Real Name: Roy Mark Member Since: January 21, 2008 Last Signed In: September 21, 2008 Profile Views: 167 Blog Views: 1341 Poll: Racial misgivings of whites an Obama issue Gov Palin approval 53% and rising Media approval knee high papa and falling Clinton Administration cost us billions in lost offshore royalties Biden's mythical blue collar roots Come out, come out whoever you are SAME OL SAME OH YOU MAY BE A LIBERAL IF WILL THE ADVOCATE EVEN ADMIT IT HAPPENED? THE SKY'S NOT FALLING THE SKY'S NOT FALLIN G Hurricane study puts less blame on global warming April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 
RSS 2.0    |
|
|
Well that didn't take long for St Obama's followers on here to have their epiphany. St Barry has put the word out Throw the loony toons pastor over board, under the bus and to the wolves. But of course as the pastor said Obama is a politician and will say whatever he thinks is necessary Here is my favorite form of liberal hypocrisy though. Liberals cry and stamp their feet about racism in America, led by two racist caucuses known as the Hispanic and Black Caucus, then profit from it mightily. I understand The Rev Wright pointed out that he served 6 years in the military. I would remind every one that the most famous traitor in American history one Benny Arnold also was in the the miltary service. Roy Mark Since openminded mike will not allow my comments to stay on his blog I shall write them here. mike professes to be open minded but evidently not on the Democrat party. mike has stated several times that the only judgement he uses in determining who to vote for is IS THE PERSON RUNNING AS A DEMOCRAT? I imagine it is a real dilemma for mike and fellow believers in the inerrancy of the democrat party and all democrats when Bill Clinton declares Obama played the race card on me.Bill is about as high on the food chain as a Dem can get so he is bound to be right but wait a minute Obama says in effect that what Clinton says is a dirty lie. Roy MarkI'm beginning to see more and more posts on here from what I think are pros for Obama or Hillary. Too slick and smooth for the usual posters on here. Present company included. When links to Daily Kos start showing up from someone who has never been on before it causes me to wonder.
Roy Mark From The Times (On Line) April 24, 2008 Yes it's politically incorrect but race matters The Democrats must admit it: Obama would lose to McCain Anatole Kaletsky Given that Mrs Clinton's clear victory over Mr Obama in Pennsylvania followed similar results in other “must-win” states with large working-class constituencies, such as Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, Michigan and even New York and California, the conclusion would be fairly obvious, were it not for the political correctness that makes it almost impossible for American politicians or commentators to express such a view: Mr Obama may by unable to carry large industrial states with socially conservative white working-class populations simply because of his race. This is especially true now that the televised rantings of Rev Jeremiah Wright and Mr Obama's own gaffe about the “bitter” white working-class culture of “guns and God”, have reminded Americans that race is not just a matter of skin colour. Rev Wright embarrassingly revealed in his “God damn America” and “Chickens come home to roost” sermons that his African-American vision of America is be profoundly at odds with the white majority view. The latest Mr Obama has, of course, apologised for his condescension towards working-class church-goers and hunters - probably the most important group of floating voters in the electorally critical mid-Western states. He has tried even harder to dissociate himself from Rev Wright's anti-American tirades, which really have to be seen (on YouTube) to be believed. And Mr Obama's supporters have chastised Mrs Clinton for turning to “negative campaigning” and “scorched-earth” strategies in her desperation to stay in contention. The trouble is that Mr Obama's efforts to suppress the race issue are doomed to failure. For the influence of Rev Wright on him is a matter of public record. Indeed, the phrase “Audacity of Hope”, which is the title of Mr Obama's political autobiography as well as his presidential leitmotif, is attributed in that book to a sermon by “my pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright”. The Republican political machine, which demonstrated its mastery of the arts of character assassination in the two Bush presidential contests, will have no compunction in exploiting the Wright relationship and portraying Mr Obama as an anti-American in the general election, even if the Clinton campaign and the media observe a self-denying ordinance on the race and patriotism issues, as they broadly have so far.
And the writers of the above is a genuwine (sic) 14 c Liberal Democrat
Roy Mark It continues to amaze me that the very same Democrats who enthusiastically voted for the Iraq War in 2002 are now just as enthusiastically voting against it. I guess what has changed between now and then is that in 2002 invading Iraq was politically popular and now there is no longer a political advantage in being seen as a hawk on Iraq. The Democrats who voted so eagerly for war in 2002 had to have known that war by its very nature is messy and unpredictable, but they went ahead and approved the Iraq war anyway. Now, four years into the fight, Democrats have come to realize that war is messy and deadly and can become a liability for any politician who cares about holding on to their two-bit political job. That's what all of this is really about: politicians worrying about getting re-elected. These Democrat clowns don't give a rip about the Iraqi people, American casualties or islamic terrorists. They care only about their petty political careers. So they take their opinion polls and tremble in their suits and ties when they suspect that the current unpopularity of a war which they once overwhelmingly approved could jeopardize their government paychecks. "Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war," President Bush said, directing the political malfeasance of Democrats back at them, then he added. "These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessments of Saddam Hussein." On September 27th, 2002 Senator Kennedy said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." Wesley Clark, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, discusses Saddam's WMD: That every one keeps trying to pretend is not there
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:07 EDT The painful task of measuring racism The Politico's Roger Simon has a new item that raises a depressing point. I was talking the other day to a prominent Republican who asked me what I thought John McCain's strongest issues would be in the general election. Lower taxes and the argument he will be better able to protect America from its enemies, I said. Republicans have a pretty good track record with those two. The Republican shook his head. "You're missing the most important one," he said. "Race. McCain runs against Barack Obama and the race vote is worth maybe 15 percent to McCain." The man I was talking to is not a racist; he was just stating what he believes to be a fact: There is a percentage of the American electorate who will simply not vote for a black person no matter what his qualities or qualifications. The question is just how big that percentage is, and whether it includes anyone who might otherwise be willing to vote for a Democratic candidate. Simon noted an Associated Press poll from earlier this month that found that "about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black for president." That, of course, is a ridiculously large number of people who are willing to admit to a pollster that they judge people based on the color of their skin. It's compounded by the suspicion that there are plenty more who are also motivated by race, but are too embarrassed to admit it out loud while participating in a poll. How many will say they are going to vote for Obama because he is a Black? How many will say they are going to vote for Hillary because she is a woman? Apr 22 11:26 AM US/Eastern The Pennsylvania contest turned sharply negative in its closing days as Obama cast doubts on his rival's honesty and trustworthiness. The campaigns tangled Monday over a new Clinton television ad that invoked images of Osama bin Laden—the first time a Democratic candidate has used the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the 2008 race for the White House. "Harry Truman said it best, 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.' Who do you think has what it takes?" the ad says, as a picture of bin Laden and other national emergencies—from Hurricane Katrina to the fall of the Berlin Wall—flash on the screen. The Obama campaign moved quickly to counter the message, airing a response ad within hours that challenged Clinton's 2002 vote authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Obama addressed the matter himself at the Pittsburgh rally. "My job as commander in chief is to keep you safe. That will be my number one task," adding, "The war in Iraq was unwise." Which one do the baised Democrats who frequently pledge their undying love and support for any and ALL Democrats and all their messages Can they both right? Personally I believe both of them And would a truly self styled Biased Democrat on here say either one of the beloved Democrats was WRONG? Priceless Do they blame this Democrat smackdown on Karl Rove and a VastRightWingConspiracy? Clinton, in turn, questioned whether Obama was tough enough for the rigors of the Oval Office.
These must be terrible times for the biased Democrats on here. They have a messanic belief in the complete inerrancy of the Democrat party. All Democrats are good honest people. Any information that portrays them as any other ways are lie or plots by the vast right wing conspiracy. Now they are seeing two of the icons of the party insulting each other in a good old fashioned smackoff. When Hillary insults Barack and vice versa what are they going to believe? They have to admit that at least one Democrat is wrong. If they do their whole value system is endangered. NO DEMOCRAT IS EVER WRONG. We all know there are some on here who have never admitted that any Democrat ever took money from a lobbyist, never flip flopped on a vote, never commited adultry, never lied before a Federal District Court. As far as they are concerned NEVER HAPPENED I WOULD LIKE FOR ANY OBAMA SUPPORTER TO TELL ME. JUST WHAT HAS OBAMA EVER DONE THAT MAKE YOU THINK HE IS QUALIFIED TO BE POTUS? Another question I have an important question. Senator Obama has raised a ton of money through the internet for his campaign--how do we know who has contributed that money? I believe that many of us are assuming that all his "new" donors are American. But, what if they are not? I am not accusing Senator Obama of anything; however, I believe it is prudent that we understand that many groups, who see him as an instrument to fundamentally change America, could be funneling money to him and we would be none the wiser From an earlier blog Someway my comments never stay on this blogger's site so I will just put this on mine From the blog "John McCain was the guest of George Stephanopoulos yesterday and it was comical and revealing to say the least. McCain promised he was going to stay above the fray, but he just could not help himself by slamming Barack Obama for his ties, with William Ayers of the Weather Underground. He used political spin to say that Obama, compared conservative Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma ,who once said he would consider the death penalty to anyone that performed an abortion to William Ayers." First how is Sen McCain's statement "Political spin" And Barack Obama put spin or misquoted or maybe outright lied about what Dr Coburn actually said. "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert asked Coburn to explain his comments earlier this year that those who perform abortions should get the death penalty. (That's our Timmie) Coburn answered that while abortion is not against the law now, if it were, states could use death penalty laws to punish the taking of innocent life. "I believe when we take innocent life intentionally, except to save lives, that we are violating moral law," Coburn said. "Now, I understand what the law is. My hope would be that we would get back to a time when we recognize the value of life, and I think we're not."
Byron York on Barack Obama’s comparison of Senator Tom Coburn to Weatherman terrorist William Ayers"Wouldn’t Coburn be more comparable to Ayers if he, Coburn, had bombed abortion clinics in the past — and then said that he not only did not regret bombing the clinics but wished that he had done more? And then, after bombing abortion clinics and refusing to express regret, he held a political event in his home for Barack Obama, which Obama attended? And if all that had happened, would Obama say it wasn’t a problem because Coburn had bombed those clinics a long time ago, when Obama was just 8 years old?" "While on the run from police, Dohrn married another Weatherman leader Bill Ayers, with whom she has two children, Zayd and Malik. During the last years of their underground life, Dohrn and Ayers resided in the Logan Square neighborhood of Chicago, where they used the aliases Christine Louise Douglas and Anthony J. Lee.[2] The couple turned themselves in to authorities in 1980. While some charges relating to their activities with the Weathermen were dropped due to governmental misconduct[3], Dohrn pled guilty to charges of aggravated battery and bail jumping, receiving probation. [4] She later served less than a year of jail time, after refusing to testify against ex-Weatherman Susan Rosenberg in an armed robbery case[5]." WikiPediaWouldn’t it be easier for Obama to just quit associating himself with extremists like Ayers and Jeremiah Wright than to try and engage in contorted comparisons of those men to mainstream politicians? Even Bill's wife was an excon
What a foursome Bill and 'Dette,Barack and Michelle Karl Rove’s like Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars. You strike him down from the White House, and he goes on Fox becomes more powerful than you could possibly imagine “I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough,” Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.
ADM and its signature project have never lacked friends in high places, despite a history of price fixing scandals and monopolistic misdeeds. The Andreas family, which has headed up the publicly-traded company for decades, has cultivated bipartisan support through generous donations to both Republicans and Democrats. Since the 2000 election cycle, ADM has given more than $3 million in political contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics: $1.2 million to Democrats and $1.85 million to Republicans. These donations may have helped sustain a multitude of government subsidies to ADM, including ethanol tax credits, tariffs against foreign ethanol competitors, and federally mandated ethanol additive standards.
Then there is the question of how practical it is to replace petroleum with corn-based ethanol. "There are conflicting figures on how much land would be needed to meet all of our petroleum demand from ethanol," says Energy Justice Network's Ewall, "and those range from some portion of what we currently have as available crop land to as much as five times as the amount of crop land in the US."
Contrary to the Bill of Goods offered in the Advocate's Endorsement Obama is not a nice guy. Obama is not the sightest bit naive. Obama ACTS like a nice guy. Obama ACTS like he's a naive person. Learn the difference between acting and being. The difference in the beer and slim jim voters and the brie and merlot sipping effete snobs. They try to hide it but sometimes the odor gets so bad we finally take notice that the moisture on shoes ain't rainwater It is my understanding that the area of Wright's church is some of the poorest in Chicago.Then how in the world did they get enough money to build and maintain this huge house in a white district.Talk about stupid people or should I say sheep?Obama,enough said about the bad economy.If the poor people of Chicago can build that kind of house then they sure as heck aren't hurting to much.Hey I'm bitter.
Roy Mark On Red Sea crossing On David vs. Goliath On Elijah on Mt. Carmel On the birth of Christ On feeding the 5,000 On healing the 10 lepers On healing of the Gadarene demoniac On raising Lazarus from the dead
Roy Mark Which of these actions is the more racist? A : Vote against Obama because he is Black (half anyway) B: Vote against Obama because he is Black (half anyway) Which of these actions is the most misogynist? A; Vote against Hillary because she is a woman B: Vote for Hillary because she is a woman Which of these actions is world class stuck on stupid? A: Voting for a Democrat/Republican because they are a Democrat/Republican B: Voting for a Democrat/Republican because you approve of their posisition on important issues
Roy Mark Straight Party Voters First I will open by saying I have never voted a straight party ticket in my life. There is a difference between voting for all Republicans/Democrats because you liked all of the Republicans/Democrats, and voting for all Republicans/Democrats because they are Republican./Democrats The former makes sense and the latter makes you an idiot Anyone that votes a straight party ticket all their life is not thinking for themselves. Governments should be run by people not parties. It seems awfully convenient to go on auto-pilot, stuck on stupid, and refer to our stale, set-in-concrete beliefs, views, and opinions. But it's often at the expense of creativity, intimacy, understanding, vitality, and growth. There is a frequent poster to the Advocate who boasts that he has never voted anything but a straight Democrat ticket. When questioned about his straight party vote which included a vote for Ken Armbrister who was not a typical Democrat. The straight party voter said that Ken voted with the Republicans and was really no better than a Republican but he was on the Democrat ticket so he voted for him. That takes research. This idea of the complete inerrancy of the Democrat party is like the fundamentalist who believes in the complete inerrancy of the Bible. Every word of both is truth. When asked about a situation where there were two statement in the Bible that contradicted each other the true believer said they were both true. If they admitted that one word of the Bible was not true their whole belief system would collapse. The true Democrats feel the same way about the Democrat Party. All positions are best . All candidates are best no matter what their positions are. Just vote for all Democrats Any admission of fallibility and the whole belief system would be down the old sewer. How could the straight party always decide whether to vote for Obama the liar or Hillary the liar. Must be rough on the true believers to see the two leaders of the party bad mouthing each other.
Roy Mark THIS REALLY TOUCHED MY HEART AND I AM SURE IT WILL TOUCH YOURS ALSO .........
Little Melissa comes home from first grade and tells her father that they learned about the history of Valentine's Day. "Since Valentine's Day is for a Christian saint and we're Jewish," she asks, "Will God get mad at me for giving someone a valentine?"Melissa's father thinks a bit, then says "No, I don't think God would get mad. Who do you want to give a Valentine to?" "Osama Bin Laden," she says."Why Osama Bin Laden," her father asks in shock."Well," she says, "I thought that if a little American Jewish girl could have enough love to give Osama a Valentine, he might start to think that maybe we're not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little bit. And if other kids saw what I did and sent Valentines to Osama, he'd love everyone a lot. And then he'd start going all over the place to tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn't hate anyone anymore." Her father's heart swells and he looks at his daughter with new found pride. "Melissa, that's the most wonderful thing I've ever heard.""I know," Melissa says, "and once that gets him out in the open, the Marines could shoot the SOB
Most Evangelical Christians believe that if one iota of the Bible is wrong, then the entire Bible could be wrong. The Bible is their absolute. The need for an absolute is not limited to religion – at least religion in the theocratic sense. Liberals, too, have a religion, but a secular one: their faith in and fealty to the Democrat party There is a special quality to their posts, if you will notice...There is evidence of a determination to parrot certain erratic and unsupportable theories and talking points, which are easily disproved. The history for both of them however, indicates that becoming knowledgeable about a subject is not their goal, thus, the same mistakes in comprehension and presentation are made endlessly. They both display a kind of frenzied eagerness to make unsupportable accusations, with a manner that shows a certain urgency to state their opinion. Equally as evident, is the fact that neither is willing to consider any in depth analysis of their subject matter. It appears both are simply reading from a script, and expect everyone else to accept any bizarre and outlandish assertion they make.When the same people perform the same way, day in and day out, to their own detriment, you have to understand there is a larger agenda at stake for them. The belief system has been accepted as being more important than fact. Questioning the facts, and conducting research, generates information eventually. Their predisposition is to reject any fact that conflicts with what they choose to believe. Their entire world view is structured on unquestioned acceptance of several unsupportable assertions about the world which are easily shown to be in error. The ramifications of having to accept factual reality are so threatening as to be strenuously resisted at every encounter Roy Mark signed as always |
