will he tell us the truth about his birth, or will he keep it a secret and bring it into his coffin?
Printable View
will he tell us the truth about his birth, or will he keep it a secret and bring it into his coffin?
After he retires, will anybody give a shit what people tried to make up about him? Shit, people don't even remember the truth about Reagan, either Bush, or Clinton.
All to say: learn to spell cocaine.
when did he turn 65?
What are you saying is the truth about his birth?Quote:
Originally Posted by John Terry
JT, you've been duped by hate media.
You'll take your stupidity to your coffin.
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar
Maybe that's how the English spell it. Oh wait, it's not. lolz
if he says he is not born in usa then he should be tried and face the fire squad
I'd request you go firstQuote:
Originally Posted by ducks
he milkin that govt pension for lifetime...
Doesn't he have to have a career to retire?
Oh forgot...federal govt.
He was born a muslim so he'll die a muslim. Once you get muslim on you you can never get it off. That shit is stickier than gulf oil.
BP oil spill can disappear, but Mohammedism can't?
The Constitution says their is to be NO TEST for religion to hold office, but WTF do you right-wingers know about the parts of the Constitution you don't agree with?
I did not lie to congress and all the people that are legal usa cititzensQuote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
you mean people are suppose to follow the consitution?Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
if people would get rid of the ammendents and go back to the consitution usa would be better off
ducks, what is your evidence he is not a US citizen?
Amendments are part of the Constitution.
"A Dialogue With Ducks" :lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by ducks
like which ones? equal rights? sufferage? gun ownership? freedom of speech? religion?
I think that part needs to be changed. I think that some people of some religions should be banned. Anyone who follows a religion that dictates the imposition of that law on society should be banned from holding office.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
We do it the right way though. By amendment, protests, increasing knowledge, etc. Not by breaking the law.
Wild Cobra wants Constitutional thought police.
Nice.
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Christianity does not impose itself over law, nor do most other faiths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Why is it funny for me not to want a follower of Sharia law, or other authoritarian religion, not be able to serve?
I started to answer this, but started a new thread for my response:Quote:
Originally Posted by ducks
Constitutional Changes
It's religious discrimination. It's not necessarily funny by itself, but it is funny seeing you condone it so explicitly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You do know that the First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
And uhm... there's quite a few Christians out there that would be nabbed by this law.
Right.... so there wasn't any judge who tried to put the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, or any numerous amount of politicians who use God as a justification for policy, or use the Judeo-Christian values as a basis for morality... etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
How do you figure?Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Does it meet this criteria:
Quote:
Anyone who follows a religion that dictates the imposition of that law on society should be banned from holding office.
What exactly do you mean by "dictates that law" etc etc? After all, many religious folk use the Bible as justification for certain laws based off morality. Should they be unable to hold office?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
What about people who are Muslims, but don't agree with enforcing their religion as law? Is that ok?
You make it sound like there's only one Islam. Islam believers have various beliefs/strengths of belief, as do Christians.
Personal justification is not the same as having to follow a strict law of your religion. In fact, somplace in the Bible, it says God's followers are to be law abiding. God's law if for the people. Not for the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
So they are false followers? Wouldn't their own disown them?Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Yes, there are different sects. I'm not ruling all Islams out by my statement. Only those who are in a sect that requires strict laws of the religion that are imposed over others.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
someplace in the Bible it says says a woman must not teach, remain silent and must be subjugated to her man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
fuck yeah! God's law for the people!
What about anyone that tries to impose Christian law on society?Quote:
Yes, there are different sects. I'm not ruling all Islams out by my statement. Only those who are in a sect that requires strict laws of the religion that are imposed over others.
Isn't that a textbook definition of a religion 'dictating the imposition of law on society'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Gotta love those Cafeteria Christians.
Some of those who the profess traditional creeds of the USA yearn for official recognition as a protected minority against the crypto-pagan, crypto-libertarian onslaught of popular culture.
When government is called on to protect traditional values, you can be pretty sure their power and influence is reaching a low ebb in society.
Traditional values need a government bailout too.
Ive heard that traditional values is going public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I might go in on a few shares.
The distinction you don't see, where I draw the line, is that the Bible does not tell God's followers to impose God's will on others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
You too?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
No. It's telling God's followers to obey local laws.
It doesn't tell people to impose God's will upon others. Does it?
So if God's law conflicts with the law, like, for instance, stoning children who talk back to their parents, then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Wouldn't this apply?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It's their right to believe whatever cuckoo nonsense they wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Uhm... are you sure about that? :lol I mean, if God commanded his followers to oeby his laws, and they conflict with a regular law, wouldn't that imply God telling his followers to impose God's will?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
http://www.collider.com/uploads/imag...brando__1_.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Blake
^^^Iconic emphasis on tradition and family values. 1972.
And what happens if they don't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Does every muslim you know tries to impose their God's will upon you? Or you don't know any muslims?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Wouldn't you be called a 'false follower' (whatever that means) if you deem yourself a christian and don't follow god's laws?Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
So I see Darrins is still stuck on the non existent shariah issue..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake