search:
SeparationofChurchandHate

on Yahoogroups (I’d give ya the link but it will not work after 5 tries)

Republican Religious Extremists* have high-jacked the Christian Religion and America . The liberal teachings of Jesus have been perverted into a conservative partisan political tool of the Republican Party . “They” MUST be stopped to defend democracy in America ! Religion is fine as long as “You” don’t force it on me .

Free Will anyone ?

REMEMBER;

Jesus was NOT :

Pro-Rich ,
Pro-Homophobia , OR…
ONLY Pro-American !

* BibleBushiters

—————
I’m the only one currently active(couple-a hand-fulls of regular readers) but I hope some a ya-all join and enliven our debate and action alerts .

This campaign has been relatively mild. The reason people think of it as so vicious is because Obama supporters cry “smear” and “dirty politics” every time Hillary opens her mouth. The 3 a.m. ad is a perfect example. I understood Christy’s argument that using fear is a Republican tactic, although I didn’t agree with it. But the ad simply said “The President will have to face crises. Who do you want in charge?” She didn’t say we’d be attacked if Obama was President, and she didn’t say he was incapable of dealing with crisis. She said she was the better candidate. Quick, get the smelling salts. To hear Obama supporters describe it, you’d think she said he was gay.

Would you say the 3AM ad was a positive portrayal of Hillary or an attack on Obama? I read it as an attack, something that damages Obama should he be the candidate in the general. I have a real concern many white people will not vote for Obama no matter how well he speaks. If speaking well were a criteria, we’d never have George Bush.

And what do you think of her describing herself coming under sniper fire? Do you believe she actually forgot the truth and misspoke? The thing that gets me is her poor judgment. How could she have thought she’d get away with it? Is she so grandiose she thinks rules don’t apply to her? And if Obama and his partisans point this out are they engaging in a smear?

sander0—i haven’t caught up on all comments, your questions about why someone would join a group so dissimilar from them, but one is, for the same reason that people join book clubs.

to get a different point of view.

here’s the correct one from the last thread—

i haven’t read all comments yet–

the hillary article at 7– and comments pertaining to it–

i have previously posted here that i was a member of a baptist bible study group for a long long time, i am not baptist, nowhere near it.

i was invited, i went, i learned, they learned. i felt honored to be welcomed and be able to learn what and why they believe what they do…and i was not mistaken for one of ’them’ they knew who i am and what i believe….this church is the center for conservatism here, missionaries and all. people brought up by missionaries, republicans, all walks of life. most conservative church here besides the little pentacostal church and a few little spin-off ’baptist’ churches…….

most churches are methodist here.

to say that she is like fellow group attendees, like sam brownback, is just simply BULLSHIT. drawing conclusions.

i went to this baptist church every single week, that makes me a baptist and believer and follower of their doctrines and politics???????????

c’mon, we’re supposed to not meet and hang with anyone but people who believe every single thing we do?

same as obama did? /s

i don’t think so.

Reply

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/…..57231.html

As for McCain, there’s one instance I can name, the threshold comment, that I’m not happy about. But her first comment,that she is better equipped to match McCain on the experience front, was perfectly acceptable. The Obama campaign has been calling her “divisive” and “unelectable” for months, and trumpeting polls showing how much better he would do against McCain (haven’t heard much of that lately, though.) So she says she’s more electable than Obama, and suddenly she’s a traitor to the party? When asked if Obama had the necessary experience, she said “You’ll have to ask him.” I believe this was an echo of an earlier comment by Obama, when he said she was disengenuous. He was asked what the difference was between disengenuous and dishonest, and he said “You’ll have to ask her.” So apparenly it’s OK for him to call her dishonest, but calling him inexperienced is beyond the pale?

I’m under no illusions that Hillary is perfect, but I don’t choose my candidate based on one comment, or one vote, or one speech in a park. I do find that Hillary supporters tend to be a bit more willing to admit her faults. I’m hard pressed to think of a time when a lot of Obama supporters were critical of something he’s done.

It may be unlikely that Hillary can win the popular vote. It was also unlikely that Obama could succeed when he started out. I happen to like a candidate who will fight. The fact is, we’ve never had a situation like this. When has a candidate with more than 1,000 delegates already in hand dropped out while the primaries were still going on? There are still 10 primaries to go, and neither candidate has the delegates to claim the nomination. To me it is blatant hypocrisy to claim that the supers supporting Hillary would be a perversion of justice, but it’s perfectly acceptable for them to go to Hillary and threaten her so she’ll drop out. Which would be more of a “back room deal?” Face it, when a super supports Hillary he or she is portrayed as a dinosaur pol, but if they support Obama they’re on the side of Truth and Justice.

I’m also a little tired of the mind reading. If we’re not being told what Obama meant, we’re being told what Hillary really thinks. It can’t be that she’s come this far in the campaign, she sees an opportunity to win, and she wants to see it through. No, it has to be that if she can’t win she wants to destroy the party, or even more laughable, she wants to make Obama lose so she can run in 2012. There’s absolutely no evidence for this, of course, except that Obama supporters can’t believe that someone would have the gall to stand in the way of his coronation, and what’s worse, actually criticize him. Does anyone else see the ridiculousness in the argument that she should drop out, because campaigning against Obama “weakens” him?

This campaign has been relatively mild. The reason people think of it as so vicious is because Obama supporters cry “smear” and “dirty politics” every time Hillary opens her mouth. The 3 a.m. ad is a perfect example. I understood Christy’s argument that using fear is a Republican tactic, although I didn’t agree with it. But the ad simply said “The President will have to face crises. Who do you want in charge?” She didn’t say we’d be attacked if Obama was President, and she didn’t say he was incapable of dealing with crisis. She said she was the better candidate. Quick, get the smelling salts. To hear Obama supporters describe it, you’d think she said he was gay.

As for Wright, I’ve typed too many words on my problems with Obama’s speech, and I don’t feel like rehashing them now. I will say that I have no problem with bringing it upm in terms of Obama’s electability. Throwing around charges of racism may provide people with some satisfaction, but the fact remains that people can be offended by Wright’s remarks without being labeled as racists. Obama brought much of the problem on himself by trying to keep Wright under wraps, telling him last year that “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.” It was a political calculation on Obama’s part, so why is it out of bounds for the Clinton campaign to discuss it?

And no, brendanx, Bill Clinton didn’t go on Rush Limbaugh. I try very hard not to make statements of fact without double checking to verify them. I’d recommend you do the same. He appeared on the show of Mark Davis, an Austin radio host (you may recall there was an election in Texas recently.) Later that day, Davis guest hosted for Limbaugh, and replayed the tape of the interview. Please stop repeating stupid rumors.

And finally, Hillary didn’t go to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review “to resuscitate the Wright issue.” It’s the second largest paper in Pittsburgh, the second largest city in the state where she’s campaigning. Are you suggesting she should have refused to meet with the paper so as not make Obama look bad? She tried defending him on 60 Minutes, and the Obama camp basically spit in her face for it.

Besides, when the Wright story first broke, Obama did a newspaper interview to condemn Wright’s remarks. What paper was that? Hint: it’s in Pittsburgh.

type text here