<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ::RAGE::, Redux</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.smiteme.net/2009/01/11/rage-redux/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.smiteme.net/2009/01/11/rage-redux/</link>
	<description>Heathen. Vegan. Feminist.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:54:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Smite Me! [.net] &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Another twist in the Obama family doggy drama.</title>
		<link>http://www.smiteme.net/2009/01/11/rage-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-83037</link>
		<dc:creator>Smite Me! [.net] &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Another twist in the Obama family doggy drama.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:19:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://119909368#comment-83037</guid>
		<description>[...] right. The &#8220;new face of feminism,&#8221; who is married to a woman and has two young daughters, doesn&#8217;t want a &#8220;girly [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] right. The &#8220;new face of feminism,&#8221; who is married to a woman and has two young daughters, doesn&#8217;t want a &#8220;girly [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: easyVegan.info &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Another twist in the Obama family doggy drama.</title>
		<link>http://www.smiteme.net/2009/01/11/rage-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-82997</link>
		<dc:creator>easyVegan.info &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Another twist in the Obama family doggy drama.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:55:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://119909368#comment-82997</guid>
		<description>[...] right. The &#8220;new face of feminism,&#8221; who is married to a woman and has two young daughters, doesn&#8217;t want a &#8220;girly [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] right. The &#8220;new face of feminism,&#8221; who is married to a woman and has two young daughters, doesn&#8217;t want a &#8220;girly [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly</title>
		<link>http://www.smiteme.net/2009/01/11/rage-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-82915</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:29:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://119909368#comment-82915</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;“NOT FOR FOOD USE. FOOD CONSUMED FROM THIS PLATE MAY BE HARMFUL!”&lt;/em&gt;

That&#039;s awesome.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>“NOT FOR FOOD USE. FOOD CONSUMED FROM THIS PLATE MAY BE HARMFUL!”</em></p>
<p>That&#8217;s awesome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JB</title>
		<link>http://www.smiteme.net/2009/01/11/rage-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-82914</link>
		<dc:creator>JB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:24:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://119909368#comment-82914</guid>
		<description>&quot;I take it you’re enjoying those plates, then?&quot;

Yes we got them, thank-you.  Ironically, there is a big red sticker on it that says &quot;NOT FOR FOOD USE.  FOOD CONSUMED FROM THIS PLATE MAY BE HARMFUL!&quot;

It&#039;s kind of like Obama&#039;s and liberal policies in general.  They look good on paper, don&#039;t work, and might be harmful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I take it you’re enjoying those plates, then?&#8221;</p>
<p>Yes we got them, thank-you.  Ironically, there is a big red sticker on it that says &#8220;NOT FOR FOOD USE.  FOOD CONSUMED FROM THIS PLATE MAY BE HARMFUL!&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s kind of like Obama&#8217;s and liberal policies in general.  They look good on paper, don&#8217;t work, and might be harmful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly</title>
		<link>http://www.smiteme.net/2009/01/11/rage-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-82913</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:19:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://119909368#comment-82913</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;That’s probably not the Rick Warren Obama knows.&lt;/em&gt;

Nah, Obama knows - you can see as much in his equivocating:

&lt;em&gt;&quot;A couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren&#039;s church to speak despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion,&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/obamas-talking-points-on_n_152056.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;he said&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/em&gt;

Obama knows that Warren is a giant douche, he knows what Warren&#039;s views on women and the LGBTQ community are, and he doesn&#039;t care. He&#039;s willing to tolerate hate in the name of &quot;diversity&quot; and &quot;inclusion.&quot; Somehow, though, I doubt he&#039;d be as open to Warren&#039;s views if they included open, rank racism.

&lt;i&gt;Kelly, what would make you think his Rick Warren invite was made out of political ambition?&lt;/i&gt;

He&#039;s a politician. That&#039;s what they do. I wouldn&#039;t be surprised if Obama&#039;s already thinking about re-election.

More specifically, though, Obama really started edging right after the primaries. Don&#039;t get me wrong, I never mistook the man for a liberal - but with Clinton in the running, he certainly had no qualms accepting and soliciting progressive support. Once he had the primaries locked, though, he definitely started pandering to more moderate religious voters, voters the Republicans could usually count on simply by invoking the specter of &quot;gay marriage&quot; or somesuch. 

Whether Obama genuinely likes Warren (in spite or because of his view on gender relations), or is inviting him to placate more conservative religious voters, I haven&#039;t a clue. It&#039;s probably a bit of each. 

&lt;em&gt;Why would you doubt the One?&lt;/em&gt;

I didn&#039;t drink the kool-aid. 

That, and he keeps flip-flopping on the dog issue. If he can&#039;t manage to find a purebred, &quot;hypoallergenic&quot; dog on Petfinder, then he certainly can&#039;t run a fucking country. 

I take it you&#039;re enjoying those plates, then?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>That’s probably not the Rick Warren Obama knows.</em></p>
<p>Nah, Obama knows &#8211; you can see as much in his equivocating:</p>
<p><em>&#8220;A couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren&#8217;s church to speak despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion,&#8221; <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/obamas-talking-points-on_n_152056.html" rel="nofollow">he said</a>.</em></p>
<p>Obama knows that Warren is a giant douche, he knows what Warren&#8217;s views on women and the LGBTQ community are, and he doesn&#8217;t care. He&#8217;s willing to tolerate hate in the name of &#8220;diversity&#8221; and &#8220;inclusion.&#8221; Somehow, though, I doubt he&#8217;d be as open to Warren&#8217;s views if they included open, rank racism.</p>
<p><i>Kelly, what would make you think his Rick Warren invite was made out of political ambition?</i></p>
<p>He&#8217;s a politician. That&#8217;s what they do. I wouldn&#8217;t be surprised if Obama&#8217;s already thinking about re-election.</p>
<p>More specifically, though, Obama really started edging right after the primaries. Don&#8217;t get me wrong, I never mistook the man for a liberal &#8211; but with Clinton in the running, he certainly had no qualms accepting and soliciting progressive support. Once he had the primaries locked, though, he definitely started pandering to more moderate religious voters, voters the Republicans could usually count on simply by invoking the specter of &#8220;gay marriage&#8221; or somesuch. </p>
<p>Whether Obama genuinely likes Warren (in spite or because of his view on gender relations), or is inviting him to placate more conservative religious voters, I haven&#8217;t a clue. It&#8217;s probably a bit of each. </p>
<p><em>Why would you doubt the One?</em></p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t drink the kool-aid. </p>
<p>That, and he keeps flip-flopping on the dog issue. If he can&#8217;t manage to find a purebred, &#8220;hypoallergenic&#8221; dog on Petfinder, then he certainly can&#8217;t run a fucking country. </p>
<p>I take it you&#8217;re enjoying those plates, then?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JB</title>
		<link>http://www.smiteme.net/2009/01/11/rage-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-82896</link>
		<dc:creator>JB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:53:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://119909368#comment-82896</guid>
		<description>Obama doesn&#039;t seem to have a great track record with pastors.  That&#039;s probably not the Rick Warren Obama knows.  After all, he didn&#039;t know Rev Wright very well, Rezko very well, Ayers very well, etc.  It doesn&#039;t matter who Obama associates with because well he is going to bring change.

He was a State Senator for two years before he ran for Congress and lost, then ran for Senate a few years later.  Two years after winning his US Senate election he announced his bid for president.  Kelly, what would make you think his Rick Warren invite was made out of political ambition?

But hey I say give him a break.  Lets give him a chance.  Lets see what increasing the deficit by a tril, creating a huge national health insurance program, stripping the CIA of techniques that have stopped terror plots, raising taxes on investors, creating solvency in Social Security by lifting the cap over 250K instead of transforming it into a savings and investment program, etc.   Why would you doubt the One?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obama doesn&#8217;t seem to have a great track record with pastors.  That&#8217;s probably not the Rick Warren Obama knows.  After all, he didn&#8217;t know Rev Wright very well, Rezko very well, Ayers very well, etc.  It doesn&#8217;t matter who Obama associates with because well he is going to bring change.</p>
<p>He was a State Senator for two years before he ran for Congress and lost, then ran for Senate a few years later.  Two years after winning his US Senate election he announced his bid for president.  Kelly, what would make you think his Rick Warren invite was made out of political ambition?</p>
<p>But hey I say give him a break.  Lets give him a chance.  Lets see what increasing the deficit by a tril, creating a huge national health insurance program, stripping the CIA of techniques that have stopped terror plots, raising taxes on investors, creating solvency in Social Security by lifting the cap over 250K instead of transforming it into a savings and investment program, etc.   Why would you doubt the One?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly</title>
		<link>http://www.smiteme.net/2009/01/11/rage-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-82633</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:28:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://119909368#comment-82633</guid>
		<description>I wish I knew what he&#039;s thinking: does he genuinely like Warren as a person, so much so that he doesn&#039;t care what people say about their association, or is he just trying to pander to the largest number of 2012 voters possible, &quot;special interest&quot; groups be damned? Either way, I can&#039;t believe that &lt;em&gt;Ms. Magazine&lt;/em&gt; is actually encouraging this &quot;agree to disagree&quot; &lt;strong&gt;on matters of human rights&lt;/strong&gt; bullshit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wish I knew what he&#8217;s thinking: does he genuinely like Warren as a person, so much so that he doesn&#8217;t care what people say about their association, or is he just trying to pander to the largest number of 2012 voters possible, &#8220;special interest&#8221; groups be damned? Either way, I can&#8217;t believe that <em>Ms. Magazine</em> is actually encouraging this &#8220;agree to disagree&#8221; <strong>on matters of human rights</strong> bullshit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amelia</title>
		<link>http://www.smiteme.net/2009/01/11/rage-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-82624</link>
		<dc:creator>Amelia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:50:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://119909368#comment-82624</guid>
		<description>You would think that Obama would realize that, after Bush, people don&#039;t want anymore bullshit from their presidents. Inviting someone like Warren is just a slap in the face. I hope he doesn&#039;t think that people are just going to shrug it off as nothing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You would think that Obama would realize that, after Bush, people don&#8217;t want anymore bullshit from their presidents. Inviting someone like Warren is just a slap in the face. I hope he doesn&#8217;t think that people are just going to shrug it off as nothing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

