I did some checking and couldn't find a reliable source.  This alleged event  supposedly took place at Trinity United when Michelle took the pulpit and ranted and raved against those who did the blacks wrong.  Two camps out there on this.  1) this never took place and is a rumor. 2)There is a DVD out there that will prove it true and some have said they have seen it.  The DVD was originally sold thru the church's website but has since been withdrawn.

Since I have yet to find what I would deem a credible source, like a link to the DVD, I will withdraw my comment.  If anything changes I'll let you know. 

But I want to be truthful and do not want to be part of any rumor mill. 

That isn't a problem at all. If you think all the newspapers are liberal it means you are extremely conservative. On the opposite side if someone thinks the newspapers are all conservative then they are probably extremely liberal. I've lived in both urban and rural states. The problems they face are very different. The journalists in an area tend to write about an issue from the viewpoint of how it affects the population in that area.

The importance is to understand both sides of the issues, because although something effects you in a certain way it affects others in a very different way.

Then you have the problem of what i call the political zealots.
If a newspaper in a liberal area writes a story which exposes a mistake.misjudgement, or corruption of a Republican some will try to write off the information as false by trying to claim it is because it is a liberal newspaper. The same happens when you have a story in a conservative area that exposes a Democrat for their mistakes, misjudgements and corruption.

In general when the zealots try to disprove a story simply on the basis of tagging the newspaper itself as being of a partical slant, then the story is more often than not true.

I find a pretty fair balance on the Op-ed pages - there is always a conservative columnist, a liberal columnists, and guest columnists who write about issues that seem to be local to the paper.  I actually get more information about the pulse of that part of the country by reading the letters to the editor.

ParaTed2k, you're starting to go the way of Dr. Guy.  My discussion with him reminded me of the scene in "Monty Python & the Holy Grail" between Arthur and the Black Knight.  He was the Black Knight.  Sorry you find my responses "mindless".  If you continue along that path, there won't be any point in my continuing this discussion with you either.  Oh, and as for the Dems not investigating Bush's response to Katrina - Senator Lieberman heads up the committee that would do that, and he has demurred.  In fact, I just heard that he will speak at the Republican Convention, so it looks like he's our next Zell Miller.  I've read Zell's book, by the way, and thought it was the product of a fairly disturbed mind.

Interesting quote from McCain, on tape, spoken to Sean Hannity.  Heard it twice on television tonight.  Said he had never been proud of America before he was taken prisoner ("until I was deprived of her company").  Weren't the Republicans bashing Michelle Obama for saying something similar?

"Kickin'", I appreciate your civility in your response to me.  If you care to continue this chat, I pledge for my part to keep it that way.  I further apologize for any previous sarcasm I directed at you.  You are a person of principal, and while I may disagree with you, I recognize that you are principled and appreciate that. 

While I am not Biblical in my frame of reference, I do pay attention to an organization called "Sojourners", which claims to be for people of faith who are moderates.  Their leader is a man named Jim Wallis, and he is working with other evangelicals to promote issues such as global warming and the pursuit of peace and an end to poverty from a more biblically oriented point of view.  Don't know if you know his work (and even if you do, you may disagree or dislike him), but you might want to see if he says anything that resonates with you.

Oh, if you've been paying attention to the contract-award for the new Air Force refueling tanker, you know it was awarded to a consortium including Airbus, a European company, over Boeing, an American company.  It seems that members of McCain's campaign team were also lobbyists for Airbus, which means that they helped take high-paying jobs from America to France.  That would be okay, perhaps, if the product were clearly superior, but now the non-partisan Government Accounting Office has ruled that something about the contract-awarding was not exactly proper, so it is under review.

Let's see, McCain's main finance guy worked for UBS and promoted its interests over those of American citizens (FACT - look it up), and now it is discovered that more of his people are taking money from Airbus to move aerospace jobs out of the country.  I don't think I want someone like McCain in charge of the American economy.

Sorry, Black Knight, nothing you said was either thoughtful or funny.

Stay in the time-out corner.

Well then that's the problem ain't it?  I'm too blooming conservative.  Not sure how to fix it .  Actually I spent alot of my earlier years trying to be Independent ( I am by nature anyhow) but my belief system kept putting me on the same side (for the most part) with the GOP.  I really really really don't want to vote this year.  It's not so much I'm voting for McCain.  It's more I'm voting against Obama.  I will cringe and not feel that good about it either.  I just hope McCain picks a good running mate.

The other way to look at this is McCain is only good for one term probably so it will all be over in four. 

Ya, the Op-ed pages are ok and agree with the letters to the editor.  In fact I've written quite a few myself and they always got printed and I was kicking conservative.  But I do have a friend who had a weekly column and had to quit.  It was a medium sized newspaper.  He was always being told what he couldn't write...or certain code words had to be used.  I can't remember now but it would be like you could write "pro-choice" in your column but always had to write "anti-choice" instead of pro-life.    So he couldn't hack it and left.  He's back writing a column for a small local town with less readership but he can say what he wants.  He gets lots of feedback, both good and bad. 

That's fine.  Just my name alone brings out strong reactions from people. And my stance, being very biblical meets with much opposition as well so I'm kind of used to it.  Thanks for the kind wods. 

First I must tell you if you don't know.  I've been involved in many cults over the years and also many mainstream churches that were once upon a time good but not any more.  They all have their followings.  They all think they have it right and they for the most part contradict each other to some degree.  I found out that in all reality people really don't want the truth.  They want their truth or their group's truth.     So who to follow? 

In order to spot a lie....you must study the truth.  In order to spot that counterfeit bill you must know the original.  Always go to the source.  When you do, you weed out the liars. 

You're not going to like this but I must say it...pit of hell comes to mind with your guy here.  Ok. first even if I didn't know about him (and I admit I know little) he's not at all biblical.  So I don't really have to go deep here.  Being quite familar with many organizations and leaders over the years who are/were  biblical or evangelical there's a huge diff between them and your guy here.  For instance, go to his site (I'm not familiar with his magazine) and you will not see any scripture right on his home page where it should be.  This tells me he's not working for God.  He's working for self.  There are lots out there like him.  He's one in a million. 

He would not be one to go to for biblical counseling.  If you like his politics...fine but I'm telling ya for what it's worth...he's a wolf in sheep's clothing when it comes to leading you to God.  Lots of them out there. 

There is NO such thing as world peace from a biblical perspective.  I already showed you just a wee sample.  I could sit down and fill your brain to overflowing just using scripture if you'd like....lol.  The only hint of world peace that is expected and predicted biblically is when a world leader comes forward to usher it in but it will be short lived.  Everytime I hear about a peace treaty between Arabs and the Jews I hold my breath for a bit because I wonder....is this it?  Many evangelicals all over the globe are expecting this one who will bring peace.  

The only global warming there is concerning scripture is Peter's description and it's coming from God not man.  Read 2 Peter 3:1-7 for context. 

Besides, I thought global warming was old news.  It seems as tho a shift has started to take place recently.  I know alot of teachers have bought into this and all I can say is most of you are following the liberal way.  You're keeping the lie alive.  Even the Scientists are backing away lately.  Did you hear what the Governor of Alaska said about the Polar Bears? 

I know nothing about the Air Force Tanker thing but I know who to ask about this......Tova....Brian?  Anything? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi, "Kickin'" -

Regarding Jim Wallis, he's not "my guy" in the sense that I follow am a member of his organization - he is just one of many people whose opinions I read. My frame of reference is not only non-biblical, it is non-religious. As I stated earlier, my frame of reference is philosophical (and not from one particular school, either - a little of this, a little of that, plus trying to do something every day to add to the world rather than take away from it).

Boeing is headquartered in Seattle, so if you go to the Seattle Times website, you can probably get the local take on the tanker thing. Or the Government Accounting Office website, since that office issued the ruling.

Which is valid vote. A lot of Independents will vote McCain simply to keep the Dems from controlling everything.



Theres no reason to fix it. You are who you are, but don't let someone else put a tag on you. The GOP claims they are the party of the conservatives which at the state level they usual are. But at the federal lvl is a group that manipulates socially conservative issues to gain votes and are in no way fiscally conservative. They could be but they're too busy pandering. Some of them are but as a group they seem to be buying their next election through appropriation. To be fair the Dems do just as much of the same so I guess we all need to choose whose pandering is better for the country.

Catguy:

So quit spewing mindless talking points directly from the DNC playbook. If you'll notice, my responses to you are my own, based on my experiences and observations. This quote is just another study in logical fallacy. You attempt to discount what I say by comparing me to (who YOU consider) "the black kight".

{{{Now friends and viewers at home, which logical fallacy is described there?}}}}



Why would Lieberman feel any allegience to the DNC, while they cheer "maverics" on the Republican side of the ailes, they have no tolerance or patience for anyone who doesn't kiss the DNC ring. Pelosi and Reid have made it clear, march in lockstep or be cut off.




Ok, I'll play your silly little game here. Let's look at both statements in context here. Michelle Obama is a middle aged woman who said "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback." Why is she finally proud of her country? Because her husband gets to run for president.

McCain was a prisoner of war who realized he had been taking his country for granted his whole life.

True, McCain is admitting that he was a spoiled brat, but then again, so is Michelle Obama. I'll tell you, I took a lot of things for granted about the US before I watched the coast of Delaware disappear in the horizon. I glad to say that I didn't take the USA for granted to the point that I wasn't proud of her, but I see that kind of immaturity among Americans all the time.

There's my answer, but keep in mind that I'm not defending McCain at all. I think he's a wimp who plays to the press every chance he gets. Like Hillary, he must be aching from the whiplash suffered by the press turning on him so quickly. It must be horrifying to go from media darling to villain so quickly. I think the only person to suffer a quicker yanking of the carpet was Cindy Whatsitsname... but well, she was the invention of the press so I guess the patent owner has the right to decide what to do with their own creation.

Are you trying to show everyone how "European" you are? Oh well, some of us nudniks watched Monty Python as well. Sorry to disappoint you.

I actually was enjoying our discussion. Sorry that my reponses went over your head. Come back when you would really like to discuss the issues instead of thumping the campaign stump for a candidate. The latter is fine - if you are honest about it, but hardly qualifies you as an expert on all matters just because you read some garbage on the Puffington Host.

I don't think it is "all" (as in an absolute). However if you look at the slant of the articles, the major publications are decidedly left. Not by some accusation from the vast right wing conspiracy, but by their own admission. While Timeswatch.org is a right wing newsletter (and site), they only point out the left leaning bent of one of the papers (and not even the worst one). It would do you no harm to check it out as they are an editorial site, but they do point out the liberal bent of that one paper (I am sure there are other sites to confront the other major liberal papers as well).

The slant is not always in trash talking like some of the loonier clowns on web sites do. But more the subtle kind. A great example, and a fun game to play, is to read articles about disgraced politicians (or ones under indictment). Note when they list the party of the offender - if at all, and when it occurs in the article. Also look at the labeling of the politicians. See how many times a liberal is labeled that, versus a conservative labeled as such. Bias is not always irrational hate, or failure to report news, but in how the news is presented with incendiary rhetoric.

Enjoy Obama's first general election ad, people.

SC:

Wow, Barack is running as a conservative?

Its the Rural/Urban issue. Most major newspapers are in cities where the problems are vast compared to rural areas. The more conservative papers come out of mostly smaller cities that are surrounded by a smaller extent of suburbia. Farm states for example.

Of course the Times would be liberal. NY is a huge city which has vast problems compared to many other. Timeswatch is the Heritage Foundation. Thats not news.

Smoothseas:

All the major newpapers are anymore is copy machines for the AP...and the intelligence wing of Al Qeada. They have blown every major story in the last 20 years (maybe even longer). The liberal bias takes a distant second place to the total incompetence in getting facts before reporting "news".

KFC,

I don't know anything about the bomber thing...though I do remember reading about all the bru-haha...

Sorry. Hubby may know, but he's out of town.