 |
|
|
|
 Hillary Rodham Clinton with the Rev. Don Jones, a pastor who had a lasting influence on her politics.
April 25th, 2014
01:43 PM ET
The pastor who shaped Hillary Clinton's politicsBy Dan Merica, CNN Washington (CNN) - In the spring of 1962, Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the most controversial men in America. One night in Chicago's Orchestra Hall after delivering a stirring speech on civil rights and the future of America, he shook hands with a standout 15-year-old with conservative parents, Hillary Rodham. More than 50 years later, the moment still resonates profoundly with Clinton, who has had an illustrious political career and could again seek to make history as the first woman president. "Probably my great privilege as a young woman was going to hear Dr. Martin Luther King speak," Clinton said earlier this year at an event at the University of Miami. "I sat on the edge of my seat as this preacher challenged us to participate in the cause of justice, not to slumber while the world changed around us. And that made such an impression on me." Clinton has traced much of her life in politics and activism to King's words that night. But there was another minister, not famous like King, who also influenced her views on social justice and stoked an intensity for action. Don Jones was the Methodist youth pastor who organized the trip of like-minded teens to see King, and mentored her for the rest of his life. "Don opened up a new world to me," Clinton said in 2009, the year he died, "and helped guide me on a spiritual, social and political journey of over 40 years."
« Previous entryHow the Catholic Church makes saints
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Seek knowledge and be free. Might want to review: http://www.webmd.com/se-x/features/se-x-drive-how-do-men-women-compare
So what? Do you think you're enlightening us on something everyone has always known?
Man, you are master of the obvious. This pertains to HRC not at all.
The lengths you go through to try and portray yourself as some sort if sex guru...
Letting go of superstition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yceHh5khkXo
Speakers in order of appearance:
1. Lawrence Krauss, World-Renowned Physicist
2. Robert Coleman Richardson, Nobel Laureate in Physics
3. Richard Feynman, World-Renowned Physicist, Nobel Laureate in Physics
4. Simon Blackburn, Cambridge Professor of Philosophy
5. Colin Blakemore, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Neuroscience
6. Steven Pinker, World-Renowned Harvard Professor of Psychology
7. Alan Guth, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Physics
8. Noam Chomsky, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Linguistics
9. Nicolaas Bloembergen, Nobel Laureate in Physics
10. Peter Atkins, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Chemistry
11. Oliver Sacks, World-Renowned Neurologist, Columbia University
12. Lord Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal
13. Sir John Gurdon, Pioneering Developmental Biologist, Cambridge
14. Sir Bertrand Russell, World-Renowned Philosopher, Nobel Laureate
15. Stephen Hawking, World-Renowned Cambridge Theoretical Physicist
16. Riccardo Giacconi, Nobel Laureate in Physics
17. Ned Block, NYU Professor of Philosophy
18. Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics
19. Marcus du Sautoy, Oxford Professor of Mathematics
20. James Watson, Co-discoverer of DNA, Nobel Laureate
21. Colin McGinn, Professor of Philosophy, Miami University
22. Sir Patrick Bateson, Cambridge Professor of Ethology
23. Sir David Attenborough, World-Renowned Broadcaster and Naturalist
24. Martinus Veltman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
25. Pascal Boyer, Professor of Anthropology
26. Partha Dasgupta, Cambridge Professor of Economics
27. AC Grayling, Birkbeck Professor of Philosophy
28. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics
29. John Searle, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
30. Brian Cox, Particle Physicist (Large Hadron Collider, CERN)
31. Herbert Kroemer, Nobel Laureate in Physics
32. Rebecca Goldstein, Professor of Philosophy
33. Michael Tooley, Professor of Philosophy, Colorado
34. Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
35. Leonard Susskind, Stanford Professor of Theoretical Physics
36. Quentin Skinner, Professor of History (Cambridge)
37. Theodor W. Hänsch, Nobel Laureate in Physics
38. Mark Balaguer, CSU Professor of Philosophy
39. Richard Ernst, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
40. Alan Macfarlane, Cambridge Professor of Anthropology
41. Professor Neil deGrasse Tyson, Princeton Research Scientist
42. Douglas Osheroff, Nobel Laureate in Physics
43. Hubert Dreyfus, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
44. Lord Colin Renfrew, World-Renowned Archaeologist, Cambridge
45. Carl Sagan, World-Renowned Astronomer
46. Peter Singer, World-Renowned Bioethicist, Princeton
47. Rudolph Marcus, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
48. Robert Foley, Cambridge Professor of Human Evolution
49. Daniel Dennett, Tufts Professor of Philosophy
50. Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics
FEATURED MUSIC:
Mozart – Requiem Mass In D Minor K 626 – 1. Introitus 00:03
Massive Attack – Two Rocks And A Cup Of Water 02:28, 19:14
Max Richter – Embers 05:13
Ludovico Einaudi – Andare 09:27, 24:30, 26:31
Ludovico Einaudi – Nuvole Bianche 13:13
Max Richter – Vladimir's Blues 29:21
Ludovico Einaudi – Eni 30 Percento (The Earth Prelude) 33:16
David Wood destroyed by Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman, from the video [regarding the Gospel of Mark]: "These lots and lots of copies are from many centuries after Mark was written. How could we know that these copies stemmed from a correct copy, instead of an errant copy? Our earliest ones are all highly errant."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-IG05dQ88Y
Published 04-14-2014
NT scholar Bart Ehrman holds a PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude). He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents (E. J. Brill), co-editor-in-chief for the journal Vigiliae Christianae, and on several other editorial boards for journals and monographs.
OK my dear frenemies atheists/evolutionists/idolaters here is a Quiz. Answer the best you can which of course is the Worst that mankind has to offer.
How big is the Evidence of the Absolute, Complete and Total Stup..... I meant the NONSENSE of atheism?
1) As big as Earth.
2) As big as the Sun.
3) As big as the Solar System.
4) As big as the Galaxy.
5) As big as the Universe.
6) All of the Above.
The Absolute, Complete and Total Stup..... no wait I want to be nice and just say that the NONSENSE of atheism is Total.
As a principle the message of the prophet could apply here also. Is. 3:12 O My people! Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them.
Rights for Gays and Lesbians (United Methodist Church):
Regarding the denomination’s particular stance on ho-mo-se-xuality, the 2012 Book of Discipline states:
“The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of ho-mo-se-xuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.”
Unquote.
This statement of the UMC indludes a "yes" and a "no" concerning the same issue. That is typical for modern theological texts. Imagine at a job interview the boss would ask you, if you had undergone higher education. You would answer: "yes, no." His reaction: "What now, yes or no?" If you would tell him again: "yes, no", he would certainly abandon the interview, and chu-ck you out.
Ain't it very strange that theologians are allowed to do things, which no ordinary man is allowed to do?
Bottom line the statement of the UMC is a "yes" to gay behaviour whereby the "yes" is hidden skilfully.
Better they had formulated as follows: "Our confessional docu-ments and the Bible actually prohibit gay behaviour, gay marriage, and gay church goers (church members). However, we don't want to resist the tenets of the UNO and the worldwide society, and therefore we welcome gay church members.
That way they had told plainly and clearly what they mean.
Yet, St. Paul says that fornicators are not allowed to be churchmembers.
1 Cor. 5
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. 2 And ye are pu-ffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole l-ump? 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lu-mp, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
We have to distinguish between the general society and the church. Inside the church gay behaviour is not allowed at all.
Outside the church a Christian shall love his gay neighbour (workmate, classmate, etc.) despite his or her sin. This love includes the communicaton of the gospel. The gay neighbour should become aware that his lifestyle doesn't please God, and that there is still time to repent. Even if somebody doesn't accept the gospel immediately, we are supposed to keep on loving him. Yet, if our neighbour wants to become a church member, he has to repent before.
The church is supposed to act according to God's will which we can find in the Bible. The church shall not conform herself to the world.
The secular world is only an emergency system where the sinners can exist in an organized community up to the point of time when they may repent. Real life is available only in the church. The world should never presume to be more than an emergency system.
Too much legalization of fornication will cause God's wrath. Why should anybody repent, if their is nothing more to repent?
What about drought? Will anything grow without rain?
"Too much fornicatio will cause God's wrath."
And may result in many more of God 's children being born.
"What about drought? Will anything grow without rain?"
Take a biology class. Fornication doesn't cause long term weather patterns.
The rest of your post is intelligible.
As I told observer below, there isn't a church in existence that meet up to your standards. So your solution is to bash all of them. Your faux concern fools nobody.
You should be honest. You are here to voice your disapproval over anyone not as pious as you imagine yourself to be.
Misfire. Apologies.
poor old rainy. he is not getting laid, so he doesn't want anyone else to get laid
he is like our own little corn pone, theo
maybe he and theo should just rent a hotel room for the weekend and have a jeebus circle jerk
rainy.....your god is impotent, and you are a bigoted punk
Oh, yay! The biggest bigot on the BB has turned his surly attention to the Methodists, and his favorite topic, the rights of gays and lesbians in a country he isn't from!
Guess what, skippy. Your blather doesn't matter. Ain't that funny?
I am chiefly concerned about the churches. I care less about the general society.
Any community which doesn't act according to the tenets of the Bible is no Christian Church.
We should be honest.
As I told observer below, there isn’t a church in existence that meet up to your standards. So your solution is to bash all of them. Your faux concern fools nobody.
You should be honest. You are here to voice your disapproval over anyone not as pious as you imagine yourself to be.
No, it is a formal question.
I wish to find a church acting according to the tenets of the Bible – the correct form.
I would be very glad, if they would welcome the little sinner, and help me to improve.
Found your own church since you feel every denomination and every other church is so lacking that you have to come here to slander and bash them every single day.
Do that to shore up your beliefs instead of insulting other churches/denominations. Just think. You can become the next Charlie Manson. Or Warren Jeffs. Or David Koresh. Or whatever. You've got that zeal. That spark. That obsession that things must be done exactly. Your. Way.
You don't need to constantly tear down those denominations you don't like. Just leave them alone. They won't mind.
The problem may not lie with them...but with you.
Rainer Helmut Braendlein
"The church is supposed to act according to God's will which we can find in the Bible."
Fortunately, most churches don't act according to God's will. Few, if any, support slavery and the Pope seems to be cutting down on the discriminations commanded in the Bible.
Okay, but then they should no longer call themselves Christian churches.
They will call themselves Christian if they are followers of Christ. Who on earth are you to define what Christianity is?
You may only define it for yourself.
I know you fancy yourself a modern-day Bonhoffer, but you're not. You just interpret things in the way to harm as many people as possible while hiding behind your Bible to do so.
Who is a follower of Christ?
Someone following his doctrine in word and deed.
Rainer,
"Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over."
- Emo Philips
Read 1 Cor. 5!
St. Paul required the Corinthians to exclude extreme and notorious sinners.
Assumed, they had not been obedient to his instruction, he certainly had abandoned the community with them.
Jesus said that a single sinning brother who is not ready to repent shall be treated like a pagan. If a whole church is not ready to repent, she has become a pagan association.
Rainer Helmut Braendlein,
So a GOOD CHRISTIAN CHURCH is one that will support slavery, right? Just like you do, right?
Chris·tian
ˈkrisCHən/
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
"the Christian Church"
noun
1.
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
Yes. They qualify. Some may fall short, as you repeatedly have stated you do.
You are not qualified to comment on a number of things. Deciding what churches may call themselves is one of them.
Observer, you said the word that will cause Helmut to salvitate like one of Pavlov's dogs: "Pope."
There isn't a church in existence that confirms to Helmut's made up religion.
This way, he can discriminate against as many people as possible.
LOL....what's always shout how they can "question" things, but they don't question their own atheism! LOLZ. Classic stupidity!
•atheists
"what's always shout"
Classic stupidity. Basic English failure.
lol ...... clergy and politicians, birds of a feather I guess....
Now the powers behind the scenes shove forward their latest gimmick ...Here vote for a Woman!, you all haven't done that before!! She ll change everything! really – she will!!111.
smoke and mirrors.
you think voting for a woman is a gimmick? noice.
Presidential candidates PR!! They all have their favorite Christian ministers, dead or alive. The dead ones tend to be less controversial.
A very nice article about Clinton's faith!
Since atheism is a man-made belief system, it's false. According to strict atheists, any man-made belief is false. 😄😃☺️😄😊😄
troll, good afternoon.
Eggie poo! How's preschool going?
Fortunately that is no concern of mine. How is your work on definitions coming?
Awww! He's trying to act like he's smart! You get an A-
Get your KISS records out and Surrender.
Finisher, do you EVER say anything that's remotely correct? Atheism is neither a belief system nor is it man-made. Everyone is born an atheist so obviously it isn't man-made.
If we are all born atheists, your atheism is the sole source of ALL the evil in this world! Thanks so much for the comedy!!!! 😄😊😄
You're quite an idiot. There is no "if" about it – no one is born with a belief in a god. And why exactly would the fact that we're all born atheist make atheism the sole source of evil? I could just as ilogically conclude that atheism is therefore the sole source of everything good. It merits repeating: You are quite an idiot.
You aren't born knowing what god(s) to disbelieve in. So what you claim is based on your delusions. You are atheist for emotional reasons.
Finisher,
This went unanswered on another page:
Do you take the Bible literally, finisher? This is a direct question that has nothing to do with atheism. It is a yes or no question.
Yes or no?
Taking the bible literally means you are a trained zombie unable to think. Words change over time especially with the English language. Take the word "Jazz". It can mean music or it could mean something else. People can claim anything they want, such as "I understand the bible" but they are just lying to themselves to make them feel good inside. If anything, one must understand the way of life for Jews and others mentioned in the bible. It's a tradition for people to pick what they want, but that doesn't mean they are able to understand what everything means. Atheists also do this. You take one glance and say "Ut! This is evil! Ban this now!!!!!'". You take one part out of context EXACTLY like the people you mock for doing. Literally? Can't. If one studies it seriously, one will know more than the surface of it. Try to think before you respond, k?
Thanks for answering, finisher.
finisher, why don't you write like that more often? (and drop the troll bit?)
"You aren't born knowing what god(s) to disbelieve in. So what you claim is based on your delusions. You are atheist for emotional reasons."
Again, you're an idiot. Given that obvious fact, I would suggest you stop posting to avoid further embarrassment.
Atheism is a non-belief in any gods. In order to believe in gods and not be an atheist, you would have to know about those gods. Babies don't know about gods and therefore, are atheists, by definition. Of course, if a god actually existed, babies probably WOULD know about him / it instinctively, but in reality, babies only end up believing in a god because other people convince them to do it via brain-washing.
The Clintons are the ultimate Power Couple. Bill and Hillary are real political players. She didn't just wake up and say I am going to run for The White House. And Bill didn't just happen. They have been a deliberate couple playing the political game of power since college. Bill wouldn't have made it to the White House without her and Hillary won't make it to the White House without Bill. A power couple they are, maybe the best we have ever seen. History will compare them with Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.
I believe Hillary Rodham Clinton is a very intelligent woman of high caliber. The only thing she needs to do if she runs for president, IMHO, is to tone down her rhetoric, she comes across as a doctrinaire and a bit of an exaggerator. Other than that, I believe she would make a very good president.
Hillary Clinton? She has and is still riding the coat tails (or is it Monica's tail?) of Billy "Boy". A strong woman would have divorced his "rosey" ass. She did not because she thought it would ruin her political ambitions. Her stint as Secretary of State was a disaster showing her true colors as a listless, weak leader.
Hillary should not and cannot take blame for Bill's poor judgments. This will backfire on the Republicans. His sexual infidelities were his very own, and Hillary can't take on Bill's womanizing. It should not come up as a campaign issue. Hillary has to be judged exclusively on her own merit, not as a woman but most of all as a politician. Hillary will make history, as the first woman President of the United States. Her problem then, will be what to do with "First Husband."
Blaming the victim is cowardly. I am unsurprised you would stoop that low.
Maybe if HC did a bit more "stooping" in bed, Billy Boy wouldn't have been chasing other women and the country would have saved a lot of money and time on trials, impeachments et. al.
Maybe you should quit being such a secost pig and not blame the victim.
Sexist pig.
DYAC.
Se-xist- discrimination on the basis of s-ex, esp the oppression of women by men
Pig – an insensitive male, a male chauvinist
An example of one of the all time "se-xist" pigs? Billy "Boy" Clinton !!!
Is Reality one? No, as he has been and continues to be a faithful and respectful husband for 44 years.
Being a faithful husband is irrelevant to the accusation, which was justified.
How so? HC being a better bed partner? Might want to think that over considering all the pills and gels out there for improved se-x. Are the companies selling these products se-xist pigs??.
Idiocy. You may wish to rethink the original comment in which you blamed H.C. for Bill straying. knowledge which you cannot possibly have. Oink.
Tis a guy thing and all active males have it. So I do know.
No, you do not know. You only think you do. Oink.
Seek knowledge and be free: http://www.webmd.com/s–ex/features/s–ex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Idiocy. A general study has no bearing on a specific relationship, especially since that specific relationship is not part of said study, nor do you have any personal knowledge of said relationship. Oink.
But by quantum theory, we know all about our fellow specific humans. For example, I can see you now erupting in a blood boil.
Being a guy definitely qualifies you to have male views that are sexist, misogynistic, anachronistic, and petty; blame the victim is a good ole boy strategy. The 50's called, piggy. Your presence is requested back. Your foray into the 21st century failed, as did your attempt to smear HRC because you don't like her politics.
Grow up. This is childish behavior, old man.
Not denying he's an adulterer. If he were blaming HER for HIS inability to keep it zipped, I'd call him the same thing.
If she had been cheating on him, you'd be still blaming her by calling her a slut. You know you would be.
You are a seist pig. And your little WebMd link doesn't change that, nor justify it.
But where would HC be without that zipper-down Billy "Boy"? Just another hick lawyer from Arkansas !!! Time to cleanse Washington of all the Texas and Arkansas power-playing families !!!
So you have no answer, you know your musings are just that, you have presented no facts, and then resort the last refuge of the defeated. Well done. And oink.
♰♰♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰♰♰
The good ole de facto Christian USA.
Trolling for a reaction is beneath you, Vic – or should be.
+1, midwest!
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—"
– Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
–The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.
He also opposed the US Constitution.
Huh. Wonder why?
It's so hard to tell what the founding fathers actually thought and believed – there are so many conflicting items.
For instance, Thomas Jefferson is known for not being religious. He writes
"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the consti.tution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the const.itution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies."
However, he also writes:
"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
–The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.
Sure Jefferson was a complex man...that's why he edited the Bible to delete all of the supernatural aspects of Jesus's tenure on Earth, and just left the very good teachings.
Jefferson was conflicted; much like all people are.
But of course this nation was founded as a secular nation. That was clearly intended by the FF when they wrote the Constitution.
We are awash in articles today.
America is ready for the leadership of a Hillary Clinton. A new history will be made when she becomes the leader of the free world. The world of women everywhere will change. America is ready for Hillary as President and Hillary is ready to be President, like no other.
Yup! Unfortunately like it happened to Israel when it went astray from the Lord. The Prophet Isaiah said of them: Is. 3:12 O My people! Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them.
•Hillary is a smart politician. When you look at her singularly on her merit she is ready and able to step into the hot seat. She is prepared. She brings skill, wisdom, experience and a unique view of the White House to the table. She has been First Lady, She has been Secretary of State. She has served in the United States Senate. She has been up close and personal. No other candidate can make the claim. She has not political peer.
In my opinion anyone who wants to be president should automatically be removed from consideration.
I can't disagree, but that is not reality.
And yet again, though is not the same, because the US is NOT Israel, neither replaces Israel. The similarity for me is obvious.Is. 3:12 O My people! Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them.
I will feel safer with her on the fence.
Concert, riding the fence is her best altenative...no man would have her.
Who says she wants any man to want her?
joey3467,
Reminds me of this passage from "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe":
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
How odd that one would base their vote on the candidate's...er...'desirability'.
One would think one votes with one's pennis.
Of course I meant penis.
Prime political babble right there.
Way to get those minority votes you missed last time!
WHAAAT, more Evidence on top of a mountain range of Evidence of the Absolute, Complete and Total Stupi... no wait.... I'll be nice this time!! Absolute, Complete and Total NON-SENSE or as the GRAMMAR GESTAPO OF THE INTERNET prefers nonsense of atheism.
troll, please list what is wrong with atheism. thx.
One word sill suffice, EVERYTHING!! If the Evidence for the Total Stupi... er I meant NONSENSE of atheism was a liquid, it could replace all the water of all the Oceans, lakes, rivers and well in the whole planet earth and beyond.
I don't need everything. Could you please list ONE thing that is wrong with atheism? thx again.
Egg....I'm not sure if you know it or not, but Salero is one of the bat sh-it crazy lunatics that we have here on these blogs that never, ever has anything intelligent to say.
Please try to keep up...the article is about a Christian woman, not an Atheist. Now run along and find your nurse, when the 'Salero' personality comes out we know that your meds are wearing off... take your anti-psychotics like the good little loon you are.
An article about HRC and the the men of God who influenced her is evidence of atheism?
Explain.
No doubt that she is a good xtian, she lies about everything, doesn't take reponsibility for what happens on her watch as State, defends her philandering husband, and dislikes our men and women in uniform. This woman is nothing if not super ambitous, and doesn't care how she reaches the top of the ladder. To paraphrase her: "What does it matter that our people died in Bengazhi?"
I will vote for her. She would be an excellent president.
Concert, that surely is your right. A a veteran I still defend that right. But I do disagree with you on her bieng an excellent presiden. I find it hard to look up to anyone who doesn't understand the terms "illegal, and "interprets" the Consti.tution. I think it speaks quite clearly of her character when they were in Arkansas and had their little to-do in real-estate, etc.
Should read "president". Sorry for typos.
She would be terrifying which is just what we need.
What was the result of Kenneth Starr's extensive, extremely costly investigation?
Or as W would say: "What does it matter that our people died in Afghanistan, Iraq the twin towers?"
I'm trying to figure out if your jab that "she is a good xtian" is evidenced by the list that follows that statement (as it seems to imply). If so: "dislikes our men and women in uniform"??? Are you suggesting that Christians in this country are against the military? What vodka infused facts are you relying upon?
workin, work on your reading comprehension "she" doesn't like the our military. Understand now, azzhat?
Or as GW would say: "What does it matter that because I was asleep at the wheel our people died in Afghanistan, Iraq the twin towers?"
My reading comprehension is just fine–its your ambiguous writing that I'm addressing. You start with the phrase "No doubt..." you then follow with a list of other charges against her which seem to exist only to substantiate and evidence the "no doubt' claim. In other words, your post reads: "no doubt that she is a "good xtian" (because) "she dislikes our men and women in uniform." That charge, therefore, is a jab at Christians generally. Had you not used the "no doubt" introduction, this would not have been an issue, and I would have read your post as nothing more than the childish list (starting with "good xtian") that it is.
I'm glad you paraphrased that to fit with your own meaning, because that isn't what she said. Therefore , it's really you that thinks that way, and not Mrs. Clinton.