I just came back from seeing Dinesh D'Souza's "Obama's America 2016".
Wow.
I really cannot recommend it enough. It is a thoughtful investigation on who Obama is ideologically, and seeks to uncover what he believes, and why he believes it.
No ad hominems, no hysteria, but a thorough look at his formative years, his parentage and family influences, and his political and theological mentors.
Man... whether you are for or against him you ought to see this film for the simple reason that- as the subtitle suggests- you really DON'T know him. (Because quite honestly, we were never allowed to know him.)
An amazingly important film.
Replies
Hey, not for nothin', but this is the 129th post on this thread, which from what I can see is the largest thread on CCAS's discussion board.
Ssooo, being that I started it, you know... do I get a prize?
A set of Ginsu steak knives? A free salad?...
Anything?
Follow the money, all of President Obama's '08 top campaign contributors are now Romney's, so that should tell you who the Electors are going to vote for in Dec..
Soon, we'll be outlaws if we refer to mothers and fathers, instead of parent 1 and parent 2.
In chemistry class (sorry if I shared this here already), we used these things called "titration pipettes"--super skinny glass tubes that because they were so skinny, allowed you to measure very small amounts of liquid. I remember an experiment where clear liquid "A" was put in to the tube (half-filled?), then clear liquid "B" was added, one drop at a time. One drop and wait, record any changes. For a good 10 or 20 drops, absolutely no change. But at the "titration point" (or whatever it was called), when a single extra drop was added, the entire tube of liquid flashed from clear to deep blue.
The change appears to take place in a flash, when in reality, every one of those drops added over time was affecting the make-up of things -- just in an unseen way.
Our society -- the world -- appears to be flashing blue...having hit it's titration point.
Good called evil -- evil called good...
"...you will not surely die....you will be like gods...."
Ah goodness, you don't know the can of worms you're opening, posting that. Go search the boards for that topic, and you'll see the "christian" stances that are taken in these here forums...
I just read the bill and it is dangerous, creepy, and just plain wrong.
Moses said:
Check this out guys.
http://traditionalvalues.org/data/sites/73/_WHITEPAPERS/061012_TVCE...
Buzz,
Knock yourself out. By the way... what are you going to write on your hand in your Obama pledge photo?
I'm curious.
Buzz Dixon said:
I have NO problem with "Reagan/Bush '84" designed within a flag motif.
I would have NO problem with "Obama/Biden '12" designed within a flag motif.
Why? Because these are the current figureheads of the two major political parties running the two highest offices in the United States. The teams represent the parties.
The problem with the "O" logo is that it represents a man. One man. It is not the Democratic party. It is not "Obama/Biden". It is just Obama.
Those lemmings with their hands over their hearts pledging their allegiance are not doing so the the Republic, but to a man. Obama.
It is the cult of personality. Idol worship.
The difference is clear, Buzz. Surely you must see it.
Artistically speaking -- from one who appreciates the ability to tell a story with less -- the flag graphic is sophisticated and excellent. It indeed does tell a story; "Obama is the agent of change for the U.S." The story is very cleverly told. The "O" with the "hope-rainbow" being the most solid part of the graphic -- the rainbow funneling into the stripes (the nation and all it's been) which lack integrity in both shape and color -- they are malleable. The "O" the foundation -- the nation his clay. Brilliant. As this person's art teacher, I give it an "A".
The repugnance I feel is for the story.
Names of candidates being conformed and incorporated into a flag graphic is old. The reverse -- conforming/transforming the flag into the image of the candidate? His "branding" -- a wistful trademarked icon of the candidate? -- that I've not personally seen.
Speaking only for myself, my reaction is only compounded by this being only one piece of a tapestry -- the messiah-fication of Obama -- that's been woven over the last four years, the latest example of this being the Sister Pledge (maybe they'll do a remake/cover of, "We are Family"?)
The country -- and the flag that it represents -- was never about a man, but men have always been the nation's servants. This graphic clearly says otherwise -- turns it around. That's why you have people pledging allegiance to a man.
Lee
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 13 Next