End the slander : Obama is a Christian

So Obama is anti-war, pro-health care, etc., and Bush was pro-war, anti-health care, etc., and I am supposed to believe (according to some here) that Obama is the anti-Christian?

Our biggest problem in this country are fundamentalist loons.

Originally posted by GrisGris
*sigh* yes. Im aware of the law. My bad, I got it backwards. I should have checked before posting.

Though, at least I knew there was a distinction, legally, between setting said versus written. Which is more than you.

But you are right, you are clearly unaware of the law in this matter! Thanks for noticing.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1]

Here, I will give you a quick little quote on libel, rather than defamation which wasn't mentioned.

Legal Dictionary - Libel

libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages." "Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune for actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U. S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.

Saying that the Obamanator proscribes to the Muslim faith is not malicious in and of itself, unless of course, you consider being Muslim to be patently evil, which I and most others do not. In any event, branding a group in that manner would be stereotyping and considered racist and therefore would apparently be some kind of ridiculous hate crime. Libel tends to follow once vile or malicious statements are made in public media that would generally limit a person or a corporation from making a living or doing business and that is why it falls under criminal law, the removal of some entities rights based on malicious intent.

So there you have it, now go get your @ss kicking pillow and have some fun with it ;-) Thanks for playing!

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by kinda kurious


Ha ha is this guy serious I suppose the cia mindfreaks are at it again trying to play the spin game im not wasting my time digging thru all the replies who cares waht obumma religeon is he obviously is a hypocrit.

Originally posted by alienreality
Judge a man by his actions, and not by his words....

Using this method is much more accurate than simply believing whatever obama says...

His actions and words normally indicate that he is NOT Christian..

He has openly mocked the bible. Shredded the constitution and bill of rights... Something a real Christian would never consider..

Obama is the personification of the OPPOSITE of Christian...

He is only saying he is Christian now because of the seemingly near next election..

I'll bet you are not a Christian, otherwise you would definitely know that obama is definitely not a Christian..

What's even funnier is that Obama constantly tries to convince people he is Christian, but can't, because his actions keep regressing that effort back to the scrap heap of propaganda.

He may be be a Muslim, I have seen evidence to suggest he is, (his own admission on many occasions)

But he certainly not a Christian..

edit on 3-2-2011 by alienreality because: eta

Werd QFT! It STILL amazes me....after ALL of the lies and deception that has been perpetrated by this "man" (more like devil), systematically destroying this country, causing MAJOR instability across the globe, and the list goes on and on, that there remains some people left who can STILL be so gullible and ignorant to be ready to wholeheartedly believe anything that comes out of this dudes mouth!! It was people like that who without a clue as to who this guy was (because had they actually DONE THEIR RESEARCH it would have shown Obummers circles in which he ran with the likes of George Soros and Zibgrnew Brezenski, racially motivated "preachers", and self admitted left-wing radical terrorists!!)

But no....no...not having a CLUE as to the worth of a vote as well as being completely out of touch with reality and the history of our nation along with the true definition of what it means to be an American, they chose to just THROW AWAY THEIR VOTE on this charlatan who deep down inside HATES AMERICA and everything we stand for! All it took for them to be convinced to give away their vote was a good stage act along with having a little swagger...forget about everything else! For all of you that fit the above description (and YES if you voted for this Obomination this applies to you as being in denial for your grave mistake does not allow you to now act like it never happened, because guess what IT DID HAPPEN! And as a result this country will continue to feel the effects from your idiot mistake for quite possibly generations to come!)....SO if you fall into the above description YOU SHOULD LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE!!

In fact if it were up to me and I was the HMFIC I would require all "progressive" (new snazzy word for communists essentially) liberal's who DID vote for Obummer in addition to having their voting rights taken away, would be required to register just like a sex offender (in the event I wouldn't be allowed to charge each and every one of them as an enemy of the state which would call for immediate loss of citizenship and subsequent deportation to some remote island far far away).

I can see/feel the hate that is about to be directed my way as soon as I hit that reply button with charges of how extreme my views might be, and how wrong I am, and this and that. And to that I say....bring it. However let me just say....I ONLY WISH that those people who voted this monster into office would truly realize what they have done and the severity that the consequences are already having on us (this guy went to freaking SUE ARIZONA FOR WANTING TO PROTECT THEIR FLIPPIN BORDERS FOR CHRISTS SAKE!!) how this once great nation will now never be the same...and in fact is now well on it's way to becoming something very different and NOT in a good way. But to have ALL that has happened, and what surely is still yet to come....but to have people that STILL seem to have no reserve and accept this guy at the first whim of him opening his mouth...to truly be willing to believe what he says....is just mind boggling. Utter mind blowing. I mean how could you all be so easily willing to accept ANYTHING that comes out of this guy's mouth? And this has NOTHING to do with just peoples OPINION of him anymore as his track record should surely speak for the record.

So it begs the question....HOW AND WHY are you able to still fall for his lies and deceit after all that has happened? And do you really honestly think that you should still have the privilege to vote in future elections after having brought this moron into office? Thank you.

NT

Slander vs libel is based on rather it is written or not. Again, please stop confusing yourself and others.

Slander= verbal
Libel= written

You didn't know it. It's okay.

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by GrisGris
*sigh* yes. Im aware of the law. My bad, I got it backwards. I should have checked before posting.

Though, at least I knew there was a distinction, legally, between setting said versus written. Which is more than you.

But you are right, you are clearly unaware of the law in this matter! Thanks for noticing.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1]

Here, I will give you a quick little quote on libel, rather than defamation which wasn't mentioned.

Legal Dictionary - Libel

libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages." "Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune for actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U. S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.

Saying that the Obamanator proscribes to the Muslim faith is not malicious in and of itself, unless of course, you consider being Muslim to be patently evil, which I and most others do not. In any event, branding a group in that manner would be stereotyping and considered racist and therefore would apparently be some kind of ridiculous hate crime. Libel tends to follow once vile or malicious statements are made in public media that would generally limit a person or a corporation from making a living or doing business and that is why it falls under criminal law, the removal of some entities rights based on malicious intent.

So there you have it, now go get your @ss kicking pillow and have some fun with it ;-) Thanks for playing!

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by alienreality
He has openly mocked the bible. Shredded the constitution and bill of rights... Something a real Christian would never consider..

Wow, I was not aware of those claims. Is that purely your own opinion or can you provide elucidation? A link or two would suffice. Thanks.

Do you recall these words? "America, is no longer a Christian nation!" This was announced by B H Obama, I believe, just before he cancelled the Christian day of prayer, and had a Muslim day of prayer on the White House lawn. Now, he may not be a Muslim, but if not he is most certainly a Muslim sympathizer, and he is most certainly not a Christian - at least until it serves his purpose. What he, most assuredly, is; Is a Communist. That's how he was raised by his mother, then by his Grandparents when his loving mother abandoned him to them.

Originally posted by David9176
I could give a rats ass either way.

As long as he isn't sacrificing goats on the White House lawn...

But he does

He did

He @@#% upon a snapping turtle and served it to blind cripples

Do you feel safe knowing that?

Has he shot a gun yesterday?

And more importantly, when was the last time he clubbed a salmon to a paste with an oar?

There are questions

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by kinda kurious

 

Dunno what in the nine hells you are talking about.

I also do not see how personal jabs relate to the topic at all.

So simce you obviously have a hard-on for me, I will not be visiting this thread anymore.

Good day and good luck.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Nine hells sounds like some sort of pagan place the devil thought up... just saying

Yeah don't slam Obama because he is a Muslim, slam him because he is Christian.

Originally posted by Dumbass
Yeah don't slam Obama because he is a Muslim, slam him because he is Christian.

How true!

I'd call it slander to be named as part of any religion, even if they profess it themself....

Thread stoker. First let me thank you all for your replies and interest in the thread. As OP I feel it is incumbent on me to defend my postion and I intend to continue to do so. I certainly have a tiger by the tail but feel the truth can withstand great scrutiny. Thus far I’m not swayed by any compelling evidence to believe otherwise.

The character of any person can be measured by word and deed. Granted President Obama’s childhood and upbringing is of precarious circumstances. But alas, we cannot pick our parents. It is my firm belief that he shed the influences imposed by his parents as he stated in the speech and that he has rejected their notions of religion or lack thereof in favor of “accepting Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.” It is my firm position that those are not the words of some Machiavelian actor or Manchurian candidate but rather the proclimation of a sincere human being expressing their personal right to religious belief and choice as protected by the tenets of our constitution.

So far the points to counter his publically self professed Christianity have amounted to an array of You Tube clips taken out of context or worse yet the the notion that despite proof, he is just a liar. As if somehow a member’s opinion carries more truth than our duly elected Preident.

While I cannot deny that in the past as a youth President Obama may have been guided into the direction of his father’s religious views, The facts show he has renounced those early childhood influences and has chosen the path he believes provides strength, compassion and salvation. That is his right not only as President but as a citizen.

As a reminder, I’m not a deeply religious individual as evidenced by my staunch criticism of the Catholic church and other threads proselytising a certain brand of religion on this site. But as someone who has a voraciuos devotion for seeking truth, I will not stand idly by and see this man wrongfully attacked and criticized as part of what I consider to be an unfounded smear campaign.

President Obama has professed his belief to those he serves, both human and divine. Thanks.

The Bible says, "By their deeds shall ye know them."

What would Jesus do? A true Christian would not support kidnapping, rape, torture, war, and assasination. But then, neither would a true Muslim.

The US hasn't had a "Christian" president in a long time.

Originally posted by apodictic
wait wait one more!!!!

Has this thread been debunked yet???

No but your clip has:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d0802a3d02a.png[/atsimg]

Please read entire thread before posting. Thanks.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Don't believe everything you hear on the news and TV. Most of it is lies and disinfo. Being a member of this website you should know that shame on you

LOL...I would much rather have a moderate Muslim president than a christian extremist...can anyone say "Westboro Baptist Church".

The false accusations that Obama is a Muslim, implies that all Muslims are bad and all christians are good. Mainstream Islam and christianity are closer than you think.