Obama's Trustworthy?

What does this have to do with leaks coming from a meeting between Bush and Obama? Everything for you goes back to Obama's "Marxism," which has not been demonstrated.

 

Or we could stone her for being a false prophet...:laugh:

 

==I will repeat what I said last time you made this statement:

==You are forcing a denial of something you have no evidence of. Its like accusing someone of beating their wife. If they say nothing they are accused by their silence, if they deny it they are accused of lying. There is no hard evidence that any deal was made in the meeting. I suspect that the rumors were started by a staffer or someone in the media. There is no way to trace these type rumors so my best advice to anyone is to ignore them.

 

The President Elect is a politician. Have you met any one of them you could trust.?

An untrustworthy is politician is not news - a trustworthy one would be .

Then the headlines could justifiably scream:

Bush - Obama hold private talks - NO LEAKS RESULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Again follow the flow of the conversation. Martin said it was wrong to "malign" Obama as a Marxist. I responded. His connections and associations with known Marxists are well demonstrated. He wrote about them himself in his books for heaven's sake....:tonofbricks:

 

==That is a strawman and you know it. I am not defending Obama, I am defending the facts. As I have said several times already on this board...I did not vote for Obama. If you think I am supporting Obama maybe you should read my blog. My thoughts on Obama are clearly stated there. Nobody has dealt with the cold hard fact that both sides are denying any deal.

I am not casting aspersions on anyone.

 

The evidence is in the initial news reports. The stories came from some source. The stories claimed that that source, of the "leak," was the Obama camp. The stories also claimed that the Bush camp was upset about the issue. Now that the details are out there neither side wants to admit to having made a deal because it will anger the public over another proposed bailout. But you all can stick your collective heads in the sand if you want...:thumbs:

 

==Having connections and associations with someone does not equal agreement. I have connections and associations with conservatives, liberals, Christians, heathens, rednecks, intellectuals, liberals, conservatives, drunks, and family folks. Does the fact that I have connections/associations with all those different type people meant that I agree with them? No. In life we make connections and associations with all sorts of people but that does not mean we share the views of all of those connections/associations.

Now. As I have already said in this very thread. Obama has clearly made some very bad choices when it comes to what church he attended or who he allowed to fund raise for him. No doubt. However I don't see any evidence that suggests he shares the beliefs of everyone he has associated himself with. I am tempted to believe that Obama used those people as political steps. Is that true? I don't know it is just my opinon. However the evidence seems to support that theory.

 

Yes I have you just don't like the answer....:tonofbricks:

 

Start a new thread on Obama and Marxism, or whatever you want to call it and we can debate this issue there. This is not the topic of this thread. It was simply mentioned in passing. Don't continue to push this thread onto an off-topic debate.

 

==There was a leak. So what? We don't know "who" in the Obama camp leaked the information. We don't know if that person was in a position to know the facts or not. Both sides are saying that there was no deal and that the information in the leak was wrong.

As for making the public angry over another bailout, the Obama camp has stated on the record that it supports bailing out the auto industry. Why would they deny something that they have openly supported?

 

==I am responding to your comments. I am pushing nothing. Let it be known that you brought up the Marxism issue each time, I just responded to your statements. Do we need to go back through the thread and prove that point?

I believe that the reason you are pulling this "don't change the subject" trick is because you can't deal with the point(s) I raised.

 

Nope. You introduced the idea when you said it was wrong to "malign" Obama as a Marxist (your post number 15 above) and I responded to you with a very short answer. So again, if you want to debate this issue start a new thread on that topic. BTW, I have responded to every point your have raised.

 

The Obama camp is denying it because they don't want to be associated with the Columbia part of the deal (Bush's side of the deal)... The Bush camp is denying it because they don't want to be associated with the auto bailout (Obama's side of the deal)... This is not rockect science.

 

.

You seem to know more about it than either the Bush or the Obama camp. :laugh:

 

My original "long" reply in this thread, which an administrator of the board applauded, was about the way some Christians are behaving towards Obama. That was prompted by the OP. You, Bible-boy, picked the Marxist point out while ignoring the larger point of my reply. You have since brought up the Marxist point at least twice. If you wish to discuss Obama's Marxist connections, which you brought up, go ahead. My point is that these type of discussions are fruitless. They are based on rumors in the media, gossip, and hear say. I can't believe so many good Christians are behaving like this. I see it at work, among some of my Christian friends, and in my Sunday School class. I just don't understand why we can't stop the mud slinging long enough to let someone start their new job. When Obama does something we know is wrong, we should be loud in our opposition. Until then we need to stop this wreckless rumor mill. We certainly don't need to be repeating alleged "leaks" reported by the media. Those "leaks", be they from Republicans or Democrats, are usually wrong or misleading. We can do better than that.

 

==Both sides are saying there was no deal. You are saying there was but that they are denying it. You have no way of proving what you are asserting. So why assert it? Why do you continue to push something that there is no factual basis for? Until we "know" we don't know.

 

I consider these key elements to these debates. A 'leak' is more norm than news. And two sided denials go with them.

Is Obama trustworthy - 100% not, but it is because of things much worse than a supposed leak.

 

Martin,

I love you man. We went to school together at SEBTS. I know you have more sense then to believe what you just said. You introduced the Maxist thing, not me. It was the only point in your post that I disagreed with regarding how we as Christians ought to act toward BHO. That is why I did not address any of the other points in that regard. I was/am in agreement. I brought up the Marxist point two more times because some other poster asked what it had to do with the topic of the OP. My response was for them to follow the flow of the conversation and see that you first mentioned it and I responded with a brief reply. Now if you want to debate whether or not he embraces Socialist or Marxist philosophies and ideas in his approach to government we can do so in another thread.

Regarding the leaks: They are reported by creditable news sources. They are out there in the public eye now. It makes no sense to ignore them or worse yet try to deny they exist. The point is two politicians got together and talked about some things they would like to see happen. Their story "got out" and now they want to distance themselves from it. Bottom line.

 

My support for your post came in my capacity as a member and should not be construed in any way as official Baptist Board support for your view. All views are welcome here within the confine of the rules.