Trump campaigned against Muslims, but will preach tolerance in Saudi speech

[St_Pancake]

By voting for Hillary (because it was either Hillary and him)?

No thank you very much and thanks God Hillary lost.

For once we have a President who does not support abortion and that fact is NOT lost on the majority of Catholics. Of course, rebel Catholics, atheists and some Protestants do not count.

I’m not sure that a majority of Catholics are voting against the democrat party.

 

[gracepoole]

you lied and said that Trump didn’t mention the temporariness of the ban until he was potus. I revealed the truth about that. Some of us won’t have the blood of murdered babies on our hands and have to lean the way we will. You’re willing to go along with the baby killers and you think you’re taking the moral high ground. I wish you well with that.

There is no moral high ground anymore for either major political party.

I didn’t think Trump would win the primary and then I didn’t think he would win the election but he did both. I didn’t vote for either of them and I’m still shocked however, where is the blame for the democrats.

Hillary has never been popular, in fact, her nomination was supposed to be a cake walk in 2008 but an inexperienced senator from Illinois took the nomination. This unpopular nominee did not spend enough time campaigning and lost many states that should be natural Democrat party constituents. Trump took Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio. Hillary thought she owned them and spent her time with the elite raising more funds when she would have been better off being on the ground and campaigning.

Stop blaming us for the Democrat party putting an incredibly unelectable candidate in the race. Something is wrong with the democrat candidate when even the democrats won’t vote for her.

What does any of this have to do with DaddyGirl’s post, to which you were responding?

 

[St_Pancake]

Can’t speak for Eastern Orthodox but a growing number of non-mainline Protestant pastors and theologians are against remarriage after divorce.

I have no knowledge of that and will certainly take your word for it.

 

[gracepoole]

Would you mind telling me what he did to deserve it then?

Would you mind telling me when the Nobel committee claimed that Obama received the award because he’s half black?

 

[Reuben_J]

I’m not sure that a majority of Catholics are voting against the democrat party.

Maybe against Hillary?

 

[St_Pancake]

You really are a special kind of disgusting. At least you’re upfront about your racism.

Exactly what is it that Obama did between 1/20/2009 and 10/9/2009 to be distinguished for a peace prize? Do you have a list?

Carter helped negotiate a the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt that led to a 1981 treaty that ended up costing Sadat his life. Then twenty four years later, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development”. Yet Obama deserves the same prize after 9 months…for what? For not being a republican? For not being a white US president?

The original post was sarcastic because there is nothing Obama did in this short amount of time to deserve such an award. Again, feel free to make a detailed list about what the former Junior Senator from Illinois did in his first nine months in office of the president.

 

[St_Pancake]

There is no moral high ground anymore for either major political party.

What does any of this have to do with DaddyGirl’s post, to which you were responding?

If I have to explain it, I’m not sure you would understand.

 

[gracepoole]

Exactly what is it that Obama did between 1/20/2009 and 10/9/2009 to be distinguished for a peace prize? Do you have a list?

Carter helped negotiate a the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt that led to a 1981 treaty that ended up costing Sadat his life. Then twenty four years later, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development”. Yet Obama deserves the same prize after 9 months…for what? For not being a republican? For not being a white US president?

The original post was sarcastic because there is nothing Obama did in this short amount of time to deserve such an award. Again, feel free to make a detailed list about what the former Junior Senator from Illinois did in his first nine months in office of the president.

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that ‘Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.’"

nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

How strange. Nothing in there about his race…

If I have to explain it, I’m not sure you would understand.

Oh, I definitely don’t understand. But I do understand the definition of non sequitur.

 

[St_Pancake]

Maybe against Hillary?

Of that, you might be correct. Good call.

 

[ATraveller]

I have no knowledge of that and will certainly take your word for it.

I should have asked for more clarity before writing that looking back at it now. I get the feeling some Catholics assumed Protestants allowed remarriage regardless of why they’re divorced and we don’t take marriage seriously enough. That said, I should have clarified that only remarriage after divorce due to abuse, abandonment and adultery are acceptable according to these Protestant figures but there are a number who say even divorce due to those reasons could be adultery. I’ll offer you more than my word.
John Piper, if you didn’t know, is a very influential figure in American Evangelicalism wrote this:

of what I believe is a New Testament prohibition of all remarriage except in the case where a spouse has died. I do not claim to have seen or said the last word on this issue, nor am I above correction, should I prove to be wrong. I am aware that men more godly than I have taken different views.

desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper
He’s not the only one to hold this position but Piper comes to mind first.
Typical Evangelical position:

Divorce is permitted, but not required, on the ground of sexual immorality.

Divorce is permitted, but not required, on the ground of desertion by an unbelieving spouse.

When the divorce was not permissible, any subsequent remarriage (to someone other than the original spouse) results in adultery.

In situations where the divorce was permissible, remarriage is also permissible.

Improperly divorced and remarried Christians should stay as they are, but repent and be forgiven of their past sins and make whatever amends are necessary.

blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2010/11/03/a-sermon-on-divorce-and-remarriage/

 

[Reuben_J]

Exactly what is it that Obama did between 1/20/2009 and 10/9/2009 to be distinguished for a peace prize? Do you have a list?

Carter helped negotiate a the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt that led to a 1981 treaty that ended up costing Sadat his life. Then twenty four years later, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development”. Yet Obama deserves the same prize after 9 months…for what? For not being a republican? For not being a white US president?

The original post was sarcastic because there is nothing Obama did in this short amount of time to deserve such an award. Again, feel free to make a detailed list about what the former Junior Senator from Illinois did in his first nine months in office of the president.

 

[WilliamE]

Would you mind telling me what he did to deserve it then?

That’s not racist, I agree with abucs. It’s the ones who think someone ‘deserves’ a special reward simply because of the color of their skin, who are the racists.

Exactly what is it that Obama did between 1/20/2009 and 10/9/2009 to be distinguished for a peace prize? Do you have a list?

Grace beat me to it:

*"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that ‘Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.’"

nobelprize.org/nobel_priz…009/press.html*

How strange. Nothing in there about his race…

 

[PRmerger]

you answered his question twice. It makes me laugh when the democrats hate of Trump makes them come unglued. Please feel free to inform us of what a bastion of morality Mrs. Clinton would have been. Another laugh is always welcome.

I have no idea what you’re referencing, as it applies to my post.

Firstly, I am not a Democrat.

Secondly, Hillary Clinton is an extremely competent, smart woman (who has, BTW, remained faithful to her vow of marriage).

Thirdly, “But Hillary” is an otiose refutation of all of Trump’s moral failings.

 

[Reuben_J]

Grace beat me to it:

The tribute attributed to Obama was quite subjective, I should say. Any specific achievement?

 

[PRmerger]

you answered his question twice.

Well, yeah…and no.

You’ll note that there was no question in the post.

But there is no need for you to get unglued when people disagree with your logic and responses, pancake.

Just to refresh your memory, here’s what I responded to:

Your problem is you don’t recognize that the people who support Trump are rational human beings with legitimate reasons to support him. You view them as largely subhuman and hold them in contempt. They see all these attacks on Trump for what they are, virtue signaling by the class conscious.

And yes, I did make two responses.

Sometimes posters do that because another terrific response comes to mind.

 

[7_Sorrows]

That’s not racist, I agree with abucs. It’s the ones who think someone ‘deserves’ a special reward simply because of the color of their skin, who are the racists.

If he were white, would he have still received the award? if the answer is no, then that is racism.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” MLK

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading

Josh

+1

 

[St_Pancake]

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that ‘Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.’"

nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

How strange. Nothing in there about his race…

Oh, I definitely don’t understand. But I do understand the definition of non sequitur.

Was it awarded for all that hopey changey talk? Most of the other recipients of the award had a long list of accomplishments prior to receiving the award and those accomplishments included more than hope.

Most winners of the Nobel Peace Prize actually accomplish something prior to winning the award.

By awarding it to Obama at the beginning of his presidency for much less than most of the rest of the winners, they have forfeited prestige and cheapened the award.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Was it awarded for all that hopey changey talk? Most of the other recipients of the award had a long list of accomplishments prior to receiving the award and those accomplishments included more than hope.

Most winners of the Nobel Peace Prize actually accomplish something prior to winning the award.

By awarding it to Obama at the beginning of his presidency for much less than most of the rest of the winners, they have forfeited prestige and cheapened the award.

+1

 

[PRmerger]

.None of that proves anything.

Well, then it proves he’s a liar. He says he grabs women by the p****.

You’re saying he actually doesn’t do what he says.

So…a liar.

And I take it you’re not one of those who says, “I like him because he says what he means!”

 

[St_Pancake]

I have no idea what you’re referencing, as it applies to my post.

Firstly, I am not a Democrat.

Secondly, Hillary Clinton is an extremely competent, smart woman (who has, BTW, remained faithful to her vow of marriage).

Thirdly, “But Hillary” is an otiose refutation of all of Trump’s moral failings.

Maybe her competence was what kept the democrats from voting for her.