Who has seen the Obamas in church, where and when?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much did he spend on "no more earmarks" (no more if you begin counting a 6,000)?

They should put this on billboards across the country. The fucking idiocy of the American drooling class writ large.

How much did the President spend on "no more earmarks"? In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, "not even wrong."

[Anonymous]

UPDATE:

LOCAL DC SITINGS, WHEN AND WHERE-ZERO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UPDATE:

LOCAL DC SITINGS, WHEN AND WHERE-ZERO

What is the point of this nonsense? You can clearly see photos of him in church. Do you think they are fake? Do you know how pitifully low the odds are that a user on the DCUM political forum attends this church? Sorry if he's not showing up at National Cathedral, but it is not less real when he goes to a black church in SE.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/04/obama-family-marks-easter-at-washington-d-c-church/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UPDATE:

LOCAL DC SITINGS, WHEN AND WHERE-ZERO

What is the point of this nonsense? You can clearly see photos of him in church. Do you think they are fake? Do you know how pitifully low the odds are that a user on the DCUM political forum attends this church? Sorry if he's not showing up at National Cathedral, but it is not less real when he goes to a black church in SE.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/04/obama-family-marks-easter-at-washington-d-c-church/

Thank you. It apears to be 5 times in 14 months. Rev. Wright frequency was twice a month. What happened? Are there no black hate churches to inspire him, his wife and children?

Significance: Obama has a history of bending, at best, the truth about his church involvement.

Thanks again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UPDATE:

LOCAL DC SITINGS, WHEN AND WHERE-ZERO

What is the point of this nonsense? You can clearly see photos of him in church. Do you think they are fake? Do you know how pitifully low the odds are that a user on the DCUM political forum attends this church? Sorry if he's not showing up at National Cathedral, but it is not less real when he goes to a black church in SE.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/04/obama-family-marks-easter-at-washington-d-c-church/

Thank you. It apears to be 5 times in 14 months. Rev. Wright frequency was twice a month. What happened? Are there no black hate churches to inspire him, his wife and children?

Significance: Obama has a history of bending, at best, the truth about his church involvement.

Thanks again.

That was five times by last Easter and not counting services at Camp David.

There are black churches in DC that spew hatred, and he difn't pick those, either. That proves you wrong.

The fact is that it is a big disruption to secure a church for the President. Only two presidents have done much other than go across the street. Carter and Clinton.

If he wants to go atCamp David, fine. It is between him and his family. If he wants to skip Church like Reagan did for eight years, that is between him and God. But youw wacko hate church theory fails, because there are plenty of options in DC.

[Anonymous]

I demand an ostentatious show of religiosity from my leaders. Remember how Bush used to clasp his hands together really hard, and squint his eyes up when he prayed, just like a four year old? Man, now *that* was some Christianity. It's almost like this Obama character's religion is something between him and his Creator, not a cheap way of scoring political points with a certain slack-jawed demographic of Fox News nation.

[Anonymous]

Isn't irritating when facts do not support your unfounded beliefs and fantasies?

It seems Obama, wife and children were at the black hate church twice a month. In the absence of their ability to attend a black hate church they now go about one time every two months.

Sorry, end of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't irritating when facts do not support your unfounded beliefs and fantasies?

It seems Obama, wife and children were at the black hate church twice a month. In the absence of their ability to attend a black hate church they now go about one time every two months.

Sorry, end of story.

Nice logic, Aristotle. Except it would be equally valid if you dropped the word "hate" from the assertion. Therefore your hate assertion is still unsupported.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
It seems Obama, wife and children were at the black hate church twice a month. In the absence of their ability to attend a black hate church they now go about one time every two months.

As has been said repeatedly, there are churches in DC that someone of your persuasion would describe as "black hate churches". What do believe is preventing Obama from attending one of them?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It seems Obama, wife and children were at the black hate church twice a month. In the absence of their ability to attend a black hate church they now go about one time every two months.

As has been said repeatedly, there are churches in DC that someone of your persuasion would describe as "black hate churches". What do believe is preventing Obama from attending one of them?

Excellant question Jeff.

First, Obama's choice of church became of interest after he lied about his lack of knowledge of Wright's hate platform. The last minute decision to put Wright literally in the basement before he was to provide the blessing for Obama's campaign kickoff should be enough. Someone thought, oh, oh this guy may hurt us.

Following that people logically look at that issue, the one Obama made an issue himself by his lie.

Now, since he cannot openly attend a black hate church twice a month for "spiritual feeding", his and Michelle's appetite is dampened and they go to some generic church once every two months.

That is quite a change in "spiritual feeding." I believe it is directly related to not finding that hate diet they both enjoyed available under the scrutiny that now exists.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
That is quite a change in "spiritual feeding." I believe it is directly related to not finding that hate diet they both enjoyed available under the scrutiny that now exists.

So, if I understand correctly, the factor that changed -- in your mind -- was "scrutiny". Previously, it didn't exist and now it does. Any adherence to the scientific method would require considering other factors that changed. Would the complications of a senator attending church be different than those of a president attending church? One would think that there would be significant differences. Hence, another factor that might be responsible for the changed behavior. There is a third possibility: Obama -- who is actually a Muslim -- may have been attending a high-profile Christian church to convince doubters that he was, in fact, a Christian. Once he became president, there was no longer any need to continue the charade. So, a third possible factor.

So, your analysis fails on the basis that other possible causes of the behavior change have not been addressed.

[Anonymous]

and you fail to exercise the fairness you would like to project by just now censoring the current link with Farrakhan and Gaddafi.

Please provide some proof that Obama restriains himself in any way from the travel he desires.......dates in NY city, blah, blah, blah

It is clear that you exercise your own form of logic.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:and you fail to exercise the fairness you would like to project by just now censoring the current link with Farrakhan and Gaddafi.

Please provide some proof that Obama restriains himself in any way from the travel he desires.......dates in NY city, blah, blah, blah

It is clear that you exercise your own form of logic.

The same link has been posted multiple times in several threads. Clearly, you were going to just keep posting it until I deleted it. So, I just accommodated you. You have basically revealed yourself to be a troll. One date in NYC is proof to you of something (not sure what), but multiple trips to church is supposed to prove the opposite, or something. Talk about your own form of logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't irritating when facts do not support your unfounded beliefs and fantasies?

It seems Obama, wife and children were at the black hate church twice a month. In the absence of their ability to attend a black hate church they now go about one time every two months.

Sorry, end of story.

Nice logic, Aristotle. Except it would be equally valid if you dropped the word "hate" from the assertion. Therefore your hate assertion is still unsupported.

Do you think Aristotle could attend Wright's church for 20 years and never pick up on that black hate message?

Please note, once caught, Obama never refuted the black hate contention. He, he, he ah, ah ah said he never noticed.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and you fail to exercise the fairness you would like to project by just now censoring the current link with Farrakhan and Gaddafi.

Please provide some proof that Obama restriains himself in any way from the travel he desires.......dates in NY city, blah, blah, blah

It is clear that you exercise your own form of logic.

The same link has been posted multiple times in several threads. Clearly, you were going to just keep posting it until I deleted it. So, I just accommodated you. You have basically revealed yourself to be a troll. One date in NYC is proof to you of something (not sure what), but multiple trips to church is supposed to prove the opposite, or something. Talk about your own form of logic.

wrong, you just deleted a new link about Farrakhan yesterday. I reposted. We will see if you pull it.

Obama has no concern about the comotion he causes unless it provides a useful excuse for him not attending a boring church.