The simmering dispute between Hamilton County commissioners who see nothing wrong with opening every commission meeting with an invocation that invariably includes an appeal “in Jesus’ name” and those who oppose the practice continued last week. There were signs, however, that the debate about the legality and appropriateness of such prayers might be moving toward some sort of resolution — but no indications that such a resolution is imminent.
Early Thursday morning, a U.S. district court judge here ordered a July 26 hearing to consider whether to grant a preliminary injunction to stop the prayers until he can rule on a lawsuit that challenges the legality of such invocations at commission meetings. Yet later that morning, the commission began its meeting as it has done for years: With a prayer intoned by a clergyman who invoked the name of Jesus and who, in the view of some in attendance, seemed to chastise those opposed to religion-specific prayers at commission meetings.
In his invocation, Calvin Nunley of Christ Family Church in Soddy-Daisy referred to “perilous times ... a time when people would be unthankful, unholy and ungrateful ... when men and women would choose to go their own way and ignore what is right.” It’s easy to see why some individuals in attendance were offended. They understandably believed the pastor’s words implied they were wicked.
If there was any doubt about which side of the issue the pastor stood, he erased it by saying, “So father, I thank you Lord, for our leaders. ... I thank you for the courage that they have shown in this meeting to allow prayer to be made at the beginning of this meeting.” After he finished, commissioners gave Nunley a clock, the traditional gift to those who offer the invocation.
Tommy Coleman, one of the plaintiffs in the suit against the commissioners and County Attorney Rheubin Taylor, understood both the meaning and intent of the pastor’s words.
“You [the commission] are an obstinate and exclusionary government body. Not only did you bring the minister in here to attack us, but you rewarded him for it.” There’s no way to prove the first of Coleman’s sentiments, but the second is irrefutable.
The commission’s actions indicate unqualified support for public, religion-specific prayer — even in the face of court rulings that government can not endorse prayers for a specific religion, and the knowledge that each commission district includes adherents of many beliefs. There is a sign, though, that commission practices might be changing.
The commission’s legal committee has drafted a new policy for selecting invocation speakers. It would create a countywide database of clergy and use it to issue a blanket invitation to provide a prayer at a commission meeting. Those responding positively would be taken on a first-come, first-serve basis. If the program is implemented, it would be a tangible response to the current controversy..
It is likely that a wide array of clergy would respond positively to the invitation. That, in turn, should lead to more ecumenical and more inclusive prayers that reflect the county’s increasingly diverse population. That might be a viable way to avoid endorsement of a specific religion through public prayer, but it is not the most satisfactory.
The best way to resolve the issue is to eliminate all prayer at commission meetings. Alternatively, commissioners could ask for a moment of silence when all could pray — or not — as they chose. That would honor the desire to pray as well as the equally acceptable belief that prayer — and certainly religion-specific prayer — has no place at a public meeting.
Commissioners, so far, have failed to acknowledge that religious freedom does not mean imposing one’s own beliefs on others. Until they do, the acrimonious debate about government endorsed prayer here will consume time and money that should be spent on other issues.
Well written! Thank you!
re: 'After he finished, commissioners gave Nunley a clock, the traditional gift to those who offer the invocation.'
Must have been one of those clocks with the 'hands' that never move., or move backward in time.
The constitution protects everyone from the likes of you, Ken Orr, and others who are sure that they alone have the TROOTH (TM) and the rest of us are wrong.
Simply put these people are practicing atheists who are opposed to prayer and any recognition of God anytime and anywhere.
I don't know if the two plaintiffs are avowed atheists it is enough for me to see their actions to know they are practicing atheists. The writer indicts himself as well with his "The best way to resolve the issue is to eliminate all prayer at commission meetings" statement.
Dear God, Protect me from your true believers and the charlatans who claim to know your mind. Amen and can you get me free tickets to Dollywood?
Simply put these people are practicing atheists who are opposed to prayer and any recognition of God anytime and anywhere.
First, it is requested that OFFICIAL government meetings not start with SECTARIAN prayer. That's a lot different than your statement above.
Second, would you feel differently if it were Jews asking that their beliefs be respected in said, tax-payer funded sessions?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. John 1: 1-2
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1: 14
Jesus was God manifested in the flesh. So when a Christian prays at any public gathering he is praying to Jesus as well, even if he only uses the words "God" or "Lord".
So there!
I'll ask again, since I never seem to get an answer from those supporting public prayer, here goes.
Jesus himself condemned public prayer and admonished his followers to go into their closet and to pray in private so that their heavenly father might reward them in public.
How is Jesus' own command being honored among the Christian's who insist on engaging in public prayer? Can I get an answer from the Christian readers please?
Fendrel...
FYI my comment Friday on the loontoonist's page titled "The Official Seal". JAHCHILD also explained the meaning of the passage of Scripture in Mathew 6:5-6 :
Regarding the misuse and twisting of Mathew 6: 5&6 by those who will try anything to stop prayer in public meetings : Jesus did not condemn prayer to God in public but prayer performed by those in public who wanted to put on a false show of piety, prayer to be seen by men so they might be admired for their piety. Hypocritical prayer is the prayer condemned by Jesus in this passage, the prayer not to God but the prayer to receive the admiration of men.
JAHCHILD is correct, Jesus and his disciples often prayed in public but it was true prayer from the heart to God and not to put on a false show of love, and devotion to God.
Furthermore Scripture commands the Christian to "pray without ceasing" in 1 Thessalonians 5:17. Prayer is communion with God so a simple "praise God" from the lips would be prayer. When the Supreme Court is in session the prayer "God save this honorable court" is invoked!
Also, did you ever notice that TV prayer and "worship and healing services" conducted by hypocritical false teachers are never cited as establishing a religion by Liberals? These false prophets have a much larger audience than a local commission meeting.
June 30, 2012 at 7:59 p.m.
Conservative,
This isn't 1st century Palestine. The Bible is not our Constitution. Who cares whether Jesus condemned public prayer? Public prayer isn't even this issue. The commission is establishing one religion as their own. That is overtly unconstitutional.
I hope the next Hamilton County Commission meeting is packed with every Christian denomination, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists. Voudoans, Pastafarians, American Indians, Zoroastrians, snake-handlers and poison drinkers, followers of Fred Phelps, a couple of jack-leg Mormons, and a African witch doctor.
When it's time for the Commission's "Official Prayer De Jour", everyone in attendance prays out loud. Please take your time in praying out loud and feel free to shake, shout, writhe on the floor, and, if you so desire, condemn your non-believing neighbors like last week's prayer.
If the Commission demands public prayer in their meetings,give it to them. How can they object?
Liberals relentlessly lie about the Constitutionality of public prayer. Most avoid reference to the First Amendment for fear that someone may actually look it up. Those who do gamble that others will not look it up or have been duped themselves having never read the First Amendment.
Yes, I am going to provide the First Amendment for you to read :
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Notice the first word, CONGRESS, it is CONGRESS which is prohibited from establishing a state or national religion! That is so clear, those are the words of the Constitution! I am a Christian and I am glad CONGRESS has never established a state or national religion.
Public prayer is not establishing a national religion, not unconstitutional and is protected speech.
I relish opportunities to refute this egregious Liberal lie and I will also be relentless.
conservative, I noticed that you drew comparison between a televangelist being on tv and an official meeting of governance.
Regarding the issue that is in debate, do you feel that there is no difference in your two examples?
read it again.
I agree, let's give everyone a chance at the microphone and have a prayer from each religion so everyone is represented. Then we'll see how these people like freedom of ALL religion or no religion, the real principle of this country concerning faith.
Conservative,
Thank you for your response, however...
Since there is no more efficacy in public prayer then there is in simply quietly praying in one's head, and since there is ample opportunity to pray as a group prior to the meeting, out of the public eye, thus avoiding any appearance of favoritism, then it's reasonable to assume that they are indeed praying just for public show.
Why offend some people, or create a controversy when there is no need or justification for doing so. I agree with Ken that Jesus was rebuking those who do it for show, but this is exactly what is currently going on in the commission meetings.
conservative said: "Also, did you ever notice that TV prayer and "worship and healing services" conducted by hypocritical false teachers are never cited as establishing a religion by Liberals? These false prophets have a much larger audience than a local commission meeting."
Now, will you answer my question?
Conservative,
"Notice the first word, CONGRESS, it is CONGRESS which is prohibited from establishing a state or national religion! That is so clear, those are the words of the Constitution! I am a Christian and I am glad CONGRESS has never established a state or national religion.
Public prayer is not establishing a national religion, not unconstitutional and is protected speech."
This has already been refuted.
I relish opportunities to refute your egregious, isane lie and I will also be relentless. I will refute you everytime I see you attempt to pass this misinformation off as truth.
You are a charlatan. You know precisely how the 1st amendment is interpreted. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the Supreme Court.
State constitution is controlling here. Why do people always forget that?
dao1980...
I don't agree with your absolute "no difference" premise.
However, there are two points I wanted to make, one to Liberals and the other to Christians.
Radio and TV are licensed by the Feds. Therefore according to Liberal thinking the federal government would be establishing a religion by allowing Christian broadcasting. They pray on these broadcasts.
The fact that Liberals don't voice outrage or whine about false teachers (false prophets) on TV is because they aren't true Christians at all. Many are slick and use the right words but seldom if ever teach sound Biblical doctrine. However, they do teach a lot of non Biblical nonsense. If this were my only source of who is Jesus is, I would reject it too! I don't watch them.
Jesus warned his would be disciples about these false prophets : “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Mathew 7: 15-16. False prophets entice those ignorant of Biblical doctrine and capture many. Those who escape will often become atheist claiming they were once Christians. Not so! The fact is they were NEVER Christians.
I'm starting to digress.
happywithnewbulbs said... State constitution is controlling here. Why do people always forget that?
They only care about state's rights when it is convenient to them. Every constitution has the separation of church and state. In the past, Christians saw it as protecting them, because it does. Now, they just want to destroy it.
conservative said... Jesus warned his would be disciples about these false prophets : “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Mathew 7: 15-16. False prophets entice those ignorant of Biblical doctrine and capture many. Those who escape will often become atheist claiming they were once Christians. Not so! The fact is they were NEVER Christians.
I consider YOU one of those Jesus was talking about. By not allowing any mistakes or translations in the bible, you are refusing to see what the original intentions were. When the word for maiden is used as virgin, the word for sin was used for obstacle, the list goes on and on. You post like you are holier than thou and JUDGE all those that disagree with you. Your fruits are showing. Yes, I think YOU are exactly what Jesus was talking about.
conservative,
You have attempted to avoid my direct question, and still answered it within your nonsense. Not surprising since you have a history of hiding from your intellect for fear it may encroach upon your ill placed abuse of faith.
Your statement was insinuating that the two are similar.
You then said: "Radio and TV are licensed by the Feds. Therefore according to Liberal thinking the federal government would be establishing a religion by allowing Christian broadcasting. They pray on these broadcasts."
The opiate, emotionally and spiritually LAZY faith that you substitute in place of rational thinking has truly rotted out your mind. Your intellectual dishonesty has produced blind directionless anti-logic within your mumbling, and fumbling cherry-picking of bible verses.
You went on to state: "The fact that Liberals don't voice outrage or whine about false teachers (false prophets) on TV is because they aren't true Christians at all. Many are slick and use the right words but seldom if ever teach sound Biblical doctrine. However, they do teach a lot of non Biblical nonsense. If this were my only source of who is Jesus is, I would reject it too! I don't watch them."
Add a dash of far-right-wing paranoia, and here you have the true zealot in his pitiful self inflicted state.
A pharisee happily enmeshed in his lust for fantasy and magical ridiculousness. Lost and truly lacking for any semblance of vision or perspective upon the realities that surround him.
Now you are speaking in tongues (gibberish). I'll just add you to my list of those I don't read or respond to.
And he' bows out.. It got just a little over your head huh conservative?
The funny thing is half of the content in my post (the one you cried "gibberish!" about) was copied and pasted from yours for reference.
Hey, here's an idea. If your "I ain't gonna read ya" list gets long enough, you'll be talking to only yourself. (just like those quiet times when you think sky daddy is telling you that folks that's different from you is going to straight ta hell)
Which god do we pray to? Here's a few to add to that "Old Time Religion."
Old Time Religion
We will pray to Aphrodite
She's beautiful but flighty
In her silken see-thru nightie
She's good enough for me.
We will pray to Zarathrustra,
Pray just like we used-to,
I'm a Zarathrustra booster,
He's good enough for me.
We will pray just like the Druids,
Drinking strange fermented fluids,
Go dancing naked through the woods,
They're good enough for me.
We will pray to the god Buddha,
Of gods there is none cuter,
Comes in silver, brass or pewter,
He's good enough for me.
We will pray with those Egyptians,
Who built pyramids to put our crypts in,
Covered up with strange inscriptions,
They're good enough for me.
We will pray to Ra and Ahmen
Just like Tutankhamen,
And teach our friends embalming,
They're good enough for me.
Hare Krishna he must be laughed on,
To see me dressed in saffron,
With my hair only half-on
He's good enough for me.
I will rise up at early morning,
When my Lord gives me the warning,
That the solar age is dawning,
He's good enough for me.
We won't worship like the Persians,
We'll sacrifice no virgins,
Please control your carnal urgin's,
It's good enough for me.
We will all worship the Mother
Not the womb of any other
Virgin, crone and mother
She's good enough for me
We will pray for New Age Aquarians,
And hang out in Planetariums,
Lotta um are Unitarians,
They're good enough for me.
We will pray to a god named Odin,
In their wooden boats go floatin'
Filled Europe with forbodin'
He's good enough for me.
We will pray to the Quakers
Oft confused with the Shakers,
Of war they are not makers,
They're good enough for me.
We will pray to the god Shiva,
the one with many sleeva's
Who destroys all disbelivas
He's good enough for me.
We will pray to rev Moon
All our friend will think we're loony
As we sing this crazy tune-y,
He's good enough for me.
Add the god of your choice—there's plenty to choose from. See you at the next Commission meeting!
I agree, public prayer before a meeting is not establishment. What exactly do those disagreeing believe they are establishing? They're not saying their beliefs should be the law of the land, just seeking guidance for their decisions.
LaughingBoy said... I agree, public prayer before a meeting is not establishment. What exactly do those disagreeing believe they are establishing? They're not saying their beliefs should be the law of the land, just seeking guidance for their decisions.
Why don't we just ask the Flying Speghetti Monster? Would you agree to some guidance from that diety? I don't want a politician that has to ask an imaginary friend what he is supposed to do. The constitution is the guide, and it is not biblical.
Laughing Boy, If I hire you to run my company and you accept the job. Then after starting the job, we find out that you have to run to someone else to get answers, you would not be running my company long. Whether you did it before work or not, makes no difference. We the people have hired (elected) these guys to do a job. Now, we find out they have to go ask a deity about guidance to their job when the manual, (the constitution) is there the entire time. Thes guys swore to uphold the constitution. They failed and are in breach of their oath.
What I get from reading a lot of these posts is...there are those that are so scared and insecure in their emptiness of atheism that any mention of Christianity is not tolerated by the ones that preach (and I use that word loosely) to be tolerable of others.
If you will notice, they have no problem having prayer for all religions except Christianity, and it would be OK with them if we gave ample time for religions that instruct their followers to kill all those that don't believe as they do.
When it's all said and done, they are just scared and insecure within themselves, and Christianity is the religion large enough in the U.S.A. to have them scurrying like rats when any discussion of religion takes place.
Fendrel said... “How is Jesus' own command being honored among the Christian's who insist on engaging in public prayer? Can I get an answer from the Christian readers please?”
Jesus wasn’t condemning all public prayer. The context of the passage in Matthew 6 (and the rest of the book) makes this clear. He, himself, prayed publically on at least three occasions recorded in Matthew. (Matthew 11:25-26, Matthew 14:19, Matthew 15:36) In chapter 6, he was addressing wrong motives and hypocrisy with respect to prayer, fasting, and meeting the needs of the poor. IMHO, the prayer offered last Thursday falls under the type that Jesus criticized. Unfortunate for everyone involved. It was in poor taste, but it’s not unconstitutional. The new policy is similar to that followed by many other legislative bodies, and it should work just fine.
Regarding the Constitution, it doesn’t address public prayers. At the time, public prayers were offered in every branch of government and at every level, and the practice has continued virtually uninterrupted ever since. If you want to amend the Constitution further, go for it. Stop trying to manipulate courts into re-shaping it to accommodate your too-easily-offended religious (or anti-religious, as the case may be) sensibilities and opinions.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a national denomination (“religion”), and it restricts Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Considering the fact that official denominations continued to exist in the states, it’s obvious that they were only addressing the federal Congress. Eliminating state denominations was not accomplished by declaring them unconstitutional.
Chattman, I challenge you to find anything in my posts that support what you just posted. Look carefully.
chatt_man,
That is a common belief by Christians. However, it is exactly the opposite. Christians show their insecurity by feeling the need to pray in public, win others to Christ, etc. Christians need to bring others to their side so that they can feel better about their beliefs. They desperately need others to believe what they believe to reconcile their own beliefs.
"If you will notice, they have no problem having prayer for all religions except Christianity, and it would be OK with them if we gave ample time for religions that instruct their followers to kill all those that don't believe as they do."
This is a lie. I would bet any atheist you talked to would be against any religion. We just happened to live in a country that is 80% Christian so that is the religion we all deal with the most and are dealing with in the case with the Commission.
When it's all said and done, your beliefs are still baseless. You believe something off no evidence. YOU are insecure. YOU need constant reinforcement by others. YOU constantly need to pray. YOU constantly need to win others to you side. I've never seen or heard of an atheist do any of that.
I noticed you were too much of a coward to comment until now. Who is scurrying like a rat? I'd love to discuss religion with you. It wouldn't be pleasant for you though as I'm positive I know more about your own religion than you do. But please, let's have it out.
Easy, I have to work for a living and can't linger around on the site like you do. I visit the site as I can, and post as I see something that catches my attention. I guess it is true what others say about you sitting around eating government cheese, waiting to broadcast your ignorance in front of everyone. I would give your rebuttal more consideration, if it wasn't always the atheists screaming about Christianity, but it's always the other way around.
You can call coward all you want, the ignorance you've shown in past posts calls for no back and forth, as it never ends with you.
Now go back to your room, and let the adults have their time...
Ahem, chattman, I challenged you to support your post with evidence. I too work for a living, am liberal, and don't fit the stereotype you seem to see.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."
The First Amendment clearly states that CONGRESS shall make no law to establish a religion. No mention of Chattanooga here so how does a Liberal even begin to claim that prayer at a commission hearing is establishing a religion? What kind of a person would continue to make such an outrageous claim after having been confronted with the truth?
The silly arguments offered here.
Radio and TV? Licensed? Sure, but on neutral terms, the same as copyrights, trademarks and nonprofit status.
Content doesn't matter so much.
And What I get from reading a lot of these posts is...there are those that are so scared and insecure in their empty Christianity that any mention of not following it is not tolerated by the ones that preach their piety to others.
Especially the ones who have to look down on others.
Chattman,
Lol! Are you too scared to debate me? I figured you would be. :)
Conservative,
What kind of a person would continue to make such an outrageous claim after having been confronted with the truth? Your claim has been refuted. Take it up with the Supreme Court.
I suggest you watch the movie "Red State" to see the brand of religious tolerance that the fanatical Christians (and Sharia Muslims, Opus Dei, Fred Phelps and his Westboro nutters, Christian Re-constructionists,Jim Jones and his Kool-Aid kids, Mel Gibson's whacked-out bunch, and the list goes on)would like to bring about.
They're crazy scary! Nothing like nut-job religious fanatics with god whispering in their ears.
Try "The Life Zone" or if you prefer your sanity, Colbert's review of it.
I agree with the obamists here. The practice of religion should not occcur outside the walls of a physical church building. Any expression of faith is not appropriate for public display. Unless of course Michelle Obama deems it appropriate.
And before ikee has a panties in a wad moment, if Michelle Obama goes to a church and exorts those people to political action, just who in the hell is that political action to benefit ? Her's was not a generic call to action, it was a call to reinstall Barack of Nazareth as POTUS. Pretty damn political wouldn't you say?
Nope. She did not endorse a party or a candidate. Any preacher could ask his or her congregation to do the same. Did you read the transcript?
What does this have to do with prayer before government meetings, anyway?
Yes I read the transcript. And it was Michelle Obama speaking. If Laura Bush ever did anything similar CNN and NPR would STILL be soiling their collective pants.
The Obama regime has declared itself the state through it EO's. For the wife of the regime leader to even enter a church for something other than worship crosses the line. Sebelius and Obama want churches to violate their basic beliefs. They think religion should only be practiced inside a church, not in a hospital or aid relief organization. Its a two edged sword.
I bet you will find politicians AND their spouses talking in churches regularly, including Bush. People are asked to speak at churches all the time. Stop lying and making this out to be a) more than it is and b) not related to the prayer in government meetings issue.
I never lie. I am not a Progressive.
And it is more than a prayer in government meeting issue. The Progressive thugs pushing the issue in Chattanooga are no doubt worshipers of Barack. Barack is trying to destroy the Christian church in America. He wants them to hide in the confines of their worship building and not defy the orders of his regime. Barack and his followers seem schocked that anyone would defy them. Its only begun to get ugly.
I visited a non-Regime site a moment ago. I now call for prayers for Obama and Govenment Motors. Stock price at record low, taxpayers now on hook for 35,000,000,000. Now thats a BFD. That would buy a lot of birth control. Shame on Barry.
And it is more than a prayer in government meeting issue. The Progressive thugs pushing the issue in Chattanooga are no doubt worshipers of Barack. Barack is trying to destroy the Christian church in America. He wants them to hide in the confines of their worship building and not defy the orders of his regime. Barack and his followers seem schocked that anyone would defy them. Its only begun to get ugly
Evidence, please? Besides your psychotic delusions, of course.
When you force religious institutions to kill babies when they do not want to kill babies you are attempting to destroy the religious institutions. It is really a simple concept.
When you force religious institutions to kill babies when they do not want to kill babies
Evidence that the Obama administration aims to "kill babies"?
"force religious institutions to kill babies"
Awesome, hilarious, amazing, disappointing,... entertaining?
How do you even know up from down when the world seems so strange?
Don't you just feel like you're living out some bad trip JonRoss?
You have a good reason to feel lost and terrified, everyone is really out to get you, and the voices in your head are real...
You know exactly what I am talking about.
And no, I am not on some bad trip. I myself am able to deliver public speeches without using a teleprompter each and every time.
You know exactly what I am talking about.
Stop dodging. Evidence. Produce it or admit you are lying or hallucinating.
Your hate of Christians is showing through.
For the "real story" of how messiahs are created, watch "The Life of Brian" by Monty Python. "Blessed are the cheese-makers."
Let's all sing,"Always Look on the Bright Side of Life".
Show one thing I have said that demonstrates my "hate" of Christians.
Jonny, most of the folks that you perceive as "hating christians" actually are just expressing a consistent distaste for voluntary ignorance.
It seems a little selfish for you to attempt to hoard all of the credit for voluntary ignorance, and reserve it for just one group with your claim of "chrisitan haters!"
There are plenty of philosophies throughout the world that demand it's followers not think for themselves or act upon natural personal interests to understand the world around them.
The Obama administration's demand that people of faith participate in the carnage involved with baby killing is settled fact. You know..just like Obamacare and manmade globle warming.
So dao, the Barry seems to be a big fan of muzziedom. Good thing ?
The Obama administration's demand that people of faith participate in the carnage involved with baby killing is settled fact
Evidence, please. If you can't support what you say, you are lying. Plain and simple.
JonRoss:"The Obama administration's demand that people of faith participate in the carnage involved with baby killing is settled fact."
Is that like the baby killing in Iraq and Afghanistan by George Bush, Obama, and the neo-cons who claim to be people of faith?
As you can.. er,. should be able to tell, I do enjoy studying the occasional historical figure from our country's presidential past.
BUT, you should know by now that you wont get me to speak too well of any current politician, anywhere, any time. (aside from general and obligatory respect-of-office type of stuff)
I will however laugh at those who would, with partisan motivations, champion one career lair over another in the modern arena.
Go team go!... right?
Read several TR bios and some of his own stuff. Incredible individual. But if he knew how his Progressive thoughts and philosophy had been co-opted and bastardized by the ProgDem/Obamist thugocracy he would be spinning in his grave.
No, Obama's baby killing is more like that of the Chinese, Cubans, North Korean, Burmeese, Nazis, Bolsheviks, and Muslims baby killing.
You're absolutely right JonRoss, Ol' TR wouldn't like what he would see if he were around today.
I'll have to keep some distance from the baby killing talk,... I'm not really up to date on all of the modern and hip ways to "kill ya baby".
Nor am I very interested in any of it, since I'm much more eager to see my genes passed on, and to know that they'll experience the world far into the future.
Though, in all seriousness, the baby killin stuff sounds like mostly (borderline intentional) misinterpretations and misunderstandings to me.
Maybe the baby killing is like what god did in the Old Testament. That god, such a loving old coot, isn't he? Idi Amin looks like "Holy Dad of the Year" compared to that fairy-tale father.
Or login with:
New Account