Aww... Michelle 'O Catering to the Christians

[TheGrungeDiva]

Michelle Obama Cites Jesus as Model for Citizenship

Why do you mock? If Mitt Romney had said this, would you be equally condescending? What about George W. Bush?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

besides the fact that she and his husband are not christian,

You are mistaken. They both belong to the United Church of Christ, and are devout Christians.

anyone can clearly notice that there is no democracy in Jesus life or teachings.

I'm not sure (a) what you mean by this, and (b) what it has to do with the topic at hand.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I really didn't want to type a huge indictment of Obama, but yeah, I could have used those examples and many more besides. I guess I chose that one because people died as a result.

I want to make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that President Obama has renounced his right to be called a Christian because of the Fast & Furious scandal (among other things)?

So, when was our last Christian president who could be called a Christian? It would have to be Jimmy Carter, I think.

But as I said, it's not so much that Michelle is reaching out as it is the obvious pandering for a vote. And I'm kind of unsure if she realizes how much of a tool she looks like.

I don't think she's pandering at all. Michelle is a devout Christian, and I think she's being honest that Jesus is a good role model. Now, if her husband had said something like that, I'd probably be more inclined to agree with you. I'm not really thrilled with Barack as of late, and he is the king of pander, so I get that. Michelle, not so much.

 

[Liz01]

You are mistaken. They both belong to the United Church of Christ, and are devout Christians.

To be a member of a christian church doesnt mean that someone is christian because bible says :

Matthew 7:16 "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? "

I'm not sure (a) what you mean by this, and (b) what it has to do with the topic at hand.

b) The link of the article said : "First lady Michelle Obama Thursday offered a rare public reflection on her religious faith, telling a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal church that the life of Jesus Christ is a model for democratic organizing."

a) Life of Jesus is not a model of democratic organizing. God is the King and we should submit and obey Him. And according with bible God expects obedience and nor votes:

Romans 13:1 "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Well, the fact that she suddenly remembers how important Jesus is this close to the election is certainly suspect.

She hasn't "suddenly remembered" how important Jesus is. She's known all along. She's been attending church with her daughters -- and sometimes her husband, when he is in town -- regularly. The fact that the media has chosen to ignore her religious and spiritual life is not her fault, and you assuming that just because the media hasn't said anything about it until now means it is non-existent says an awful lot -- and none of it good -- about you, your quickness to judge others, how easy it is for powers to manipulate you into believing whatever they want you to believe, and you don't even bother to check it out. It's really hard to offend me, but let me say, you're coming dangerously close.

I also don't see much in the way of her living up to those ideals the past few years. This is somewhere between an "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day" thing and shameless pandering. She's certainly correct, but she's probably not sincere.

Please provide specific examples. Do you have evidence that she has NOT been attending church, donating her time and money to some very good charitable causes, living a Christ-centered life? Of course she has sinned. We all have. I'm not saying she's a saint. But for you to say that she doesn't have a right to talk about Jesus without being suspect, well, I'm going to call you on that, and ask for some back-up, some support that she is being two-faced. Because from where I'm sitting, you're being way more two-faced than she ever has been ... and even moreso than her husband, and that's pretty significant.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

So are you all going to vote for the Obama's who may or may not be Christian, or perhaps not the right kind of Christian(perhaps they are very private and respect other religious differences, hence a lack of religious talk) or voting for the mormon who follows a cult belief system? Or just not voting and therefore failing to act upon your civil privileges?

Well, whether either Barack or Mitt are Christian is not for me to decide. I am seriously considering voting for "Jesus" as a write-in candidate, so that I don't vote for either of the clowns, but I'm still utilizing my civil rights.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Obama also appears to follow and encourage a cult belief system. The key difference between him and Romney is that Barack is the head of his own cult. Exhibit A

I fail to see how a magazine article from the mainstream press about Obama, accusing Obama's critics of being "dumb" (whether or not the article is valid at all) provides any "evidence" that Barack thinks he is the head of his own cult.

You do realize that Barack did not write that article himself, don't you? Or are you providing yourself as evidence that the Newsweek writers are correct?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

we know that under the current administration gas prices have gone up,

No more than under the previous administration.

the debt has gone WAY up,

FALSE!!! See this link. The debt has risen, but not as much as it did under the previous administration in the same amount of time.

more people are unemployed or underemployed,

FALSE!!! Same as above -- whether Obama's policies have actually worked or it's just dumb luck, the recession IS turning around. I don't necessarily credit Obama with that, but the Republican party absolutely would have made it worse.

and that we're rearming Mexican drug cartels.

True. Unlike Bush Senior who armed Al Qaeda ... is that better? At least most of the Mexican drug cartels' victims are other mobsters, rather than thousands of innocent New York citizens and civil servants.

Oh, I'm sorry, was that bitter?

But looking over that list, I don't see how it's possible to get any lower than the mismanaged wreck we have now.

It has been worse, and it can easily be worse again.
Don't get me wrong: I don't like Obama. Would Mitt be worse? I don't know. Depends on which side of the issue he ends up flip-flopping to. In general, the economic policies of the democratic party (Keynesian economics) are absolutely better for more Americans, and are the only hope of getting this country back on its feet. You may hate Obama for his social views on homosexuality, abortion, even racism, but when it comes to economics, you haven't a leg to stand on. Keynesian economics has proven to be superior, time and time again. No contest.

Look: in the next 4 years, 3-4 Supreme Court Justices are going to retire. The question you have to ask yourself is what's more important: economic growth or overturning Roe v. Wade? That's really what it comes down to.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

So all those laws on the books regarding the legality of drugs, prostitution, civil and criminal laws WEREN'T legislated to tell people how to live our lives?

Actually, a lot of true "liberals" believe that prostitution and most drugs should be legalized or at least decriminalized. Laws should not be about morality but about protecting citizens' rights. You have the right to swing your arms, but that right ends where my face begins. As soon as an action of one person has a negative impact on the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" of another, that's when the government should step in .... and not a moment earlier.

Wait, how about Bloomberg saying you can't have large soft drinks anymore?

Jon Stewart has been doing a bit on that for over a week now. Crazy, huh?

 

[Spartacus1122]

Why do you mock? If Mitt Romney had said this, would you be equally condescending? What about George W. Bush?

I mock it because it is the most rhetorical and obvious thing a person could say, regardless of who says it from what party.

I mean, really?
Rule of thumb: people in politics, spouses included, typically preach to the choir "do as I say, not as I do".

If someone came up to me and told me that we should all be more like Jesus, I'd laugh and say "No *bleep* Sherlock."

You have to be a cynic when listening to people in politics. All of them.

Cheers.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

And traditionally, the Democrat/Liberal agenda has always been BIG GOVERNMENT. The conservative/Republican agenda has typically been smaller government.

I have to take issue with this. The con/Rep has claimed to be for "small government," but if you look at your history books, aside from Reagan, centralized federal power grew more under the Republican presidents of the last half-century than under the democratic ones.

The difference is, the Democrats ADMIT that they want use the power of the federal government to take economic control and turn the recession around. The Republicans CLAIM they are against "big government" and "big spending," but once they get into office they use just as much federal power or more, only they use it to help out their friends instead of helping the economy.

So, you want to support the wolf who says he's a wolf, or the wolf in sheep's clothing? Sure, maybe a sheep would be better, but since we don't have one of those....

Of course, both sides are equally guilty of messing up. Big time.

I agree with you there, brother!

I respect your liberal ideals, even though I obviously disagree with them.
But there is no way anyone can justify Obama's sub-par economic performance.

Except for the fact that the economic situation in this country actually HAS improved under Obama, despite the mess that Bush left, and despite the fact that he only had 2 years to run his economic plan before congress started vetoing everything he tried to do. When W took over, Clinton handed him a SURPLUS. He flushed that surplus and put us into trillions of dollars of debt. When Obama took over, he couldn't just stop paying the bills. That's like if your credit card company tells you you're over the limit, you respond by not sending them any more money and thinking that somehow that's going to end your credit card debt. How stupid is that? You have to keep paying the bills.

What a responsible person does, when their credit card goes over the limit, is they look for ways to save money. Instead of going out to dinner every night, maybe we should buy groceries, and eat at home. Buying groceries is an initial investment, but it will save money in the long-term, because it's cheaper to make your own meal than to pay for food at a restaurant. This is the principal behind Keynesian economics. Instead of putting a band-aid on the various problems, and then having to go out and buy more band-aids, you look for ways actually to prevent the injury in the first place, so that you won't need band-aids at all. It may require a little bit of investment at the beginning, but it ALWAYS ends up saving money in the long run. ALWAYS.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

If someone came up to me and told me that we should all be more like Jesus, I'd laugh and say "No *bleep* Sherlock."

Thanks for the warning. I will try to remember to warn Paul the Apostle, when I see him in Heaven, not to talk to you.

 

[systemdown101]

I want to make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that President Obama has renounced his right to be called a Christian because of the Fast & Furious scandal (among other things)?

I'm saying that at my church, if some guy came in saying "Well, I just ran some guns down to Mexico, and here I am for today's sermon!" we'd wonder about his sincerity.

So, when was our last Christian president who could be called a Christian? It would have to be Jimmy Carter, I think.

I agree.

I don't think she's pandering at all.

I disagree.

She hasn't "suddenly remembered" how important Jesus is.

Perhaps, but I know she's "suddenly remembered" to discuss it. I think Michelle is pandering. I think the fact that she talks about it this close to the election is all the proof I need that she is. That about sums up everything I believe about her. I haven't made any claims about anyone who disagrees with me being something less than me, as opposed to someone else on this thread who thinks conservatives are "dumb".

how easy it is for powers to manipulate you into believing whatever they want you to believe, and you don't even bother to check it out.

Oh it certainly is easy for powers to manipulate people into believing whatever they want you to believe. But I'll discuss that below.

Please provide specific examples. Do you have evidence that she has NOT been attending church, donating her time and money to some very good charitable causes, living a Christ-centered life?

I can't prove a negative, nor was that really even the point I cared to make beyond "I believe she's pandering because the timing is suspect." I think what's going on here are goal posts being moved.

Of course she has sinned. We all have. I'm not saying she's a saint. But for you to say that she doesn't have a right to talk about Jesus without being suspect, well, I'm going to call you on that, and ask for some back-up, some support that she is being two-faced. Because from where I'm sitting, you're being way more two-faced than she ever has been ... and even moreso than her husband, and that's pretty significant.

I said I didn't think she was sincere based on the timing. Again, I could ask you to prove the reverse, to prove that she IS sincere and not just putting on a front for the cameras or good press as the wives of a number of famous people do (see: Clinton, Hillary, Edwards, Elizabeth, or Holmes, Katie up until a few days ago, and many more.) Because using your own logic, you also can't prove what was going on in her heart. Ultimately, all I have is this: After a long period of silence, she suddenly started talking about Jesus. Her timing is verrrrrry coincidental. My opinion is based on that.

I fail to see how a magazine article from the mainstream press about Obama, accusing Obama's critics of being "dumb" (whether or not the article is valid at all) provides any "evidence" that Barack thinks he is the head of his own cult.

You do realize that Barack did not write that article himself, don't you? Or are you providing yourself as evidence that the Newsweek writers are correct?

It's obvious that he didn't write it himself, his drones did. That kind of makes it even worse than if he had. I'm simply providing evidence that Obama has his own cult of personality going and he's at the head of it. A major magazine not even bothering to hide its biases - well, come on. ANYONE who disagrees with Obama is "dumb" - well there you go. Although I do remember I wanted to change the sentence to "Obama also appears to follow and/or encourage a cult belief system." but I couldn't edit it fast enough. But there you go. According to Newsweek, there's no possible arguing with Obama, and if you do, you're dumb. Not that there's any manipulating anyone into believing whatever they want you to believe going on there.

I am indeed a critic of Obama. Something you probably weren't aware of was that I voted for Obama in 2008. I even remember why: McCain's position on Guantanimo was the tipping point for me. But there's no way I would vote for Obama now based on his economic record (and the fact that Gitmo is still there) But I have no problem with someone voting for him, I just disagree. And I won't even insult them for doing so.

 

[Spartacus1122]

Except for the fact that the economic situation in this country actually HAS improved under Obama, despite the mess that Bush left, and despite the fact that he only had 2 years to run his economic plan before congress started vetoing everything he tried to do.

...and what fictional numbers are you looking at? In case you have not heard, the deficit is about equal to GDP, Obama's spending in 3.5 years is over $5 trillion , compared to Bush's $4 trillion over the course of 8 years. Oh, and real unemployment hovers around 14% (not 8%). So you tell me. Numbers don't lie, sorry. And before you accuse me of being a FoxNews drone, I rather read the Wall Street Journal and BusinessWeek.

What a responsible person does, when their credit card goes over the limit, is they look for ways to save money.

Exactly!
So why is your Barry boy spending us dry with over $5 trillion, and more to come? Hahahahaha

Thanks for the warning. I will try to remember to warn Paul the Apostle, when I see him in Heaven, not to talk to you.

Tongue & cheek jokes are not your thing, uh?

Cheers to u both.

 

[systemdown101]

Lets also not forget that arch-conservative Joe Biden said that "It's a depression for millions and millions of Americans" - as reported on that hotbed of Republican support, CBS.

That guy must be dumb.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I said I didn't think she was sincere based on the timing.
{snip}
After a long period of silence, she suddenly started talking about Jesus. Her timing is verrrrrry coincidental.

The problem is, there is no "timing." There has been no "long period of silence." Michelle has been actively Christian since before she met Barack, and in fact she has gotten him more involved in "church stuff." This is what I said in my previous post, and what you conveniently either missed, skipped over, or "forgot."

Their public attendance at church services has decreased since 2008, due to practical constraints -- Barack's busier schedule, having to get all the secret service together, etc.... But that has not stifled their (Michelle and the girls') commitment to God.

The real news story here is that the media chosen now to talk about Michelle's faith, when it has been going strong for decades? THAT is an easy one to answer: it's because the media like Obama, and they want him to win, and they think talking about Michelle and her faith will get some people of faith to vote for her. It is the media who is responsible for this "uncanny timing," not Michelle. It is the media that is pandering, not Michelle.

For you to blame Michelle, accuse her of pandering, because the media has chosen this time to talk about something that she has been interested in for decades, reveals something about you. I do not think all conservatives are "dumb." I am married to a conservative, and I would not have married him if he weren't smart. I do, however, think that both liberal and conservatives who swallow whatever the media gives them as if that's all there is ... those people -- on both sides of the aisle -- aren't the brightest candles in the chandelier.

A wise person learns from his or her own mistakes. A genius learns from someone else's mistakes. The idiot is the one who, after having his mistakes pointed out to him, insists that they are not mistakes.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

So why is your Barry boy spending us dry with over $5 trillion, and more to come?

I answered that question in the rest of the post, which I noticed you snipped from the quote. If my explanation was too heady for you, I can understand -- that happens. You can learn more by taking a few courses in economics at your local community college. For one thing, this will help you realize those numbers I gave you are not "fictional." It could also help you, because then you could look at what is actually going on, instead of relying on the media to tell you what it wants you to believe, and having to choose between liars on the left and liars on the right.

 

[systemdown101]

The problem is, there is no "timing." There has been no "long period of silence." Michelle has been actively Christian since before she met Barack, and in fact she has gotten him more involved in "church stuff." This is what I said in my previous post, and what you conveniently either missed, skipped over, or "forgot."

She just hasn't been discussing it at all to the press, and now conveniently does so. Well if that isn't timing, I don't know what is.

The real news story here is that the media chosen now to talk about Michelle's faith, when it has been going strong for decades? THAT is an easy one to answer: it's because the media like Obama, and they want him to win, and they think talking about Michelle and her faith will get some people of faith to vote for her. It is the media who is responsible for this "uncanny timing," not Michelle. It is the media that is pandering, not Michelle.

You think it's an either/or? It's not possible it could be both? Are these explanations mutually exclusive?

For you to blame Michelle, accuse her of pandering, because the media has chosen this time to talk about something that she has been interested in for decades, reveals something about you.

Occam's Razor. It does reveal something about me, and the simplest reason is almost always the correct one: I think her timing is suspicious. Politicians and those involved in such calculate every move banking on how it will affect their Q-ratings, and I think we have far too many examples of that to think otherwise. For your answer to be correct, you have to a) invent a mythology about me and make it stick or b) make insinuations about myself or my thinking process.

I do, however, think that both liberal and conservatives who swallow whatever the media gives them as if that's all there is ... those people -- on both sides of the aisle -- aren't the brightest candles in the chandelier.

Wait a sec, you're saying I believe the media when I posted an example as to why I don't swallow what they dish out as well as how ridiculous it is?

A wise person learns from his or her own mistakes. A genius learns from someone else's mistakes. The idiot is the one who, after having his mistakes pointed out to him, insists that they are not mistakes.

In a debate between two people, the person using name-calling against the other has effectively lost the argument

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Or maybe an even simpler answer, Mr. Ocham, is that you just don't like the Obama's, and you'd rather believe the worst than step back and think maybe, just maybe, the media is wagging the dog.

 

[Spartacus1122]

I answered that question in the rest of the post, which I noticed you snipped from the quote. If my explanation was too heady for you, I can understand -- that happens. You can learn more by taking a few courses in economics at your local community college.

I have an MBA and currently am a doctoral candidate in business lady, so spare me you elitist nonsense (for lack of a better word) when you are struggling to make a flawed point.

Below is your ENTIRE quote:

Except for the fact that the economic situation in this country actually HAS improved under Obama, despite the mess that Bush left, and despite the fact that he only had 2 years to run his economic plan before congress started vetoing everything he tried to do. When W took over, Clinton handed him a SURPLUS. He flushed that surplus and put us into trillions of dollars of debt. When Obama took over, he couldn't just stop paying the bills. That's like if your credit card company tells you you're over the limit, you respond by not sending them any more money and thinking that somehow that's going to end your credit card debt. How stupid is that? You have to keep paying the bills.

What a responsible person does, when their credit card goes over the limit, is they look for ways to save money. Instead of going out to dinner every night, maybe we should buy groceries, and eat at home. Buying groceries is an initial investment, but it will save money in the long-term, because it's cheaper to make your own meal than to pay for food at a restaurant. This is the principal behind Keynesian economics. Instead of putting a band-aid on the various problems, and then having to go out and buy more band-aids, you look for ways actually to prevent the injury in the first place, so that you won't need band-aids at all. It may require a little bit of investment at the beginning, but it ALWAYS ends up saving money in the long run.

Congratulations, you have just contradicted yourself, because Obama has done exactly the opposite: instead of stopping the bleeding, he opened up the entire artery. Instead of creating jobs in the private sector, he let the REAL unemployment spike to 14%. Instead of setting up an economic environment that stimulates investments and economic recovery, he ignited social warfare, and the "Occupy" movement.

He is a failure as a president, as much as you are an expert on economics.

Do yourself a favor: LOOK AT STATISTICS AND REAL DATA.

Most respect, and best wishes.