BF2S Forums It is confirmed that Obama is a religion.

Let's see...  World Net Daily is making an assessment about something being religious and fanatical.

That's kind of like The National Enquirer calling someone trashy.

Face it...  WND is so slanted, it makes Fox News look liberal.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I just had to point out that his source (like a lot of other posts he's made) isn't very credible.

Turquoise wrote:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I just had to point out that his source (like a lot of other posts he's made) isn't very credible.

that's legitimate... but if anyone watches the tv news or reads a paper... Obama is going to save the world... I almost feel bad for him... If he doesn't part the seas and walk on water... people will turn on him...( i was going to say crucify... lol... no pun intended) 

This kind of relates to Obama and his give me a house lady... and the give me a better job guy....
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/19/gi … -backlash/

Turquoise wrote:

In the Schumer thread, Kmarion has shown how hollow some of the Republican opposition to the stimulus bill is...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch … me-co.html

Don't get me wrong, I think the stimulus bill is full of shit, but apparently, so is a lot of the opposition to it.

I suppose Ron Paul might be one of the only ones who isn't being 2-faced about it.

Indeed. But Paul hates it whenever the Gov does anything, so there really isn't anytime he'll be hippocratic on any government spending as he hates all of it.

Last edited by DoctaStrangelove (2009-02-19 16:48:43)

Turquoise wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

In the Schumer thread, Kmarion has shown how hollow some of the Republican opposition to the stimulus bill is...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch … me-co.html

Don't get me wrong, I think the stimulus bill is full of shit, but apparently, so is a lot of the opposition to it.

I suppose Ron Paul might be one of the only ones who isn't being 2-faced about it.

Indeed. But Paul hates it whenever the Gov does anything, so there really isn't anytime he'll be hippocratic on any government spending as he hates all of it.

Point taken.  I'm not saying I always agree with him.

One of the main reasons I like him has less to do with his positions and more to do with how he would be a great counter to a lot of big government.

For example, imagine how much conflict there would be between the Democratic Congress and Paul as president.  It would be kind of crazy, but I think, in the end, some good compromises would result from it.

Either way, we really do need more small government leaders to counter all the big government ones already in power.

I really think the terms "small government" and "big government" are over simplifications. Some people use them in reference to stuff like civil liberties and foreign policy, while others when speaking of the economy. It's really just a lame buzz word that the media like because it can reduce a complex scenario into two words.

To say that Paul is "against government action in both social and economic fields" is more accurate. Just as saying Obama is "for government action in economic areas, against it in social areas" would be better. But that's too long.

So the Dems really aren't "big government", they're in favor of removing the powers the Bush administration gave itself, which would fall under "small government" I guess. While in favor of using the government to help stabilize the economy.

i like how he changed the title to something more presentable, if only the content were changed too...

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Now that we've established that the premise for making your post wasn't genuine, can you come up with a good, acceptable reason for jumping to conclusions?

If there had been Dr. Seuss books hanging there instead, would you also have rushed to the nearest computer to post a thread on BF2s talking about how all those blind followers of Yertle the Turtle make you "fuckin' sick!!"?

No the premise was real you blind followers of the Messiah Obama do make me sick, add this latest example to the list.

Again, now that you are done squirming about how this must be a joke and how this is only one bookstore, and how this is photoshopped. Please provide a good explaination for this, since the spokesperson for Borders can not.

I do not "follow" Obama, and I have not said that it was a "joke". I have said that the premise of your thread, which was to insinuate that Borders deliberately categorises Obama books as being religious in nature is false, and the proof you provide yourself confirms this. The spokesperson gave a perfectly good explanation for it. It was a chance occurence.

Rarely do I see people be as completely wrong as you were in this post. I guess that doesn't matter to you, though. You can just go back to your Messiah, WorldNetDaily, and find the next gob of semen to felch, right?

LOL, you mean you accept, the religion sign slipped over head, or the Obam books just happend to fall and they all landed on the religion bookshelf perfectly?

You are really gunna buy, " it was a chance occurance" as the explaination for this?

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

National Socialism. Enjoy it lowing.

No thanks, I would rather EARN a living.

Did you EARN the roads you drive on?

Don't give me that bullshit. YOu know damn well the difference between paying taxes for infrastructure and paying for some elses way through life. Who, by the way, also drives on the roads I helped pay for.

Turquoise wrote:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I just had to point out that his source (like a lot of other posts he's made) isn't very credible.

Fact is, no source is credible on this forum if it is not agreed with.
The question is never the source, the question should always be, did it happen or is it true? People on here dismiss shit from any source they disagree with. It is a standard diversionary tactic. Trash the source so you do not have to defend against the story.

To me, it remains funny.  It is not the whole setup of the store, whether it is a joke or not.  What makes this an issue is not Obama himself.  It is about the people that have raised him up to nearly a demi-god stature.  That stupid kid at the town hall meeting that as gushing about being at his McDonalds job for 4 years; he could not have looked any more reverent if he tried.  Whether they tear Obama down when they realize he is only human is a story that has yet to be written, but for now it does appear that people hold him somewhat in awe; not to mention the hell you will rain down upon yourself should you ever speak ill of The Obama.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I just had to point out that his source (like a lot of other posts he's made) isn't very credible.

Fact is, no source is credible on this forum if it is not agreed with.
The question is never the source, the question should always be, did it happen or is it true? People on here dismiss shit from any source they disagree with. It is a standard diversionary tactic. Trash the source so you do not have to defend against the story.

I'm pretty sure people are trashing this source because of the story's origins. A unnamed guy sent another guy a picture through an email. If the bookstore had confirmed the allegations it would be a more credible source.

Besides that, a sources biases should always make you suspicious.

Page one.

AussieReaper wrote:

Some thread worthy topic this is.

mods move this to EE, please.