby cougars cross the trail each one hanging on the one before it's tail. good times
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 2 months ago
                          That cloudless night I spent by the Rio Grande I saw stars more clearly than I had up until then or since. It was astounding!
                          Later I was awakened by what I thought was a park ranger's flashlight.
                          It was a rising full moon that was so bright I had to cover my face with something to get back to sleep.
                          Later after that my brother awoke me with a hard shake and whispered, "Something is up there!"
                          Yeah, now it got scary. Something up atop a sharp rise was clomping around. A couple of small rocks came bouncing down.
                          Then I saw what looked a pair of devil horns on high. What was that--THING.!!!
                          Those horns turned out to be long ears when that thing went, "Hee-haw!"
                          It was a wild burro.
                          Oh, before the sun went down during that camping adventure, a pair of desert skunks walked through our camp as if my brother and I amounted to absolutely nothing.
                          They did not look like Alabama "polecat" skunks
                          but those two critters were definitely skunks.
                          And they knew it.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 2 months ago
                            You need to come up north on a clear winter's night. The cold ensures that there is less atmospheric distortion. When it's in the 20's it's still tolerable and perfect telescopic viewing.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 2 months ago
                              Yep, Bama be humid down here. Even when its cold.
                              Recall my gone to God like my mother maternal New Jersey grandmother complain how the cold down here can cut right through your clothes.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
      He's also missing that other religions have left barbarianism behind them...a few centuries ago. It's all an effort to continue this false narrative that there are other dangerous extremists out there to contend with. But I say let's leave religions and religious comparisons out of it and it's time to smack evil down wherever it pops it's head up. Wack-a-Barbarian!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by rainman0720 5 years, 2 months ago
    If this Republic survives, the second biggest mistake it ever made was electing Obama in 2008. Its biggest mistake? Re-electing him in 2012.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TahoeDagney 5 years, 2 months ago
      We're a Republic only on that ignored "God damn piece of paper", the Constitution.

      By definition, the US has been a Fabian Fascist Democracy for several decades.

      Ugly words, but I'm told that a "democracy" is where the subjects vote & the majority rules without limits, "fascist" means that the government allows subjects to own the means of production but the government bureaucrats, usually in partnership with corporations, control it by thousands of regulations & "Fabian" just refers to the method of creating the fascist democracy a little at a time, as was the military tactic of the Roman general.

      The parallels twixt the USG & the Fabian Fascist Democracy in pre-war Germany are quite ominous ... and getting ominouser daily, as Uncle Lenny pointed out some time ago.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 5 years, 2 months ago
    The trouble with O's assessment is that its historically inaccurate. The Crusades were in retaliation to muslim aggression and conquest. And slavery was more an economic construct that was desperately justified using Christianity to keep those who profited profiting.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by sumitch 5 years, 2 months ago
      Trying to justify the horror of the Muslim atrocity's today with the thousand year old crusades is asinine and typical of his trying to turn the subject at hand to another rather than respond to the issue.

      The crusades were a reaction to Muslim forces attacking in Europe. Notice Mr. President – Europe not the United States; -reaction to invasion not attacking without first being attacked. Your poor comparison shows how shallow you are and void of historic facts. Also notice that we don’t behead, bury alive, stone or burn alive, and mutilate women unlike your Muslim buddies.

      Using faults that the United States have had; slavery in particular, to compare to these savages is so shallow as to be near funny. Mr. President, notice that we do not have slavery any longer-not for 150 years. Mr. President notice that Muslims still practice slavery and have been waging war against Christians for at least a thousand years without trying to change. Every day it becomes more apparent that he supports Muslims, not Christians. I don’t know what it takes to be a certified Muslim but his actions are proof enough for me that he is more a Muslim, certainly not a Christian.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Ben_C 5 years, 2 months ago
        Yes, we have slaves - on the government plantation. LBJ's "War on Poverty" created generations of welfare dependent slaves. One has to only look to inner cities ie Detroit and Chicago to see the people trapped as slaves. And who do they vote for in elections? Certainly not those who would give them the incentive to leave the plantation. They are slaves to the handouts and the misrable life they experience.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
          Moochers and slaves aren't the same thing. One produces via their efforts, the other consumes via theft. The evil, playing the man in the middle, is the government. Either side is under its thumb, either by choice or by threat.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JoleneMartens1982 5 years, 2 months ago
          I do not consider them slaves, the welfare cultures, slaves are forced, these people choose to continue accepting handouts. They are sheep amidst the wolves. And the wolves are dressed in farmers clothing. They could change it if they quit cashing those checks and built a better, more functional society. But why do that when they can cheat the system?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Ben_C 5 years, 2 months ago
            Good points, but I see them as mentally being slaves, not physical. Your assumption is that they embrace the "outside" world off the plantation. But since we are into generations of "moochers" the question I ask, "do they know differently?" You don't know what you don't know as my spouse tells me. Yes, they mooch but I am not sure mentally they know anything different and in this context I see them as "slaves" to the system of welfare. My thinking is that it is not necessarily their fault - it is the consequence of well intentioned legislation which anyone in The Gulch would have predicted would be a disaster. Dr. Ben Carson is the poster person for someone who successfully made it off the planatation. I use the slave / plantation metaphor for its "shock" value when speaking to my liberal friends. For them, welfare is a good thing. For me, I am getting really tired of supporting the plantations.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
              Maybe they would know different if the truth about hand outs were taught in school. Who funds it and how that process happens and that it isn't voluntary or happy charity. its theft. But doing so might stunt the giant liberal voting base currently being churned out by public schools.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Rocky_Road 5 years, 2 months ago
                No liberal teacher would teach that...but they will teach reparations.
                If accurate history was taught, they would learn that it was the Republicans that gave them their freedom, and it was Democrats that formed the KKK. Nothing has changed in motives....
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
                  I know the truth won't get taught, that was my point. Public schools are a HUGE problem working against logic (and freedom), and for the leftist advancement. Yet this goes grossly unnoticed... And we're all funding it.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by TahoeDagney 5 years, 2 months ago
        Has anyone in the Gulch discovered Rose Wilder Lane’s “Discovery of Freedom”? It was my first knowledge of the “Seracens” & provides a bit of a different perception of the history of the “Crusades” & that period of history. I didn’t know of that book ‘til 30 years after reading “Atlas”. Rose & Ayn did communicate quite a bit in the fountainhead & Atlas years.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joseph-C-Moore 5 years, 2 months ago
    That usurper of the office, apostate Christian, ass is not a Christian. What gall he has to equate 1,000 year old politics with the present day troglodyte muslims.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 5 years, 2 months ago
    History Lesson for our woefully inept POTUS:

    Muslims were not innocent during the crusades. Even today many of them have not changed and remain stuck in the distant past.

    Partial Timeline:
    719: Muslims attack Septimania in southern France (so named because it was the base of operations for Rome’s Seventh Legion) and become established in the region known as Languedoc, made famous several hundred years later as the center of the Cathar heresy.
    July 09, 721: A Muslim army under the command of Al-Semah and that had crossed the Pyrenees is defeated by the Franks near Toulouse. Al-Semah is killed and his remaining forces, which had previously conquered Narbonne, are forced back across the Pyrenees into Spain.
    722: Battle of Covadonga: Pelayo, (690-737) Visigoth noble who had been elected the first King of Asturias (718-737), defeats a Muslim army at Alcama near Covadonga. This is generally regarded as the first real Christian victory over the Muslims in the Reconquista.
    724: Hisham becomes the 10th caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty. It is under Hisham that Muslim forces make their deepest incursions into Western Europe before being stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Poitiers in 0732.
    724: Under the command of Ambissa, Emir of Andalusia, Muslim forces raid southern France and capture the cities of Carcassone and Nimes.
    732: the Battle of Tours
    ETC., ETC.
    The Crusades were a long overdue retaliation against aggressors. The first crusade didn't start till 1096-1099. They ended in 1291.
    Many Christians even then had no idea what was going on, yet today’s Christians should be held collectively responsible for the Crusades and the Spanish inquisition?!?!? Today’s Christians did not live during these times and since then there was the reformation (16th century) which collectively ended these practices. Is the POTUS responsible and apologetic for the African slave traders that sold many of their brethren to the Europeans? This practice is still ongoing in the 21st century…

    Whatever you think of religion generally, this is a pathetic attempt to distract, equivocate and preach tolerance to a sect that long ago adopted passivity (turn the other cheek) practices and whose modern adherents need no admonition or instruction on this matter. In this regard, there is no equivalence to today’s Christians and the radical Islamists.

    Our POTUS has once again shown his ignorance or an inclination to distort and insult and yet I predict nothing of substance will come of it. He will learn nothing from this or change his perspective. Considering that approx. 70% of Americans consider themselves Christians it seems an astounding political fumble…

    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 2 months ago
      Perhaps ignorance. More likely intentional mis-leading of history to support his own ends. As I said elsewhere, the US populace is woefully ignorant of history, and given the PCness of the education system, if the Crusades are taught at all it is most likely that these European Christians went and fought somewhere. They were the bad guys and killed lots of people. Not much else.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 5 years, 2 months ago
    Maybe I've lost it. But, I can only LOL at his statement. It's so far off the deep end that I put it in the humor category. Of course, I have a sick sense of humor. That helps...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterAsher 5 years, 2 months ago
    My instant thought was not so much that he was attempting to denigrate Christianity as he was doing his (and her) thing of using any opportunity (in this case by innuendo) to comment on their racial victimhood. I’m sure they experienced that in their lives. But as the first man and lady of the land they should not be complaining about it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 5 years, 2 months ago
    It's getting tedious discussing ad nauseum the subject of slavery. One thing that's never included in the discussion is the fact that blacks were involved in bringing slavery to America and were involved both as slaves and slave holders, so it's time to move on about this. Long before "we hold these truths...," the worldview of Americans was identical to that of the old world, where slavery had been normal for thousands of years. So it was no great leap to introduce it here. It's only the fact that Christianity and the industrial revolution, along with ideas from the rights of man, created the environment for a discussion about slavery that led to its abolition. Just note that slavery was first abolished in England and the US, followed by the rest of the world. It didn't hurt that the British Navy spurred some into action on that front. So, bashing Christianity for slavery, when that religion was the only one that outlawed slavery, and silent on some, like Islam, that are still engaged in slavery, exposes a level of stupidity or willful ignorance that removes the accuser from the realm of civilized discourse.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 2 months ago
      It was the black "leaders" in Africa that were selling their fellow humans into slavery. Of course, they weren't from the same tribe/clan, so that was fine. They didn't care about color of skin, only whether they were from the local group or not. Now they all want to claim skin color is the universal bond, but then, it meant nothing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by peterchunt 5 years, 2 months ago
    Being an atheist, as someone has already said “I have no god in this game”. However I don’t recall seeing where “Christ” ever committed violence. The opposite can be said of Mohammed, who committed many atrocities. Since when is Islam to be considered a religion of peace! This President only wants to belittle this great nation, so he says what he says. By his words and actions he is no American.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rocky_Road 5 years, 2 months ago
      SPOILER ALERT !
      Someone will surely bring up Jesus' encounter with the money changers at the temple.
      Don't be deflated, it doesn't meet the definition of "violence", as I know you meant it !
      Good point....
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 1 month ago
      Correct. His was a teaching of compassion and forgiveness. Prime example, the adulteress in the marketplace which the crowd wanted to stone - the common punishment for that transgression. Jesus asked the people in the crowd that if they themselves were without sin, then go ahead, else they should forgive as they themselves would want to be forgiven. That doesn't mean that you should go out and do evil and just ask to be forgiven, merely that nobody is perfect and we all must accept that reality.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by teri-amborn 5 years, 1 month ago
        What you fail to connect is that the Pharisees had made that poor widow into a temple prostitute and the reason that Jesus said: "He who is without sin may cast the first stone..." is because they had all had her and had worn her out. It's easy to absolve yourself of guilt when your victim is dead.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 1 month ago
          I had never heard that particular idea. It did always strike me as more than a little hypocritical that they dragged her out and said that they had caught her "in the act", yet didn't simultaneously present her partner.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by teri-amborn 5 years, 1 month ago
            Correct. The Law of Moses is specific: "When. TWO are caught in tho act of adultery..."
            The Pharisees thought that Jesus didn't know the law nor would he be aware of what they had done and what they were up to.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 2 months ago
    Most Christians carry enough guilt without having false guilt heaped upon them, but I suppose that is the one of the burdens that AR said that we didn't need to bear.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 5 years, 2 months ago
    Why hasn't any of the media called BHO for what he is: A Closet Muslim! I'm getting really angry about Christian Bashing. I'm almost ready to go Knights Templar on someone's butt! The president should be censured for this remark. What is the matter with the American Public. There should be an outrage over that statement. Does every one have their head in the sand. What wrong with all the Christian Evangelist, they should be screaming out from their pulpits against BHO. This pestilent president has gone to far. The people are just going to let BHO getaway with his incorrect rotted ancient remark. This is why I prefer Vladimir Putin over this president of ours. At least, a lot of Slavic peoples admire Putin! (My ancestors are Kashub which now is part of Poland).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 5 years, 2 months ago
    Unearned guilt. He thinks that the populace can be controlled by applying a false sense of guilt to our very beings. It isn't working any longer.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by sumitch 5 years, 1 month ago
      Every day in every way his lies force me to add him again to my list of people that can kiss my arse. The problem is that there are so many that bow down to this insult to intelligence and honesty.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
      Exactly...although I think that tactics still works on many... And he knows it. There is nothing at all redeeming about using that play, and even less so from a head if state at a prayer breakfast. What a dirty pig.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo