WN: Black Tea Party Activists Called 'Traitors' - Fox News

[Guest HIS girl]

I wonder who among us would vote for an avowed satanist if he/she were pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage, etc.

The Bible tells us that the devil is a liar, and so it stands to reason his servants are liars too. If a satanist was an avowed anything I wouldn't believe them. No satanist would be pro-life, pro-family and pro-traditional marriage. I don't know about pro-gun? No chance such a person would get my vote. I wouldn't believe anything they said anymore than I believed Obama when he claimed he would govern from the center.

So in other words you equate Obama in the same terms as a satanist?

Because that is how your post has come across - what is the difference with Obama (and his lies and a satanist?) for those who think Obama is a liar? (truly what politician isn't a liar?)

And to take it further - if Obama is no different to a santanist, then I worry greatly for the future of the US....and all those countries that follow the US lead...eg:Aus.

I know there are Christians out there who think Barak is the Anti-Christ...I cannot recall any person in Aus claiming one of our politicians was that, no matter how hated he/she was- (not even Pauline Hanson!!). I can understand the comparison that Hitler had with the Antichrist - I think that goes without saying.

For some reason, I always thought the Anti-Christ would emerge from Europe...

[Guest HIS girl]

I wonder who among us would vote for an avowed satanist if he/she were pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage, etc.

The Bible tells us that the devil is a liar, and so it stands to reason his servants are liars too. If a satanist was an avowed anything I wouldn't believe them. No satanist would be pro-life, pro-family and pro-traditional marriage. I don't know about pro-gun? No chance such a person would get my vote. I wouldn't believe anything they said anymore than I believed Obama when he claimed he would govern from the center.

So in other words you equate Obama in the same terms as a satanist?

Because that is how your post has come across - what is the difference with Obama (and his lies and a satanist?) for those who think Obama is a liar? (truly what politician isn't a liar?)

And to take it further - if Obama is no different to a santanist, then I worry greatly for the future of the US....and all those countries that follow the US lead...eg:Aus.

I know there are Christians out there who think Barak is the Anti-Christ...I cannot recall any person in Aus claiming one of our politicians was that, no matter how hated he/she was- (not even Pauline Hanson!!). I can understand the comparison that Hitler had with the Antichrist - I think that goes without saying.

For some reason, I always thought the Anti-Christ would emerge from Europe...

No, I am not calling Obama a Satanist, only a liar. He told so many lies, I lost count long ago. I think the best comparison I can make concerning Obama is with Nero, because he wanted to build a new Rome, but couldn't till he destroyed the Rome already in existence. That is what Obama is doing in America. He wants to remake America into something completely differen't than what currently exists, and is trying to destroy it so that will be possible.

I make no bones about the fact I can't stand Obama and I despise everything he has done as President. There are reasons why I don't think he could be the anti-Christ, but I do think he is of an anti-Christ spirit.

Ok, let me get this right - he was voted by the masses to lead the US - most on this Board dislike him and some to the point of hatred (well that's how some posts come across)...

and you say he is wanting to change America into something else - would that mean the majority of the voters want a national change as well or have the whole of the voters for Obama been hoodwinked?

[Guest HIS girl]

Ok, thanks for your thoughts on that Butero - some things come to mind...

the race between Clinton and Obama - I guess folks had the chance to vote Hillary in but didn't - what was the deal there? I also heard during their battle that she was lying as well - (so two liars within the same party??).

And Palin - so her downfalls were, she was apparently not experienced, was a Christian and a woman? Did she not make gaffes during the vote race as well?

I mean from what I know of politics (in Aus anyway), they all make gaffes, they all lie, they all renege on deals, this is common political practise -

[Guest HIS girl]

Ok, thanks for your thoughts on that Butero - some things come to mind...

the race between Clinton and Obama - I guess folks had the chance to vote Hillary in but didn't - what was the deal there? I also heard during their battle that she was lying as well - (so two liars within the same party??).

And Palin - so her downfalls were, she was apparently not experienced, was a Christian and a woman? Did she not make gaffes during the vote race as well?

I mean from what I know of politics (in Aus anyway), they all make gaffes, they all lie, they all renege on deals, this is common political practise -

The Clinton-Obama race was another story. I think Hillary thought she was automatically going to be the nominee, so she didn't take Obama serious. She ran a horrible campaign early on. Obama wound up winning an early caucus and the momentum shifted to him. What seemed to put him over the top was the Oprah endorsement. I don't think he would have won without that. What was interesting is the fact that the longer Obama was in the race and people started listening to him, the more things were shifting back to Clinton, but he had already racked up a large number of primary wins. Then, Hillary started winning her own primaries, and when the dust settled there, neither candidate had enough votes to win outright, but Obama had a slim lead. The Democrats have what they call super delegates who decided the race, and they went for Obama. Democrats really downplayed it, but the voters didn't decide that race, the super delegates did.

As for gaffs, Palin's only real mistake was going on the CBS Evening News program. She was asked a question about foreign policy experience, and rather than downplaying the need for it and explaining her role as a Governor, she tried to say that since her state bordered Russia, that somehow gave her foreign policy experience. Late night talk shows made fun of her for that, including Saturday Night Live who had an impersonator say that she saw Russia from her back yard. People then began to think Palin actually said that. That interview was a strategic mistake.

When Palin was first announced as McCain's running mate, she was very well received, and this helped McCain. A Democratic strategist said in a radio interview that what they were going to do was play up the novelty of Palin to a point where it would go from helping her to harming her, and that is exactly what happened. It was a clever strategy, and the Palin handlers did a poor job dealing with it. Had I been in charge, I would have greatly limited her exposure, not because I think she is dumb, but because she didn't have enough time to be brought to speed on national issues. The toughest interview she would have gotten would have been on something like the Bill O'Reilley Show.

Palin's mistakes were nothing compared to Obama's gaffs, but Palin's were blown up and Obama's were downplayed and even edited. There was a speech Obama made on Memorial Day, and he said "We are here today to honor our fallen heroes, I see some of them in the audience today." His comment about seeing dead soldiers was edited out by CNN and it appeared Obama never made it. There was his comment about visiting 57 states, when there are only 50 states in the union. There was the time he called Cinco De Mayo Cinco De Quatro. On another occassion, he said a breathalizer is something used by a person with asthma. There was gaff after gaff, and all of them were overlooked by the media. The bias was breathtaking. Here is something else to keep in mind. Obama was the top of the Democratic ticket, and Palin was the number two person on the Republican ticket. Let's compare experience.

Palin had served as a Mayor of Wasilla Alaska and was Governor of the state. Obama had served in the Illinois state Senate and was a first term U.S. Senator. There is no way anyone can seriously claim Obama was more experienced than Palin, the GOP's number two person on the ticket, yet the media ignored that. Neither of them had any foreign policy experience, but again, Palin was second on the ticket. If you compared the top of the tickets, you had McCain verses Obama, and McCain was far more experienced than Obama. I was amazed at how they got away with this. It comes down to the Obama campaign team doing a better job than McCain.

There was one more strategic mistake made by McCain. When the economic crash took place, he wanted to postpone a debate and return to Washington to help deal with it. That sounded good, and it helped him initially, but Obama countered by saying there was no need to do that, and made out like it was possible to work on the crisis and go to the debate. McCain harmed himself by going to the debate. What I would have advised him to do is go to Washington as he said he would and appear at the debate via satellite with a big screen monitor. His other option was to have people spend the week preparing Palin to stand in for him and let her take his place as his capable number two on the ticket. I wouldn't have told anyone what I was going to do till the last minute. That way, if I felt Palin was ready, she would go to the debate, and if not, I would have used the satellite option. McCain would have looked like the man who put country over politics, and Obama would have looked bad.

Obama won because his campaign didn't focus on controversial things, but they spent their time saying they were going to bring hope and change. Who wouldn't want that? Things weren't looking good with the economy, and we had been tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for hope and change, rather than understanding the specifics. We also aren't used to having elected officials that turn a blind eye to the will of the people. In the past, if the public was strongly opposed to something, it made a difference. That has not been the case with the Obama adminstration.

Clinton didn't take Obama seriously? Now wait, these guys all know about each other and I'm sure Obama wasn't operating from a bubble - Clinton would have known what she was up against and to not take a voting competitor serously sounds like the height of stupidity - (considering the millions that are spent in promoting the candidates)...

So from what I have gathered overall just by reading what you have put forth here Butero - media manipulation, the global economic slump, the continuing war in Afghanistan etc, sounds like Obama was in the right place at the right time.

And for Obamas popularity to increase with that appearance on the Winfrey show, just shows how much pull Oprah herself has - many US women (White and Black love her) - they see her as friendly and personable and on their level (think weight issues...), so I am gathering that the thinking was, any friend of Oprah's must be ok...I can imagine a lot of Baraks voters were female - gauranteed....

It just sounds like it was his time.

[nebula]

I think it has to do with the amount of Racism or simply blatantly offensive material directed towards Obama from certain parts of the tea party movement.

Oh yea . . . the perhaps 0.05% of people the news media sniffs out to focus on?

[MorningGlory]

I think it has to do with the amount of Racism or simply blatantly offensive material directed towards Obama from certain parts of the tea party movement.

Not so; I don't know one soul (among white folks) who has a problem with the President's race (anyway, he's just as much white as he is black). In fact, I know big fans, who are white, of Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Charlie Watts and Michael Steele. It's Obama's ideology they despise. Personally, I like the guy too but....some of his policies are beyond what I can accept. And, btw, here in Texas nearly EVERYONE either attends Tea Party rallies or supports them financially. You, as a Canadian, don't understand the Tea Party movement or the mindset of the people here.

[Guest HIS girl]

Clinton didn't take Obama seriously? Now wait, these guys all know about each other and I'm sure Obama wasn't operating from a bubble - Clinton would have known what she was up against and to not take a voting competitor serously sounds like the height of stupidity - (considering the millions that are spent in promoting the candidates)...

So from what I have gathered overall just by reading what you have put forth here Butero - media manipulation, the global economic slump, the continuing war in Afghanistan etc, sounds like Obama was in the right place at the right time.

And for Obamas popularity to increase with that appearance on the Winfrey show, just shows how much pull Oprah herself has - many US women (White and Black love her) - they see her as friendly and personable and on their level (think weight issues...), so I am gathering that the thinking was, any friend of Oprah's must be ok...I can imagine a lot of Baraks voters were female - gauranteed....

It just sounds like it was his time.

I don't think Hillary Clinton was stupid as much as she just assumed the primaries were a formality. Everyone knew she was going to run for President, and that her Senate seat was a stepping stone to the White House. Going into the primary season, she was well ahead of the field, and it appeared she was going to coast to victory. She was caught off guard more than anything. Her campaign team wasn't prepared for a serious challenge, and while I am sure there were people in the Democratic Party that viewed Obama as a serious Presidential candidate, he was only a first term Senator. The idea that Hillary Clinton could lose to someone like that was unthinkable to her. If it was anything, it was arrogance more than stupidity. When Obama was making noise early on, she constantly downplayed the idea anyone could beat her. She kept insisting she was going to be the nominee, as opposed to talking about what she would do if she got the nomination. I think that attitude harmed her with some voters. Once Obama started to gain momentum, along came Oprah, someone who wasn't normally political, and not only did she endorse Obama, but she campaigned for him. That is when the tide really turned.

When you say, "It just sounds like it was his time," that pretty much sums it up. He was in the right place at the right time. The voters wanted something differen't than what they had, and he was the opposition candidate. McCain was seen as more of the same. People weren't really thinking about specifics Obama would do, but about doing anything differen't. McCain was a long shot from the start, not because Obama was better, but because of the Bush baggage, McCain's dullness and age, and the fact he had alienated many in his own party in the past. There was a time where I said I would never vote for McCain. The only reason I did support him was because I saw the serious threat Obama posed. I was supporting Fred Thompson in the primary.

Personally I feel H.Clinton's arrogance was stupidity because when millions are being spent on a political campaign, you need to cover ALL bases and not expect there to be a lanslide for the simple fact of what DID happen.

From all that you have put forward it seems like all the doors were opened to allow such an (inexperienced/questionable) candidate to succeed - would even seem as if God was orchestrating the whole affair - I will probably cop a lot of flak for saying that but hey, I've been personally shredded on these boards before, I'm kinda used to it now!

[MorningGlory]

Personally I feel H.Clinton's arrogance was stupidity because when millions are being spent on a political campaign, you need to cover ALL bases and not expect there to be a lanslide for the simple fact of what DID happen.

From all that you have put forward it seems like all the doors were opened to allow such an (inexperienced/questionable) candidate to succeed - would even seem as if God was orchestrating the whole affair - I will probably cop a lot of flak for saying that but hey, I've been personally shredded on these boards before, I'm kinda used to it now!

Well, you shouldn't be, HG, but it DOES happen. You just have to stand your ground (and use your right and left hand flame throwers, that's what they're there for!)

[Guest HIS girl]

Personally I feel H.Clinton's arrogance was stupidity because when millions are being spent on a political campaign, you need to cover ALL bases and not expect there to be a lanslide for the simple fact of what DID happen.

From all that you have put forward it seems like all the doors were opened to allow such an (inexperienced/questionable) candidate to succeed - would even seem as if God was orchestrating the whole affair - I will probably cop a lot of flak for saying that but hey, I've been personally shredded on these boards before, I'm kinda used to it now!

Well, you shouldn't be, HG, but it DOES happen. You just have to stand your ground (and use your right and left hand flame throwers, that's what they're there for!)

LOL MG!!

[Rick-Parker]

I wonder who among us would vote for an avowed satanist if he/she were pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage, etc.

That person would be a liar.