Is he George's keeper?

ALBUQUERQUE — President Obama expounded Tuesday on the reasons he became a Christian as an adult, telling a group of residents here that he was a “Christian by choice” and that “the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead – being my brother and sister’s keeper.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/obama-talks-about-his-faith-2/?hp


Why would a Christian let a brother live on$25/year--when he spends thousands on golf?

I would say that it's most likely because that's the way his brother wants to live. If it is not a problem for them, why is it a problem for you?

It goes to character and how one's light is shining as a self proclaimed Christian. It's hard to claim you have been led to the light with a primary precept being that you want to be your brother's keeper when your actual brother is living in poverty on less then you spend on a mid morning snack for your kids. Sorry but it just doesn't work that way.

I figure it works better for George as a practical matter for him than it does for you and Keli politically.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2590614/Barack-Obamas-lost-brother-found-in-Kenya.html

BROTHER, can you spare a dime?

It has nothing to do with me politically as I honestly do not care what Barrack Obama's religion is or how he interacts with his many half-sibilings. I was merely pointing out that as it is Barrack Obama who is the one worried about how he is viewed publically that he continually seeks to reinforce his self proclaimed religious affiliation.

And one of the points he made was to state that part of what led him to the decision of becoming a born again Christian was to be his brother’s keeper. Now I understand that liberals generally refer to being one's brothers keeper via our tax dollars and in no way involves their personal income or time, when the President brings the concept into a conversation, the simple fact that he literally has a brother living with an annual income equivalent to a Starbucks bill, that somewhat tarnishes the Presidents credibility whether you agree or not.

If he does not want to be criticized for the situation surrounding his brother, then perhaps he should not claim to be his brother’s keeper, even if his attempt is to pacify those who question his religious affiliation and is no way meant to reflect his true personal beliefs or actions.

Here's the kicker though. You know all of this yet you continue to attempt to deflect the conversation away from the character flaws of our President which is a bit disingenuous on your part.

No, I am right on point with Keli's post. How do we know that half-brother George even wants to be assisted by barack Obama?

If Obama were not the President- a Democratic President- neither you nor Keli would give a flying fuck about half brother George.

Why should they? It's obvious the President does not.

Oh, damn it! I'm trying so hard not to be snarky. The O just brings out the worst in me.

It really pisses me off that Obama is more than willing to confiscate the money of hardworking Americans to redistribute their wealth the way he sees fit. He's all bullshit no substance, Ziggy. It's all talk, all bullshit.

I have long believed the best way to lead is by example. Look at the example Obama and his family set.

He's another Algore do as I say not as I do type. How's that for change?

Stephanie wrote:Why should they? It's obvious the President does not.

They pretend they care only to try to score political points. Their faux concern about George is a sham.

ziggy wrote:No, I am right on point with Keli's post. How do we know that half-brother George even wants to be assisted by barack Obama?

If Obama were not the President- a Democratic President- neither you nor Keli would give a flying fuck about half brother George.

I don't give a flying fuck about half-brother George and while Keli's post may be aimed at a political point, it is none the less spot on. This becomes an issue when the President stands up and states he is his brothers keepers, yet he clearly is not, thus he is a hypocrite and you know this. Yet you continue to defend him. That reflects on your credibility.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Why should they? It's obvious the President does not.

They pretend they care only to try to score political points. Their faux concern about George is a sham.

I'm not pretending concern of anything Ziggy and the only sham here is your bullshit. Obama's own words make him a hypocrite and your defense of him makes you just as much one.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Why should they? It's obvious the President does not.

They pretend they care only to try to score political points. Their faux concern about George is a sham.

I don't think they're pretending to care about George. I think they are demonstrating they care about America and Americans.

Al Gore pretends to care about the environment. If he truly cared about the environment he'd reduce HIS carbon footprint and worry less about mine and yours.

The same is true about the Obamas. If they truly cared about Americans struggling to make ends meet, if they truly cared about youngsters going without healthcare they'd take a portion of the wealth they spent this year on exclusive vacations and rounds of golf and designer dresses and open a clinic somewhere.

And if Barrack Obama was drawn to Christianity at a latter point in life and one of the drawing points was his desire to be his brother's keeper he would literally keep his brother instead of trying to nail Jello to a wall.

Sound familiar? I guess all bullshitters are the same, huh.

Stephanie wrote:Oh, damn it! I'm trying so hard not to be snarky. The O just brings out the worst in me.

It really pisses me off that Obama is more than willing to confiscate the money of hardworking Americans to redistribute their wealth the way he sees fit.

And George Bush did the same thing- the way he saw fit. I do not recall you having to try so hard to not be snarky about him.

I do not understand how the D or R political label in front of or behind a person's name can evoke so much selective either outrage or acceptance from seemingly otherwise sensible people..

Aaron wrote:And if Barrack Obama was drawn to Christianity at a latter point in life and one of the drawing points was his desire to be his brother's keeper he would literally keep his brother instead of trying to nail Jello to a wall.

Again, how do we know that likely non-Christian George even wants to be kept by self-proclaimed Christian half-brother Barack Obama?

It makes no difference as it is in no way relevant to my point.

For the record though....

Embarrassed by his penury, he said that he does not does not mention his famous half-brother in conversation.

"If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed," he said.

For ten years George Obama lived rough. However he now hopes to try to sort his life out by starting a course at a local technical college.

He has only met his famous older brother twice - once when he was just five and the last time in 2006 when Senator Obama was on a tour of East Africa and visited Nairobi.

The Illinois senator mentions his brother in his autobiography, describing him in just one passing paragraph as a "beautiful boy with a rounded head".

Of their second meeting, George Obama said: "It was very brief, we spoke for just a few minutes. It was like meeting a complete stranger."

George added he was no longer in contact with his mother and said:"I have had to learn to live and take what I need.

"Huruma is a tough place, last January during the elections there was rioting and six people were hacked to death. The police don't even arrest you they just shoot you.

"I have seen two of my friends killed. I have scars from defending myself with my fists. I am good with my fists."

So by your contention, George has no problem stealing but he refuses his brothers aid. Yeah, I'd buy that...

Bush did a lot of things I didn't like, and I complained about them. I called for the withdrawal of troops. At least Bush never lied and said he would bring them home, the way Obama did. Obama didn't bring troops home, he redistributed them.

As far as getting snarky regarding members of the GOP I have plenty of times particularly when discussing Mitt Romney and "America's Mayor" as he likes to call himself. I have little good to say about Newt Gingrich. I know Aaron loves him but he's bad for America.

I've said good things about a Democrat or two, mind you. I still think President Carter is a great guy.......not that I think he was a good President.

As far as the (R) thing goes, I continue to consider disaffiliating. I have my own personal political guru and for the moment I continue to remain a member of the GOP because of him. Even the Republican Liberty Caucus has proved a disappointment to me. I think I'm just a libertarian and need to accept that fact.

ziggy wrote:I do not understand how the D or R political label in front of or behind a person's name can evoke so much selective either outrage or acceptance from seemingly otherwise sensible people..

The same statement could be said regarding ideology my liberal friend.

Stephanie wrote:I know Aaron loves him but he's bad for America.

That's a little strong. I happen to agree with a great deal of what he says on fiscal issues and of the candidates running last election, I thought (and still do) that he was inherently more qualified then any other but I wouldn't say I love him.

Love I reserve for physical attraction...



You deserve that for saying I love Newt.

There is something seriously wrong with you.

btw, please check your email.

Stephanie wrote:There is something seriously wrong with you.

It is a guy thing, Stephanie. You would not understand.

I'm trying to think of a handsome male politician and I'm coming up short. Both Dan Quayle and Al Gore were handsome back in the day. That's all I got.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:There is something seriously wrong with you.

It is a guy thing, Stephanie. You would not understand.

No, Ziggy, I don't get it, either. I could live 10,000 more years and not see Hillary's cleavage again. She is a fine looking woman for someone of her age, but some things I just do not need to see. I suppose if'n the home fires weren't burning I might think differently, but thankfully, this is not the case.