posted September 14, 2008 10:58 PM            

Kerry was the #2 most liberal Senator in the Senate in 2004 and O'Bomber is the #1 most liberal Senator...all the way to leftist...even left of Bernie Sanders...the avowed Socialist in the Senate of the United States. His running mate, O'Biden is the current #3 most liberal Senator in the Senate. The leftist dud duo in action.

Hussein is O'Bomber's middle name so, why is using O'Bomber's name off limits?

O'Bomber's Muslim side of the family say O'bomber is a Muslim. Momar Kadafi of Libya says O'Bomber is a Muslim brother.

I understand your problem Blue. I don't think O'Bomber is a Muslim....nor a Christian either..since he sat in a racist, anti American, America hating church for 20 years which preaches an non Christian theology...a Marxist theology, Black Liberation Theology.

However, as for what Fox broadcast, they didn't lie about O'Bomber.

On the other hand the leftist "in the bag for O'Bomber" broadcast and print media are lying throught their teeth about Palin.

posted September 15, 2008 12:08 AM              

All my love, with all my heart
To ALL. ...

posted September 15, 2008 12:30 AM            

National Journal magazine is reporting that Obama was the most liberal senator of 2007, according to the vote ratings it does every year for members of Congress. Clinton, meanwhile, ranks as the 16th most-liberal senator.

But a bit of context here: National Journal used 99 Senate votes in 2007 as the basis for its rankings, and because he was on the presidential campaign trail, Obama missed a third of those votes. (According to the magazine, Obama voted the liberal way 65 out of 66 votes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted the liberal way in 77 out of her 82 votes).

National Journal's vote ratings became an issue in the 2004 general election, when Republicans used the magazine's ranking of John Kerry as the most liberal senator of 2003 to label the then-Democratic nominee as the "most liberal senator" -- even though that was his rating for just that one year, when (like Obama did) he missed quite a few Senate votes due to being on the presidential campaign trail.

As National Journal's editor wrote back then, "[O]ur magazine -- or, more precisely, our annual congressional vote ratings edition -- has become a Republican talking point in the 2004 presidential campaign. And that's been a fascinating, and disconcerting, experience. Fascinating because we're more used to being cited in congressional hearings than on the Today show. Disconcerting because the shorthand used to describe our ratings of Kerry and Edwards is sometimes misleading -- or just plain wrong."

Indeed, while Obama ranks as the magazine's most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006.

Another question that might come up is why the magazine released its voting ratings now -- just days before Super Tuesday. In fact, the magazine says it full congressional ratings won't come out until March. But, according to the editor in a Q&A published in the magazine: "Back in December, we decided that we would publish the ratings of the presidential candidates as soon as they became available, rather than wait until our annual Vote Ratings issue on March 8. We thought it would be irresponsible to keep those scores under wraps during the height of the presidential primary season."

As for McCain, the magazine says that he didn't vote frequently enough in 2007 to get an overall rating. Per National Journal, "He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59."

And like with Obama's overall liberal score, rivals and critics could possibly seize on McCain's social rating....

Full disclosure: This reporter worked and wrote for National Journal from 1997 to 2003. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx

quote:

---

Hussein is O'Bomber's middle name so, why is using O'Bomber's name off limits?

---

It's not. It just suggests that the person using it seems to want to link Obama to Saddam, 9/11, Muslims or terrorists or something. It's a rather small-minded play.

quote:

---

I understand your problem Blue. I don't think O'Bomber is a Muslim....nor a Christian either..since he sat in a racist, anti American, America hating church for 20 years which preaches an non Christian theology...a Marxist theology, Black Liberation Theology.

---

posted September 15, 2008 08:08 AM            

Nice try acoustic but I already heard the one about a brain dead moron demoscat House member from Tennessee saying:
"Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilot was a Governor". I think those who claim they "heard" God whispering in their ears probably have a bad case of "Tinnitus".

Something leftists just can't get through their heads is that the Gospel of Jesus Christ does not include street protests or "community organizing" to get government to take care of the things Christ said YOU should do. YOU are the one who is supposed to feed the hungry. YOU are the one who is supposed to heal the sick and the reason YOU are the one who is supposed to do that is to show forth YOUR own FAITH.

Now, we have a rich man, O'Bomber. A rich man who says he's "his brother's keeper". Yet, this 'rich man' won't dig into his own piggy bank and send his brother $12...a kingly sum which would double his own brother's annual income.

O'Bomber is a total fraud on every single level it's possible to examine.

He's the supreme "do as I say not as I do" hypocrite.

Beyond that, O'Bomber's stint as a "community organizer" was a total flop. He produced absolutely nothing beneficial to the residents of South Chicago. In fact, after fattening the bank accounts of Tony Rezko and other slum lords by lobbying government for loans for the slum lords, the federal government had to step in and board up those housing projects. Raw sewage in the units and halls, rats and more than 1000 code violations. The slum lords, whom O'Bomber defended against citizen complaints wouldn't even turn the building heat on in the winter.

Americans don't want to be "kept" by anyone. But if we were looking for a "keeper" it sure as hell wouldn't be a fraud like O'Bomber hooked to the most corrupt city government in the United States.

Do I need to tell you where you can stuff your "community organizer"?

Oh wait, I forgot. With socialists, we're not to judge the results they produce. We're supposed to give them positive points for their "good intentions". We're not to think about 200,000,000...two hundred million dead citizens of the Soviet Union and communist China. We're supposed to give Stalin and Mao positive points for attempting to bring a "Communist Workers Paradise" into being...because they had such "good intentions".

posted September 15, 2008 01:25 PM            

McCain/Palin are ahead of the dud duo and pulling away. The dud duo are imploding and down ticket demoscats are whining and shaking in their leftist boots over their own reelection prospects.

Congress is going to pass a bill to drill offshore...indeed, the moratorium against offshore drilling expires at the end of the month and America is going to drill, drill, drill.

America is as close as it's possible to be to winning the war in Iraq...over the objections of the treasonous demoscats, I might add and Bush is finalizing the withdrawal agreement with the Iraqi government. The same agreement O'Bomber wanted Iraq to delay so he could take credit. God, what a moronic, pathetic excuse for a Presidential candidate...who never was going to have the chance to negotiate anything with Iraq because O'Bomber isn't going to be Commander in Chief or set foreign policy or be President of the United States.

posted September 15, 2008 02:53 PM            

quote:

---

The same agreement O'Bomber wanted Iraq to delay so he could take credit.

---

posted September 15, 2008 03:06 PM            

Do my eyes deceive me...or is this the same biblical scholar who said the 6th Commandment condemned Bush as a "murderer"?

Even so acoustic, I'm going to ask you to prove what you said...paying particular attention to the target audience to which Jesus addressed those particular words; though you didn't provide an exact quote.

posted September 15, 2008 03:12 PM            

"He (O'Bomber) asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

posted September 15, 2008 04:07 PM            

quote:

---

you'll find the appropriate passage in John 13-34 and 13-35. When you've digested that, get back to me.

---

That's exactly what I would have cited. You want to say that's a call for an individual (you)? Well, it's for every individual, which means it's for the whole of humanity. "By this all men will know that you are my disciples." Disciples is plural, not singular.

quote:

---

Still haven't learned that quotation marks denote an exact quote attributed to the person quoted...have you acoustic??? Guess not.

---

posted September 15, 2008 04:28 PM            

Jwhop that now proves the demoscats don't know about christianity as well or how to interpret the scriptures

Neither Obama is Jesus nor Palin governor Pilate.

Jesus was a teacher and he was not a revolutionary. He didn't even write a book

posted September 15, 2008 05:06 PM            

"That's exactly what I would have cited. You want to say that's a call for an individual (you)? Well, it's for every individual, which means it's for the whole of humanity. "By this all men will know that you are my disciples." Disciples is plural, not singular...acoustic"

I don't know where you were enrolled in English classes acoustic. Clearly, Jesus was speaking to and about his disciples loving each other...so all men will know they are his disciples. He wasn't speaking to everyone or about everyone. You get an F in English usage and an F in comprehension.

So acoustic, what do you think about O'Bomber not taking care of his brother's needs? Would you say O'Bomber doesn't have enough to share with his brother or would you say...O'Bomber clealy is not a christian...since O'Bomber clearly isn't living up to your faulty interpretation of John 13:34-35.

I agree with you Mannu. demoscats are clueless about Christianity. They are preaching a different Gospel than Jesus preached and they should have been warned against that by reading the Bible. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was not a social or Socialist Gospel...not in any way.

People with their head up their ass miss so much of what's going on around them.

The article's writer acoustic, is on the article and he's quite good...honest and truthful...and not at all like the dishonest lying morons you like to quote and post. Since he is honest and trustworthy in what he says, that means you probably never heard of him. He's not your kind of journalist.

posted September 15, 2008 08:37 PM            

quote:

---

I don't know where you were enrolled in English classes acoustic. Clearly, Jesus was speaking to and about his disciples loving each other...so all men will know they are his disciples. He wasn't speaking to everyone or about everyone. You get an F in English usage and an F in comprehension.

---

When God starts giving out commandments, I think it applies to everyone. If you want to dispute that, then I suggest you get your house in order, so that you can have that discussion with Him yourself. I don't hold out any hope of you winning that argument.

Beyond that, your original argument was that people are supposed to act individually in helping others. You claimed that the Gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't include street protests or community organizing, both of which Jesus himself did. Perhaps not in precisely the same manner, but those were both results of His life.

quote:

---

So acoustic, what do you think about O'Bomber not taking care of his brother's needs?

---

I'm not convinced that that story is even true, and I already pointed out that Obama has another brother who resides in England who regularly visits Africa. Why isn't Obama's supposedly poor brother asking that brother for money? If your story is true, at least that brother would be in proximity more often. I think the whole thing is a farce concocted by opportunist Republicans. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

quote:

---

The article's writer acoustic, is on the article and he's quite good...honest and truthful...and not at all like the dishonest lying morons you like to quote and post. Since he is honest and trustworthy in what he says, that means you probably never heard of him. He's not your kind of journalist.

---

You mean he's been widely discredited over and over again? Because that's the truth of the matter. Look for yourself:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=6df3e493-f350-4b53-bc16-53262b49a4f7

It was in 1989 that Taheri was first exposed as a journalistic felon. The book he published the year before, Nest of Spies, examined the rule and fall of the Shah of Iran. Taheri received many respectful reviews, but in The New Republic Shaul Bakhash, a reigning doyen of Persian studies, checked Taheri's footnotes. Suddenly a book review became an investigative exposé. Bakhash, a history professor at George Mason University and a former fellow at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, detailed case after case in which Taheri cited nonexistent sources, concocted nonexistent substance in cases where the sources existed and distorted the substance beyond recognition when it was present. Taheri "repeatedly refers us to books where the information he cites simply does not exist," Bakhash wrote. "Often the documents cannot be found in the volumes to which he attributes them.... [He] repeatedly reads things into the documents that are simply not there." In one case, noted Bakhash, Taheri cited an earlier article of his own--but offered content he himself never wrote in that article. Bakhash concluded that Nest of Spies was "the sort of book that gives contemporary history a bad name." In a response published two months later, Taheri failed to rebut Bakhash's charges. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/cohleresses

posted September 15, 2008 09:16 PM            

The text is crystal clear as to whom was being addressed and to whom Jesus was speaking and what Jesus was saying...to them.

Now, given your cockeyed notions about what John 13:34-35 says...to you; do you think O'Bomber is remiss in his sacred duty to send his own brother some money to help him with food and shelter. How about doubling his brother's annual income with only $12. Should O'Bomber take care of his brother...Yes or no?

posted September 15, 2008 10:15 PM            

The Nation

33 Irving Place

New York, NY
10003

Phone :212-209-5400

The oldest and most leftwing of all popular American weekly magazines
Supported the Russian Revolution and was first U.S. magazine to publish the Soviet Constitution
Opposed America's Cold War policies after World War II and generally supported the Communist bloc

Founded in 1865 by politically radical abolitionists, The Nation is the oldest weekly magazine in the United States and the farthest Left of all popular American magazines.

This periodical today is overseen by Victor Navasky, a former Columbia University journalism professor and editor at the New York Times Magazine who assembled a handful of investors in 1995 to buy the magazine from investment banker Arthur Carter.

At the time, The Nation was losing $500,000 per year. Experts advised Navasky to close the magazine and sell its mailing list of 100,000 readers, which alone was worth an estimated $2 million to direct marketers. Unless it changed its far-Left views, business advisors agreed, the magazine was unlikely to become profitable. In fact it had lost money every year for more than 125 years.

Navasky decided instead to seek investors willing to subsidize its leftist views. The investors he gathered included, among others, the present Editor, Katrina vanden Heuvel, multi-millionaire granddaughter of Jules Stein; former Corporation for Public Broadcasting Chairman Alan Sagner; novelist E.L. Doctorow; actor Paul Newman; and Peter Norton, computer software creator of Norton Utilities.

The magazine's first major backer, who helped it launch in 1865 with $100,000, was the Boston lead pipe manufacturer who had supplied John Brown with munitions for his raid on Harper's Ferry in 1859. Its first literary editor was the son of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison.

By 1881 The Nation had shrunk to little more than a book review insert in Henry Villard's New York Evening Post newspaper, as it wallowed through a succession of editors. In 1918 Henry's son Oscar Garrison Villard (who helped found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) took over The Nation and shifted it politically far to the Left, where it remains today. The Russian Revolution was underway, and the magazine was the first in America to publish the Soviet Constitution.

Villard retired in 1932. He was succeeded by Freda Kirchwey, a Stalinist who moved the magazine to the far left on issues of birth control and sexual freedom, and supported the Communists in the Spanish Civil War. She became a target of radical wrath, however, when she refused to endorse the pro-Soviet Progressive Party campaign of Henry Wallace in 1948, which was launched to oppose the Cold War.

Carey McWilliams replaced Kirchwey as The Nation's Editor in 1955. The magazine took the Soviet side in challenging America's Cold War policies, attacking the U.S. defense program and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). It also provided a platform for pro-Soviet Marxists like Gabriel Kolko and Howard Zinn, and for a young consumer advocate named Ralph Nader. (In 2004, however, the Editors of The Nation would ridicule Nader and his presidential campaign, favoring instead Democratic candidate John Kerry.)

In 1977 The Nation was purchased by a group of investors brought together by Hamilton Fish V. Fish and his investors sold The Nation in 1995 to former Wall Street investment banker Arthur Carter, who in turn sold it to Navasky, vanden Heuvel and their group.

Arthur Carter is now a member of the Board of Trustees of The Nation Institute, a tax-exempt non-profit entity closely linked to The Nation magazine and designed to increase the profits of the periodical. The Institute's book-publishing affiliate features titles like the I Hate Republicans Reader; The Bush-Hater's Handbook: A Guide to the Most Appalling Presidency of the Past 100 Years; and the I Hate George W. Bush Reader. Fish is President of its Board of Trustees.

Marc Cooper, the former host of the syndicated radio program RadioNation, is a Contributing Editor for The Nation.

And yet, the so called main stream media put these moron leftists on the air and treat them like they're just part of main stream America. There's nothing at all main stream America about The Nation.

posted September 15, 2008 10:41 PM            

Likewise, real charity is given not taken by force. Real charity also goes directly toward helping persons in need and is not pork barreled and regulated and spent inappropriately before it even gets to anyone in need. No way in Christianity, the most maligned religion in America today, is the federal government expected to take over the duties of the Church and especially not when they pretend God doesn't exist. You can't take the God and the Jesus and the Bible out of peoples' lives and then denounce them for not leading Christian lives according to what you think they should be doing for you with their money.

I mentioned it in another thread ... how, as the taxes have grown and the welfare programs have grown, charitable contributions and volunteer work has seen a decline. People are having so much taken from them that they expect the government to do what they as individuals and as a community should be doing for themselves. And the government has failed. The Churches and the institutions of other religions, however, still are doing their duties with their members' willing work per those age old doctrines that are so often spat upon with glee today by non-religous persons.

posted September 15, 2008 11:01 PM            

The Nation reported the truth on the matter. Shaul Bakhash does discount Taheri's sources:

First, a data search by the Iranian World Reference Librarian at the Library of Congress of the LC's own holdings shows no book of the title that Taheri cites; more significantly, his search of the www.worldcat.com data base, which lists Farsi language holdings of most important libraries worldwide, has turned up no volume or volumes with the title that Taheri cites.

Second, a search by a book dealer in Tehran of books published in Iran turned up no book with Taheri's title.

Third, a selective search in a number of published collections of Khomeini's statements and speeches (not Taheri's non-existent volume but other books) for the year Taheri alleges Khomeini made these remarks turned up nothing even approximating Taheri's "quotation".

Finally, a friend in Tehran had a search conducted of the huge and presumably comprehensive data base of all of Khomeini's statements, speeches, fatwas, etc. Again the results were negative. Someone should inform Mr. Podhoretz he is citing a non-existent statement.

The full "quotation" Taheri gives in his book, "Nest of Spies," follows; even on cursory examination it appears implausible that Khomeini would have said such a thing.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2007/11/is_iran_suicidal_or_deterrable.cfm

quote:

---

I don't give a flying flip what you think God means or what you think Jesus was saying or to whom you think it was being said.

---

Obviously you do if you've replied like this.

quote:

---

The text is crystal clear as to whom was being addressed and to whom Jesus was speaking and what Jesus was saying...to them.

---

For some of us it's clear. For others, like you, apparently not.

quote:

---

Now, given your cockeyed notions about what John 13:34-35 says...to you; do you think O'Bomber is remiss in his sacred duty to send his own brother some money to help him with food and shelter. How about doubling his brother's annual income with only $12. Should O'Bomber take care of his brother...Yes or no?

---

I already answered. I think the story is bogus.

quote:

---

The Nation isn't in a position to discredit anyone at all. They're one of the most disreputable rags in existence

---

posted September 15, 2008 11:22 PM            

Really acoustic? Name the book Taheri cited in the article I posted about O'Bomber attempting to delay the troop withdrawal agreement with Iraq. Perhaps I just missed the mention of the book and it's title.

As to your Biblical Scholarship, it doesn't exist. You are incapable of even understanding whom is talking to whom and what they're talking about.

posted September 15, 2008 11:55 PM            

quote:

---

Do you think O'Bomber should send his brother $12 to double his annual income...Yes or No acoustic?

---

I already answered as far as I will.

quote:

---

Really acoustic? Name the book Taheri cited in the article I posted about O'Bomber attempting to delay the troop withdrawal agreement with Iraq. Perhaps I just missed the mention of the book and it's title.

---

Interesting that you're now asking me to cite his sources, when this conversation started with ME asking YOU to cite his sources. Frankly, I don't think either of us will be successful, because he seems to enjoy just making stuff up.

quote:

---

As to your Biblical Scholarship, it doesn't exist.

---

I grew up wanting to be a pastor, and I still consider doing just that from time to time.

quote:

---

I'm sure not equating The Nation with anything I would care to read

---

No, I am. Because if it lives up to your description of it, then it is roughly equivalent to any of your favorite sources as it is wholly partisan and lacking in truth.