And if you're badmouthing America, you best be badmouthing the faggots, the heathens, the feminists, the liberals, and the hedonists. It's always best (safest) to confuse white male fundi fantasy with facts.


Under no conditions are you to imply that America's policies in any way caused the chickens to come home to roost. To do so would be insightful and therefore un-American.

I think it's Hillary, trying to deflect from her Bosnia exaggerations.

The controversy over the minister died down until hers picked up. Her willingness to exaggerate so freely over something so major (sniper fire is pretty major) scares me. What else is she exaggerating about? The minister controversy concerns me a lot less - yes, the guy made racist and hate filled remarks. Yes, Obama goes to that church and donated money to it. He is also friends with the guy. The guy/church donated a bunch of money to the campaign. Which they donated and equal amount to charity. Personally, I don't care if he is friends with the guy or not. He has shown he can speak for himself, think for himself.

This faggot can't remember if he's ever had bad mouth.

No... I don't think I have.:p

The drugs and alcohol have obviously fried your memory, heathen.

Do I know you?

Hey, SL, I'm obviously no McCain fan. I just think Obama gets treated differently than either Hillary or McCain.

It's just like the SNL skit of the Obama press conference....

"Mr. Obama, earlier we asked you if there was anything you needed - some water, anything, and you said no. I wanted to ask you.....are you sure? I mean, I can run out and get you something right now....".

Recent polling suggests that isn't necessarily true. McCain has an identical lead over both, and Clinton and Obama are consistently neck and neck against the other.

From this link -

Here's my view of the charitable giving. Could he have given more? Almost certainly. Should he have given more? Probably, especially since he knew he would be pursuing a political career.

But I don't view it as a really bad thing that he didn't. Until his first book was published and made a fair chunk of change they'd never had a lot of money. They both had extensive college debt, and when the money started coming in they had a 2-year-old and a child on the way.

Plus, the source of money was not remotely guaranteed. The vast majority of their income in those years was from a book deal and royalties. There was no guarantee that they wouldn't return to the money they were making just a few years ago. Plus he's going to run for office which has a decent paycheck if he wins but a not so good one if he loses.

What does this add up to, for me? Being pretty darn conservative with his money. Paying off debts. Establishing a better household. Putting a lot away for retirement and the future education of your children. Just generally acting as if the gravy train could come to an immediate stop at any moment.

And as his income has become more secured he has increased the charitable giving. This can certainly be read simply as political expediency and I'm sure that is a not inconsiderable part of it. But also, it is the political future that also brought in the money so there is a certain amount of a chicken and egg thing going there.

But then, if I ever run for high office I will be screwed. Because we never claim our charitable donations for tax purposes, figuring it is nobody else's business.

Furthermore, what Trent Lott said and what someone's pastor said are very apples and oranges. I could give a hoot what some senator's pastor says. What they say themselves is a legitimate concern.

The issue with the Pastor statements has been that Obama has chosen to stay with the church. Some people interpret this as a tacit agreement with the statements.

I don't agree with this logic, but some do.