# The man has lost his sanity



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Obama, Cameron compare themselves to Reagan, Thatcher...


Obama thinks he compares to Reagan. :eyeroll: Reagan must be rolling in his grave. I think this should be all the proof one needs (on top of all the rest) to understand that Obama has no grasp on reality. That or he thinks he is the only guy in the nation with an IQ over 70. If Obama wants to compare himself to someone Joseph Stalin or Carl Marx would be much more accurate. Perhaps the way he treats Israel would make Adolph Hitler more accurate.

Liberals would get their panties in a wad if we said Obama was unAmerican, but considering what America is and what Obama wants what other conclusion can one come to?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

He is trying to snowball the uniformed people out there now for the election in 2012. He did it once and he hopes to do it again. I think you will see more and more of him leaning ever so slightly to the right or trying to compare himself to people like Reagan. He will try to sway the right thinking people with his... I was the one who got Bin Laden... I opened up more oil drilling (even though he is lifting some of his own sanctions)..... etc.

He is doing all of this for another run in 2012. Hopefully people will see or realize what he is doing. But on the other end of the spectrum... the GOP needs to find a great canidate to make a run as well.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/24/carville.obama.mideast/


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Seabass, I never claimed Bush was perfect. If he said Israel should go back to 1967 borders he was not very smart. I would guess there would be some overlap in what presidents do. This particular overlap was stupidity on the part of Bush and Obama. If it is an overlap. This is the only post you have put up that shows Bush in a bad light. 

Seabass, I have been curious why liberals dislike Israel, could you explain that to me? Could you imagine Mandan shooting a couple thousand rockets a year into Bismarck? I'll bet some people in Bismarck would become upset. Then there are those who can't understand Israels position. :eyeroll:

Last give me an example of Obama and Reagan overlapping. That's the comparison Obama was making. Reagan, not Bush. How about the last quote in my signature line? Do you think Obama would agree with that?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Seabass, I never claimed Bush was perfect. If he said Israel should go back to 1967 borders he was not very smart. I would guess there would be some overlap in what presidents do. This particular overlap was stupidity on the part of Bush and Obama. If it is an overlap. This is the only post you have put up that shows Bush in a bad light.
> 
> Seabass, I have been curious why liberals dislike Israel, could you explain that to me? Could you imagine Mandan shooting a couple thousand rockets a year into Bismarck? I'll bet some people in Bismarck would become upset. Then there are those who can't understand Israels position. :eyeroll:
> 
> Last give me an example of Obama and Reagan overlapping. That's the comparison Obama was making. Reagan, not Bush. How about the last quote in my signature line? Do you think Obama would agree with that?


Plainsman, this isn't about disliking Israel, this is about taking a stand to get things moving for once. You like the status quo? Do we just continue as is for another decade? Two decades? Another generation? Give me a break. He said 1967 borders "with land swaps." But of course, no matter what he would have said, you would cry foul.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

Statement by former president Bush.

"We share a vision of two states living side by side with PEACE AND SECURITY." (April 4, 2002)

Statement by obama.

Recently obama also said that the way to have peace in the Middle East was to divide the land of Israel in 
order to have two states living side by side.

"What we know is that the status quo is unsustainable. It's critical for us to advance the two-state solution
where they live side by side in PEACE AND SECURITY." (March 24, 2009)

Not only did former president George Bush and obama talk about having two states by dividing God's land
that was given to Israel, the "Quartet" (America, Russia, the united Nations, and the European Union) had
the same vision concerning two states on that land.

Go to this website http://peaceforisrael.net/ and download the pdf book that is there, it has what I have prviously typed here and a lot more. A friend gave me a copy yesterday and I have just started reading it. This will explain why we need to back Israel 100%. I am not a religious zealot but I do believe in the Bible and it prophecys. They have been a whole lot more accurate than the weather man!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I am not a religious zealot but I do believe in the Bible and it prophecys.


I am in the boat with you on this one. I wanted to understand these things more and last year went to about five or six Bible studies per week all year. One has to be very careful these days because there are theologians that have studied for years and have different ideas. The different ideas have become very serious in the past few years because there are liberal theologians that now twist scripture to fit today's society. The ELCA would be a good example. 
I support Israel because we as a nation need to be reliable and loyal. We have let so many people down that it makes me sick. It's not that we owe Israel like some theologians misinterpret. When Paul was sent to the gentiles it became apparent that God intended to accept gentiles also. The need for Israel was over and the new Israel referred to in the Bible is all God's people.
I remember when the ELCA made the decision to accept gay pastors. We had a local liberal pastor come to our church and when asked about it he said "things change, we eat shellfish now too don't we". A couple liberal pastors made that same comparison in the paper. Well here is the truth. A pastor worth his salt should have known that the food laws were for the Jewish people only to set them aside so the world would watch as they waited for their messiah (it isn't Obama). When Jesus was born prophesy was fulfilled and the food laws were abolished. The Jewish people continue to follow them because they don't believe he was the messiah. So today the food laws are abolished and never were for the gentiles. That doesn't deter deceptive pastors from using that line though. 
I simply have sympathy for people who suffer attack nearly every day. We would not tolerate it, but some sickos in our society can't understand the plight of others. Don't anyone give me the line that I don't understand the plight of the Palestinians. I don't believe they have a right to the land they want. They are simply hate filled and have been for centuries. Just another example of the hate in the Islamic religion.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Nice to see Seabass involved in these discussions, but I have a question. Your link above by Carville implies Obama said nothing Netanyahu hadn't heard before from previous presidents. That argument _could_ be made, I suppose, if based solely on the public statements. But what about the 90 minute private session? The session that obviously put Netanyahu in quite a mood? When a man with his experience exits a meeting with smoke still rolling out of his ears I find it hard to imagine all he heard was the same 'ol stuff. The way I understand it the meetimg went WAY over the planned time, so what do you think they could have been talking about?

Another very important point that cannot be lost in this is that in 2005, which I believe is the last time anyone hinted at '67 borders, Hamas was just gaining ground in Egypt. The region has changed considerably since then. Instability abounds everywhere, and Hamas and the brotherhood seems to be involved in all of it, so I'm having a real hard time buying all this rhetoric about how what he said wasn't such a big deal.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, this isn't about disliking Israel, this is about taking a stand to get things moving for once.


It will get things moving alright. It will get the second Holocaust well underway. What do you think will happen to tens of thousands of Israeli people behind enemy lines? Try to imagine highway I94 here in North Dakota being the border between us and the Taliban. Lets say the Taliban is south of I94 and we are north of I94. Then try to imagine we draw a new line 100 miles north at highway 2 that goes through Devils Lake. How would you like to be the minority living on the north side of that line? I wonder if such thoughts ever cross liberal minds? If it is important to just get things moving do you think the outcome should be considered first? :eyeroll:

I don't get it, what's the soft spot liberals have for the radical Muslims? Are they just in a rush to wave the white flag?


----------

