President Obama: God wants us to put people back to work

1. 61

   ediggityposted 12 years ago

   http://content.usatoday.com/communities … -to-work/1
   
   Do you think the presidents statements will garner support for the recently proposed jobs bill and answer his prayer?
   
   Additionally, wouldn't voting for the bill now conflict with the separation of religion and government?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      My God wants Obama to be unemployed.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The man should get his own priorities straight.
      He has run the gamut from invoking so many other spirits that he's decided to invoke the Holy Spirit now when it's convenient for him to use as a weapon against the Right.   Eh...TRY to invoke God anyway.   I can't imagine God listening to him.  The Bible says to have no other gods before Him....and I see no evidence that Obama's suddenly become receptive to change.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks for the response Brenda.  I take it you dont think there is any chance that maybe the President is being sincere about his statements.

         replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   So. Let me see if I have this correct. You don't like the idea of separation of church and state; the religious right can invoke the name of God and it's a good thing, but when the president does it, it's a joke to you.
   
   He was basically saying that worrying about legislation concerning the motto of ' In God We Trust' and not working on legislation to help each other was pointless. God helps those that help themselves was the point. I agree with him.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You have "this" incorrect.  . You sure do like to make assumptions and jump to conclusions.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Gee edgity. Didn't you, repair guy and I all have a long conversation on another thread where you both were insisting that there should be no separation of church and state? Are you not posting this thread a bit tongue in cheek? Not sure what conclusions I've jumped to or assumptions I've made.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            No, we didn't have that conversation.  I challenge you to find any post on any thread where I stated there should be no separation of church and state.  Again, you are jumping and assuming, there is no "tongue and cheek", work on comprehension. 

            replyreport
         2. 60

            Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I never had that conversation.

            replyreport
3. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   Both of you have forgotten your comments on the Atheists STOP thread. I didn't. However, I simply read Repair Guy's comments at the time. We didn't actually converse, so I overstepped my bounds by saying we were all talking to each other.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I havent forgot any comments on that thread.  It is you who forgot.  I never even alluded to anything that resembles your accusations.
      
      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/85055?p … ost1840083
      
      
      Read away to jog your memory.  It's not nice to start rumors. 

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I read through the whole thread. Just your comments. I stand behind what I've said. I don't start rumors. I used to attempt to come to an understanding and alleviate confusion between myself and another, simply because I thought people could honestly come to friendly agreement; but I've learned that here on Hub Pages this isn't always possible. Confusion runs rampant because people simply want to think they are always 100% right and others are always wrong.
         
         Maybe  what I perceived as your adament support of the OP throughout the thread means something different than what I got out of it. Maybe it doesn't. At this point, I could care less because proving oneself right appears to be more important than anything else for some. If what I got out of your argument was different than what you meant, or if our understanding of full separation of church and state is different; we'll never know. But I don't start rumors. And I have little patience when accused of it.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You read through the "whole thread", just my comments, and you still stand by your accusation that I was "insisting that there should be no separation of church and state?". You seriously need to work on reading comprehension.  Sharing facts about the foundation of the United States of America, and what you accused me of are two totally different things. I give up, believe what you want.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Although I find your comment rude, for rudeness sake, I'll explain. What you fail to accept is that if one agrees that the US was founded on Christian principles, there can be no separation. Your argument that it was a Christian nation would mean that our first laws were  founded on Christian beliefs. They weren't. There was a wall of separation intended by the document. Only religious people refuse to see and accept this.
               
               I stopped arguing with you after that idiotic comment about the date. If you were going to use that as a part of your argument, you were incapable of attempting to understand why you are wrong.
               
               I saw no reason to continue a conversation with someone who was wilfully blind.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Again, your logic is flawed.  There can still be separation of, the question is to what extent? Which is obviously what the founding fathers intended, otherwise there would be no current debate.  What you fail to realize is what's written in black and white.   Thanks for thread jacking.
                  
                  "I stopped arguing with you after that idiotic comment about the date. If you were going to use that as a part of your argument, you were incapable of attempting to understand why you are wrong. "
                  
                  "Confusion runs rampant because people simply want to think they are always 100% right and others are always wrong. "
                  
                  
                  You are 100% of the solution. 

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I didn't hi jack your thread. I commented and you didn't like the comment so you started this side conversation. This will be my last post, in deference to your wishes. As I said, I stand behind my statement and I have explained why. We don't need to argue to what extent. It was meant to be a complete separation. Only the Christian refuses to accept this fact.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        ediggityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        You made assumptions about my belief on seperation of church and state based on your philosophy, and then stated I made a joke about the presidents comments.  Was that really necessary to do in order to write what you did in your second paragraph that actually gave some sort of response that complimented the thread?  And I'm the rude idiot? 
                        
                        
                        Fact?    If you can show me, or anyone for that matter where in the Constitution of the United States of America it states, "complete separation of church and state" or even " separation of church and state" for that matter, I will delete all of my comments regarding our debate.  Only the comprehensibly challenged argue those facts. 

                        replyreport
4. 75

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   When Obama mentions God he is actually referring to himself.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      ''

      replyreport
5. 59

   Disappearingheadposted 12 years ago

   Why are some bitching about Obama; I too would have thought God wanted to get people working.

   replyreport