Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hermit_

  1. Sounds like you're not entirely sure if it was his finger.. or his tongue.. that Dr Friendly put in your ass, Delbro. Aw well,.. whichever it was,.. I hope the special attention he gave you helped alleviate your.. uhh.. throbbing head. "I'd like to poke toss see you again in a few days, Del" Seriously though.. I hope you're feeling better soon, friend.
  2. The *major national polls* show Obama leading McCain, on average, by 4.8%. On average the major polls show Obama with anywhere from 41%-49% support. That's hardly an indication that "most Americans" see Obama the same way you do, muh-man. It seems to me to be an indication that roughly half of the American electorate feel Obama is ready and qualified to be the next POTUS.
  3. yeah,.. and they inspire people too. ..for whatever that's worth, right? But uhh.. what exactly does that have to do with your rather bizarro claim that Obama was in Germany "shamelessly pandering for votes"? How many German votes do you think he'll get in the general election as a result of his pander in Berlin, eh?
  4. I'm sure you meant "thanks", eh.. *ahem* .."newb"? You might be very pleased to learn that in addition to sinking that 3-pointer.. Obama did in fact say "thanks" to the troops. See for yourself, muh-man. --> *Obama thanks troops in Kuwait* *Obama meets troops in Kuwait.. sinks 3-pointer*
  5. You posted it. You made an offer? ..When? Where? [does your offer still stand.. on its own? You know,.. without a cane or a walker? ] Btw,.. you asked a question about Obama not having a 20% lead in the polls, and I responded to your question. Have you any reactions, thoughts, insights, or counter-arguments you'd like to share? Or have I stumped you.. yet again?
  6. I heard McCain had the fudge without nuts. You know.. because it's easier on his gums. [Then again,.. it could be just another one of those toothless.. erm, baseless.. internet rumors, I s'ppose. ]
  7. Pb, if you're not going to spell correctly, your suggestion that someone else has their head up their ass is going to bite you in.. well.. yours. A quick and easy lesson for.. you: "your" is possessive; and would properly be used to indicate that *the head belonging to you is up the ass belonging to you*. "you're" is a contraction meaning "you are"; and would properly be used in indicating that *you are a totally clueless dunce*. Capisca? [Of course I don't mean "you" personally is those examples; I mean "you" generically, Pipeboy. Yeah,.. that's the ticket. ] ---------------- Obama draws tens of thousands.. and hundreds of thousands.. at arenas and outdoor rallies around the country and the world.. While John McCain draws.. (literally).. "about a dozen" at..
  8. Yeah,.. it's shameless how Obama was in Berlin pandering for all those German votes,.. huh Del? "People of Berlin - people of the world - this is our moment. This is our time." "This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope. I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions. But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived - at great cost and great sacrifice - to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom - indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us - what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America's shores - is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please. These are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. These aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of these aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of these aspirations that all free people - everywhere - became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of these aspirations that a new generation - our generation - must make our mark on the world. People of Berlin - and people of the world - the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again." Face it, Delbert.. you're really embarrassed for McCain's candidacy,.. ..and for what your sub-mediocre candidate says about your party. ..huh? Mac-n-Cheese McBush-mobile McNapTime?
  9. "traditional democrats" who will never vote for Obama? If by "traditional democrats" you mean "Dixicrats".. you might consider that those who used to identify themselves as Dixicrats have long since departed dem party and they're republicans now.. you know, because their racism and intolerance fits better with republican party values than with the democratic party values. And.. I would've thought it'd go without saying, but apparently not.. no one expects Dixi-repubs to vote for Obama. Besides,.. those Dixi-repubs of whom you speak are already showing in the polls as being part of the 39%-46% who are supporting McCain.. so your point is moot anyway. I realize, Del, that you repubs are desperately resting your hopes on "all the indepedents and [Dixicrats] who will never vote for Obama",.. but the reality is that Obama has already written off the votes of Dixi-repub racists, and he has every bit as much of a chance of getting independent votes as McCain does. The fact of the matter is that all the major national polls are showing STRONG and CONSISTENT democratic party support for Obama; thus his consistent 41%-49% showing in the polls. And, my friend, you can take it to the bank that dems who are participating in polls ARE going to show up to vote on election day... unlike repubs who are participating in polls but who won't bother to vote on election day. An Obama landslide is the result.
  10. 2%? 20%?? [] Allow me to spell it out for you,.. step-by-simple-step,.. Pipeboy. [let's see if your attention span, and your brain cell, can handle it. ] 1. Looking at the 2000 and 2004 presidential election results, it's readily apparent that America is ideologically divided almost right down the middle: 50/50 Rep/Dem*. Evidence of this split: Bush beat Gore and Kerry by very slim margins; specifically, the margin of victory for Bush over Gore was <1%, and the margin of victory for Bush over Kerry was 3%. 2. Republicans make up approx 49.5% of the electorate (avg of 2000 and 2004 repub%), and most of them are simply not going to vote for Obama no matter what. They will not vote for Obama no matter how well his campaign is going; no matter how poorly John McCain's campaign is going; and no matter how poorly the republican party has done over the past 8 years. Approx 49.5% of the ideologically sharply divided electorate (the remarkably myopic half of the electorate *wink*) is going to vote for McCain no matter what. If, that is, they bother to show up to vote on election day**. 3. Therefore,.. given that almost half of the electorate is not going to vote for Obama no matter what,.. it's not very realistic to expect Obama to open up a 20% lead in national polls. Ergo,.. the question "why isn't Obama leading by 20%?" is a red herring. ------------------------- * It's not quite 50/50 Rep/Dem split though because third-party candidates need to be factored in. For example, in 2000 the split was 48/48/4 Rep/Dem/Other. 2000 results: Gore: 50,996,116 (votes); 48%; 266 (Elect. Coll votes) Bush: 50,456,169 (votes); 48%; 271 (Elect. Coll votes) Other: 3,874,040 (votes); 4%; 0 (Elect. Coll votes) in 2000, a <1% margin of victory amounted to a victory by 5 Elect Coll votes. 2004 results: Bush: 62,040,606 (votes); 51%; 286 (Elect. Coll votes) Kerry: 59,028,109 (votes); 48%; 252 (Elect. Coll votes) Other: 411,304 (votes); 1%; 0 (Elect. Coll votes) in 2004, a 3% margin of victory amounted to a victory by 32 Elect Coll votes. [in 2008, a 7.8% margin of victory could amount to a (landslide) victory by 80+ Elect Coll votes. ] ** Dems are genuinely enthusiastic, excited, and inspired by the prospect of an Obama presidency; that's going to translate into enormous (perhaps record-setting) voter turnout for Obama. Conversely, repubs are not the least bit enthused by McCain, nor are many ofd them pleased with the last 8 years of republican leadership; although they are disenchanted with their party, and are unenthusiastic about their candidate, repubs will still vote for McCain,.. but it's very likely that many repubs will not even bother to vote on election day.. AND.. it's also very likely that a few % of the repubs who do show up to vote will vote for third party conservative candidate BOB BARR. Therefore, it's reasonable to presume that whatever % McCain gets in national polls, 2-3% can be deducted because they'll go to Bob Barr, and a few more % can be deducted to account for repubs who won't bother to vote at all. ------------------------- With all that in mind.. howzabout we take a look at the "P-51 sanctioned" poll source *RealClearPolitcis.com*.. ..a source that looks at the major national polls.. Obama leads anywhere from 1% (ie, a narrow Elect Coll victory).. as reported by FOX Noise.. to 7% (ie, a landslide Electoral College victory).. as reported by Reuters/Zogby. Even in the Rasmussen poll that you were touting a few days ago that showed Obama's lead as a mere 2%,.. shows him having gained another 3% in that poll.. now at 5%. The average of all the major national polls shows Obama with a lead of 4.8%. [1.8% more than Bush defeated Gore by; and 4.2% more than Bush defeated Kerry by.] Add the third party Bob Barr Factor (-3% for McCain), and Obama leads by 7.8%. 7.8% correlates to a landslide electoral college victory for Barack Obama. [4.6% more than Gore defeated Kerry by; 7.2% more than Bush defeated Gore by. ] ..and that's not even accounting for low republican voter turnout. Factoring low republican voter turnout into the equation,.. it's plausible that Obama could win by as much as 9%.. perhaps winning by as many as 100 Electoral College votes! ..and that's all based on Obama's current 4.8% average lead in the polls.. according the poll source (RealClearPolitics.com) that's been sanctioned by our friend and diehard McCaniac,.. P-51. With every tick that Obama's average lead increases in the polls, you can extrapolate what that could mean to the election results in November. Yes, indeed,.. the polls are looking good for Obama. Oh,.. and btw, Pb,.. according to *RealClearPolitics.com*.. Rassmussen shows Obama ahead by 28%, and the Field poll shows Obama ahead by 24%.. ..in California.
  11. McLame: "I'd like to give a speech in Germany too, but.. I'm not good enough. " Obama draws 200,000 for speech in Berlin while John McCain draws "about a dozen" at German cafe in Ohio.
  12. Obama is a gift from the world to us.. in so many ways! It kinda,.. well.. sends a tingle up your leg,.. don't it?! [there's your set-up.. make good use of it. ]
  13. As I see it.. A. Gaines put Del's "The office of the Presidency should be respected even if one doesn't respect the person holding the office" assertion to the test by asking Del if he would still respect the office even if the person holding the office was Hitler. B. It was NOT a "comparison" of the presidency to Hitler, as Del claimed, it was simply a hypothetical question.. and a challenging one at that. C. Gaines used Hitler as his example because we can all readily agree that Hitler is not deserving of respect, and therefore Hitler very clearly meets the "even if you don't respect the person holding the office" criteria set forth by Del. The question/challenge to Del was therefore quite clear and straightforward. D. Rather than step up to the challenge and answer the question, Del instead chose to avoid the question by acting all offended. [the following is a re-enactment]: ------------------- *and.. action!* "OMG!!.. that is so offensive!! How dare you make such a vile comparison! Surely even your friends will reject you for crossing that unholy line! Why do you hate America so much anyway? Is it because you're gay? My God, you're such a bigot! It disgusts me! I'm disgusted that you'd make that comparison; I'm disgusted that you hate America; I'm disgusted that you're gay; and I'm disgusted that you're a bigot! (Oh my goodness gracious I do I believe I'm faklempt.. and apoplectic too! Hey boy,.. yes, you there.. bring me a glass of water.. with a squeeze of lime in it... and hurry up, damn you!)" *dramatic pause* *and.. scene!* ------------------- Del's imagined response to his performance: Actual response that Del-vaudeville receives: E. Imho, Del should stop being such a drama queen and he should simply answer the question. Q: Would you still respect the office of the presidency if someone as heinous as Hitler held that office? [in other words: Is your respect for the office of the presidency unqualified (absolute).. or is it qualified (subject to exceptions)?] C'mon, Del,.. answer the question, muh-man!
  14. There's a Whole Lotta satirizin' (and spoofin') goin' on. Vanity Fair, July 22nd: Jeff Danziger; July 16th: David Horsey; July 15th:
  15. How'd Operation Pound Obama work out for McCain, Pb? Was he successful at making sure the story was about everything except Obama being in..*cough*Iraqi PM supports Obama troop withdrawal plan*cough*..Iraq?
  16. . Ouch. Scathing. And oh so.. well.. uhh.. (upcoming pun intended).. right.. on.. the.. money! Cheers, Frank! ------------------------- *It’s the Economic Stupidity, Stupid* By FRANK RICH July 20, 2008 THE best thing to happen to John McCain was for the three network anchors to leave him in the dust this week while they chase Barack Obama on his global Lollapalooza tour. Were voters forced to actually focus on Mr. McCain’s response to our spiraling economic crisis at home, the prospect of his ascension to the Oval Office could set off a panic that would make the IndyMac Bank bust in Pasadena look as merry as the Rose Bowl. “In a time of war,” Mr. McCain said last week, “the commander in chief doesn’t get a learning curve.” Fair enough, but he imparted this wisdom in a speech that was almost a year behind Mr. Obama in recognizing Afghanistan as the central front in the war against Al Qaeda. Given that it took the deadliest Taliban suicide bombing in Kabul since 9/11 to get Mr. McCain’s attention, you have to wonder if even General Custer’s learning curve was faster than his. Mr. McCain still doesn’t understand that we can’t send troops to Afghanistan unless they’re shifted from Iraq. But simple math, to put it charitably, has never been his forte. When it comes to the central front of American anxiety — the economy — his learning curve has flat-lined. In 2000, he told an interviewer that he would make up for his lack of attention to “those issues.” As he entered the 2008 campaign, Mr. McCain was still saying the same, vowing to read “Greenspan’s book” as a tutorial. Last weekend, the resolutely analog candidate told The New York Times he is at last starting to learn how “to get online myself.” Perhaps he’ll retire his abacus by Election Day. Mr. McCain’s fiscal ineptitude has received so little scrutiny in some press quarters that his chief economic adviser, the former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, got a free pass until the moment he self-immolated on video by whining about “a nation of whiners.” The McCain-Gramm bond, dating back 15 years, is more scandalous than Mr. Obama’s connection with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Mr. McCain has been so dependent on Mr. Gramm for economic policy that he sent him to newspaper editorial board meetings, no doubt to correct the candidate’s numbers much as Joe Lieberman cleans up after his confusions of Sunni and Shia. Just two weeks before publicly sharing his thoughts about America’s “mental recession,” Mr. Gramm laid out equally incendiary views in a Wall Street Journal profile that portrayed him as “almost certainly” the McCain choice for Treasury secretary. Mr. Gramm said that the former chief executive of AT&T, Ed Whitacre, was “probably the most exploited worker in American history” since he received only a $158 million pay package rather than the “billions” he deserved for his success in growing Southwestern Bell. But no one in the news media seemed to notice Mr. Gramm’s naked expression of the mind-set he’d bring to a McCain White House. And few journalists have vetted the presumptive Treasury secretary’s post-Senate history as an executive at UBS. The stock of that banking giant has lost 70 percent of its value in a year after its reckless adventures in the subprime lending market. It’s now fending off federal investigation for helping the megarich avoid taxes. Mr. McCain made a big show of banishing Mr. Gramm after his whining “gaffe,” but it’s surely at most a temporary suspension. When the candidate said back in January that there’s nobody he knows who is stronger on economic issues than his old Senate pal, he was telling the truth. Left to his own devices — or those of his new No. 1 economic surrogate, Carly Fiorina — Mr. McCain is clueless. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger, a supporter, said that Mr. McCain’s latest panacea for high gas prices, offshore drilling, is snake oil — and then announced his availability to serve as energy czar in an Obama administration. The term flip-flopping doesn’t do justice to Mr. McCain’s self-contradictory economic pronouncements because that implies there’s some rational, if hypocritical, logic at work. What he serves up instead is plain old incoherence, as if he were compulsively consulting one of those old Magic 8 Balls. In a single 24-hour period in April, Mr. McCain went from saying there’s been “great economic progress” during the Bush presidency to saying “Americans are not better off than they were eight years ago.” He reversed his initial condemnation of mortgage bailouts in just two weeks. In February Mr. McCain said he would balance the federal budget by the end of his first term even while extending the gargantuan Bush tax cuts. In April he said he’d accomplish this by the end of his second term. In July he’s again saying he’ll do it in his first term. Why not just say he’ll do it on Inauguration Day? It really doesn’t matter since he’s never supplied real numbers that would give this promise even a patina of credibility. Mr. McCain’s plan for Social Security reform is “along the lines that President Bush proposed.” Or so he said in March. He came out against such “privatization” in June (though his policy descriptions still support it). Last week he indicated he isn’t completely clear on what Social Security does. He called the program’s premise — young taxpayers foot the bill for their elders (including him) — an “absolute disgrace.” Given that Mr. McCain’s sole private-sector job was a fleeting stint in public relations at his father-in-law’s beer distributorship, he comes by his economic ignorance honestly. But there’s no A team aboard the Straight Talk Express to fill him in. His campaign economist, the former Bush adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, could be found in the June 5 issue of American Banker suggesting even at that late date that we still don’t know “the depth of the housing crisis” and proposing that “monitoring is the right thing to do in these circumstances.” Ms. Fiorina, the ubiquitous new public face of McCain economic policy, adds nothing to the mix beyond her incessant display of corporate jargon, from “trend lines” to “start-ups.” Before she was fired at Hewlett-Packard, its stock had declined 50 percent during her five-plus years in charge. She missed earning projections — by 23 percent in one quarter — much as she now misrepresents both the Obama and McCain records. This month she said Mr. McCain wanted to require insurance plans to cover birth control medications along with Viagra, when in fact he had voted against it. Ms. Fiorina received a $42 million payout (half in cash) from H.P., according to a shareholders’ subsequent lawsuit. With this inspiring résumé, she now aspires to be Mr. McCain’s running mate. So does the irrepressible Mitt Romney, who actually was a business whiz before serving as Massachusetts’s governor. Beltway wisdom has it that the addition of such a corporate star will remedy Mr. McCain’s fiscal flatulence. But Mr. Romney, while more plausible than Ms. Fiorina, is hardly what America wants at this desperate time. His leveraged buyout dealings as co-founder of Bain Capital induced plant closings, mass layoffs and outsourcing. If Mr. McCain truly intends to “put our country’s interests” above politics and reach across the aisle to move the nation forward, as he constantly tells us, why not go for a vice president who’s the very best fit for the huge challenges at hand? The obvious choice would be Michael Bloomberg — who, as a former Republican turned independent, would necessitate that Mr. McCain reach only halfway across the aisle, and to someone who is his friend rather than a vanquished rival he is learning to tolerate. Romney vs. Bloomberg is not a close contest. Bloomberg L.P. has roughly three times the revenues and employees of Bain & Company, where Mr. Romney ultimately served as chief executive. Mr. Romney rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics while running it in 2002, but Mayor Bloomberg revitalized New York, the nation’s largest metropolis, after the most devastating attack in our history. The city he manages has more than twice the budget of Mr. Romney’s state. Yes, Mr. Bloomberg is a closet Democrat and an alpha dog who doesn’t want to be a second banana. And his views on gay civil rights and abortion would roil the G.O.P. base. But Mr. Romney shared some of those same views before he flip-flopped, and besides, these are not ordinary times. Millions of Americans are losing their homes and jobs. Whole industries are going belly up. The national crisis at hand, not yesterday’s culture wars, should drive the vice-presidential pick. Mr. McCain reminds us every day how principled he is. That presumably means he’d risk a revolt by his party’s dwindling agents of intolerance and do everything in his power to persuade Mr. Bloomberg to join his ticket in the spirit of patriotic sacrifice. The politics could be advantageous too. A Bloomberg surprise could impress independents and keep the television audience tuned in to a G.O.P. convention that will unfold in the shadow of Mr. Obama’s address to 75,000 screaming fans in Denver. But this is fantasy political baseball, not reality. Mr. McCain, sad to say, hung up his old maverick’s spurs the day he embraced the Bush tax cuts he had once opposed as “too tilted to the wealthy.” And Mr. Bloomberg? It’s hard to picture a titan who built his empire on computer terminals investing any capital, political or otherwise, in a chief executive who is still learning how to do, as Mr. McCain puts it, “a Google.” ------------------------- [the original article has imbedded hyperlinks to fact-sources that back up the many claims made throughout the piece. ] It's becoming apparent to more and more people that John McCain.. the emperor-wanna-be.. has no clothes.
  17. I'm gonna keep this quote in a handy place...you know, for future quick reference.. ...lest you decide at some point to go all "disrespectful" on President Obama.
  18. "What is it with you that you feel the need to be so bigotted, [Deleted]? And yes you are a bigot... probably the worst kind too. You go through life convincing yourself that you are not a bigot, however your constant barrage of anti-[homosexual] and anti-[Muslim] and anti-[non-American] comments shows your true colors." Yeah,.. you tell him!
  19. [i cleaned it up for you. Font sizes is an art form that you clearly haven't mastered. ] Story #1 [posted by Hermit]: Obama leads McCain by 6% Story #2 [posted by Pipeboy]: Obama leads McCain by 1% Pb: "It's the same story but in reverse". [huh? ] Ok, ok,.. yes, I know what you're really getting at, friend. You're talking about the "lowest level of support" measure. That's a somewhat fair enough point to make since one poll [Rasmussen] shows Obama with his lowest level of support, and the other poll [Gallup] shows McCain with his lowest level of support. But,.. as always,.. the devil's in the details, muh-man. Please note that according to the Rasmussen poll, Obama is at his lowest point since he clinched the dem nomination [on June 4th].. ie, in the past ONE AND A HALF months; whereas according to the Gallup poll, McCain is at his lowest point since Gallup began tracking 'general election preferences' [in March].. ie, in the past FOUR AND A HALF months. Do you grasp the nuance I'm gettin' at there, bro? It is a certain.. that McCain is hurtin. Whereas Obama is going good and strong.. as is evidenced by our "P-51-sanctioned" poll compilation source: realclearpolitics.com. --> *Source: RealClearPolitics.com* I highlighted the Rasmussen poll in green for ya, Pb, so you know its been included in the clean sweep of polls showing Obama leading McCain from anywhere between 1% [not surprisingly that's the poll you cited] and 9%.. with an average lead of 4.7% Yes indeed,.. the polls are looking "up" again for Obama! This is an interesting graphic too: *State-by-state ELECTORAL COLLEGE BREAKDOWN* Barack Obama: 255 [153 Solid; 102 Leaning] John McCain: 163 [90 Solid; 73 Leaning] Toss Up: 120 (270 Electoral Votes Needed To Win)
  20. Note: McCain's mistake/memory lapse/brain fart du jour: *McCain: "..on the Iraq/Pakistan border"* Asked by Diane Sawyer whether the "the situation in Afghanistan in precarious and urgent," McCain responded: "I think it's serious.. It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border." ------------------ Uhhh.. Johnny-John.. Mr so-called "foreign policy expert".. what Iraq/Pakistan border are you referring to, muh-man? D'oh! Let's hope McCain was wearing his slippers with the mint-flavored soles today, because.. once again.. he put his foot in his mouth. [i bet about now you repubs are wishing you'd nominated Huckabee,.. eh? ]
  21. . *Gallup Daily: Obama Leads McCain by Six Points Lead is among the largest Obama has held over McCain* July 21, 2008 The current results also mark the first time in more than three weeks that McCain's share of the trial heat vote has not been in the 42% to 44% range. In fact, it matches a June 7-9 reading as McCain's lowest level of support since Gallup began tracking general election preferences in March. ------------------- I look forward to seeing the Obama upward-McCain downward trend continuing in the coming days, weeks, and months!
  22. . I went to the source of the al-Miliki's comments in support of Barack Obama's Iraq withdrawal timetable plan, and in addition to finding the quotes he made CLEARLY in support of Obama's plan (in blue text below),.. I found another very interesting tidbit (in red text below).. one that's gotten ZERO media attention in the US: Seems pretty darn clear to me that: 1. MALIKI SUPPORTS OBAMA'S PLAN for a withdrawal timetable , and 2. Maliki was not making an election endorsement, per se. [not explicitly anyway. ] But that bit about "immunity" for US troops who have committed crimes being a holdup to an agreement.. I gotta say,.. that's news to me! Has anyone else seen that anywhere in the media previously?
  23. "Muslims do not eat pork because it is Haraam to eat the meat of the swine which is believed to not be clean. That which is permissible is termed Halaal, but that which is not permissible is termed Haraam. It is the Qu'ran which draws the distinction between these two, and the meat of the pig is Haraam. " [*source*] ---------------------- Actually, Pb,.. what I pointed out was that Obama's religious life over the past 20+ years has been DIRECTLY CONTRARY to what Muslims believe in.. would be considered ENTIRELY HERETICAL by Muslims.. and therefore necessarily PRECLUDES him from being a Muslim. And if Obama has.. as our buddy P-rick-51 seems to think he has.. merely been "pretending to be a Christian" over the past 20+ years while he's actually been a Muslim, then I wonder if P-rick-51 can tell us where and how it is that he thinks Obama has.. during that 20+ years.. been doing that religious practice which is required of Muslims: Salah [praying five times a day.. at specific times.. while facing in the direction of Mecca].. you know, and never having been noticed doing so? The point being: Obama is not a Muslim, and it's asinine to think he is. Capisca? --------------------- KB(asks are we on topic?.. is oil still $144/barrel? ) Answers: yes, we are now (thanks to your question), and.. no, it's not. Oil $144/barrel --> Osama's mission accomplished --> Osama is a Muslim --> Obama is not a Muslim --> Muslims don't eat pork --> pork barrel --> price of oil today: $128/barrel. See?.. we're back on topic! ..for the moment, anyway.
  • Create New...