Thousands march in Washington organised by banned hate preacher Franklin Graham

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
19,548
Reaction score
3,339
Points
215
Franklin Graham is a mere shell of what his father was. What his father built Franklin has undermined. Like Jerry, Jr. he has maligned the evangelical cause even further by his overt political beliefs.

“....Franklin Graham is a very different sort of man, better known today for his right-wing political pronouncements than for his evangelism. Shortly after 9/11, Franklin Graham provided the sound bite of today’s culture wars when he denounced Islam as “a very wicked and evil religion.” He later became the standard bearer for the view that Islam is, in his words “a religion of hatred . . . a religion of war.”

In addition to purveying the birther nonsense that helped to propel Donald Trump to political prominence, Franklin Graham suggested that President Barack Obama was not a Christian and might in fact be a secret Muslim. Along with Jerry Falwell’s son, Jerry Falwell Jr., he helped to elect Trump president by swinging 80 percent of white evangelical voters to his side. And then when Trump was elected he attributed his victory not to a surge of White Christian support or to swing states in the Midwest but to divine providence”.


Where as his father sought to bring people together, his son seeks the politics of division. He is a charlatan.
Shame on you for lying like that.
Billy was used by Nixon but was wise enough to have understood that and warned against getting too close to politicians.

I find it odd that Franklin has seemed to have discarded that wise advice.
Why would you care, you hate religious people anyway...
I am a Christian. Do you know what the Bible says about being a false witness?

What Does the Bible Say About Bearing False Witness?
And what does the Bible say about deception and temptation from the devil?

youve been deceived by the DemonRat party, or you’re complicit with them.

DemonRats are the party that burn churches statues and bibles . They classify people by race. A large majority of atheists are DemonRat. They also kill babies and mutilate children’s genitals.

WHAT A GREAT CHRISTIAN YOU ARE
I'm not a Democrat.
What exactly are you then? Because, from my short time here, you are one of the more prolific arguers of the Democrat agenda...
A vast generalization. Unfortunately a large number of things the Democrats claim they are for are things I support but when they have the ability to do them they do not.
So, you're in line with Democrat agenda items, but don't want to associate yourself with the party....Can't say as I blame you...

Still none the less, if you find yourself in line with their agenda, I would say that declared or not, you are exactly that....

Just like as a Conservative, I am more often aligned with the Republican party, even though my voter registration is listed as Conservative...
The Democrat agenda is corporatism just like the Republicans.
 

MisterBeale

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
27,081
Reaction score
8,343
Points
900

In support of impeached fraudster Donald Trump. This love in between fundies and Donald brings Christianity into disrepute.

The report doesnt state if his great friend Mr Falwell was on the march.

Maybe he was just watching ?
The signature you have programmed to your profile? That is a perfect reflection of your posts. :heehee:
 

Disir

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
22,721
Reaction score
5,115
Points
290
What is Franklin banned from?
Nobody cares. The US doesn't care about what the UK considers "hate". You need to learn how to spell thigs like center and theater. Even BBC lost all credibility with the London Riots.

No really. It was planned and they obtained the right paperwork. They are exercising their rights. Nobody is getting hurt and nothing is damaged.
 

j-mac

Nuthin' but the truth
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
3,662
Reaction score
1,474
Points
210
Location
South Carolina
Franklin Graham is a mere shell of what his father was. What his father built Franklin has undermined. Like Jerry, Jr. he has maligned the evangelical cause even further by his overt political beliefs.

“....Franklin Graham is a very different sort of man, better known today for his right-wing political pronouncements than for his evangelism. Shortly after 9/11, Franklin Graham provided the sound bite of today’s culture wars when he denounced Islam as “a very wicked and evil religion.” He later became the standard bearer for the view that Islam is, in his words “a religion of hatred . . . a religion of war.”

In addition to purveying the birther nonsense that helped to propel Donald Trump to political prominence, Franklin Graham suggested that President Barack Obama was not a Christian and might in fact be a secret Muslim. Along with Jerry Falwell’s son, Jerry Falwell Jr., he helped to elect Trump president by swinging 80 percent of white evangelical voters to his side. And then when Trump was elected he attributed his victory not to a surge of White Christian support or to swing states in the Midwest but to divine providence”.


Where as his father sought to bring people together, his son seeks the politics of division. He is a charlatan.
Shame on you for lying like that.
Billy was used by Nixon but was wise enough to have understood that and warned against getting too close to politicians.

I find it odd that Franklin has seemed to have discarded that wise advice.
Why would you care, you hate religious people anyway...
I am a Christian. Do you know what the Bible says about being a false witness?

What Does the Bible Say About Bearing False Witness?
And what does the Bible say about deception and temptation from the devil?

youve been deceived by the DemonRat party, or you’re complicit with them.

DemonRats are the party that burn churches statues and bibles . They classify people by race. A large majority of atheists are DemonRat. They also kill babies and mutilate children’s genitals.

WHAT A GREAT CHRISTIAN YOU ARE
I'm not a Democrat.
What exactly are you then? Because, from my short time here, you are one of the more prolific arguers of the Democrat agenda...
A vast generalization. Unfortunately a large number of things the Democrats claim they are for are things I support but when they have the ability to do them they do not.
So, you're in line with Democrat agenda items, but don't want to associate yourself with the party....Can't say as I blame you...

Still none the less, if you find yourself in line with their agenda, I would say that declared or not, you are exactly that....

Just like as a Conservative, I am more often aligned with the Republican party, even though my voter registration is listed as Conservative...
The Democrat agenda is corporatism just like the Republicans.
I would say even more so on the democrat side as of the past couple of cycles...
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
15,595
Reaction score
6,160
Points
360
I do support programs that would help a woman to decide to keep her baby. Like UHC, affordable access to higher education. Expanded child care choices. A higher minimum wage, etc.

You? Are women and their babies on their own after the birth?
Well, there is always the radical choice to find a mate that would help raise and support a child.
Yes...crazy, I know. And a choice that many single women refuse to consider or cannot pull off.
Failing that there is this thing called welfare. And this: Grants for Single Mothers in America (UPDATED 2020)

No. Women and their babies are not on their own, though you would like to believe it's so.
However if you must bring a child into this world try to be considerate of the other people in the world
who will have to pay for your laziness, stupidness, inconsideration, selfishness etc.

Some people have their hands full making sure their own children are cared for.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
19,548
Reaction score
3,339
Points
215
I do support programs that would help a woman to decide to keep her baby. Like UHC, affordable access to higher education. Expanded child care choices. A higher minimum wage, etc.

You? Are women and their babies on their own after the birth?
Well, there is always the radical choice to find a mate that would help raise and support a child.
Yes...crazy, I know. And a choice that many single women refuse to consider or cannot pull off.
Failing that there is this thing called welfare. And this: Grants for Single Mothers in America (UPDATED 2020)

No. Women and their babies are not on their own, though you would like to believe it's so.
However if you must bring a child into this world try to be considerate of the other people in the world
who will have to pay for your laziness, stupidness, inconsideration, selfishness etc.
Kinda like we had to do for the bankers.
 

White 6

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
8,519
Reaction score
3,885
Points
190
Hardly what I would call organized. Lets see them execute a Counter Column, March or a left or right Oblique, March. Goosestepping might at a note of organization, also.
Why would you mention "goosestepping"? That seems like a gratuitous and uncalled for slap.
Not impressed with marches of either side, but feel the right would like to have a more tightly controlled society with a top down organization, so the goosestepping thing seemed appropriate.
Nah, the "goosestepping thing" seemed approprate to you because 'Godwining' a topic is the troll tool of choice for people like you.
Godwin's law just an attempt by some people to keep unflattering reminders of past failurs out of normal discussion. Please don't start whining. It doesn't become you. Lots of people on the far right and far left fake umbrage at the slightest truism, showing resistance to their point of view. You're not hurt. Buck up an go about your day.
 

j-mac

Nuthin' but the truth
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
3,662
Reaction score
1,474
Points
210
Location
South Carolina
Hardly what I would call organized. Lets see them execute a Counter Column, March or a left or right Oblique, March. Goosestepping might at a note of organization, also.
Why would you mention "goosestepping"? That seems like a gratuitous and uncalled for slap.
Not impressed with marches of either side, but feel the right would like to have a more tightly controlled society with a top down organization, so the goosestepping thing seemed appropriate.
Nah, the "goosestepping thing" seemed approprate to you because 'Godwining' a topic is the troll tool of choice for people like you.
Godwin's law just an attempt by some people to keep unflattering reminders of past failurs out of normal discussion. Please don't start whining. It doesn't become you. Lots of people on the far right and far left fake umbrage at the slightest truism, showing resistance to their point of view. You're not hurt. Buck up an go about your day.
I don't see a denial in there...Which just makes you pathetic...
 

White 6

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
8,519
Reaction score
3,885
Points
190
Hardly what I would call organized. Lets see them execute a Counter Column, March or a left or right Oblique, March. Goosestepping might at a note of organization, also.
Why would you mention "goosestepping"? That seems like a gratuitous and uncalled for slap.
Not impressed with marches of either side, but feel the right would like to have a more tightly controlled society with a top down organization, so the goosestepping thing seemed appropriate.
Nah, the "goosestepping thing" seemed approprate to you because 'Godwining' a topic is the troll tool of choice for people like you.
Godwin's law just an attempt by some people to keep unflattering reminders of past failurs out of normal discussion. Please don't start whining. It doesn't become you. Lots of people on the far right and far left fake umbrage at the slightest truism, showing resistance to their point of view. You're not hurt. Buck up an go about your day.
I don't see a denial in there...Which just makes you pathetic...
What is it you would like denied? Nothing more pathetic than failing to get somebody to play the way you would like.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
15,595
Reaction score
6,160
Points
360
Kinda like we had to do for the bankers.
One of your favorite pass times, conflating issues to make a simplistic and over generalized point.
I don't support bailing out banks but banks have us by the nads because when we let a bank go under
it sucks millions of people and their money under with them.
Yes. We have insured programs to replace the money lost by incompetent corrupt and greedy banks but who is ultimately replacing that money lost by banks? WE ARE. The U.S. taxpayer. Nothing is free, ultimately.


What we need is a government that is willing to step in when banks falter and take over until we can completely clean house and replace the failed bank managers.
Or maybe you are ineptly making the point that when a woman has children she cannot or will not take care of she places a strain on society as a whole, like failed banks do.

In which case I would agree.
But you call for a bunch of societal remedies for mother and child like universal health care, free college, higher minimum wages, etc. that are all socialist bandaids that make everyone
accountable for the bad decisions of the mother.

You are only incentivizing bad irresponsible decisions!


However you would not socialize the losses of banks in a similar fashion.
So I wonder why the hypocrisy of yours? And why are you blind to your own double standards?

On a micro level a mother who socializes the care of her child should be just as accountable
as bank manager at Wells Fargo to the people of the nation that will have to clean up their messes.
 
Last edited:

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
84,406
Reaction score
15,856
Points
2,180

In support of impeached fraudster Donald Trump. This love in between fundies and Donald brings Christianity into disrepute.

The report doesnt state if his great friend Mr Falwell was on the march.

Maybe he was just watching ?
go kiss the devils ass and stop bashing Christians.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
19,548
Reaction score
3,339
Points
215
Kinda like we had to do for the bankers.
One of your favorite pass times, conflating issues to make a simplistic and over generalized point.
I don't support bailing out banks but banks have us by the nads because when we let a bank go under
it sucks millions of people and their money under with them.
The people's money is insured. As far as investors go, that is how it is supposed to work.

What we need is a government that is willing to step in when banks fail and take over until we can completely clean house and replace the failed bank managers.
Or maybe you are ineptly making the point that when a woman has children she cannot or will not take care of she places a strain on society as a whole, like failed banks do.
They can. I support whatever is necessary to support those kids. If we demand they be born we have to be willing to be responsible for them.

Not so with people's investments. There is supposed to be an inherent risk there.

In which case I would agree.
But you call for a bunch of societal remedies for mother and child like universal health care, free college, higher minimum wages, etc. that are all socialist bandaids that make everyone
accountable for the bad decisions of the mother.
However you would not socialize the losses of banks in a similar fashion.
So I wonder why the hypocrisy of yours? And why are you blind to your own double standards?
Yes, I consider helping children differently than I see helping bail out bankers. If you wish to see this as hypocritical, I feel sorry for you.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
15,595
Reaction score
6,160
Points
360
Yes, I consider helping children differently than I see helping bail out bankers. If you wish to see this as hypocritical, I feel sorry for you.
As usual you show yourself to be a lazy and second rate thinker. Not even a "thinker" actually.
You are 100% a reactor, no thinking necessary.

I'm talking about the principles of bailing out
a mother and a bank that leave the individual tax payers holding the bag for bad decisions and all you can say is children are not failed banks.
Well duhhhh! Give yourself a cookie, Socrates.

Nobody said they were! You are incentivizing bad decision making and in the long run it's everyone
who pays taxes and has their own problems to worry about that gets left with the sack of doggie poo!

That's socialist "thinking" for you. They never see the holistic connections between universal health care and free college for all and the impact it has on the individual paying for everything.
They are too busy patting themselves on the back for caring so much.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
19,548
Reaction score
3,339
Points
215
Yes, I consider helping children differently than I see helping bail out bankers. If you wish to see this as hypocritical, I feel sorry for you.
As usual you show yourself to be a lazy and second rate thinker. Not even a "thinker" actually.
You are 100% a reactor, no thinking necessary.

I'm talking about the principles of bailing out
a mother and a bank that leave the individual tax payers holding the bag for bad decisions and all you can say is children are not failed banks.
Well duhhhh! Give yourself a cookie, Socrates.

Nobody said they were! You are incentivizing bad decision making and in the long run it's everyone
who pays taxes and has their own problems to worry about that gets left with the sack of doggie poo!

That's socialist "thinking" for you. They never see the holistic connections between universal health care and free college for all and the impact it has on the individual paying for everything.
They are too busy patting themselves on the back for caring so much.
Children are unable to make those decisions.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
15,595
Reaction score
6,160
Points
360
Children are unable to make those decisions.
It took you three minutes to come up with that classic bit of idiocy? Amazing!

Not only is it immaterial to what I said, no one expects children to make adult choices (no one said they
should) but it ignores my central point.
That like most socialist assholes you advocate incentivizing bad choices (stupid and pointless as it gets you
even MORE bad choices) and just like when Congress bails out irresponsible banks everyone must pay for the wrongs of a few.

How do you like giving money to Chase Bank for fucking up so badly?


I can see why you would rather avoid justifying your core principles. They stink a dog turd laying
on your front lawn.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
15,595
Reaction score
6,160
Points
360
The people's money is insured. As far as investors go, that is how it is supposed to work.
Yes. As far as the investors go. As far as everyone else goes we wind up socializing the unconscionably bad and greedy banking policies of Chase and Bank of America. How do you justify that?
They can. I support whatever is necessary to support those kids. If we demand they be born we have to be willing to be responsible for them.

Not so with people's investments. There is supposed to be an inherent risk there.
But we don't demand some fertile dope keep dropping kids on the public dime. At least I don't.
It's patently dishonest to pretend otherwise but whoever said you were honest?
You couldn't string two honest thoughts together if your life depended on it.

And, surprise, you are dishonestly conflating what a bank does when it goes belly up and begs Congress to bail them out, with what happens to the individual who makes a risky investment that doesn't pan out.
The individual investor should NOT be protected from his bad investments.

Neither should the banks that wanted protection from their own greed when they made hundreds of millions of dollars in bad real estate loans to people who had NO business getting home loans when they couldn't
pay off a loan on a motor scooter.
We can thank Bill Clinton for that, making home ownership a right to please gullible and stupid
voters who had no business taking out loans from greedy banks happy to foreclose and take over
their real estate.
Yes, I consider helping children differently than I see helping bail out bankers. If you wish to see this as hypocritical, I feel sorry for you.
Already addressed. I feel sorry for someone as stupid as you.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
19,548
Reaction score
3,339
Points
215
Children are unable to make those decisions.
It took you three minutes to come up with that classic bit of idiocy? Amazing!

Not only is it immaterial to what I said, no one expects children to make adult choices (no one said they
should) but it ignores my central point.
That like most socialist assholes you advocate incentivizing bad choices (stupid and pointless as it gets you
even MORE bad choices) and just like when Congress bails out irresponsible banks everyone must pay for the wrongs of a few.

How do you like giving money to Chase Bank for fucking up so badly?


I can see why you would rather avoid justifying your core principles. They stink a dog turd laying
on your front lawn.
I don't think even you know what you are rambling about.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
19,548
Reaction score
3,339
Points
215
The people's money is insured. As far as investors go, that is how it is supposed to work.
Yes. As far as the investors go. As far as everyone else goes we wind up socializing the unconscionably bad and greedy banking policies of Chase and Bank of America. How do you justify that?
They can. I support whatever is necessary to support those kids. If we demand they be born we have to be willing to be responsible for them.

Not so with people's investments. There is supposed to be an inherent risk there.
But we don't demand some fertile dope keep dropping kids on the public dime. At least I don't.
It's patently dishonest to pretend otherwise but whoever said you were honest?
You couldn't string two honest thoughts together if your life depended on it.

And, surprise, you are dishonestly conflating what a bank does when it goes belly up and begs Congress to bail them out, with what happens to the individual who makes a risky investment that doesn't pan out.
The individual investor should NOT be protected from his bad investments.

Neither should the banks that wanted protection from their own greed when they made hundreds of millions of dollars in bad real estate loans to people who had NO business getting home loans when they couldn't
pay off a loan on a motor scooter.
We can thank Bill Clinton for that, making home ownership a right to please gullible and stupid
voters who had no business taking out loans from greedy banks happy to foreclose and take over
their real estate.
Yes, I consider helping children differently than I see helping bail out bankers. If you wish to see this as hypocritical, I feel sorry for you.
Already addressed. I feel sorry for someone as stupid as you.
I'll always support programs that help the least of those.............
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top