Poll shows more Americans think Obama is a Muslim

[ChadS]

Nobody can tell me who this is! I haven’t heard a single Republican or Tea Partier position that he is a Muslim!

Obviously somebody believes this lie or there wouldn’t be enough people to register on a survey or poll let alone enough to come up with 18%.

ChadS

 

[seekerz]

There are a spackling of people here who think he is a Muslim.

Still the main thing would be, so what if they do? It is not as Muslims are all evil, so no great insult for him to be thought of as one, even if incorrectly so.
The greater conservative criticism of him would be that even if he was a Muslim, he wouldn’t be a particularly good one…
And the same criticism goes for his Christianity too.

Hmm? I would have thought the main thing would be truth and accuracy but I guess I would have thought wrong…?

 

[seekerz]

Nobody can tell me who this is! I haven’t heard a single Republican or Tea Partier position that he is a Muslim!

Maybe if I google long enough, I might find somebody?

In fact, people here are saying he couldn’t be a practicing Muslim, because much of what he stands for goes against Muslim sensibilities - abortion, gay rights, feminism.

I listen to NPR every single day. Never once did I hear reported that somebody is saying Obama is a Muslim.

It seems to me the agenda is people are using a poll of uninformed peopled to paint the conservatives as spreading lies.

Kind of Jay Leno Jay walking. You really think most Americans are that stupid?

Stupid is kind of a relative term. Maybe you’d like to read back along this thread and find the posters here who frankly state they believe he’s a Muslim despite what he says to the contrary. One even looked into his “insides”, I suppose with some kind of scope or something. I would do the honors myself and count the Obama-is-a-Muslim posters, but I lose a few brain cells just reading some of that stuff. Sor-ry!

 

[Darryl1958]

Hmm? I would have thought the main thing would be truth and accuracy but I guess I would have thought wrong…?

I prefer accuracy and truth. The truth is that the theology that attracted Obama to ‘Christ’ is black liberation theology. the roots of this sort of religion lie in the liberation theology of Catholic Latin America, and was a powerful vehicle through which Marxism was able to infiltrate the power of the Latin Church with their own message.

That is the truth about Obama’s Christianity. Unfortunately, this truth was pretty much thrown under the bus with the Reverend Wright, when he proved to be a liability to Obama’s election campaign.
The truth is that the theology of Black liberation theology shares much in common with the theology of Farrakhan and the Black Islamic theology of the Nation of Islam. It shares much in common with the theology of Catholic priest Pfleger as well. they scratch each others backs with these beliefs, and are three peads in a pod.

This is the nature of Obama’s Christian belief. He is a ‘Christian’ like Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam are ‘Muslims’, and really they share much more in common with each other’s beliefs than they do with the preponderance of believers of either the Christian or Islamic faiths.
Make no mistake. I am very much for accuracy and truth. Sadly, the truth has been squelched by Obama’s political machine.

Far better that he were a Muslim. That was the opinion many conservatives express here actually, and my post merely was agreeing with that. Incorrect though it may be, it is hardly an insult to so believe.

But I would prefer the unadulterated truth here frankly. I can see why most of Obama’s supporters would not— would love to focus on the ‘hapless, ignorant’ misinformed than on the correct information that tells the full truth about Obama’s Christianity.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think it’s a real misnomer for liberals to always talk about “tax cuts for the rich.” Bush gets branded as having been the saviour of the rich and that somehow only the wealthy got tax relief.

My wife and I felt the impact of the Bush tax cuts in a huge way. When we had our children, my wife quit her job to be home with them. It was our plan from day one. We wanted to raise our OWN kids, take care of our OWN kids, and educate and nurture our own kids. No daycare. Period.

But we knew that living off just my meager teacher income would be a killer. Luckily we paid off our car and truck. When we had Luke, Caleb and Veronica, we were in serious financial turmoil. It was rough. When Bush’s tax cuts kicked in and we were allowed to write off $1,000 per child WHILE our actual taxes went down at the same time, my wife and I would get tax returns of $3,000 and $4,000 and I’ll tell ya, seeker, it saved our hineys. My wife and I paid off credit card debt one year. Another we traveled a little and it helped get us through several months without touching our savings, we were able to buy things we needed for the babies, and breathe a bit.

Those tax cuts are very tangiable for middle class folks like me. Naturally rich people are going to feel them more profoundly because, for goodness sakes, they make more! They deserve it. The rich have a far greater tax bracket, which isn’t really constitutional in itself.

But to address the “confidence” issue you bring up, it’s tough to say. I actually think businesses do gain confidence in a president who wants them to have access to capital, keep more of what they make, and they can project more mobility to hire if they know they’re not going to get strangled in taxes. It’s really simple math. If a small business owner, say a contractor, has 25 workers, and the tax cuts disappear, effectively giving him a tax increase, it’s a no-brainer. The guy has to cut overhead and compensate----FIRE 5 workers. Now you just created five guys on the unemployment line and possibly food stamps and Medical line.

My problem with hardnose conservatives is the hypocrisy, which I’ll definitely grant you. So many of these Republicans are such phonies. They wave the flag like mad telling everyone how passionate they are and cry like Glen Beck and accuse you of not loving your country if you don’t wear a U.S. flag pin on your lapel, but the minute they get too much regulation or their workers want living wages and health care, they terminate the American jobs and outsource them to the Philippines. Real patriotic. Then they turn and blame the government and say they had no choice. Bull. So real patriotism doesn’t outsource. That’s the part I hate. And it’s also part of the hypocrisy of the illegal immigration stuff with conservatives. They LOVE the cheap labor and not having to pay unionized workers (which conservatives HATE), but boy they don’t want the baggage.

I think the liberals are hypocrites with this silly “we’re not RAISING taxes! We’re just taking them back to the Clinton levels of the 90’s! Remember those Clinton years!? Prosperity, balanced budgets, solid economy, no wars, yep. If it was good enough for the 90’s, it’s good enough for now!”

Problem is, this isn’t the 90’s and rolling taxes back WILL kill us and is truly a tax increase. The 90’s had the internet coming onto the scene for the first time, a global market opening up, the dot coms of Silicon Valley, new firms popping up, no terrorism on a scale like this, no wars because of said terrorism, new cell phone technology, new satellite technology, computers gaining steam and technology on fire, etc. We’re in a depressed, lackluster, nothing economy.

I actually disagree with you. I think we CAN save our way out of this funk. The bottom line was Americans need to learn a lesson. You don’t buy a house for $400,000 when you only make enough money to barely afford a $150,000 home. Some people just need to fail, get some scabs and bruises, and dust themselves off. Bailing out the banks wasn’t that big of a deal because we needed capital restored to businesses for lending. But the Stimulus was pure nonsense and hasn’t produced jack Q. Squat for anyone.

Sometimes an economy just needs a hands-off approach. Bailing out the banks would’ve been enough. GM and Chrysler should’ve just declared bankruptcy and started over. Maybe they both need to start designing cars that don’t fall apart and better marketing needs to be there.

Sometimes hard lessons need to be on the scene. Nobody wanted a lesson. We all think spending and spending will change it all. It’s kind of like that big scab you got falling off your skateboard as a kid. Putting all sorts of Neosporin and goo and bandages and treating it over and over and over just won’t let it heal. For God’s sake, let the thing alone to dry and fall off good as new.

Not to go off on a tangent, but I think we agree more than we disagree…my comment about the tax cuts for the rich was not meant to ignore what happened in the real estate market but to showcase the oft repeated theory that more money in the pockets of the highest earners mean more jobs. Now it’s claimed like the highest earners don’t have the ‘confidence’ to invest, yet they want the tax cuts they presently enjoy to continue…What’s going to change, will extending the cuts give them confidence they don’t have now and will that confidence produce gains that will balance the effect extending the cuts will have on the deficit? Maybe I just don’t get economics…As for deficit spending - you can’t ‘save’ yourself out of a recession and the stimulus was needed. Guess it will always be an open question as to what would have happened without it, my feeling is that I wouldn’t be able to afford to sit here posting on a forum.

Did go off on a tangent BTW, sorry.

 

[seekerz]

I think it’s a real misnomer for liberals to always talk about “tax cuts for the rich.” Bush gets branded as having been the saviour of the rich and that somehow only the wealthy got tax relief…

I actually disagree with you. I think we CAN save our way out of this funk. The bottom line was Americans need to learn a lesson. You don’t buy a house for $400,000 when you only make enough money to barely afford a $150,000 home. Some people just need to fail, get some scabs and bruises, and dust themselves off. Bailing out the banks wasn’t that big of a deal because we needed capital restored to businesses for lending. But the Stimulus was pure nonsense and hasn’t produced jack Q. Squat for anyone.

Sometimes an economy just needs a hands-off approach. Bailing out the banks would’ve been enough. GM and Chrysler should’ve just declared bankruptcy and started over. Maybe they both need to start designing cars that don’t fall apart and better marketing needs to be there.

Sometimes hard lessons need to be on the scene. Nobody wanted a lesson. We all think spending and spending will change it all. It’s kind of like that big scab you got falling off your skateboard as a kid. Putting all sorts of Neosporin and goo and bandages and treating it over and over and over just won’t let it heal. For God’s sake, let the thing alone to dry and fall off good as new.

(shortened your post for the sake of space)

Points well taken. Problem is, all politicians are ever likely to be brave enough to do is slap the bandages on. Which is why I take issue with the “Obama the destroyer” view - nobody has the guts to propose/accept really tough solutions because we as a people are too pampered and soft. Generations ago, wartime populations sacrificed while the troops were in harm’s and in tough economic times they girded their loins. Today it’s life as usual during wartime (which in an economy fuelled by consumerism is not necessarily a bad thing, though whether the fuel needs changing is an open question) and we start to hyperventilate if the economic indicators change by one decimal point. As for government’s role, whether people claim to think it’s the solution or the problem, they almost uniformly hold it fully responsible for every measurable indicator - so the question of a “hands off” approach to the economy simply would not fly with most politicians. Survival is the name of the game in both parties and who would be willing to risk having bread lines form in the street?

 

[seekerz]

I prefer accuracy and truth. The truth is that the theology that attracted Obama to ‘Christ’ is black liberation theology. the roots of this sort of religion lie in the liberation theology of Catholic Latin America, and was a powerful vehicle through which Marxism was able to infiltrate the power of the Latin Church with their own message.

That is the truth about Obama’s Christianity. Unfortunately, this truth was pretty much thrown under the bus with the Reverend Wright, when he proved to be a liability to Obama’s election campaign.
The truth is that the theology of Black liberation theology shares much in common with the theology of Farrakhan and the Black Islamic theology of the Nation of Islam. It shares much in common with the theology of Catholic priest Pfleger as well. they scratch each others backs with these beliefs, and are three peads in a pod.

This is the nature of Obama’s Christian belief. He is a ‘Christian’ like Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam are ‘Muslims’, and really they share much more in common with each other’s beliefs than they do with the preponderance of believers of either the Christian or Islamic faiths.
Make no mistake. I am very much for accuracy and truth. Sadly, the truth has been squelched by Obama’s political machine.

Far better that he were a Muslim. That was the opinion many conservatives express here actually, and my post merely was agreeing with that. Incorrect though it may be, it is hardly an insult to so believe.

But I would prefer the unadulterated truth here frankly. I can see why most of Obama’s supporters would not— would love to focus on the ‘hapless, ignorant’ misinformed than on the correct information that tells the full truth about Obama’s Christianity.

You are most welcome to dissect his Christianity…but that is not the subject of this post. If you have a problem with the post’s topic then refrain from posting…don’t tell the rest of us what to focus on. I tend to avoid discussing the state of anyone’s faith unless it impacts the topic at hand. I do not like making that a topic in itself because # I’d rather focus on the state of my own faith and #2 I don’t have insight into anyone’s soul.

If I were called to examine Obama’s Christianity, judging by his stated beliefs and actions I wouldn’t find it very different in quality (though it may differ in philosophy) from the average politician’s - which is not saying very much at all. Would that make him a Muslim? No, but it would benefit his opponents to identify him with all that is negatively associated (perceived or real) with Islam, which really is the whole point of this dishonest strategy.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Then clarify it for us…

Is he a Muslim or does he believe what Jerimiah preached?

I’m happy with any answer!

Anyone care to answer?

Since he is a self avowed Christian he MUST believe what was preached to him for 20 YEARS!

Unless of course you voted for him. Then you must play mental twister, just like the abortion issue.

 

[seekerz]

Anyone care to answer?

Since he is a self avowed Christian he MUST believe what was preached to him for 20 YEARS!

Unless of course you voted for him. Then you must play mental twister, just like the abortion issue.

Mental twisting is trying to make a lie the truth just because it is about someone you feel morally superior to. If I lied about the worst human being ever to live I would still be doing something wrong.

Maybe Obama did believe what was preached to him for 20 years, maybe he didn’t - being a ‘bad’ Christian and all, but I don’t see what all the hullabaloo was about that: Protestant preachers (admittedly, not all) are known for such hyperbole and I’ve heard much the same (or worse) from my childhood. (I’ve seen the bible used to ‘prove’ that America is the great Babylon, the Pope is the antichrist etc). Didn’t one prominent preacher opine that 911 was God’s judgment on America? (But of course he wasn’t Muslim…so that kind of doesn’t count.)

I do believe Obama’s break with Wright was political expediency and that took him down **several **notches in my book. The point is, I could probably find preachers in the lives of more than one past president who believed/preached controversial things…so what? A president’s faith is his personal choice. His…not someone else’s.

And BTW, why does he have to be Muslim or Christian? The sense of entitlement that leads any group of people to think they have a right to pigeon hole the president or anyone into categories of that group’s choosing, really is a throwback to less enlightened times. Get over it already. He is whatever HE decides to be.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Mental twisting is trying to make a lie the truth just because it is about someone you feel morally superior to. If I lied about the worst human being ever to live I would still be doing something wrong.

Did you ever play Twister as a kid. You know, the game where you have to contort your body to touch the dots on a mat?

Voting for a pro-abortion canidate then justifying it with statements like “There’s more than one life issue” is mental twister.

A president’s faith is his personal choice.

And it should also indicate how he/she stands on moral issues so it then becomes my business if they want my vote.

 

[seekerz]

Did you ever play Twister as a kid. You know, the game where you have to contort your body to touch the dots on a mat?

Voting for a pro-abortion canidate then justifying it with statements like “There’s more than one life issue” is mental twister.

Of course there is more than one life issue but if I voted for Obama that would not have been the reason. There are multiple issues that affect how many abortions happen at any given point in time and I believe the legality is just one (not the major one either) of those. So for me weighing pro-lifeness is not simply about choosing the one who mouths the right words or promises to work to outlaw it. It’s about the one whose policies on a whole, not by a single issue, seem to me to be more likely to lead to less women seeking abortion.

And it should also indicate how he/she stands on moral issues so it then becomes my business if they want my vote.

Unfortunately, he is under no obligation to even reveal his religious beliefs to you. You are of course free to not vote for him if he withholds that information. That’s the way freedom of religion works - for everybody, regardless of the particulars of their birth or their office in life.

 

[estesbob]

Of course there is more than one life issue but if I voted for Obama that would not have been the reason. There are multiple issues that affect how many abortions happen at any given point in time and I believe the legality is just one (not the major one either) of those. So for me weighing pro-lifeness is not simply about choosing the one who mouths the right words or promises to work to outlaw it. It’s about the one whose policies on a whole, not by a single issue, seem to me to be more likely to lead to less women seeking abortion.

Which is your privilege as long as you don’t try to pass it off as being any way compatible with the teachings of the church.

 

[Darryl1958]

You are most welcome to dissect his Christianity…but that is not the subject of this post. If you have a problem with the post’s topic then refrain from posting…don’t tell the rest of us what to focus on. I tend to avoid discussing the state of anyone’s faith unless it impacts the topic at hand. I do not like making that a topic in itself because # I’d rather focus on the state of my own faith and #2 I don’t have insight into anyone’s soul.

If I were called to examine Obama’s Christianity, judging by his stated beliefs and actions I wouldn’t find it very different in quality (though it may differ in philosophy) from the average politician’s - which is not saying very much at all. Would that make him a Muslim? No, but it would benefit his opponents to identify him with all that is negatively associated (perceived or real) with Islam, which really is the whole point of this dishonest strategy.

I have no problem with the subject of this post. The subject of this thread is that many Americans think that he is a Muslim.
He is not. His Christian Church was a Black Liberation Theology Church. Those are his religious roots. That is the truth and accuracy that you were challenging us for.

So why do so many people think that he is a Muslim? Well, to follow the argument of my post, you may just take note that the Obama team made the political decision to obscure those Christian roots. Being a member of a racist church for 20 years didn’t look good on his resume.

As for tellin the rest of you what to focus on, please carry on talking about tax cuts to the rich, f that is what you prefer. You were the one that responded to me first, not me to you. You were the one who brought up the preferability about truth and accuracy about his religion, and I merely obliged. Or as Jack Nicholson might say “You want truth!!!. You can’t handle the truth!!!”
Oh well…

There is no real benefit to the conservative side politically that many now think he is a Muslim. People who are inclined to think so wouldn’t vote Democrat anyways. Left wing journalism understands that there is a benefit to focus on this 20% to show that the other side is rather ignorant. A careful reading of what I posted already would have brought that point to the fore. To blow up the talking points of a few otherwise obscure bloggers, to focus on them as being the spokesman for the other side is what is giving the numbers legs. Obscure bloggers did not popularize the story into the 20 % range. Left wing journalism with its access to MSM, the Olbermans and all, did the real work into bring the idea into the public consciousness.

Pamela Geller just does not have that kind of reach.

As for the motives of those who say that he is a Muslim, they may be dishonest. They may be sincere. Who are we to judge motivation? He is culturally very attuned to the Muslim world after all. It was the background of some of his childhood. He is closer to that culture than he is to evangelical Christianity (the guns and religion clingers) really.
Pamela Geller may have been sincere in her belief. she may have been wanting to tie him into the Islamist worldview as a part of a smear. I don’t know her motivation on this frankly.

It is not a crazy idea, just not true. And the truth is his religious roots extend only to the black liberation theology of Reverend Wright’s Church. That is the extents of his Christianity. Whether he was in that racist church sincerely, or as a form of political opportunism, I cannot know.
Either way, those roots have now been thrown under the bus along with Jeremiah. For sure the truth about that would be a greater smear on his character than being a Muslim could ever be.
For many conservatives, his being a Muslim in good standing would not be a problem.

 

[seekerz]

Which is your privilege as long as you don’t try to pass it off as being any way compatible with the teachings of the church.

The Church never instructed me to vote for someone I believed to be a hypocrite. If words were more important than actions in Catholic living, then I could say I am faithful to the teaching and then do whatever I see fit (kind of the way some politicians do). You examine your compatibility with Church teachings and let me examine mine.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think you hit the nail on the head. Americans simply DON’T want to do what needs to be done to get our country back on track. And what it needs is everyone to tighten their belts, start balancing their checkbooks, get out of debt, and stop thinking they need a big RV in the front yard, the boat, the giant screen TV, the newest BlueRay player, 2,500 square foot homes, eating out three or four times a week, DirecTV, and every other silly thing. Americans want results with no effort IMO.

Another thing is, take my state of California. Our prison guards (known as CO’s or correctional officers) make, by and large, around $70,000 per year. With overtime, most make $100,000 and many make excess of $120,000. I have known A LOT of CO’s over the years. These guys have no college education usually, and a lot of them are not very skilled chaps. Does California REALLY need to pay these guys $70,000 and allow them to retire at age 50 with huge benefits and health care and pensions the size of a walmart parking lot? These guys should start off at $40,000 and top out at $60,000 for what they do and their skill level and benefits. With overtime they shouldn’t make more than $75,000 per year. But they do, bigtime. They milk it to death.

My buddy is a CHP officer. He JUST STARTED working for the CHP, highway patrol, and he makes $80,000 after only one year on the road! He had to drive down south to L.A. the other day to testify in court when a few guys tried to contest some tickets. They paid him $700 for coming down there!!!

And oddly enough, a principal in my school district only makes around $90,000 per year. They have TREMENDOUS responsibilities and huge stress, terrible hours, ulcers, and gigantic responsibility with budgets, parents, logistics, discipline, staffing, hiring, evaluations, technology, oversight, you name it. And they make what a prison guard makes?

You can see RN’s, nurses, getting hired by CDC (california department of corrections) and starting at $90,000 and topping at $160,000. It’s nuts?

Our taxes in California are also almost 9% for sales tax. It’s off the hook.

States like California and the rest of the Union need to sacrifice. We need huge cuts in social services, big cuts in government, some trimming of Medicare and, IMO, virtual elimination of Medical altogether. We do need to cut back on the sacred cow as well–defense spending. I grew up in a military family so I appreciate defense greatly, but we need to lean things out a bit. We need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely. We need to eliminate the Department of Education. That is a total joke that does nothing for education at all. Trust me, I’m a teacher! We need to stop farm subsidies or at least curtail them greatly. Farmers are virtual welfare recipients with that. Yet Republicans don’t mind that kind of welfare. We need more tariffs, to cut spending across the board, and toss out all of the health care “reform” bill.

We need to quit giving dead-beats a cushion. If people don’t qualify, don’t let them have loans. If people can’t afford things, quit buying them! There are too many cushions, trampolines to fall on when one plunges off the financial buildings.

(shortened your post for the sake of space)

Points well taken. Problem is, all politicians are ever likely to be brave enough to do is slap the bandages on. Which is why I take issue with the “Obama the destroyer” view - nobody has the guts to propose/accept really tough solutions because we as a people are too pampered and soft. Generations ago, wartime populations sacrificed while the troops were in harm’s and in tough economic times they girded their loins. Today it’s life as usual during wartime (which in an economy fuelled by consumerism is not necessarily a bad thing, though whether the fuel needs changing is an open question) and we start to hyperventilate if the economic indicators change by one decimal point. As for government’s role, whether people claim to think it’s the solution or the problem, they almost uniformly hold it fully responsible for every measurable indicator - so the question of a “hands off” approach to the economy simply would not fly with most politicians. Survival is the name of the game in both parties and who would be willing to risk having bread lines form in the street?

 

[seekerz]

I think you hit the nail on the head. Americans simply DON’T want to do what needs to be done to get our country back on track. And what it needs is everyone to tighten their belts, start balancing their checkbooks, get out of debt, and stop thinking they need a big RV in the front yard, the boat, the giant screen TV, the newest BlueRay player, 2,500 square foot homes, eating out three or four times a week, DirecTV, and every other silly thing. Americans want results with no effort IMO.

Another thing is, take my state of California. Our prison guards (known as CO’s or correctional officers) make, by and large, around $70,000 per year. With overtime, most make $100,000 and many make excess of $120,000. I have known A LOT of CO’s over the years. These guys have no college education usually, and a lot of them are not very skilled chaps. Does California REALLY need to pay these guys $70,000 and allow them to retire at age 50 with huge benefits and health care and pensions the size of a walmart parking lot? These guys should start off at $40,000 and top out at $60,000 for what they do and their skill level and benefits. With overtime they shouldn’t make more than $75,000 per year. But they do, bigtime. They milk it to death.

My buddy is a CHP officer. He JUST STARTED working for the CHP, highway patrol, and he makes $80,000 after only one year on the road! He had to drive down south to L.A. the other day to testify in court when a few guys tried to contest some tickets. They paid him $700 for coming down there!!!

And oddly enough, a principal in my school district only makes around $90,000 per year. They have TREMENDOUS responsibilities and huge stress, terrible hours, ulcers, and gigantic responsibility with budgets, parents, logistics, discipline, staffing, hiring, evaluations, technology, oversight, you name it. And they make what a prison guard makes?

You can see RN’s, nurses, getting hired by CDC (california department of corrections) and starting at $90,000 and topping at $160,000. It’s nuts?

Our taxes in California are also almost 9% for sales tax. It’s off the hook.

States like California and the rest of the Union need to sacrifice. We need huge cuts in social services, big cuts in government, some trimming of Medicare and, IMO, virtual elimination of Medical altogether. We do need to cut back on the sacred cow as well–defense spending. I grew up in a military family so I appreciate defense greatly, but we need to lean things out a bit. We need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely. We need to eliminate the Department of Education. That is a total joke that does nothing for education at all. Trust me, I’m a teacher! We need to stop farm subsidies or at least curtail them greatly. Farmers are virtual welfare recipients with that. Yet Republicans don’t mind that kind of welfare. We need more tariffs, to cut spending across the board, and toss out all of the health care “reform” bill.

We need to quit giving dead-beats a cushion. If people don’t qualify, don’t let them have loans. If people can’t afford things, quit buying them! There are too many cushions, trampolines to fall on when one plunges off the financial buildings.

Of course we are way off topic as one poster just reminded me, but it’s stimulating just exchanging ideas that really matter. Your post is interesting because you seem to have the courage to actually name the fat that should be trimmed - not that I agree with all of it, but I see where you’re coming from.

The pay issues you raise make complete sense, you actually didn’t go far enough. My knowledge of health care suggests that there are paychecks out there that could handle some weight loss. There are some that should probably not exist at all (I guess cutting jobs is a no, no). But really, why do smaller medical claims need to be handled by two or three salaried people (thus increasing operating costs which are passed on to the consumer) when the patient could just pay up front and apply to the insurance company for reimbursement? I do think the reform bill just acknowledges costs we already cover indirectly or attempts to head them off by keeping people healthier, so I’d leave that alone. It’s an attempt to address reality, IMHO

Getting out of the wars would help. Iraq, thankfully seems to be winding down but I had truly hoped to see a return from the tremendous investment already put into Afghanistan and I supported an attempt being made to do so. Guess at this point it makes no sense throwing good money after bad.

The Department of Education…I can’t agree with you there. Not that they’re doing a swell job or anything, but I believe what they need is a change in philosophy so kids can be prepared to be competitive in the world of work (not to mention get a real education in the process). You don’t fix education problems by throwing money at them and the teachers should not be the main focus but rather, the parents. As for those standardized tests…the less said the better.

I could go on and on - point is, hard choices are hard to choose while we remain fixated on numbers: economic indicators, poll numbers…you know, the stuff that headlines are made of…Did you actually use the word sacrifice? Hats off to you!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi again seekerz,

The department of education is a total joke. One thinks, “oooh, we can’t cut the department of education and hurt all those kids! ohhhh” but the reality is they do NOTHING for educators. I am one. Trust me, it’s a state thing. The feds don’t help us one bit. They just drop unfunded mandates on us. The state of California is outstanding, IMO, in the area of keeping us focused with standards. We are a standards-based state and we keep religiously to them. We have a great program but the $$$ is what’s hurting us and at the same time the immorality of the public is hurting us more than anything. When 65% of my class has parents with parents who are divorced or cohabitating and fighting over custody, about 15% of the class’s parents are on hardcore drugs like meth, and 20% are non-English speakers, etc. it’s a killer. I adore my job but I’ll tell ya, it’s tough to get the parents in our area motivated. I’m on my own when I give them homework. Only about 20% of the parents will help their kids with HW. The PTA used to have 150 members 20 years ago, now it has maybe 30 and only about 4 or 5 of them show up for the monthly meetings. The Department of Education is a joke. Standardized testing, while I agree with it, can be a joke to some degree as well. I don’t want to get off on a tangiant about education (I’m in it so it’s easy for me to do! LOL ) but it’s a big problem.

We need to do some heavy gov’t cutting and stop the bleeding.

I want a balance of government myself. I want some Tea Party folks in the Congress to help keep the Dems from spending us into oblivion, but I also want some Dems in Congress to keep the Republicans from totally cutting gov’t to smithereens and wiping social security, medicare, and other entitlements completely off the map forever. We need a balance, not one-party gov’t. One party GOP gov’t got us nothing, then one-party Dems got us off even worse. We need a blend of people with the ability to work out compromises and rational solutions. I’m tired of total idealogues, and Obama happens to be one. I will not vote for him next time. No way. But if the Mama Grizzly runs for the GOP, I won’t vote for her either. My conscience won’t let me. I hope the GOP gets a good Romney type. Then I’ll be on board. But I want a blend of both parties in congress.

Blessings, seeker.

Of course we are way off topic as one poster just reminded me, but it’s stimulating just exchanging ideas that really matter. Your post is interesting because you seem to have the courage to actually name the fat that should be trimmed - not that I agree with all of it, but I see where you’re coming from.

The pay issues you raise make complete sense, you actually didn’t go far enough. My knowledge of health care suggests that there are paychecks out there that could handle some weight loss. There are some that should probably not exist at all (I guess cutting jobs is a no, no). But really, why do smaller medical claims need to be handled by two or three salaried people (thus increasing operating costs which are passed on to the consumer) when the patient could just pay up front and apply to the insurance company for reimbursement? I do think the reform bill just acknowledges costs we already cover indirectly or attempts to head them off by keeping people healthier, so I’d leave that alone. It’s an attempt to address reality, IMHO

Getting out of the wars would help. Iraq, thankfully seems to be winding down but I had truly hoped to see a return from the tremendous investment already put into Afghanistan and I supported an attempt being made to do so. Guess at this point it makes no sense throwing good money after bad.

The Department of Education…I can’t agree with you there. Not that they’re doing a swell job or anything, but I believe what they need is a change in philosophy so kids can be prepared to be competitive in the world of work (not to mention get a real education in the process). You don’t fix education problems by throwing money at them and the teachers should not be the main focus but rather, the parents. As for those standardized tests…the less said the better.

I could go on and on - point is, hard choices are hard to choose while we remain fixated on numbers: economic indicators, poll numbers…you know, the stuff that headlines are made of…Did you actually use the word sacrifice? Hats off to you!

 

[seekerz]

I have no problem with the subject of this post. The subject of this thread is that many Americans think that he is a Muslim.
He is not. His Christian Church was a Black Liberation Theology Church. Those are his religious roots. That is the truth and accuracy that you were challenging us for.

So why do so many people think that he is a Muslim? Well, to follow the argument of my post, you may just take note that the Obama team made the political decision to obscure those Christian roots. Being a member of a racist church for 20 years didn’t look good on his resume.

As for tellin the rest of you what to focus on, please carry on talking about tax cuts to the rich, f that is what you prefer. You were the one that responded to me first, not me to you. You were the one who brought up the preferability about truth and accuracy about his religion, and I merely obliged. Or as Jack Nicholson might say “You want truth!!!. You can’t handle the truth!!!”
Oh well…

There is no real benefit to the conservative side politically that many now think he is a Muslim. People who are inclined to think so wouldn’t vote Democrat anyways. Left wing journalism understands that there is a benefit to focus on this 20% to show that the other side is rather ignorant. A careful reading of what I posted already would have brought that point to the fore. To blow up the talking points of a few otherwise obscure bloggers, to focus on them as being the spokesman for the other side is what is giving the numbers legs. Obscure bloggers did not popularize the story into the 20 % range. Left wing journalism with its access to MSM, the Olbermans and all, did the real work into bring the idea into the public consciousness.

Pamela Geller just does not have that kind of reach.

As for the motives of those who say that he is a Muslim, they may be dishonest. They may be sincere. Who are we to judge motivation? He is culturally very attuned to the Muslim world after all. It was the background of some of his childhood. He is closer to that culture than he is to evangelical Christianity (the guns and religion clingers) really.
Pamela Geller may have been sincere in her belief. she may have been wanting to tie him into the Islamist worldview as a part of a smear. I don’t know her motivation on this frankly.

It is not a crazy idea, just not true. And the truth is his religious roots extend only to the black liberation theology of Reverend Wright’s Church. That is the extents of his Christianity. Whether he was in that racist church sincerely, or as a form of political opportunism, I cannot know.
Either way, those roots have now been thrown under the bus along with Jeremiah. For sure the truth about that would be a greater smear on his character than being a Muslim could ever be.
For many conservatives, his being a Muslim in good standing would not be a problem.

You wanted us to focus on the quality of his Christianity rather than on whether people think he is Muslim, I believe. Now is it my understanding that you’d rather focus on his relationship to Rev Wright?

I never saw any reason for him to leave his Church and thought the criticism of him not leaving earlier, over the showcased remarks, was totally out of place. Would a faithful Catholic leave the church over a controversial priest or bishop? I think not. I know I would sit there even if I disagreed with some of the things being preached because the priest is not the God whom I am there to worship or receive. Which is the reason I have remained true to my Church even through controversies and scandals.

That being said, I do agree with you that disavowing Wright was the height of political expediency (not to mention hypocrisy) though the Obama-is-a-Muslim strategy definitely predated that sorry turn of events. As for Wright being racist, that’s your opinion. I’ve already dealt in a recent post, with Protestant Preacher Hyperbole (allow me to coin a phrase). Some years ago, preachers (of various races) in Florida were claiming that a string of hurricanes were God’s judgment for having enslaved black people, basing this on the observation that the hurricanes were taking a path similar to that taken by slave ships! You are liable to hear anything if you visit enough different churches…

 

[Darryl1958]

Anyone care to answer?

Since he is a self avowed Christian he MUST believe what was preached to him for 20 YEARS!

Unless of course you voted for him. Then you must play mental twister, just like the abortion issue.

Black liberation theology is very much Marxism dressed up as Christianity(or Islam). I personally think that if you understand black liberation theology, then you understand the direction that Obama is steering the country into. Conspiracy theories about Obama being a secret Muslim therefore, are not just fallacy, but are harmful to conservative concerns on many different levels.

Of course, shine the light on the essential point of who Obama is religiously, and the left scurry away, like cockroaches at the sound of the switch flicking.

There is no political advantage for the left to clear the air, and there is especially no political advantage for the left to clear the air with the truth on this matter.

 

[seekerz]

Hi again seekerz,

The department of education is a total joke. One thinks, “oooh, we can’t cut the department of education and hurt all those kids! ohhhh” but the reality is they do NOTHING for educators. I am one. Trust me, it’s a state thing. The feds don’t help us one bit. They just drop unfunded mandates on us. The state of California is outstanding, IMO, in the area of keeping us focused with standards. We are a standards-based state and we keep religiously to them. We have a great program but the $$$ is what’s hurting us and at the same time the immorality of the public is hurting us more than anything. When 65% of my class has parents with parents who are divorced or cohabitating and fighting over custody, about 15% of the class’s parents are on hardcore drugs like meth, and 20% are non-English speakers, etc. it’s a killer. I adore my job but I’ll tell ya, it’s tough to get the parents in our area motivated. I’m on my own when I give them homework. Only about 20% of the parents will help their kids with HW. The PTA used to have 150 members 20 years ago, now it has maybe 30 and only about 4 or 5 of them show up for the monthly meetings. The Department of Education is a joke. Standardized testing, while I agree with it, can be a joke to some degree as well. I don’t want to get off on a tangiant about education (I’m in it so it’s easy for me to do! LOL ) but it’s a big problem.

We need to do some heavy gov’t cutting and stop the bleeding.

I want a balance of government myself. I want some Tea Party folks in the Congress to help keep the Dems from spending us into oblivion, but I also want some Dems in Congress to keep the Republicans from totally cutting gov’t to smithereens and wiping social security, medicare, and other entitlements completely off the map forever. We need a balance, not one-party gov’t. One party GOP gov’t got us nothing, then one-party Dems got us off even worse. We need a blend of people with the ability to work out compromises and rational solutions. I’m tired of total idealogues, and Obama happens to be one. I will not vote for him next time. No way. But if the Mama Grizzly runs for the GOP, I won’t vote for her either. My conscience won’t let me. I hope the GOP gets a good Romney type. Then I’ll be on board. But I want a blend of both parties in congress.

Blessings, seeker.

Think you’re more liable to see Americans prepared to make really hard sacrifices before you see the “blend” you’re hoping for in government. Compromise is not the mood I see on either side. The way I see it, way too many elected representatives are more interested in being part of a one party government than in actually governing. Just like way too many of us posters are more interested in taking down other viewpoints than in exchanging ideas…Thanks for the exchange.