trump 2016

[bbsam]

I don't recall calling anyone a racist. I remember saying that people claim the "race card" is being played everytime race is brought up. That's calling people confused, not racist.

 

[upsgrunt]

I really don't know what else to say. I try to get others to see different viewpoint of offensive names and it's dismissed as
"trivial" on my part; a non-issue. I try to use the Bible to back arguments that I have made only to be made fun of and called more names. If our country, a country founded on Christian beliefs, has come to this, I'm afraid. Now is the time when we need God more than ever; maybe our country is weakening because the very God that blessed our nation is appalled that the majority of its citizens are turning their back to Him. What I do know is that if this lack of compassion and lack of reverence to God is what hope and change is all about; I want nothing to do with any of it.
Say what you want about me.
I don't care.
Say what you want about God,
He does care and will return and give you all you have asked for.
Offensive terms are not equal, but their hurt is.
I'm out.
I'm done.

 

[wkmac]

A group of demonstrators recently got into an Obama fundraiser to protest the imprisonment of Bradley Manning, the alleged source of the WikiLeaks cables.
They sang a song to Obama. Part of it went: "We'll vote for you in 2012, yes that's true / Look at the Republicans -- what else can we do?"
Manning is not the only one who is in prison.
These protesters have confined themselves. Or rather, they have allowed the political establishment to imprison them. They are attempting to pressure Obama, while saying outright -- as they are giving him money -- that they don't think they have any other choice but to back him.
Not exactly negotiating from a position of strength.
And some have mocked them. But, really, what is their choice? How can they emancipate themselves?
Look at what is happening on the Republican side. Donald Trump told the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year: "Ron Paul cannot get elected." This statement tries to undermine and dismiss Paul's candidacy. Trump's vision of democracy is apparently one where the result is known before the election.
The Democratic establishment has relentlessly penned in Principled Progressives while the Republican establishment has continuously made captives out of Conscientious Conservatives.
And these establishments have succeeded time and time again.

How Obama and Trump Imprison Voters

Ron Paul is far from perfect, but I'll say this much for the Texas congressman: He has never authorized a drone strike in Pakistan. He has never authorized the killing of dozens of women and children in Yemen. He hasn't protected torturers from prosecution and he hasn't overseen the torturous treatment of a 23-year-old young man for the “crime” of revealing the government's criminal behavior.

Can the same be said for Barack Obama?

Is Ron Paul more progressive than Barack Obama?

Early this month, panelists on MSNBC's corporate “Black Agenda” show agreed that black dissatisfaction, disappointment and disaffection with the Obama administration was growing. The brick and mortar of the Black Wall Around Barack Obama are the plentiful and often contradictory excuses which black misleaders and ordinary people offer and accept for his administration's many failures and betrayals. These excuses are important because the illusion of nearly unanimous black support, no matter what he does or does not do remains President Obama's most vital political asset.
It's high time for black America to stop making and to stop accepting excuses for the presidency of Barack Obama.
So as a public service, we offer this list of the top ten such excuses, followed by a quick and effective answer for each. We invite our gentle readers to try these out on the Obamaphiles you meet on a daily basis, your family, friends, co-workers, classmates and others.

Top Ten Answers to Excuses for Obama's Betrayals and Failures

When did our democracy die? When did it irrevocably transform itself into a lifeless farce and absurd political theater? When did the press, labor, universities and the Democratic Party—which once made piecemeal and incremental reform possible—wither and atrophy? When did reform through electoral politics become a form of magical thinking? When did the dead hand of the corporate state become unassailable?

We continue to talk about personalities—Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama—although the heads of state or elected officials in Congress have become largely irrelevant. Lobbyists write the bills. Lobbyists get them passed. Lobbyists make sure you get the money to be elected. And lobbyists employ you when you get out of office. Those who hold actual power are the tiny elite who manage the corporations.

The rhetoric of the Democratic Party and the neoliberals sustains the illusion of participatory democracy. The Democrats and their liberal apologists offer minor palliatives and a feel-your-pain language to mask the cruelty and goals of the corporate state. The reconfiguration of American society into a form of neofeudalism will be cemented into place whether it is delivered by Democrats, who are pushing us there at 60 miles an hour, or Republicans, who are barreling toward it at 100 miles an hour. Wolin writes, “By fostering an illusion among the powerless classes” that it can make their interests a priority, the Democratic Party “pacifies and thereby defines the style of an opposition party in an inverted totalitarian system.” The Democrats are always able to offer up a least-worst alternative while, in fact, doing little or nothing to thwart the march toward corporate collectivism.

The Corporate State Wins Again

 

[bbsam]

I really don't know what else to say. I try to get others to see different viewpoint of offensive names and it's dismissed as
"trivial" on my part; a non-issue. I try to use the Bible to back arguments that I have made only to be made fun of and called more names. If our country, a country founded on Christian beliefs, has come to this, I'm afraid. Now is the time when we need God more than ever; maybe our country is weakening because the very God that blessed our nation is appalled that the majority of its citizens are turning their back to Him. What I do know is that if this lack of compassion and lack of reverence to God is what hope and change is all about; I want nothing to do with any of it.
Say what you want about me.
I don't care.
Say what you want about God,
He does care and will return and give you all you have asked for.
Offensive terms are not equal, but their hurt is.
I'm out.
I'm done.

Since you are done with the soap box, I will take my turn:

Who do you think you are? Why would quoting scripture in an internet chat persuade where mega-churches, televangelists, main-stream religion, and personal experience have failed for people? People have their reasons for believing and for not believing and your quotations will do little to change those realities. And you feel mocked, made fun of? So what. Are you on a quest to "save" souls? Why does it matter to you if others believe as you do? Personally, I too am a Christian and I find arguments against religion to fall flat and to me seem sophomoric at best. But it is God who convinced me, not Billy Graham, or upsgrunt, or my father who happened to be a Lutheran minister. People have their own journeys to travel and God is revealed in any of a myriad of ways. So in short, we share our "experience, strength, and hope" with others, not that we transform their lives to our own glory, but that we bear witness to what God can and will do. How can it matter to me if others choose to deny? I know. My faith is not contingent upon their conversion. So it is at this juncture that I would suggest that quoting scripture as a debating tool is nearly useless if all parties involved do not agree to it's legitimacy. It would be like quoting Dr. Seuss in federal court "...a person's a person no matter how small.--Horton Hears a Who".

 

[The Other Side]

I really don't know what else to say. I try to get others to see different viewpoint of offensive names and it's dismissed as
"trivial" on my part; a non-issue. I try to use the Bible to back arguments that I have made only to be made fun of and called more names. If our country, a country founded on Christian beliefs, has come to this, I'm afraid. Now is the time when we need God more than ever; maybe our country is weakening because the very God that blessed our nation is appalled that the majority of its citizens are turning their back to Him. What I do know is that if this lack of compassion and lack of reverence to God is what hope and change is all about; I want nothing to do with any of it.
Say what you want about me.
I don't care.
Say what you want about God,
He does care and will return and give you all you have asked for.
Offensive terms are not equal, but their hurt is.
I'm out.
I'm done.

I heard that god will be returning to us on May 21st, well according to the bible belters. Unfortunately, I am on Bill Mahers side, and will put up an additional 5K that he doesnt show.

In Bill Mahers words.....

This country has turned away from God and religion for many reasons. Most have turned away from organized religion because they have become out of control in this country in one form or another.

From loons to crooks to hypocrits to perverts, this countries religious communities have strayed from traditional teachings to political mouthpieces.

This county, despite your claims Grunt, was NOT founded on christianity, and in fact, the majority of founding fathers who choice was to be of "deist" designation specially placed into our constitution that "this united states of america shall not be affiliated with any specific religion" for a reason.

There are many writings from the founders who specifically did not want ANY religion involved in our goverment or political arenas.

So, to say that we need "god" to save this country is an opinion from a citizen (and you have that right) but not one that needs to be included into the opinions of the goverment at large.

This is gods goverment. We elect them, and we agreed to this system, this is what "God" wanted us to do.

No matter how the country is running, one way or the other, "god" would want us all to support it and be a part of the solutions and not the problems.

Peace.

 

[trplnkl]

I heard that god will be returning to us on May 21st, well according to the bible belters. Unfortunately, I am on Bill Mahers side, and will put up an additional 5K that he doesnt show.

In Bill Mahers words.....

This country has turned away from God and religion for many reasons. Most have turned away from organized religion because they have become out of control in this country in one form or another.

From loons to crooks to hypocrits to perverts, this countries religious communities have strayed from traditional teachings to political mouthpieces.

This county, despite your claims Grunt, was NOT founded on christianity, and in fact, the majority of founding fathers who choice was to be of "deist" designation specially placed into our constitution that "this united states of america shall not be affiliated with any specific religion" for a reason.

There are many writings from the founders who specifically did not want ANY religion involved in our goverment or political arenas.

So, to say that we need "god" to save this country is an opinion from a citizen (and you have that right) but not one that needs to be included into the opinions of the goverment at large.

This is gods goverment. We elect them, and we agreed to this system, this is what "God" wanted us to do.

No matter how the country is running, one way or the other, "god" would want us all to support it and be a part of the solutions and not the problems.

Peace.

Please provide a list of the founding fathers that wanted any religion out of government and political arenas.
True, the framers were careful to assure there would be no specific official religion in the USA. After all getting out of religious persecution was what brought a very large portion of the people to the "new world", that's pretty much documented fact.

I'm not sure where you get "No matter how the country is running, one way or the other, "god" would want us all to support it and be a part of the solutions and not the problems.". But it is utterly ridiculous, support it if you can.

 

[wkmac]

Please provide a list of the founding fathers that wanted any religion out of government and political arenas.

True, the framers were careful to assure there would be no specific official religion in the USA. After all getting out of religious persecution was what brought a very large portion of the people to the "new world", that's pretty much documented fact.

I'm not sure where you get "No matter how the country is running, one way or the other, "god" would want us all to support it and be a part of the solutions and not the problems.". But it is utterly ridiculous, support it if you can.

Not really a list unto the ends that you requested but this piece IMO provides an interesting discussion on the matter. For those who are unsure exactly what deism is, the World Union of Deists maintain a website where lots of information can be obtained.

 

[trplnkl]

Not really a list unto the ends that you requested but this piece IMO provides an interesting discussion on the matter. For those who are unsure exactly what deism is, the World Union of Deists maintain a website where lots of information can be obtained.

Both very interesting, thank you. However neither one supports TOS's claims. I know, that wasn't what you were doing.

 

[The Other Side]

Trip,

Our history is clouded with opinions. Some true, some untrue. Religion is one of those things that has transitioned over the years of this country, and some have been able to exploit its membership/following for both good and bad reasons.

One of the biggest falsehoods about America lies with our founding. We hear that our founding fathers wanted this or they wanted that, and yet, the record speaks for itself. Of the founding fathers, only John Jay was a recognized christian.

John Jay tried to make christianity a part of the consitution but was rejected for contrarian beliefs. In fact, two important facts were written into our constitution. The first being that NO candidate shall have to be of ANY religious faith to run for elected office. The second says that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SHALL NOT HAVE AN ESTABLISHED RELIGION.

This one clearly eliminates the idea that the USA was founded on christianity.

While the founders with the exception of John Jay considered themselves DEIST, the were scientist and not religious zealots. They hated the world they fled because of its decades of blood letting and strife surrounding forced religion.

They all wrote many things giving perspective to their thoughts and I dont have the time nor desired to post them all here. What I will do, is highlight a few quotes that give an insight to their thought process.

Thomas Jefferson:
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind."

"It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism, he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it."

Benjamin Franklin:
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England."

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

JAMES MADISON:

"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."



THOMAS PAINE:

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.

"What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith."

"We do not admit the authority of the church with respect to its pretended infallibility, its manufactured miracles, its setting itself up to forgive sins. It was by propagating that belief and supporting it with fire that she kept up her temporal power."

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."


I can go on and on for hours, but I think you can get the picture from this very small sampling of thoughts.

Indeed, christianity is here, but its not a part of our founding, no more than Jehovahs Witness, Catholic, Jewish, Budist, Muslim or Atheism.

The founders were closer to accepting Atheism than they were Christianity.

I hope this helps you understand the point.

Peace.

 

[MrFedEx]

I really don't know what else to say. I try to get others to see different viewpoint of offensive names and it's dismissed as
"trivial" on my part; a non-issue. I try to use the Bible to back arguments that I have made only to be made fun of and called more names. If our country, a country founded on Christian beliefs, has come to this, I'm afraid. Now is the time when we need God more than ever; maybe our country is weakening because the very God that blessed our nation is appalled that the majority of its citizens are turning their back to Him. What I do know is that if this lack of compassion and lack of reverence to God is what hope and change is all about; I want nothing to do with any of it.
Say what you want about me.
I don't care.
Say what you want about God,
He does care and will return and give you all you have asked for.
Offensive terms are not equal, but their hurt is.
I'm out.
I'm done.

It's great that you want everyone else to believe the way you do, which is a typical Christian issue. Why is it that you can't tolerate the belief systems of others, and just let it be? Instead, you shove God down our throats.

Do I think Scientologists are nuts? Yes, but they have a right to believe whatever they wish, as do the rest of us in this "Christian" nation, which isn't a Christian nation at all. We're supposed to have "freedom of religion", which allows you to bang your Bible, and me to worship a volcano if I so choose.

BIBLE BANGERS 10:2

 

[trplnkl]

It's great that you want everyone else to believe the way you do, which is a typical Christian issue. Why is it that you can't tolerate the belief systems of others, and just let it be? Instead, you shove God down our throats.

Do I think Scientologists are nuts? Yes, but they have a right to believe whatever they wish, as do the rest of us in this "Christian" nation, which isn't a Christian nation at all. We're supposed to have "freedom of religion", which allows you to bang your Bible, and me to worship a volcano if I so choose.

BIBLE BANGERS 10:2

I've seen no place that grunt criticized or mocked you for your lack of faith in God or Jesus. I've seen no hate coming from him toward you, while on the other hand I have seen plenty coming from you directed to him and anyone else who has faith. You are the one trying to shove your lack of belief down others throats, not visa versa. You seem to think anyone stating a faith in God is the same as shoving it down your throat. It is becoming apparent you are both the pot and the kettle.

 

[The Other Side]

I've seen no place that grunt criticized or mocked you for your lack of faith in God or Jesus. I've seen no hate coming from him toward you, while on the other hand I have seen plenty coming from you directed to him and anyone else who has faith. You are the one trying to shove your lack of belief down others throats, not visa versa. You seem to think anyone stating a faith in God is the same as shoving it down your throat. It is becoming apparent you are both the pot and the kettle.

Psst Trip,

I hate to spoil your parade, but it was UPSGRUNT who said "We" (that means us all collectively) need GOD to help save america. That would be interpreted as "We" (those of us who participate on this board and all americans) would have to chose to be christians and worship "his" god in order to bring security and peace (or the totality of correctness) to the United States of America.

This is exactly "shoving" his religion down our throats.

While I in no way believe that GRUNT was saying anything negative, and I respect his positions, I will confim that he was not mocking anyone. On the other hand, his referencing GOD as the only saving grace of this country implies there is no other way to solve our problems as a nation, and that itself can be insulting to non believers or believers of a different faith.

The introduction of religion into a political debate is exactly what the founding fathers DID NOT WANT as I demonstrated.

This dialog only confuses the issues at hand.

I believe GRUNT is a stong person of faith, and thats to be respected, but when he mentions the founding fathers intentions in the process, well then a correction needed to be made.

Religion in this country, especially on the right, has done nothing but create the kind of atmosphere the founding fathers were trying to escape when they all left europe.

The evangelical right has taken control of the party and forces its beliefs down the throats of its followers and they condemn the left for being, exactly like the founding fathers.

Thats what makes the tea party such hypocrites. The democrats are closer to the founding fathers than any republican could ever hope to be.

The right would comdemn any democrat who goes to church but supports a womens right to choose, but it would embrace people like Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich and other prominent republicans with a string of ex wives.

Family Values.... what a crock.

Peace.

 

[trplnkl]

Psst Trip,

I hate to spoil your parade, but it was UPSGRUNT who said "We" (that means us all collectively) need GOD to help save america. That would be interpreted as "We" (those of us who participate on this board and all americans) would have to chose to be christians and worship "his" god in order to bring security and peace (or the totality of correctness) to the United States of America.
I believe that you would dance in the streets if you were able to "spoil" my "parade", but you'll have to keep trying. Grunt was expressing his opinion on the way to save this country based on his own beliefs. If you don't accept his beliefs that is your business, but it doesn't give you or anyone else free reign to disparage his faith and that has been done, several times.
This is exactly "shoving" his religion down our throats.
If that is your idea of "shoving", I'll give you the opportunity to choose if you are the pot or the kettle for that equates to your "shoving" your political extremes down everyone's throat. You've spent more time trying to prove him wrong and attacking his beliefs to promote your own leftist agenda, when simply saying. " I disagree" would suffice.

While I in no way believe that GRUNT was saying anything negative, and I respect his positions, I will confim that he was not mocking anyone. On the other hand, his referencing GOD as the only saving grace of this country implies there is no other way to solve our problems as a nation, and that itself can be insulting to non believers or believers of a different faith.
You may have a point, however why is a perceived insult to non believers trump (not the donald) the open and blatant insults to a believer? I suspect that Grunt and I disagree on many religious issues which in and of themselves are irrelevant to this discussion, but I wouldn't disparage his faith in the process. You confirm Grunt wasn't mocking anyone, do you feel he has been mocked?

The introduction of religion into a political debate is exactly what the founding fathers DID NOT WANT as I demonstrated.
All the evidence you provided doesn't truly support that statement. It does support the fact that the founding fathers (as a group) wanted to make sure there was no official established religion. On the other hand, the moral codes injected over and over in the Constitution suggest that God was an important part of the thinking of many of the founding fathers. Yes there was a few deist, hardly the majority. But that's actually a different debate.

This dialog only confuses the issues at hand.
Why would it confuse the issue? In any debate, all the participants have to agree on the authority of the sources. If anyone doesn't accept a source, they are free to ignore it. It's only confusing because some want to jump on the chance to defame the other person.

I believe GRUNT is a stong person of faith, and thats to be respected, but when he mentions the founding fathers intentions in the process, well then a correction needed to be made.
And for some reason corrections have to be made with harsh words and insults, whether direct or implied?

Religion in this country, especially on the right, has done nothing but create the kind of atmosphere the founding fathers were trying to escape when they all left europe.
Again, the FFs wanted to assure there was no established religion. What people of your thinking always seem to point out is the part of the "establishment clause" while simultaneously ignoring the "Free Exercise Clause". Is that over sight? Is it trying to hedge the bet? or is it hypocrisy?

The evangelical right has taken control of the party and forces its beliefs down the throats of its followers and they condemn the left for being, exactly like the founding fathers.

Incredible, such assumptions are baseless and untrue. The evangelical right are drawn to the republican party because the basic party platform more suits their beliefs than does the democratic platform. The only real result of the evangelicals have had on the party is to bring the ideals that have been there for a very long time to the forefront.

Thats what makes the tea party such hypocrites. The democrats are closer to the founding fathers than any republican could ever hope to be.
Sorry, everyone that you disagree with are not hypocrites. I'm sure we both could find parts from the founding fathers that we agree with and some we disagree with. Both parties hold on to certain principles the founding fathers put into the constitution. As I understand it, the biggest thing that the TP claims as their connection to the FFs is the role of government in many areas. Not being a die hard TP supporter I can't tell you what happens at the meetings they have, I suspect you can't either.

The right would comdemn any democrat who goes to church but supports a womens right to choose, but it would embrace people like Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich and other prominent republicans with a string of ex wives.


Family Values.... what a crock.
Now you are confusing two distinctly different issues. If you want to discuss that, we can do it a different time and place. Doing it now would cause confusion in a debate.

Peace.

 

[The Other Side]

Now thats how you respond intelligently. Well said.

Peace.

 

[klein]

From an outsider point of view, I seen it tasteless singing "God bless America" out on the streets, as Bin Laden got killed, just as tasteless as screaming "God is Great" when the other religion kills someone.

God should be kept out of politics, totally.

 

[The Other Side]

From an outsider point of view, I seen it tasteless singing "God bless America" out on the streets, as Bin Laden got killed, just as tasteless as screaming "God is Great" when the other religion kills someone.

God should be kept out of politics, totally.

The way it was intended when it was founded.

Peace.

 

[trplnkl]

The way it was intended when it was founded.

Peace.

Now see, there ya go again. Granted there were a few that intended that, the others recognized the need to prevent mandated religion.

 

[MrFedEx]

Psst Trip,

I hate to spoil your parade, but it was UPSGRUNT who said "We" (that means us all collectively) need GOD to help save america. That would be interpreted as "We" (those of us who participate on this board and all americans) would have to chose to be christians and worship "his" god in order to bring security and peace (or the totality of correctness) to the United States of America.

This is exactly "shoving" his religion down our throats.

While I in no way believe that GRUNT was saying anything negative, and I respect his positions, I will confim that he was not mocking anyone. On the other hand, his referencing GOD as the only saving grace of this country implies there is no other way to solve our problems as a nation, and that itself can be insulting to non believers or believers of a different faith.

The introduction of religion into a political debate is exactly what the founding fathers DID NOT WANT as I demonstrated.

This dialog only confuses the issues at hand.

I believe GRUNT is a stong person of faith, and thats to be respected, but when he mentions the founding fathers intentions in the process, well then a correction needed to be made.

Religion in this country, especially on the right, has done nothing but create the kind of atmosphere the founding fathers were trying to escape when they all left europe.

The evangelical right has taken control of the party and forces its beliefs down the throats of its followers and they condemn the left for being, exactly like the founding fathers.

Thats what makes the tea party such hypocrites. The democrats are closer to the founding fathers than any republican could ever hope to be.

The right would comdemn any democrat who goes to church but supports a womens right to choose, but it would embrace people like Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich and other prominent republicans with a string of ex wives.

Family Values.... what a crock.

Peace.

Thank you. The "God Squad" doesn't like their hypocrisy to be called-out.

 

[moreluck]

I heard that Nascar had Trump lined up for the pace care for the 500 and now they don't want him because of all the birth cert. stuff.

 

[MrFedEx]

I heard that Nascar had Trump lined up for the pace care for the 500 and now they don't want him because of all the birth cert. stuff.

Sounds like a smart move by NASCAR. They're probably worried what would happen if his hair let go at 100 mph. Thousands could be killed. They don't want him because he is an embarassment to the world.