If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   NBC news goes with story pointing out that Obama promised not to run negative ads in 2008, then did....and that this year he just skipped the promise. Change indeed   (firstread.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 117
    More: Interesting, obama, negative ads, NBC, NBC News, Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, NBC Nightly News, George W. Bush  
•       •       •

397 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2012 at 12:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



117 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-01 12:48:01 PM  

2 grams: He can't run on his record , all he can do is try to attack Romney.


Sometimes it works for a while in the polls, but when comes down to voting it's always a losing strategy.


Hilarious.

He can (and has been) running on his record. He has had many successes. Honestly, I am not surprised that he had to watch his idealism fade, and recognize that this is a fight. The people he is fighting against have been assailing him since the day he took office, and you expect him to, what, not fight back?

He doesn't have the luxury of holding on to his idealism. He has a responsibility to protect people like me from those who would take away our opportunities for the benefit of those who live opulently. I hope Barack grinds Mitt into the concrete so thoroughly, Mitt retires permanently from politics. I hope he instills fear in every republican that thought they could relentlessly attack him, his character, his faith, his nationality. I want him to turn on the lights in that basement, and let us see the roaches scatter.

Thank God he is playing hardball. Lets see exactly what Mitt is made of.
 
2012-08-01 12:49:49 PM  
I say keep giving them doses of their own medicine, as in: Show them what it looks like. Notice how, when you repeat what they said, you are mocking them, or being condescending. "This is what you said, right?" "Well, right, but it sounds worse when you say it, so you are wrong! bleepity, bleepity, bleep-a-bleep!" Who are the sheeple, again? ( I keep getting it wrong, apparently) Oh, yeah, one more thing: I like my kool-aid cold and my favorite flavor is Orange summer blaster, or something like that.
 
2012-08-01 12:50:27 PM  

soy_bomb: Heresiarch: Let's go with this. What part of Romney's record is he (Romney) running on?
I'm not talking about Romney's rhetoric. I want to know what part of Romney's record is worth running on.
Difficulty level: "he's better than Obama" is not a sufficient answer.

Taking over the massive failure of the 2002 Olympics and turning it around; $400 million budget deficit to a $100 million surplus. There's a start.


Let's continue:

He got $1.5 billion in federal funding to save the Olympics in SLC.

And gave us the basis for ObamaCare - even endorsing mandates on a national level.

Q: Is this something you think Washington should consider for the whole country?
ROMNEY: Well, there are some aspects of what we're doing that could be applicable to the rest of the country. Our program is based on a private model health insurance program and that model will work for the nation.

Q: Although, you backed away from mandates on a national basis...?
ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.

Q: Should the President be looking at Massachusetts as a model for lowering health care costs?
ROMNEY: Massachusetts is a model for getting everyone insured.


And let's not forget his signature on the state assault rifle ban.

What else you got?
 
2012-08-01 12:50:33 PM  
To be fair, the Republicans are running a candidate so flawed and awful that it is almost impossible not to make him look bad. (Romney's own staff is failing at this task.) You would pretty much have to avoid mentioning him at all. And think of the overwhelming temptation to point out the serial lies and bungling committed by Romney. Who could resist putting that on display? Not to mention the fact that anybody who cares about the future of America would feel duty bound to warn the voters about Romney and his cohorts.
 
2012-08-01 12:51:35 PM  

jat26006: According to Mitt and repubtards, it is. But they Also believe that the Jews averted the zombie apocalypse.




What a Jewish zombie might look like...
 
2012-08-01 12:52:00 PM  

2 grams: He can't run on his record , all he can do is try to attack [opponent].


Can be used for both sides.

Yes, yes, they're both bad and I won't be voting for either of them.
 
2012-08-01 12:52:06 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Moosecakes: Not really. Negative ads have been proven to work time and time again.

Sometimes.

But Obama's primary strength is that he is a GOOD guy, full of hope and optimism. His appeal is an appeal to the country's better nature.
He's weak on the economy, he's distancing himself from his primary achievement in Healthcare, and while he is fine on international, he hasn't done much really revolutionary other than complete the death of Bin Laden.

By going negative in a big way, he may be damaging his primary value proposition. He won because people LIKE him. He won becasue he was POSITIVE.

Running a steady campaign of accusations, semi-slander, blame-shifting, and negativity.may hurt Romney, but over time it may make people start to think he's a dick.

And that hurts him more.


Because Romney is completely likable.
 
2012-08-01 12:54:27 PM  

Wooly Bully: BeesNuts: It actually just means that it's extra super-true and you, Mr. Liberal, simply can't deny how truthful it is because it's not coming from your demon FOX News. Go ahead, I dare you to challenge your liberal heroes at MSNBC on this. I love watching liberals turn on each other!

Haha, you're good at that. Too good. You're actually better at it than the random dentist erection jangly cornhole trolls.


I blame overexposure.
 
2012-08-01 12:55:16 PM  

KellyX: Heresiarch: 2 grams: He can't run on his record , all he can do is try to attack Romney.


Sometimes it works for a while in the polls, but when comes down to voting it's always a losing strategy.

Let's go with this. What part of Romney's record is he (Romney) running on?

I'm not talking about Romney's rhetoric. I want to know what part of Romney's record is worth running on.

Difficulty level: "he's better than Obama" is not a sufficient answer.

[www.minnpost.com image 452x276]

He's WHITE!!!

/that count for them?


I propose a new internet-based sport. I call it Teaball. Here's how it would work:

A crew of 20 videographers infiltrate the crowd at a teabagger protest. Their job is to stream live video of signs and people at the event. Contestants stand at the ready in an enclosure outside the event. On the web, people watch the streams and vote on which person/sign they think deserves a cockpunch the most. Votes are tabulated every 10 minutes, and the contestants are then released into the crowd. Points are awarded to the contestants for each teabagger they cockpunch based on their vote tally. After 5 minutes, the contestants return to the enclosure while the next set of votes is tabulated. After 5 rounds, the winner is the one who's scored the most points. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are the Golden Snitches of Teaball; cockpunch either one for 25,000 points and end the round.
 
2012-08-01 12:57:29 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: soy_bomb: Heresiarch: Let's go with this. What part of Romney's record is he (Romney) running on?
I'm not talking about Romney's rhetoric. I want to know what part of Romney's record is worth running on.
Difficulty level: "he's better than Obama" is not a sufficient answer.

Taking over the massive failure of the 2002 Olympics and turning it around; $400 million budget deficit to a $100 million surplus. There's a start.

Let's continue:

He got $1.5 billion in federal funding to save the Olympics in SLC.

And gave us the basis for ObamaCare - even endorsing mandates on a national level.

Q: Is this something you think Washington should consider for the whole country?
ROMNEY: Well, there are some aspects of what we're doing that could be applicable to the rest of the country. Our program is based on a private model health insurance program and that model will work for the nation.

Q: Although, you backed away from mandates on a national basis...?
ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.

Q: Should the President be looking at Massachusetts as a model for lowering health care costs?
ROMNEY: Massachusetts is a model for getting everyone insured.

And let's not forget his signature on the state assault rifle ban.

What else you got?


Lolwut
 
2012-08-01 01:06:19 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Q: Is this something you think Washington should consider for the whole country?
ROMNEY: Well, there are some aspects of what we're doing that could be applicable to the rest of the country. Our program is based on a private model health insurance program and that model will work for the nation.

Q: Although, you backed away from mandates on a national basis...?
ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.

Q: Should the President be looking at Massachusetts as a model for lowering health care costs?
ROMNEY: Massachusetts is a model for getting everyone insured.


Do you have a cite on this? I'd like to verify and maybe use it.
 
2012-08-01 01:08:57 PM  

bikerific: rufus-t-firefly: Q: Is this something you think Washington should consider for the whole country?
ROMNEY: Well, there are some aspects of what we're doing that could be applicable to the rest of the country. Our program is based on a private model health insurance program and that model will work for the nation.

Q: Although, you backed away from mandates on a national basis...?
ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.

Q: Should the President be looking at Massachusetts as a model for lowering health care costs?
ROMNEY: Massachusetts is a model for getting everyone insured.

Do you have a cite on this? I'd like to verify and maybe use it.


Link

//googled that for ya
 
2012-08-01 01:19:55 PM  
Yes. Because remaining rigidly static in a constantly fluctuating word is a great strategy, eh Subbo?
 
2012-08-01 01:20:27 PM  

soy_bomb: Heresiarch: Let's go with this. What part of Romney's record is he (Romney) running on?
I'm not talking about Romney's rhetoric. I want to know what part of Romney's record is worth running on.
Difficulty level: "he's better than Obama" is not a sufficient answer.

Taking over the massive failure of the 2002 Olympics and turning it around; $400 million budget deficit to a $100 million surplus. There's a start.


WHAR
SLOC RECORDS
WHAR
 
2012-08-01 01:23:16 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: He got $1.5 billion in federal funding to save the Olympics in SLC.


Ahhh hahahahahaha

"No matter how well we did cutting costs and raising revenue, we couldn't have Games without the support of the federal government," he wrote.

You have an Olympics? You didn't build that.
 
2012-08-01 01:30:01 PM  

IlGreven: Moosecakes: 2 grams: He can't run on his record , all he can do is try to attack Romney.


Sometimes it works for a while in the polls, but when comes down to voting it's always a losing strategy.

Not really. Negative ads have been proven to work time and time again.

Depends on what the negativity is.

"HURR OBAMMER IS A SEKRIT MOOSLIM" generally doesn't work.

"Can you trust somebody who can't remember how many houses he owns" usually does.


Or how many States there are. would be a good one too...

Actually I remeber Kerry Had a similliar brainfart about how many properties he owns and the ;libbys were tripping over themselves to make up for it.


What's old is new again. People playing up thier Canidate as if this was a ball game and all you do is root for your team regardelss of the facts and issues be dammned!

Go Farkers! Go!
 
2012-08-01 01:32:39 PM  

Heresiarch:
Difficulty level: "he's better than Obama" is not a sufficient answer.




Actually it is a sufficent answer...or at least it was for the Democrats last election.
 
2012-08-01 01:34:53 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Because Romney is completely likable.


Not the point. For Obama to win, he must convince the unnafiliated American voters that despite his (debatably) lackluster performance, he is a "better" alternative for fixingthe economy, than someone with actual business experience. Right now, he is fighting hard to negate the claim that Romney *HAS* viable business experience, or experience balancing a budget. Hence the attack ads.

But his primary strength, the thing that got him into the White House, was the promise of being good, and better, and more optimistic an alternative than the status quo. He was able to overcome merciless attacks from the Clinton campaign by being ceaselessly positive and optimistic.

Going to relentlessly negative runs the risk of making him "just as bad" as any alternative.It erodes his primary selling point: that he can make things better and get the economic ball roilling again. It diminsihes his own positives

Instead of living up to the promise of his 2004 Keynote speech and 2008 campaign of being a uniter and changing the bitter politics of America, he has been part of making it worse. He has become a devisive and polorizing figure. Sure, Sure, it's not his fault, but his constant refrain of blaming the Republicans no matter how true it might be, re-enforces the idea that he has been unable to bridge the gap. That he just can't change the pattern of crisis legislation that has been the rule rather than the exception for his whole term, even before the TeaBaggers got in in 2010.

Obama still has a native advantage being an encumbant, but as it was with Jimmy Carter, he is saddled with an economic Albatross that he didn't create, but seems unable to definitively fix. He must convince the American people that he CAN do it, that he has a plan, and thathe just needs more time. But that requires getting Americans to believe in him again. to re-energize a nation with an optimistic view that it can be done. He must restore thier faith and confidence in him and that requires a positive view of him, not so much a negative view of his candidate.

IMHO
 
2012-08-01 01:34:59 PM  

Danger Mouse: IlGreven: Moosecakes: 2 grams: He can't run on his record , all he can do is try to attack Romney.


Sometimes it works for a while in the polls, but when comes down to voting it's always a losing strategy.

Not really. Negative ads have been proven to work time and time again.

Depends on what the negativity is.

"HURR OBAMMER IS A SEKRIT MOOSLIM" generally doesn't work.

"Can you trust somebody who can't remember how many houses he owns" usually does.

Or how many States there are. would be a good one too...

Actually I remeber Kerry Had a similliar brainfart about how many properties he owns and the ;libbys were tripping over themselves to make up for it.


What's old is new again. People playing up thier Canidate as if this was a ball game and all you do is root for your team regardelss of the facts and issues be dammned!

Go Farkers! Go!


You remember that? The entire internet seems to have forgotten that. Couldn't find any such thing on the google.
 
2012-08-01 01:42:00 PM  
deeayblo: i>"...He (Obama) has a responsibility to protect people like me from those who would take away our opportunities for the benefit of those who live opulently"

Wow. -blink- just..... wow.


You should read the Constitution some day. No, really you should.
 
2012-08-01 01:46:35 PM  

Danger Mouse: deeayblo: i>"...He (Obama) has a responsibility to protect people like me from those who would take away our opportunities for the benefit of those who live opulently"

Wow. -blink- just..... wow.


You should read the Constitution some day. No, really you should.


Maybe he meant moral responsibility rather than constitutional responsibility. You should read the Bible some day. No, really you should.
 
2012-08-01 01:47:20 PM  

magusdevil: You remember that? The entire internet seems to have forgotten that. Couldn't find any such thing on the google.


It was not a gaffe, but much was made of how many homes Kerry and Heinz had, and how (like McCain) the owning of so many homes excluded them from being 'just like regular Americans', or that they were "out of touch". It was in fact, BECAUSE of this criticism of Kerry that McCain was in trun asked about all of his many houses which resulted in his famous gaffe.

With no comment on the validity of this line of criticism, only reminding you that it existed, here's a few links related to the topic which can be easily found on the internets:

Link
Link

Even Romney himself criticized Kerry in 2004 about this in an amazing double spike slam dunk of pot kettle calling:
Link

So there you go. The Internets do, in fact, remember.
 
2012-08-01 01:48:01 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Even Romney himself criticized Kerry in 2004 about this in an amazing double spike slam dunk of pot kettle calling:
Link

 
2012-08-01 01:49:50 PM  

magusdevil: You should read the Bible some day. No, really you should.


I'm curious. Can you point to where in the Bible it calls for the Government to protect citizens against the loss of "opportunity" from those who live "opulently"?

Genuinely interested in your theological basis.
 
2012-08-01 01:51:10 PM  

Danger Mouse: Actually I remeber Kerry Had a similliar brainfart about how many properties he owns and the ;libbys were tripping over themselves to make up for it.


BojanglesPaladin: magusdevil: You remember that? The entire internet seems to have forgotten that. Couldn't find any such thing on the google.

It was not a gaffe, but much was made of how many homes Kerry and Heinz had, and how (like McCain) the owning of so many homes excluded them from being 'just like regular Americans', or that they were "out of touch". It was in fact, BECAUSE of this criticism of Kerry that McCain was in trun asked about all of his many houses which resulted in his famous gaffe.

With no comment on the validity of this line of criticism, only reminding you that it existed, here's a few links related to the topic which can be easily found on the internets:

Link
Link

Even Romney himself criticized Kerry in 2004 about this in an amazing double spike slam dunk of pot kettle calling:
Link

So there you go. The Internets do, in fact, remember.


So John Kerry owned a lot of homes. But he did, in fact, know how many homes he owned. So no, the "brainfart about how many properties he owns" is another in a long line of lies.
 
2012-08-01 01:55:47 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: magusdevil: You should read the Bible some day. No, really you should.

I'm curious. Can you point to where in the Bible it calls for the Government to protect citizens against the loss of "opportunity" from those who live "opulently"?

Genuinely interested in your theological basis.


Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.
Deut. 26:12. When you have finished paying the complete tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and the widow, that they may eat in your towns, and be satisfied.

Lev. 19:19ff. Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.

Prov. 31:8ff. [Commandment to kings.] Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.

Is. 58:66ff. Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

Jer. 22:3. Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

Luke 12:33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."

Luke 3:11. And [John the Baptist] would answer and say to them, "Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise."

Mt. 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

For starters, really you should read the whole thing.
 
2012-08-01 01:59:34 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:



I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Inteligent, well thought out, non partisian ,lucid answers. huh. I like it!


What the hell you doin' here?!?!?!?!
 
2012-08-01 02:02:11 PM  

magusdevil: So John Kerry owned a lot of homes. But he did, in fact, know how many homes he owned. So no, the "brainfart about how many properties he owns" is another in a long line of lies.


You may need to relax a bit and take it down a notch. He made a vague reference to a recollection of an ambiguous and minor part of a campaign from 8 years ago. Being innacurate is kinda built into that, and not a "long list of lies". He was more right than wrong by a long shot, and the inaccuracies have already been pointed out and corrected.

What made McCain's comment a gaffe was that it was predicated on the fact that he had so many houses he couldn't even keep track. Kerry (via the Heinz fortune) had as many, if not more. It was BECAUSE of the stink about just how many homes Kerry had that McCain was even asked.

Quibbling over a meaningless mischaricterization of the exact nature of the gaffe does not dispute it. If anything, you cede the thrust of the point, by only deflecting a trivail aspect of it. And reacting to is calling it a "lie" as an emotional reaction, just makes you seem like a zealot. And zealots aren't generally known for their piercing intellect.

So just a bit of unsolicited, and freely dismissable advice: No need to go full on reactionary attack mode over little things. And prcise charicterizations over what criticsms existed for a failed Presidential candidate many elections ago is pretty trivial.
 
2012-08-01 02:08:38 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Quibbling over a meaningless mischaricterization of the exact nature of the gaffe does not dispute it. If anything, you cede the thrust of the point, by only deflecting a trivail aspect of it. And reacting to is calling it a "lie" as an emotional reaction, just makes you seem like a zealot. And zealots aren't generally known for their piercing intellect.


Danger Mouse: Actually I remeber Kerry Had a similliar brainfart about how many properties he owns and the ;libbys were tripping over themselves to make up for it.


So there's no evidence of Kerry having said brainfart and no evidence of the liberals tripping over themselves to make up for it. But other than that this statement is completely accurate? That's your stance?
 
2012-08-01 02:16:02 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Obama still has a native advantage being an encumbant, but as it was with Jimmy Carter, he is saddled with an economic Albatross that he didn't create, but seems unable to definitively fix. He must convince the American people that he CAN do it, that he has a plan, and thathe just needs more time. But that requires getting Americans to believe in him again. to re-energize a nation with an optimistic view that it can be done. He must restore thier faith and confidence in him and that requires a positive view of him, not so much a negative view of his candidate.


Your concern is noted but ultimately rings hollow.

The onus is on the non-incumbent to make the case why he would be a better choice than the guy we already have. "I'm not him" didn't work in 2004 and it won't work now.

The problem is that Romney's trying to run on the business experience thing, but gets all pissy when you actually examine what he did running a business. Just like he gets all pissy when you try to examine what he did as governor. His economic policy is literally the *exact same policy* as the GW Bush economic policy that at worst caused and at best failed to prevent the economic collapse of 2008.

Mitt Romney wants to pretend like he never had a past, wants you to vote for his "just because," and will fix the economy by doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. It will work "because I say so." He's the Walter White of politics, only less likable.
 
2012-08-01 02:31:28 PM  
I still am amused how "business experience" is supposed to translate into presidential skill (even in matters relating to the economy specifically). Sure, Romney does great when he's in charge and can hire/fire at will, shut his office door, not take questions, etc.

Being at the head of a large business and dealing with employees and colleagues seems completely different from being at the head of government and having to deal with congress.

Same goes for dealing with foreign nations.

In many ways "business experience" translates to me as "experience in maximizing profits for the few off the backs of the many". That is NOT what government should do, and I don't want a president who sees the world through that lens.
 
2012-08-01 02:43:59 PM  

Danger Mouse: What the hell you doin' here?!?!?!?!


Been here for years. I am one of the people they made up the Fark Independant lable for. It's hard for binary politicos to fathom someone who has not sworn a blood-oath to either 'side'.

magusdevil:

Thank you for a full response. I have seen most of these and am somewhat familiar. (You REALLY should be careful about making blind assumpotions on no basis about what another poster has and has not read. It frankly does not reflect well on you to begin from the position that others have not read something as common as the Bible).

The problem with is that nearly all of them are calls from God for YOU to give of YOUR success to those that are in need. Not for anything to be taken from others and given to the needy. Christianity very consistantly holds that YOU as a loving individual must care for those in need from your own efforts and labor, and that "I gave at the office" is not sufficient. As Jesus commanded, you should give the shirt off your back, not see to it that someone else provides a shirt.

Deut. 15:7. Yes. YOU should help the poor. From YOUR heart, and YOUR ability.
Deut. 26:12 Yes. AFTER you give to your church and your god, you should give to the poor and the needy from YOUR money.
Lev. 19:19ff Yes. You shouldn't take so much that you leave nothing for others.
Prov. 31:8ff. [Commandment to kings.] This one is an exhortation to rulers to judge fairly and protect the weak. The only applicable one so far. But it does not call for the government to protect anyone's 'opportunities' or even to safeguard their ability to prosper.
Is. 58:66ff. Yes. Again individual obligation to help your fellow man.
Jer. 22:3. Do right, and don't let people be robbed, and help the needy from your own resources. Possible applicable, but again a guidance for the individual.
Luke 12:33. Sell your posessions, since they mean nothing. God's love cannot be stolen and is the only treasure anyway.
Luke 3:11. If you have more than you need, YOU should give what you don;t need to thoise who do.
Mt. 5:42. Give freely to those who ask for your help, don't be stingy.

I think we can all agree that a good Christian is instructed to be charitable. But that is not the same thing as supporting that government has a role 'protecting prosperity'.
 
2012-08-01 02:48:56 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Deut. 15:7. Yes. YOU should help the poor. From YOUR heart, and YOUR ability.


So you think this verse, specifically, doesn't apply to Barack Obama as a Christian? He shouldn't help the poor from his heart and to his ability?

How do you square that circle?
 
2012-08-01 02:58:09 PM  

magusdevil: BojanglesPaladin: Deut. 15:7. Yes. YOU should help the poor. From YOUR heart, and YOUR ability.

So you think this verse, specifically, doesn't apply to Barack Obama as a Christian? He shouldn't help the poor from his heart and to his ability?

How do you square that circle?


Barack the man. Not the Office of the Presiden of the United States.
.

Doens't matter.... Baracks not a Christian.
 
2012-08-01 03:25:36 PM  

magusdevil: So you think this verse, specifically, doesn't apply to Barack Obama as a Christian? He shouldn't help the poor from his heart and to his ability?


As a Christian, I would assume nearly all of them. From his personal wealth. The Bible does not ask people to re-alolocate their neighbor's resources to help the needy. It very specifically requires each person to give of their OWN resources to help their neighbors.

magusdevil: How do you square that circle?


There is no circle to square. Christianity does not ask you to take from Paul to pay Peter. It asks YOU to give to Peter when Peter is needy. If everyone in America did this, there would be no need for welfare, becasue welfare would be happening next door. Christianuty has much to say about how YOU should be charitable, and Obama is certainly welcome to be as charitable as he wishes with his own wealth and efforts.

And sure, you can say that since people aren;t 100% charitable, the government must step in to it, and there is some validity to that argument. But it is not strongly based on scripture which cals for personal and local charity.
 
2012-08-01 03:47:54 PM  

Danger Mouse: magusdevil: BojanglesPaladin: Deut. 15:7. Yes. YOU should help the poor. From YOUR heart, and YOUR ability.

So you think this verse, specifically, doesn't apply to Barack Obama as a Christian? He shouldn't help the poor from his heart and to his ability?

How do you square that circle?

Barack the man. Not the Office of the Presiden of the United States.
.

Doens't matter.... Baracks not a Christian.


BojanglesPaladin: magusdevil: So you think this verse, specifically, doesn't apply to Barack Obama as a Christian? He shouldn't help the poor from his heart and to his ability?

As a Christian, I would assume nearly all of them. From his personal wealth. The Bible does not ask people to re-alolocate their neighbor's resources to help the needy. It very specifically requires each person to give of their OWN resources to help their neighbors.

magusdevil: How do you square that circle?

There is no circle to square. Christianity does not ask you to take from Paul to pay Peter. It asks YOU to give to Peter when Peter is needy. If everyone in America did this, there would be no need for welfare, becasue welfare would be happening next door. Christianuty has much to say about how YOU should be charitable, and Obama is certainly welcome to be as charitable as he wishes with his own wealth and efforts.

And sure, you can say that since people aren;t 100% charitable, the government must step in to it, and there is some validity to that argument. But it is not strongly based on scripture which cals for personal and local charity.


I didn't realize a person's duty as a Christian was null and void as soon as they were elected to office, that's good to know.
 
2012-08-01 03:53:41 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Been here for years. I am one of the people they made up the Fark Independant lable for. It's hard for binary politicos to fathom someone who has not sworn a blood-oath to either 'side'.


Come on. In the interest of intellectual honesty, your whole shtick on this site is "I'm not a Republican, I just hate Democrats."

You still come down on one "side" over another, you just don't classify yourself as a member of the opposing side.
 
2012-08-01 03:54:52 PM  
Sometimes it pays to stoop to your opponents level. If that's all they understand then have at um.
 
2012-08-01 03:57:04 PM  

buster_v: Well that does it, I'm voting for Romney!

\clutches pearls
\\lands safely on the Fark Fainting Couch™


That couch is infested with bed bugs. Where's your Jesus now?
 
2012-08-01 04:20:17 PM  
There is no defending against stupid. All you really have left is to attack.

If one side is going to be shameless with disinformation and lies you have to choose... losing honorably by playing damage control against wharblgargle or winning and getting your hands dirty fighting back.

With the stakes as they are, I'm glad he's willing to play a little dirty. And I have yet to see an ad from him that is dishonest.

I'm quite sure Republicans would love Obama to bring a knife to their gun fight.
 
2012-08-01 04:22:18 PM  
So lemme get this straight..... Negative ads are ok and justifiable if your'e Obama? But baaad baaad baaadif you are a republican? Obama has been forced to go negative. got it.

Honestly the contortions some farkers go through to rationlize thier guy....

Most of you are amazingly stupid.
 
2012-08-01 04:50:19 PM  

Danger Mouse: So lemme get this straight..... Negative ads are ok and justifiable if your'e Obama? But baaad baaad baaadif you are a republican? Obama has been forced to go negative. got it.

Honestly the contortions some farkers go through to rationlize thier guy....

Most of you are amazingly stupid.


Yeah, nobody said that. Are you high right now?
 
2012-08-01 04:52:07 PM  

The Homer Tax: Come on. In the interest of intellectual honesty, your whole shtick on this site is "I'm not a Republican, I just hate Democrats."
You still come down on one "side" over another, you just don't classify yourself as a member of the opposing side.


Not really. You just overlook it when I am critical of Romney, or TeaBaggers, or Republicans becasue you already agree with that. You just tend to notice when I am critical of "your" side, becasue you are more sensitive about it.

And then add to that a tendancy to assume a criticism when an observation was made. For instance, did you notice that I am not actually being critical of Obama here, but actually highlighted his positive attributes, and was critical about Republicans intransigence?

If not, why not?

magusdevil: I didn't realize a person's duty as a Christian was null and void as soon as they were elected to office, that's good to know.


Can't tell if you are being intentionally dense or what.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are just missing something here and will explain it one more time:

No one suggested that Obama must stop being charitable or acting in accordance with his Christian faith when he became President. You just made that up.

Obama, as a Christian, is perfectly welcome to give all his money to charity and to work in a soup kitchen with every free moment, as his faith insdtructs him to do. However, scripture does not instruct him to 'protect the prosperity' of others, nor doe sit instruct him to re-allocate someone else's goods and services to give to someone else.

So again, a person can strongly believe that the government should step in to fil lthe gap when personal charity fails, and a person can believe that it *IS* the government's role to "protect prosperity" or "guarantee equality of results" or "a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot" or whatever their political ideology dictates.

Just pointing out that Christian scripture makes a call for personal charity, not for the government to tax and give to the needy, or for the government to protect the people from poverty.

This does not mean it is wrong for government to do so, just making a technical clarification that The Bible does not exhort government to "protect people ...from those who would take away our opportunities for the benefit of those who live opulently"

Nor does the Bible exhort government to protect wages, or protect the enviornment, or provide healthcare, or print money, or build roads, or any number of things. The Bible isn;t really abou the role of government after all.
 
2012-08-01 04:54:45 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: The Homer Tax: Come on. In the interest of intellectual honesty, your whole shtick on this site is "I'm not a Republican, I just hate Democrats."
You still come down on one "side" over another, you just don't classify yourself as a member of the opposing side.

Not really. You just overlook it when I am critical of Romney, or TeaBaggers, or Republicans becasue you already agree with that. You just tend to notice when I am critical of "your" side, becasue you are more sensitive about it.

And then add to that a tendancy to assume a criticism when an observation was made. For instance, did you notice that I am not actually being critical of Obama here, but actually highlighted his positive attributes, and was critical about Republicans intransigence?

If not, why not?

magusdevil: I didn't realize a person's duty as a Christian was null and void as soon as they were elected to office, that's good to know.

Can't tell if you are being intentionally dense or what.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are just missing something here and will explain it one more time:

No one suggested that Obama must stop being charitable or acting in accordance with his Christian faith when he became President. You just made that up.

Obama, as a Christian, is perfectly welcome to give all his money to charity and to work in a soup kitchen with every free moment, as his faith insdtructs him to do. However, scripture does not instruct him to 'protect the prosperity' of others, nor doe sit instruct him to re-allocate someone else's goods and services to give to someone else.

So again, a person can strongly believe that the government should step in to fil lthe gap when personal charity fails, and a person can believe that it *IS* the government's role to "protect prosperity" or "guarantee equality of results" or "a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot" or whatever their political ideology dictates.

Just pointing out that Christian scripture makes a call ...


There weren't a lot of Representative Democracies when the Bible was written, so I doubt the Bible actually weighs in on what the responsibility of Representative Democracy is to it's citizens.
 
2012-08-01 04:56:24 PM  

magusdevil: Yeah, nobody said that. Are you high right now?


A number of people have said that it is acceptable for Obama to go negative since Romney is going negative. And that Obama's negative attacks are legitimate because they are based on "valid" criticisms, while Romney's are not, and so they are unacceptbale.

There are quite a few posts here already, condemning Romney's negative ads, while excusing Obama's.

You may or may not agree, but it HAS been said.
 
2012-08-01 04:58:23 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: magusdevil: Yeah, nobody said that. Are you high right now?

A number of people have said that it is acceptable for Obama to go negative since Romney is going negative. And that Obama's negative attacks are legitimate because they are based on "valid" criticisms, while Romney's are not, and so they are unacceptbale.

There are quite a few posts here already, condemning Romney's negative ads, while excusing Obama's.

You may or may not agree, but it HAS been said.


There are quite a few posts here condemning ads that are outright lies and fabrications while excusing those that are truthful. My God! What a bunch of hypocrites.
 
2012-08-01 05:05:35 PM  

magusdevil: There weren't a lot of Representative Democracies when the Bible was written, so I doubt the Bible actually weighs in on what the responsibility of Representative Democracy is to it's citizens.


Not to nit-pick, and you might want to read a few more books yourself, but the Greeks had representative democracy before Christ.)

But you are right. And you should have known that before you started arguing about it, since you kept suggesting that other people needed ot read the Bible.

And yet you kept insisting that we should read the Bible to see where it said government (representative or otherwise) should have such a role. It doesn't, and I would have expected someone who had done more than a quick Google search to know that.

Anyway, I'm glad to see you agree with the the point I was making. Glad you are all caught up now.
 
2012-08-01 05:07:42 PM  

magusdevil: There are quite a few posts here condemning ads that are outright lies and fabrications while excusing those that are truthful. My God! What a bunch of hypocrites.


I did not say anyone was a hypocrite. That's, like, just your opinion man..

Nor am I even setting foot into the pointless squabbling over whose negative ads are nore valid than whose.

You are looking more and more like a troll slap-fighter.
 
2012-08-01 05:13:45 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: magusdevil: There weren't a lot of Representative Democracies when the Bible was written, so I doubt the Bible actually weighs in on what the responsibility of Representative Democracy is to it's citizens.

Not to nit-pick, and you might want to read a few more books yourself, but the Greeks had representative democracy before Christ.)

But you are right. And you should have known that before you started arguing about it, since you kept suggesting that other people needed ot read the Bible.

And yet you kept insisting that we should read the Bible to see where it said government (representative or otherwise) should have such a role. It doesn't, and I would have expected someone who had done more than a quick Google search to know that.

Anyway, I'm glad to see you agree with the the point I was making. Glad you are all caught up now.


The question wasn't whether government should have such role the question was:


Whether or not "He (Obama) has a responsibility (as a Christian) to protect people...from those who would take away (their) opportunities for the benefit of those who live opulently"

I'm all caught up, but you really need to pay more attention to what's actually being discussed in the thread. And not just trying to change the context to suit your needs.
 
2012-08-01 05:20:53 PM  

magusdevil: I'm all caught up, but you really need to pay more attention to what's actually being discussed in the thread.


You must have forgotten that YOU brought the Bible into it.

magusdevil: Maybe he meant moral responsibility rather than constitutional responsibility. You should read the Bible some day. No, really you should.


magusdevil: Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.


YOU brought it up, and after discussion we have concluded that you were in error.

So it's all good now, but you must be too busy trying to think of things to say to take the time to consider WHAT you are saying.
 
Displayed 50 of 117 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report