NICE: Georgia Official Skips Bible, Takes Oath With Raised Fist On Malcolm X Autobiography

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

She'll get a wake up call, when she finds out who killed Malcom X and WHY.

I find it really odd that all three of the Nation of Islam assassins were paroled in 1985. I don't know how if feel about that.

Malcom X spent a lot of his time with the Socialist Workers Party lamenting capitalism. It is sad that he got smoked, but you know what they say about good commies....

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Ironic about Malcolm X. I wonder how many black slaves of the democrats know what Malcolm X thought about those blacks and white liberals.

Lets take a look.





Lol at black democrats and white patronizing left wing racists.

Yea he called out both blatant racists and also the so-called well meaning white liberals who didn't want radical change -- and he was right

Something tells me however, you don't agree with the political and economic power part of his message huh?

And he was wrong.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

And he was wrong.

No, he was not wrong -- black people should seek economic and political power -- but I expect an ACTUAL racist to think that is wrong.

Nothing more frightening to a racist than seeing a minority gain economic power

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

She'll get a wake up call, when she finds out who killed Malcom X and WHY.

I think you mean "if". If it took her a long time to read Malcolm X..eh..I've seen this before.

I could read Malcolm X in a day.

Jungle Epic

Dindu Literature 101

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Malcolm X's autobiography is actually a very interesting read. It was ghost written by Alex Haley, the author of Roots.

I greatly respect Malcolm's X's integrity. In fact, it was his integrity which got him killed.

It would not be a bad thing for this young woman to follow the example he set toward the end of his life.

I remember one scene from Roots. The part where he was on that small boat traveling down that stream and he had finally returned to his boyhood
hamlet.

I just closed my eyes and pretended that it was the Queen Mary dropping off
one million of them.

Sequel to "Roots": "Loots"

The slaves not born in America had participated in African slave hunts before they themselves got captured.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The bible has been misused to justify slavery and segregation. And we see it being misused today by bakers as a shield for their bigotry toward gays.

We don't often see the bible being used any more in the public forum as an instrument for loving one another.

You are inaccurate in your statement. This is the lie that the left likes to push, that if you don't agree with, or don't want to participate in something someone does, then that makes you a bigot, or that you hate them.

These people don't hate gays, (well, I'm sure some of them do), but the majority simply don't agree with their lifestyle, and the bakery was not exercising hate, but their own belief.

I just wish the left would stop pushing this narrative that the right hates gays and whatever else the topic is. However, I think this may be their entire agenda. Say something enough, and people may start to believe it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Wrong

Here is what the woman said: "Having seen the transformation of someone who came through a difficult background to become vocal and push conversations on race in a radical way is powerful. Then he shifted course and saw race in a different lens as he got older. And the fact that he was arguably killed for his politics. These are things that I want to embrace.”

Not bad. Only someone who has not read the book or whose only knowledge about Malcolm X is through the filter of a pseudocon propagandist would fail to grasp her meaning.

He was black, that is reason enough for most of those in here to hate him


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Syriusly]

Liberals are slowly making the tradition of taking an oath of loyalty 'moot' anyway. I mean Barry took one and several days later broke it by publicly declaring he was ordering his US AG to NOT defend /enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because HE did not disagree with a law passed by Congress.....

You mean the law the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional?

So you are pissed off that Obama didn't enforce an unconstitutional law?

Why am I not surprised.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Liberals are slowly making the tradition of taking an oath of loyalty 'moot' anyway. I mean Barry took one and several days later broke it by publicly declaring he was ordering his US AG to NOT defend /enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because HE did not disagree with a law passed by Congress.....

You know, Trump announced that he won't defend Obamacare in an upcoming lawsuit.

Does that mean he's violating his oath?

Or is it diffe(R)ent?

 

[g5000]

Liberals are slowly making the tradition of taking an oath of loyalty 'moot' anyway. I mean Barry took one and several days later broke it by publicly declaring he was ordering his US AG to NOT defend /enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because HE did not disagree with a law passed by Congress.....

You know, Trump announced that he won't defend Obamacare in an upcoming lawsuit.

Does that mean he's violating his oath?

Or is it diffe(R)ent?

Easyt shoots himself in the mouth twice a day.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You know, Trump announced that he won't defend Obamacare in an upcoming lawsuit.

Does that mean he's violating his oath?

Or is it diffe(R)ent?

Wasn't his oath to protect and defend the constitution?

EDIT:

Why, yes. His oath is to protect and defend the constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[g5000]

You know, Trump announced that he won't defend Obamacare in an upcoming lawsuit.

Does that mean he's violating his oath?

Or is it diffe(R)ent?

Wasn't his oath to protect and defend the constitution?

Read easyt65's post. Then read theDoctorisin's post.

Maybe you'll get it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You know, Trump announced that he won't defend Obamacare in an upcoming lawsuit.

Does that mean he's violating his oath?

Or is it diffe(R)ent?

Wasn't his oath to protect and defend the constitution?

EDIT:

Why, yes. His oath is to protect and defend the constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Hey, don't tell me that - tell easy65.


It's cute that you removed the context of what I was responding to, so you could pretend that your comment was a relevant response.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The bible has been misused to justify slavery and segregation. And we see it being misused today by bakers as a shield for their bigotry toward gays.

We don't often see the bible being used any more in the public forum as an instrument for loving one another.

You are inaccurate in your statement. This is the lie that the left likes to push, that if you don't agree with, or don't want to participate in something someone does, then that makes you a bigot, or that you hate them.

These people don't hate gays, (well, I'm sure some of them do), but the majority simply don't agree with their lifestyle, and the bakery was not exercising hate, but their own belief.

I just wish the left would stop pushing this narrative that the right hates gays and whatever else the topic is. However, I think this may be their entire agenda. Say something enough, and people may start to believe it.

A Molested Generation Loses the Will to Live

Quit trying to appease the fairyphiles. There is a natural reason for normal people finding Gayists disgusting, malicious, and threatening. Why be afraid to say that hatred has to do with strengthening society? Who are these spoiled brats who tell us what emotions we are allowed to have?

 

[easyt65]

Who gives a fuque? "Swearing" on a book is a meaningless and utterly irrelevant relic of the Stone Age. For all it matters she could "swear in" on a Sunday comic section of the Cincinnati Enquirer from 1946. They ain't swearing to read a book -- they're swearing to do their job.

Therein lies the problem.

Not too awfully long ago swearing an oath of office meant something. It was a person swearing an oath to carry out the duties and responsibilities which they were tasked with dutifully and faithfully. It was them saying I vow to do this, and you can trust me.

When you swear in on something that means nothing then your oath means nothing. If you swear in on something important, something that is a foundation of your faith and a belief / foundation that has helped you develop into who you are it means (meant) something. It WAS the person declaring, "I swear on this document, that has helped make me who I am and that helps guide my steps / actions in life, that I will........"

As you point out, though, taking the oath of office, swearing in, has become equivalent to useless ceremony where those 'swearing in' are like, "Yeah, whatever...I intend to do the job....'

IMO, it was Barak Obama who became the 1st President in US history to lay waste to / render the Oath of Office / swearing in ceremony' a useless sham.

He obviously meant NOTHING that he said during the swearing in ceremony, as within a few days he publicly violated one of the very things he had just vowed to do by declaring publicly that he was ordering his (criminal) US AG NOT to enforce a Law passed by Congress because HE did not agree with it. For the next 8 years Obama violated both Constitution and law while aiding and abetting this nation's enemies and victimizing the American people through the trampling of their rights again and again.

But again, the act USED TO BE a person swearing on something they held dear, something they valued, that helped set their founding ideals and beliefs, that helped them to become who they were, something that helped guide their decisions and steps. As you pointed out, it has become an un-respected joke.

 

[easyt65]

You know, Trump announced that he won't defend Obamacare in an upcoming lawsuit.

Does that mean he's violating his oath?

Or is it diffe(R)ent?

Wasn't his oath to protect and defend the constitution?

EDIT:

Why, yes. His oath is to protect and defend the constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Hey, don't tell me that - tell easy65.


It's cute that you removed the context of what I was responding to, so you could pretend that your comment was a relevant response.

1. For the HYPOCRITES:

Obama administration will no longer defend DOMA


2. OBAMAcare is and always was a POS, minority-supported, socialist ideology idea, a stepping-stone-to-single-payer (according to Harry Reid) bill pushing into law by a near super majority controlled Dem Congress. It destroyed the existing form of health care coverage and consisted in the US Govt forcing its citizens to buy a product or face punishment.

Before the ink from his signature on the bill making it law had dried Obama was already signing thousands of waivers for companies not to have to adhere to it because, as McDonalds told them before it passed, 'If this goes into law we will be firing A LOT of people'.

The US Govt / Barry went out and hired the same company that designed the Canadian's Health Care Web Page - the company they FIRED for incompetence and corruption - to design Obamacare's web site. It took forever to create, it cost a helluva lot (way too d@mn much), and it was the 'hunting ground' (still is, I hear) for conmen, scam artists, and personal identity thieves. The law sworn to lower health care prices increased as much on some as 15-%, and some Americans could not / can not get health care because the Insurance Companies left the market. (How d@mn hard is it to allow Americans to shop for Insurance Prices across state / boundary/sector lines and join together with others to form 'coalitions/blocks to get better prices - an idea identified a decade ago and resisted for the longest time?).

Obamacare is like a dead, stinking albatross tied around the Democrats' neck they are maddened from desperation to get rid of ownership of this POS. Liberals still seek to claim now that OBAMAcare, which they voted into existence, is not 'owned' by the Republicans. Bwuhahaha.... That's like the captain of the Valdeez oil tanker that caused the huge oil spill in Alaska when he hit rocks claiming that the Oil Spill DISASTER now belongs to the clean-up responders in whose laps the mess was dumped...like the original carrier of a plague blaming the ones to whom they spread the disease to for the disease.

I agree, the gutless GOP, who never want to DO anything for fear of offending anyone and potentially losing their jobs/wealth/ perks, swore they would 'replace-and-repeal' it. They voted against it in something like 100 'Show Votes', when nothing could be done to actually get rid of it, but when they had the chance to get rid of it through the budget process they all voted to keep it going. (That's because they have no idea how to come up with a plan to make EVERYONE unanimously happy, and if they can't come up with something that doesn't offend ANYONE then they won't do a thing.

The GOP, however, did not come up with this or pass this into law. Whose name remains in reference to the law? 'OBAMAcare'.

This 'turd in the pool' is all yours, Democrats! The 'GOP 'janitors' may not have gotten it out of the 'pool' yet, but everyone still knows the Democrats are still responsible for the 'turd'.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The bible has been misused to justify slavery and segregation. And we see it being misused today by bakers as a shield for their bigotry toward gays.

We don't often see the bible being used any more in the public forum as an instrument for loving one another.

You are inaccurate in your statement. This is the lie that the left likes to push, that if you don't agree with, or don't want to participate in something someone does, then that makes you a bigot, or that you hate them.

These people don't hate gays, (well, I'm sure some of them do), but the majority simply don't agree with their lifestyle, and the bakery was not exercising hate, but their own belief.

I just wish the left would stop pushing this narrative that the right hates gays and whatever else the topic is. However, I think this may be their entire agenda. Say something enough, and people may start to believe it.

A Molested Generation Loses the Will to Live

Quit trying to appease the fairyphiles. There is a natural reason for normal people finding Gayists disgusting, malicious, and threatening. Why be afraid to say that hatred has to do with strengthening society? Who are these spoiled brats who tell us what emotions we are allowed to have?

I'm not saying people agree with it, most just ignore it, but id say few are hateful of it.

 

[Pogo]

Who gives a fuque? "Swearing" on a book is a meaningless and utterly irrelevant relic of the Stone Age. For all it matters she could "swear in" on a Sunday comic section of the Cincinnati Enquirer from 1946. They ain't swearing to read a book -- they're swearing to do their job.

Therein lies the problem.

Not too awfully long ago swearing an oath of office meant something. It was a person swearing an oath to carry out the duties and responsibilities which they were tasked with dutifully and faithfully. It was them saying I vow to do this, and you can trust me.

When you swear in on something that means nothing then your oath means nothing. If you swear in on something important, something that is a foundation of your faith and a belief / foundation that has helped you develop into who you are it means (meant) something. It WAS the person declaring, "I swear on this document, that has helped make me who I am and that helps guide my steps / actions in life, that I will........"

As you point out, though, taking the oath of office, swearing in, has become equivalent to useless ceremony where those 'swearing in' are like, "Yeah, whatever...I intend to do the job....'

IMO, it was Barak Obama who became the 1st President in US history to lay waste to / render the Oath of Office / swearing in ceremony' a useless sham.

He obviously meant NOTHING that he said during the swearing in ceremony, as within a few days he publicly violated one of the very things he had just vowed to do by declaring publicly that he was ordering his (criminal) US AG NOT to enforce a Law passed by Congress because HE did not agree with it. For the next 8 years Obama violated both Constitution and law while aiding and abetting this nation's enemies and victimizing the American people through the trampling of their rights again and again.

But again, the act USED TO BE a person swearing on something they held dear, something they valued, that helped set their founding ideals and beliefs, that helped them to become who they were, something that helped guide their decisions and steps. As you pointed out, it has become an un-respected joke.

Exactly what part does the book play? Some kind of booga-booga magic? What function did it EVER have?

Suppose you were being sworn into office, a Holey Babble was trotted out, you put your hand on it and did the thing. Then a day (a week, a month, a year) later it was revealed that the book you were handed was the 1966 White Pages for Dubuque with a Bible cover on it. Does that in any way change what you swore?

I just don't get the fetishism thing. It's a ******* inanimate object. It has no power.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The bible has been misused to justify slavery and segregation. And we see it being misused today by bakers as a shield for their bigotry toward gays.

We don't often see the bible being used any more in the public forum as an instrument for loving one another.

You are inaccurate in your statement. This is the lie that the left likes to push, that if you don't agree with, or don't want to participate in something someone does, then that makes you a bigot, or that you hate them.

These people don't hate gays, (well, I'm sure some of them do), but the majority simply don't agree with their lifestyle, and the bakery was not exercising hate, but their own belief.

I just wish the left would stop pushing this narrative that the right hates gays and whatever else the topic is. However, I think this may be their entire agenda. Say something enough, and people may start to believe it.

A Molested Generation Loses the Will to Live

Quit trying to appease the fairyphiles. There is a natural reason for normal people finding Gayists disgusting, malicious, and threatening. Why be afraid to say that hatred has to do with strengthening society? Who are these spoiled brats who tell us what emotions we are allowed to have?

few are hateful of it.

Mary Cheney Is More Evidence That This Is a Fad Caused by Permissiveness Towards Richkids

Ignorant indifference is the problem then, and the reason the Gayist agenda is infecting every facet of society.