Where does the "Obama is a secret Muslim" rhetoric come from?

[jclalor 12]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM19DEZuiPY

[Stumpy 256]

The sad thing is - some people on this forum will be parrotting this stuff as fact at some point, as well as defending fox news.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Stumpy

The sad thing is - some people on this forum will be parrotting this stuff as fact at some point, as well as defending fox news.

One person in particular comes to mind.

This clown was sharing the same stage with Palin and Cruz, this is what the Government shutdown is really about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDfQO5jdjGc


As Lawrence O'Donnell said "They may have been the greatest, but they certainly weren't the brightest generation".

[Stumpy 256]

Quote

One person in particular comes to mind.

No Kidding



With regards to Larry Klayman, one of the youtube commenters had it right. "The crazy is strong in this one"

Quote

Palin and Cruz

Presidential ticket 2016? Oh please I hope so....

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[muff528 3]

Probably from here:

"In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies. My mother wasn't overly concerned. 'Be respectful,' she'd say. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I would close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words." ~Barack Obama from Dreams from My Father.

Clearly, after having been exposed to both, he first rejected Islam and then Catholicism, ultimately in favor of the Black Liberation Theology denomination of Christianity.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Clearly, after having been exposed to both, he first rejected Islam and then Catholicism, ultimately in favor of the Black Liberation Theology denomination of Christianity.

I seriously doubt that any young child has the capacity to understand and then "reject" any form of religion. I do think that if a child is not indoctrinated in religion, it's never given a second thought by them.

[muff528 3]

jclalor

Quote

Clearly, after having been exposed to both, he first rejected Islam and then Catholicism, ultimately in favor of the Black Liberation Theology denomination of Christianity.

I seriously doubt that any young child has the capacity to understand and then "reject" any form of religion. I do think that if a child is not indoctrinated in religion, it's never given a second thought by them.

Yes, in Obama's case, it's probably more accurate to say that he successfully resisted attempts by the Islamic school and by the Catholic Church to indoctrinate him in each of their theologies, although they each had 2 years to try. But, I disagree with the statement, "I seriously doubt that any young child has the capacity to understand and then "reject" any form of religion". ..Depends on the level or intensity of indoctrination.

[kelpdiver 2]

Stumpy

Quote

Palin and Cruz

Presidential ticket 2016? Oh please I hope so....

Who would lead? And who would break the bad news to Bachmann?

[kallend 1,673]

Unfortunately there are a lot of very ignorant people in the USA who believe this stuff because they want to believe it, and a number of cynical politicians who exploit that ignorance for their own ends. Just look at the rise of the Tea Party for evidence of this.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[winsor 189]

kelpdiver

***

Quote

Palin and Cruz

Presidential ticket 2016? Oh please I hope so....

Who would lead? And who would break the bad news to Bachmann?

A woman's place is on top.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

Unfortunately there are a lot of very ignorant people in the USA who believe this stuff because they want to believe it, and a number of cynical politicians who exploit that ignorance for their own ends. Just look at the rise of the Tea Party for evidence of this.

Perfect example. The same type of thinking that goes into calling the President a Muslim is exemplified by the hatred of the "Tea Party." It's why we have leaders calling the "Tea Party" terrorists and traitors and criminals and the like. Which, of course, is interesting because of how it parallels King George III.

It's far easier to breed hate and contempt of the opposition than to point out how you are doing things right. It's easier to say, "he's a Muslim" than to actually discuss his actions. It's easier to equate the Tea Partiers with Al Qaeda than to actually discuss the points they make.

Both sides pull this crap that serves no purpose other than to further polarize.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DaVinci 0]

kallend

Unfortunately there are a lot of very ignorant people in the USA who believe this stuff because they want to believe it, and a number of cynical politicians who exploit that ignorance for their own ends. Just look at the rise of the Tea Party for evidence of this.

Yes, because sticking to the Constitution and being fiscally responsible is *so* extreme and out there.

[billvon 2,467]

>Who would lead? And who would break the bad news to Bachmann?

Put all 3 in a room. Last one standing is the presidential candidate. Least injured remaining person is VP. It's the only fair way.

[billvon 2,467]

>Yes, because sticking to the Constitution

That's so 2010. If you stuck to the Constitution you'd have to defund Obamacare by voting on it using Constitutional means. Much better just to threaten to shut down the government. No pesky Constitution to get in your way!

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

If you stuck to the Constitution you'd have to defund Obamacare by voting on it using Constitutional means.

Hate to break it to you, but using the House *IS* Constitutional.

You do know that the House (R) has voted on a budget and the Senate (D) has refused to vote on it?

Ya know, that whole three branches of govt thing. Budgets being started in the House. The House being the *representatives* of the people.... The House is following the Constitution. When Obama modified the ACA *FIVE* times since it was passed without input from the House or Senate... Including suspending the employer mandate, that was not considered "obstructionism". But when the House follows the RULES and tries to suspend the individual mandate you go crazy.

Seems to me that you should maybe read the Constitution. And maybe you should look at the history of Obama doing almost EXACTLY what you are crying the Republicans are evil for.

Quote

Much better just to threaten to shut down the government. No pesky Constitution to get in your way!

Still Constitutional. You incorrectly assume that just because you have the executive branch and ONE of the legislative branches that you get free reign to run the show as you see fit. The Founding Fathers thought differently.

[billvon 2,467]

>Still Constitutional.

Yep. It would also be Constitutional to just never show up to work, and refuse to do so until you got your way. (Not the way the founders intended it to be used, of course, but who cares - as long as you get your way.)

[DaVinci 0]

billvon

>Still Constitutional.

Yep. It would also be Constitutional to just never show up to work, and refuse to do so until you got your way. (Not the way the founders intended it to be used, of course, but who cares - as long as you get your way.)

I can see you don't understand the whole idea of three branches of govt and two Houses (upper/lower).

I can also see that you have not paid attention that the House has sent a bill funding everything but the ACA.

I can also see that you must have missed how the House has sent three bills to the Senate to fund the most important projects... And it was the SENATE that refused to vote on them.

[Stumpy 256]

DaVinci

I can also see that you have not paid attention that the House has sent a bill funding everything but the ACA.

Sigh.

You clearly haven't paid attention that this is the house throwing a tantrum when they can't get their way through standard channels and is holding the country to ransom. they have been called on it and been found wanting, hence the approval rating dropping to around 25%.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[DaVinci 0]

Stumpy

***
I can also see that you have not paid attention that the House has sent a bill funding everything but the ACA.

Sigh.

You clearly haven't paid attention that this is the house throwing a tantrum when they can't get their way through standard channels and is holding the country to ransom. they have been called on it and been found wanting, hence the approval rating dropping to around 25%.

Sigh.... you clearly don't realize that this is a LEGAL method. It IS a standard channel designed into the Constitution.

You also seem to ignore that the whole shutdown could have been avoided by the Senate passing the bill the House sent them.

You also seem to be ignoring that Obama has done basically the same thing the House is asking to do (Obama suspended the Business mandate, the House wants to suspend the individual mandate).

They both are doing the SAME thing. One is using a procedure allowed by the Founders.

[billvon 2,467]

>I can see you don't understand the whole idea of three branches of govt and two Houses (upper/lower).

Let's see -

Congress - passed Obamacare.
Executive - signed it into law.
Judicial - decided it was constitutional.

So if they want to change it:

Congress - passes a law defunding it.
Executive - signs it into law. (If not, Congress can override the veto.)
Judicial - decides if the new law is constitutional.

That's how our system works. What part of that are you having trouble with?

[livendive 8]

DaVinci

***
Unfortunately there are a lot of very ignorant people in the USA who believe this stuff because they want to believe it, and a number of cynical politicians who exploit that ignorance for their own ends. Just look at the rise of the Tea Party for evidence of this.

Yes, because sticking to the Constitution and being fiscally responsible is *so* extreme and out there.

In what world are the recent actions of the teabaggers fiscally responsible?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[flyingdrinkard 0]

billvon

>I can see you don't understand the whole idea of three branches of govt and two Houses (upper/lower).

Let's see -

Congress - passed Obamacare.
Executive - signed it into law.
Judicial - decided it was constitutional.

So if they want to change it:

Congress - passes a law defunding it.
Executive - signs it into law. (If not, Congress can override the veto.)
Judicial - decides if the new law is constitutional.

That's how our system works. What part of that are you having trouble with?

The issue I have with the affordable care act is that it was passed in congress and signed into law as health care reform and then was presented to the supreme court as a taxation reform. Everyone knows the fed can tax the public, that makes for an easy decision for the court.

[DaVinci 0]

billvon

>I can see you don't understand the whole idea of three branches of govt and two Houses (upper/lower).

Let's see -

Congress - passed Obamacare.
Executive - signed it into law.
Judicial - decided it was constitutional.

So if they want to change it:

Congress - passes a law defunding it.
Executive - signs it into law. (If not, Congress can override the veto.)
Judicial - decides if the new law is constitutional.

That's how our system works. What part of that are you having trouble with?

The part where you are not seeing that it is working as designed.... Even if you don't like it.

[DaVinci 0]

livendive

******
Unfortunately there are a lot of very ignorant people in the USA who believe this stuff because they want to believe it, and a number of cynical politicians who exploit that ignorance for their own ends. Just look at the rise of the Tea Party for evidence of this.

Yes, because sticking to the Constitution and being fiscally responsible is *so* extreme and out there.

In what world are the recent actions of the teabaggers fiscally responsible?

Blues,
Dave

Where have you seen ANY politician be fiscally responsible? 3rd grade name use aside..... When did you see the dems be responsible with a budget? Hell, Obama has not signed a budget since 2009. (The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009)

Obama's last proposed budget was voted down in the Senate 97-0.... And the D's own the Senate.

Since the last budget the Govt has spent $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion in debt.

[masterblaster72 0]

DaVinci

When did you see the dems be responsible with a budget?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.