President Glistening Pecs laughs at Jessica Simpson’s weight problem
Classy, Mr. President.
***
Flashback:
President Chesty McCheesecake
Tale of two presidential workout fanatics
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Nancy Pelosi Explains Why Obama Flip-Flopped on Super PACs
February 9, 2012 10:08 PM by Doug Powers
50 Comments
Report: Solyndra Sold Assets Cheap to Entity with Close Ties to Investors
February 9, 2012 10:08 AM by Doug Powers
49 CommentsFormer Democrat Rep. Regrets Vote for Obamacare Due to Contraceptive Coverage
February 7, 2012 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
Middle Class Payroll Tax Cut Extension Comes Courtesy of Mortgage Fees on Home Buyers
February 6, 2012 01:36 PM by Doug Powers
35 CommentsHiring Spree in NYC
February 1, 2012 02:47 PM by Doug Powers
43 CommentsMr. and Mrs. Cranky Pants
January 27, 2012 10:35 AM by Michelle Malkin
138 CommentsStimulus-Backed ‘Green’ Bankruptcy of the Week: Ener1
January 26, 2012 03:06 PM by Doug Powers
67 Comments
Obama and Jan Brewer Have Words on Airport Tarmac; Update: Brewer Book Sales Skyrocket
January 25, 2012 09:54 PM by Doug Powers
165 Comments
Warren Buffett’s Secretary to Sit with First Lady at State of the Union Speech
January 24, 2012 12:35 PM by Doug Powers
93 Comments
Categories: Barack Obama
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dRedstate
» Media MattersHot Air
» National Review to Newt: Get outAmSpecBlog
» Explosion Near Israeli Embassy in India
Please go here and watch the video for yourself. You’ll notice that he does not say “losing.”
Oh please. A plurality of women voted for Obama, and he is a feminist icon. Women such as yourself clearly not a majority.
I must admit that as someone who supports gay rights and reproductive rights, it feels wonderful to know that people like you are slowly becoming more and more irrelevant.
Yes he is. He’s against same sex marriage and abortion, also. But at least he’s willing to reach out to pro-choice and pro-gay rights voters. It’s high times Republicans got a grip on reality.
Haha, the video clearly debunks any already thin evidence that Obama was poking fun at Jessica Simpson.
How embarrassing for you, Michelle Malkin.
Gatewaypundit:
Between the above statement, his support for late-term and on-demand abortion, and his conduct towards Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin on the campaign trail, Obama clearly has issues with respecting women. He really needs to work through this, as they represent just over half the US pop.
BTW, Republicans are the grownups who get things done. Sadly, the last couple of crops of DC Repubs got swept up in the Beltway practices of going along to get along, and ignoring their base. Hooray for “mean spirited” conservatives like Limbaugh and Malkin who keep their eyes on the prize.
Dems are the ignorant children, who expect Big Nanny to watch over them, led by a small cadre of the cynical and corrupt.
Republicans would help poor people by giving them jobs. Republicans overwhelmingly are more generous giving to charity.
Democrats feel bad for the poor, but don’t want to help the poor themselves, but would prefer the government charge higher taxes to give money for the poor.
All of the recent elections- Gore, Kerry and Obama- very stingy. Obama has close family living in housing projects in Boston and slums in Nairobi he does not help.
All happy to take money from workers to give to the truly unfortunate plus the lazy, but not willing to part with their own money, and as Geithner and Daschole have shown, willing to raise taxes but in no hurry to pay them.
Translation: agree with me or you are a racist, irrelivant moron. Do as I say or you will be excluded from public life and have no say in how the country is run.
Like I said, pathetic.
I’d hardly say she has a “weight problem.” She still looks hot and now she doesn’t look malnourished and plastic.
Now a fashion problem, maybe. But then I don’t know squat about fashion.
And why the hell does BHO have time to read the tabloids? Seems like he ought to be reading up on the disastrous consequences of Smoot-Hawley, before he repeats it.
Go watch the video. He doesn’t say that.
So you admit that the people you choose to identify with are wrong?
Project much?
Omu and bluesac; confirming our beliefs about liberals on a daily basis.
Agreed.
Well said.
But women such as myself sleep at night knowing I don’t support evils like abortion or the self-destruction of others in the name of “tolerance”…
If you want your values to pass into future generations there’s no substitute for fertility. Two things that gay rights and “reproductive rights” stand in direct opposition to. My children will, statistics show, have my values. Can’t do that with aborted kids, can you?
So no dice. Gays make up a small minority of the population; likewise, most Americans favor restrictions on abortion excluding rape/incest/life of the mother (less than 3% of all abortions).
Besides just because something is “popular” doesn’t make it right or correct.
And you’re the perfect demonstration of liberal hypocrisy: when conservatives are the majority, it’s the end of the world and the minority must be protected. Now that you think (incorrectly) conservatives are in the minority, everything’s hunky dory.
Right always wins in the end. We will be victorious.
I’m saying the “they did it, so I can do it too” argument is not very persuasive.
MMkay, being able to sleep around with any man you meet in bars, not worry about using birth control, and being able to kill any inconvenient result of wanton coupling is the feminist ideal, I suppose.
I bet a lot of single, horny guys love that definition of feminism.
The “Girls Gone Wild” college girls on Spring Break getting drunk and flashing their breasts are the very height of feminism, by that definition.
He then added. “Yeah, it’s great to be on TIME magazine’s cover every other week, but they just don’t seem to do any real reporting these days. Besides, I’ve got the corner on Ebony and Jet. Seriously have you looked at those covers? It’s all Obama all the time. Damn I rule. Now,US magazine, that where Barry goes for the real scoops. And did you see Phelps with the bong? Bussstteddd!!!”
Matt Lauer then proceeds to ask the hard hitting questions. “So President Gorgeous, which Super Bowl team will you inspire to greatness?”
OMU: I don’t know what you were listening to but he clearly said “losing” I know your masters have told you to defend the ONE by all means but come on.
I thought Emu got banned?
If it wasn’t him, then who was it?
Yeah, pretty much. Men just love “reproductive freedom”…all sex, no pesky marriage or child support. And I thought feminism was about preventing women from being sex toys. Guess not.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil and all that…
1) Video does not play on computer here in office.
2) Even if it did, my job, while allowing for a bit of time for blogging, does not allow for time to sit though a video.
BTW, it sounds as if you are telling us that MSNBC “Today” has an inaccurate transcript of their own broadcast!
It’s two minutes.
That’s exactly what i’m telling you.
I viewed the video, the transcript is correct.
Sorry, I didn’t realize you were just using Republican as shorthand for “evil”. And here I was afraid maybe you couldn’t be taken seriously!
And even if all that was true, for you to suggest that those qualities were exclusively Republican is insane. Not just incorrect or wrong-headed… insane.
Your party went after a teenage girl and a kid with downs syndrome, neither of whom were running for office.
Bill Clinton, patron saint of the modern Democrats, had an entire staff dedicated to character assassination.
This is so laughable I hardly know where to start. Just this morning I read how the press is responding to Obama keeping rendition in his arsenal. That is only the latest in a string of roughly ten bazillion double-standards applied by Democrats in the last 8 years.
When a Democratic President embraced Republican ideals the economy flourished. When a Republican President embraced Democratic ideals the economy tanked. It is the Left, the Democrats, that embraces anti-market ideas that have been proven to be failures.
Example please.
First, I doubt you can cite a single example of this. Second, there’s only one major party that advocates treating people differently based on their race, and it ain’t the Republicans.
As opposed to the straightforward, honorable, completely honest Democrats. And no, I couldn’t type that with a straight face.
Your binary worldview, wherein Republicans are evil by definition and Democrats can do no wrong, is childish and foolish. Which explains why you’re a Liberal.
Dear Mr Government:
You might want to ask Mrs Government to hit the gym.. She’s not looking too great in those designer couch and curtain patterns.
Truthfully,
Zippy the Slug..
This is absurd and untrue.
The truth is that Christians in the US give more charity, but this is only because atheists are made pariahs and excluding from community life in the US. Look to Scandinavia, the most godless place on Earth, where a large majority of people don’t believe in god. Nordic people rape and kill each other much less often than Americans do, and they donate a lot more to charity. It has nothing to do with religiosity and everything to do with how atheists are excluding from US communities.
Please call them what they are: socialists, statists, existentialists, opposite worldview-holders.
(That oughtta be enough accurate terms for now.)
You seem to think that the current state of things will last forever. Clearly you forget that less than five years ago everyone was saying that about the Democrats. That changed virtually overnight, and can change again the same way. When the tables turn again, as they always do, I hope you’ll be honest enough to feel like an idiot.
I’m an athiest and I make no secret of it. I’ve not been excluded from anything, and no charity has ever refused to take my money. Your assertion makes absolutely no sense.
Whaaaaat?!?!?!?!?!
Could you translate that into English, please?
Just my take, but I believe Obama says:
“Yeah, who, who’s in a weight battle apparently”
It’s the stutter on the who that might make it sound like losin’.
On this point, I don’t believe he [Obama] meant anything by it. The whole story with Matt commenting on his being taken out of the photo is all rather lame.
…but, but, but, Mr. President, how could they take your image off the cover?
= contraception and abortion, as if any of us here had any doubt.
So, I should think that if the numbers, and thus influence, of any group(s) were to diminish, it would be that(those) to which
belonged.
Nonsense. Barack Obama explicitly stated that family was off limits and he stuck to it. This is an example of the dishonestly inherent in many Republicans.
Again, misleading and dishonest. Whatever Bill Clinton did, it doesn’t stack up to the ridiculous character attacks carried out by W. Bush and Karl Rove. Even going as far as to turn being French into a pejorative and use it against John Kerry. Republicans can’t even stop themselves from attacking each other, as W. Bush’s shameful attacks in the S. Carolina primary of 2000 show.
The economies of the world are in ruins thanks to neolibralism, an idea propagated by your hero Ronald Reagan. If we had been reasonable and not slaves to greed (as the GOP is), we would have enacted leftist economic policies to protect against this happening. It speaks volumes that in an economic crisis, the world turns to the Left to sort it out.
I don’t see Republicans as evil and Democrats as angelic. However, I am describing the GOP as I see it today. Not all Republicans exhibit the behaviours I’ve outlined, but such behaviours have defined the party nonetheless and I pity Steele’s job of making the GOP relevant again.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 11:04 am, Omu said:
HUH!
It was just in the media, back in the fall, that conservatives/Republicans give more. I don’t remember the group that released the survey (I wanna say Rasmussen), but it was credible and widely published. I’m sure it’s locatable on the net.
Americans give twice as much to charity than next highest country.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19409188/
Further, the raping and killing stat is misleading. The Scandinavian countries have had an extremely low birth rate for the past few decades; since most rapes and murders happen by people in their teens and twenties, not having the subgroup in the population depresses the counts.
Wow. Take your meds, Omu. Your whole statement is an utter lie. And you – who a few posts ago gleefully gloated about people like me being “marginalized” have no right to gripe about the non-marginalization of atheists. Perhaps if atheists weren’t so hostile to the First Amendment, they wouldn’t feel “marginalized.” But I digress…
First lie: America is not as generous as other nations. That’s false (emphasis mine):
Second lie: Atheists are excluded. No, they’re not. They’re just not as generous.
Of course, the study says if you remove the belief in God, there’s no difference. But, naturally, if there’s no belief in God then there’s no religious belief, showing religious people are more charitable.
Also, religion aside, people who are politically conservative give 30% more than liberals:
Debunked and debunked and debunked.
Funny how Obama says families should be off limits as “US Weekly”, owned by a major Obama supporter, does hit jobs on the Palins.
It is the Chicago way, the head mobster doesn’t do the dirty work himself, he has others do it for him.
The economy is in the tank because liberals forced banks to lend money to people who were obviously in no position to repay the loans. The CRA changes in 1994 and 1995 did this, despite the banks objections.
How you get Reagan involved in this is just silly.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 11:08 am, James Felix said:
The truth is that Christians in the US give more charity, but this is only because atheists are made pariahs and excluding from community life in the US.
I’m an athiest and I make no secret of it. I’ve not been excluded from anything, and no charity has ever refused to take my money. Your assertion makes absolutely no sense.
————————————–
MOST of our friend Omu’s assertions make absolutely no sense.
Where he got the idea that a person in this country can be excluded from donating to whatever charity they choose because of their religion/lack thereof is beyond me.
Was it mistressjustice? Rusty?
Good post, EQ.
BTW, I forgot to ask earlier…how does the violence in Scandinavian countries referred to break down by (sub)group?
Could so-called “youths” be responsible for most of it?
“Youths” from a certain area of Southwest Asia, and of a certain
religionideology?Yes they do, but only through the government. Americans as private citizens give more as individuals and conservatives give 30% more that liberals.
In general, atheists have no community and are excluded from community in life in the US. As such, they have less opportunities to donate to charity. That Christians distort this fact to suit themselves is further dishonesty.
Good point.
If I rememeber correctly, that’s how Al Capone stayed free for so long, and that’s why the only thing he could be nailed for was tax evasion.
Great post EG
Again, a lie. You assume the only community life in America is religious.
Do a Google search for charities. There are tons out there looking for donations and volunteers that would welcome atheists. In other words, if they wanted to give, they could.
Why in the world are we supposed to feel sorry for a group of people who choose not to be religious? That’s our fault now?
Clinton and Obama didn’t attack each other during the primaries?
Nice moving of the goalposts. First character assassination was a Republican characteristic, now it’s “yeah we do it but you do it more!”.
Face it: everything you list as being definitive of the GOP is present in the DNC. If you can’t see that then, as I said, you are childish and foolish.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 11:25 am, Omu said:
I’m an athiest and I make no secret of it. I’ve not been excluded from anything, and no charity has ever refused to take my money. Your assertion makes absolutely no sense.
In general, atheists have no community and are excluded from community in life in the US. As such, they have less opportunities to donate to charity. That Christians distort this fact to suit themselves is further dishonesty.
————————————–
Atheists have no community? They have their own organization in the U.S. Who did you think put up those anti-religion signs on the buses or by the Nativity scene last Christmas?
And who says you have to belong to a “community” to donate to charity? Pretty much any charitable organization you can think of has a Web site for online donating, as well as sending out snail-mail and making phone calls. So quit pretending that charities are unaccessible to anyone who wants to give.
Then, it is not charity nor donating, when it is taken from you by the government at the point of a gun.
No more than rape at knifepoint, gunpoint, or by any force/means (by definition), would be considered love.
That is so much BS
I don’t have a religion but I give 15% of my time and money to a variety of causes.
You need to get a life Omu!!!!
Yes, the roam the country searching for friends, only to be scorned due to the scarlet letter embossed on their chests. YMCAs shutter their doors upon sight of these individuals, bowling alley’s discretely turn off their neon signs, and softball team sign-ups mysteriously disappear from the bulletin boards at work.
The atheist cries out cor companionship, yet he finds none, as the the internet will not allow him to access craigslist or chatrooms where he may find fellow travelers.
…or maybe people just don’t like you. Hard to imagine why….
Evidence? How are they excluded?
Just how hard is it to donate to charity?! Are you for real?
I believe you’re the one doing some distorting here.
I believe the point is that Christians are generally (since you like to generalize) charitable people. They don’t need the government to take more of their money to “help the poor” because many of them, by and large, do this of their own free will (and don’t always trust that the government will actually get it to those who really need it).
Your counter point that atheists cannot contribute to charity because of some as yet unstated exclusion is a bit preposterous. What charities exclude you?
Yeah! Then we could be enjoying the kind of prosperity that the Soviet Union and Cuba are.
What? The Soviet Union is gone? Cuba is a joke.
Hmm. It seems like that is the exact opposite of what we want.
Religion is the choice, not atheism.
Secondly, I never said you had to feel sorry for atheists, but it’s important to understand that Christians don’t give more to charity because they’re better people, they do it because they have an organised community that pervades throughout the entire country.
Who’s Jessica Simpson’s?
And why does anybody care about her?
By the way, did you see the pecks on the President?
Omu said:in general, atheists have no community
Omu may I suggest
Animal rights charities
Gay and lesbian causes
ACORN
Democratic party
Your local food bank
Habitat for Humanity
On February 2nd, 2009 at 11:35 am, Ilovemycountry said:
Who’s Jessica Simpson’s?
And why does anybody care about her?
By the way, did you see the pecks on the President?
————————————–
Question 1: A pop starlet who would only be considered overweight in the word she inhabits.
Question 2: Yes, we did. But we are not drooling. (or is that normal for you?)
Yes, because when I said leftist I meant authoritarian communism. Seriously, grow up.
If you want to play that game, then right wing policies amount to facism, yes?
Thank you for a humorous post.
I know it’s a departure for you, but it is appreciated. As you can see, we’re all stocked up on crazy liberals for the day.
No. Atheism is as much a choice. People can choose not to believe in God, too, you know.
And, again, it’s our fault that atheists don’t have a community how? I’m religious, as are many others, because we believe in God and we believe the way to worship is in community. And that charity is a work of grace and faith.
Which, although you’d never admit it, shows that the strength that flows from religious communities is important and powerful and a great source of order and morality in society.
By the way, Google “Charities in the United States” and you get about 6.8 million hits. Atheists can give. They just have to do the work.
Religion is a dualist theology and so is atheism. Both thought patterns are a result of the minds requiring a decision derived from a comparison.
GEES!
That you would assume these are atheist societies shows a grave ignorance. The overwhelming majority of poor people (ACORN) are Christians, the same is true for gays and Democrats. These might be more accepting of atheists, but these organisations are preoccupied with their own goals and not with charity.
Sorry, state control is a lefty thing. Right wing is all about free markets. More like Libertarian.
They hide that sort of information in books.
Where on Earth are you pulling this crap from? I have my neighbors, I have my co-workers, I belong to a veteran’s group and I’m involved in the local college. Every Thanksgiving I participate in a food drive at the local Catholic church! I have the same community everyone else does, and none of them care that I’m an athiest. Or if they do care they’re courteous enough to keep it to themselves.
And less opportunity to donate? Dude, find a charity and mail them a check. No organization has ever, ever contacted me to make sure I wasn’t an athiest. They just say “thanks”.
The argument you’re attempting to make here is illogical and factually wrong. It was silly to suggest and it’s even sillier trying to defend it. When you’re in a hole you should stop digging.
So what, then, is your definition of “charity”? Anything not related to Christians?
The point is that this isn’t true at all. Sweden and Norway are largely irreligious and they give more to charity than American Christians do. This “great source of morality” comes not from religion, but from community and the camaraderie that comes with that.
I don’t want to demean Christian charity work, because it is of course a good thing, but it has nothing to do with religiosity and everything to do with community.
Unfortunately, there are no redeeming features of religion.
Gotta say this is overblown. While Obama isnt my fav its clear that he pointed to the magazine and tried to be clever about the caption shown.
Better to take the high(er) road on this one Michelle!
You’re clearly misunderstanding my point entirely. I’ve explained it more than enough times, if you still don’t understand, that cannot be helped.
When has Michelle Malkin ever taken the high road on anything?
AND YOU GOAL IS WHAT?
Part II
Seeing the poor athiest, who no person will approach because, a young priest decides that he should educate his flock about the Golden Rule. During his sermon, a heavenly light appears and God himself appears in the church. ‘My Children,’ God states, ‘I have come unto you to deliver this lost, eleventh commandment. Thou shall not accept charitable donations from atheists, as their pettiness about words on coins offends me. Thou shall not invite the accursed to picnics, as they will likely complain about the lack of vegetarian options. And thou shall forfeit all sporting events in which an atheist is on the opposing team, as they will likely cheat.’
His words told to the congregation, God ascended back to heaven and their was much rejoicing. Christians would no longer evangelize the godless, as was their previous mission; but rather, make a point to hold more picnics and charitable events just so that atheists would be excluded
Nope. Re-read my previous post, especially this paragraph:
We give more than 30 major nations combined.
So let me make sure I get this correct: atheists have no community because they’re atheists. Hence, they have fewer opportunities to give. And that’s a bad thing.
One of the (many) features of religion is its support of family and community, giving religious people opportunity to pool their talents and treasure toward charitable causes.
But it’s religion that has no redeeming qualities? Wow.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 11:48 am, Omu said:
And less opportunity to donate? Dude, find a charity and mail them a check. No organization has ever, ever contacted me to make sure I wasn’t an athiest. They just say “thanks”.
You’re clearly misunderstanding my point entirely. I’ve explained it more than enough times, if you still don’t understand, that cannot be helped.
—————————————
Your “point” seems to be that atheists are outcast in our country (despite having their own organization, as I pointed out) and are restricted from donating money/time to any charity they choose – two “points” that have been proved wrong.
Get off it.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 am, Omu said:
Better to take the high(er) road on this one Michelle!
When has Michelle Malkin ever taken the high road on anything?
—————————————
Again I ask: If you dislike her/anyone who agrees with her so much, why do you keep coming on here and posting?
Folks, please understand that this knucklehead does not speak for all athiests. I daresay he hardly speaks for any of us.
There’s no need to get into here why I don’t believe in god, suffice to say I don’t. But to say that religion has no redeeming features is a statement of such profound ignorance and deep seated arrogance… such nonsense could only come from a liberal.
No they don’t. If you’d bother to click on any of the links we’ve referenced you;d see that.
I understand it. I’ve also thoroughly refuted it.
Too bad zeroangel isn’t around today. I’m sure he’d enjoy this.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 11:52 am, James Felix said:
Unfortunately, there are no redeeming features of religion.
Folks, please understand that this knucklehead does not speak for all athiests. I daresay he hardly speaks for any of us.
There’s no need to get into here why I don’t believe in god, suffice to say I don’t. But to say that religion has no redeeming features is a statement of such profound ignorance and deep seated arrogance… such nonsense could only come from a liberal.
—————————————
There are atheists such as yourself who simply choose not to believe in any Higher Being or belong to any religion, and then there are bigots: “Religion does nothing but cause hatred and war; religious people are evil/stupid/crazy”. They should be considered two separate categories. You clearly do not suffer from “RDS” (Religion Derangement Syndrome) and our friend Omu does.
That was sarcasm Omu
She is gracious enough to allow you to come here and attack her. If you dislike her (and most posters here) so much, why do you come here?
There are liberals here that can debate with reason and make and concede points with decorum. Then there’s you.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 12:03 pm, b-cat said:
On February 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 am, Omu said:
When has Michelle Malkin ever taken the high road on anything?
She is gracious enough to allow you to come here and attack her. If you dislike her (and most posters here) so much, why do you come here?
There are liberals here that can debate with reason and make and concede points with decorum. Then there’s you.
————————————–
Our hostess with the mostest has pretty thick skin; have you read any of her “hate mail” posts? Omu has nothing on them (of course, he might like to write the kind of things they write but realized he WOULD be banned if he did).
I realize that Mrs. Malkin does not need me to defend her, I am just curious about Omu’s psychosis.
There are two kinds of people in the electorate: 1. People who remember how horrible the Jimmy Carter years were. 2. People who are about to find out.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 12:10 pm, b-cat said:
On February 2nd, 2009 at 12:08 pm, frostrt said:
I realize that Mrs. Malkin does not need me to defend her, I am just curious about Omu’s psychosis.
—————————————
Well, as I pointed out, he has a clear case of RDS (Religion Derangement Syndrome), but other than that, I would say a standard case of lib brainwashing (or is RDS normally part of that?)
And, nope, MM doesn’t need us to defend her; it’s just fund to shoot down arguments that make such easy targets!
“fund” = “fun”.
Must. Hit. Preview. Before. Submit.
The concept of an “argument” of some of these socialist trollls seems not unlike that of the prosecutor at a witchcraft trial.
I know I refer to it now and then, but this example really does illustrate the futility of attemting to have a fair, rational “argument” with such people.
I’m referring to Rebecca’s (Elizabeth Taylor’s) trial for witchcraft in the movie “Ivanhoe”.
It’s simple: threadjacking. Typically he shows up if religion or homosexuality are part of the post and starts a flame war.
How he got here is a mystery, but it might have something to do with the topless Obama photo.
…attempting…
Apologies….
Agreed. I was also a bit creeped out by the owner of the Steelers giving credit to “President Obama” for his support of the team. Since when? In the last 48 hours he declared his support for the Steelers, then suddenly his “aura” is responsible for their win? Man, get a clue!!
Sorry for the O/T.
Omu,
I don’t understand how you think atheists are denied th opportunity to give. Have you ever had a donation rejected by a religious or non-religious charitable institutuion? Have you ever even tried giving to one? Your whole logic is extremely twisted. Get down to your local Red Cross and I’m sure I’m sure they will be more than happy to accept your time and money whether believer, non-believer or agnostic. Or are you waiting for Obama to expand Americacorps so you can get paid to volunteer?
Omu. Here is link to atheistic charities
http://techskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/12/atheist-charities.html
Your just to damn lazy to look, or your just all mouth.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 12:21 pm, MtsEdge said:
On February 2nd, 2009 at 8:52 am, labwrs said:
Is it just me or is anyone else getting REALLY creeped out on the “Chosen One” commenting on EVERYTHING…The preSuperBowl interview was unnecessary but the topic was demeaning to the Office of the Presidency…
Agreed. I was also a bit creeped out by the owner of the Steelers giving credit to “President Obama” for his support of the team. Since when? In the last 48 hours he declared his support for the Steelers, then suddenly his “aura” is responsible for their win? Man, get a clue!!
Sorry for the O/T.
————————————–
Hello again!
I agree; since when does any President have anything to do with which team wins the fracking Super Bowl? Who cares who he roots for, or what he eats at his Super Bowl party?
Interesting thread discussion we’ve got going on here, isn’t it? Everything from the topic at hand, to whether atheists have a “community” or are restricted from giving to any charity they choose, to what type of disorder our friend Omu suffers from.
Omu would never give to the Red Cross. It is a Christian organization. It has cross in the name. On the other hand, it does have red in the name.
Very cool! I’m jealous!! (not so much about Jeb, but I think you know what I mean)
Oh, and Happy Birthday, frostrt!!
Hey! I hadn’t read the whole thread yet, but it does seem to be shaping up to be an interesting one. BHO threads always seem to bring out the apologist trolls.
On February 2nd, 2009 at 12:29 pm, MtsEdge said:
On February 2nd, 2009 at 9:44 am, frostrt said:
Serioulsy OT, but: I just discovered I share the same birthday with Sarah Palin and Jeb Bush – HOW COOL IS THAT!
Very cool! I’m jealous!! (not so much about Jeb, but I think you know what I mean)
#193On February 2nd, 2009 at 12:30 pm, MtsEdge said:
Oh, and Happy Birthday, frostrt!!
—————————————
Thanks! I think it’s cool to know which “notables” share your B-Day; you can claim bragging rights without having done anything but be born that day!
I’m a Christian, but I don’t believe the church has the authority from God to give to/start a charity. It’s just not what the church is for. I, therefore, do not donate to religiously funded charities.
Not that I’m trying to start a religious debate, but I make the point to say that my donations have nothing to do with my ‘religious community’. I give because I believe it’s my responsibility as an individual Christian to help where I can. The one charity I currently donate to is the USO, because I believe in supporting our troops.
So, it seems to me your excuse of not donating because you’re an atheist is just that – an excuse.
On the actual topic – I think BHO was just trying to make a funny, not be harmful. I think the bigger issue at hand is the ridiculous question itself – *gasp* How could the Obamessiah be removed from the cover?!?111? Never mind the fact that, according to the storyline, the article’s about Michelle, not Barry.
But let’s not confuse ‘em with facts.
Regarding atheism here is my all-time favorite exchange from the TV series MASH:
Father Mulchahey: Son, can I be of some spiritual assistance to you?
Wounded Soldier: No thank you Father, I’m an athiest.
Father Mulchahey: An atheist? Really? In a place like this?
Wounded Soldier: Yes I am Father; swear to God.
Was Papa Smurf the leader?
Omu, your flimsy “point” has been refuted over and over again.
But, if you’re still having trouble finding charities to donate to, send me your address and/or phone #, and I’ll sign you up for some mail from the many charities that I get mail from every day. (They NEVER ask my religious affiliation.)
Maybe so, but why even go there? This is the type of tripe that ticks people off…no “serious” journalism when it comes to BHO…only ego-salving drivel about the latest superficial “news” from a supermarket rag.
Does this type of questioning mean that BHO doesn’t inspire journalists to probe the depths of his intellect? Or is the deepest part of his intellect really shallower than a thimble?