Marxist Pelosi Fixing Law to Eliminate God from Oath in House. Vote!

[Seawytch]

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you.

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you.

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

I disagree, and for the record its unlikely that you and I will ever agree on anything, and that's OK, we have that right in the USA (although the dems are trying to remove it).

And I'll immediately dispense that in one swell foop:

Rump: "We're gonna 'open up' those libel laws and we're gonna sue you [media] like you've never been sued before"

What's interesting about that ^^ ---- there *WAS* (<< "was, past tense) a YouTube video readily available of that statement (also embedded in the link above) of him making this statement that I could, and did, repeatedly, post on these pages so it could be immediately seen. That video is now GONE. Even though it definitely happened. There were other videos showing it as well. Yet now, NOTHING remains on YouTube of that speech snippet. Not the video I had saved in favorites, nor any other.

Why don't you give the class an alternate-facts explanation of why that particular video would be removed. Even though it clearly happened and clearly is a crucial dynamic that has yet to run its course.

If you end the oath with "so help me God" and you don't believe in God then you aren't lying, you are just repeating what you need to say to get the job.

And you'd be lying in doing so, because you just said that an entity you don't believe exists, will help you. That's impossible. Moreover you DON'T need to say any such thing to get the job ---- see "Constitution, United States", Article 6. That's been there the whole time. Just because that no-religious-test clause has literally always been there, doesn't mean it hasn't been violated.

The oath does not say "so help me God because I believe in God" It simply states for believers that they really mean what they just swore to , with the probably of punishment by God if they were lying. For non believers it means absolutely nothing, and I have no issue with your claim that God is a generic word and could mean allah, Vishnu, Buddha, or the rocks in the forest.

It doesn't, and it's not a generic. "Creator" is generic. Allah means Allah specifically, Buddha beans Buddha specifically, Vishnu means Vishnu specifically, Yahweh means Yahweh etc. And "God" is their Christianist rival. Each has their own characteristics. If they were all the same entity they would not need different names.

If you proclaim "so help me (entity that you believe in but I don't)" you've not only made no statement (so why do it?) but you've also denied your own personal belief. A Muslim has the standing to add an "Insh'Allah". You and I, do not. If you invoke Allah when you do not believe in Allah, or God when you do not believe in God, you're purporting to be a part of something you're not, and that makes you (the generic 'you') a liar.

I have never seen the video you mentioned. but if he said what you claim, so what? why should the media be exempt from libel laws? Why should they be permitted to lie continuously for either side of any issue?

You don't know much about religion if you don't understand that God is generic for the creator or supreme being, the Greeks had "Gods" The muslims call God Allah, its language of religion.

But as I said earlier, you and I are never going to agree on much, and that's just fine. Currently my views are the majority views and yours are the radical left.

Link to where your views coincide with the majority of Americans on this or any issue. I double dog dare you.

 

[Pogo]

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you.

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

Nonsense.

It has nothing to do with ‘denying’ anything – it has to do with the fact that Judeo/Christian religious dogma falls woefully short concerning what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; indeed, compelling elected officials to acknowledge a deity they know doesn’t exist is clearly wrong.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you.

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

I disagree, and for the record its unlikely that you and I will ever agree on anything, and that's OK, we have that right in the USA (although the dems are trying to remove it).

And I'll immediately dispense that in one swell foop:

Rump: "We're gonna 'open up' those libel laws and we're gonna sue you [media] like you've never been sued before"

What's interesting about that ^^ ---- there *WAS* (<< "was, past tense) a YouTube video readily available of that statement (also embedded in the link above) of him making this statement that I could, and did, repeatedly, post on these pages so it could be immediately seen. That video is now GONE. Even though it definitely happened. There were other videos showing it as well. Yet now, NOTHING remains on YouTube of that speech snippet. Not the video I had saved in favorites, nor any other.

Why don't you give the class an alternate-facts explanation of why that particular video would be removed. Even though it clearly happened and clearly is a crucial dynamic that has yet to run its course.

If you end the oath with "so help me God" and you don't believe in God then you aren't lying, you are just repeating what you need to say to get the job.

And you'd be lying in doing so, because you just said that an entity you don't believe exists, will help you. That's impossible. Moreover you DON'T need to say any such thing to get the job ---- see "Constitution, United States", Article 6. That's been there the whole time. Just because that no-religious-test clause has literally always been there, doesn't mean it hasn't been violated.

The oath does not say "so help me God because I believe in God" It simply states for believers that they really mean what they just swore to , with the probably of punishment by God if they were lying. For non believers it means absolutely nothing, and I have no issue with your claim that God is a generic word and could mean allah, Vishnu, Buddha, or the rocks in the forest.

It doesn't, and it's not a generic. "Creator" is generic. Allah means Allah specifically, Buddha beans Buddha specifically, Vishnu means Vishnu specifically, Yahweh means Yahweh etc. And "God" is their Christianist rival. Each has their own characteristics. If they were all the same entity they would not need different names.

If you proclaim "so help me (entity that you believe in but I don't)" you've not only made no statement (so why do it?) but you've also denied your own personal belief. A Muslim has the standing to add an "Insh'Allah". You and I, do not. If you invoke Allah when you do not believe in Allah, or God when you do not believe in God, you're purporting to be a part of something you're not, and that makes you (the generic 'you') a liar.

I have never seen the video you mentioned. but if he said what you claim, so what? why should the media be exempt from libel laws? Why should they be permitted to lie continuously for either side of any issue?

Obviously you should have read the link and watched the statement then. Just as obviously libel laws are made for the media, but that's not what he's referring to here. He uses the term "libel laws" but actually break down and LISTEN to what he's saying about them. "A terrible piece which is a disgrace" is not "libel" in any interpretation. He's simply whining that he can't take criticism and (wants to) sue them to SILENCE that criticism. Simply because he can't take the heat. That ain't how libel works. Nobody gets a pass from being challenged just because he's a narcissistic little fuck who never grew out of the age of nine.

Now, he can't actually do that, it's not within his authority, but it's gotta be concerning that he WANTS to do that and is, we must presume, looking for ways TO do that, other than simply demonizing the media (as if it were all one entity) as "fake".

You don't know much about religion if you don't understand that God is generic for the creator or supreme being, the Greeks had "Gods" The muslims call God Allah, its language of religion.

But as I said earlier, you and I are never going to agree on much, and that's just fine. Currently my views are the majority views and yours are the radical left.

Actually my views are the Constitution ------- see again Article VI of that document. Which I notice you have no response to. Not that one exists.

 

[Pogo]

Why should anyone have to swear to god to belong to congress?

Hasn’t anyone read the First Amendment?

Not to mention Article VI, to wit:

>> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.<<
.
Doesn't get much more definitive than that. Pretty sure "ever" means "ever" and "any" means "any".
Also pretty sure "no" means "NO".

Would "so help me Hillary" work for you?

This whole thread is ridiculous

"So help me nobody because I'll do it" would be far more appropriate.

You just took on a job with responsibilities. Why the fuck don't you ASSUME those responsibilities instead of immediately setting up a crutch in case you don't? Back to the more important Constitutional point of no religious test, why are these oaths directly ignoring Article VI?

As I keep saying, the question here is not "should SHMG be removed" --- the question is how the fuck did it get there in the first place and why haven't we moved on from the primitive?

I believe your line at this point would be, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddam piece of paper"....

 

[22lcidw]

Why should anyone have to swear to god to belong to congress?

Hasn’t anyone read the First Amendment?

Not to mention Article VI, to wit:

>> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.<<
.
Doesn't get much more definitive than that. Pretty sure "ever" means "ever" and "any" means "any".
Also pretty sure "no" means "NO".

Would "so help me Hillary" work for you?

This whole thread is ridiculous

"So help me nobody because I'll do it" would be far more appropriate.

You just took on a job with responsibilities. Why the fuck don't you ASSUME those responsibilities instead of immediately setting up a crutch in case you don't? Back to the more important Constitutional point of no religious test, why are these oaths directly ignoring Article VI?

As I keep saying, the question here is not "should SHMG be removed" --- the question is how the fuck did it get there in the first place and why haven't we moved on from the primitive?

I believe your line at this point would be, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddam piece of paper"....

There have been so few of those papers in human history.

 

[Redfish]

Why should anyone have to swear to god to belong to congress?

Hasn’t anyone read the First Amendment?

Not to mention Article VI, to wit:

>> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.<<
.
Doesn't get much more definitive than that. Pretty sure "ever" means "ever" and "any" means "any".
Also pretty sure "no" means "NO".

Would "so help me Hillary" work for you?

This whole thread is ridiculous

"So help me nobody because I'll do it" would be far more appropriate.

You just took on a job with responsibilities. Why the fuck don't you ASSUME those responsibilities instead of immediately setting up a crutch in case you don't? Back to the more important Constitutional point of no religious test, why are these oaths directly ignoring Article VI?

As I keep saying, the question here is not "should SHMG be removed" --- the question is how the fuck did it get there in the first place and why haven't we moved on from the primitive?

I believe your line at this point would be, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddam piece of paper"....

for believers, saying "so help me God" adds to the seriousness of the oath. If it means nothing to you, how are you harmed by saying it? or how are you harmed by anyone else saying it?

 

[Redfish]

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you.

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

If you don't believe then the oath means nothing to you and saying it should not offend you.

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

I disagree, and for the record its unlikely that you and I will ever agree on anything, and that's OK, we have that right in the USA (although the dems are trying to remove it).

And I'll immediately dispense that in one swell foop:

Rump: "We're gonna 'open up' those libel laws and we're gonna sue you [media] like you've never been sued before"

What's interesting about that ^^ ---- there *WAS* (<< "was, past tense) a YouTube video readily available of that statement (also embedded in the link above) of him making this statement that I could, and did, repeatedly, post on these pages so it could be immediately seen. That video is now GONE. Even though it definitely happened. There were other videos showing it as well. Yet now, NOTHING remains on YouTube of that speech snippet. Not the video I had saved in favorites, nor any other.

Why don't you give the class an alternate-facts explanation of why that particular video would be removed. Even though it clearly happened and clearly is a crucial dynamic that has yet to run its course.

If you end the oath with "so help me God" and you don't believe in God then you aren't lying, you are just repeating what you need to say to get the job.

And you'd be lying in doing so, because you just said that an entity you don't believe exists, will help you. That's impossible. Moreover you DON'T need to say any such thing to get the job ---- see "Constitution, United States", Article 6. That's been there the whole time. Just because that no-religious-test clause has literally always been there, doesn't mean it hasn't been violated.

The oath does not say "so help me God because I believe in God" It simply states for believers that they really mean what they just swore to , with the probably of punishment by God if they were lying. For non believers it means absolutely nothing, and I have no issue with your claim that God is a generic word and could mean allah, Vishnu, Buddha, or the rocks in the forest.

It doesn't, and it's not a generic. "Creator" is generic. Allah means Allah specifically, Buddha beans Buddha specifically, Vishnu means Vishnu specifically, Yahweh means Yahweh etc. And "God" is their Christianist rival. Each has their own characteristics. If they were all the same entity they would not need different names.

If you proclaim "so help me (entity that you believe in but I don't)" you've not only made no statement (so why do it?) but you've also denied your own personal belief. A Muslim has the standing to add an "Insh'Allah". You and I, do not. If you invoke Allah when you do not believe in Allah, or God when you do not believe in God, you're purporting to be a part of something you're not, and that makes you (the generic 'you') a liar.

I have never seen the video you mentioned. but if he said what you claim, so what? why should the media be exempt from libel laws? Why should they be permitted to lie continuously for either side of any issue?

Obviously you should have read the link and watched the statement then. Just as obviously libel laws are made for the media, but that's not what he's referring to here. He uses the term "libel laws" but actually break down and LISTEN to what he's saying about them. "A terrible piece which is a disgrace" is not "libel" in any interpretation. He's simply whining that he can't take criticism and (wants to) sue them to SILENCE that criticism. Simply because he can't take the heat. That ain't how libel works. Nobody gets a pass from being challenged just because he's a narcissistic little fuck who never grew out of the age of nine.

Now, he can't actually do that, it's not within his authority, but it's gotta be concerning that he WANTS to do that and is, we must presume, looking for ways TO do that, other than simply demonizing the media (as if it were all one entity) as "fake".

You don't know much about religion if you don't understand that God is generic for the creator or supreme being, the Greeks had "Gods" The muslims call God Allah, its language of religion.

But as I said earlier, you and I are never going to agree on much, and that's just fine. Currently my views are the majority views and yours are the radical left.

Actually my views are the Constitution ------- see again Article VI of that document. Which I notice you have no response to. Not that one exists.

so you think the media should be permitted to lie with no repercussions? interesting position, and right in line with the Third Reich and North Korea.

 

[Redfish]

Why should anyone have to swear to god to belong to congress?

Hasn’t anyone read the First Amendment?

Not to mention Article VI, to wit:

>> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.<<
.
Doesn't get much more definitive than that. Pretty sure "ever" means "ever" and "any" means "any".
Also pretty sure "no" means "NO".

Would "so help me Hillary" work for you?

This whole thread is ridiculous

"So help me nobody because I'll do it" would be far more appropriate.

You just took on a job with responsibilities. Why the fuck don't you ASSUME those responsibilities instead of immediately setting up a crutch in case you don't? Back to the more important Constitutional point of no religious test, why are these oaths directly ignoring Article VI?

As I keep saying, the question here is not "should SHMG be removed" --- the question is how the fuck did it get there in the first place and why haven't we moved on from the primitive?

I believe your line at this point would be, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddam piece of paper"....

The constitution guarantees the free practice of all religions, or no religion. Its up to each citizen. BUT, the founders were believers in a higher power and included those beliefs in the constitution. Are you also offended by "in God we trust" on our money? Crosses in Arlington cemetery? The military chaplins? Opening congress with a prayer? No own is forced to participate in religion and saying the oath is not an act of religious participation. Its a requirement of the job, if you don't like it don't run for a public office or ever testify in any court in the USA.

 

[badger2]

On 29 Jan 2019 beautress wrote: 'Atheism isn't protected by the First Amendment, Dude or dudette. The Bill of Rights was written to protect Christian Pilgrims from the persecution their beliefs received before being kicked out of screwed up Europe....'

Yes, and post-genocide of the American Indigene followed the violent bias of this fascist, exclusionary Pilgrim idea. It is the concept, kuklos exothen, 666. And the smoking cowboy gets off on the fact that the witness should be scared shitless and as long as the phrase is in place, will default to the truth. What arrogance, moving to another continent to spread this religious pathology like an epidemic. This arrogance and stupidity shows up again in the phrase 'freedom of religion,' which is the masked form of kuklos exothen by deceptive manipulation of the preposition, 'of,' excluding the more democratically healthy preposition, 'from.'

 

[badger2]

Redfish would make an excellent nazi. Kuklos exothen Redfish distributes amongst the important aspects of life, including placing food on the table if caught in a public court in contempt of god's phrase. That is why when spreading a belief system such as religion, stigmatization can be indispensable. If god (is [italics]) death, why should anyone have a problem with crosses in Arlington?

 

[Pogo]

Why should anyone have to swear to god to belong to congress?

Hasn’t anyone read the First Amendment?

Not to mention Article VI, to wit:

>> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.<<
.
Doesn't get much more definitive than that. Pretty sure "ever" means "ever" and "any" means "any".
Also pretty sure "no" means "NO".

Would "so help me Hillary" work for you?

This whole thread is ridiculous

"So help me nobody because I'll do it" would be far more appropriate.

You just took on a job with responsibilities. Why the fuck don't you ASSUME those responsibilities instead of immediately setting up a crutch in case you don't? Back to the more important Constitutional point of no religious test, why are these oaths directly ignoring Article VI?

As I keep saying, the question here is not "should SHMG be removed" --- the question is how the fuck did it get there in the first place and why haven't we moved on from the primitive?

I believe your line at this point would be, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddam piece of paper"....

for believers, saying "so help me God" adds to the seriousness of the oath. If it means nothing to you, how are you harmed by saying it? or how are you harmed by anyone else saying it?

We already did this. Because it's LYING.
If you recall, you countered that point by lying that it was not lying. That went nowhere.

And it STILL doesn't address Article VI.

 

[Pogo]

Why should anyone have to swear to god to belong to congress?

Hasn’t anyone read the First Amendment?

Not to mention Article VI, to wit:

>> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.<<
.
Doesn't get much more definitive than that. Pretty sure "ever" means "ever" and "any" means "any".
Also pretty sure "no" means "NO".

Would "so help me Hillary" work for you?

This whole thread is ridiculous

"So help me nobody because I'll do it" would be far more appropriate.

You just took on a job with responsibilities. Why the fuck don't you ASSUME those responsibilities instead of immediately setting up a crutch in case you don't? Back to the more important Constitutional point of no religious test, why are these oaths directly ignoring Article VI?

As I keep saying, the question here is not "should SHMG be removed" --- the question is how the fuck did it get there in the first place and why haven't we moved on from the primitive?

I believe your line at this point would be, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddam piece of paper"....

The constitution guarantees the free practice of all religions, or no religion. Its up to each citizen. BUT, the founders were believers in a higher power and included those beliefs in the constitution. Are you also offended by "in God we trust" on our money? Crosses in Arlington cemetery? The military chaplins? Opening congress with a prayer? No own is forced to participate in religion and saying the oath is not an act of religious participation. Its a requirement of the job, if you don't like it don't run for a public office or ever testify in any court in the USA.

And that ^^ is a DIRECT violation of the Constitution -- again, Article VI -- which spells out in no uncertain terms that that cannot be done. Not on the federal level, not on the state level, not for any office any time anywhere, PERIOD.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Why should anyone have to swear to god to belong to congress?

Hasn’t anyone read the First Amendment?

Not to mention Article VI, to wit:

>> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.<<
.
Doesn't get much more definitive than that. Pretty sure "ever" means "ever" and "any" means "any".
Also pretty sure "no" means "NO".

Would "so help me Hillary" work for you?

This whole thread is ridiculous

"So help me nobody because I'll do it" would be far more appropriate.

You just took on a job with responsibilities. Why the fuck don't you ASSUME those responsibilities instead of immediately setting up a crutch in case you don't? Back to the more important Constitutional point of no religious test, why are these oaths directly ignoring Article VI?

As I keep saying, the question here is not "should SHMG be removed" --- the question is how the fuck did it get there in the first place and why haven't we moved on from the primitive?

I believe your line at this point would be, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddam piece of paper"....

The constitution guarantees the free practice of all religions, or no religion. Its up to each citizen. BUT, the founders were believers in a higher power and included those beliefs in the constitution. Are you also offended by "in God we trust" on our money? Crosses in Arlington cemetery? The military chaplins? Opening congress with a prayer? No own is forced to participate in religion and saying the oath is not an act of religious participation. Its a requirement of the job, if you don't like it don't run for a public office or ever testify in any court in the USA.

And that ^^ is a DIRECT violation of the Constitution -- again, Article VI -- which spells out in no uncertain terms that that cannot be done. Not on the federal level, not on the state level, not for any office any time anywhere, PERIOD.

Show us enlightened one.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Good for her. It's way past time to put away these childish toys

 

[Ambivalent1]

Good for her. It's way past time to put away these childish toys

You mean like your vibrator?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Good for her. It's way past time to put away these childish toys

You mean like your vibrator?

You stuck vibrators in your ass when you were a child? Weird.

 

[Pogo]

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

If you don't believe and you mouth the words anyway, then you're what we call "LYING". Not the ideal way to start your first day at work, is it.

I disagree, and for the record its unlikely that you and I will ever agree on anything, and that's OK, we have that right in the USA (although the dems are trying to remove it).

And I'll immediately dispense that in one swell foop:

Rump: "We're gonna 'open up' those libel laws and we're gonna sue you [media] like you've never been sued before"

What's interesting about that ^^ ---- there *WAS* (<< "was, past tense) a YouTube video readily available of that statement (also embedded in the link above) of him making this statement that I could, and did, repeatedly, post on these pages so it could be immediately seen. That video is now GONE. Even though it definitely happened. There were other videos showing it as well. Yet now, NOTHING remains on YouTube of that speech snippet. Not the video I had saved in favorites, nor any other.

Why don't you give the class an alternate-facts explanation of why that particular video would be removed. Even though it clearly happened and clearly is a crucial dynamic that has yet to run its course.

If you end the oath with "so help me God" and you don't believe in God then you aren't lying, you are just repeating what you need to say to get the job.

And you'd be lying in doing so, because you just said that an entity you don't believe exists, will help you. That's impossible. Moreover you DON'T need to say any such thing to get the job ---- see "Constitution, United States", Article 6. That's been there the whole time. Just because that no-religious-test clause has literally always been there, doesn't mean it hasn't been violated.

The oath does not say "so help me God because I believe in God" It simply states for believers that they really mean what they just swore to , with the probably of punishment by God if they were lying. For non believers it means absolutely nothing, and I have no issue with your claim that God is a generic word and could mean allah, Vishnu, Buddha, or the rocks in the forest.

It doesn't, and it's not a generic. "Creator" is generic. Allah means Allah specifically, Buddha beans Buddha specifically, Vishnu means Vishnu specifically, Yahweh means Yahweh etc. And "God" is their Christianist rival. Each has their own characteristics. If they were all the same entity they would not need different names.

If you proclaim "so help me (entity that you believe in but I don't)" you've not only made no statement (so why do it?) but you've also denied your own personal belief. A Muslim has the standing to add an "Insh'Allah". You and I, do not. If you invoke Allah when you do not believe in Allah, or God when you do not believe in God, you're purporting to be a part of something you're not, and that makes you (the generic 'you') a liar.

I have never seen the video you mentioned. but if he said what you claim, so what? why should the media be exempt from libel laws? Why should they be permitted to lie continuously for either side of any issue?

Obviously you should have read the link and watched the statement then. Just as obviously libel laws are made for the media, but that's not what he's referring to here. He uses the term "libel laws" but actually break down and LISTEN to what he's saying about them. "A terrible piece which is a disgrace" is not "libel" in any interpretation. He's simply whining that he can't take criticism and (wants to) sue them to SILENCE that criticism. Simply because he can't take the heat. That ain't how libel works. Nobody gets a pass from being challenged just because he's a narcissistic little fuck who never grew out of the age of nine.

Now, he can't actually do that, it's not within his authority, but it's gotta be concerning that he WANTS to do that and is, we must presume, looking for ways TO do that, other than simply demonizing the media (as if it were all one entity) as "fake".

You don't know much about religion if you don't understand that God is generic for the creator or supreme being, the Greeks had "Gods" The muslims call God Allah, its language of religion.

But as I said earlier, you and I are never going to agree on much, and that's just fine. Currently my views are the majority views and yours are the radical left.

Actually my views are the Constitution ------- see again Article VI of that document. Which I notice you have no response to. Not that one exists.

so you think the media should be permitted to lie with no repercussions? interesting position, and right in line with the Third Reich and North Korea.

Nobody brought up "lying" in this context. Not even Rump. That's not the issue. "Libel", which is not related to "lie" means deliberately trashing someone's reputation. "Lying" may or may not be a way to do that.

Once again I refer you to Rump's predicate-adjectives. "When they write a hit piece which is a disgrace...." ----- not "when they lie", rather "a disgrace" and "a hit piece". Emotional value judgments. Those of course are vague, as they have to be for something he knows he cannot do, but they make no mention of "lying". It means, simply enough, "when I see something I don't like". It's a purely emotional assessment. And that ain't what libel is.

In other words the fact that, just to pick a random example, Rump says "I don't see why it would be Russia" and the media report, and show the video, that he said that --------------- that ain't "lying" under any definition in the world.

Nice strawman attempt but I just lit it on fire. Getcher marshmallows out.

 

[beautress]

She better enjoy her term while she can. Any minute that black heart could stop beating.

From some of her garbled answers analyzed lately, the medics think she is showing advanced signs of confusion related to mental deterioration. My guess is she needs our prayers more than our disgust. So, prayers up.