Show me your Messiah

[Bob]

You show me your Messiah, and I can show you your greatest fears. Some fear the traditional hell concept, the Messiah in these cases saves one through lip confession from a Fall that was brought about by the horrible disobedience of our first parents. Some fear their own vacuousness and stretch their skin in endless attempts to keep their outward appearance young – so they never have to confront their own inward ugliness.

Now here comes Obama with secular “Hope” Some of the swooning over Obama creeps me out (to be honest some Ron Paul supporters seemed to cross some type of line as well) because it has turned from active support -- to a pubescent blind love-fest, driven by over-active emerging uncontrolled political hormones? When does support turn into some weird type of idol worship? To me Obama represents a secular savior that uses the form and tone of faith in his speeches, so folks react emotionally to him – but many support him, when significant portions of his policies go against their core belief structure. For those where the content resonates (for some) I think it is because they inwardly fear the personal freedoms given by God, and outlined in the Constitution. I think Obama is worshiped by some in knee-jerk reaction to their hatred of Bush – and wrongly suppose that Big government is not damning – just so long as it is the “right type” of benevolent bloated government – that forces your particular political views.

I see two fundamental things that concern me with Obama it is the size in the expansion of social programs -- that will first give some people a boost, but in the long-term usually weakens or enslaves those it intended to “help.” Secondarily his presidency concerns me because of the degree he may go to “force us” and (as Michelle Obama has said) to revaluate ourselves, our traditions, and our way of life. Fascism is not right or left in my mind – it is the degree that one is willing to go to force a belief system on others.

[alkemical]

http://dariainvictus.blogspot.com/20...ng-anubis.html

There are some folks out there who have noticed that Obama's astrological chart indicates that he is in danger of being assassinated. For example, listen to Pauline Southard's analysis on Feet to the Fire starting at 27:26 (she really starts getting into it at 34:00) and check out Dr. Turi's prediction as well. So, taking all of that into account, Michelle Obama's appearance on The View with Oprah channeling Anubis takes on a more interesting meaning.

Of course, it has been predicted for a number of years now that Hillary Clinton will be the president in 2008. If she runs with Obama and he gets assassinated....

Now Michelle Obama is being stabbed in the back while "bonding" with former "Survivor" wacko Elisabeth Hasslebeck. Ugh! Article

It looks like a very dark cloud looms over the Obamas.


Well, it might be a stretch but I figured I'd put it out there anyway!
FBI/CIA DISCLAIMER - Hey, don't come after me! I'm just reporting what I've heard!

[enjolras]

Originally Posted by Bob

Secondarily his presidency concerns me because of the degree he may go to “force us” and (as Michelle Obama has said) to revaluate ourselves, our traditions, and our way of life.

Why is this a bad thing? A productive life is one spent constantly evaluating who you are and always striving to make what your are today, better tomorrow.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by enjolras

Why is this a bad thing? A productive life is one spent constantly evaluating who you are and always striving to make what your are today, better tomorrow.

When anyone is "forced" to engage -- the opposite happens...

And it is more than being "forced" to revaluate oneself (which is a ludicrous arrogant, and paternal role to take on oneself.) Go take your fist pump and …...

Let's just say I simply want to be left alone by those in government – which is a role they should be fighting to protect. Force on the left: think USSR. Force on the Right think 1938 Germany. Different clubs yes, but the same result of millions dead and just as many thrown into reeducation camps.

[Spider]

So yo uwant to see my Messiah ? fine ..... Enjoy ......

[Odysseus]

People are capable of such amazing cowardice. Obama is just some dude who gets it and it's a miracle our crappy process of government has allowed him to actually get as far as he has.

We want term limitations and the first time we get a candidate that is NEW and the first thing we do is attack him because of lack of experience?

I have been an advocate for some type of third party for years because of the lack of character of our candidates. Finally the two party system finally does something right and nobody is willing to take an honest look at the issues. We are still debating lapel pins and believing that a guy who shows up late to a cause we there all the time? WTF?

What about our privacy? Our rights to choose? Why do we have to give those up?

PATRIOT ACT: I have had my personal accounts frozen three times since I have been overseas because I had to prove I was an American....AGAIN. The difference between security and surveillance is accountability.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/080212...statement_122/

Obama Statement on FISA
Tuesday, February 12, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Michael Ortiz, 202 228 5566

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Earlier today, Senator Obama voted in favor of the Dodd-Feingold amendment to repeal retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies (S. Amdt. 3907). He also supported other amendments to improve the bill, including the Feingold-Webb-Tester amendment to protect Americans from unwarranted surveillance (S. Amdt. 3979), and the Feingold amendment to protect Americans from the bulk collection of communications (S. Amdt. 3912).

"I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people - we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law.

"We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties. That is why I am proud to cosponsor several amendments that protect our privacy while making sure we have the power to track down and take out terrorists.

"This Administration continues to use a politics of fear to advance a political agenda. It is time for this politics of fear to end. We are trying to protect the American people, not special interests like the telecommunications industry. We are trying to ensure that we don't sacrifice our liberty in pursuit of security, and it is past time for the Administration to join us in that effort."

[Odysseus]

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/sha...ama_and_t.html

I would love to see Sam Nunn as Barack's V.P. I like his ideals and intent. He could solve a lot of problems but of course McCain will claim that these were his ideas all along. I imagine having lobbyist think for you can be very comforting.

Sam Nunn on Barack Obama and the vice presidency

Sunday, May 18, 2008, 06:00 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Last week, the Democratic world was abuzz with the news that former North Carolina senator John Edwards, a former contender himself, had endorsed Barack Obama in the never-ending race for the presidency.

The development was important only within the confines of the Democratic primary. Edwards will be of little use to Obama in a fall campaign, when Republicans highlight the commander-in-chief credentials of John McCain.
nunn.jpg

Obama received the endorsement of the white, Southern male who mattered weeks earlier, when former U.S. senator Sam Nunn of Georgia quietly announced that he would serve as an advisor on national security.

Even before he’s secured the Democratic nomination, Republicans have declared Obama’s greenhorn status in international affairs to be a ripe target. Nunn voted against the first Persian Gulf war in 1991 and has been a harsh critic of President Bush’s handling of the current conflict in Iraq.

Come October, Nunn could serve as an important reference on Obama’s resume.

The Georgian’s backing has also stirred talk that the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who keeps an office on the edge of the Georgia Tech campus, would make a fine running mate for Obama.

Nunn says you should treat such speculation with extreme skepticism. More on that in a bit.

But first consider how Nunn, a conservative Democrat, came to settle on Obama, who is not.

For the past year, the former senator had been one of the behind-the-scenes figures exploring a non-partisan bid for the presidency.

Only five months ago, Nunn and former Senate colleague David Boren summoned a group of centrist Democrats and Republicans to Oklahoma City, where — with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg among them — they decried the crass polarization of political debate, and the lack of any forum that required presidential candidates to address issues in depth.

Say what you will about it, the two party-system abhors a vacuum. Nunn’s complaints that middle America had been shut out of the dialogue coincided with the rise of McCain and Obama, both of whom appeal to independents.

“I suspect we were riding the wave much more than we were causing it,” Nunn said in an interview last week. As the air wooshed out of a third-party movement, the former senator began looking at the presidential candidates still in the race.

Nunn’s top priority is the restoration of the United States’s credibility in the world. You can’t imagine, he said, how much damage the war in Iraq has done.

What must be regained, the senator said, is a non-partisan approach to foreign policy. McCain doesn’t represent change. Hillary Clinton, Nunn said, would find the task difficult — a president who polarizes at home would find it hard to create a unified foreign policy abroad.

Nunn said he’s talked with Obama. But he was also swayed by the good reports about the candidate from Republicans — including the staff of U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Lugar has served as Nunn’s partner in a 17-year program to corral the world’s “loose nukes.”

“Lugar’s staff tell me [Obama] is genuine, he’s sincere, he’s very capable and not only is he a fast learner, but he’s got real depth,” Nunn said.

“Even when he’s heading to the left, he always wants to find out what the other position is. I think that’s enormously important. We’ve been heading down an ideological split in this country — it’s been annoying for a long time. It’s gotten dangerous now.”

“Even though I would love for him to have more experience, I think he’s the most likely to listen, he’s the most likely to be non-ideological,” Nunn said. “There are very few people in politics now who let the facts have a bearing on their conclusions.”

As for that vice presidential stuff.

It’s not just “highly improbable” that Obama would make the offer. “I think that it’s also highly improbable that I want to go back into government,” Nunn said.

And think about it. Nunn will be 70 this fall. He’s trim, he’s fit. Intellectually, he’s not about to slip into a rut. But John McCain is 71, and his age has already become an issue. As a running mate, Nunn would muddy any discussion.

“People are looking for younger leadership and change. And that’s an important factor that Obama needs to consider. And I would tell him that if he asked me,” Nunn said.

If you want proof of Nunn’s disinterest in the position, consider that vice presidential candidates aren’t permitted their own agendas.

Nunn has been hosting a series of “dialogues” — available on the Internet — on terrorism and national security with former U.S. defense secretary William Cohen.

Another one will be held in Atlanta early next month. It will concide with a national convention of volunteers, hosted by the Points of Light & Hands On Network, an organization headed by Michelle Nunn, the former senator’s daughter.

Nunn the father will make a pitch for a new national service program. Not a draft, but incentives — federal grants for college — given to young people who volunteer for the military or border duty, or who do civilian service as teachers, hospital workers or the like.

The grants would take the place of the current college loan system, which Nunn says has trapped many students in a cycle of debt. The former senator expects to be pounded by both right and left.

[Northman]

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by quiettiger

People are capable of such amazing cowardice. Obama is just some dude who gets it and it's a miracle our crappy process of government has allowed him to actually get as far as he has.

We want term limitations and the first time we get a candidate that is NEW and the first thing we do is attack him because of lack of experience?

I have been an advocate for some type of third party for years because of the lack of character of our candidates. Finally the two party system finally does something right and nobody is willing to take an honest look at the issues. We are still debating lapel pins and believing that a guy who shows up late to a cause we there all the time? WTF?

What about our privacy? Our rights to choose? Why do we have to give those up?

PATRIOT ACT: I have had my personal accounts frozen three times since I have been overseas because I had to prove I was an American....AGAIN. The difference between security and surveillance is accountability.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/080212...statement_122/

Obama Statement on FISA
Tuesday, February 12, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Michael Ortiz, 202 228 5566

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Earlier today, Senator Obama voted in favor of the Dodd-Feingold amendment to repeal retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies (S. Amdt. 3907). He also supported other amendments to improve the bill, including the Feingold-Webb-Tester amendment to protect Americans from unwarranted surveillance (S. Amdt. 3979), and the Feingold amendment to protect Americans from the bulk collection of communications (S. Amdt. 3912).

"I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people - we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law.

"We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties. That is why I am proud to cosponsor several amendments that protect our privacy while making sure we have the power to track down and take out terrorists.

"This Administration continues to use a politics of fear to advance a political agenda. It is time for this politics of fear to end. We are trying to protect the American people, not special interests like the telecommunications industry. We are trying to ensure that we don't sacrifice our liberty in pursuit of security, and it is past time for the Administration to join us in that effort."

And yet today, he voted for complete amnesty for them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
House votes to provide protection to phone firms

The White House-backed, compromise measure -- which triggered a firestorm of opposition from civil liberties groups -- would also overhaul U.S. spy powers and replace a temporary surveillance law that expired in February.

The Senate is expected to give the bill final approval next week with the help of the two major presidential contenders -- Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama -- clearing the way for Bush to sign it into law.

Caroline Fredrickson of the American Civil Liberties Union, denounced the bill, saying, "No matter how often the opposition calls this bill a 'compromise,' it is not a meaningful compromise, except of our constitutional rights."

[Odysseus]

What compromises were made and with whom?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by quiettiger

What compromises were made and with whom?

All I can find is this...

Besides providing telecommunications companies with a court review of lawsuits, the bill would increase judicial and congressional oversight of U.S. intelligence activities and bolster protection of civil liberties -- but not as much as civil liberties groups and a number of Democrats would like.

The bill authorizes U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop, without court approval, on foreign targets believed to be outside the United States.

Critics complain this allows warrantless surveillance of Americans who communicate with them. The bill seeks to minimize such eavesdropping but foes say the safeguards are inadequate.
The measure also clarifies that to conduct electronic surveillance of a person in the United States, the government must obtain a warrant from U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The bill would not provide the retroactive immunity that Bush had demanded for telecommunication companies that took part in the warrantless spying program he started.

Instead, U.S. district courts would be able to dismiss a suit if there were written certification that the White House asked a company to participate and assured it the program was legal.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, described the bill as a sham.

"While the bill purports not to grant immunity ... it is in fact a mere fig leaf that effectively provides a complete legal shield to the companies for the invasions of privacy and illegal activities they may have committed," Nadler charged.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Inexcusable.

No way this phony a$$hole gets my vote.

[BABronco]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Inexcusable.

No way this phony a$$hole gets my vote.

Your not voting for a dem?

[BroncoBuff]

Sam Nunn's gotta be pushing 75 ... no way

[BroncoBuff]

My Messiah ....

[BroncoBuff]

They said to me, "you're a white man, BroncoBuff, and yet you worship a black man?"

"Yes," I said.

"Hmmm, okay," they pressed, "Well then, what color is your spirit, BroncoBuff?"

"My spirit is clear ... I drink Vodka."







"... and I've had a few tonight, thank you very much."

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by BABronco

Your not voting for a dem?

Labf probably has a tough time finding a mainstream democrat he will like. His views are way too left for even Democrats.

[JCMElway]

LABF's vote really doesn't matter anyway. Dems will carry California, no problem.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Labf probably has a tough time finding a mainstream democrat he will like. His views are way too left for even Democrats.

It only looks that way to you because none of the Dem candidates this year (with the exception of Kucinich) have been real liberals - they're only slightly to the left of McClone and most of the other rethug contenders.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

It only looks that way to you because none of the Dem candidates this year (with the exception of Kucinich) have been real liberals - they're only slightly to the left of McClone and most of the other rethug contenders.

Obama rates out pretty liberal. It's just to you it seems center because you are so to the left.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Obama rates out pretty liberal. It's just to you it seems center because you are so to the left.

Obama is in the upper right (authoritarian/right) quadrant of the chart - not that far left of McSame.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Did you take that test yourself, cutthemdown?

I'll bet there's a good chance even you would score to the left of Obama.

[Odysseus]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

All I can find is this...

Let me dig around and see what I can find. Thanks for posting that.

[TexanBob]

If Nunn is the Veep choice, Barney Frank is going to be very angry:

Rothenberg Report

Frank argues that adding Nunn to the Democratic ticket would cost Obama support in the gay community and would make it impossible for the Massachusetts Congressman to be a strong advocate for the Democratic Presidential nominee.

“I would be virtually useless in trying to convince other gays and lesbians to support the ticket,” said Frank.

Personally, I don't think Frank will need to convince any gays to support Obama. Most gays would want to *do* Obama. McCain reminds them of the butch who first got them when they were 13 or 14 years old, when they still believed girls were more interesting.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by TexanBob

Personally, I don't think Frank will need to convince any gays to support Obama. Most gays would want to *do* Obama. McCain reminds them of the butch who first got them when they were 13 or 14 years old, when they still believed girls were more interesting.

Another revealing post from one of the Bushbots still left round here.
Your ignorance and lack of education is pretty typical for a lot of backwoods derelicts I hear.