Obama: Doubling Down on Incompetence

[One Bad Pig]

Because staying would fill the vacuum and bring stability and peace.

In staying, there would be no vacuum. Would staying automagically bring stability and peace? No. We'd still have to work for that.

[Paprika]

In staying, there would be no vacuum. Would staying automagically bring stability and peace? No. We'd still have to work for that.

There is no power vacuum because there are various groups in power in various regions. What you mean is that there is no state power.

A decade should have been more than enough to demonstrate that your country has done more to hinder than to help.

[Cow Poke]

Except, I wonder if there are any Democrats in Cow Poker's congregation.

This post is from the "Churches Stand Up" thread where I'm arguing that, by endorsing candidates or getting deeply involved in politics from the pulpit... well, the post (and other posts in that same thread) speaks for itself...

I guess I have a personal bias here --- over the past 20 to 25 years, I have had a deep desire to reach "unchurched" or "dechurched" people. All too often, we "recruit" or "draw" people just like us. We "steal sheep" from other congregations, and see very few new converts.

By reaching out to the community at large, I come into contact with FAR more people who "need Jesus". Too many times, in my early ministry, I was a full time staff member or pastor, and had VERY LITTLE contact with "lost people" -- everybody I knew was a Christian, or church member, or "church friendly".

I have consistently led Churches I have pastored (in the past 20-25 years) to specifically seek out those who are NOT "church friendly". We've done this with our "coffee tent" ministry, men's ministry working in the community in the yards and lawns of poor or elderly people, our jobs for life program, our "car clinic".... anything and everything to meet people in the community.

How did Jesus meet so many people who needed Him? He was OUT THERE among them, not just preaching in the synagogue.

I understand the intent behind Alliance Defending Freedom, and I AM A MEMBER -- they are our laywers -- but I just don't see the wisdom of causing such a dividing line in my community when the people who most likely need Jesus are, as I said, "in the other party".

I think this may be a classic case of "we may win the battle but lose the war".

[robrecht]

I had no intention of tying the Gospel of Jesus to ANY of those people. You kinda added the "Good Friday" aspect to my observation that Democrats ran from Obama like scalded dogs (he was Judas'd and Peter'd). Let's both abandon that analogy.



Then why, I wonder out loud, do all of us who are helping them out of their quagmire just happen to be REPUBLICANS?A

You started the Peter and Judas analogy. It may be that the people in your congregation who are better able to help the downtrodden happen to be Republican, but I have certainly seen many, many Democrats and independents who are extremely committed to social ministry. I don't think the Republicans have a corner on the social gospel.

[Cerebrum123]

Since you seem to have learned a new phrase, and use it frequently, I thought you might enjoy this article on Obama as THE GREEN LANTERN!!!!

WHY would anybody think of Obama as The Green Lantern, when he says stuff like....

Source: Linked Article

“I know there are those who don't believe we can do all these things. I understand the skepticism. After all, every four years, candidates from both parties make similar promises, and I expect this year will be no different. … This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change. … That’s why I'm in this race. Not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.”

© Copyright Original Source

And DON'T FORGET....Obama's nomination victory speech in St. Paul.... "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"

Source: HuffingtonPost

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

© Copyright Original Source

If THAT's not the Green Lantern, what IS IT? And, yes, he was delusional!

Sounds more like Captain Planet to me.

[Cow Poke]

You started the Peter and Judas analogy.

Only with the intent to refer to the fact that Democrats are denying they even know him (a slight exaggeration, although several of them couldn't even admit they VOTED for him) and they had to pretend they opposed him. That was the extent of the analogy. It had NOTHING to do with Obama's coronation as "The One".

It may be that the people in your congregation who are better able to help the downtrodden happen to be Republican, but I have certainly seen many, many Democrats and independents who are extremely committed to social ministry. I don't think the Republicans have a corner on the social gospel.

Nor did I say they do. I would hazard to guess that the vast majority of the "social gospel" in our community is carried out by the more liberal Churches, most of whom are Democrats.

I was responding to the jackassery (notably NOT from you ) indicting ME and my Church.

[Zymologist]

I was responding to the jackassery (notably NOT from you ) indicting ME and my Church.

That's a funny word.

[One Bad Pig]

There is no power vacuum because there are various groups in power in various regions. What you mean is that there is no state power.

You apparently do not understand the concept of a 'power vacuum' based on this and your previous post. Of course there is now no power vacuum, because such situations are strictly temporary. ISIS has filled it.

A decade should have been more than enough to demonstrate that your country has done more to hinder than to help.

Non sequitur. I don't think the US handled Iraq well at all, but I disagree that dropping the mess was the correct solution to that.

[Cow Poke]

That's a funny word.

And one I almost NEVER use.... in fact, I've probably never said it before last week.

[Paprika]

You apparently do not understand the concept of a 'power vacuum' based on this and your previous post. Of course there is now no power vacuum, because such situations are strictly temporary. ISIS has filled it.

It's clear that you don't.

Non sequitur. I don't think the US handled Iraq well at all, but I disagree that dropping the mess was the correct solution to that.

It is not a non-sequitur to say that to achieve the goal of a stable state, if USA's occupation has been more hindering than helpful towards that goal, that it should have left.

[robrecht]

Nor did I say they do. I would hazard to guess that the vast majority of the "social gospel" in our community is carried out by the more liberal Churches, most of whom are Democrats.

What were you trying to imply with your question: "Then why, I wonder out loud, do all of us who are helping them out of their quagmire just happen to be REPUBLICANS?"

[Cow Poke]

What were you trying to imply with your question: "Then why, I wonder out loud, do all of us who are helping them out of their quagmire just happen to be REPUBLICANS?"

I wasn't trying to imply anything. I was speaking particularly of MY Church... and those of us who are involved in these ministries... I have no doubt as to the political leanings of my team.

Which is why I said (not implied):

I was responding to the jackassery (notably NOT from you ) indicting ME and my Church.

[Sam]

He had support for his efforts after 9/11 concerning 9/11. Otherwise he actually reached out and worked with Congress -- something even Democrats on the Hill say that Obama is loathe to do (they complain how he rarely contacts them so you can imagine how little it is with the Republicans). And as I said in a different thread a sign of a competent president is his ability to get things done even if the opposition controls one or both parts of Congress -- especially if they are more than a little hostile.

You love to carp about how Republicans have expressed disinterest in working with Obama (imagine that after he smeared their faces in his election victory, saying he didn't need them or their support, and his refusal to consider their input) yet ignore how Republicans presidents faced similar opposition. I can't remember offhand exactly which leading Democrat famously said that the president's budget proposal was "dead on arrival" even before he submitted them.

But a competent president learns to work with or around such opposition rather than worry about how it interferes with his fundraising schedule or might delay his tee time.

So your argument is that Obama faces no more opposition from the minority in Congress than Bush or his other predecessors, despite the fact that, unlike his predecessors, Obama's signature policies (and many of his other policies and appointments) have received universal opposition from the minority in Congress. You excuse this anomaly by repeating the previously debunked assertion that Obama just can't work his magic with people in Congress and so it's his own fault.

This is not only self-contradictory and blatant motivated reasoning, it ignores basic Congressional history — like how Snowe and Grassley, at the least, were willing to work on the ACA with Obama until McConnell whipped total opposition or how Obama and Boehner negotiated together for months until Cantor and Ryan scuttled the Grand Bargain. It places all the blame on Obama for being unable to "work with people" and none of the blame on Republicans who have explicitly declared their intention to not work with Obama and deny him legislative successes.

"Why didn't Obama work with Republicans to avoid a government shutdown by repealing or crippling Obamacare? If only he were better at working with people!" . . . When that's the gist of your criticism, you've purposefully lost a good bit of the plot.

[One Bad Pig]

It's clear that you don't.

It is not a non-sequitur to say that to achieve the goal of a stable state, if USA's occupation has been more hindering than helpful towards that goal, that it should have left.

Considering events since the US left, its presence was obviously helping.

[Paprika]

Considering events since the US left, its presence was obviously helping.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.