[Gopher711]

Christians are just as bad or worse than Islamic terrorists , yep he admits his loyalty to Mooslum ...

Obama at Prayer Event: Christians did terrible things, too | Fox News

 

[inthecurl]

If anyone now believe's this imposter is not a true muzzy, they need to seek professional help!!! Never thought I would live to see such treasonous actions from a US "President"!! Unbelievable!!

 

[jimsplace]

Christians are just as bad or worse than Islamic terrorists , yep he admits his loyalty to Mooslum ...

Obama at Prayer Event: Christians did terrible things, too | Fox News

:signhuh:
"Christians are just as bad or worse than Islamic terrorists"

He didn't say that, and you know it. At least try to have the obvious facts correct.
Surely you don't think that people have not used most religions, including the Christian Religion, as a basis for war, controlling others and taking of property for thousands of years.
What do you think the basis of the Crusades were about?

 

[Forkin' Crazy]

It is so simple. The Christians have evolved. The 7th century barbarians, aka muslims, have not. And you're an idiot if you don't agree with that!!! sphss

 

[500BBC]

The Crusades were started to drive the muslims out of Europe, not the other way around.. He is counting on the Gruber voters to drool along with him while he supports radical islam.

 

[jetjunky]

ya, sure, everything is just the same now as it was then (crusades) man hasn't evolved one bit since then. Good apples to apples comparison there. You are really stretching to have to go back that far to find the slightest justification. typical

 

[SNiC]

:signhuh:
"Christians are just as bad or worse than Islamic terrorists"

He didn't say that, and you know it. At least try to have the obvious facts correct.
Surely you don't think that people have not used most religions, including the Christian Religion, as a basis for war, controlling others and taking of property for thousands of years.
What do you think the basis of the Crusades were about?

No jim, he did not say that, but I believe the "message" was implied....
As the Crusades ended over 700 years ago it was an attempted stretch of a reach, but his remarks did appeal to the ignorant masses, thus IMO, the reach and message was successfully implied....

What is your position on ISIS and their recent actions?
If they are acting on religious beliefs, do you believe their actions are justified?
Should we assist in their eradication or just live and let live?

Just curious as I am not sure where you are coming from...

 

[jimsplace]

It is so simple. The Christians have evolved. The 7th century barbarians, aka muslims, have not. And you're an idiot if you don't agree with that!!! sphss

You truly write stupid things.:angry:
Religion including Christianity has evolved from the beginning and is still doing so.
To say, "The Christians have evolved" is a stupid response. Christians have evolved, how?
Are they more tolerant, less greedy, peaceful, thoughtful, kinder to each other, all of the above or none of the above?
How many Christian religions are there and which one is the right religion, according to you? I hope you realize there are many to choose from.
The number of Christian religions increases every day of the week and none totally agrees with the other. Which one is right and which one is wrong?
There are numerous other religions that are not Christian, are you so arrogant as to say none of them are valid.
I feel sure you have not studied religions or considered how they differ, but it might surprise you to learn there are many similarities between many of them.

There have been more innocent people killed because of religion, this century, the previous century and the centuries before that, than any other reason.
In case you aren't aware, there are many Muslims who just want to have a peaceful existence just like you and me.

You don't get out much do you?

Try to be more tolerant and open minded if you consider yourself a christian.
Can you do that, or is that not part of being a Christian in your world?
I'm guessing, probably not!

 

[angry dad]

No jim, he did not say that, but I believe the "message" was implied....
As the Crusades ended over 700 years ago it was an attempted stretch of a reach, but his remarks did appeal to the ignorant masses, thus IMO, the reach and message was successfully implied....

What is your position on ISIS and their recent actions?
If they are acting on religious beliefs, do you believe their actions are justified?
Should we assist in their eradication or just live and let live?

Just curious as I am not sure where you are coming from...

Great Post SNIC. Im also curious how the lib mind thinks. What say you Jim....

 

[jetjunky]

hmmmm, I'm guessing ol jimbo here is the new alias for perry gerrand or is he just his identical twin?

 

[jimsplace]

No jim, he did not say that, but I believe the "message" was implied....
As the Crusades ended over 700 years ago it was an attempted stretch of a reach, but his remarks did appeal to the ignorant masses, thus IMO, the reach and message was successfully implied....

What is your position on ISIS and their recent actions?
If they are acting on religious beliefs, do you believe their actions are justified?
Should we assist in their eradication or just live and let live?

Just curious as I am not sure where you are coming from...

If you remove the part of what you thought was implied and analyze what he actually said, I don't see many, if anything he actually said that isn't correct.
In other words, take what he said literally and don't assume facts that aren't there. Be open minded.
The crusades is just one example, but wars involving Christianity still continue.

I do not approve of what ISIS is doing, just as I don't approve of most extremists.
I don't care what their reasons might be, I don't support killing for the sake of killing.
If it were as simple as live and let live, this problem wouldn't exist. However, it isn't live and let live, they frighten me.

Religious wars are mostly about wealth, power or control, in my opinion.

 

[The Doctor]

He openly professed that people did terrible things in the name of Christ as he referred to the crusades. This was his attempt to justify the evil being done in the name of Allah but, once again, just like 57 states, 3000% savings, keeping your healthcare and doctor was him spouting misinformation, he skirted the reason for the crusades. It was in retaliation for Muslim attacks on Christian nations.

Nothing new. He's been completely misinformed forever - yet liberals defend him to their own detriment - when they even attempt. Most of his staunch supporters today have the common sense to hide their heads deep where the sun doesn't shine rather than attempt to justify his lies, misinformation and deceit. Here's the truth about the crusades, in case truth matters to you.

 

[jimsplace]

SNIC's post is valid and I responded.
Because there are many factors that go into this subject, it's impossible to elaborate on them all.

The reason I even responded to the original post is that when "IMPLIED" is added to a response, it removes any responsibility for accurate reporting.




So let's hear your viewpoint, if you have one.

JETJUNKY, maybe you'd care to explain the relevancy of your comment, if any.
angry dad

Senior MemberJoin DateDec 2007LocationGlendoraPosts1,052

Originally Posted by SNiC
No jim, he did not say that, but I believe the "message" was implied....
As the Crusades ended over 700 years ago it was an attempted stretch of a reach, but his remarks did appeal to the ignorant masses, thus IMO, the reach and message was successfully implied....

What is your position on ISIS and their recent actions?
If they are acting on religious beliefs, do you believe their actions are justified?
Should we assist in their eradication or just live and let live?

Just curious as I am not sure where you are coming from...



Great Post SNIC. Im also curious how the lib mind thinks. What say you Jim....


jetjunky

Senior MemberJoin DateJul 2008LocationDiamond Bar, Big RiverPosts759

hmmmm, I'm guessing ol jimbo here is the new alias for perry gerrand or is he just his identical twin?​

​

 

[Roaddogg 4040]

Great post Doc. You are still wasting your time trying to reason with Jimbo but I love reading your posts. Keep up the good work. "O" has been in great form this last few days. It wouldn't surprize me if he just took off and picked up that black flag the ISIS waves around and comes out of the closet and joins up with them formally. I never thought that I would ever see a sitting President of the United States say some of the most outlandish things that this man has said lately. It is like he is rooooooooting for the enemy openly. It is sickening...bit

Steve

 

[purpledragon]

If anyone now believe's this imposter is not a true muzzy, they need to seek professional help!!! Never thought I would live to see such treasonous actions from a US "President"!! Unbelievable!!

inthecurl, what is so unbelievable about it..........he had Burgdahals dad in our white house praising Allah.............REMEMBER!!!!!!!!:shock:

 

[jimsplace]

The Crusades were started to drive the muslims out of Europe, not the other way around.. He is counting on the Gruber voters to drool along with him while he supports radical islam.

Not that it has anything to do with the current problem, but no, the Crusades was not started to drive the Muslims out of Europe. It wasn't even called the Crusades at the time.

The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Latin Roman Catholic Church during the High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages. In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to holy places in and near Jerusalem. Many historians and some of those involved at the time, like Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, give equal precedence to other papal-sanctioned military campaigns undertaken for a variety of religious, economic, and political reasons, such as the Albigensian Crusade, the Aragonese Crusade, the Reconquista, and the Northern Crusades.[SUP][1][/SUP] Following the First Crusade there was an intermittent 200-year struggle for control of the Holy Land, with six more major crusades and numerous minor ones. In 1291, the conflict ended in failure with the fall of the last Christian stronghold in the Holy Land at Acre, after which Roman Catholic Europe mounted no further coherent response in the east.

 

[SNiC]

If you remove the part of what you thought was implied and analyze what he actually said, I don't see many, if anything he actually said that isn't correct.
In other words, take what he said literally and don't assume facts that aren't there. Be open minded.
The crusades is just one example, but wars involving Christianity still continue.

Well, IMO the controversial content of his message was implied by design and that is how I personally perceived his message...... and perception is reality. The bell I heard can not be un-rung.

If I took all things literally without identifying the possibly of any implied message, I would be limiting myself to the benefits of the total and complete communications. The Literal words are just one segment of verbal communications. There are voice tones, pauses, timing, and body language just to mention a few of things that can alter and/or slant a person's actual words. This is why going back and reading the content of any speech, is not a total and compete analysis of the "message" as the "words alone" leaves out these other important communication elements. Granted, hard to prove, but still very much a reality.

And I do have an open mind which allows me to exercise my intuition while encouraging me to be cautious & aware, and if you pride yourself to having an open mind, and I do, you must be very careful or someone will come along and drop in some shit, whether implied or directly delivered.

 

[inthecurl]

inthecurl, what is so unbelievable about it..........he had Burgdahals dad in our white house praising Allah.............REMEMBER!!!!!!!!:shock:

You are correct PD. Barry just keeps ramping the examples up.. I can't remember them all

 

[The Doctor]

Not that it has anything to do with the current problem, but no, the Crusades was not started to drive the Muslims out . . .

From your Wikipedia search:
Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to in and near Jerusalem.
Following the First Crusade there was an intermittent 200-year struggle for control of the Holy Land, with six more major crusades and numerous minor ones. In 1291, the conflict ended in failure with the fall of the last Christian stronghold in the Holy Land at Acre, after which Roman Catholic Europe mounted no further coherent response in the east.

Now, just whom do you suppose they restored the Holy Land from? Cowboys and Indians? Who was it in the "East" of Europe these people mounted no further coherent response to? Amish?

Come on Jim/John/Ram/whomever. Anyone can post Wikipedia phrases but stay on topic and keep with verifiable facts when possible. Your never going to be able to defend this meat-headed president without embarrassing yourself. Ask Bobby, cvx, shue, zombie, ram, John and the rest of the liberals who have gone MIA from posting political things. It's simply impossible to defend this fraud and maintain any semblance of sanity because he's an uninformed incompetent. Everything he does proves it.

 

[Forkin' Crazy]

This should clear things up for the ignorant one.

I say should.... sphss