Donald Trump claims Barack Obama bombshell

[tay]

Chrysler exec tweets that Donald Trump is 'full of @%#!' over Jeep accusation


Billionaire Donald Trump, who supports Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, today tweeted that President Barack “Obama is a terrible negotiator.”
Trump added: “He bails out Chrysler and now Chrysler wants to send all Jeep manufacturing to China--and will!”


The comment drew a heated tweet from Chrysler Group Vice President for Product Design Ralph Gilles: “you are full of (expletive)!”


Chrysler exec tweets that Donald Trump is 'full of @%#!' over Jeep accusation | Chrysler news | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

 

[PoliticalNick]

Corporate controlled puppets? Figureheads? I just want to get my hands on the President's college records because I'm skeptical about his birth certificate.

You're not even American...you don't get to vote, Obamacare doesn't do sh*t for you, I don't understand why your knickers are in a knot over this.

You're the one talking about a conspiracy of shadowy businessmen controlling the entire government. What's up with that? Don't label this guy here "crazy", nah, that's on you bro.

A quick lesson for you. They ALL respond to their corporate donors and lobbyists. Also the Pres doesn't make laws. In the US Congress drafts a bill and if approved it goes to the senate, if the senate approves it goes to the Pres, he signs it (if the corporate lobbyists let him) or vetos it which sends it back to congress. Add to that the actual govt which is the bureaucrats you never see and that don't change with each administration are the ones that actually write (you didn't think a congressman would have time to write a law when he has donors to blow and fundraisers to attend) and implement the laws and voila...he is a figurehead.

So if you don't really care, then it wouldn't matter to you if the President was completely lying about his past?

Now you're getting the idea! ;-)

And then why give credence to any evidence that shows he's lying, right? How convenient for you when you'd rather have Barry in than out. Interesting...

If you must know I would prefer Ron Paul to have run and got in, but I'm not American either so it don't matter.

I CARE.

FIFY. Did you ever think about using all the time you waste on this to make Canada better, maybe get a job and contribute to Canada?

Are you seriously going to overlook that a coup d'etat doesn't necessarily have to happen by military force? C'mon dude. I'd accuse Barry of treason, but by that definition he would have had loyalty in the first place prior to betrayal. I think he hates America and never had any allegiance to begin with, and that's why I used coup d'etat, it's a better description of his crime.

Hmmmm, A coup d'etat by over 50% of the population....sounds more like an election win to me but don't let anything like that get in the way of your partisan hatred. :roll:

I'm telling you, it's because your all in love with the guy. Even you, when you say it doesn't matter, they're all the same and what not. I'm not buying it. Your a lefty, he's a lefty. Let's not kid ourselves. He's your guy and that's why you won't listen to the evidence against him.

I love no politician (except maybe Ron Paul). They are all the same, two sides of the same fake coin. I am a socially responsible constitutional freeman if you must know though I doubt you have any idea what that means since you see everything as right or left. If there was real evidence against him there would be a trial or impeachment hearings etc. Until that happens it is blowing smoke out your a$$ because you don't like him.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

To nail it down perfectly, Obama is a syncretist. "God" is a punchline for him. Thanks to sycretism / relativism there's no conflict in his mind being a "Christian" and a Muslim at the same time. His profession as a "Christian" was done purely for the political stance. ...

And although I would nail Obama has a syncretist, for the sake of this argument, yes, he's a Muslim...

Had to think about that one for a while, and look around at that link you provided. I also had to look up syncretist to make sure my understanding of what it means was correct, you seemed to have a pejorative tone there that didn't fit with what I thought it means. "The attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion" was what I found for syncretism, which is exactly what I thought it meant. Doesn't seem a bad thing to me, in fact it seems a useful and necessary skill for a successful politician.

As for the stuff at that link... well, obviously I haven't had time to read it all (and I don't plan to either), I had to sleep last night, but what I did get around to reading suggests a couple of things.

1. the administration is carefully upholding the constitution's establishment clause.
2. the Christian right doesn't like that.
3. the Christian right feels it doesn't have the status it deserves as the guardian of all that is good, right, true, and morally correct in American society, and is miffed that Obama isn't following its agenda.

In other words, I see nothing really wrong there.

 

[In Between Man]

Had to think about that one for a while, and look around at that link you provided. I also had to look up syncretist to make sure my understanding of what it means was correct, you seemed to have a pejorative tone there that didn't fit with what I thought it means. "The attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion" was what I found for syncretism, which is exactly what I thought it meant. Doesn't seem a bad thing to me, in fact it seems a useful and necessary skill for a successful politician.

As for the stuff at that link... well, obviously I haven't had time to read it all (and I don't plan to either), I had to sleep last night, but what I did get around to reading suggests a couple of things.

1. the administration is carefully upholding the constitution's establishment clause.
2. the Christian right doesn't like that.
3. the Christian right feels it doesn't have the status it deserves as the guardian of all that is good, right, true, and morally correct in American society, and is miffed that Obama isn't following its agenda.

In other words, I see nothing really wrong there.

Of course I'm not going to paint Obama's syncretism in a positive light. You have to understand that according to my biblical worldview, you're either in or you're out. His sycretism violates the very first commandment, "thou shalt not have any other gods before me". How is he supposed to serve Jehovah and Allah at the same time? Your worldview would say he can, or it doesn't matter because God is not objectively true. But for someone with a biblical worldview, this only proves Obama to be a fraudulent Christian because one cannot serve two gods. Not born again. Honoring God with is lips not his heart.

Very interesting that you admit Obama's syncretism to be a necessary tool. Obviously we both know that you're not likely to be elected in America unless you profess to be a Christian of some rank. It just begs the question, do you not think that at some point a politician will LIE, profess Christianity for the political stance to better his chances to succeed? Of course, and no need to explain what's wrong with that.

We have a completely different understanding of the US constitution obviously. I'm sure you believe in the so called "separation of church and state" but the fact is the federal government, by the constitution, cannot override a person's religious conscience. That power is explicitly taken away from the federal government.

1. the administration is failing to protect religious conscience at best, and attacking people of biblical faith with acts of hostility and strong arm tactics at worst. Unconstitutional either way.

2. America is a Christian nation (In God We Trust).

3. as a Christian nation, Christians are morally obligated to be guardian of all that is good, right, true, and morally correct in American society.

In other words, with this current administration, we have a serious problem.

Alan Keyes on religious liberty - YouTube

You're not even American...

Oh, I may have never been to America, let alone been born there, but my heart is red, white, and blue sir.

FIFY. Did you ever think about using all the time you waste on this to make Canada better, maybe get a job and contribute to Canada?

I have a job, I just haven't updated my profile page in awhile...

 

[petros]

is he supposed to serve Jehovah and Allah at the same time? ...

When they are one in the same it's really damn easy.

Listening...waiting for the ALLAHLUIA moment.....

P.S. Jesus made mention of Mohammed in Matthew and the reaction we should expect.....

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.


How is that flogging from town to town working out for you?

 

[tay]

Mark Cuban offers Donald Trump $1 million to shave his head



Mark Cuban offers Donald Trump $1 million to shave his head | The Raw Story

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Of course I'm not going to paint Obama's syncretism in a positive light. You have to understand that according to my biblical worldview, you're either in or you're out.

That's what looks wrong to me, not the in or out part but the biblical worldview itself, which in my considered opinion is completely irrational and utterly without foundation in reality.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Of course I'm not going to paint Obama's syncretism in a positive light. You have to understand that according to my biblical worldview, you're either in or you're out. His sycretism violates the very first commandment, "thou shalt not have any other gods before me". How is he supposed to serve Jehovah and Allah at the same time?

Hey bud, Jehovah and Allah are the same god, maybe learn a little before you make such nonsensical statements. Also how do you deal with the fact Jesus is diefied in the christian religions when you are not supposed to worship any other gods or false idols. It flies in the face of the (Jewish) commandments you Christians are always calling your own

Very interesting that you admit Obama's syncretism to be a necessary tool. Obviously we both know that you're not likely to be elected in America unless you profess to be a Christian of some rank. It just begs the question, do you not think that at some point a politician will LIE

Yes it is a tool, yes you need to profess Christian beliefs to be elected POTUS which says a lot about christians who seem to believe if you do not subscribe to their theory of god you are not qualified to win an election, POTUS or otherwise. Yes all politicians will lie, this isn't news to anyone with a brain over the age of 21.

2. America is a Christian nation (In God We Trust).

It does not say "in the christian god we trust"

3. as a Christian nation, Christians are morally obligated to be guardian of all that is good, right, true, and morally correct in American society.

Go pound sand up your a$$. The rabid christian conservative isn't fit to determine what is good, right etc. In fact they should automatically be disqualified from such for their lack of open-mindedness and tolerance.

Oh, I may have never been to America, let alone been born there, but my heart is red, white, and blue sir.

Then I suggest you look into emigration.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

We have a completely different understanding of the US constitution obviously. I'm sure you believe in the so called "separation of church and state" but the fact is the federal government, by the constitution, cannot override a person's religious conscience. That power is explicitly taken away from the federal government.

There's nothing in U.S. constitutional documents that says that as far as I know, it says only that the government is not to establish an official state religion, which has been judicially interpreted to mean it can't favour any particular religion over others either. That's why creationists keep losing court battles to get their idiotic non-theory taught in the public school system.

1. the administration is failing to protect religious conscience at best, and attacking people of biblical faith with acts of hostility and strong arm tactics at worst. Unconstitutional either way.

The administration has no duty to protect religious conscience, it's prevented from making laws about religion. It looks to me like it is merely requiring institutions that receive public funds not to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs.

2. America is a Christian nation (In God We Trust).

Officially, no it's not, it is, and was explicitly founded as, a secular nation by deists schooled in the lessons of The Enlightenment. In God We Trust did not have any official status as the national motto until 1956, the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954, partly in response to the McCarthy era and paranoia about the godless Communists. They're both mistakes in violation of the Founders intentions, and have led to at least one court case which was ultimately tossed out on technicalities, and led the senior Bush to make the ignorant and insulting statement that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens.

3. as a Christian nation, Christians are morally obligated to be guardian of all that is good, right, true, and morally correct in American society.

They're free to attempt to be guardians of what they believe to good, right, etc., but so do people who have quite different ideas of what's good, right, etc. That's one of the things politics is about.

In other words, with this current administration, we have a serious problem.

No, what we have is a bunch of people with an indefensibly irrational world view who think their view should prevail over all others and be enforced by the power of the state. That is a guaranteed route to tyranny of the worst sort, which is possibly the single most important lesson of The Enlightenment, and the reason for the establishment clause in the U.S. constitution.

 

[L Gilbert]

You'd think the background check to run for Prez would be more thorough?

It is pretty thorough. Both the FBI and the Secret Service work under the US Senate Rules Committee and the US Senate Legal Counsel using forensics to verify documents these days. From what I understand is that the issue came to that because Hawaii refused to spend any more money on verification of Obama's documents. A bill was introduced in May 2011 to have records of any presidential candidate verified. Not sure if the bill was passed, refused, or what.
I'm pretty sure, therefore that DUHbama was born in the States, spent at least 14 years living in the States and was at least 35 when he became a candidate (the requirments for presidential candidacy).

 

[Locutus]

Mark Cuban offers Donald Trump $1 million to shave his head

This dudes hair will grow back. :lol:

Not so sure about barry's integrity and upfront transparency.

 

[L Gilbert]

This dudes hair will grow back. :lol:

Or he'd use a rug.

Not so sure about barry's integrity

lol "Integrity" and "politician" don't go well together in the same sentence.

and upfront transparency.

Not sure if he intended on being transparent but it's kind of moot anyway because the media and Reps can't see him sneeze without it being publicized.

 

[petros]

There's nothing in U.S. constitutional documents that says that as far as I know, it says only that the government is not to establish an official state religion, which has been judicially interpreted to mean it can't favour any particular religion over others either. That's why creationists keep losing court battles to get their idiotic non-theory taught in the public school system. The administration has no duty to protect religious conscience, it's prevented from making laws about religion. It looks to me like it is merely requiring institutions that receive public funds not to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs. Officially, no it's not, it is, and was explicitly founded as, a secular nation by deists schooled in the lessons of The Enlightenment. In God We Trust did not have any official status as the national motto until 1956, the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954, partly in response to the McCarthy era and paranoia about the godless Communists. They're both mistakes in violation of the Founders intentions, and have led to at least one court case which was ultimately tossed out on technicalities, and led the senior Bush to make the ignorant and insulting statement that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens. They're free to attempt to be guardians of what they believe to good, right, etc., but so do people who have quite different ideas of what's good, right, etc. That's one of the things politics is about. No, what we have is a bunch of people with an indefensibly irrational world view who think their view should prevail over all others and be enforced by the power of the state. That is a guaranteed route to tyranny of the worst sort, which is possibly the single most important lesson of The Enlightenment, and the reason for the establishment clause in the U.S. constitution.

To top it all off Thomas Jefferson used the Quran to take his oath of office so I guess he swore in under a different God. Some fella (first Muzzie in Congress) used the same Quran to swear in as Gov of Minn a few years back.

Moaning could be heard nation wide as small c christians in Colorado Springs cringed in horror.

 

[L Gilbert]

It's entirely probable that there are no differences between gods, only interpretations, because probabilities suggest gods are imaginary.

 

[petros]

Only imaginary to those who lack imagination and FAITH.

 

[L Gilbert]

Only imaginary to those who lack imagination and FAITH.

I have no lack of imagination. There are loads of gods in my imagination. But, yes, I do favor evidence and probabilities over faith in some aspects of life.

 

[petros]

Okay, so you have imagination....but no FAITH.

I'm all for hard evidence too but I've been overwhelmed by soft evidence which bolsters my faith.

 

[In Between Man]

That's what looks wrong to me, not the in or out part but the biblical worldview itself, which in my considered opinion is completely irrational and utterly without foundation in reality.

I feel the same way about atheism, that it is completely irrational and considering no atheist can offer a scintilla of evidence that atheism is true, I would call faith in atheism utter madness.

Hey bud, Jehovah and Allah are the same god, maybe learn a little before you make such nonsensical statements. Also how do you deal with the fact Jesus is diefied in the christian religions when you are not supposed to worship any other gods or false idols. It flies in the face of the (Jewish) commandments you Christians are always calling your own

Yeah right. One chose the Jews as His people, the other hates Jews and commands followers to kill them. Two contradictory traits cannot both be true at the same my friend. I'm a believer and because you're not, all the "gods" are the same to you. I simply have more authority to say who God is and who He isn't.

Jehovah = One true God
Allah = Satan (a created being)

Further, deifying Christ is not worship of other gods. Like Muslims you seem to think that Christians are polytheists. There is ONE God, and He is God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. What part of the Trinity don't you understand? "I and my Father are ONE" - Jesus

Go pound sand up your a$$. The rabid christian conservative isn't fit to determine what is good, right etc. In fact they should automatically be disqualified from such for their lack of open-mindedness and tolerance.

Oh and the anti-God left is? Y'all are dragging us down moral depravity. Murder of the unborn, gay pride, legalized drugs and prostitution ring a bell? And I already told you that Christians don't determine right and wrong.

Officially, no it's not, it is, and was explicitly founded as, a secular nation by deists schooled in the lessons of The Enlightenment.

No, you're wrong. Some of the founding fathers may have been deist, but they were a minority. They all signed the constitution under Christian terminology, not deist. America's Christian founding heritage is irrefutable my friend.

STUNNER! Was America Built Upon A CHRISTIAN Foundation? REALLY? (Constitution Day) - YouTube

 

[lone wolf]

I would call anyone who says faith in atheism unenligtened

 

[In Between Man]

I would call anyone who says faith in atheism unenligtenened

Everyone has faith, unless you want to claim that you have absolute (omniscient) knowledge of all things from the sub-atomic to the outer edges of the universe.