Obamas Preacher vs. Bushes Preacher??

[Overpaid Union Thug]

BrownShark, your preaching to the choir when it comes to BigArrow and those who shares his views, two of his most political influential figures in the right wing noise machine---Rush Lindbaugh and Matt Drudge--spent virtually all of the 90's spewing one assault after another against the Clintons based not on policy disputes but instead on gender, cultural, and highly sexualized themes. This draft avioding, illegal pill addicted, and multiple divorced Limbaugh burdened with one of the most degraded personal lives of any public figure anywhere is the voice of the right wing hypocrites. And Matt Drudge, an unmarried, reputedly closet homosexual repeatedly spewing rumors fed to him by Lindbaugh and bottom feeding dwellers of the likes of Laura Inagraham, Goerge Conway, and Ann Coulter. Hence, the drudge circle of right wing smear merchants and their tactics have become not just mainstream but dominant. Many of our country's top journalist working at the top echelons of our most respected news organizations have resorted and depended on the tabloid-gossip of the Drudge Report. And they all scream bloody "Liberal Media" without realizing the media establishment has been "Drudge-ified", taken over by right wing dirt peddling, guilt by association, and twisted genderbashers that is beyond dispute.

My views aren't in question here. Who Obama associates with and who he attracts as support is. Bringing his far left (in some cases VERY extremely far left) associations and supporters such as Reverend Wright, Ayers, and that communist blogger to everyones attention is not only factual information but also important information people should know. Especially with an election coming up. Some of us feel that it is our duty to keep people informed so that we can help keep the travesty of the ill-informed public electing the most extreme far left president in U.S. history from happening. Some people can't see past his ridiculous catch phrases (repeating the word "CHANGE" over and over again) and that is sad.

 

[av8torntn]

Barack Obama: Jeremiah was my Pastor [SPOOF]

 

[BrownShark]

My views aren't in question here. Who Obama associates with and who he attracts as support is. Bringing his far left (in some cases VERY extremely far left) associations and supporters such as Reverend Wright, Ayers, and that communist blogger to everyones attention is not only factual information but also important information people should know. Especially with an election coming up. Some of us feel that it is our duty to keep people informed so that we can help keep the travesty of the ill-informed public electing the most extreme far left president in U.S. history from happening. Some people can't see past his ridiculous catch phrases (repeating the word "CHANGE" over and over again) and that is sad.

arrow up,

indeed, your views ARE in question here. You have already demonstrated your parrot-tish views on politics and "I" am trying to understand why?

You are the very kind of mis-informed numbskull who fails to realize he has been transformed into a walking and talking robot that repeats what he hears daily on a slanted, distorted, racially baised radio show, or in other words a "DITTO HEAD".

You say things like:

"in some cases VERY extremely far left"

Now if you understand the english language, you will know that this statement has an inference to it. That inference is that you are NOT far left, left or centrist in politics and the only option left for you is extreme right wing or ultra right wing.

Now I personally believe after reading all the posts you have made where you merely repeat rush limpbaughs daily diatribe of rhetoric, that you are the type of "guy" who embraces the daily use of parodies to mock the black community on Rushes show. His parodies of "Barak the magic negro", or AL sharpton and Jesse Jackson legal service, or the multitudes of black themed "jokes" using degrading voices or snytax that mocks the intelligence of black people: that you in fact dislike black people.

Its ok, were all big boys and you can come out and just say so.

What i dont respect is your hiding behind the bible for your actions. I hide behind nothing, I will get in your face and say what I have to say. I dont care if you believe you can hide behind the word of the bible, the bible itself sez that it will never protect the deciever.

Rush is a racist with racial undertones. If you find his parodies funny, which I believe you do, then you can consider yourself a racist as well.

AV8 already demonstrated his affinity for racial bais when he posted one of the parodies on this thread. No need to question where he got it from.

Maybe you should take a good look at yourself and your small town views. Maybe your one of those "bitter" americans clinging to religion as your last hope, or better yet, your bible in one hand and your gun in the other.

Views can be a tricky thing young man, but a view with your eyes closed can be dangerous.

Views have to be established with your eyes, not your ears.

On Rushes show, he uses many "FAKE" callers to decieve the listener. Sometimes he uses a "black sounding mans voice" to come on the air and support Obama and sound as stupid as can be. These calls are deceptive but those dumb enough to listen and accept them demonstrate the intelligence level they have.

Now, seriously, do you think someone who sounds as stupid as Rush makes them sound would actually make that call? And would they actually make it past a screener?

Then there are his "conversion" callers. These fake calls praise him for his views then attribute him to their changing political party affiliation to republican.

Sorry my friend, but if you believe these calls are genuine, then I got to believe you thought the wizard of OZ was real.

Listen to his parodies, then ask yourself, he impersonates many voices on his parodies, could these same guys be impersonating calls as well???

This "type" of information on his show is not aimed at getting democrats not to vote for Barak, but to keep republicans from crossing over.

This is where you dont understand brainwashing. Rush and his types are not trying to sell to democrats, they are only trying to use the tools on the ignorant listening base who will listen in the republican party.

Those who believe they are the better christians, those who believe that white people can do no wrong, those who believe that guilt by association is a disqualifier are not in touch with reality, yet the republicans have been associated with OSAMA BIN LADEN since Ronald Reagan created him.

Its funny how people view propaganda. In one corner, the republicans want people to dismiss Obama because he has a preacher who has extreme views on our country.

In the other corner, they have Osama Bin Laden, a guy who has extreme views on our country as well yet has business ties to the bush family, the cheney family, James Baker, george shultz and the republican party...but this is ok.

It was Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz who funded, trained and armed Osama Bin Laden, but today, guys like you and AV8 praise these idiots.

As I said before, ignorance of youth can be an entriguing dynamic. Watching a young person delute themselves in hate speech and racial bias is a comedy all to itself.

I recommend you learn to filter your info and try to be a man.

Peace

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

arrow up,

indeed, your views ARE in question here. You have already demonstrated your parrot-tish views on politics and "I" am trying to understand why?

You are the very kind of mis-informed numbskull who fails to realize he has been transformed into a walking and talking robot that repeats what he hears daily on a slanted, distorted, racially baised radio show, or in other words a "DITTO HEAD".

You say things like:


Now if you understand the english language, you will know that this statement has an inference to it. That inference is that you are NOT far left, left or centrist in politics and the only option left for you is extreme right wing or ultra right wing.

Now I personally believe after reading all the posts you have made where you merely repeat rush limpbaughs daily diatribe of rhetoric, that you are the type of "guy" who embraces the daily use of parodies to mock the black community on Rushes show. His parodies of "Barak the magic negro", or AL sharpton and Jesse Jackson legal service, or the multitudes of black themed "jokes" using degrading voices or snytax that mocks the intelligence of black people: that you in fact dislike black people.

Its ok, were all big boys and you can come out and just say so.

What i dont respect is your hiding behind the bible for your actions. I hide behind nothing, I will get in your face and say what I have to say. I dont care if you believe you can hide behind the word of the bible, the bible itself sez that it will never protect the deciever.

Rush is a racist with racial undertones. If you find his parodies funny, which I believe you do, then you can consider yourself a racist as well.

AV8 already demonstrated his affinity for racial bais when he posted one of the parodies on this thread. No need to question where he got it from.

Maybe you should take a good look at yourself and your small town views. Maybe your one of those "bitter" americans clinging to religion as your last hope, or better yet, your bible in one hand and your gun in the other.

Views can be a tricky thing young man, but a view with your eyes closed can be dangerous.

Views have to be established with your eyes, not your ears.

On Rushes show, he uses many "FAKE" callers to decieve the listener. Sometimes he uses a "black sounding mans voice" to come on the air and support Obama and sound as stupid as can be. These calls are deceptive but those dumb enough to listen and accept them demonstrate the intelligence level they have.

Now, seriously, do you think someone who sounds as stupid as Rush makes them sound would actually make that call? And would they actually make it past a screener?

Then there are his "conversion" callers. These fake calls praise him for his views then attribute him to their changing political party affiliation to republican.

Sorry my friend, but if you believe these calls are genuine, then I got to believe you thought the wizard of OZ was real.

Listen to his parodies, then ask yourself, he impersonates many voices on his parodies, could these same guys be impersonating calls as well???

This "type" of information on his show is not aimed at getting democrats not to vote for Barak, but to keep republicans from crossing over.

This is where you dont understand brainwashing. Rush and his types are not trying to sell to democrats, they are only trying to use the tools on the ignorant listening base who will listen in the republican party.

Those who believe they are the better christians, those who believe that white people can do no wrong, those who believe that guilt by association is a disqualifier are not in touch with reality, yet the republicans have been associated with OSAMA BIN LADEN since Ronald Reagan created him.

Its funny how people view propaganda. In one corner, the republicans want people to dismiss Obama because he has a preacher who has extreme views on our country.

In the other corner, they have Osama Bin Laden, a guy who has extreme views on our country as well yet has business ties to the bush family, the cheney family, James Baker, george shultz and the republican party...but this is ok.

It was Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz who funded, trained and armed Osama Bin Laden, but today, guys like you and AV8 praise these idiots.

As I said before, ignorance of youth can be an entriguing dynamic. Watching a young person delute themselves in hate speech and racial bias is a comedy all to itself.

I recommend you learn to filter your info and try to be a man.

Peace

Dude you don't have a clue do you? Has it ever occurred to you that people can form their own opinions without the help of the media? How many times have I mentioned that Obama's voting recored is enough to keep any sane person from voting for him? And no....my views aren't what's being questioned here. It's your commie boyfriend Obama's views, his friends, and the extremists that he attracts that is being questioned. I know all that is a little too much for you to take in but I'm hoping you will finally understand this relatively easy concept. And I'm the "numbskull" ?? LOL! When are you lefties going to realize that socialism doesn't work? Probably never.

 

[BrownShark]

ARROW up,

Ya know, diesel is right.. talking to you is like preaching to the choir. While I am amused at your style of snytax that mixes "talking points with extreme rhetoric", I would really like to dissect your post and show just how lame you really sound.

While I would like to challenge you to post at least 3 full paragraphs explaining your positions and qualify each of your statements, I realize however, that it appears you lack the intellect to do so.

Thats the problem with Limbaugh listeners. They cant defend any statement they repeat. They hear his uprovable nonsense, then repeat it, but can never back up what they repeated. Then it turns to liberal this, left wing that etc etc...

Lets start with this:

1) Dude you don't have a clue do you?

A clue?? ive given you tons of clues. I write in my OWN words.

Has it ever occurred to you that people can form their own opinions without the help of the media?

How did you hear of Rev Wright?, Bill Ayers, and all the other things you repeat? I am sure you didnt attend Rev Wrights church. I am sure youre not old enough to remember Bill Ayers and I am positive that you are not intelligent enough to study history.

How many times have I mentioned that Obama's voting recored is enough to keep any sane person from voting for him?

Why is this an issue for you? Did you realize that Abraham Lincoln was the most UNQUALIFIED man to run for the office of the President? How about Eisenhower, he never held public office? What does this have to do with anything? What about McCains voting record? He is opposing the new GI bill currently. Does this matter to you? I doubt it, you will just find another excuse for your ignorant statement.

Why not share with us his voting record? Let us hear all the bills you disagree with him about that cause you great fear?

How many bills did he vote or not vote on that have you sounding like a Rush parrot??

It's your commie boyfriend Obama's views, his friends, and the extremists that he attracts that is being questioned.

My "commie" boyfriend"? This is how you address the first black candidate for president of the United States? Why not call him an N-word while your at it?? Please qualify where he is a communist? His friends? name them, who are his friends other than the ones you see on FOX noise and listen about on Rush Limpbaugh? Bet you can only name 2.

What extremist does he associate with? How many extremists does he currently affiliate himself with? I can guarantee that you cant answer any of these questions.... You dont have the intellect to do so.

And I'm the "numbskull" ?? LOL!

Indeed, you are the numbskull, you just demonstrated it by your post. You havent said ANYTHING of substance in all the lines you posted. Where did you post anything FACTUAL?

When are you lefties going to realize that socialism doesn't work? Probably never.

Socialism doesnt work? really? are you sure? i wonder what you call pumping 4 billion dollars a week into Iraq building schools, hospitals, building roads, handing out food, providing free health care and employing it citizens??

Isnt that socialism? Its all free and provided by our tax dollars... man, I never thought I'd hear of anything so stupid.

Socialism? Define socialism. Give me a couple of paragraphs outlining YOUR view of what socialism is.

Do some research, look up the late 1890's america, look at what employees had to go thru and what citizens could expect as a labor force. You will see no health care, no set hours, no minimum wage, no vacations, no holidays, no social services, no rights.

Only two classes of citizens existed. Rich and Poor.

I am sure, if you believed that socialism is wrong, you would prefer to return to these standards. I am sure if socialism is truly an issue for you, you would prefer to see your grandparents refuse their SS checks and medicare coverage and live off whatever they have in the bank.

But then again, you dont know what youre talking about.

You work for UPS, your health care is provided by the employer, this is socialism. I am sure you would prefer to pay the complete premium to rid yourself of any type of socialism, right?? Yeah right, Hypocrite.

Next time you post something, try using your own opinion that you formed from research. Express your views with paragraphs and not one line "parrot" remarks you heard on the radio.

Oh yeah, Since you didnt refute my claim that you support a radio host that promotes racial mocking, I will assume you agree with my position.

The world does not need to be reminded of nonsense you hear on the radio. Those people like you would never vote for a black man even if he was the most qualified. Its just the way of the common redneck.

This country is about to change, this is a country of transition.

From colonies to states, from slavery to equal rights, the cyclical nature of this 200 year experiment is about to yield a new direction, a new wave of leadership, a new way of being americans.

As I told a customer the other day, "redneck" america is over.

All the dancing around the issue of Barak being a black american without calling him a bad name speaks for itself.

The true nature of racism is raising its ugly head by a few who would rather keep the country in the 1800's way of thinking.

You are an embarassment to your age group.

Peace

 

[diesel96]

My views aren't in question here. Who Obama associates with and who he attracts as support is. Bringing his far left (in some cases VERY extremely far left) associations and supporters such as Reverend Wright, Ayers, and that communist blogger to everyones attention is not only factual information but also important information people should know. Especially with an election coming up. Some of us feel that it is our duty to keep people informed so that we can help keep the travesty of the ill-informed public electing the most extreme far left president in U.S. history from happening. Some people can't see past his ridiculous catch phrases (repeating the word "CHANGE" over and over again) and that is sad.

Travesty of the ill-informed public are the ones who are not enraged and disgusted by ALL the media outlets spending 59 and 1/2 minutes of each hour on yesterday's news back on Rev Wright and then spending 30 seconds on the world food shortages and gas prices. Real issues being ignored by pundits and sheep followers only interested in tabloid-gossip smear campaigns. So if you want to keep people involved, do everyone a favor and screen your media sources for real issue content!

 

[BrownShark]

ARROW,

Here is your post with the RHETORIC and TALKING points redacted:

Dude you *********** do you? Has it ever occurred to you that people can form their own opinions without the help of the media? How many times have I mentioned that ******************for him? And no....my views aren't what's being questioned here. It's your ******** boyfriend Obama's views, his friends, and the ********** that is being questioned. I know all that is a little too much for you to take in but *****************************************. And I'm the "numbskull" ?? LOL! ******************** that **********? Probably never.

(WHERES THE BEEF??)


Rhetoric is the art of harnessing reason, emotions and authority, through language, with a view to persuade an audience and, by persuading, to convince this audience to act, to pass judgment or to identify with given values. According to Plato, rhetoric is the “art of enchanting the soul.”
In Greece, rhetoric originated in a school of pre-Socratic philosophers known as Sophists c.600 BC. It was later taught, in the Roman Empire, and during the Middle Ages, as one of the three original liberal arts or trivium (along with logic and grammar).
In Ancient and Medieval eras of European history, rhetoric concerned itself with persuasion in public and political settings such as assemblies and courts of law. As such, rhetoric is said to flourish in open and democratic societies with rights of free speech, free assembly, and political enfranchisement for some portion of the population. However, celebratory (or epideictic) rhetoric, alongside deliberative rhetoric, is just as important an element of tyrannical regimes or dogmatic (religious and otherwise) public entities that are not open to debate on an equal footing.

In contraposition to scientific debates , rhetorical arguments, as in politics or even justice, do not make use of demonstrable or tested truths, but resort to fallible opinions, popular perceptions, transient beliefs, chosen evidence or evidence at hand (like statistics), which are all properly called commonplaces as they help establish a commonality of understanding between the orator or rhetor and his/her audience.
(THIS SECTION DESCRIBES YOU)

Contemporary studies of rhetoric have a more diverse range of practices and meanings than was the case in ancient times. The concept of rhetoric has thus shifted widely during its 3300-year history. Rhetoricians have recently argued that the classical understanding of rhetoric is limited because persuasion depends on communication, which in turn depends on meaning. Thus the scope of rhetoric is understood to include much more than simply public--legal and political--discourse. This emphasis on meaning and how it is constructed and conveyed draws on a large body of critical and social theory (see literary theory and Critical Theory), philosophy (see Post-structuralism and Hermeneutics), and problems in social science methodology (see Reflexivity). So while rhetoric has traditionally been thought of as being involved in such arenas as politics, law, public relations, lobbying, marketing and advertising, the study of rhetoric has recently entered into diverse fields such as humanities, religion, social sciences, law,[1] science, journalism, history, literature and even cartography and architecture. Every aspect of human life and thought that depends on the articulation and communication of meaning can be said to involve elements of the rhetorical.

Talking Points

A talking point is a neologism for an idea which may or may not be factual, usually compiled in a short list with summaries of a speaker's agenda for public or private engagements. Public relations professionals, for example, sometimes prepare "talking points memos" for their clients to help them more effectively conform public presentations with this advice.
A political think tank will strategize the most effective informational attack on a target topic and launch talking points from media personalities to saturate discourse in order to frame a debate in their favor, standardizing the responses of sympathizers to their unique cause while simultaneously co-opting the language used by those discussing the specific subject. When used politically in this way, the typical purpose of a talking point is to propagandize, specifically using the technique of argumentum ad nauseam, i.e. continuous repetition within media outlets until accepted as fact.

Big Arrow, you have demonstrated both of these failed ways of communicating. In addition, your dogmatic approach to religious sanctity gives you the hat trick in debates.

If you can understand what I posted in black bold or in red bold which fits you perfectly, you may understand how you appear to others.

The red bold applies to you directly.

People like you, never realize how they have been brainwashed by media talking points and rhetoric. Talk radio is the biggest propagator of rhetoric and talking points (just as in NAZI Germany during WWII).

This is how you control a population. TV personalities say the exact things to keep you on their side (Orielly, Hannity, Chris Wallace, etc etc) They know, study and apply political rhetoric that insure those like you will side with them.

Sean Hannity for example is an extremist who uses "patriotism" to maintain control of his audience. His rhetoric is all about being a good patriot along with backdrops of american flags and heroic stories over and over...

Who could find this suspicious? He's just trying to support the troops right?....WRONG! This tactic is meant to control your emotions, and after controlling your emotions, you will believe anything else he sez...

ARROW, you speak in pure rhetoric and talking points, then when faced with having to express an opinion on something you repeated from someone else, YOU DONT HAVE THE FIRST CLUE how to respond.

This is the problem with guys like you, you are not a better american for calling me a liberal or left wing or any other senseless nametag.

You are the BITTER american. I am the informed.

Peace

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

ARROW,

Here is your post with the RHETORIC and TALKING points redacted:


(WHERES THE BEEF??)


Rhetoric is the art of harnessing reason, emotions and authority, through language, with a view to persuade an audience and, by persuading, to convince this audience to act, to pass judgment or to identify with given values. According to Plato, rhetoric is the “art of enchanting the soul.”
In Greece, rhetoric originated in a school of pre-Socratic philosophers known as Sophists c.600 BC. It was later taught, in the Roman Empire, and during the Middle Ages, as one of the three original liberal arts or trivium (along with logic and grammar).
In Ancient and Medieval eras of European history, rhetoric concerned itself with persuasion in public and political settings such as assemblies and courts of law. As such, rhetoric is said to flourish in open and democratic societies with rights of free speech, free assembly, and political enfranchisement for some portion of the population. However, celebratory (or epideictic) rhetoric, alongside deliberative rhetoric, is just as important an element of tyrannical regimes or dogmatic (religious and otherwise) public entities that are not open to debate on an equal footing.

In contraposition to scientific debates , rhetorical arguments, as in politics or even justice, do not make use of demonstrable or tested truths, but resort to fallible opinions, popular perceptions, transient beliefs, chosen evidence or evidence at hand (like statistics), which are all properly called commonplaces as they help establish a commonality of understanding between the orator or rhetor and his/her audience.
(THIS SECTION DESCRIBES YOU)

Contemporary studies of rhetoric have a more diverse range of practices and meanings than was the case in ancient times. The concept of rhetoric has thus shifted widely during its 3300-year history. Rhetoricians have recently argued that the classical understanding of rhetoric is limited because persuasion depends on communication, which in turn depends on meaning. Thus the scope of rhetoric is understood to include much more than simply public--legal and political--discourse. This emphasis on meaning and how it is constructed and conveyed draws on a large body of critical and social theory (see literary theory and Critical Theory), philosophy (see Post-structuralism and Hermeneutics), and problems in social science methodology (see Reflexivity). So while rhetoric has traditionally been thought of as being involved in such arenas as politics, law, public relations, lobbying, marketing and advertising, the study of rhetoric has recently entered into diverse fields such as humanities, religion, social sciences, law,[1] science, journalism, history, literature and even cartography and architecture. Every aspect of human life and thought that depends on the articulation and communication of meaning can be said to involve elements of the rhetorical.

Talking Points

A talking point is a neologism for an idea which may or may not be factual, usually compiled in a short list with summaries of a speaker's agenda for public or private engagements. Public relations professionals, for example, sometimes prepare "talking points memos" for their clients to help them more effectively conform public presentations with this advice.
A political think tank will strategize the most effective informational attack on a target topic and launch talking points from media personalities to saturate discourse in order to frame a debate in their favor, standardizing the responses of sympathizers to their unique cause while simultaneously co-opting the language used by those discussing the specific subject. When used politically in this way, the typical purpose of a talking point is to propagandize, specifically using the technique of argumentum ad nauseam, i.e. continuous repetition within media outlets until accepted as fact.

Big Arrow, you have demonstrated both of these failed ways of communicating. In addition, your dogmatic approach to religious sanctity gives you the hat trick in debates.

If you can understand what I posted in black bold or in red bold which fits you perfectly, you may understand how you appear to others.

The red bold applies to you directly.

People like you, never realize how they have been brainwashed by media talking points and rhetoric. Talk radio is the biggest propagator of rhetoric and talking points (just as in NAZI Germany during WWII).

This is how you control a population. TV personalities say the exact things to keep you on their side (Orielly, Hannity, Chris Wallace, etc etc) They know, study and apply political rhetoric that insure those like you will side with them.

Sean Hannity for example is an extremist who uses "patriotism" to maintain control of his audience. His rhetoric is all about being a good patriot along with backdrops of american flags and heroic stories over and over...

Who could find this suspicious? He's just trying to support the troops right?....WRONG! This tactic is meant to control your emotions, and after controlling your emotions, you will believe anything else he sez...

ARROW, you speak in pure rhetoric and talking points, then when faced with having to express an opinion on something you repeated from someone else, YOU DONT HAVE THE FIRST CLUE how to respond.

This is the problem with guys like you, you are not a better american for calling me a liberal or left wing or any other senseless nametag.

You are the BITTER american. I am the informed.

Peace

Two things might have been proven here. The first, which isn't new but just further proves the theory, is that Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder. Secondly....that not matter how long a Liberal message board posting is and no matter how many links to useless articles and dictionaries the posts have they still seem to have to substance at all. Keep up the good work fellas. Oh....and for anyone that constantly slams their country and their military to call anyone else "bitter" is pretty warped in the mind.

Another lesson learned in this thread should be introduced to anyone out there that is looking for a solution to the current "energy crisis." A new form of propulsion could have inadvertently been discovered on this thread. The huge amount of hot air coming from all the Liberals in this country could be used as an alternate form of propulsion. Now all we need to do is learn how to harness it for use in cars and trucks.

 

[tieguy]

In fairness to Obama we have to give him credit. The good reverend may have been his pastor for twenty years but Obama had no problem gutting him and cutting him loose when he saw the rev was hurting his campaign.

His actions show some integrity. they also show just how ruthless Obama may be.

 

[moreluck]

Can't agree with you on this one, Tie. Obama listened to this guy spew his vileness for 20 years.......AND he's just now doing something about it ??? Where was his guts & courage to walk away from his pastor after hearing a hate message for the first time.??

Obama is beginning to show his true colors and like all other candidates he'll say & do whatever he has to to get elected.

I'm no fan of Oprah, but she attended this church and she left it when the pastor started his hate-talk.

 

[av8torntn]

Here could be a reason our military members commit crimes in IRAQ...could it be a criminal record before they get into the service??

.

Compared to soldiers without moral waivers, those with moral waivers:
• Stayed in the Army longer, with an average of 19 months of service compared with 17.9 months. Analysts arrived at those numbers based on the number of people who had already left the Army either because their term of service expired or they faced adverse action, said personnel analyst Maj. Jake LaPorte.
• Had a higher re-enlistment rate, 28.48 percent compared with 26.76 percent. Those numbers were derived from the fiscal 2003 cohort, the group that had spent the most time in the Army, LaPorte said.
• Were promoted more quickly to sergeant, after 34.7 months in service compared with 39 months. Those numbers were based on soldiers who were in the infantry, or 11B.
• Had a higher rate of high school graduates, 86.58 percent vs. 84.2 percent.
• Had a lower rate of Category IV recruits — those who score lower on the entrance examination — 0.82 percent vs. 2.28 percent.
• Had a lower rate of dismissal from the Army for personality disorders (0.93 percent compared with 1.12 percent), unsatisfactory performance (0.26 percent vs. 0.48 percent) and entry-level performance and conduct (3 percent compared with 4.54 percent).



DOD