January 22: “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be just fine.”
February 2: “We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.”
February 10: "A lot of people think that goes away in April with the heat"
February 23: "We've had no deaths."
February 24: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA… Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”
February 25: “CDC and my Administration are doing a GREAT job of handling Coronavirus.”
February 25: “I think that's a problem that’s going to go away… They have studied it. They know very much. In fact, we’re very close to a vaccine.”
February 26: “The 15 (cases in the US) within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero.”
February 26: “We're going very substantially down, not up.”
February 27: “One day it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”
February 28: “We're ordering a lot of supplies. We're ordering a lot of, uh, elements that frankly we wouldn't be ordering unless it was something like this. But we're ordering a lot of different elements of medical.”
February 29: "Coronovirus is Democrats' New Hoax."
February 29: “China seems to be making tremendous progress. Their numbers are way down. … I think our relationship with China is very good. We just did a big trade deal. And we’ve been working very closely. They’ve been talking to our people, we’ve been talking to their people, having to do with the virus.”
March 2: “You take a solid flu vaccine, you don't think that could have an impact, or much of an impact, on corona?”
March 2: “A lot of things are happening, a lot of very exciting things are happening and they’re happening very rapidly. We are prepared for anything.”
March 2: "Pharmaceutical companies are going “to have vaccines, I think, relatively soon.” March 4: “If we have thousands or hundreds of thousands of people that get better just by, you know, sitting around and even going to work — some of them go to work, but they get better.”
March 5: “I NEVER said people that are feeling sick should go to work.”
March 5: “The United States… has, as of now, only 129 cases… and 11 deaths. We are working very hard to keep these numbers as low as possible!”
March 6: “I think we’re doing a really good job in this country at keeping it down… a tremendous job at keeping it down.”
March 6: “Anybody right now, and yesterday, anybody that needs a test gets a test. They’re there. And the tests are beautiful…. the tests are all perfect like the letter was perfect. The transcription was perfect. Right? This was not as perfect as that but pretty good.”
March 6: “I like this stuff. I really get it. People are surprised that I understand it… Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability. Maybe I should have done that instead of running for president.”
March 6: “I don't need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn't our fault.”
March 8: “We have a perfectly coordinated and fine tuned plan at the White House for our attack on CoronaVirus.”
March 9: “This blindsided the world.”
March 10: "It will go away, be calm. It's really working out. We want to protect our cruise industry."
March 10: "Over a million tests have been distributed, and before the end of this week, another 4 million tests will be distributed.".
March 13: "I am declaring a National Emergency."
March 15: "Relax, we are doing great"
March 16: "I'd rate it a 10 (his response). A month ago no one ever thought about it."
March 24: “Wouldn't it be great to have all the churches full on Easter?”
March 29: “masks going out the back door in New York”
March 30: "I haven't heard about testing being a problem."
April 3: "No Problem Whatsoever"
April 13: "The federal government has absolute power"
April 16: "It's up to the states"
April 17: "Liberate Michigan"
April 20: "The US death toll could reach 50,000"
April 23: “Supposing you brought the light inside the body - either through the skin or some other way,” or disinfectants “by injections inside or almost a cleaning.”
April 27: "we are probably heading to 60,000 to 70,000"
May 3: “We’re going to lose anywhere from 75, 80 to 100,000 people"
May 8: “This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again”
May 14: "If we didn't do any testing we would have very few cases."
May 22: "I've tested positively towards the negative"
June 6: "US largely through Pandemic"
June 15: "If we stop testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any.”
June 20: " So I said to my people, 'Slow the testing down, please.'"
July 2: "The pandemic is getting under control.”
July 26: “We now have the lowest Fatality (Mortality) Rate in the World.”
Sept. 21: "It affects virtually nobody"
Oct. 5: "Maybe I'm immune"
Oct. 7: "Getting Covid a blessing from God"
Oct. 28: US rounding the curve"
Nov. 21: G20 meets on Coronovirus, Trump goes golfing

Trump tells Woodward the above statements were all contrary to what he knew on Feb 7th 2020.

US now leading the world in cases and DEATHS………

13.6 MILLION Cases
267,000+ Deaths

and climbing. 4% of the world's population and 20% of the deaths.

Some curve......

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading  Hop To Forums  The Political Forum    What the Hell, Here is another interesting one. Last one for a while, promise!

Moderators: Walterhog
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
What the Hell, Here is another interesting one. Last one for a while, promise! Login/Join 
one of us
posted
Opinion
Trump's conservative Christian support flows from a specific perspective on issues of church and state

Social Sharing
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Reddit
LinkedIn
Right-wing U.S. Christians have engineered an almost parallel version of the faith, writes Michael Coren


Michael Coren · for CBC News Opinion · Posted: Oct 27, 2020 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 11 hours ago

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the Faith and Freedom Coalition's Road to Majority Policy Conference in Washington, D.C., on June 26, 2019. Trump won the support of more than 80 per cent of white evangelicals in the 2016 election. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

3994
comments
This column is an opinion by Michael Coren, a columnist, broadcaster, speaker, and the author of 17 books published in 12 languages. He is also an ordained cleric in the Anglican Church of Canada. For more information about CBC's Opinion section, please see the FAQ.

Alistair Campbell, advisor to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, once famously said, "We don't do God." Canadian politicians don't much either, but Americans of both major parties do so in abundance and it's on full display in the run-up to the U.S. election.

One of the ironies of the United States is that a country that so roars about the concept of the separation of church and state has a political system so drenched in religiosity. The divinity's followers vote in enormous numbers and many U.S. politicians are genuine believers, whatever their party allegiance.

And then there is Donald Trump. Even though he won the support of more than 80 per cent of white evangelicals in 2016 and is still highly popular with Christians of many denominations, there's little sign that he's an authentic person of faith. His personal behaviour is unusual for someone who says he is a Christian, and his policies routinely appear to be the antithesis of the Gospel values of peace, love, and justice.

Yet the support for Trump exhibited by many people of strong religious faith is not the contradiction it might seem, and to understand it we need to grasp the reality of modern conservative Christianity in the United States.


Liza Durasenko prays during a rally in support of President Donald Trump on Aug. 29 in Clackamas, Ore. (Paula Bronstein/Associated Press)
Right-wing U.S. Christians have engineered an almost parallel version of the faith, one that is centred on a collection of themes that have also appeared in Trump's political manoeuvring:

Religious freedom, viewed from a perspective that balks even at limitations on the size of church gatherings during the pandemic to protect public health.
Gun rights, with armed self-reliance seen as a biblical virtue, when in fact Jesus is regarded as the Prince of Peace.
Support for Israel, not because they're especially pro-Jewish but due to an eschatology that looks to an end-times war between Israel and its enemies leading to the Second Coming.
Resistance to LGBTQ2 equality.
Most important of all, a deep objection to abortion.
Although Jesus never mentioned abortion and it's hardly referred to in the Bible, defending the fetus has taken an iconic place in evangelical and conservative Catholic ideology, with many referencing the commandment "Thou shall not kill."

While Trump has stated in the past that he is "very pro-choice," he suddenly adopted an anti-abortion position when he entered politics. He is the first president to speak at the enormous March for Life in Washington and he supports the movement at every opportunity, especially if there is a camera or crowd present.


Pro-life demonstrators watch a screen showing Donald Trump as he speaks at the 47th annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 24, 2020. Trump is the first U.S. president to address in person the country's biggest annual gathering of anti-abortion campaigners. (Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)
Indeed, his nomination to the Supreme Court of Amy Coney Barrett was as much about her opposition to abortion as her legal qualifications. Witness the hundreds of anti-abortion activists who demonstrated each day outside of the nomination hearings — many in the Christian right, a group usually not quite as forgiving as the God they worship, will forgive almost anything the president does as long as he hints that Roe v. Wade might be overturned.

But this is only part of the evangelical Christian motivation for supporting Trump.

To give an historical or theological veneer to all of this, some within conservative American church culture argue that Donald Trump is the modern equivalent of Emperor Constantine or King Cyrus II.

The former was a Roman Caesar in the early fourth century, a late convert to Christianity who gave it fervent support. The latter was a Persian monarch 2,500 years ago, who allowed the conquered Jewish people to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. Both men were deeply flawed, and thus the comparison. While President Trump may have behaved appallingly, some people of faith argue that his private life and even some of his policies mustn't obscure that he enables goodness to flourish by fighting abortion, supporting Israel and issues like gun rights, and defending Christians who claim that they're being persecuted.

However outlandish that claim of persecution may be, they insist it will become exponentially worse if Donald Trump is defeated.

That view of reality can be seen in things like the conservative Christian reaction to the Democratic convention earlier this year. It was stated repeatedly by Trump supporters that the Democrats had expunged "God" from their speeches. It was completely untrue, and in fact the Democratic party seems to have gone out of its way to win over at least some of the Christian vote in November, but how effective this effort has been remains to be seen.

Donald Trump will continue to bash away at the same old hymn-sheet talking points in the closing days of the U.S. election campaign, and no matter how frustrating it may seem to some observers, it works.

This column is part of CBC's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read our FAQ.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR


Michael Coren
Michael Coren is a columnist, broadcaster, speaker, and the author of 17 books published in 12 languages. His latest book is Reclaiming Faith, about which Stephen Fry writes: 'These essays reveal the integrity, wit and passion of a fine advocate for the best of Christian thought and a faith that encompasses the human as well as the divine.' Coren is also an ordained cleric in the Anglican Church of Canada.
 
Posts: 2320 | Location: Kamloops, BC | Registered: 09 November 2015Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
One of the ironies of the United States is that a country that so roars about the concept of the separation of church and state has a political system so drenched in religiosity. The divinity's followers vote in enormous numbers and many U.S. politicians are genuine believers, whatever their party allegiance.


Brian, the separation of church and state in the united States is a fallacy. Never, anywhere is there a separation of church and state. Our founders where ardent supporters of the church and our creator!

The separation of church and state has been foisted upon us as an appalling distortion of our establishment clause. The only "roaring" about the separation of church and state is by progressives and atheists that feel threatened by faith.

There was never any intended separation between church and state. Anyone that actually wants to see this can tell that from all the times God is mentioned in the writings of our founders.

As to President Trump, there have been many times that God used very blunt instruments to achieve his goals.

People can also change.
 
Posts: 37791 | Location: Crosby and Barksdale, Texas | Registered: 18 September 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Actually, what the separation of church and state is intended to do, which the Anglican Church is a prime reason why it exists, is to abolish the creation of a state religion.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t the queen (your official head of state, I believe) hold certain positions in the Church of England?

England doesn’t have a current requirement that you be Anglican in order to hold various offices, but at the time of the revolution, and for a considerable time thereafter, the British empire required you to be Anglican in order to hold any public position of power.

That is what was intended to be stopped by the establishment clause. No state religion.

It’s quite hard to say that a religious person, who bases his morality on his religion can’t utilize it for making his personal political decisions.

I also think that (ME and I have gone around on this repeatedly) secular humanism is essentially a religion, and the way it is being used by some in government it is in violation of the establishment clause, as it is becoming a de facto state religion here, as it does not view itself as a religion and it is being forced by the law.
 
Posts: 5978 | Location: Minnesota USA | Registered: 15 June 2007Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
All interesting and informative. Thanks.
I don't know much about the queen etc. You could be right. I will give it some thought.
PS. I don't know anything about Anglican either.
 
Posts: 2320 | Location: Kamloops, BC | Registered: 09 November 2015Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Brian, this article is a pretty good explanation of the true intent of our founders. Much is stated, incorrectly, about Jefferson's "wall of separation", most all of it is taken out of context by people with an agenda. I have read quite a bit on Jefferson, and he was a deeply spiritual person, much more so than myself.

It might be at least a little enlightening on the thoughts of at least one of our founders. And it will probably make a few liberal heads explode.....

This is the kind of thing that makes conservatives here in the states tend to favor origin a lists as opposed to living documents types in our judiciary.

Thanks for your honest interest!

The intent of the establishment clause as explained by one of the drafters.


quote:
no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced … in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

In short, the act affirmed what we should recognize in every era: the right to practice any faith, or to have no faith, is a foundational freedom for all Americans. This right is also behind what Jefferson meant when he spoke of a “wall of separation” between the church and the state.


quote:
The Real Meaning of the Separation of Church and State
IDEAS
BY JAMES LANKFORD, RUSSELL MOORE UPDATED: JANUARY 16, 2018 1:47 PM ET | ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: JANUARY 16, 2018 7:00 AM EST
Lankford is a U.S. Senator from Oklahoma; Dr. Moore is the President of the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
We are told that one should avoid discussing two things at the dinner table: religion and politics. Clearly they have never eaten at our dinner tables. Religion and politics can be polarizing, precisely because they deal with important matters that are deeply personal and close to our passions. But these discussions do not have to be polarizing or combative. Intolerance of another person’s faith is a personal choice, not a legal requirement.

We are also told that we “should not mix religion and politics.” Again, this saying has a powerful truth: that when religion is used for political purposes, it empties religion of its eternal meaning and becomes just one more cynical method of acquiring power.

But there is also a disclaimer hidden in that phrase: that sometimes when people say “Don’t mix religion and politics,” they actually mean “Don’t bring your faith into the public square where I can see it.” In other words, hide your faith outside of your place of worship because we have a “separation of church and state.” Separation of church and state is too important a concept to be misused — especially not as a tool for silencing opposing views. As a matter of fact, on National Religious Freedom Day, it just might be as important as ever to consider the true meaning of church/state separation and religious freedom.

The Museum of the Bible Opens in Washington D.C.
SharePlay Video
Congress’s 1992 resolution that made Jan. 16 as Religious Freedom Day — a designation reaffirmed by every President since — was based on the anniversary of the 1786 passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson. This act inspired and shaped the guarantees of religious liberty eventually found in the First Amendment.


The text of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom gives great insight into our nation’s First Amendment right. It reads: “… no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced … in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

In short, the act affirmed what we should recognize in every era: the right to practice any faith, or to have no faith, is a foundational freedom for all Americans. This right is also behind what Jefferson meant when he spoke of a “wall of separation” between the church and the state.
ADVERTISING



Jefferson’s famous phrase came in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. The Baptists were worried about the freedom to practice their faith, writing to Jefferson that “what religious privileges we enjoy, we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights,” which is “inconsistent with the rights of freemen.”

Jefferson wrote back that religious liberty, free from state tampering, would be a key part of the American vision. The Constitution, he wrote, would “restore to man all his natural rights.” In this same letter, Jefferson explained the intent of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This, he said, built a “wall of separation of church and state.”

Jefferson was not suggesting that religious people or religious motivations should be exiled from public debate. As a matter of fact, the letter was from a religious people appealing to an elected official for their rights — an elected official who, by the way, attended church services during his administration inside the United States Capitol.

In its day, a constitutional prohibition that the state would not establish or restrain personal faith was truly revolutionary. Sadly, in many countries today, religious freedom is still revolutionary. America has the obligation to live this truth and demonstrate the depth of this powerful human right.

Unlike many places in the world, our government is not prohibited from referencing or accommodating religion, nor is the government compelled to scrub all religious references from the public square. Rather, the First Amendment ensures both that the government does not show preference to a certain religion and that the government does not take away an individual’s ability to exercise religion. In other words, the church should not rule over the state, and the state cannot rule over the church. Religion is too important to be a government program or a political pageant.

Thankfully, the Courts have affirmed this time and time again.

In 2014, the Supreme Court held in Town of Greece v. Galloway that “it is an elemental First Amendment principle that government may not coerce its citizens to support or participate in any religion or its exercise.”


PAID PARTNER CONTENT

Scammers Are Watching You
BY BANK OF AMERICA


In the recent Trinity Lutheran case, the Court held “that denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion… The exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.”

These cases not only explain the religion clauses of the First Amendment, but they also affirm the separation of church and state. In Town of Greece, the Court was clear that the government cannot coerce someone to participate in a particular religion, but it also should not attempt to restrict all acts of faith from the public square. The concept of a “separation of church and state” reinforces the legal right of a free people to freely live their faith, even in public; without fear of government coercion. Free exercise means you may have a faith and you may live it.

Before he died, Thomas Jefferson left instructions that in his grave’s epitaph, he wished to be remembered for three things — one of them being the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. On Religious Freedom Day, we should do just that, look back with gratitude for a nation that guarantees a free church in a free state. Separation of church and state doesn’t shut down our debates over religion in the public square; it guarantees the freedom for us to respectfully have those debates. Faith is worth talking about in many places in American culture and, yes, maybe even at the dinner table.

Correction, March 11


The original version of this story misstated the year in which Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. It was 1802, not 1801.


By the way.....this isn't from FOX its from Time.....
 
Posts: 37791 | Location: Crosby and Barksdale, Texas | Registered: 18 September 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Dulltool17
posted Hide Post
Thanks, Jim, for that excellent piece!


Doug Wilhelmi
NRA Life Member

 
Posts: 6259 | Location: Retired and on the road, baby! | Registered: 15 October 2013Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
JTEX, This very interesting! I will study it some more. My Wife is reading it too. ( Normally she would never read the PF.) Brian
 
Posts: 2320 | Location: Kamloops, BC | Registered: 09 November 2015Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I'm very glad that you find it so.

There is a very good reason that, we that call our selves conservatives, believe judges, especially Supreme Court judges, should be originalists.

In my opinion intent matters and language changes over time.

Our second amendment for example...... The intent of the drafters was that our citizenry would be able to show up in a time of need with comparable small arms as those issued to our military. And right up until 1952 we could. And in some horrible scenario the citizenry could protect ourselves from a government turned tyrannical.

Our 14th amendment added to the bill of rights in 1865 i believe, was intended to give citizenship to freed slaves at the end of our civil war, not give citizenship to the offspring of people illegally in our country.

Its all there, its original, it doesn't fit what I will call the liberal agenda...... Or the liberal endgame.

Things are rarely as black and white as they appear. Take the term liberal as a prime example......A liberal in the 19th century is quite different from a liberal today....
 
Posts: 37791 | Location: Crosby and Barksdale, Texas | Registered: 18 September 2006Reply With Quote
Administrator
posted Hide Post
The right wing nuts do not want to separate the church from the state, as long as it suits their purpose!

Bloody hypocrites! rotflmo


www.accuratereloading.com
Instagram : ganyana2000
 
Posts: 53361 | Location: Dubai, UAE | Registered: 08 January 1998Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dulltool17:
Thanks, Jim, for that excellent piece!


Doug there are reams of writing on this. I like to use Jefferson most as was one of our founders that was a most prolific writer.

Google "separation of church and state" you will find a lot of things you weren't taught in public school.

The establishment clause and that one letter Jefferson wrote to the Baptists has been terribly abused. Notice also that the abuse really all started in the 1960s.

Just like the 14th amendment. There is even case law from the early 20th century, precedent! That is totally ignored today. I would soooooo love for a 14th amendment case to make it to the supreme court today!
 
Posts: 37791 | Location: Crosby and Barksdale, Texas | Registered: 18 September 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by crbutler:

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t the queen (your official head of state, I believe) hold certain positions in the Church of England?



Correct. Same deal as Australia and the Governor General is her representative.

The GG has to sign bills for them to pass however they never veto a bill.

However, reserve powers are very big. In November 1975 there was a constitutional crisis in Australia as the Opposition had the numbers in the Senate to bloke the money supply bill so there would be no money for pensions, public servant wages etc. They wanted to force and early election. Neither the Labor party PM or Opposition leader would back down. The GG dismissed the Labor gov't, the opposition leader was made caretaker PM and election was the called by the caretaker PM.

That would be the equivalent of a POTUS dissolving your House of Reps and the whole Senate and then an election for both houses.
 
Posts: 6777 | Location: Sydney Australia | Registered: 14 September 2015Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JTEX:

Things are rarely as black and white as they appear. Take the term liberal as a prime example......A liberal in the 19th century is quite different from a liberal today....



Jim,

A liberal in Australia is a member of the Liberal party. The Liberal party is conservative, like your Republican part. They are in gov't and as always, in coalition with the National party. Many years ago the National party was called The Country party.
 
Posts: 6777 | Location: Sydney Australia | Registered: 14 September 2015Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
The right wing nuts do not want to separate the church from the state, as long as it suits their purpose!

Bloody hypocrites! rotflmo


Again, or it seems to be turning in to "as usual" you have no idea what you are talking about.


.
 
Posts: 37791 | Location: Crosby and Barksdale, Texas | Registered: 18 September 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mike McGuire:
quote:
Originally posted by JTEX:

Things are rarely as black and white as they appear. Take the term liberal as a prime example......A liberal in the 19th century is quite different from a liberal today....



Jim,

A liberal in Australia is a member of the Liberal party. The Liberal party is conservative, like your Republican part. They are in gov't and as always, in coalition with the National party. Many years ago the National party was called The Country party.


Do you think that is what was confusing Blair????
 
Posts: 37791 | Location: Crosby and Barksdale, Texas | Registered: 18 September 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Dulltool17
posted Hide Post
Speaking of Blair...?


Doug Wilhelmi
NRA Life Member

 
Posts: 6259 | Location: Retired and on the road, baby! | Registered: 15 October 2013Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I think he just got fed up with the nonsense. I bet he's busy killing stuff!
 
Posts: 37791 | Location: Crosby and Barksdale, Texas | Registered: 18 September 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JTEX:
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
The right wing nuts do not want to separate the church from the state, as long as it suits their purpose!

Bloody hypocrites! rotflmo


Again, or it seems to be turning in to "as usual" you have no idea what you are talking about.


.


Well then tell me what rightist nutz wants to honor secularism, the founding principle, and maintain separation fo church and state, for the sake of the republic?


--------------------------------------------------------

Reality: Resistance is Futile.

---------------------------------------------------------

 
Posts: 11196 | Location: Depends on the Season | Registered: 17 February 2017Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
quote:
Originally posted by JTEX:
quote:
Originally posted by Saeed:
The right wing nuts do not want to separate the church from the state, as long as it suits their purpose!

Bloody hypocrites! rotflmo


Again, or it seems to be turning in to "as usual" you have no idea what you are talking about.


.


Well then tell me what rightist nutz wants to honor secularism, the founding principle, and maintain separation fo church and state, for the sake of the republic?


Oh boy......how did I know Mangina would show up .......
 
Posts: 37791 | Location: Crosby and Barksdale, Texas | Registered: 18 September 2006Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading  Hop To Forums  The Political Forum    What the Hell, Here is another interesting one. Last one for a while, promise!

Copyright December 1997-2020 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia