That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Just another way of saying kick out the Muslims."Imagine what our country could accomplish if we started working together as one people, under one God, saluting one flag."
Sounds like he is quoting the Pledge.Holman wrote:Here you can watch Trump reading the Bible off a teleprompter and conflating patriotism with religion.
He's pretty much the least convincing Christian Conservative of all time when he tries this stuff. The creepy part is that he tries it."There's a biblical verse that I've often read and I want to repeat it again because I think it is so important to what we're trying to achieve right now for our country. It's from 1 John chapter 4: 'No one has ever seen God, but if we love one another, God lives in us and His love is made complete in us.'
"So true, so True.
"Imagine what our country could accomplish if we started working together as one people, under one God, saluting one flag."
Which is hilarious because he's probably the least sincere person to ever quote it. Assuming he was quoting it. Which he wasn't. He hasn't a clue what allegiance even means.Rip wrote:Sounds like he is quoting the Pledge.Holman wrote:Here you can watch Trump reading the Bible off a teleprompter and conflating patriotism with religion.
He's pretty much the least convincing Christian Conservative of all time when he tries this stuff. The creepy part is that he tries it."There's a biblical verse that I've often read and I want to repeat it again because I think it is so important to what we're trying to achieve right now for our country. It's from 1 John chapter 4: 'No one has ever seen God, but if we love one another, God lives in us and His love is made complete in us.'
"So true, so True.
"Imagine what our country could accomplish if we started working together as one people, under one God, saluting one flag."
IIRC, it was officially put into the pledge to differentiate us from the godless Commies in the 50s. We are a nation that has religious faith, they are not.Chaz wrote:There's a fairly significant difference between the phrase "one nation under God" and "one people, under one god." The first just says there is a god, but doesn't specify which one. The second one implies that there's just the one, and context clues say he means that it's the Christian one.
Now, I'm totally not down with the "one nation under God" line in the pledge, and I wish that we could go back and remove it, but that won't happen in the current climate. However, I'm even less okay with Trump's "one god" line. It's one thing to enshrine that religion in general exists and imply that we should all take part. It's a way different thing when the State gets into the business of officially endorsing one in particular. Gets in the way of that whole first amendment thing.
It isn't only the pledge where their beliefs were kinda obvious.LawBeefaroni wrote:IIRC, it was officially put into the pledge to differentiate us from the godless Commies in the 50s. We are a nation that has religious faith, they are not.Chaz wrote:There's a fairly significant difference between the phrase "one nation under God" and "one people, under one god." The first just says there is a god, but doesn't specify which one. The second one implies that there's just the one, and context clues say he means that it's the Christian one.
Now, I'm totally not down with the "one nation under God" line in the pledge, and I wish that we could go back and remove it, but that won't happen in the current climate. However, I'm even less okay with Trump's "one god" line. It's one thing to enshrine that religion in general exists and imply that we should all take part. It's a way different thing when the State gets into the business of officially endorsing one in particular. Gets in the way of that whole first amendment thing.
The Pledge is mutable. It used to be accompanied by a one handed salute (the Bellamy salute) too. That was removed when the Nazis and other fascists made it passe in the '30s.
The Pledge is often held up to be some kind of sacrosanct recitation from the dawning of the Union. The fact is it's just some shit someone wrote over 100 years after the founding of the nation (and after our Civil War) and not officially adopted for over 50 years after that (pushed through during, you guessed, a time of war). There is nothing sacred about the pledge itself, just the idea it is meant to convey. An idea that can, unfortunately, be twisted to whatever ideological extreme someone wants to take it.
For example but just about everything written by the founders was littered with references to god. The only disputable thing would be whether they felt there was one universal god our if they thought a Christian god was unique to Christians.And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
The indisputable thing is that they had every opportunity to write God and religious sentiment into the Constitution and our forms of nationhood, and they refused. This was not by oversight.Rip wrote:For example but just about everything written by the founders was littered with references to god. The only disputable thing would be whether they felt there was one universal god our if they thought a Christian god was unique to Christians.
Holman wrote:The indisputable thing is that they had every opportunity to write God and religious sentiment into the Constitution and our forms of nationhood, and they refused. This was not by oversight.Rip wrote:For example but just about everything written by the founders was littered with references to god. The only disputable thing would be whether they felt there was one universal god our if they thought a Christian god was unique to Christians.
Who is our Lord?done in Convention … the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America.
My point is criticizing Trump for saying under one god is silly.geezer wrote:Have we not before, rather exhaustively, discussed the difference between a theocratic or non-secular government, and one based on Enlightenment principles, which do not exclude or deny the religion of the majority of the Founders of this nation, but rather acknowledges the tolerance that was expressly built into both Enlightenment thinking and our own foundational documents?
It's acknowledged, Rip, that most of the Founders would identify as Christian, some strictly and traditionally so, and other less so. It's also understood that they expressly and specifically did NOT write an adherence to Christianity into the base laws of the nation. So what's your point?
You're trolling, right? You must be.Rip wrote:Holman wrote:The indisputable thing is that they had every opportunity to write God and religious sentiment into the Constitution and our forms of nationhood, and they refused. This was not by oversight.Rip wrote:For example but just about everything written by the founders was littered with references to god. The only disputable thing would be whether they felt there was one universal god our if they thought a Christian god was unique to Christians.Who is our Lord?done in Convention … the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America.
Ming the MercilessRip wrote:Holman wrote:The indisputable thing is that they had every opportunity to write God and religious sentiment into the Constitution and our forms of nationhood, and they refused. This was not by oversight.Rip wrote:For example but just about everything written by the founders was littered with references to god. The only disputable thing would be whether they felt there was one universal god our if they thought a Christian god was unique to Christians.Who is our Lord?done in Convention … the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America.
And your complaints have all been the very model of serious.Rip wrote:My point is criticizing Trump for saying under one god is silly.geezer wrote:Have we not before, rather exhaustively, discussed the difference between a theocratic or non-secular government, and one based on Enlightenment principles, which do not exclude or deny the religion of the majority of the Founders of this nation, but rather acknowledges the tolerance that was expressly built into both Enlightenment thinking and our own foundational documents?
It's acknowledged, Rip, that most of the Founders would identify as Christian, some strictly and traditionally so, and other less so. It's also understood that they expressly and specifically did NOT write an adherence to Christianity into the base laws of the nation. So what's your point?
"Forty Wall St. actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan, and it was, actually, before the World Trade Center, was the tallest," Trump said in an interview with Fox 5 New York when asked whether his building had been damaged. "And then when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest, and now it's the tallest."
Perhaps it was his Muslim friends that he saw celebrating on that dayhepcat wrote:On the 15th anniversary of 9/11, let us remember Trump celebrating the fact that he now owned the tallest building in NYC.
"Forty Wall St. actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan, and it was, actually, before the World Trade Center, was the tallest," Trump said in an interview with Fox 5 New York when asked whether his building had been damaged. "And then when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest, and now it's the tallest."
Yet another example of his dog-whistle nonsense is silly to worry about?Rip wrote:My point is criticizing Trump for saying under one god is silly.geezer wrote:Have we not before, rather exhaustively, discussed the difference between a theocratic or non-secular government, and one based on Enlightenment principles, which do not exclude or deny the religion of the majority of the Founders of this nation, but rather acknowledges the tolerance that was expressly built into both Enlightenment thinking and our own foundational documents?
It's acknowledged, Rip, that most of the Founders would identify as Christian, some strictly and traditionally so, and other less so. It's also understood that they expressly and specifically did NOT write an adherence to Christianity into the base laws of the nation. So what's your point?
Isn't that just an 'A.D.' dating convention?Rip wrote:Who is our Lord?done in Convention … the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America.
Trump has a history of exaggerating the size of his penis. I mean buildings.hepcat wrote:On the 15th anniversary of 9/11, let us remember Trump celebrating the fact that he now owned the tallest building in NYC.
Trump Tower
721 Fifth Avenue
Claimed: 68
Actual: 58
Once lauded by the New York Times as "Mr. Trump's least bad bad building," with its peach marble, indoor waterfall, and gold flecked opulence, this dated Fifth Avenue landmark reeks of 1980s excess. According to city records, nearly 20 years after its completion it still hasn't sprouted those missing 10 floors.
Just two months after the Trump campaign got into trouble for tweeting an image that was widely seen as anti-Semitic, a member of the Republican nominee’s family is at it again. On Sunday, Donald Trump Jr., the eldest son of Donald Trump, proudly promoted the above Instagram post, which includes a meme frequently shared by white supremacists. “Apparently I made the cut as one of the Deplorables,” he wrote, referring to a series of controversial comments Hillary Clinton recently made about Trump’s supporters. “All kidding aside I am honored to be grouped with the hard working men and women of this great nation that have supported@realdonaldtrump [sic] and know that he can fix the mess created by politicians in Washington.”
The image, which plays off Sylvester Stallone’s geriatric action movie The Expendables, shows Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his sons alongside such “hard working men” as prominent conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Breitbart commentator Milo Yiannopoulos—who was banned from Twitter for inciting hateful rhetoric—and Pepe the Frog, an amphibian meme that has been appropriated by Trump’s “alt-right” followers, some of whom use the image to peddle racism, anti-Semitism, and white nationalism.
People in Putin’s inner circle say that Putin considers Trump a buffoon, easily manipulated by flattery, without a scintilla of knowledge or depth about the world outside his golf courses. Moreover, Trump’s stated willingness to recognize Putin’s annexation of Crimea, to lift sanctions, not to object to the occupation of an area in Ukraine, to withdraw promises of support for NATO allies in the Baltic, and for NATO as a whole, is the Russian dictator’s dream..........
........Putin also knows Trump cannot resist a good deal, ie, that benefits him personally. If Trump were president, Putin knows he can offer bargain-basement terms on choice property in Moscow and in St Petersberg, for example, for Trump’s company to build hotels in exchange for geopolitical concessions from the U.S. that have no impact on Trump’s wealth.
And, here’s the kicker: Trump would walk away believing HE got the better of Putin, and brag about it!
As am I. However, I would think that they find it a bit disconcerting that zero retweets from the Clinton side include white supremacist links, yet they're on about their third or fourth.tgb wrote:On this one I'm willing to cut Jr. a little slack.
Yup. It doesn't really move the needle, exactly, since Trump's open call to ban members of a major religion from entering the country is really all one needs to know about Trump's bigotry. Still, this further illustrates the confluence between Trump's campaign and the alt right.hepcat wrote:As am I. However, I would think that they find it a bit disconcerting that zero retweets from the Clinton side include white supremacist links, yet they're on about their third or fourth.tgb wrote:On this one I'm willing to cut Jr. a little slack.
As everyone except Trump and his supporters have already figured out. The second I heard Putin say something nice about Trump, my bullshit detector went to DEFCON 1.People in Putin’s inner circle say that Putin considers Trump a buffoon, easily manipulated by flattery, without a scintilla of knowledge or depth about the world outside his golf courses.
Trump, as explained by The Office:hepcat wrote:Or was it when he yet again announced he had a super secret plan to defeat ISIS, but couldn't tell us? I'm surprised he didn't also announce he had a girlfriend...but that she lived in Canada and that's why we could never meet her.
