PDA

View Full Version : 52% Of GOP Think Obama Sympathetic To Imposing Sharia Law



ConHunter
08-31-2010, 12:06 PM
http://www.alan.com/2010/08/31/52-of-gop-thinks-obama

I'm going to guess that most of the members of this forum are part of that 52 percent. You guys are so misinformed!

asdf2231
08-31-2010, 12:10 PM
and... moved.

nightflight
08-31-2010, 02:15 PM
Of course he's sympathetic! At the present time Islam is the sworn enemy of the West, and you know the saying, "the enemy of my enemy...."

hampshirebrit
08-31-2010, 02:34 PM
I'm going to guess that most of the members of this forum are part of that 52 percent.

Guess again, fuckwit.

hampshirebrit
08-31-2010, 02:37 PM
and... moved.

It's more Whiny Zone than SLT, although it is definitely an SLT.

malloc
08-31-2010, 03:39 PM
http://www.alan.com/2010/08/31/52-of-gop-thinks-obama

I'm going to guess that most of the members of this forum are part of that 52 percent. You guys are so misinformed!

First off, retard, many members of this forum actually know what Sharia law is, and how it creeps into a society, unlike you who can probably barely manage to remember how to lace up and tie his shoes. Secondly, Alan Colmes. Seriously? What kind of fuckwit would ever think for a microsecond that a lefty idiot like Alan Colmes would get any semblance of respect on this board? I trust Alan Colmes about as much as I trust Al Gore, which is about as much I trust a hungry monkey with my banana.

Were you dropped often as a child, or did you eat a lot of paint chips? Or are you just here to jerk people around, because people like that have a tendency to get taken care of.

BadCat
08-31-2010, 05:17 PM
First off, retard, many members of this forum actually know what Sharia law is, and how it creeps into a society, unlike you who can probably barely manage to remember how to lace up and tie his shoes. Secondly, Alan Colmes. Seriously? What kind of fuckwit would ever think for a microsecond that a lefty idiot like Alan Colmes would get any semblance of respect on this board? I trust Alan Colmes about as much as I trust Al Gore, which is about as much I trust a hungry monkey with my banana.

Were you dropped often as a child, or did you eat a lot of paint chips? Or are you just here to jerk people around, because people like that have a tendency to get taken care of.

Well, obumble is the only "christian" I know of that is celebrating Ramadan.

Zathras
08-31-2010, 07:42 PM
http://chzderp.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/0b389b6a-024a-44e4-a481-9049cd807b87.jpg

Fixed for accuracy.

By the way you cowardly piece of shit, I've called you out. Get your worthless ass to the link below...

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=31426

Or you can prove to everyone here that your a gutless coward and run and hide.

PoliCon
08-31-2010, 09:11 PM
Well, obumble is the only "christian" I know of that is celebrating Ramadan.

and refused to participate in the National day of prayer.

ConHunter
08-31-2010, 09:19 PM
and refused to participate in the National day of prayer.

The National day of prayer violates the Seperation of Church and State.

malloc
08-31-2010, 09:25 PM
The National day of prayer violates the Seperation of Church and State.

Where in USC is that law that says individual politicians can't participate in a Christian function while in office again? :rolleyes: As a matter of fact, where in the Constitution or the USC is a separation of Church and State required? Amendment I states that Congress cannot pass a law which compels the population to conform to any specific religion, but no where does it say that they can't be religious themselves, or they can propose and vote on legislation based on their personal religious beliefs.

You are a whole new kind of idiot aren't you? :rolleyes: You've got to be blarch's sock puppet. They don't make them much dumber than him, and you are certainly following his stupidity and M.O. to a T.

ConHunter
08-31-2010, 09:44 PM
Where in USC is that law that says individual politicians can't participate in a Christian function while in office again? :rolleyes: As a matter of fact, where in the Constitution or the USC is a separation of Church and State required? Amendment I states that Congress cannot pass a law which compels the population to conform to any specific religion, but no where does it say that they can't be religious themselves, or they can propose and vote on legislation based on their personal religious beliefs.

You are a whole new kind of idiot aren't you? :rolleyes: You've got to be blarch's sock puppet. They don't make them much dumber than him, and you are certainly following his stupidity and M.O. to a T.

So I'm an idiot because I don't support the National day of prayer? Read this article:
http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2010/04/au-praises-federal-court.html

malloc
08-31-2010, 09:49 PM
So I'm an idiot because I don't support the National day of prayer?

No you are an idiot because of all the stupid shit you say. In this particular instance you stated that a politician who participates in a national day of prayer is violating the separation of church and state.



Read this article:
http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2010/04/au-praises-federal-court.html

So a federal court struck down a codified day of prayer? What the hell bit of difference does that make in any politicians personal choice to participate or not?

warpig
08-31-2010, 09:57 PM
The National day of prayer violates the Seperation of Church and State.

What seperation of church and state?

ConHunter
08-31-2010, 09:58 PM
No you are an idiot because of all the stupid shit you say. In this particular instance you stated that a politician who participates in a national day of prayer is violating the separation of church and state.



So a federal court struck down a codified day of prayer? What the hell bit of difference does that make in any politicians personal choice to participate or not?

No difference what so ever. They just don't have a right to make other people participate. Why did the National day of prayer need to be signed in to law?

Constitutionally Speaking
08-31-2010, 10:02 PM
The National day of prayer violates the Seperation of Church and State.


Can you tell me where this phrase occurs in our Constitution?? If you can find it (or if you can't) Please explain to me why Jefferson funded CHRISTIAN missionaries with federal funds?

You would THINK that if the intent of the 1st Amendment was to really separate Church and State, that this would have been a no-go.

While you are at it, could you also explain to me why most states had religious REQUIREMENTS in order for anyone to hold public office. That SURELY would have violated that basic tenet - yet at the time of the Constitution's passing - no one batted an eye!

malloc
08-31-2010, 10:02 PM
No difference what so ever. They just don't have a right to make other people participate. Why did the National day of prayer need to be signed in to law?

We are discussing Obama's participation in the national day of prayer. As for the tangent you went off on: I agree, that it doesn't need to be a law, and this bill that was signed did not coerce anyone to participate, it simply offered encouragement to participate.

PoliCon
08-31-2010, 10:04 PM
The National day of prayer violates the Seperation of Church and State.

and celebrating ramadan doesn't?? :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
08-31-2010, 10:07 PM
Can you tell me where this phrase occurs in our Constitution?? If you can find it (or if you can't) Please explain to me why Jefferson funded CHRISTIAN missionaries with federal funds?

You would THINK that if the intent of the 1st Amendment was to really separate Church and State, that this would have been a no-go.

While you are at it, could you also explain to me why most states had religious REQUIREMENTS in order for anyone to hold public office. That SURELY would have violated that basic tenet - yet at the time of the Constitution's passing - no one batted an eye!

I would like to know if this troll has to answer the questions put to him before he can post more crap?

nightflight
08-31-2010, 10:10 PM
Billo the Clown, KKKlannity, Drug-Ridden Scumbag Limbaugh, Mentally Ill Beck, Malkin, Bush, Cheney, McInsane, Rove, Palin, and Bachmann are modern day Nazis.

Conservative media is propaganda to the fullest!

Wow!

ConHunter
08-31-2010, 10:35 PM
Can you tell me where this phrase occurs in our Constitution?? If you can find it (or if you can't) Please explain to me why Jefferson funded CHRISTIAN missionaries with federal funds?

You would THINK that if the intent of the 1st Amendment was to really separate Church and State, that this would have been a no-go.

While you are at it, could you also explain to me why most states had religious REQUIREMENTS in order for anyone to hold public office. That SURELY would have violated that basic tenet - yet at the time of the Constitution's passing - no one batted an eye!

The Constitution does not have the spicific phrase "Separation of Church and State." That does not mean it's not there. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That clearly establishes a Separation of Church and State.

PoliCon
08-31-2010, 10:42 PM
The Constitution does not have the spicific phrase "Separation of Church and State." That does not mean it's not there. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That clearly establishes a Separation of Church and State.

FUCKTARD - don't stop there -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; You fucktards on the left always wanna leave out the FREE EXERCISE clause. :rolleyes:

Tell me, have you ever even bothered to even learn where that phrase comes from? :rolleyes:

warpig
08-31-2010, 11:00 PM
The Constitution does not have the spicific phrase "Separation of Church and State." That does not mean it's not there. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That clearly establishes a Separation of Church and State.

So again we have the statists reading into the Constitution what they want to find, not what's there.

nightflight
09-01-2010, 01:18 AM
The Constitution does not have the spicific phrase "Separation of Church and State." That does not mean it's not there. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That clearly establishes a Separation of Church and State.


In a few years exceptions will be made for Islam. You can count on that. You will be on the web defending such; of that I have little doubt. Those who oppose will be called "raaaacist".

Watch and see.

NJCardFan
09-01-2010, 01:56 AM
So again we have the statists reading into the Constitution what they want to find, not what's there.

That's because they don't read it. They just glean from it what fits their agenda. But to prove your point, it's amazing that Coonhunter makes a silly comment like "Just because it doesn't specifically say it, doesn't mean it isn't there" yet leftist assholes take the 2nd Amendment, that specifically says that the right to" keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and twist it to say it only pertains to militias. Incredible. And predictable.

asdf2231
09-01-2010, 08:14 AM
The Constitution does not have the spicific phrase "Separation of Church and State." That does not mean it's not there. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That clearly establishes a Separation of Church and State.

SEE! I've been saying for years that just because the constitution does not have any (What did you say there? "spicific"... is that like, something great regarding Latin stuff as defined by bigots? As in "Gawldamn them churiza's was Spicific!!") any way, even if there isn't a SPECIFIC phrase saying "Entitled to free burritos and happy ending massages" doesn't mean that I'm not entitled to them and that they are CLEARLY guaranteed to me if I can afford to have a lawyer convince some jackass federal judge that I should get what I want.

'cause the constitution is living and breathing and the founding fathers would have wanted me to have burritos and massage girls. I mean hell, what is this, the 12th century or something?! Do we live in China?!

HELL no.

JB
09-01-2010, 01:41 PM
Only 52%? We need to get that number up.

hampshirebrit
09-01-2010, 03:16 PM
http://www.alan.com/2010/08/31/52-of-gop-thinks-obama

I'm going to guess ...

...and go off on tangents (2 so far), rather than go a few rounds on any single issue.

You're no use, even as a troll. How about you get back to the original topic?

Arroyo_Doble
09-01-2010, 04:17 PM
Only 52%? We need to get that number up.

I suggest some sort of rally with "Take Back America" or "Standing Up For Traditional Blah Blah Blah" or "Restoring Somethingorother" as the theme. That should help.

BadCat
09-01-2010, 04:44 PM
I suggest some sort of rally with "Take Back America" or "Standing Up For Traditional Blah Blah Blah" or "Restoring Somethingorother" as the theme. That should help.

How about "National Kick a Democrat In The Balls Day?"

That would account for your "women" too.

Arroyo_Doble
09-01-2010, 04:49 PM
How about "National Kick a Democrat In The Balls Day?"

That would be great! Just like on Idiocracy. Morons love that shit.


That would account for your "women" too.

All my womens can go. I got lots o womens.

JB
09-01-2010, 05:18 PM
I suggest some sort of rally with "Take Back America" or "Standing Up For Traditional Blah Blah Blah" or "Restoring Somethingorother" as the theme. That should help.That's good thinking but no. Something like that would limit your exposure to only 500,000 or so people. We need something bigger.

Maybe during the call to prayer them folks could slip a line in like "Allah and Obama love you".

Or, the next time he bows before one of their kings maybe Michele can wear that head to toe garb that their women are so fond of. That would get us to 98% at least.

Wei Wu Wei
09-01-2010, 05:29 PM
http://i52.tinypic.com/av5w0i.jpg

JB
09-01-2010, 05:38 PM
...It's green shirt guy right?

I mean look at him. He is the complete package of what you libpukes are calling racist these days. It has to be him.

He's male. He's white. Probably middle class. Looks a little paunchy. That guy clearly hates Obama strictly because he's black. You can see it in his beady little eyes. For gods sake if green shirt guy is not a racist I don't what is.

malloc
09-01-2010, 05:54 PM
It's green shirt guy right?

I mean look at him. He is the complete package of what you libpukes are calling racist these days. It has to be him.

He's male. He's white. Probably middle class. Looks a little paunchy. That guy clearly hates Obama strictly because he's black. You can see it in his beady little eyes. For gods sake if green shirt guy is not a racist I don't what is.

I agree, green shirt guy is the one. It's obvious that propeller hat guy voted for Obama and thinks the world of him.

Arroyo_Doble
09-01-2010, 06:12 PM
It's green shirt guy right?

I mean look at him. He is the complete package of what you libpukes are calling racist these days. It has to be him.

He's male. He's white. Probably middle class. Looks a little paunchy. That guy clearly hates Obama strictly because he's black. You can see it in his beady little eyes. For gods sake if green shirt guy is not a racist I don't what is.

If one in five Americans hold this view, does that make the dude holding the paper a Canadian?

JB
09-01-2010, 06:34 PM
If one in five Americans hold this view, does that make the dude holding the paper a Canadian?See, you're not a Republican so your thinking is all wrong.

The guy holding the paper is an American. The woman all the way on the right is an illegal Mexican immigrant. Do you know nothing? You can tell she's an illegal Mexican immigrant because she is looking away from everyone else. She doesn't want to make eye contact because the guilt would overwhelm her. Plus her boobs look a little saggy which means she has at least 10 kids at home. A subsidized home of course.

Why is she feeling guilt? Because she stole the black guys job. That's right. That black guy is not going to work. He's going to the bank to cash his welfare check and then he's going to the OTB.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-01-2010, 09:05 PM
The Constitution does not have the spicific phrase "Separation of Church and State." That does not mean it's not there. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That clearly establishes a Separation of Church and State.


Hold on there asshole. If it CLEARLY established a Separation of Church and state, WHY did Jefferson use federal treasury monies to fund CHRISTIAN missionaries???

Why were there REQUIREMENTS for religious church membership for many public officeholders?????


You would think that if it was clear to the founders, that they would NEVER have tolerated those things.

Yet, curiously, they did not have a problem with them.

AmPat
09-02-2010, 03:57 PM
The Constitution does not have the spicific phrase "Separation of Church and State." That does not mean it's not there. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That clearly establishes a Separation of Church and State.

A quick consult of the "Reading Comprehension for Dummies" reveals that the phase was meant to prohibit Congress from passing any laws Establishing A Religion. It did not preclude religion from the halls of Congress. :rolleyes:

Stop buying into Dummy politics.