Obama

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Sorry, when Obama goes on TV and says "Republicans gotta stop just hatin' all the time", then he forfeits his right to any respect or courtesy from the other side. You reap what you sow, Paul.

So that is the same as calling someone a POS?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So that is the same as calling someone a POS?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama called half the country, everyone who voted for the other guy, a bunch of hatemongers. Paul, at the State of the Union, he attacked the Supreme Court, they were sitting right in front of him, and they have no chance to respond. What should I call him? POS is being cordial.

Obama is almost always wrong, and somehow, never in doubt. Given the endless list of failures and disasters in his wake, where in God's name does the arrogance come from?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

The Surge undoubtedly worked in the short-term. Do you feel the military could have sustained that level of effort there, and for how long? Would that make Iraq any more stable? Add to that sending ground-forces en masse to Libya and Syria? You certainly had your Neo-Con Wheaties this morning!

"The Surge undoubtedly worked in the short-term"

It worked until Obama fu**ed it all up by withdrawing. Yes or no?

"Do you feel the military could have sustained that level of effort there, and for how long?"

Yes. You leave a residual force to enforce stability until the Iraqia are sufficiently able to take care of themselves. What you don't do, is tell the enemy, especially this enemy, exactly when you are planning on leaving.

"Would that make Iraq any more stable? "

Why, specifically, would you doubt that? It was stable until we withdrew. So why would you presume that the stability would not have lasted if we were still there? Based on what? The empirical evidence suggests that as long as we were there, things were stable.

"Add to that sending ground-forces en masse to Libya and Syria?"

If the military isn't equipped to deal with the current state of the world, whose fault is that? I'd also disagree that we were in Libya and Syria "en masse".

"You certainly had your Neo-Con Wheaties this morning"

What I have this morning, is common sense and the ability to process what's going on right in front of my face. If liberals need special dietary supplements to be able to pull that off, maybe that says more about your side than it says about my side. The fact that I wish we had prevented the rise of ISIS when it was within our grasp, makes me a neocon? In other words, you conclude it's a character flaw to regret the loss of the thousands of victims of ISIS. Very compassionate of you.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Obama called half the country, everyone who voted for the other guy, a bunch of hatemongers. Paul, at the State of the Union, he attacked the Supreme Court, they were sitting right in front of him, and they have no chance to respond. What should I call him? POS is being cordial.

Obama is almost always wrong, and somehow, never in doubt. Given the endless list of failures and disasters in his wake, where in God's name does the arrogance come from?

This was after the tea baggers started with Muslim, Kenyan crap. As I've said before you sound miserable. I'm thankful my parents never let me develop the hate you have to consider someone a POS bc of their politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The Surge undoubtedly worked in the short-term"

It worked until Obama fu**ed it all up by withdrawing. Yes or no?

"Do you feel the military could have sustained that level of effort there, and for how long?"

Yes. You leave a residual force to enforce stability until the Iraqia are sufficiently able to take care of themselves. What you don't do, is tell the enemy, especially this enemy, exactly when you are planning on leaving.

So, there is a contradiction here, as I see it, so the "the surge was working until Obama '#^&#^&#^&#^&ed it up" yet we just needed to leave a residual force? How much residual force? 10,000? 30,000? 100,000? For how long? Another 10 years? The surge was a short-term offensive, not a long-term plan.

This summed it up well for me, the surge bought us time, but I think it ultimately kicked the can down the road.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...taL/story.html

I forget, who set the end date, and remind me, the Iraqi government really begged us to stay, right?

I have been beyond clear here over the years; post 9/11; go into Afghanistan. That turned into a boondoggle once mission creep took over, but Iraq, in my opinion was a mistake from the beginning

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Would that make Iraq any more stable? "

Why, specifically, would you doubt that? It was stable until we withdrew. So why would you presume that the stability would not have lasted if we were still there? Based on what? The empirical evidence suggests that as long as we were there, things were stable.

I was rushing and not clear. Post-whatever time you want to leave your residual force there (lets say 10 years), would Iraq ultimately be more stable 10 years later? I don't believe so. As the article above summarizes and I agree, if the Iraqi's aren't willing to fight, we shouldn't be fighting for them

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Add to that sending ground-forces en masse to Libya and Syria?"

If the military isn't equipped to deal with the current state of the world, whose fault is that?

So, how much more money and troops do we need? Where does the money come from? Military industrial complex spending for debt/deficient control?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'd also disagree that we were in Libya and Syria "en masse".

I also wasn't clear here either, as I am aware we did not go fully on the ground in either place. In your scenario, we'd be occupying Iraq with a residual force, PLUS going into Syria and Libya; Syria especially I see being on equal scale with Iraq if we were to put boots on the ground. I don't think it is in America's best interest to go into either place.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"You certainly had your Neo-Con Wheaties this morning"

What I have this morning, is common sense and the ability to process what's going on right in front of my face. If liberals need special dietary supplements to be able to pull that off, maybe that says more about your side than it says about my side. The fact that I wish we had prevented the rise of ISIS when it was within our grasp, makes me a neocon? In other words, you conclude it's a character flaw to regret the loss of the thousands of victims of ISIS. Very compassionate of you.

This is why you end up on my ignore list at times, when you turn into an off the rails internet A-hole. I made a pretty innocuous comment (I thought) based on the face that McCain, Lindsey Graham or another GOP Hawk could have written this post, and you take it to be a 'character flaw' insult and that I am not compassionate to the lives being lost and the unbelievable crisis currently unfolding. Am I willing to trade thousands of young American lives in Iraq, Libya and Syria? Nope. Not a chance. Especially not without global support with proportional troops and costs from allies.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

This was after the tea baggers started with Muslim, Kenyan crap. As I've said before you sound miserable. I'm thankful my parents never let me develop the hate you have to consider someone a POS bc of their politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are desperately reaching. If Obama had made that comment about the kooks who think he wasn't born here, fine. That's not what he said, Read the quote. He said all Republicans, all they do, is hate all the time. And that thing with attacking the Supreme Court at the SOTU. He's the hatemonger, clearly. But that's OK, because he's liberal and black.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Sorry, when Obama goes on TV and says "Republicans gotta stop just hatin' all the time", then he forfeits his right to any respect or courtesy from the other side. You reap what you sow, Paul.

This quote? You get personally insulted by the quote?

From Urban dictionary - Hatin - "Sayin bad things about/puttin someone down because they have something that you want"

But you can take it to mean hate-mongering if you want

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So, there is a contradiction here, as I see it, so the "the surge was working until Obama '#^&#^&#^&#^&ed it up" yet we just needed to leave a residual force? How much residual force? 10,000? 30,000? 100,000? For how long? Another 10 years? The surge was a short-term offensive, not a long-term plan.

This summed it up well for me, the surge bought us time, but I think it ultimately kicked the can down the road.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...taL/story.html

I forget, who set the end date, and remind me, the Iraqi government really begged us to stay, right?

I have been beyond clear here over the years; post 9/11; go into Afghanistan. That turned into a boondoggle once mission creep took over, but Iraq, in my opinion was a mistake from the beginning




I was rushing and not clear. Post-whatever time you want to leave your residual force there (lets say 10 years), would Iraq ultimately be more stable 10 years later? I don't believe so. As the article above summarizes and I agree, if the Iraqi's aren't willing to fight, we shouldn't be fighting for them



So, how much more money and troops do we need? Where does the money come from? Military industrial complex spending for debt/deficient control?



I also wasn't clear here either, as I am aware we did not go fully on the ground in either place. In your scenario, we'd be occupying Iraq with a residual force, PLUS going into Syria and Libya; Syria especially I see being on equal scale with Iraq if we were to put boots on the ground. I don't think it is in America's best interest to go into either place.



This is why you end up on my ignore list at times, when you turn into an off the rails internet A-hole. I made a pretty innocuous comment (I thought) based on the face that McCain, Lindsey Graham or another GOP Hawk could have written this post, and you take it to be a 'character flaw' insult and that I am not compassionate to the lives being lost and the unbelievable crisis currently unfolding. Am I willing to trade thousands of young American lives in Iraq, Libya and Syria? Nope. Not a chance. Especially not without global support with proportional troops and costs from allies.

There's no contradiction. The presence of US troops was stabilizing. Removing them too soon, was destructive. If you deny that, then presumably if Obama said that 2+2=7, you'd believe him.

"I think it ultimately kicked the can down the road. "

Al Queda in Iraq packed up and left, until we left. Then they came back, as ISIS.

"who set the end date, and remind me, the Iraqi government really begged us to stay, right?"

Bush made it clear that the end date should have been extended with a SOF agreement, right? Or wrong? Who made the decision to leave? Bush or Obama?

"but Iraq, in my opinion was a mistake from the beginning"

Maybe. But when your hero took over, it was stable, thanks to the Surge. He blew it. That's not really up for debate by anyone who isn't completely blinded by love for the man.

"Post-whatever time you want to leave your residual force there (lets say 10 years), would Iraq ultimately be more stable 10 years later?"

Why wouldn't it have stayed as stable as it was, thanks to the surge, if we left troops there? What do you base that presumption on? What evidence is there, that if the troops stayed, the stability would have crumbled? None. There is evidence that removing troops, was a disaster. Sorry if you don't like those facts.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There's no contradiction. The presence of US troops was stabilizing. Removing them too soon, was destructive. If you deny that, then presumably if Obama said that 2+2=7, you'd believe him.

"I think it ultimately kicked the can down the road. "

Al Queda in Iraq packed up and left, until we left. Then they came back, as ISIS.

"who set the end date, and remind me, the Iraqi government really begged us to stay, right?"

Bush made it clear that the end date should have been extended with a SOF agreement, right? Or wrong? Who made the decision to leave? Bush or Obama?

"but Iraq, in my opinion was a mistake from the beginning"

Maybe. But when your hero took over, it was stable, thanks to the Surge. He blew it. That's not really up for debate by anyone who isn't completely blinded by love for the man.

"Post-whatever time you want to leave your residual force there (lets say 10 years), would Iraq ultimately be more stable 10 years later?"

Why wouldn't it have stayed as stable as it was, thanks to the surge, if we left troops there? What do you base that presumption on? What evidence is there, that if the troops stayed, the stability would have crumbled? None. There is evidence that removing troops, was a disaster. Sorry if you don't like those facts.

I'm tired and not turning the computer back on (too slow on tablet). The last paragraph... troops in Iraq for how long? Forever? Plus Libya and Syria. No thanks.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

This quote? You get personally insulted by the quote?

From Urban dictionary - Hatin - "Sayin bad things about/puttin someone down because they have something that you want"

But you can take it to mean hate-mongering if you want

Wow. I mean, wow. When Obama says that all of us hate, all the time, he wasn't really being derogatory, he was using some ebonics, urban definition of the word, not the definition that everyone in the sane world uses.

Bryan, would your head explode if you admitted he is flawed?

How about when he bashed the Supreme Court at the SOTU? Was he really being complimentary, but it went over my head because I didn't go to Hahvahd?

When he said the Cambridge police acted stupidly, despite admitting that he had no idea what happened, was actually saying they were brilliant, if the ghetto definition of "stupidly" is "acting with great competence"?

Anything to make him appear correct...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I'm tired and not turning the computer back on (too slow on tablet). The last paragraph... troops in Iraq for how long? Forever? Plus Libya and Syria. No thanks.

Multiple times, you said the successes provided by the Surge would not last. Multiple times, I asked you to support that. Every single time, you dodged.

Iraq is far worse off now, than it was when he took office. The reason, is that he pulled out the troops before the country was prepared for that. It's possible that Iraq would never have been ready, that it would have descended to this inevitably. That's pure speculation. What we know for sure, is that tons of people predicted that pulling out the troops was going to lead to disaster. Obama said they were wrong. But they were right, and Obama was wrong. Spin that any way you want, make wild, speculative, baseless claims that it would have been worse if we had left troops there. But the facts are the facts.

[detbuch]

Jim, do you notice the contradictory situational analyses by leftists. On the one hand they maintain that if we had not invaded Iraq, Isis and all the upheaval in the Middle East would not have happened. Yet, on the other hand, the success of the surge was not a stabilizing factor against upheaval and the withdrawal of troops was not a cause of it No, no . . . the upheaval was going to happen anyway. Maintaining troop presence would not stop it, and removing that presence was not a cause of it.

If all that was inevitable, what did invading Iraq have to do with it?

Is there finally a subtle admission that the Middle East has been heading in this direction for a long time. Well before the Iraq War. I recall even as far back as the 1970's the prediction that the Middle East was warming to the boiling point which would start WW3.

But the history of war is such that if war is taken to all out victory actual change is forced to occur. And, perhaps, the Iraq War, if expanded to an all out one, when the West was much stronger and more unified, there could have been a destruction of those elements that are now becoming a much larger threat than imagined by little minds, and are coalescing with or aided by larger anti-Western powers like China and Russia.

But the narrative can't go quite that far. It must somehow make the Iraq war not a corrective attempt to stop what was brewing, but the cause of it. And yet maintain that withdrawing from Iraq did not satisfy the trouble makers who would take advantage of the power vacuum created by the removal of Saddam to become stronger.

But if Saddam was thwarting the "extremists" rise to power, why would not an even stronger force such as the U.S. military stop it. No, somehow it was all inevitable. But not inevitable enough to occur without the U.S. toppling of Saddam.

The rise of the so-called "extremists" was growing, gathering power and gaining leaders who expanded operations and enlistments for decades. The extremists were getting bigger and more influential in the 1990's to the point of becoming an ideological force that needed attention and elimination. And Saddam was not stopping that growth. Nor were the other Islamic States.

So the U.S. presence was, as the narrative now goes, on the one hand, a minor pause in the growing jihad which was going to happen whether we stayed or not, and on the other hand, the cause of it.

Right.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jim, do you notice the contradictory situational analyses by leftists. On the one hand they maintain that if we had not invaded Iraq, Isis and all the upheaval in the Middle East would not have happened. Yet, on the other hand, the success of the surge was not a stabilizing factor against upheaval and the withdrawal of troops was not a cause of it No, no . . . the upheaval was going to happen anyway. Maintaining troop presence would not stop it, and removing that presence was not a cause of it.

If all that was inevitable, what did invading Iraq have to do with it?

Is there finally a subtle admission that the Middle East has been heading in this direction for a long time. Well before the Iraq War. I recall even as far back as the 1970's the prediction that the Middle East was warming to the boiling point which would start WW3.

But the history of war is such that if war is taken to all out victory actual change is forced to occur. And, perhaps, the Iraq War, if expanded to an all out one, when the West was much stronger and more unified, there could have been a destruction of those elements that are now becoming a much larger threat than imagined by little minds, and are coalescing with or aided by larger anti-Western powers like China and Russia.

But the narrative can't go quite that far. It must somehow make the Iraq war not a corrective attempt to stop what was brewing, but the cause of it. And yet maintain that withdrawing from Iraq did not satisfy the trouble makers who would take advantage of the power vacuum created by the removal of Saddam to become stronger.

But if Saddam was thwarting the "extremists" rise to power, why would not an even stronger force such as the U.S. military stop it. No, somehow it was all inevitable. But not inevitable enough to occur without the U.S. toppling of Saddam.

The rise of the so-called "extremists" was growing, gathering power and gaining leaders who expanded operations and enlistments for decades. The extremists were getting bigger and more influential in the 1990's to the point of becoming an ideological force that needed attention and elimination. And Saddam was not stopping that growth. Nor were the other Islamic States.

So the U.S. presence was, as the narrative now goes, on the one hand, a minor pause in the growing jihad which was going to happen whether we stayed or not, and on the other hand, the cause of it.

Right.

"Jim, do you notice the contradictory situational analyses by leftists"

Oh, I notice it, and can never quite get used to it or understand it. Protect The Narrative at all costs, no matter how ridiculous the argument, even if it means denying that the word "hating" means what exactly every human older than 5 years old, knows that it means.

[Jim in CT]

President Obama has invited the Pope to the White House. Included in the list of fellow invited guests is a pair of gay church critics; a nun whose views are so far outside of Catholic orthodoxy that she has been banned from ministry by the Vatican; a transgender activist; and the first openly gay Episcopalian bishop.

Missing from the list: the Little Sisters of the Poor, and other authentically Catholic personalities. The President deliberately invited people who not only reject the teachings of the Church but who are likely to get in the Pope's face. An Ivy League degree is no substitute for class.

http://www.catholicleague.org/obama-...igious-rebels/

[Sea Dangles]

Maybe he will wash their feet?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Maybe he will wash their feet?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Vatican is protesting the guest list, as they should. Not that the Pope shouldn't be expected to have to engage others, but you don't invite someone to the White House for the specific purpose of ambushing him, either. But that's Obama's style with those who disagree with him. A world-class d*ck.

Would Obama invite the Dali Lama, and put him at a table with a bunch of Maoist activists? I don't think so.

[Sea Dangles]

I would hope he thinks it is a good time to embrace and have civil discourse with those who have different perspectives. Is the pope afraid of the idea that there are some folks out there who have differing points of view. I feel this is a great opportunity to explain his thought process and educate those who are not lemmings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The Vatican is protesting the guest list, as they should. Not that the Pope shouldn't be expected to have to engage others, but you don't invite someone to the White House for the specific purpose of ambushing him, either. But that's Obama's style with those who disagree with him. A world-class d*ck.

Hey, Obama said that the White house is his house. And he believes in gay marriage. What should the Vatican expect if it chooses to visit the house of someone who fervently believes in something that the Pope himself does not absolutely dismiss? Shouldn't the Vatican expect that Obama would have guests of his persuasion at the party? Even, maybe, to further nudge the Pope toward Obama's point of view? Have other guests been invited who are more to the Pope's liking. Are all guests opponents of the Vatican? And why is the Pope going to Obama's house? Does he not know Obama's view on Gay marriage? Does the Pope want to influence Obama to the Vatican's view on the issue? Or is the visit all about fake nice-nice just to say how are ya? And who's doing the inviting? Did Obama invite the Pope, or did the Pope want the visit?

Would Obama invite the Dali Lama, and put him at a table with a bunch of Maoist activists? I don't think so.

Just my opinion, but I think Obama has more in common with Mao than with the Dali Lama. And if the latter chose to visit Obama's house, he should expect some guests who have Maoist leaning ideas on what government is about.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I would hope he thinks it is a good time to embrace and have civil discourse with those who have different perspectives. Is the pope afraid of the idea that there are some folks out there who have differing points of view. I feel this is a great opportunity to explain his thought process and educate those who are not lemmings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, homosexual activists, as a group, are very open-minded when it comes to listening to the opposition.

I'm all for discussion. Serving him up for an ambush, is something else. We will see what takes place, hopefully the liberals can, for once, display a speck of the inclusion and tolerance that they always demand for themselves, but rarely extent to others, Catholics in particular.

All that's missing from the guest list is a few lions.

[Sea Dangles]

Not for nothing but you can't expect softballs as a pope. With big titles you are always expected to have big responsibilities. If he is intimidated to explain the church's outlook to this group then perhaps he is the wrong man for the job. Popes are chosen for a lot of reasons, I am assuming that d#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g the tough questions is not one of these reasons. You act as though he has something to hide or be ashamed of,very perplexing outlook.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles
Fwiw, how can this be considered an ambush when he has time to gather excuses. He won't be surprised and should not act like he has been. This man has been appointed as spokesman and should assume the position,no pun.size=1

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Not for nothing but you can't expect softballs as a pope. With big titles you are always expected to have big responsibilities. If he is intimidated to explain the church's outlook to this group then perhaps he is the wrong man for the job. Popes are chosen for a lot of reasons, I am assuming that d#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g the tough questions is not one of these reasons. You act as though he has something to hide or be ashamed of,very perplexing outlook.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not for nothing, I said debate is good. I didn't say anyone should expect softballs. But I don't expect Obama to surround the Pope with nothing but people who reject and mock everything to which he has dedicated his life, either. Civil discourse is good. That's not what Obama has a penchant for. Ask the Supreme Court how the felt about the State of The Union when he attacked them in a forum where they had no ability to respond.

That's what this guy does. He has zero tolerance for anyone who doesn't bow down and kiss his ring.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"when he has time to gather excuses".

Yes, we can only hope that his fellow guests are as open-minded and tolerant as you are, Sea Dangles.

"You act as though he has something to hide or be ashamed of, very perplexing outlook."

Again, since I keep saying debate is healthy, I'm curious to know how you arrived at that conclusion. Dangles ,respectful debate against these people is no challenge whatsoever, because the Pope is holding all the cards. But liberals aren't known for respectful debate on these issues. Calling Catholics a bunch of pedophiles who don't care about women and who hate homosexuals, isn't exactly engaging in open debate. As evidenced by your comment that he can only offer "excuses", not that he can offer differing opinions that may not be for everyone, but that make perfect sense to him.

The reason your side immediately descends to these tactics on these issues, is that it's impossible to defend these positions and keep your integrity. Because the positions are devoid of integrity. It's then a lot easier to attack the person whose positions are obviously based on love and empathy. God forbid you admit the man stands for generosity and compassion and treat him with the respect he therefore deserves.

[scottw]

it's not how you should treat a guest visiting in good will you but this is hardly surprising from the least presidential president in our nation's history .... I'm not a big fan of this Pope but I wonder if all of the people who clamor that Obama be respected because of his high office despite his own lack of respect for the office and lack of respect that he's shows those with whom he disagrees, would also feel that Obama owes the Pope a bit of respect regarding his high office, they seem rather, to be reveling in the Obama putting the Pope in a position that he might prefer to not be put in?...just another in a long line of cheap shots from an artist

I thought this brilliant, from the thoughts of another Pope who was addressing contraception but the thought widely applies...

He held that they were two sides of the same coin(sexual revolution’s crowning achievement — the separation of sexual expression from the generation of life)— that the crisis of modernity was about the degradation of the human person. Whenever a person is reduced to an object to use — whether by a boss, a nation, a boyfriend, or a spouse — the unique dignity of that person is being eroded, even if it’s with his or her own consent. This doesn’t make much sense to moderns, who believe that consent is the only criterion of decision-making. But even desirable ends don’t justify dubious means to get there, says the Church.


we certainly live in an ends justifies the means culture

[Sea Dangles]

I still want to know why you describe this as an ambush. There is no surprise here and I am sure the pope loves these people despite the differing philosophies. Seems like a great opportunity for the pope to educate and spread the good word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I still want to know why you describe this as an ambush. There is no surprise here and I am sure the pope loves these people despite the differing philosophies. Seems like a great opportunity for the pope to educate and spread the good word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama is surrounding the Pope with activists who hate everything that the Pope stands for. We don't always agree Dangles, but you're smart, come on.

If Obama invited Barbara Streisand as a guest of honor, would he sit her at a table with Tea Party activists and Ann Coulter? No, he wouldn't. This is the same as that, except the Pope will win any debate, because as I said, he is holding all the cards.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I still want to know why you describe this as an ambush. There is no surprise here and I am sure the pope loves these people despite the differing philosophies. Seems like a great opportunity for the pope to educate and spread the good word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

agreed...it's what Jesus would do

[Sea Dangles]

The pope would be wise to hire Jim as his apologist/ PR man

Just as O would hire Spence

Match made in hades
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Again,how is this an ambush? Please answer Jim,they are your words.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Again,how is this an ambush? Please answer Jim,they are your words.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Comparing a Pope defender to an Obama defender, yeah, that's apples to apples. I've also said I think my church is wrong on gay marriage, which I think shows clearly that I'm not a blind Catholic apologist. Again with the personal digs, rather than discussing issues.

Dangles, this is a White House visit, not a debate on gay marriage or abortion. The Pope (the invited guest) is being surrounded by militant activists who espies that which the man has dedicated his entire life to. As Scott said, it's clearly a cheap shot, if you don't see it that way, you have that right. I don't think any other President in my lifetime would do anything like it, but we know that normal rules of decency don't apply to Obama.

Maybe it will be cordial. For sure, I am speculating, but as always, my speculations are based on an honest, rational examination of actual empirical evidence, the overwhelming majority of which suggests that liberal activists can't stand Catholicism, and they aren't exactly diplomatic about conveying that. Are there any pro-Catholic zealots there to balance out the guest list?