Posted on 12/06/2006 11:09:09 AM PST by BlackRazor
Edited on 12/06/2006 11:16:53 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
With the 2008 presidential field taking shape, the striking thing is how little excitement most of the possible candidates are likely to evoke.
There are the polarizing figures: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich. There are the candidates who've been here before, such as Sens. Joe Biden, John McCain and John Kerry. There are the little-known politicians whose best hope may be the second spot on the ticket, like Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and former New York Gov. George Pataki. There are the capital veterans, including Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), whose importance inside the Beltway may make them imagine they have electoral strength beyond it.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Because he's a Christian man, that's why. Church of Christ, to be exact. His birth-given name has no bearing on his ideology, and it's immature and petty to impune a God-fearing man that way. We have so many legitimate reasons upon which to criticize him without calling a Christian man Islamic. That's just low.
I wouldn't want to be characterized as a traitor to this nation just because somewhere in my distant ancestry, before all of this terrorist crap started up, an Islamic relative of mine whom my dad wished to honor was named "Hussein."
I fear more the wolves in sheep's clothing. Men who go by names such as Richard Reid...
Or in the New York City Marathon.
And Barack (Iraq) (Saddam) Hussein Obama (Osama), just because he was raised in a Muslim household in his early years, and attended a madrass in Indonesia until he was moved to Hawaii and placed in a public school, had a "come to Jesus" moment and "became" a Christian, does that mean that the early years COULD NOT POSSIBLY have influenced a predilection to return to Islam?
I have not seen that Osama-Obama has renounced Mohammed and all his works. And if he were truly Islamic, he would lie about that anyway. It is OK for Muslims to lie to the Dhimmi.
I cut him no slack whatsoever.
Perhaps not, but he certainly could have won the Democratic nomination. And if Bush 41's approval rating was at 34% on election day (as it was), he would have had a shot. Clinton had enough electoral votes in '92 that he still would have won, even if you subtracted out all of the southern and several of the midwestern/southwestern states.
A fellow Freeper sorted out some of the thousands of sites on the Internet and passed along one with a long discussion that included this:
". . .children born of Muslim lineage will be considered Muslims and according to Islamic law the door of apostasy will never be opened to them. If anyone of them renounces Islam, he will be as deserving of execution as the person who has renounced kufr to become a Muslim and again has chosen the way of kufr. All the jurists of Islam agree with this decision. On this topic absolutely no difference exists among the experts of shari'ah."
If any child renounces Islam it is no different than someone accepting Islam and then later rejects it. Both must die. But..
There's this, "Either they can leave the state and change, or, if they are firm in their change and faithful in their adherence to this other order which they have chosen and have seriously determined to establish in the place of the religion of their fathers, then let them place their life in danger and play the game of 'life risk', apart from which no order can be changed."
As I understand it, they can leave the Muslim country else if they insist upon staying and reject Islam they "play the game of 'life risk.'"
So Mr Obama was born a Muslim but he was not in a Muslim country so, no harm no foul?
Still, I am curious about why no radical Muslims' condemnations of Mr. Obama sans fatwa. He turned his back on Islam.
Or hide their middle name. Perhaps Obama is what he appears to be, but I believe reason exists to look furhter.
I hope there aren't any more Freepers who still believe the Chicago Tribune is not a liberal paper.
And then Cuomo couldn't even get re-elected as governor (or dog-catcher, for that matter.)
The word for this guy is Tabula Rasa. The libs are projecting onto him their hopes for a liberal renaissance despite the fact that modern day liberalism is a grotesque tumor. They figure his pretty boy mask will conceal the real Dorian Gray face underneath.
Don't make the mistake of thinking there is no substance to this guy or that he is an emty suit. The substance is that of the Fabian Socialist, and the suit is sewn from Marxist cloth.
This guy knows how to package cultural Marxism in an appealing package: watch all his speeches that decry an over reliance on govt, "BUT OTOH we can't allow people to fall thru the cracks," and other jive platitudes delivered in a mellifluous tone. He has the veneer to beguile a whole lot of voting dummies who don't pay attention.
Obama = big bag of nothin'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.