# Obama toning down National Day of Prayer!



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

THIS MAKES ME SICK! I am convinced now more than ever that this dirtball is a muslim and not a Christian. The Cross to him is like garlic to a vampire.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05 ... criticism/ :******: uke:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

this comes as no surprise...and his family has not found a church that meets their needs yet either....surprised??  he obviously misses Jeremiah Wright! can you say closet Muslim?? and people didn't want Romney in because he was of the Mormon faith.....hooray for "Muslim Day"!

uke:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

It was only a matter of time before he threw Christianity out the window.

No shock. :-?


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

The article you posted states:

"The event was created in 1952 and signed into law by Harry Truman. Ronald Reagan amended the law in 1988 to state that the day would be observed on the first Thursday in May.

Reagan hosted a Rose garden event in 1982, and President George H.W. Bush scheduled a breakfast in 1989. The annual East Room events didn't begin until George W. Bush was in office."

George W. is the only one who did an annual White House event. Not following W's lead on this issue doesn't mean anything. Good or bad.


----------



## Nodak_Norsk (Aug 5, 2007)

Fine by me. Religion is probably the only thing I would see eye to eye on with Obama. He is still respecting it as a proclaimed day, and I'm sure most Christians who it is worth it to, would pray anyways :wink:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Dak said:


> The article you posted states:
> 
> "The event was created in 1952 and signed into law by Harry Truman. Ronald Reagan amended the law in 1988 to state that the day would be observed on the first Thursday in May.
> 
> ...


Excellent astute observation Dak. That doesn't matter though to those trying to throw muck on every single thing they possibly can. As long as it can be twisted negative against Obama it is fair game it seems, no matter how outlandish.

Many have come to expect as much in recent months as the quality of topics has really trended downward in substance and higher in hysteria.

Sad to see the hysteria, paranoia, thinly veiled racism, and general spam that has overtaken this forum.

I don't recall that same behaviour regarding conspiracy hysteria being exhibited when the tables were flipped in the previous term. Interesting that the FactCheck and Snopes website is now standard protocol to double check most postings from certain individuals here.... you'd think they would start doing it to their own email forwards and/or posts after having been outed before.

Things to ponder..

Thank you for the neutral reasoning in your post.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Headlines to the story....
"Obama's Decision to Observe National Day of Prayer Privately Draws Public Criticism
President Obama's decision to celebrate Thursday's observance privately has generated controversy among religious groups."

Why do you suppose this is? He has flushed the moral integrity of this country down the crapper. Plus 20 years of Rev. Wright teaching and preaching racism let alone the pure hate for America. This community organizer has zero credibilty with those of us who hold principles other than our own.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The great organizer is deviding people more than anyone in history. Many don't believe his explanation about reverand Wright who is good friends with Farrakhan and Kadafi. Hmmm a Christian minister whoe's buddies are Mulsim. Same as every pastor I know right, Wright, right, Wright? :homer: 
He spends nearly a million defending himself against the constitutional requirement of proof of citizenship. 
He tries multiple back door gun controlsl after saying he respects the second amendment.
He has implemented socialist ideals and strives for more.
Now the kool aid drinkers think we should respect him? I have less than zero respect for this man, and more people every day are agreeing with my assessment of him. The only bright spot is after this guy if we get to vote again the democrats will take a serious beating. The republicans will not move further left as Colin Powell suggests. Talk radio is laughing at people suggesting the conservatives need to move to the middle. One only needs to remember the convention reaction to Sarah Palin. I would still like to see her run as vice president with Newt Gingrich as president. Old Newt will need to move further right to win. He needs another contract with America, and he needs to implement it this time. Further left would mean we had two liberal parties, and you can not out liberal a democrat.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

4CurlRedleg said:


> Headlines to the story....
> "Obama's Decision to Observe National Day of Prayer Privately Draws Public Criticism
> President Obama's decision to celebrate Thursday's observance privately has generated controversy among religious groups."
> 
> Why do you suppose this is? He has flushed the moral integrity of this country down the crapper. Plus 20 years of Rev. Wright teaching and preaching racism let alone the pure hate for America. This community organizer has zero credibilty with those of us who hold principles other than our own.


ryan doesn't follow the news..he watches MSNBC...the Obama network, where the anchors wet their pants and get a chill up their leg, every time Obama speaks.... :lol:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> The great organizer is dividing people more than anyone in history. Many don't believe his explanation about reverend Wright who is good friends with Farrakhan and Kadafi. Hmmm a Christian minister who's buddies are Muslim. Same as every pastor I know right, Wright, right, Wright? :homer:
> He spends nearly a million defending himself against the constitutional requirement of proof of citizenship.
> He tries multiple back door gun controls after saying he respects the second amendment.
> He has implemented socialist ideals and strives for more.
> Now the kool aid drinkers think we should respect him? I have less than zero respect for this man, and more people every day are agreeing with my assessment of him. The only bright spot is after this guy if we get to vote again the democrats will take a serious beating. The republicans will not move further left as Colin Powell suggests. Talk radio is laughing at people suggesting the conservatives need to move to the middle. One only needs to remember the convention reaction to Sarah Palin. I would still like to see her run as vice president with Newt Gingrich as president. Old Newt will need to move further right to win. He needs another contract with America, and he needs to implement it this time. Further left would mean we had two liberal parties, and you can not out liberal a democrat.


Newt would chew up the "teleprompter man" in a debate and make him look absolutely foolish....as a debater Obama would lose miserably and look absolutely unqualified and foolish on national TV...we can only hope to see that going forward...by then people will be so ****** about their higher taxes and loss of freedoms, i expect the chosen one will be feeling less "chosen"....his full throttle rush to implement all the changes that will cost taxpayers millions will be felt before 2012 and that will hurt him, except for the poor folks who will be ahead of you in line at the docs and welfare office!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It would not even be a debate between Obama and Newt. Newt has this stuff all down pat in his mind. Obama would only fool the people who know nothing themselves.

America is in a political battle now between old age and skill, and youth and treachery. Integrity passed away a few years ago. He was preceded in death by truth and principles.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

amen........


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

Speaking of the "Teleprompter", If we put the Constitution up on the Teleprompter do you think the 'Great Messiah" would finally read it? uke:


----------



## utahhunter1 (May 3, 2009)

R y a n said:


> Dak said:
> 
> 
> > The article you posted states:
> ...


I for once have to agree with Ryan on this I have not been a member on this site for long but have been reading the forum for close to a year now and it seems there is alot of political extremism on both sides of the issues and nobody will budge an inch. We have bad guys in power in our country on both sides yet we seem to only want to find or question the bad of our oposite party. I believe that we are doing an injustice to our country and families and those killed in behalf of our fredom if we do not fight and hinder the evil within our great country on both sides be it democrat repulican or any other political party. Yet most of the time we insist on being one sided. This is how our country can be divided and conquered

Robert F. Kennedy said, "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme but
that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Utahhunter1,

Unfortunately I think you are quite right.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

utahhunter1, I partially agree, and partially disagree. I have changed my mind on the Patriot Act because now it's being abused. I am flexible on some things, but when it comes to principles ----well you remember that country song about surviving because you bend in the wind like the willow in the back yard? When it comes to principles I would rather brake than bend. Sometimes bending is ok, sometimes it's simply weakness.

As far as tolerance. Tolerance is a cousin of political correctness and simply means a lack of principles. Tolerance of minor things is ok, but I can't tolerate illegal aliens coming across by the millions. I can't tolerate the removal of the second amendment from the constitution. I can't tolerate the loss of freedom. Now you may think those would be radical things. Others think they would be a great idea. I think Obama likes those ideas.

Everyone on this site is intolerant. It's simply that I may be one of the only ones who will admit it. Now don't take this as an insult, you didn't say it. I think tolerance is for fools and those with no principles or convictions of any kind. Sounds like most of our politicians doesn't it?


----------



## utahhunter1 (May 3, 2009)

Plainsman I agree with you but in my post I was not saying we need to be tolerant of anyting wrong or immoral so im not sure where you got that from, I meant just the oposite. I was only trying to get the point across that we can not only look for the wrong and immoral acts in one place and ingnore the wrong doings and evil acts going on in other places. It just seems thread after thread we are looking for and posting what is wrong in one place. We need to fight the good fight wherever it is not just where we want it to be. And as to your last sentence I think with politicians now days it is mostly a choice of pick you poison sadly enough.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

good civil discussion guy's :beer: :beer:


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Plainsman,

I mostly agree. I see the problem being when people refuse to listen to other viewpoints. Rarely, if ever, do you do that. Listen and decide for yourself. However, for many people they don't care what someone says...if they aren't of the same belief as them they are wrong. If they are a liberal ... everything Bush said and did was wrong. If they are a conservative ... everything Obama says and does is wrong. Neither of those positions is correct and I think does our country and democracy a diservice. In either case, letting a label or political party decide what is right and wrong for you is the ultimate invasion of "Big Brother".

Cheers, time for some sippin' whiskey and a cigar.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I mostly agree. I see the problem being when people refuse to listen to other viewpoints. Rarely, if ever, do you do that.


It depends on who says it. After a long time most of us on here know each other. I consider myself conservative and not republican. Half the time I defended Bush simply because he was always getting bashed. I guess I often pull for the underdog. He ticked me off on border security. He was just to soft. He spent way to much like a liberal. I agree with his position on the war.

I agree with republicans maybe with republicans about half the time. A agree with democrats about ten percent of the time. I disagree with liberals on here most of the time. Not because I am partisan, but because I think they are wrong. I think liberals are wrong most of the time.

Some people don't often post. When they do I find it worth listening. Some post a lot and worship Obama. If they told me the sun was coming up in the east tomorrow morning I would be skeptical.

I do however understand your frustration. However, Obama has done nothing good that I have seen, so I hope my opinion doesn't frustrate you. I have stopped and given thought to the things he is doing, I was dumb enough for a while to have some hope. Another lesson in the worthlessness of hope.



> Cheers


 To you also.



> Plainsman I agree with you but in my post I was not saying we need to be tolerant of anything wrong or immoral


Good, good, thank you for clarifying. My lessons in life has been when someone starts muttering tolerance they want you to accept something bad. I have been around so many liberals that my guard goes up when I hear words like tolerance or political correct. God I think political correct will kill this country.


----------

