Semper fi! But sometimes more fi than others.

by editor on March 13, 2009

YouTube Preview Image This is a remarkable video. It clearly demonstrates the difference in how two presidents are greeted by the United States Marines.

The jarheads’ greeting for President Bush is deafening. The greeting for President Obama is, well, polite.

Semper fi, indeed.

{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }

Bob March 13, 2009 at 12:40 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

And when was the video of Bush taken? Was it soon after 9/11 when he had an extremely high approval rating, and everyone felt the need to attack someone? Also depends on the companies. Maybe one comapny commander was more formal than the other. There’s tons of stuff out there to attack obama about, this meager crap just makes your side look like a bunch of morons.

KimmyQueen September 7, 2010 at 1:01 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

But wait… scratch the whole Bush side of it then… how do you explain the response to Obama? And this is not the first time remember the West Point speech? I mean okay so maybe this was right after the first deployments into Afghanistan, but trust me there were plenty times when he was well received several years after, but again scratch that. It is unimportant if Bush got well received or not. Let’s concentrate on Obama. If Obama is so awesome why does he continully get so politely received by the military?

doug March 13, 2009 at 2:32 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Wow, I didnt realize liberals were so deluded.

Bob, no matter how you slice it, our soldiers are not excited about a commander in chief that has been telling them this is the wrong war at the wrong time.

Its called reality, check into it sometime.

Zhang Fei March 13, 2009 at 3:47 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

And when was the video of Bush taken? Was it soon after 9/11 when he had an extremely high approval rating, and everyone felt the need to attack someone?

It was during Bush’s visit to Anbar province in September 2007.

Bob March 13, 2009 at 4:13 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

This is also why our party is falling apart. I’m a registered Republican. I voted for John McCain. You calling someone liberal for asking questions is ridiculous. Like I said, there is a ton more to attack Obama with. It’s websites like this that make us look like complete morons.

Zhang Fei, thank you for the info.

KimmyQueen September 7, 2010 at 1:04 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Then I dont understand why this offends you so much. One thing is that it was the reporter himself that made the comment which begs the comparison. It is interesting, it doesnt make or break anything.

Administrator March 13, 2009 at 4:24 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Can we give you some advice? Relax. Find a woman. Have a beer. Laugh a little. We’re not a hard core political site. We’re just having some fun. Try it you might like it.

cliff May 5, 2012 at 6:29 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Most,not all,most liberals are just not fun,happy people.Most of them I’ve met or have been acquainted with,are mad,bitter and don’t appreciate this country,and are not very proud of the U.S.A.I really do believe that most liberals would be happier living in western Europe,or transforming our country into that type of place.Why does that word “TRANSFORM” ring a bell?Oh yeah,their hero BHO used that in that speech,remember?I have met a few fun libs,but only a few!

dawglover March 13, 2009 at 5:44 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Some people cannot relax when the subject is Obama. You could have a video of him sacraficing puppies and his supporters would still say it was misconstrued or Bush’s fault.

I can only speak for those I personally know (5), that are actively serving and 5 out of 5 are not happy with Obama. 3 Marines, and 2 Army SF soldiers.

GreenAccord March 17, 2009 at 7:35 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Bob, you’re not very bright, are you? In your comment at 12:40pm, you said “this meager crap just makes your side look like a bunch of morons.”

Then, at 4:13pm, suddenly you use the terms “our” & “us”:

“This is also why our party is falling apart. I’m a registered Republican” followed by:
“It’s websites like this that make us look like complete morons. ”

What a tool.

James March 18, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

I’m a former Marine and the differences in the two could have been as simple as the briefing they recieved prior to the occasion. When you have an official as high up as the President or SecNav coming to give a speech all those in attendance are briefed on how they WILL act. That is dictated either by the command and how they want to be portrayed or by the individual’s aids giving direction on what is expected. There were several times when we were told to do nothing more than stand in the position of attention, other times we were told to let out a roar and let out presence be known. Neither of these videos is either suprising or informative to me. It’s all context…

KimmyQueen September 7, 2010 at 1:06 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

You have a point, however I am sure the cadets at West Point were not told to sleep and yawn and read books.

perlcat September 8, 2010 at 12:24 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I bet they were! it was a CONSPIRACY, I tell you!

It couldn’t possibly be that they were busy students, with plenty of tests and things to study, and getting forced to sit and listen to a president blather on at a photo op where they were just supposed to fill chairs.

Hudge April 7, 2009 at 11:41 am
Les May 12, 2010 at 1:22 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

that picture was taken a year ago now! most that were smiling and wanting to shake his hand, were black. This president is Muslim/black!

DS September 6, 2010 at 8:30 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

You state that he is “Muslim/black” as if the two are one and the same, and as if either is relevant. I know this will likely come as a shock to you, but there are Muslim citizens of the United States and they have just as much right to be elected President as any Christian. Our Founding Fathers made it quite clear that there should be NO religious test to hold any office in this country and that there should be a wall of separation between church and state.

And BTW, Christians don’t exactly have a rosy track record for peace, love and human rights.

danybhoy September 6, 2010 at 12:24 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I will say that I believe the members of the military have way more respect for the office of The President of the United States of America then our President has for our military.

KimmyQueen September 7, 2010 at 1:17 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I would say that you are right dany.

flashingscotsman May 6, 2012 at 8:49 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

They also have more respect for the office of the Presidency than the occupier of the White House does.

KimmyQueen September 7, 2010 at 1:16 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I agree that what Les said was unfortunate. It can also be considered racist as it is true that not all muslims are black and vice versa and of course even though people are entitled to their opinions based on the evidence available so far Obama hasn’t said he is a muslim. The thing is that if Obama is a muslim but he is lying that is not good. I would rather respect a muslim that says he is outright than one that has to lie about it however again we don’t know if that is Obama’s case.

However yes a muslim president has the same rights as long as he is born in this country and is of the appropriate age as per the Constitution.

Also please be careful with the separation of church and state thing. It is no where in the Constitution nor recognized founding documents. It was in a personal letter by Jefferson that has been blown out of proportion because the context has been completely destroyed. The government was not to be afraid of religion it was religion that had to fear from government and the protections in the Constitution are meant to protect religion from the government imposition.

Now the reason I am replying to you really is because of your last comment. You made good points until that. Are we talking crusades here? witch trials? Please be specific AND it would help if you were more contemporary, because the crusades and witch trials are overdone and in both cases it was mostly a political play masquerading as a religious play and in numbers are no way comparable to the gross violations of human rights and taken of human life as in the 20th century atheistic/socialistic/communist government. I don’t recall any violations of human rights by Christians recently? Did I miss something?

DS September 7, 2010 at 3:41 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0


You are correct that the exact words “separation of Church and State” are not in the Constitution, but guess what? Neither are the exact words “Freedom of religion”, “Right to a fair trial”, “Right to privacy” and many other principles this nation holds dear and was founded upon.

So yes, separation of church and state IS indeed spelled out in the constitution, if for no other reason that you CANNOT have a free country without such a wall. Nor can you have freedom of religion. This was a lesson that the founders knew well from European history, with countries whose governments were all in bed with religion and were as a result corrupt and intolerant. Why do you think so many early immigrants left Europe to come to America? They were FLEEING persecution and intolerance in countries with Christian based governments.

The founders knew only a secular government completely free of religion was the only way to go when founding a truly free nation.

Thomas Jefferson was one of the architects of the Constitution, the letter of his you mentioned only solidifies the fact that the founders intended a strict separation of religion and government. Of course, Jefferson wasn’t the only founder to use such terms. James Madison (the Father of The Constitution) stated:

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”

“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together”

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history”

Goerge Mason, “The Father of The Bill of Rights” said:

“..all Men have an equal natural and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society ought to be favored or established by Law, in Preference to others.”

That the founders intended a two way wall separating religion and government is pretty much beyond doubt. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, misled or has an agenda (usually Christians who erroneously claim the USA was founded on The Bible and Christian principles, and who wish to foist their religion on everyone through the government).

KimmyQueen September 8, 2010 at 1:54 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

[quote]You are correct that the exact words “separation of Church and State” are not in the Constitution, but guess what? Neither are the exact words “Freedom of religion”, “Right to a fair trial”, “Right to privacy” and many other principles this nation holds dear and was founded upon[/quote]

I wasn’t talking about the EXACTNESS of the words. You are using an old Progressive ploy. That wasn’t the point… but whatever. Neither the words NOR the meaning imposed by Progressives are in the Constitution nor in any foundational document. Even though not exact freedom of religion can be better linked to the intentions of the foundational paperwork BECAUSE it implies that the government cannot abuse its position and impose or establish an religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. So even not exactly matched in letters freedom of religion as a concept and meaning IS in the Constitution.

Right to privacy is not in the constitution nor any foundational document and that is not what we are talking about. There is no foundational concept for right to privacy per se. Right to privacy came to made MUCH LATER as an interpretation to no illegal searches by the government. Overall I dont think the Founding Fathers would actually thing that people would WANT to violate the privacy of others. So putting it in foundational documents must have seem absurd if anyone had come up with that… It wasnt a foundational statement at all. So that is not valid.

Sixth Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” This is more valid of an argument. To get all that down to 5 words as a way to communicate the heart of the amendment without going on the specifics doesn’t seem bad to me. All the amendment does lead to one saying that one does have the right to a fair (as possible) trial. The idea is there even if it is not explicitely said in those words, and that cannot again be imposed upon by the separation of church and state as per Progressives. There is no meaning as per Progressive on that term on the Constituation one can make the case that it is there for fair trial.

DS September 8, 2010 at 2:42 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

The concept is indeed in there, Kimmy – like it or not. And yes it was put there by progressives – which is what our founding fathers were.

It never ceases to amaze at the amount of contorting and outright ignoring of the facts you Christians will go through in order to justify foisting your religion on others through our government and laws.

As the authors of our Constitution clearly stated (see my last post) Separation of church and state IS a foundation of this country. The simple matter is one CANNOT have a free country without it. One CANNOT have freedom of religion in a country that has a one way wall. You CANNOT keep government out religion while allowing religion in government. It is an oxymoron. One religion will inevitably be in the majority and will try to have things run its way, under its dogmas and outdated, intolerant set of morals.

I guarantee you that if Muslims were the majority in this country you would miraculously start singing the praises of the founder’s insistence on Separation of Church and State. Especially when those Muslims in majority started passing laws requiring women to wear burqas, started placing the star and crescent in courtrooms and requiring Islamic prayers in public school classrooms. Or heaven forbid, forbidding Christians from marrying…

Isn’t it odd that the only group that is against our Constitution’s wall of separation are conservative Christians? Couldn’t be because they have a theocratic agenda, could it? Noooo. ;)

KimmyQueen September 8, 2010 at 3:06 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

No. The founding Fathers were not Progressives. They were not all Christians, they were not all deist, they were not all atheists and they were definetly not socialist. That term and the ideal behind it wasn’t even coined until the 19th or 20th century. No the Progressive concept IS NOT int he constituation. I wont repeat myself.

Really? I am REALLY forcing you to accept Christianity through the laws of the government? PLEASE SHOW ME ANY law in the federal government that FORCES people to believe/accept/worship like a Christian and if they do not then they will be shot or imprisoned (whatever) show me that law and then you win your argument. You won’t find it. You lost your argument. Also you lost your argument because if INDEED Christians had a theocratic agenda they would have simply taking control of the government and imposed a Christian theocracy at the MANY times in US history, when the stars aligned and both Congress and the Presidency (and even the Judicial Branch) had a majority of Christian believers. Tell me EXACTLY how Christians are foisting their religious believes when after 234 years of history there hasn’t been such a push for a theocratic government?

You cannot answer that. You are an idiot. Yet Progressives have been successful in IMPOSING their agendas and philosophies on people THROUGH THE government even if the majority does not agree example… gay “marriage”. Why use the government as a weapon and a tool TO IMPOSE such laws on people even if they don’t want them? ha? Now I don’t care if you are gay, you are gay you are gay it is all good, but DONT impose yourself on me by making the government punish me IF I do not agree with you, which is what has happen and continue to happen.

Separation of church and state is not a foundational argument as per Progressive. I won’t repeat myself other than to say it was a protection of religious people from the government not the other way around. You are right one the government perverts a religion that willl completely persecute and alienate those who do not agree, but that is pro religion as it protects the rights of all religions. You are putting a negative spin to it that as not in the foundational documentation nor personal letters of the founders.

EXACTLY we do agree on something but on completely different points of view on the same issue. Separation of Church and State is meant to expand on the first amendment that Government shall not provide an establishe religion nor RESTRICT religion either. So if a muslim congress, muslim judicial and muslim president decide to ESTABLISH Islam as the religion of the country that would go against the Constitution. And ONCE again that has NOT been the case for Christianity. In no time in history has ANY Christian leaning person or group tried to take over the country’s government to impose it on others.

I am actually tired of Progressive like you. You want to blame others for doing what you guys are doing and they are not even doing it. It is a disgusting thing. I do like debates but when they are honest. Have a nice life I won’t be seeing you again.

KimmyQueen September 8, 2010 at 2:33 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I don’t have the time to get into the other quotes. Overall what I have said can be repeated for those.

[quote]That the founders intended a two way wall separating religion and government is pretty much beyond doubt. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, misled or has an agenda (usually Christians who erroneously claim the USA was founded on The Bible and Christian principles, and who wish to foist their religion on everyone through the government).[/quote]

That the founders wanted to protect all citizens with different religions and philosophies from tyrannical governments (like the modern version of Sharia Law/Muslim countries) cannot be argued against. I wouldn’t live in a Muslim country even if you paid me. I wouldn’t live in a “Catholic” country if you paid me either. But a country like the US yes because the government is not supposed to care what religions are there. It shouldn’t meddle with it for our protection.

I am not ignorant of the truth and the true intentions based on the ENTIRETY of the framework not selected pieces of quotes on foundational and personal documentation by the Founders. Usually people that scream separation of church and state are progressives who fear Christianity do not want to see Christians meddle in government even though the government should not fear from Christians because first off it was Judeo Christianity that framed the darn country to begin with and if Christians wanted to overtake the government and create a Christian Theocracy they could have a long time ago. Progressives who wish to say that the USA had no foundation on Judeo Christian principles are laws are fooling themselves and are completely ignorant of all history. Progressives which to foist their philosophies on everyone else through the government not the other way around like I said, Christians & Jews have had 234 years to make this into a theocratic country IF THEY WANTED TO which they don’t. How do you explain your stamement of foisting religion through the government, when that is not even true? Yet in less than 40 years Progressives have had a great deal of success in erasing Christian principles from the public arena based on their willful misunderstanding of the 1st amendment.

DS September 8, 2010 at 2:53 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

@KimmyQueen who said:
“Progressives who wish to say that the USA had no foundation on Judeo Christian principles are laws are fooling themselves and are completely ignorant of all history.”

I’d say you are the on is ignorant, sweetie. Our laws and rights are pretty much diametrically opposed to and cancel out the laws of God and the ten commandments in your Bible. Freedom of religion and speech certainly are NOT Biblical or Christian in origin. Quite the contrary, Christianity has historically been violently opposed to both. It has been in fact violently opposed to all democracy and freedom.

Nothing in the foundation of this country was based on “Christian principles” (whatever those are – maybe slavery and subjugation of natives). If anything our nation was founded on Pagan and humanist principles. Our laws are based on the common law of pre-Christians pagan states – mainly Rome and Greece. Suggest you read up on the Greek lawmaker and philosopher, Solon for starters.

Here’s a primer for you

KimmyQueen September 8, 2010 at 3:11 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Wow “sweetie” you are even more of an idiot that I thought! You obviously haven’t picked up a Bible and if you have you did not understand it… Too bad. Jews were ordered to respect the foreigners among them NEVER to be intolerant just not to become apostate if they were. Muslims are ordered by THEIR god to disrespect and kill the foreigner who does not submit to Allah (however not all muslims do this as there are moderates who chose not to abide by this). Christians are ordered to respect the laws of the land and the leaders even if they aren’t Christians and to respect their neighbors just not to become apostates… Progressives are of the mind that if a Christian does not agree with a Progressive agenda and lifestyle they are to be humiliated and chased away from the political arena. If you read the Bible both first and new testaments you would know that.

YOu know what I said I was done with you and I am. Bye “sweetie”

KimmyQueen September 8, 2010 at 2:35 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I wrote something that completely dissappeared and I dont know why. I dont have time to repeat it. Please do yourself a favor and read the original document and its context:

The point is government control over people through religious perversion is not a good idea. you are saying he was being anti religion when that was clearly not the case.

DS September 7, 2010 at 3:48 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Oh and Kimmy, the recent human rights violation by Christians was called THE HOLOCAUST. Yes, despite revisionist claims Hitler WAS a Christian and Nazi Germany was a Christian nation.

And then there is the conquest of the Americas and the genocide of the native Americans in the name of God.

JJJRO September 7, 2010 at 4:33 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

So it IS true that ALL muslims want to commit jihad against Christians? Or is that argument only used against Christians by liberals? Can’t have it both ways… Hitler = Christian = all Christians BAD. 9-11 perpetrators = Muslims = all Muslims BAD.

KimmyQueen September 8, 2010 at 2:45 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I will wait and see if this gets answered. Because indeed you cannot have it both ways.

DS September 8, 2010 at 2:56 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Nope I never said all Christians were bad. You are using the argument that *I* was using to illustrate the absurd arguments of conservatives and Christians. They are the ones who claim that all Muslims are evil because of the actions of a few.

I never claimed that Hitler being a Christian means that all Christians are evil. Merely point out their hypocricsy and that they are no better or more moral than anyone else.

perlcat September 8, 2010 at 10:27 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

What you said was “Oh and Kimmy, the recent human rights violation by Christians was called THE HOLOCAUST. Yes, despite revisionist claims Hitler WAS a Christian and Nazi Germany was a Christian nation.”

Your argument runs like this:
All of Germany was Christian.
Germany perpetuated the Holocaust.
Therefore, the Holocaust was perpetuated only by Christians.

First, not all Germany was Christian. Assuming so is every bit as logical as converting a king, and then declaring his country to be a Christian nation, and therefore, everything done in that nation was done as an act of Christianity. Never mind the druids. You have labeled an entire religion as murderers, and to disprove your argument and show it for the empty sham it is, all’s I have to do is find ONE atheist in Germany in 1940.

Second, other countries participated in it — Some were only too willing to supply victims.

Third, murder is antithetical to a Christian life. Your argument falls flat on its face.

Then you go on to say that the ‘genocide’ of native Americans, (cleverly disguised as smallpox), was done in the name of G0d.

So in other words, you blindly repeat some anti-Christian propaganda disguised as some kind of revelation about the alleged hypocrisy of ALL Christians, and when I call you on it, you squeal that you never said that you implicated all Christians. This not only makes you a liar, since the proof is there in your previous post it also makes you a damned fool, spreading bigotry and pretending that it is something other than what it is.

The world needs less hate, not more. If that means I need to call you a fool, so be it. I never said I was a nice person.

I certainly hope that you can understand what I am taking the trouble to write here — maybe in your circle of friends and acquaintances you are not challenged when you repeat vile and baseless calumnies, but here you are. You don’t get the satisfaction of being right when you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

perlcat September 8, 2010 at 12:17 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

revisionist? I seem to recall an awful lot of secular humanism and other BS that the nazis had going on — you know, eugenics, aryanism, etc., etc. Last I heard, that shit didn’t get preached in churches.

The Catholic church as well as the Lutheran church as a whole were against what was going on. True, some churches participated in it — but not all, and implying all Christians participated in the Holocaust is disgusting. It is twisting the truth way out of proportion, but as you are completely without ethics, not unexpected. Since I knew of a liberal that was a pervert, by your stellar logic, all of you are scum sucking perverts.

Of course, as a liberal, I suppose that isn’t an insult to you.

As to genocide of native americans in the name of G0d? BULLSHIT.

In the first place, it wasn’t in the name of G0d — it was the clash between an industrial culture and a stone age culture. The conflict was lost with the sale of the first iron arrowhead.

As to genocide? 90% of what killed native americans was smallpox and a host of other diseases they had no immunity to. There was nothing intentional about that, and all of the idiotic theories as to deliberately spreading these diseases has been disproved time and again. There were people calling for their extermination — but those people were on the fringe, and did not accomplish what they wanted. If the federal government had wanted to commit genocide, it was well within their means, and yet, on any day, I can drive through an indian reservation. And before you get started on that, they were treated as separate nations, and WTF are you supposed to do with a separate nation but give them a place to live?

Native Americans have enough problems — they don’t need pinheads like you pretending sympathy and manipulating them into another cycle of dependence. They need jobs, and a way to integrate themselves into the rest of society without losing their identity. Some tribes do better at that than others.

You really are an intolerant bigot, did you know that?

KimmyQueen September 8, 2010 at 2:46 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Again I would be interested to see if this gets response. I won’t hold my breath though.

perlcat September 8, 2010 at 2:55 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I’m betting on anonymous thumbs down.

Being part native, I don’t care.

KimmyQueen September 8, 2010 at 2:44 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I WAS enjoying the debate until I got to the “ignorant” part of your last post and then this one. You CLEARLY have NO IDEA what you are talking about. You clearly haven’t read history nor have no idea what the foundational fathers were all about and you clearly have no idea what happend before and during the holocaust.

Christians were not in control ove the Nazi goverment you are an idiot. In fact a great number of Christians lost their lives in the Holocaust and overall a Judeo Christian framed groundworked country (the USA and Britain) were the ones that conquered the Nazis. Hitler was NOT a Christian. His party was not formed by Christians. Nazis were socialists and some of them were marxists. NAZIS NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY get it? Hitler was an atheist. He despised G-d, he despised G-d’s people (The Jews & Christians), he despised overall religion and he despised everyone who got in his way even if they were white. You need prove go to the library and if they have it take out “Mein Kamp”. Get some education on the mind of Hitler before you make yourself look even more idiotic. If you read “Mein Kamp” and keep that up, then I can only conclude that you are mad.

Revisionist claims my behind. Yeah revisionist by Progressives like you. OTHER socialists LIKE the Nazis.

The conquest of the Americas?! WTH?! Oh you mean by a Denominational political force? Okay I will give you that, but again not recent. That was political based for control over land in competition with other countries and driven by greed. Although unfortunate that the name of relgion and G-d was used to condone the behavior any person can see it was about control NOT about G-d. There was a perversion. It wasn’t in His Name but in the name of greed and control.

KimmyQueen September 7, 2010 at 1:08 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Seriously. Overall almost anyone would be interested in trying to shake the hand of a sitting President. However he wasn’t given a speech it was a photo op.

RockingHorseGuy September 6, 2010 at 3:19 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

@DS ” but there are Muslim citizens of the United States and they have just as much right to be elected President as any Christian.”

Then you would think the leftie libs would have chosen a Muslim citizen, if that’s what they wanted, instead of Obama, who IS a Muslim, but is NOT a citizen.

DS September 6, 2010 at 4:23 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Ahh but Obama IS a citizen. And whether he is a Muslim or Christian is irrelevant. “Leftie libs” don’t vote for Presidential candidates based on their religious views, unlike your sub-literate, Bible thumping conservative kin.

Turn off Fox Snooze and pull your head out of your rear orifice for a change, sparky.

JJJRO September 7, 2010 at 2:47 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

You’re a RACIST! I can 2 reed!

RockingHorseGuy December 6, 2010 at 1:05 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

No, maybe not all lefties vote for a Presidential Candidate by his religion. Many, quite obviously, vote according to skin color. And your insults don’t show much for your ability to argue your points. By the way, I rarely watch Fox News, and I have never thumped a Bible. I know you think your writing style is cute and witty, but it IS quite a coincidence that you stumbled across my actual nickname, Sparky. Given for reasons completely unrelated to my political views.

Get Real December 4, 2010 at 11:40 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Before saying the Forefathers didnt found America on Christian foundations and making yourself look more foolish. You should really research it. I hope these quote from them will help you in the future.

John Quincy Adams (1825-29)

“The first and almost the only book deserving of universal attention is the Bible. I speak as a man of the world . . . and I say to you, ‘Search the Scriptures.’”
Andrew Jackson (1829-37)

Upon hearing a man defaming God’s Word, Jackson rebuked him with the following well-chosen words:

“Sir, that Book is the Rock on which our Republic rests!”
Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865)

Lincoln had devout Christian parents but apparently didn’t become a believer till the darkest days of the Civil War. As a boy he read the Bible so much that his style was ever after heavily influenced by the King James Version. The following quotation is no doubt from the period before he found his faith:

“I am profitably engaged in reading the Bible. Take all of this book upon reason that you can and the balance by faith, and you will live and die a better man.”
Ulysses S. Grant (1869-77)

Grant was a man of integrity. As he was dying of cancer he wrote his memoirs, not for prestige, but so as not to leave his family in debt. He finished in time; the royalties saved the family from financial ruin. Grant wrote:

“Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your liberties; write its precepts on your hearts and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this book we are indebted for the progress made, and to this we must look as our guide in the future.”

William McKinley (1897-1901)

President McKinley was a genuine believer in Christ. His words are sorely needed by our currently biblically illiterate, “Christian-bashing” culture:

“The more profoundly we study this Book and the more closely we observe its divine precepts, the better citizens we will become and the higher will be our destiny as a nation.”
Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09)

“Almost every man who by his life-work added to the sum of human achievement of which the race is proud, of which our people are proud, almost every such man has based his life-work largely upon the teachings of the Bible.”
Herbert Clark Hoover (1929-33)

It was Hoover’s misfortune to be presiding over the Nation when the great stock market crash took place, though he was not responsible for it. Hoover did much to help the world’s needy between the World Wars.

“Whether it be of the law, business, morals, or that vision which leads the imagination in the creation of constructive enterprises for the happiness of mankind, he who looks for guidance in any of these things may look inside its covers and find illumination.”

DS December 4, 2010 at 1:31 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Ahh, another little Christian revisionist fool stepping up to the plate to get a smackdown.

Your quote from John Q Adams is his personal opinion and is completely irrelevant.

Andrew Jackson wasn’t a founding father. He WAS a good Christian though – he supported the genocide of the Indians and forcibly converting them to your sad cult’s beliefs.

Lincoln was anything but a Christian. He was at most a Deist and possibly a closet atheist.

Also it is interesting that the Christian leaders of the day blamed the Civil War on the founders’ rejection of Christianity and keeping The Bible and the Christian god out of the nation’s founding and Constitution.

The rest of your post is typical Xian grasping at straws and quote mining any past politician they can get their hands on who makes a pro-Christian or pro-Biblical statement. But once again, none of their statements amount to anything other than personal opinions. They were deluded Christian theocrats just like you and your ignorant ilk.

If this country had been founded by Christians, using Christian/Biblical principles we would have NO freedoms in this country. There is nothing in the Bible or Christianity that remotely supports freedom of religion, freedom of speech, democracy or any of the rights and laws we hold dear. You have to look to the ancient (pagan) Greeks and Romans for those roots.

If the USA had been founded as a Christian nation, the Constitution would mention Jesus Christ and declare him Lord of the land. Strangely there is no such mention of Jesus, God, The Bible or Christianity in that document. Go figure.

Fact is, this country was founded by folks FLEEING from nations founded on Christian and Biblical principles. They wanted something different and better. That’s why they built a secular nation using reason and truth – not absurd bronze age fairytales.

Get Real December 4, 2010 at 11:51 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

While mentioning Allah Or islamic faith. Do you even know what it is they worship? I hope this post will help you not be foolish in support. As I said in the other post RESEARCH before commenting. That is what the internet is good for.

I guess starting with the name. The Hausa Translation of the bible in northern Nigeria use Allah as a the name for the True GOD.Allah is there by the same JEHOVAH GOD of the Isalmic and Jewish and Christian Faiths. And also the one who became man for the Salvation of all the world and mankind.Sadly tho the Translators who used the term common to the Muslims in northern Nigeria,intended to be helpful. Unfortunately by using the name Allah in the Hausa Language, they have only had success at creating misunderstanding and confusion. Allah is no simple uncommon name of GOD, as the Dios in Spanish or the word Dieu in the language of the French is stated. But not to be suprised the name Allah is the name of the God of Islam.As a matter of documented fact Allh was the name of the Chief God amid numerous idlos of the Kaaba in Mecca. And represented the dieties of travelers pasing through the area in caravanas, Alla was the God of local Quraish, Muhammad’s Tribe, well before Isalm was even invented.

Muhammad smashed the Idols but kept the Black Stone (The Black Stone is a significant feature of the Kaaba, believed by Muslims to be placed there by Ibrahim (Abraham) and Ismail (Ishmael).[10] Located at the eastern corner of the Kaaba, it is about 30 cm (12 in) in diameter and surrounded by a silver frame. Although not strictly obligatory, pilgrims can kiss the Stone, as Muhammad is said to have done.) The Black Stone (called ????? ?????? al-Hajaru-l-Aswad in Arabic) is a Muslim relic, which according to Islamic tradition dates back to the time of Adam and Eve. It is the eastern cornerstone of the Kaaba, the ancient sacred stone building towards which Muslims pray, in the center of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabian The Stone is a dark rock, polished smooth by the hands of millions of pilgrims, that has been broken into a number of fragments cemented into a silver frame in the side of the Kaaba. Although it has often been described as a meteorite, this hypothesis is now regarded as doubtful.

Muslim pilgrims circle the Kaaba as part of the Tawaf ritual of the Hajj. Many of them try, if possible, to stop and kiss the Black Stone seven times, emulating the kiss that Islamic tradition records that it received from the Prophet Muhammad. If they cannot reach it, they point to it on each of their seven circuits around the Kaaba. He (Muhammad) also kept the name Allah for the God of Islam (who’s sign ins the Cresent Moon) in order to apease his own tribe and get their acceptance of the new faith.Allah has some distinctive traits and attributes. He is not a father,has no son, is not a triunal being but is a single entity. He destroys the sinners rather than saving the wicked,has compassion only on those who are righteous according to thier beliefs. Does not deal with Grace or forgiveness but only rewards good deeds (WORKS). And has no plan of Salvation for anyone Sinners or not. Allah is not the GOD of the BIBLE or of the JEWS or Christians.

THe GOD of ISRAEL also has a given name, YHWH, Pronounced today as JEHOVAH and even earlier as JAHWEH. The Young Christian is unaware of this GOD’s Name because the Old Testament inserts the word LORD insteadfor YHWH. In Exocus 6:3 GOD says,”By my name YHWH ws I not known to them”;and at the burning bush when Patriarch Moses sked his name,JEHOVAH explained the meaning of it by saying, “I AM THAT I AM”. YHWH meaing not jst one who is,but the self-existent ONE who is in and of Himself (Exodus 3:13-14). The GOD of the Bible is LOVE, something that is impossible for ALLAH.As a indvidual deity,Allah was lonely and could not love or fellowship with other deities until they came into being. This is not the case with JEHOVAH GOD. He is part of the GODHEAD Father,SON and HOLY SPIRIT.Complete in himself and in need of no others to love and fellowship with(John 3:35,”The Father loveth the Son”) There is fellowship of this GOD and SON AND HOLY SPIRIT, we could say the he is love manifest in himself. The purest expression of LOVE.

Allah could never say,” Let us make man in our image” Genisis 1:26 and the Muslim Scholar has no explanation for this expression, whcih is even found in the Korans paraphrase of this Bible verse, Why? With this imformation alone it should be sufficent to show that to use the name Allah for God in the Hausa translation of the bible is indeed a grave mistake.In proven fact we show Allah if a False God and is in keeping with all Pagan Gods.

Ishaq:398 “Ask them for their help. Thereby make the religion of Islam

agreeable to them. And when you are resolved in the matter of religion

concerning fighting your enemy you will have the advantage.”

Qur’an:9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take

them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every

stratagem of war.”

Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to


Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief

[non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the

whole world).”

Ishaq:324 “He said, ‘Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and

religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.’

Get Real December 4, 2010 at 4:34 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Well, I am so glad you know me well enough to judge my education and mental capablilites. How can I argue with such a highly educated person as yourself since you could call me fool. As I said before you talked if you researched the founding fathers you would see what was written about there thoughts on the subject. But since you just choose to babel and argue not looking at the facts. What is the use of “leading a horse to water.” Well you know the rest with your apparent intellect. A course in edicate might prove benificial as you apparently dont know how to show common courtesy. Therefore I will not get into a name calling contest with you. Sorry I know that is what you live for. But that is what we expect from these type responses. Thanks for reaffirming our thoughts. LOL!! Oh and GOD Bless !!!! Oh by the way Thomas Jefferson comments on Church and State was personnel opionion and thoughts as well reassuring Baptists they would be able to practice their religion,but of course you knew that already.

KimmyQueen December 4, 2010 at 8:41 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

LOL I laughed so hard at the idea that DS actually thought that he gave anyone a smackdown… If anything he was the one that got a smackdown, and now it seems is back for more. The interesting part is that one can provide actual verifiable and citable and original facts and still progressive minds will never allow the truth to obscure their nonsense. Sometimes it is just better not to feed the trolls.

RockingHorseGuy December 6, 2010 at 1:07 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

No, DS is actually quite the smackdown expert. Calling me Sparky and implying that I had my head up my “rear orifice” was quite intellectually stimulating, don’t you think? I was impressed. Not.