Kansas: Legalizing Discrimination

[WorldWatcher]

You can tell me that I have to do business with Gays all you want.

You can even make it the law.

"You need this "Adam and Steve" cake on next Friday? Sorry, I can't do it. Too busy."

In which case you’ll need to decide whether to perjure yourself or not when deposed by Adam and Steve’s lawyer, as you were able to deliver several cakes to heterosexual customers by Friday.

Those orders were already made prior to Adam and Steve's order...

Then I had some cancellations later that allowed me to squeeze in another order or two after refusing Adam and Steve's order.

Not saying someone laying a good plan with friends that will perjure themselves can't make that appear to happen...

But you know phone records and business records can be subpenaed right?

Just make sure if you are going to conspire to break the law by forging records that you have a good plan for the conspiracy and conspirators committed enough to lying in court that they don't flip for immunity.



Of course I'm not sure what kind of "friend" will ask another "friend" to commit fraud.

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Not saying someone laying a good plan with friends that will perjure themselves can't make that appear to happen...

But you know phone records and business records can be subpenaed right?

Just make sure if you are going to conspire to break the law by forging records that you have a good plan for the conspiracy and conspirators committed enough to lying in court that they don't flip for immunity.



Of course I'm not sure what kind of "friend" will ask another "friend" to commit fraud.

>>>>

Trust me, people lying in court in conspiracy gets zero punitive action. I've been on the receiving end of that more than once; where it was emperically clear the opposition, some 4 of them were lying through their teeth [the judge had photos showing the opposite of the event as an exhibit sitting on the desk in front of him the entire time all of them were lying in unison]. Not one single thing happened to them other than I won the case.

Courts do not prosecute perjury. They just don't. I honestly don't even know why they swear anyone in anymore. They should just have them raise their right hand and say "yeah, whatever"...

Besides, this is all in the event that the Supreme Court finds that in spite of christian's faith telling them they are committing a mortal sin that condemns them to the pit of fire forever [Jude 1], a secular law will force them through duress to commit that sin and effectively abandon their faith. I'm pretty sure the Court will find protection for them on this particular matter, this particular gravity of sin in Jude 1 to allow them to the right to refuse service to anyone.

Very simple. They affirm that 1st Amendment protection and they post a sign outside that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

This isn't race folks. This is behavior. And that is the crucial difference in the question of refusal of service by people of faith. It is one behavior vs another. One is not a recognized religion, though it functions identically to one in every way, the other is a recognized religion.

 

[JoeB131]

So is eating shellfish and pork, but yet oddly, that's a mortal sin that isn't very big on your list.

Let's be honest why you hide behind selective bible verses. you think the gay sex is icky. Okay. Whatever floats you boat. Two dudes doing it, yeah, not my thing, either.

Also, really, none of my business nor yours or your Imaginary Sky Fairy's.

Nope, venial sins. No cities were destroyed and all their inhabitants sent to the pit of fire forever for eating pork or shellfish.

And, by the way, those are old Testament/Jewish local customs/venial sins. The New Testament mortal sin of enabling homosexuality in Jude 1 particularly gives very explicit instructions to the faithful to remember the example of Sodom and other cities that might be like it. It implores them to actively resist the spread of this cult into the faithful. It directly states that anyone who enables this situation and does not put up an active fight against it will go to the Pit of Fire along with the already damned.

Doesn't that make your God kind of a douchebag?

You know, here's why I'm an atheist. Because the God of the Bible sounds like he's kind of a prick. He drowns babies, burns everyone in a city because of what kind of sex they were having, but makes a point to save the "Righteous" Lot, who was willing to offer his daughters up for gang-rape. Lot then proceeded to have drunken sex with them himself.

So having Gay Sex- Bad.

Offering your daughters up to a mob to be gang raped, and then getting so hammered you engage in incest - "Righteous".

 

[JoeB131]

You can tell me that I have to do business with Gays all you want.

You can even make it the law.

"You need this "Adam and Steve" cake on next Friday? Sorry, I can't do it. Too busy."

In which case you’ll need to decide whether to perjure yourself or not when deposed by Adam and Steve’s lawyer, as you were able to deliver several cakes to heterosexual customers by Friday.

Those orders were already made prior to Adam and Steve's order...

Then I had some cancellations later that allowed me to squeeze in another order or two after refusing Adam and Steve's order.

Or you can just save yourself all these legal costs by making the fucking cake and shutting up about it.

 

[Silhouette]

Doesn't that make your God kind of a douchebag?

You know, here's why I'm an atheist. Because the God of the Bible sounds like he's kind of a prick. He drowns babies, burns everyone in a city because of what kind of sex they were having, but makes a point to save the "Righteous" Lot, who was willing to offer his daughters up for gang-rape. Lot then proceeded to have drunken sex with them himself.

So having Gay Sex- Bad.

Offering your daughters up to a mob to be gang raped, and then getting so hammered you engage in incest - "Righteous".

I'm not a practicing christian but other people are. Talk to them. People don't create the divine rules. People are fallible. I don't know why in Jude 1 the Big Cheese commanded the angels to warn the people enabling homosexuality of their eternal damnation. I only know that this is something privy to the christian god that few may understand but all are commanded to follow.

That's what religion is about. Otherwise, all religions would just be called "the subjective logic of homo sapiens".

I have used logic though to interpret what I think might be behind the warnings to christians in Jude 1 and the scrubbing of Sodom off the map. Instead of the individual sin here or there, I think I see a pattern in the Bible where if entire things are going wrong, dire remedies are called for to establish the type of matrix wherein the "classroom" of christians remains more functional. I sort of have a pet name for it. It's the matrix-law that dominates individual lawbreaking when a trump card is needed.

Remember, this is my interpretation. I can't speak for the christian god anymore than anyone here could. It just seems to be the pattern. ?

 

[JoeB131]

Doesn't that make your God kind of a douchebag?

You know, here's why I'm an atheist. Because the God of the Bible sounds like he's kind of a prick. He drowns babies, burns everyone in a city because of what kind of sex they were having, but makes a point to save the "Righteous" Lot, who was willing to offer his daughters up for gang-rape. Lot then proceeded to have drunken sex with them himself.

So having Gay Sex- Bad.

Offering your daughters up to a mob to be gang raped, and then getting so hammered you engage in incest - "Righteous".

I'm not a practicing christian but other people are. Talk to them. People don't create the divine rules. People are fallible. I don't know why in Jude 1 the Big Cheese commanded the angels to warn the people enabling homosexuality of their eternal damnation. I only know that this is something privy to the christian god that few may understand but all are commanded to follow.

That's what religion is about. Otherwise, all religions would just be called "the subjective logic of homo sapiens".

I have used logic though to interpret what I think might be behind the warnings to christians in Jude 1 and the scrubbing of Sodom off the map. Instead of the individual sin here or there, I think I see a pattern in the Bible where if entire things are going wrong, dire remedies are called for to establish the type of matrix wherein the "classroom" of christians remains more functional. I sort of have a pet name for it. It's the matrix-law that dominates individual lawbreaking when a trump card is needed.

Remember, this is my interpretation. I can't speak for the christian god anymore than anyone here could. It just seems to be the pattern. ?

Wow, you backed off the Christian thing pretty quick there.

If you were capable of using logic, you wouldn't be trying to use Bronze Age Fairy Tales to rationalize your hate of gay people.

Logically, offering your daughters up for Gang Rape and then having drunken sex with them yourself strikes me as much more venial sin than having sex with someone you like.

The point is, we've moved on beyond the barbaric laws of the bible. We don't stone girls to death for not being virgins or any of the other cruelties called for in the bible.

Now, if your hatred is so strong you simply cannot stand the thought of doing business with a gay person, it's simple enough.

Don't go into business. Then you can hate in the privacy of your own home to your hearts content.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

There's nothing in the bible outlining interracial marriages as a mortal sin. The behaviors that make up homosexuality ARE outlined as a mortal sin of which merely the crime of enabling those behaviors as they overtake a culture is worthy of the pit of fire forever.

If you want to debate how this issue is a 1st amendment issue Seawytch, a good place to start would be the Bible and Jude 1 and Romans 1 where the directives to earnestly contend to abolish this spread are given...or else...

So is eating shellfish and pork, but yet oddly, that's a mortal sin that isn't very big on your list.

Let's be honest why you hide behind selective bible verses. you think the gay sex is icky. Okay. Whatever floats you boat. Two dudes doing it, yeah, not my thing, either.

Also, really, none of my business nor yours or your Imaginary Sky Fairy's.

Dude...you have no idea what a nutcase this Silhouette creep is.

So is eating shellfish and pork, but yet oddly, that's a mortal sin that isn't very big on your list.

Let's be honest why you hide behind selective bible verses. you think the gay sex is icky. Okay. Whatever floats you boat. Two dudes doing it, yeah, not my thing, either.

Also, really, none of my business nor yours or your Imaginary Sky Fairy's.

Nope, venial sins. No cities were destroyed and all their inhabitants sent to the pit of fire forever for eating pork or shellfish.

And, by the way, those are old Testament/Jewish local customs/venial sins. The New Testament mortal sin of enabling homosexuality in Jude 1 particularly gives very explicit instructions to the faithful to remember the example of Sodom and other cities that might be like it. It implores them to actively resist the spread of this cult into the faithful. It directly states that anyone who enables this situation and does not put up an active fight against it will go to the Pit of Fire along with the already damned.

The Bible does not hate gays. Only your sick abused mind does.

I'll repeat what I've told you a hundred times elsewhere and to the religious homophobes on this forum: GOD DOES NOT HATE. TO HATE IN THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMY.

To use God's name to justify a political agenda is a bastardization of what God stands for, whether it be for anti gay, or pro gay agendas. To twist the word of God to suit a sinful nature is also blasphemy. Oh yes, God does hate. He hates sin, and I'm sure he hates being used as a cudgel by people like you.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Do any of you realize that the wrong doings of Sodom and Gomorrah weren't that they had gay sex, it was rather because of the way they treated strangers?

Lot hung out beside the gates because he wanted to meet new people and learn what they knew.

Sodom and Gomorrah only wanted to exploit those who came to their city.

But then again..................lots of you Christians think that the original sin was eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Got news for you all, it wasn't because they ate of it, nor was it because they found out they were naked, it was because they all tried to blame it on someone else.

Adam blamed it on Eve, Eve blamed it on the serpent. Wouldn't it have pleased God if He'd seen that His creation actually took responsibility for the actions they'd done?

Face it..................back then, like much today, when someone fucks up, they don't want to take responsibility for their actions. That was the first original sin.

It wasn't nudity, or eating the apple, it was refusing to be responsible for their actions, because they knew the consequences would be large.

Why do you think criminals (as well as adulterers, thieves, or people who do something that society says is wrong) deny they've done anything wrong?

You want to live in God's light? Own up for your own actions.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Or you could just do the job, and do it very badly so no one ever asks you to do it again

 

[ABikerSailor]

Or you could just do the job, and do it very badly so no one ever asks you to do it again

You're right....................you COULD do the job badly so that nobody would ever want your services again.

But....................it would hurt your reputation, because people would then think that you had either a bad business, or a bad plan for executing that business.

Either way, it would hurt your bottom line, and you might go bankrupt.

But if you intentionally do your business badly (when I've heard from other sources that you're supposed to be the best in your field), I'd wonder why you chose to single me out, and when I found out it was because of how I look (ugly or cute), who I chose to marry (white marrying a black), or who I loved (gay marrying a person of the same gender), I'd be willing to put your name out there as being a bigot.

Angie's List has a lot of sway, so does Facebook and Craig's List.

If the bigots want to discriminate, let them, it's easier if they show themselves than it is to weed them out individually.

If you're gay and okay, tell Angie's List, put it on Craig's List, or even post it on Facebook.

Together we can weed the bigots out.

Nothing I like better than seeing someone who has an agenda taken down because of it.

Nothing I like better than seeing someone who is willing to help all be rewarded for it.

 

[Seawytch]

So is eating shellfish and pork, but yet oddly, that's a mortal sin that isn't very big on your list.

Let's be honest why you hide behind selective bible verses. you think the gay sex is icky. Okay. Whatever floats you boat. Two dudes doing it, yeah, not my thing, either.

Also, really, none of my business nor yours or your Imaginary Sky Fairy's.

Dude...you have no idea what a nutcase this Silhouette creep is.

Nope, venial sins. No cities were destroyed and all their inhabitants sent to the pit of fire forever for eating pork or shellfish.

And, by the way, those are old Testament/Jewish local customs/venial sins. The New Testament mortal sin of enabling homosexuality in Jude 1 particularly gives very explicit instructions to the faithful to remember the example of Sodom and other cities that might be like it. It implores them to actively resist the spread of this cult into the faithful. It directly states that anyone who enables this situation and does not put up an active fight against it will go to the Pit of Fire along with the already damned.

The Bible does not hate gays. Only your sick abused mind does.

I'll repeat what I've told you a hundred times elsewhere and to the religious homophobes on this forum: GOD DOES NOT HATE. TO HATE IN THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMY.

To use God's name to justify a political agenda is a bastardization of what God stands for, whether it be for anti gay, or pro gay agendas. To twist the word of God to suit a sinful nature is also blasphemy. Oh yes, God does hate. He hates sin, and I'm sure he hates being used as a cudgel by people like you.

God hates being used as a cudgel...that's probably true, but I don't see how saying "god doesn't hate" is the cudgel. Seems more like "you fags burn in hell" is the cudgel. Different strokes I guess.

 

[Iceweasel]

Do any of you realize that the wrong doings of Sodom and Gomorrah weren't that they had gay sex, it was rather because of the way they treated strangers?

LOL. Yes, the entire male population in the town raping you is definitely unhospitable. How long have you been at sea?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Do any of you realize that the wrong doings of Sodom and Gomorrah weren't that they had gay sex, it was rather because of the way they treated strangers?

LOL. Yes, the entire male population in the town raping you is definitely unhospitable. How long have you been at sea?

Might wanna double check the story, it had nothing to do with sailors, nor did it have much to do with rape.

It was rather how they treated strangers. But................then again..................if you're part of a cloistered group (i.e. a Greek fraternity or a biker group, and yeah, I've been a member of a biker group, you tend to fuck over the new guy), you'd see that it wasn't so much about being gay, but rather being new to the area.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Do any of you realize that the wrong doings of Sodom and Gomorrah weren't that they had gay sex, it was rather because of the way they treated strangers?

Lot hung out beside the gates because he wanted to meet new people and learn what they knew.

Sodom and Gomorrah only wanted to exploit those who came to their city.

But then again..................lots of you Christians think that the original sin was eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Got news for you all, it wasn't because they ate of it, nor was it because they found out they were naked, it was because they all tried to blame it on someone else.

Adam blamed it on Eve, Eve blamed it on the serpent. Wouldn't it have pleased God if He'd seen that His creation actually took responsibility for the actions they'd done?

Face it..................back then, like much today, when someone fucks up, they don't want to take responsibility for their actions. That was the first original sin.

It wasn't nudity, or eating the apple, it was refusing to be responsible for their actions, because they knew the consequences would be large.

Why do you think criminals (as well as adulterers, thieves, or people who do something that society says is wrong) deny they've done anything wrong?

You want to live in God's light? Own up for your own actions.

True. Just as now, hospitality is major component of Mediterranean culture. Bedouins exemplify this. Even sworn enemies they'd otherwise take pot shots at, if said enemy comes indicating peace, they're welcomed in for tea.

Original sin was disobediance to G-d. Then again, it seems more like a 'set up to fail' event. By putting a tree in their home enviroment, allowing the serpent to be there (presumedly creating said serpent,) then giving Man free will, G-d set the stage for one of two outcomes: obediance, or disobediance. But if we really had free will, why were we punished? Instead it seems as though our punishment was the prefered outcome of G-d's. Could have simply avoided the entire scenario by allowing Man to eat from the tree which one would think is good, since giving us laws is pointless if we don't understand good and evil, or not allowing the serpent to be in the Garden in the first place.

It seems to me, G-d's original intent for Man was for us to be more like animals as with creating us nude. By choosing to become more (arguably, to evolve) we chose to become more like G-d, and in doing so donned clothes to conceal our nudity (unlike every other animal.)

 

[ABikerSailor]

Do any of you realize that the wrong doings of Sodom and Gomorrah weren't that they had gay sex, it was rather because of the way they treated strangers?

Lot hung out beside the gates because he wanted to meet new people and learn what they knew.

Sodom and Gomorrah only wanted to exploit those who came to their city.

But then again..................lots of you Christians think that the original sin was eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Got news for you all, it wasn't because they ate of it, nor was it because they found out they were naked, it was because they all tried to blame it on someone else.

Adam blamed it on Eve, Eve blamed it on the serpent. Wouldn't it have pleased God if He'd seen that His creation actually took responsibility for the actions they'd done?

Face it..................back then, like much today, when someone fucks up, they don't want to take responsibility for their actions. That was the first original sin.

It wasn't nudity, or eating the apple, it was refusing to be responsible for their actions, because they knew the consequences would be large.

Why do you think criminals (as well as adulterers, thieves, or people who do something that society says is wrong) deny they've done anything wrong?

You want to live in God's light? Own up for your own actions.

True. Just as now, hospitality is major component of Mediterranean culture. Bedouins exemplify this. Even sworn enemies they'd otherwise take pot shots at, if said enemy comes indicating peace, they're welcomed in for tea.

Original sin was disobediance to G-d. Then again, it seems more like a 'set up to fail' event. By putting a tree in their home enviroment, allowing the serpent to be there (presumedly creating said serpent,) then giving Man free will, G-d set the stage for one of two outcomes: obediance, or disobediance. But if we really had free will, why were we punished? Instead it seems as though our punishment was the prefered outcome of G-d's. Could have simply avoided the entire scenario by allowing Man to eat from the tree which one would think is good, since giving us laws is pointless if we don't understand good and evil, or not allowing the serpent to be in the Garden in the first place.

It seems to me, G-d's original intent for Man was for us to be more like animals as with creating us nude. By choosing to become more (arguably, to evolve) we chose to become more like G-d, and in doing so donned clothes to conceal our nudity (unlike every other animal.)

Actually, we could have avoided original sin by simply taking responsibility for our actions.

God asked Adam who was responsible for him eating the apple. He blamed Eve.

He also asked Eve who made her eat from the apple, and she blamed the serpent.

Our existence (and our world) would be a lot better if either Adam or Eve had claimed responsibility for what they did.

The serpent is exempt, because that is what they'd been sent to do. I wouldn't tell someone that I'd sent to do a job (unawares), that they'd done a bad job if those who they were sent to tempt had fallen for their charms.

Like I said.............the original sin was that Adam and Eve refused to take responsibility for their actions in eating the apple.

I mean....................don't your parents tell you to stay out of the liquor cabinet (or not drink, depending on your circumstances), until they check with you?

Sorry, but Adam and Eve got into the liquor cabinet, and chose to not acknowledge that they'd done it because someone told them to.

They refused to be accountable, that's why God punished them.

Don't you punish your children (if you have them) when they lie and try to blame their actions on something else?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Serpent didn't MAKE Eve disobey. Eve didn't MAKE Adam disobey. They exercised a choice.

Coupled with G-d 'hardening Pharaoh's heart' later on (in effect, overriding his free will and forcing him into a course of action desired by G-d,) I wonder if Eve and Adam are even responsible for their choice.

 

[Iceweasel]

Might wanna double check the story, it had nothing to do with sailors, nor did it have much to do with rape.

It was rather how they treated strangers. But................then again..................if you're part of a cloistered group (i.e. a Greek fraternity or a biker group, and yeah, I've been a member of a biker group, you tend to fuck over the new guy), you'd see that it wasn't so much about being gay, but rather being new to the area.

Bikers sodomize new members? I've been riding for 42 years and haven't been happier that I never felt the need to join a club. The S&G story is about debaunchy and how low they sank morally. So mass gang rape is very much a part of the story. Calling it inhospitality is dense beyond belief.

 

[Chaussette]

Do any of you realize that the wrong doings of Sodom and Gomorrah weren't that they had gay sex, it was rather because of the way they treated strangers?

Lot hung out beside the gates because he wanted to meet new people and learn what they knew.

Sodom and Gomorrah only wanted to exploit those who came to their city.

But then again..................lots of you Christians think that the original sin was eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Got news for you all, it wasn't because they ate of it, nor was it because they found out they were naked, it was because they all tried to blame it on someone else.

Adam blamed it on Eve, Eve blamed it on the serpent. Wouldn't it have pleased God if He'd seen that His creation actually took responsibility for the actions they'd done?

Face it..................back then, like much today, when someone fucks up, they don't want to take responsibility for their actions. That was the first original sin.

It wasn't nudity, or eating the apple, it was refusing to be responsible for their actions, because they knew the consequences would be large.

Why do you think criminals (as well as adulterers, thieves, or people who do something that society says is wrong) deny they've done anything wrong?

You want to live in God's light? Own up for your own actions.

True. Just as now, hospitality is major component of Mediterranean culture. Bedouins exemplify this. Even sworn enemies they'd otherwise take pot shots at, if said enemy comes indicating peace, they're welcomed in for tea.

Original sin was disobediance to G-d. Then again, it seems more like a 'set up to fail' event. By putting a tree in their home enviroment, allowing the serpent to be there (presumedly creating said serpent,) then giving Man free will, G-d set the stage for one of two outcomes: obediance, or disobediance. But if we really had free will, why were we punished? Instead it seems as though our punishment was the prefered outcome of G-d's. Could have simply avoided the entire scenario by allowing Man to eat from the tree which one would think is good, since giving us laws is pointless if we don't understand good and evil, or not allowing the serpent to be in the Garden in the first place.

It seems to me, G-d's original intent for Man was for us to be more like animals as with creating us nude. By choosing to become more (arguably, to evolve) we chose to become more like G-d, and in doing so donned clothes to conceal our nudity (unlike every other animal.)

Actually, we could have avoided original sin by simply taking responsibility for our actions.

God asked Adam who was responsible for him eating the apple. He blamed Eve.

He also asked Eve who made her eat from the apple, and she blamed the serpent.

Our existence (and our world) would be a lot better if either Adam or Eve had claimed responsibility for what they did.

The serpent is exempt, because that is what they'd been sent to do. I wouldn't tell someone that I'd sent to do a job (unawares), that they'd done a bad job if those who they were sent to tempt had fallen for their charms.

Like I said.............the original sin was that Adam and Eve refused to take responsibility for their actions in eating the apple.

I mean....................don't your parents tell you to stay out of the liquor cabinet (or not drink, depending on your circumstances), until they check with you?

Sorry, but Adam and Eve got into the liquor cabinet, and chose to not acknowledge that they'd done it because someone told them to.

They refused to be accountable, that's why God punished them.

Don't you punish your children (if you have them) when they lie and try to blame their actions on something else?

God kicked Adam out of gay Eden for having sex with a woman. Anyways, if god didn't want Adam to bang Eve, he would have made her vagina look like an asshole, and a man's asshole look like a vagina. Or simply only make guys in Eden. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Chaussette]

Do any of you realize that the wrong doings of Sodom and Gomorrah weren't that they had gay sex, it was rather because of the way they treated strangers?

LOL. Yes, the entire male population in the town raping you is definitely unhospitable. How long have you been at sea?

Might wanna double check the story, it had nothing to do with sailors, nor did it have much to do with rape.

It was rather how they treated strangers. But................then again..................if you're part of a cloistered group (i.e. a Greek fraternity or a biker group, and yeah, I've been a member of a biker group, you tend to fuck over the new guy), you'd see that it wasn't so much about being gay, but rather being new to the area.

So you joined a biker group to get fucked in the ass or to fuck the new members in the ass, or both?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Serpent didn't MAKE Eve disobey. Eve didn't MAKE Adam disobey. They exercised a choice.

Coupled with G-d 'hardening Pharaoh's heart' later on (in effect, overriding his free will and forcing him into a course of action desired by G-d,) I wonder if Eve and Adam are even responsible for their choice.

You're right................nobody made anyone else disobey.

They exercised their choice to make themselves look better, because they blamed it on someone else.


They would have been a lot better off if they'd just accepted responsibility for the things they'd done, but unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people (current living beings being included) seem to think that shoveling off responsibility for their bad actions is a way to make things work.

Wanna talk about the Catholic church? How about the current state of politics? Seems that Boehner is very concerned about that, as he's blocked the current President, as well as has said that he doesn't trust him.

Sorry.................but Boehner has proven himself to be untrustworthy, because of all the things he's done in Congress.

I'd trust President Obama anytime over Boehner. At least Obama seems to be working towards the best interest of the American people. The GOP seems to have an attitude of working against him. I mean................the very things they supported as least as 6 months to 15 months ago, when he said that he supported it, the went against it.

Want proof? Use your computers, check Google and see that it's true.