Comparing Republican "Christian Values" To Islamic Fundamentalism

[Lakhota]

Are you really that delusional and paranoid? The right to bear arms isn't the same as reasonable gun control.

Come on man, what do you expect?

You have really scared the shit out of me with that guy Pence.

What is a Patriot to do?


Let's vote for someone who support our right to bear arms for the next 8 years.

I will be 78y at the end of their terms. I will be probably be dead then . My prostate will then be the size of a watermelon.

After that you can vote for whoever you want to.

Be a pal.

.


/

I'm 69 and been hunting since about 6. I have many guns and cherish them all. I support the 2nd Amendment - but I also support reasonable gun control laws. The NRA never-give-an-inch gun nuts are the greatest threat to my future gun rights. Where I live even the schools close for the first week of deer season, but no time off for bear hunting. We all cherish our hunting and gun rights - Democrats and Republicans alike.

Understand that you have scare the shit out of me with this fellow Pence -

I need to bear arms WITHOUT any federal restrictions until I die.

Am I asking you too much?

Well, sparky, what ya gonna do about the federal restrictions already on your right to bear arms?

IGNORE THEM>


The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....


.

Okay, so you're above the law. Good luck...

 

[Contumacious]

Come on man, what do you expect?

You have really scared the shit out of me with that guy Pence.

What is a Patriot to do?


Let's vote for someone who support our right to bear arms for the next 8 years.

I will be 78y at the end of their terms. I will be probably be dead then . My prostate will then be the size of a watermelon.

After that you can vote for whoever you want to.

Be a pal.

.


/

I'm 69 and been hunting since about 6. I have many guns and cherish them all. I support the 2nd Amendment - but I also support reasonable gun control laws. The NRA never-give-an-inch gun nuts are the greatest threat to my future gun rights. Where I live even the schools close for the first week of deer season, but no time off for bear hunting. We all cherish our hunting and gun rights - Democrats and Republicans alike.

Understand that you have scare the shit out of me with this fellow Pence -

I need to bear arms WITHOUT any federal restrictions until I die.

Am I asking you too much?

Well, sparky, what ya gonna do about the federal restrictions already on your right to bear arms?

IGNORE THEM>


The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....


.

Okay, so you're above the law. Good luck...

WITHIN THE LAW


UNALIENABLE

What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied. Its most famous use is in the Declaration of Independence, which says people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


.

 

[Lakhota]

I'm 69 and been hunting since about 6. I have many guns and cherish them all. I support the 2nd Amendment - but I also support reasonable gun control laws. The NRA never-give-an-inch gun nuts are the greatest threat to my future gun rights. Where I live even the schools close for the first week of deer season, but no time off for bear hunting. We all cherish our hunting and gun rights - Democrats and Republicans alike.

Understand that you have scare the shit out of me with this fellow Pence -

I need to bear arms WITHOUT any federal restrictions until I die.

Am I asking you too much?

Well, sparky, what ya gonna do about the federal restrictions already on your right to bear arms?

IGNORE THEM>


The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....


.

Okay, so you're above the law. Good luck...

WITHIN THE LAW


UNALIENABLE

What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied. Its most famous use is in the Declaration of Independence, which says people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


.

Well, you can explain it all to authorities - and SCOTUS - what you think "unalienable" means regarding the 2nd Amendment. Good luck... BTW, did the Declaration of Independence grant you "unalienable" gun rights along with unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Since when is the Declaration of Independence a "governing" document?

 

[Freewill]

.

Comparing Republican “Christian Values” To Islamic Fundamentalism

<snip>

Let’s also not forget that both right-wing evangelicals and Islamic fundamentalists believe that a nation should be ruled by religion, also know as a theocratic form of government. Both groups believe their rights are given to them by God (or Allah), not the government. And while many Islamic nations on this planet are indeed ruled by religion, it is our secularist Constitution which has prevented Christian radicals here from ruling this nation as the theocracy they’d love for it to be.

Then there’s always intolerance of other religions. A nation such as Saudi Arabia has no tolerance for any other religions besides Islam. And I can’t help but think that, if many conservatives had their way, this nation would also ban other religions – especially Islam. But while we’re obviously much more tolerant to religious freedom here in the United States than some Islamic states, that is another example of secularism providing that freedom – not Christian fundamentalism.

But when you get right down to it, isn’t the goal of both right-wing Christian evangelicals and Islamic fundamentalists essentially the same – to build nations based upon theocracies and religious rule?

<snip>

Mike Pence: "A Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order"

Really Mike, really?
IOWs what Mike is saying is, Mike wants the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law for the USofA. Thank God the Constitution of the United States of America stands in the way of Mike and dumbasses like him...




.

Your very first sentence is a big whopping lie so why would anyone read any further. You deserve Mrs. Tuzla, she is the mother of all liars.

 

[Contumacious]

Understand that you have scare the shit out of me with this fellow Pence -

I need to bear arms WITHOUT any federal restrictions until I die.

Am I asking you too much?

Well, sparky, what ya gonna do about the federal restrictions already on your right to bear arms?

IGNORE THEM>


The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....


.

Okay, so you're above the law. Good luck...

WITHIN THE LAW


UNALIENABLE

What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied. Its most famous use is in the Declaration of Independence, which says people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


.

Well, you can explain it all to authorities - and SCOTUS - what you think "unalienable" means regarding the 2nd Amendment. Good luck... BTW, did the Declaration of Independence grant you "unalienable" gun rights along with unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Since when is the Declaration of Independence a "governing" document?

It shows the INTENT of the Constitutional convention.


.

 

[Freewill]

When's the last time a Christian hopped in a truck and mowed down 80+ people? Or shot up a gay nightclub, bombed a crowd at a marathon, shot up an Army base? Flew an airliner into a skyscraper? Or even demand you convert or you get your head lopped off?

Easy, easy easy, call on me!!!! Never would be the correct answer, never.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, sparky, what ya gonna do about the federal restrictions already on your right to bear arms?

IGNORE THEM>


The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....


.

Okay, so you're above the law. Good luck...

WITHIN THE LAW


UNALIENABLE

What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied. Its most famous use is in the Declaration of Independence, which says people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


.

Well, you can explain it all to authorities - and SCOTUS - what you think "unalienable" means regarding the 2nd Amendment. Good luck... BTW, did the Declaration of Independence grant you "unalienable" gun rights along with unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Since when is the Declaration of Independence a "governing" document?

It shows the INTENT of the Constitutional convention.


.

Funny. It carries no weight in law. It's a "founding" document - but not a "governing" document. BTW, if you get pulled over for drunk driving - tell the officer it was your "INTENT" to drive sober. Good luck...

 

[KGB]

If Hillary wins then, Hillary and five of her SCOTUS hommies.


.

Are you really that delusional and paranoid? The right to bear arms isn't the same as reasonable gun control.

Control and right should never be used in the same sentence. Unless you're a brainwashed, armstretched, leftist drone.

Many restrictions (controls) have been placed on the 2nd Amendment since it was written - with more to come. Yes, it is a right - but not an "unconditional" one. Even NaziCon Scalia said that.

When you put conditions on rights, rights become regulations.

No shit, Sherlock. So, the 2nd Amendment is "regulated"...

The 2nd Amendment must be regulated because it's a confusing piece of shit the way it's worded.

The meaning of the term at the time meant "trained"...Meaning of the phrase

 

[Contumacious]

IGNORE THEM>


The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....


.

Okay, so you're above the law. Good luck...

WITHIN THE LAW


UNALIENABLE

What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied. Its most famous use is in the Declaration of Independence, which says people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


.

Well, you can explain it all to authorities - and SCOTUS - what you think "unalienable" means regarding the 2nd Amendment. Good luck... BTW, did the Declaration of Independence grant you "unalienable" gun rights along with unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Since when is the Declaration of Independence a "governing" document?

It shows the INTENT of the Constitutional convention.


.

Funny. It carries no weight in law. It's a "founding" document - but not a "governing" document. BTW, if you get pulled over for drunk driving - tell the officer it was your "INTENT" to drive sober. Good luck...

Look pal,

the EVIDENCE is relevant ONLY in a judicial forum.

But Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg has stated that she intends to vote to OVERRULE Heller and Citizens UNited. So in that respect SCOTUS is no longer a judicial forum.


.

 

[Lakhota]

Okay, so you're above the law. Good luck...

WITHIN THE LAW


UNALIENABLE

What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied. Its most famous use is in the Declaration of Independence, which says people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


.

Well, you can explain it all to authorities - and SCOTUS - what you think "unalienable" means regarding the 2nd Amendment. Good luck... BTW, did the Declaration of Independence grant you "unalienable" gun rights along with unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Since when is the Declaration of Independence a "governing" document?

It shows the INTENT of the Constitutional convention.


.

Funny. It carries no weight in law. It's a "founding" document - but not a "governing" document. BTW, if you get pulled over for drunk driving - tell the officer it was your "INTENT" to drive sober. Good luck...

Look pal,

the EVIDENCE is relevant ONLY in a judicial forum.

But Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg has stated that she intends to vote to OVERRULE Heller and Citizens UNited. So in that respect SCOTUS is no longer a judicial forum.


.

So, what's wrong with that?

 

[KGB]

IGNORE THEM>


The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....


.

Okay, so you're above the law. Good luck...

WITHIN THE LAW


UNALIENABLE

What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied. Its most famous use is in the Declaration of Independence, which says people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


.

Well, you can explain it all to authorities - and SCOTUS - what you think "unalienable" means regarding the 2nd Amendment. Good luck... BTW, did the Declaration of Independence grant you "unalienable" gun rights along with unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Since when is the Declaration of Independence a "governing" document?

It shows the INTENT of the Constitutional convention.


.

Funny. It carries no weight in law. It's a "founding" document - but not a "governing" document. BTW, if you get pulled over for drunk driving - tell the officer it was your "INTENT" to drive sober. Good luck...

Cough....cough....Hillary Clinton....cough...

 

[KGB]

WITHIN THE LAW


UNALIENABLE

What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied. Its most famous use is in the Declaration of Independence, which says people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


.

Well, you can explain it all to authorities - and SCOTUS - what you think "unalienable" means regarding the 2nd Amendment. Good luck... BTW, did the Declaration of Independence grant you "unalienable" gun rights along with unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Since when is the Declaration of Independence a "governing" document?

It shows the INTENT of the Constitutional convention.


.

Funny. It carries no weight in law. It's a "founding" document - but not a "governing" document. BTW, if you get pulled over for drunk driving - tell the officer it was your "INTENT" to drive sober. Good luck...

Look pal,

the EVIDENCE is relevant ONLY in a judicial forum.

But Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg has stated that she intends to vote to OVERRULE Heller and Citizens UNited. So in that respect SCOTUS is no longer a judicial forum.


.

So, what's wrong with that?

Because she's supposed to be impartial before any case. That's the whole point of having an impartial judicial system. Are you really this slow?

 

[Auld Phart]

Are you really that delusional and paranoid? The right to bear arms isn't the same as reasonable gun control.

Control and right should never be used in the same sentence. Unless you're a brainwashed, armstretched, leftist drone.

Many restrictions (controls) have been placed on the 2nd Amendment since it was written - with more to come. Yes, it is a right - but not an "unconditional" one. Even NaziCon Scalia said that.

When you put conditions on rights, rights become regulations.

No shit, Sherlock. So, the 2nd Amendment is "regulated"...

The 2nd Amendment must be regulated because it's a confusing piece of shit the way it's worded.

The meaning of the term at the time meant "trained"...Meaning of the phrase

I'm still waiting for him to explain "you shouldn't even have a firearm according to the 2nd Amendment. "

 

[Two Thumbs]

.

Comparing Republican “Christian Values” To Islamic Fundamentalism

<snip>

Let’s also not forget that both right-wing evangelicals and Islamic fundamentalists believe that a nation should be ruled by religion, also know as a theocratic form of government. Both groups believe their rights are given to them by God (or Allah), not the government. And while many Islamic nations on this planet are indeed ruled by religion, it is our secularist Constitution which has prevented Christian radicals here from ruling this nation as the theocracy they’d love for it to be.

Then there’s always intolerance of other religions. A nation such as Saudi Arabia has no tolerance for any other religions besides Islam. And I can’t help but think that, if many conservatives had their way, this nation would also ban other religions – especially Islam. But while we’re obviously much more tolerant to religious freedom here in the United States than some Islamic states, that is another example of secularism providing that freedom – not Christian fundamentalism.

But when you get right down to it, isn’t the goal of both right-wing Christian evangelicals and Islamic fundamentalists essentially the same – to build nations based upon theocracies and religious rule?

<snip>

Mike Pence: "A Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order"

Really Mike, really?
IOWs what Mike is saying is, Mike wants the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law for the USofA. Thank God the Constitution of the United States of America stands in the way of Mike and dumbasses like him...




.

Do you live under a rock?

The level of ignorance to post all of that utter non-sense is mind boggling.

so many assumptions with no facts to back them up.

 

[Contumacious]

WITHIN THE LAW


UNALIENABLE

What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied. Its most famous use is in the Declaration of Independence, which says people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


.

Well, you can explain it all to authorities - and SCOTUS - what you think "unalienable" means regarding the 2nd Amendment. Good luck... BTW, did the Declaration of Independence grant you "unalienable" gun rights along with unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Since when is the Declaration of Independence a "governing" document?

It shows the INTENT of the Constitutional convention.


.

Funny. It carries no weight in law. It's a "founding" document - but not a "governing" document. BTW, if you get pulled over for drunk driving - tell the officer it was your "INTENT" to drive sober. Good luck...

Look pal,

the EVIDENCE is relevant ONLY in a judicial forum.

But Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg has stated that she intends to vote to OVERRULE Heller and Citizens UNited. So in that respect SCOTUS is no longer a judicial forum.


.

So, what's wrong with that?

You are too far gone.

Your brain is irreparably damaged.

Someone who warns about the impending damage that Pence will cause but who is afraid to defend his life because what a scumbag like Saul Cornell alleges.

Good luck.

.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, you can explain it all to authorities - and SCOTUS - what you think "unalienable" means regarding the 2nd Amendment. Good luck... BTW, did the Declaration of Independence grant you "unalienable" gun rights along with unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Since when is the Declaration of Independence a "governing" document?

It shows the INTENT of the Constitutional convention.


.

Funny. It carries no weight in law. It's a "founding" document - but not a "governing" document. BTW, if you get pulled over for drunk driving - tell the officer it was your "INTENT" to drive sober. Good luck...

Look pal,

the EVIDENCE is relevant ONLY in a judicial forum.

But Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg has stated that she intends to vote to OVERRULE Heller and Citizens UNited. So in that respect SCOTUS is no longer a judicial forum.


.

So, what's wrong with that?

Because she's supposed to be impartial before any case. That's the whole point of having an impartial judicial system. Are you really this slow?

Impartial? You mean like Scalia and the remaining four NaziCons on the high bench? Funny...

 

[Star]

When's the last time a Christian hopped in a truck and mowed down 80+ people? Or shot up a gay nightclub, bombed a crowd at a marathon, shot up an Army base? Flew an airliner into a skyscraper? Or even demand you convert or you get your head lopped off?

All of the major Abrahamic religions have a history of violence, do you know why that is?

Heck, even the bloodthirsty Count Dracula character was based on a real life Christian impaler who built a picket fence of impaled bodies with some of the 40,000 or so people he slaughtered. And let's not forget the Whaco Oklahoma City bomber - no telling how many of the people he massacred were beheaded - can you say Amen?

I wonder-----I wonder if Cheney and Rumsfeld were thinking about terrorizing the citizens of Iraq when they named the first days of the idiotic invasion of Iraq "Shock & Awe"?

When you drop a 1,000 lb bomb on someone's head is that more like a beheading or-----or more like driving a truck into crowd of people.
.

 

[buckeye45_73]

.

Comparing Republican “Christian Values” To Islamic Fundamentalism

<snip>

Let’s also not forget that both right-wing evangelicals and Islamic fundamentalists believe that a nation should be ruled by religion, also know as a theocratic form of government. Both groups believe their rights are given to them by God (or Allah), not the government. And while many Islamic nations on this planet are indeed ruled by religion, it is our secularist Constitution which has prevented Christian radicals here from ruling this nation as the theocracy they’d love for it to be.

Then there’s always intolerance of other religions. A nation such as Saudi Arabia has no tolerance for any other religions besides Islam. And I can’t help but think that, if many conservatives had their way, this nation would also ban other religions – especially Islam. But while we’re obviously much more tolerant to religious freedom here in the United States than some Islamic states, that is another example of secularism providing that freedom – not Christian fundamentalism.

But when you get right down to it, isn’t the goal of both right-wing Christian evangelicals and Islamic fundamentalists essentially the same – to build nations based upon theocracies and religious rule?

<snip>

Mike Pence: "A Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order"

Really Mike, really?
IOWs what Mike is saying is, Mike wants the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law for the USofA. Thank God the Constitution of the United States of America stands in the way of Mike and dumbasses like him...




.

Yeah they are so close

You support the muslims.....let's here another excuse for Nice.....beside I hate the nra.

 

[Mac1958]

The three techniques the Regressive Left uses in spinning for the PC-protected religion:

1. Deflecting to the misdeeds of Christianity
2. Equating modern-day Islam with modern-day Christianity
3. Going straight to personal insults and name-calling.

1. Rinse. Repeat. Get applause from Nutbags. Rinse. Repeat.

And right on cue, one of them jumps in with a beautiful example of #3 for me.

I swear, the Regressive Lefties CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES.


.

Gee. You've never said that before. There is no way we could have predicted that you'd say that.

I get so many opportunities!


.

 

[Norman]

Christian values (once moderated for) got the west off the ground.

Islamic values have ran the middle east (and soon parts of Europe - the regressive goal) into the ground.

Learn the difference.