Obama's the Anti Christ videos

Anything else you want to talk about.
Post Reply
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Obama's the Anti Christ videos

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

I do know I am going to be crucufied for this, regarding our new mass media superstar. However it is very interesting... very....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRP3kAASxVo

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL871CVn ... re=related

Then... if Obama is the Anti Christ then who the hell if the False Prophet: our islamic friendly pope?

Regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Obama's the Anti Christ videos

Post by RF »

''Adding comments has been disabled from this video'' just about sums it up.

In Britain we had Tony Blair, a second rate actor, but an effective political operator, much better than Obama. Now we have a third rate Blair clone as British Prime Minister, but he couldn't even get a majority in an election that Thatcher would have cake-walked.

Now Obama faces re-election in two years time. Not that long to go, but long enough for bubbles to burst. Particulary if the Republican Party can produce a credible candidate. The danger is that instead we will get an incredible candidate from the religous fruitcake wing.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Gary
Senior Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Northumberland

Re: Obama's the Anti Christ videos

Post by Gary »

Obama was obviously SO intresting to this college kid! :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WZqwZXMV-w
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Obama's the Anti Christ videos

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Obama was obviously SO intresting to this college kid!
Well, I have always find commie tendency speeches very boring. Fidel could talk for hours as Trostky did.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Obama's the Anti Christ videos

Post by RF »

Yes Karl, but I can remember seeing the last ever public speech that Nicolai Ceacescu made in Romania - and the crowds reaction to it was very interesting......
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Obama's the Anti Christ videos

Post by RF »

Coming back to Obama, I see that he has publicly called for Tony Hayward, Chairman of British Petroleum,to be fired because of the oilrig accident in the Gulf of Mexico, and that dividends should be stopped by that company.

As a shareholder in BP could I publicly call for the President of the United States to both forfeit his pay and be impeached over British servicemen in Iraq being killed by US ''friendly fire?''

If responsibility goes to the top then it should untversally apply, not just when it suits politicians.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Obama's the Anti Christ videos

Post by lwd »

RF wrote:... As a shareholder in BP could I publicly call for the President of the United States to both forfeit his pay and be impeached over British servicemen in Iraq being killed by US ''friendly fire?''
...
Indeed you can. Just don't expect much of a reaction or for that matter many to listen.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Obama's the Anti Christ videos

Post by alecsandros »

RF wrote:

As a shareholder in BP could I publicly call for the President of the United States to both forfeit his pay and be impeached over British servicemen in Iraq being killed by US ''friendly fire?''

If responsibility goes to the top then it should untversally apply, not just when it suits politicians.
Of course responsibility should go all the way to the top.

But it's a big difference between a soldier who receives extra-pay, and sometimes is even a volunteer in a certain war, and the mindless destruction of an entire eco-system and the lives of thousands of fishermen and fish-related companies.

In the first case, the risk is mitigated by pay. In the second case, what's the cost of the risk BP places on the eco-system.. ?
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Obama's the Anti Christ videos

Post by RF »

About 20 billion dollars at the latest count?

The cost has to come to BP, it caused the mess, it has to clean it up and pay for it. I have no argument with that. Just as the oil industry has always been a high risk activity for financial gain.

Serving in the armed forces in an area of conflict is also a high and this time expectedly lethal risk. But the fact that soldiers are paid does not absolve the commanders in chief of their responsibility. Just as the 11 people who were killed at the Deepwater Horizon explosion were being paid for their activities in a high risk industry doesn't mean that BP or its immediate contractors operating the well are absolved from responsibility to them or immediate third parties does it?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Obama's the Anti Christ videos

Post by RF »

lwd wrote:
RF wrote:... As a shareholder in BP could I publicly call for the President of the United States to both forfeit his pay and be impeached over British servicemen in Iraq being killed by US ''friendly fire?''
...
Indeed you can. Just don't expect much of a reaction or for that matter many to listen.

That is because there is no political lobby or interest group around to shout their case and grab media attention.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Obama's the Anti Christ videos

Post by alecsandros »

RF wrote: Serving in the armed forces in an area of conflict is also a high and this time expectedly lethal risk. But the fact that soldiers are paid does not absolve the commanders in chief of their responsibility. Just as the 11 people who were killed at the Deepwater Horizon explosion were being paid for their activities in a high risk industry doesn't mean that BP or its immediate contractors operating the well are absolved from responsibility to them or immediate third parties does it?
I don't know; I can't decide about that.
You're right, of course, from a strictly humane point of view - after all there can be no "right price" for human lives.

From a more existential perspective (and slighlly cynical) someone could say that both serving in the military and woring on an oil rig are high-risk jobs, and that each "worker" in such high-risk environments decided, when he started this career, that's a risk well worth it (being mitigated by pay). So from this perspective "they had it coming".

I don't know yet what would be the correct position; just some opinions..
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Obama's the Anti Christ videos

Post by Bgile »

alecsandros wrote:
RF wrote: Serving in the armed forces in an area of conflict is also a high and this time expectedly lethal risk. But the fact that soldiers are paid does not absolve the commanders in chief of their responsibility. Just as the 11 people who were killed at the Deepwater Horizon explosion were being paid for their activities in a high risk industry doesn't mean that BP or its immediate contractors operating the well are absolved from responsibility to them or immediate third parties does it?
I don't know; I can't decide about that.
You're right, of course, from a strictly humane point of view - after all there can be no "right price" for human lives.

From a more existential perspective (and slighlly cynical) someone could say that both serving in the military and woring on an oil rig are high-risk jobs, and that each "worker" in such high-risk environments decided, when he started this career, that's a risk well worth it (being mitigated by pay). So from this perspective "they had it coming".

I don't know yet what would be the correct position; just some opinions..
Working in a high risk job does not normally imply that your employer is permitted to ignore known safety issues.
Post Reply