bigvalkriefan
Member
Posts: 407
On the green monster
South Florida
|
 |
« on: February 24, 2011, 01:39:01 PM » |
|
So, our supreme king has decided that a law is not constitutional and that the Department of justice will not defend this particular law.What's up with that!? It doesn't matter what the law is, it's the fact that he made the decision. this is unprecedented and scary. What law will he decide not to enforce next???
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
.....say to those with fearful hearts, "Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you."
Isaiah 35:4
I know who wins in the end.
|
|
|
|
Bobbo
|
|
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2011, 02:04:14 PM » |
|
Your “Supreme King” doesn’t have the power to decide the constitutionality of a law. That’s the job of the Supreme Court. President Obama has directed the DOJ not to defend this law against legal challenges, which is well within his duties.
President Obama cannot decide to not enforce this law, and hasn’t done that.
This is simply hyped up disinformation.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Garfield
Member
Posts: 454
97 Standard
Phoenix, AZ
|
|
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2011, 02:14:41 PM » |
|
Your “Supreme King” doesn’t have the power to decide the constitutionality of a law. That’s the job of the Supreme Court.
No Sh**. Why don't you let Obama know that. He's the one confused about the job he has. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pete
|
|
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2011, 02:17:54 PM » |
|
2012
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbo
|
|
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2011, 02:19:08 PM » |
|
No Sh**. Why don't you let Obama know that. He's the one confused about the job he has.
If you have a better understanding of presidential duties, privileges, and responsibilities, I suggest you write continuously to your representatives.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Garfield
Member
Posts: 454
97 Standard
Phoenix, AZ
|
|
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2011, 02:24:51 PM » |
|
No Sh**. Why don't you let Obama know that. He's the one confused about the job he has.
If you have a better understanding of presidential duties, privileges, and responsibilities, I suggest you write continuously to your representatives. I forgot, you know everything  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
bigvalkriefan
Member
Posts: 407
On the green monster
South Florida
|
|
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2011, 02:32:16 PM » |
|
Your “Supreme King” doesn’t have the power to decide the constitutionality of a law. That’s the job of the Supreme Court. President Obama has directed the DOJ not to defend this law against legal challenges, which is well within his duties.
President Obama cannot decide to not enforce this law, and hasn’t done that.
This is simply hyped up disinformation.
Au contraire: "The president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," Holder said. The key provisions in the law "fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional." "Given that conclusion, the president has instructed the (Justice Department) not to defend the statute" in two pending cases in New York state, Holder said. "I fully concur with the president's determination." Filed under: Gay rights • Uncategorized He has determined that it doesn't meet "that standard" so he said it's unconstitutional, doesn't get any clearer than that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
.....say to those with fearful hearts, "Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you."
Isaiah 35:4
I know who wins in the end.
|
|
|
f6john
Member
Posts: 9384
Christ first and always
Richmond, Kentucky
|
|
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2011, 02:51:22 PM » |
|
We all knew what we got when he was elected, he's just being true to his colors. Sad thing is, I'm afraid that as many people as voted for him, would back this position too.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
KW
|
|
« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2011, 04:08:22 PM » |
|
NO. . . not correct. The Delilah-Bama embraced the law while running for President! In fact, he campaigned repeatedly on the subject throughout the south saying he fully supported the law. In other words; HE LIED! Spin that one!
Wow. . . . Personally, I can hardly believe Obama lied. I’m shocked and find it very upsetting. Is there someway we can blame Bush to bring everything back into balance?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chattanooga Mark
|
|
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2011, 04:18:13 PM » |
|
It makes no difference what the Bamster says, only pay attention to what he does. This is by far the most crooked and dangerous regime in the history of the USA.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
...do justice, love kindness, walk humbly... The Bible: Read, Apply, Repeat 2012 Victory Cross Country Tour, in all its pearl white beauty www.bikersforchrist.org |
|
|
|
Bobbo
|
|
« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2011, 04:49:43 PM » |
|
Au contraire:
"The president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," Holder said.
The key provisions in the law "fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional."
"Given that conclusion, the president has instructed the (Justice Department) not to defend the statute" in two pending cases in New York state, Holder said. "I fully concur with the president's determination."
Filed under: Gay rights • Uncategorized
He has determined that it doesn't meet "that standard" so he said it's unconstitutional, doesn't get any clearer than that.
You are saying two different things. Which one is your point? Your first post implied that Obama unilaterally decided that this law was unconstitutional and directed the DOJ not to enforce it. Your second post shows that Obama believes this law is unconstitutional and has directed the DOJ to not defend it. If you understand these two statements to be identical, I suggest you consult a legal professional to explain the difference. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbo
|
|
« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2011, 04:59:48 PM » |
|
No Sh**. Why don't you let Obama know that. He's the one confused about the job he has.
If you have a better understanding of presidential duties, privileges, and responsibilities, I suggest you write continuously to your representatives. I forgot, you know everything You are the one claiming superior knowledge about Obama's understanding of his job. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
KW
|
|
« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2011, 05:50:46 PM » |
|
Bobbo, I know I said I wasn’t going to engage you again, but you are so far off on this one, even for you, you need to be corrected. The President and the Criminal Justice Department DO NOT get to decide, or ‘judge’ if you will, which of the laws passed by congress they will defend. Period! End of discussion. If the Executive Branch disagrees with a particular law, then they can introduce a new law or simply tell their surrogates in Congress to pass one that the President will sign and support that supersede the law they disagree with (as they cold have done the last two years!) What they CAN’T do is to decide to arbitrarily overturn a legally passed and enacted law by ‘not defending’ a constitutional challenge. In this case; the law in question was passed by a Republican controlled Congress in 1996 and signed into LAW by a democrat; BILL CLINTON. Of course, once again, facts and reason just never seem to get in the way of a good liberal emotional rant.
I'm done. Peace. Ride safe.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
musclehead
|
|
« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2011, 06:06:57 PM » |
|
Your “Supreme King” doesn’t have the power to decide the constitutionality of a law. That’s the job of the Supreme Court. President Obama has directed the DOJ not to defend this law against legal challenges, which is well within his duties.
President Obama cannot decide to not enforce this law, and hasn’t done that.
This is simply hyped up disinformation.
speaking of laws, how about ignoring a federal judge that tells him the health care law is unconstitional. or ignoring another telling him the drilling ban is illegal? he does what he wants to do and ignores the rest. what if GWB decided that his DOJ should not defend row v wade against legal challenges? how loud would you scream? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'in the tunnels uptown, the Rats own dream guns him down. the shots echo down them hallways in the night' - the Boss
|
|
|
|
musclehead
|
|
« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2011, 06:09:15 PM » |
|
We all knew what we got when he was elected, he's just being true to his colors. Sad thing is, I'm afraid that as many people as voted for him, would back this position too.
I'm sure most people didn't know, if we knew he'd NEVER get elected. 20% of the country isn't enough to win any election. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 25, 2011, 10:24:47 AM by musclehead »
|
Logged
|
'in the tunnels uptown, the Rats own dream guns him down. the shots echo down them hallways in the night' - the Boss
|
|
|
|
musclehead
|
|
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2011, 06:10:44 PM » |
|
NO. . . not correct. The Delilah-Bama embraced the law while running for President! In fact, he campaigned repeatedly on the subject throughout the south saying he fully supported the law. In other words; HE LIED! Spin that one!
Wow. . . . Personally, I can hardly believe Obama lied. I’m shocked and find it very upsetting. Is there someway we can blame Bush to bring everything back into balance?
I'm getting dizzy from the spin |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'in the tunnels uptown, the Rats own dream guns him down. the shots echo down them hallways in the night' - the Boss
|
|
|
|
Bobbo
|
|
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2011, 06:58:47 PM » |
|
Bobbo, I know I said I wasn’t going to engage you again, but you are so far off on this one, even for you, you need to be corrected. The President and the Criminal Justice Department DO NOT get to decide, or ‘judge’ if you will, which of the laws passed by congress they will defend. Period! End of discussion. If the Executive Branch disagrees with a particular law, then they can introduce a new law or simply tell their surrogates in Congress to pass one that the President will sign and support that supersede the law they disagree with (as they cold have done the last two years!) What they CAN’T do is to decide to arbitrarily overturn a legally passed and enacted law by ‘not defending’ a constitutional challenge. In this case; the law in question was passed by a Republican controlled Congress in 1996 and signed into LAW by a democrat; BILL CLINTON. Of course, once again, facts and reason just never seem to get in the way of a good liberal emotional rant.
I'm done. Peace. Ride safe.
Here is the letter that was sent to Congress from the Attorney General, who reports to the President. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-223.htmlThey lay out their reasoning to stop defending sections of this law, which is within their scope of authority. If you believe they are violating laws or are acting outside of their authority, you have the right to bring this to their attention.There are several ways of changing laws. One is repeal, and another other is a ruling by the Supreme Court. This situation deals with the latter. It is not uncommon for laws to be found unconstitutional. Do a Google search for “laws found unconstitutional” and you will see a plethora of cases. Lastly, there is no emotion in this action. It is as dry and procedural as it gets. Since you seem to know the “facts” maybe you can provide supporting information for your “facts”. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
bigvalkriefan
Member
Posts: 407
On the green monster
South Florida
|
|
« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2011, 07:02:35 PM » |
|
Au contraire:
"The president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," Holder said.
The key provisions in the law "fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional."
"Given that conclusion, the president has instructed the (Justice Department) not to defend the statute" in two pending cases in New York state, Holder said. "I fully concur with the president's determination."
Filed under: Gay rights • Uncategorized
He has determined that it doesn't meet "that standard" so he said it's unconstitutional, doesn't get any clearer than that.
You are saying two different things. Which one is your point? Your first post implied that Obama unilaterally decided that this law was unconstitutional and directed the DOJ not to enforce it. Your second post shows that Obama believes this law is unconstitutional and has directed the DOJ to not defend it. If you understand these two statements to be identical, I suggest you consult a legal professional to explain the difference. Wow unbelievable. I guess when you can't come up with a good explanation you divert and spin. Oh well I guess since super chicken doesn't come around much to stir things up someone has to. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
.....say to those with fearful hearts, "Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you."
Isaiah 35:4
I know who wins in the end.
|
|
|
Valker
Member
Posts: 3001
Wahoo!!!!
Texas Panhandle
|
|
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2011, 07:08:19 PM » |
|
They lay out their reasoning to stop defending sections of this law, which is within their scope of authority. If you believe they are violating laws or are acting outside of their authority, you have the right to bring this to their attention.
There are several ways of changing laws. One is repeal, and another other is a ruling by the Supreme Court. This situation deals with the latter. It is not uncommon for laws to be found unconstitutional. Do a Google search for “laws found unconstitutional” and you will see a plethora of cases.
Bobbo, surely even you should realize deciding that a law is unconstitutional is NOT the Executive's Branch's choice, but the Judicial Branch's.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I ride a motorcycle because nothing transports me as quickly from where I am to who I am.
|
|
|
|
Bobbo
|
|
« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2011, 07:11:41 PM » |
|
Au contraire:
"The president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," Holder said.
The key provisions in the law "fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional."
"Given that conclusion, the president has instructed the (Justice Department) not to defend the statute" in two pending cases in New York state, Holder said. "I fully concur with the president's determination."
Filed under: Gay rights • Uncategorized
He has determined that it doesn't meet "that standard" so he said it's unconstitutional, doesn't get any clearer than that.
You are saying two different things. Which one is your point? Your first post implied that Obama unilaterally decided that this law was unconstitutional and directed the DOJ not to enforce it. Your second post shows that Obama believes this law is unconstitutional and has directed the DOJ to not defend it. If you understand these two statements to be identical, I suggest you consult a legal professional to explain the difference. Wow unbelievable. I guess when you can't come up with a good explanation you divert and spin. Oh well I guess since super chicken doesn't come around much to stir things up someone has to. No diversion or spin. I'm pointing out your inconsistent posts. Your first post doesn't agree with the quotes in your second post. I'm waiting for your explanation. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Garfield
Member
Posts: 454
97 Standard
Phoenix, AZ
|
|
« Reply #20 on: February 24, 2011, 07:13:24 PM » |
|
Wow unbelievable. I guess when you can't come up with a good explanation you divert and spin. Oh well I guess since super chicken doesn't come around much to stir things up someone has to.
Free entertainment  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbo
|
|
« Reply #21 on: February 24, 2011, 07:22:17 PM » |
|
Bobbo, surely even you should realize deciding that a law is unconstitutional is NOT the Executive's Branch's choice, but the Judicial Branch's. That’s correct. The Executive branch cannot rescind or modify the law. That power is with the Judicial branch. The Executive branch can recommend a course of action for the Attorney General in legal proceedings, and that is what is happening here. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Garfield
Member
Posts: 454
97 Standard
Phoenix, AZ
|
|
« Reply #22 on: February 24, 2011, 07:36:05 PM » |
|
Bobbo, surely even you should realize deciding that a law is unconstitutional is NOT the Executive's Branch's choice, but the Judicial Branch's. That’s correct. The Executive branch cannot rescind or modify the law. That power is with the Judicial branch. The Executive branch can recommend a course of action for the Attorney General in legal proceedings, and that is what is happening here. No, what is happening now is Obama is deciding that the law is unconstitutional and not the Supreme court. Now that is unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbo
|
|
« Reply #23 on: February 24, 2011, 07:41:57 PM » |
|
Bobbo, surely even you should realize deciding that a law is unconstitutional is NOT the Executive's Branch's choice, but the Judicial Branch's. That’s correct. The Executive branch cannot rescind or modify the law. That power is with the Judicial branch. The Executive branch can recommend a course of action for the Attorney General in legal proceedings, and that is what is happening here. No, what is happening now is Obama is deciding that the law is unconstitutional and not the Supreme court. Now that is unconstitutional. You should read the articles instead of just guessing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Garfield
Member
Posts: 454
97 Standard
Phoenix, AZ
|
|
« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2011, 07:48:49 PM » |
|
Bobbo, surely even you should realize deciding that a law is unconstitutional is NOT the Executive's Branch's choice, but the Judicial Branch's. That’s correct. The Executive branch cannot rescind or modify the law. That power is with the Judicial branch. The Executive branch can recommend a course of action for the Attorney General in legal proceedings, and that is what is happening here. No, what is happening now is Obama is deciding that the law is unconstitutional and not the Supreme court. Now that is unconstitutional. You should read the articles instead of just guessing. I never read articles. I always wait for the movie to come out |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
bigvalkriefan
Member
Posts: 407
On the green monster
South Florida
|
|
« Reply #25 on: February 24, 2011, 08:06:54 PM » |
|
Au contraire:
"The president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," Holder said.
The key provisions in the law "fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional."
"Given that conclusion, the president has instructed the (Justice Department) not to defend the statute" in two pending cases in New York state, Holder said. "I fully concur with the president's determination."
Filed under: Gay rights • Uncategorized
He has determined that it doesn't meet "that standard" so he said it's unconstitutional, doesn't get any clearer than that.
You are saying two different things. Which one is your point? Your first post implied that Obama unilaterally decided that this law was unconstitutional and directed the DOJ not to enforce it. Your second post shows that Obama believes this law is unconstitutional and has directed the DOJ to not defend it. If you understand these two statements to be identical, I suggest you consult a legal professional to explain the difference. Wow unbelievable. I guess when you can't come up with a good explanation you divert and spin. Oh well I guess since super chicken doesn't come around much to stir things up someone has to. No diversion or spin. I'm pointing out your inconsistent posts. Your first post doesn't agree with the quotes in your second post. I'm waiting for your explanation. Ah, I see the game your playing. This is what I said: "So, our supreme king has decided that a law is not constitutional and that the Department of justice will not defend this particular law.What's up with that!? It doesn't matter what the law is, it's the fact that he made the decision. this is unprecedented and scary. What law will he decide not to enforce next??? " Hey, look at that, I said "defend", not enforce, pertaining to this law and you decide to take the enforce part and apply it to the first part of my statement, how convenient,... and misleading. Take the focus off the meat of the matter, nice try. Do you live in Singapore? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
.....say to those with fearful hearts, "Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you."
Isaiah 35:4
I know who wins in the end.
|
|
|
Valker
Member
Posts: 3001
Wahoo!!!!
Texas Panhandle
|
|
« Reply #26 on: February 24, 2011, 08:10:06 PM » |
|
Bobbo.....and you don't even realize the whole pitcher has gone down your throat.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I ride a motorcycle because nothing transports me as quickly from where I am to who I am.
|
|
|
|
Bobbo
|
|
« Reply #27 on: February 24, 2011, 08:40:40 PM » |
|
Ah, I see the game your playing. This is what I said:
"So, our supreme king has decided that a law is not constitutional and that the Department of justice will not defend this particular law.What's up with that!? It doesn't matter what the law is, it's the fact that he made the decision. this is unprecedented and scary. What law will he decide not to enforce next??? "
Hey, look at that, I said "defend", not enforce, pertaining to this law and you decide to take the enforce part and apply it to the first part of my statement, how convenient,... and misleading. Take the focus off the meat of the matter, nice try. Do you live in Singapore?
When you say “What law will he decide not to enforce next???” it applies to the previous statements. The word “next” needs something to precede it. Here’s an example: “bigvalkriefan stated his views on Obama’s decision. What misinformed commentary will he make next?” The second sentence implies that the first was misinformed. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RoadKill
|
|
« Reply #28 on: February 24, 2011, 08:49:53 PM » |
|
The decision was not misinformed...Bobbo got that right. It was a BLATANT attempt to win the "Gay" vote and it most likely worked great! Now he has the gays,liberals,ignorant,illegal,entitled,and all the dead people in Chicago voting for him! The conservative vote will be divided by some sort of Ross Perot scenario (Palin VS Paul or some crap like that) and America will be LOST !  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chrisj CMA
|
|
« Reply #29 on: February 25, 2011, 04:12:27 AM » |
|
Impeach the bum and we wont have to have this silly arguement  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
bigvalkriefan
Member
Posts: 407
On the green monster
South Florida
|
|
« Reply #30 on: February 25, 2011, 05:28:03 AM » |
|
Ah, I see the game your playing. This is what I said:
"So, our supreme king has decided that a law is not constitutional and that the Department of justice will not defend this particular law.What's up with that!? It doesn't matter what the law is, it's the fact that he made the decision. this is unprecedented and scary. What law will he decide not to enforce next??? "
Hey, look at that, I said "defend", not enforce, pertaining to this law and you decide to take the enforce part and apply it to the first part of my statement, how convenient,... and misleading. Take the focus off the meat of the matter, nice try. Do you live in Singapore?
When you say “What law will he decide not to enforce next???” it applies to the previous statements. The word “next” needs something to precede it. Here’s an example: “bigvalkriefan stated his views on Obama’s decision. What misinformed commentary will he make next?” The second sentence implies that the first was misinformed. This stupid argument about the misuse of a word does not change to basic content of the original story. Your attempt at distraction and discrediting only further exposes you for what you are. You may be a nice guy, I don't know, but if you do this kind of thing in person then your friends are few and short lived. I consider this over. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
.....say to those with fearful hearts, "Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you."
Isaiah 35:4
I know who wins in the end.
|
|
|
fudgie
Member
Posts: 10613
Better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6.
Huntington Indiana
|
|
« Reply #31 on: February 25, 2011, 05:53:15 AM » |
|
I think anyone should be allowed to marry.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Now you're in the world of the wolves... And we welcome all you sheep... VRCC-#7196 VRCCDS-#0175 DTR PGR |
|
|
|
9Ball
|
|
« Reply #32 on: February 25, 2011, 05:59:35 AM » |
|
I think anyone should be allowed to marry.
...and divorce. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
VRCC #6897, Joined May, 2000
1999 Standard
2007 Rocket 3
2005 VTX 1300S
|
|
|
|
Chattanooga Mark
|
|
« Reply #33 on: February 25, 2011, 06:31:38 AM » |
|
Obama is nearly the polar opposite of my King. There is only one King of kings and Lord of lords.
Mark
(Obama isn't the anti Christ, but he'd like to be)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
...do justice, love kindness, walk humbly... The Bible: Read, Apply, Repeat 2012 Victory Cross Country Tour, in all its pearl white beauty www.bikersforchrist.org |
|
|
|
Bobbo
|
|
« Reply #34 on: February 25, 2011, 07:08:38 AM » |
|
Obama is nearly the polar opposite of my King. There is only one King of kings and Lord of lords.
Mark
(Obama isn't the anti Christ, but he'd like to be)
I'm shocked you'd say such a thing against a fellow Christian brother!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chrisj CMA
|
|
« Reply #35 on: February 25, 2011, 07:14:27 AM » |
|
Obama is nearly the polar opposite of my King. There is only one King of kings and Lord of lords.
Mark
(Obama isn't the anti Christ, but he'd like to be)
I'm shocked you'd say such a thing against a fellow Christian brother! Hey Bobbo actually made a funny joke |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
MacDragon
Member
Posts: 1970
My first Valk VRCC# 32095
Middleton, Mass.
|
|
« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2011, 07:18:52 AM » |
|
Wow... can't we all just get along... Despite what I might think about this subject, I have come to realize that we are all, at present, living in an Obamanation. Can't wait til it's over.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Ride fast and take chances... uh, I mean... ride safe folks. Patriot Guard Riders |
|
|
|
|
|
G-Man
|
|
« Reply #38 on: February 25, 2011, 07:31:59 AM » |
|
Obama is nearly the polar opposite of my King. There is only one King of kings and Lord of lords.
Mark
(Obama isn't the anti Christ, but he'd like to be)
I'm shocked you'd say such a thing against a fellow Christian brother! Are you sure he's christian??? In an interview he stated "My Muslim Faith" and had to be " corrected" by the interviewer.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbo
|
|
« Reply #39 on: February 25, 2011, 07:46:53 AM » |
|
Are you sure he's christian??? In an interview he stated "My Muslim Faith" and had to be "corrected" by the interviewer.
He's got some big time 'splainin to do to his local Imam!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
