Say Anything Blog

Mike, I posted some fairly harsh criticism of Goode a while back.

As for the Koran thing, Article 6 (I believe) of the Constitution says that there shall be no religious test for federal office.  Which means that these folks can get sworn in on whatever they want.

Case closed, as far as I’m concerned.  And, really, I’d just like one of these guys to mean it for a change.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I’m gonna run and get sworn in on a back issue of MAD magazine.

I think we should see through all the legalistic crap and realize that this guy(Ellison) is deliberately poking his finger in the eye of America.  The lefties are aiding and abetting this, because they hate America as much as this guy does.  Let him serve without pay, if he doesn’t want to follow our traditions.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

I think Keith Ellison is terrible choice to have in Congress.  He is an apologist for terrorists, and I would never support him for a leader.

That being said, I don’t see why his getting sworn in on a Koran makes him hate America.  The Constitution says no religious test.  It’s as simple as that.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The Constitution says no religious test.  It’s as simple as that.

Taking an oath on the Bible is not a “religious test”, in any meaning of the word.  Instead, it is a time-honored tradition of our country.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

If you require that I take an oath on a Bible than it is, indeed, a religious test.

If taking the oath on a bible is simply a tradition, then it shouldn’t matter all that exactly one legislator has chosen something else.

IF you want to dislike Ellison because he took his oath on a Koran than fine, but there are better and more pertinent reasons to dislike him.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I think we should see through all the legalistic crap and realize that this guy(Ellison) is deliberately poking his finger in the eye of America.  The lefties are aiding and abetting this, because they hate America as much as this guy does.  Let him serve without pay, if he doesn’t want to follow our traditions.

Amen Brother you just explained the whole Democratic platform. Blame America First, anything anti american is great to them. I am tired of this crap. I hope the people of Minnesota are proud of their selves.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

If you require that I take an oath on a Bible than it is, indeed, a religious test.

How is it a religious test? There’s no way to pass or fail, like in a real test. He won’t be asked any questions about the Bible; it is a symbol of the founding principles of this country, and represents his pledge of loyalty to those principles, as a public servant.  The fact that he refuses is very significant; let him serve for no pay, if he is so dedicated to this country.  What I just said really is a test, btw.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Mike
Your implication is bullshit!

Patton read (and owned) Rommel’s books....

Would a copy of a ‘Rommel’ book, once owned by Patton, in the possession of a university history professor make the professor a Nazi sympathizer?

D.J.C.

The (Holy) Koran is full of very unholy and terrorist ambitions, it is obviously not from God, as the Muslims would have us believe.

Any sane individual can see that it is a journal and collection of a terrorist’s criminal activities and ideas.

This terrorist’s name is Mohammed (popularly known as the prophet of Islam). During his lifetime, Mohammed organized at least 86 expeditions against people who either refused to follow his teachings or simply came in the way of his power crazed ambitions.

He led the life of a serial killer, terrorist and rapist, who perpetrated genocide throughout Arabia.

Along with the pagan Arabs, many Jews and Christians were victims of this mindless terrorist. Mohammed was a man who destroyed peace wherever he went, and in its place brought terror, carnage and death.

And he did all this in the name of God! Mohammed has clearly stated in the Koran that God has instructed him and all pious Muslims to loot, pillage, plunder, rape, torture and murder innocent human beings, in order to further the interests of Islam.

I have stated below just a few of the verses from the Koran, which support this fact. As the Koran is supposed to be timeless and universal, the verses in it hold true even today and are used everyday by pious Muslims to justify their brutal and terrorist activities.

1. (Koran 8:12) “Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them.”

In the above verse the great prophet of Islam, Mohammed, is giving step by step instructions on how to torture and kill the unbelievers if they don’t follow Islam. He is clearly instructing Muslims to commit cold-blooded murder in the name of religion.

2. (Koran 2:216) “Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not.”

The above verse was stated by Mohammed after his first terrorist attack. He and his followers mercilessly massacred four innocent and unarmed merchants at Nakhla in 623 AD.

The massacre came in January, the sacred month of Rejeb. Arabs regard this month as a sacred month, when warfare and violence is forbidden.

Since this barbaric criminal act was led and sanctioned by the “great” prophet Mohammed, we can conclude that Islam’s sacred activities include loot and cold-blooded murder of innocent individuals. The very beginnings of Islam are stained with the blood of innocents.

By stating the above verse, Mohammed completely absolved himself from all blame for having murdered innocents.

The most insidious and devilish implication of this verse is that God is completely justifying Mohammed’s murder of the innocent Meccans.

The import of this verse is that killing and violence are JUSTIFIED for Muslims, because they are doing it by divine ordinance!

It is a religious duty of every Muslim to murder anyone who comes in the way of Islam. Since it is also the duty of every Muslim to ensure that the entire world is converted to Islam by force if necessary, one must directly conclude that it is the religious duty of Muslims to kill all those who are non-Muslim.

This conclusion is derived directly from the supreme edict of Allah, who admonishes that even the Muslim who feels it is wrong to kill, must murder in the name of Allah, otherwise he is not a true Muslim.

Over and above this, Mohammed is hypocritically implying that warfare is hateful to him, but he participated in it because God ordained it.

3. (Koran 69:30-37) “It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. You desire the lure of this world and Allah desires for you the hereafter and Allah is Mighty, Wise.. Now enjoy what you have won as lawful and good and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful.”

This verse is in reference to the prisoners that Mohammed held for ransom after the battle of Badr.

This battle occurred on March 17, 623 AD. This is the month of Ramadan—another sacred month for the Muslims! In this battle, Mohammed and his followers killed at least 70 innocent merchants from the Quraysh tribe of Mecca and slaughtered several hundred soldiers who came forward to defend them.

Here God the “Merciful” is saying that all the non-believers deserve to be killed! In addition, God is conveniently commenting that whatever loot Mohammed has plundered is “lawful and good” because it was done in service to God.

So murder, rape, plunder and destruction are all perfectly legal with the Muslim God as long as they are done in the name of Islam!

Mohammed is also insidiously making himself seem very kind for having spared the lives of the prisoners, when in fact he only let them live so he could ransom their lives for more money. In today’s world this is called “taking hostages” and defines “Terrorism” of the worst kind.

4. (Koran 69:30-37) “(It will be said) Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire. And then insert him in a chain whereof the length is seventy cubits. Lo! he used not to believe in God the tremendous, and urged not on the feeding of the wretched. Therefore hath he no lover hear this day nor any food save filth which none but sinners eat.”

The above verses from the Koran prove that Muslims are specifically instructed not to tolerate unbelievers.

It directly states that people who do not believe in Mohammed and the Islamic God are to be tortured and murdered.. Not only does this verse clearly implicate that unbelievers must be tortured and killed, it goes on further to state prescribed methods for committing torture.

The horrific acts mentioned above are in practice even today in Islamic countries. In fact, in India, Muslims tortured the Sikh Gurus and their families exactly as prescribed by the Koran.

For example, the Sikh guru Tegh Bahadur was imprisoned in a cage like a wild animal, when he refused to forsake his religion for Islam. Three of his disciples were murdered in front of his eyes. One of them was Bhai Mati Das. He was sawed alive into little pieces.

The other was wrapped up in cotton and burnt alive. Bhai Dyala, the third one, was boiled alive in a cauldron. Guru Tegh Bahadur himself was brutally tortured and killed in a similar fashion. One wonders at the mercy of “The all beneficent Allah” who enjoys watching the roasted burnt flesh of hapless innocents falling off their bones.

5. (Koran 5: 33-34) “The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is forgiving, merciful.”

6. (Koran 22: 19-22) “These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.”

7. (Koran 76: 4) “Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers chains, yokes and a blazing fire.”

The above verses clearly state extreme terrorist activities, as they contain nothing but detailed recipes of horrific torture. Cutting off the hands and feet of individuals and then making them walk and jump, pouring boiling waters over their victims, making them drink it, burning them alive, inserting hot iron rods into their bodies, dismemberment and disembowelment, genital mutilation etc. are common Islamic practices.

I have mentioned only a few of the verses from the Koran to show that Islam is nothing but an excuse to legalize terrorism, genocide, massacre and other criminal activities.

Many other verses that demonstrate these specific qualities, are to be found throughout the Koran . As Muslims worldwide regard the Koran to be the ultimate holy book, it is followed to the word.

Their daily lives are guided specifically by such passages from the Koran . Moreover, the terrorist, lecherous and criminal activities described in the Koran are considered to be the sacred words of God.

Is it any wonder that mindless Muslims all over the world, justify their criminal activities of destruction, loot, torture, rape and murder by pointing to the Koran?

They actually consider their acts to be holy and believe that for committing such holy acts they will go to paradise—a paradise where they will have plenty of wine, women and young boys for their sexual pleasure. (How Mohammed uses bribery in the Koran to attract mindless human beings is above the scope of this article and will be described in later ones).

Read--- Hamza trial: “It ain’t hate, it’s the Qur’an” (here)

D.J.C.

Patton read (and owned) Rommel’s books....

Dirty Jackass:
You knows why Jefferson had the books and what type of use he put them too? No. It was clearly scholarly. Those type of books are all ‘quaint’ as Gonzales would put it. The old testament has multiple endorsements and justifications of genocide. BFD. Jefferson probably kept that and his bible next to Hans Christian Anderson.

Ellison, being a good and pious Muslim, knows that the swearing of oaths, either upon the written word of God or in the Name of God, is expressly forbidden.

And I own 2 different translations of the Qur’an. And Rommel’s treatise on armored/high mobility warfare is sitting about 24 inches from me right now. Does that make me a Nazi Muslim, or a Muslim Nazi?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

He led the life of a serial killer, terrorist and rapist, who perpetrated genocide throughout Arabia.

Not to mention his being a pedophile.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

DJC said

Mike
Your implication is bullshit!

My implication is that Rob’s interpretation of your Constitution seems correct to me and that complaints upon Korans makes the complainers look ridiculous.

The only way that Ellison’s swearing-in could be more deliciously ironic is if he borrowed one of 2H9’s copies of the Koran on which to lay his hand. I know this isn’t a significant issue but it’s sure darned funny.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Sparkie
In Abu Hamza’s (the former imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque chagred with conspiracy to committ murder) trial, his defense attorney made the same claim that you make.

Edward Fitzgerald, (Hamsa’s lawyer) said that Abu Hamza’s interpretation of the Koran was that it imposed an obligation on Muslims to do jihad and fight in the defence of their religion.

He added: “It is said he was preaching murder, but he was actually preaching from the Koran itself.”

Why then, if he was preaching from the Qur’an,it just only seemed as if he was preaching murder?

Mr Fitzgerald cited two verses of the book that Abu Hamza would rely on, among many others, as theological justification for the words that had led to him being charged.

They were Chapter 2, verse 216 and Chapter 9, verse 111. He said (and your assertion is) that all the great monotheistic religions had scriptures that contained “the language of blood and retribution”.

No, Sparkie. I challenge you, and anyone else, to produce any verse of the Bible that remotely corresponds to either one of these.

2:216 says: “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

Where in the Bible does it tell the aggregate of believers that fighting is “prescribed” for them?

There are verses in the Old Testament telling the Israelites to fight against specific people, but they are not commands to open-ended warfare against unbelievers, and Jews and Christians have never understood them as such.

9:111 is even worse: “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain...”

This verse is used as a rationale for suicide bombing. Now find me one verse of the Bible that promises Heaven to anyone who kills and is killed. Go ahead. I’ll be right here.

The Hadith says that the trees will call out to the Muslims “there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him”.

In a sane world, this would not be seen as a valid defense at all. Instead, it would raise questions about the Qur’an and Hadith themselves.

D.J.C.

Jackass
I can preach the obliteration of the Philistines and it’ll be straight out of the Bible… and murder. The bible, at one point, even calls for the murder of their goats and livestock in addition to them. Overt endorsements of ethnic cleansing, much like some Islamics wish to carry out. Cool off your superiority complex.

So you admit to an inability to find a single verse in the Bible that correspondes to those from the Qu’ran. See, sparkle baby, that was not so hard. You pacifists are so cute. Cute, yet stupid as fuck.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Sparks

Islam makes no distinction between religion and the State.  Instead, it envisions the state as something akin to a giant congregation, entirely controlled by religious law, with no room for external law, legislation or morality.

The Caliphate (Arabic Khilafah) is an Islamic federal government which represents political leadership and unity of the Muslim world (Ummah) applying Islamic law (Shariah). The Caliph is the term for the head of state and it is the only form of government sanctioned in traditional Islamic theology.

A true Muslim cannot simultaneously believe in the Koran’s dictates and swear an oath to protect a Western legal document such as the Constitution. 

The two documents (the Koran and the Constitution) envision entirely antithetical laws and the Koran mandates that its believers, as part of their faith, bend every effort to ensuring the Koran’s ascendancy over all other forms of government and faith.

That is, as a devout Muslim, one cannot swear to support any political system other than Shari’a, and one certainly can’t do so using the very same Koran that proscribes all other systems.
So....

Jackass
I can preach the obliteration of the Philistines and it’ll be straight out of the Bible… and murder.
Sparkie Arbuckle on January 5, 2007 at 09:23 am

Of course, you could only preach this if you traveled back in time 2700 years to circa 730 B.C.

D.J.C.

Isn’t it curious that when someone wants to point to the equivalence of the Koran and the Bible, they point to the Old Testament, but are always strangely quiet about the New Testament?

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

A true Muslim cannot simultaneously believe in the Koran’s dictates and swear an oath to protect a Western legal document such as the Constitution.

This statement would seem true to the fundamentalist observer whether he be Muslim or Christian. Fortunately the fundamentalists still constitute the minority but they certainly make up in volume what they lack in numbers.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

This statement would seem true to the fundamentalist observer whether he be Muslim or Christian.  Still trying to conflate Muslim fundamentalism with Christian fundamentalism, eh? Fortunately the fundamentalists still constitute the minority but they certainly make up in volume what they lack in numbers. It might be more accurate to state that the Muslim fundamentalists make up in violence what they lack in numhers, but that wouldn’t be true of the Christian fundamentalists.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Mike A,
What is your beef with fundamentalist Christians?  Exactly what message or behavior are they exhibiting today that would cause you to equate them with Islamic extremists?

No Offense Mike I haven’t seen too many fundamental Christians flying aircraft into buildings or cutting the heads of western citizens. Islam is a religion of extremes.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

Isn’t it curious that when someone wants to point to the equivalence of the Koran and the Bible, they point to the Old Testament, but are always strangely quiet about the New Testament?

The new testament provides the etherial BS ontology needed for many, psychologically, to go through with the ethnic cleansing in the old testament. Why Prof, do you not believe in the old testament? St. Paul, with his evil body, is simply deranged. He brought Greek metaphysical baggage to the old testament and taught us how evil basic survival-based tendencies are. Bizarre indeed.

Here God the “Merciful” is saying that all the non-believers deserve to be killed! In addition, God is conveniently commenting that whatever loot Mohammed has plundered is “lawful and good” because it was done in service to God.

More specifically that is people that aren’t islamic deserved to be killed. What a beautiful religion.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

The new testament provides the etherial BS ontology needed for many, psychologically, to go through with the ethnic cleansing in the old
testament.

More evidence of a strong relationship between Sparkie and monkeys.  The Old Testament was already history when the New Testament was written, so no justification was involved at all.  Your hatred has made you stupid, Sparkie.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

No Offense Mike I haven’t seen too many fundamental Christians flying aircraft into buildings or cutting the heads of western citizens. Islam is a religion of extremes.

Exactly.  The only real similarity between the two is the use of the word “fundamentalist”.  In reality, another word needs to be used for the Muslim terrorists; maybe that’s it!  “Terrorists”; that has the ring of truth to it.  So, now we have the Christian fundamentalists(not murderers and mutilators), and the Muslim terrorists(who do a lot of that stuff).

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Sparkie,

I have to admit, I have come to respect you somewhat in light of your quick, reactionary jabs because you seem to at least give thought to other’s comments.

I think this is one of your reactionary moments.  You couldn’t be more wrong in your assessment of the NT.

Why Prof, do you not believe in the old testament?

I don’t believe that I discussed my beliefs one way or another.

I haven’t seen too many fundamental Christians flying aircraft into buildings or cutting the heads of western citizens.

Perhaps the difference in the Testaments (and Christianity) had something to do with it?

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Why, sparkle baby, do you believe in Mad magazine?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

r108 asks

Still trying to conflate Muslim fundamentalism with Christian fundamentalism, eh?

Only in the sense that fundamentalists rely on a strict and literal interpretation of source material.

r108 also said

It might be more accurate to state that the Muslim fundamentalists make up in violence what they lack in numhers, but that wouldn’t be true of the Christian fundamentalists.

That actually might be true although I’d remind you that not all Muslim fundamentalists are terrorists. I would certainly feel safer in a room with Pat Robertson than I would with OBL.

HG asks

What is your beef with fundamentalist Christians?

Their reliance on a literal reading of a text written centuries ago leads them to adopt and advocate practises that don’t accord with my idea of what Jesus taught. “Hate the sin but love the sinner”...I see enough sin hating but not enough sinner loving.

It’s just my opinion of course and I don’t go out of my way to knock others’ religious views but since you asked, there you go. I’m not anti-religious or even anti-religion but I am suspicious of positions and values that don’t promote love and understanding but are delivered in religious packaging.

goon said

No Offense Mike I haven’t seen too many fundamental Christians flying aircraft into buildings or cutting the heads of western citizens.

No offense taken but you have taken my observation about fundamentalist beliefs and run with it in a direction that I didn’t imply. If you’re saying that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists pose a greater danger than do Christian fundamentalist terrorists then of course I agree.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Their reliance on a literal reading of a text written centuries ago leads them to adopt and advocate practises that don’t accord with my idea of what Jesus taught. “Hate the sin but love the sinner”...I see enough sin hating but not enough sinner loving.

Where’s your tolerance for diversity, Mike?

If you’re saying that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists pose a greater danger than do Christian fundamentalist terrorists then of course I agree.

There are no “Christian fundamentalist terrorists”.  Again, you reveal your antiChristian bias.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

MikeA: To tell you the truth, I’m much more afraid of the Marxist fundamentalists than anyone else.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

r108...your fear of all things Marx is well documented.  Your flat statement that Christian fundamentalist terrorists do not exist is wrong...start checking here if you’re interested.

Which side poses the greater danger at present? The Muslim terrorists of course and I can say that because I don’t have difficulties observing and weighing the evidence before me without having to squeeze reality into my ideological framework...put that in your pipe and smoke it.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

MikeA: With a record of over 100 million killed, I don’t understand why you don’t fear the Marxists as well. No accounting for taste, I guess.

I suppose you can try to conflate a handful of crazies with tens of thousands of Islamofascists, and you did, I guess.  I thought those abortion clinic bombers were just excercising their right of free assembly and protest. /sarcasm

BTW, I don’t smoke, not even metaphorically.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Not having to read through all of these opinions, please let me know if I’ve repeated someone.

I believe that swearing on the Bible is a promise. If you are not a Christian, or perhaps don’t use that version of the Bible, then you are lying to yourself and to others. I don’t believe that any president would want an appearance of a complete liar, although plenty of them have come across as that in a cover-up of other lies.

I would think that someone would ask “If you’re Muslim, then why did you swear on the Christian Bible?”

I’ve also heard another opinion that there just should not be any swearing because most religions see swearing as dishonorable or a sin.

I wonder what version of the Bible it is…