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
I don't think even you know what you are rambling about.
That's a good way to avoid discussing the points raised. And it doesn't at all make it look like you
can't deal with them.... :icon_rolleyes:
There is nothing to discuss. I've been very clear as to what I support and what I do not. If you want to condemn me for supporting the poor and not the banks, have at it.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
15,595
Reaction score
6,160
Points
360
There is nothing to discuss. I've been very clear as to what I support and what I do not. If you want to condemn me for supporting the poor and not the banks, have at it.
You're a fucking liar and to claim I think banks need a hand out is just dishonest and without
any justification at all. Fuck you, Pee Knob.
If you can't hang just say so and stop with your phony virtue signaling lies.

If you want to play Jesus and give what you have away to the poor no one can stop you.

But if you want to give other people's money away to feel good about yourself then you are just
a dishonest hypocrite, which we all can clearly see.
 
Last edited:

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
19,548
Reaction score
3,339
Points
215
There is nothing to discuss. I've been very clear as to what I support and what I do not. If you want to condemn me for supporting the poor and not the banks, have at it.
You're a fucking liar and to claim I think banks need a hand out is just dishonest and without
any justification at all. Fuck you, Pee Knob.
If you can't hang just say so and stop the lies.
I never mentioned you. I stated what my postions are. I really don't care what you support or don't.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
15,595
Reaction score
6,160
Points
360
I never mentioned you. I stated what my postions are. I really don't care what you support or don't.
I stated in post #50 how you try to conflate the issue of socialism for mothers with children and banks.
You make it seem like you are totally disinterested yet you've argued these points for pages now.

Yet more dishonesty from you? Of course.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
19,548
Reaction score
3,339
Points
215
I never mentioned you. I stated what my postions are. I really don't care what you support or don't.
I stated in post #50 how you try to conflate the issue of socialism for mothers with children and banks.
You make it seem like you are totally disinterested yet you've argued these points for pages now.

Yet more dishonesty from you? Of course.
I support our taxes going to the poor and not to investment bankers. I'm not sure how I can be any clearer.
 

Sun Devil 92

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
29,867
Reaction score
8,698
Points
490

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 ?
Was there free food ?

I'm hungry.
 

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
84,406
Reaction score
15,856
Points
2,180
Tommy, please provide an example of Rev. F. Graham preaching "hate."

And as for the relationship between Christians and Our Beloved President, I quote a message board in front of a nearby Christian Church: "How can any Bible-believing Christian support a politician who advocates for abortion and sexual perversion?"

I rest my case.
Management didn’t like it when I told taint taint to stop picking on Christians
 

DemonRat Hater

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2020
Messages
260
Reaction score
316
Points
158
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.............
That’s your problem. You don’t think people should be self sufficient and instead rely on the government (everybody else’s tax dollars) to take care of them.

it’s not the system that is the problem (limited government capitalism), it’s the people controlling it that have rigged it to make themselves and their Elitist friends richer, while everybody else gets poorer.

People can’t afford kids nowadays. Previous generations were capable of feeding 4-7 kids and sending them to school. Now it’s just as expensive to have 1 kid.

Democrats, their solution is to encourage people to not have kids and take money from the government. the Trump Republicans are trying to cleanse the system and get it back to where people can afford to have them
 

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.............
That’s your problem. You don’t think people should be self sufficient and instead rely on the government (everybody else’s tax dollars) to take care of them.

it’s not the system that is the problem (limited government capitalism), it’s the people controlling it that have rigged it to make themselves and their Elitist friends richer, while everybody else gets poorer.

People can’t afford kids nowadays. Previous generations were capable of feeding 4-5 kids and sending them to school. Now it’s just as expensive to have 1 kid.

Democrats, their solution is to encourage people to not have kids and take money from the government. the Trump Republicans are trying to cleanse the system and get it back to where people can afford to have them
We don't have limited government capitalism so your point is moot.
 

DemonRat Hater

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2020
Messages
260
Reaction score
316
Points
158
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.............
That’s your problem. You don’t think people should be self sufficient and instead rely on the government (everybody else’s tax dollars) to take care of them.

it’s not the system that is the problem (limited government capitalism), it’s the people controlling it that have rigged it to make themselves and their Elitist friends richer, while everybody else gets poorer.

People can’t afford kids nowadays. Previous generations were capable of feeding 4-5 kids and sending them to school. Now it’s just as expensive to have 1 kid.

Democrats, their solution is to encourage people to not have kids and take money from the government. the Trump Republicans are trying to cleanse the system and get it back to where people can afford to have them
We don't have limited government capitalism so your point is moot.
Because people like you keep voting for people that promise more government programs and welfare.

Conservatives want to down size government
 

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.............
That’s your problem. You don’t think people should be self sufficient and instead rely on the government (everybody else’s tax dollars) to take care of them.

it’s not the system that is the problem (limited government capitalism), it’s the people controlling it that have rigged it to make themselves and their Elitist friends richer, while everybody else gets poorer.

People can’t afford kids nowadays. Previous generations were capable of feeding 4-5 kids and sending them to school. Now it’s just as expensive to have 1 kid.

Democrats, their solution is to encourage people to not have kids and take money from the government. the Trump Republicans are trying to cleanse the system and get it back to where people can afford to have them
We don't have limited government capitalism so your point is moot.
Because people like you keep voting for people that promise more government programs and welfare.

Conservatives want to down size government
No they don't. Is this why the debt is up nearly 8 trillion dollars under Trump?
 

DemonRat Hater

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2020
Messages
260
Reaction score
316
Points
158
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.............
That’s your problem. You don’t think people should be self sufficient and instead rely on the government (everybody else’s tax dollars) to take care of them.

it’s not the system that is the problem (limited government capitalism), it’s the people controlling it that have rigged it to make themselves and their Elitist friends richer, while everybody else gets poorer.

People can’t afford kids nowadays. Previous generations were capable of feeding 4-5 kids and sending them to school. Now it’s just as expensive to have 1 kid.

Democrats, their solution is to encourage people to not have kids and take money from the government. the Trump Republicans are trying to cleanse the system and get it back to where people can afford to have them
We don't have limited government capitalism so your point is moot.
Because people like you keep voting for people that promise more government programs and welfare.

Conservatives want to down size government
No they don't. Is this why the debt is up nearly 8 trillion dollars under Trump?
That would be the PPP packages thanks to the Chinese Virus. Trump has cut many government programs. It was the first things he did while in office. And if Dems were in control it would be doubled

I knew you were a Trump hater. I can smell the liberal in you. Next you’ll start complaining about me leaving food on my dinner plate because there are people starving all over the world. Good luck to you
 

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.............
That’s your problem. You don’t think people should be self sufficient and instead rely on the government (everybody else’s tax dollars) to take care of them.

it’s not the system that is the problem (limited government capitalism), it’s the people controlling it that have rigged it to make themselves and their Elitist friends richer, while everybody else gets poorer.

People can’t afford kids nowadays. Previous generations were capable of feeding 4-5 kids and sending them to school. Now it’s just as expensive to have 1 kid.

Democrats, their solution is to encourage people to not have kids and take money from the government. the Trump Republicans are trying to cleanse the system and get it back to where people can afford to have them
We don't have limited government capitalism so your point is moot.
Because people like you keep voting for people that promise more government programs and welfare.

Conservatives want to down size government
No they don't. Is this why the debt is up nearly 8 trillion dollars under Trump?
That would be the PPP packages thanks to the Chinese Virus. And if Dems were in control it would be doubled
The debt was on record pace before the virus. You making excuses only shows that you really do not care about smaller government.

I knew you were a Trump hater. I can smell the liberal in you. Next you’ll start complaining about me leaving food on my dinner plate because there are people starving all over the world. Good luck to you
I believe we need to balance the budget so why is it that I shouldn't dislike Trump?
 

DemonRat Hater

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2020
Messages
260
Reaction score
316
Points
158
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.............
That’s your problem. You don’t think people should be self sufficient and instead rely on the government (everybody else’s tax dollars) to take care of them.

it’s not the system that is the problem (limited government capitalism), it’s the people controlling it that have rigged it to make themselves and their Elitist friends richer, while everybody else gets poorer.

People can’t afford kids nowadays. Previous generations were capable of feeding 4-5 kids and sending them to school. Now it’s just as expensive to have 1 kid.

Democrats, their solution is to encourage people to not have kids and take money from the government. the Trump Republicans are trying to cleanse the system and get it back to where people can afford to have them
We don't have limited government capitalism so your point is moot.
Because people like you keep voting for people that promise more government programs and welfare.

Conservatives want to down size government
No they don't. Is this why the debt is up nearly 8 trillion dollars under Trump?
That would be the PPP packages thanks to the Chinese Virus. And if Dems were in control it would be doubled
The debt was on record pace before the virus. You making excuses only shows that you really do not care about smaller government.

I knew you were a Trump hater. I can smell the liberal in you. Next you’ll start complaining about me leaving food on my dinner plate because there are people starving all over the world. Good luck to you
I believe we need to balance the budget so why is it that I shouldn't dislike Trump?
There hasn’t ever been a president that has reduced the debt since the founding of the Federal Reserve.
If you don’t know why you should not dislike Trump, I cannot help you. You’ve had 4 years to figure that out
 

Norman

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
28,832
Reaction score
11,461
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 ?
Sounds American as hell, I wish I was there.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
6,757
Reaction score
806
Points
160
Location
North 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.
So that source blames evangelical declines solely on Franklin Graham? I don’t give a shit about franklin Graham or any rich/famous religious figures but I’d blame politicians that took “God” out of the pledge of allegiance.

I also don’t get how people who defend Womens and gays rights can support Islam. It’s like a Vegan saying they love a big porterhouse steak.

You telling me someone by the name Barack ‘Hussein’ Obama was Christian and not Muslim?:21:

most DemonRats are atheists, so he’s not really dividing anything that already isn’t divided
Right you had God in the Pledge of Allegiance, but your treatment of women and black folks was anything but Godly.
 

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.............
That’s your problem. You don’t think people should be self sufficient and instead rely on the government (everybody else’s tax dollars) to take care of them.

it’s not the system that is the problem (limited government capitalism), it’s the people controlling it that have rigged it to make themselves and their Elitist friends richer, while everybody else gets poorer.

People can’t afford kids nowadays. Previous generations were capable of feeding 4-5 kids and sending them to school. Now it’s just as expensive to have 1 kid.

Democrats, their solution is to encourage people to not have kids and take money from the government. the Trump Republicans are trying to cleanse the system and get it back to where people can afford to have them
We don't have limited government capitalism so your point is moot.
Because people like you keep voting for people that promise more government programs and welfare.

Conservatives want to down size government
No they don't. Is this why the debt is up nearly 8 trillion dollars under Trump?
That would be the PPP packages thanks to the Chinese Virus. And if Dems were in control it would be doubled
The debt was on record pace before the virus. You making excuses only shows that you really do not care about smaller government.

I knew you were a Trump hater. I can smell the liberal in you. Next you’ll start complaining about me leaving food on my dinner plate because there are people starving all over the world. Good luck to you
I believe we need to balance the budget so why is it that I shouldn't dislike Trump?
There hasn’t ever been a president that has reduced the debt since the founding of the Federal Reserve.
If you don’t know why you should not dislike Trump, I cannot help you. You’ve had 4 years to figure that out
It went down in 2000.
 

DemonRat Hater

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2020
Messages
260
Reaction score
316
Points
158
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.
So that source blames evangelical declines solely on Franklin Graham? I don’t give a shit about franklin Graham or any rich/famous religious figures but I’d blame politicians that took “God” out of the pledge of allegiance.

I also don’t get how people who defend Womens and gays rights can support Islam. It’s like a Vegan saying they love a big porterhouse steak.

You telling me someone by the name Barack ‘Hussein’ Obama was Christian and not Muslim?:21:

most DemonRats are atheists, so he’s not really dividing anything that already isn’t divided
Right you had God in the Pledge of Allegiance, but your treatment of women and black folks was anything but Godly.
Yes, generations ago... and we came together and fixed it. Now today all you do is focus on the past. The past cannot be changed no matter how many statues and books you burn.
Now you are reversing everything and dividing this nation with hate/ violence and reverse racism.

move to another country if you don’t like the past. I heard China loves other races and obedient women
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top