Dguidry stated “I suppose next you're going to cut and paste reasons why he should be Muslim, but the reality is he is a Christian and has been going to the same church for 20 years. He was educated in Catholic and public schools. Then Harvard and Harvard Law.”

You supposed wrong. If Obama was a “Muslim” he would have to stand against homosexuality. Muslims view him as an apostate. He is the son of an African Sunni Muslim, thus they believe he should be a muslim.

Check this statement ““I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” - April 17, 2008


So we see Obama claiming the Christian view of marriage which has always been one man and one woman (check the New Testament). He hinges his believe on his “Christianity”. So when his view evolved, and he basically took God out of the mix, and now sides with gay marriage, would the logical person not conclude that Obama is not a Christian? Christians view marriage one way, Obama views it another. He is not a Christian.

Notice again that over the past six years, over and over Obama makes disparaging remarks about Christianity, but is quick to jump to the defense of Muslims.

The Church Obama attended for twenty years is an antiemetic church that preaches black liberation theology. There is nothing “Christian” about it.

In reality, Obama is neither Christian nor Muslim. He is an secular humanist who worship his own brain.

Dguidry stated “Just heard presidential candidate Rubio (R) state in an interview on Face the Nation, that he believes homosexuals are born that way and that it is not a choice. I think some Republicans are are actually getting smarter,”


Notice that Rubio “believes”. Notice he did not state fact, he did not list scientific evidence, he states a belief that goes against Bible truth, and also goes against science. If he believes child molesters are born to molest children, would you side with him? If he believes adultery and swinging to be genetic, but has no scientific proof, would you side with him/

Does he believe that gays doing a third of the nation’s child molestations is genetic also? Does he believe the much higher rates of STDs amongst gays to be genetic, or is he moronic enough to believe that higher STDs in gays comes from homophobia?

If you can show me that 100% of every man woman and child in America, to include every Baptist preacher, every republican, has all come to believe that homosexuality is “born with”, it does not matter to me. I stand on Bible truth, and I stand on science. I am not one who changes opinion with the wind like your Obama and you.

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense." - George Orwell, 1984

You believe a Christian cannot believe that homosexuality exists. The logical extension of your belief is that a child born with a unique genetic signature should not exist either. If you believe we are all created in God's image then all of us should be perfect and there should be no genetic differences at all. The fact is we are all different and unique. I think Jesus would have agreed.

I'd much rather have a religious neutral as president than a religious zealot. You believe otherwise.

Who is your favorite presidential candidate right now.? It obviously cannot be Rubio.

RangerPeePee: Do you believe chromosomes exist? If so, what is their function?

Dguidry stated “You believe a Christian cannot believe that homosexuality exists”

Here you go again trying to tell me what I believe. What I “believe” is not material to the conversation.
Homosexuals do exist, and have always existed. Adulterers exist, and have always existed. Child molesters exist, those who have incest exist, those who steal exist, those who murder exist, drug addicts exist…..
Existence and genetics are two separate topics. Genetic studies have proven homosexuality to be a lifestyle choice, just as child molestation is a choice, and adultery. People do not have a genetic makeup that makes them partake in sexual deviance.

Dguidry stated “You simply cannot reconcile so many contradictions with your beliefs and simply revert to what every religious zealot does and quote the bible.”

There is no “contradictions” with my beliefs. My bible is clear in homosexuality being sinful. Science in so many ways backs up what my Bible states. Romans chapter one tells us the homosexuality leads to being a reprobate (where the mind is seared in wickedness). Crime stats show that of all serial killers in America, 70% were homosexual or bisexual. Gays are 2.5% of the population and do a third of child molestations. Big name power houses in the gay community like Terry Bean, Kevin Jennings, Larry Bilkens have shown themselves to be sexual perverts who molest boys, who poses child porn, or who support those that molest boys. Their wickedness also leads to their own unhealthiness. Over and over I have shown where that tiny 2.5% has the majority of the nation’s syphilis, HIV HPV, hepatitis, colon cancer, anal cancer, and other health issues.

This is not about my beliefs, but about science and facts.

Druidry asked “RangerPeePee: Do you believe chromosomes exist? If so, what is their function”

Why would it matter if I believe in the existence of chromosomes? None of what I write is about my beliefs. I write about facts. Chromosomes exist regardless of my beliefs.

“ A chromosome is a packaged and organized structure containing most of the DNA of a living organism. It is not usually found on its own, but rather is complexed….”

Dguidry wrote “I'd much rather have a religious neutral as president than a religious zealot”

Earlier you told us that Obama is a Christian. Which is it? Do you agree with me that he is a secular humanist?

History has had its “religious neutral” leaders. Mao was neutral, and he murdered 60 million of his own people. Stalin was religious neutral, and he murdered over 30 million. Castro, Polpot, Che…..All neutral, and all who murdered their own people in mass numbers.

Dguidry asked “ Who is your favorite presidential candidate right now.? It obviously cannot be Rubio.”

It is too early to tell. I want to see them debate first. I like Walker, I like Cruz, there are some things I like about Carson. I do not like Hillary or Jeb (not much difference in the two). I do not like Christi, and am not sure on Paul and some others. I would like to See Rep Jim DeMint in the race, along with JC Watts. Had Gen Petraeus not had sex with his biographer, I would have liked to see him run. I would like to see some other democrats jump in. I want Warren to jump in so people can see what radical progressive democrat looks like up close.

Let me know when you decide who you will support. It's hard for me to argue politics with you when your candidate is a moving target but mine is already declared: Hillary Clinton for president.

VooDooDaddy nailed it to the wall

Dguidry stated “Let me know when you decide who you will support. It's hard for me to argue politics with you when your candidate is a moving target but mine is already declared: Hillary Clinton for president.”

There is the difference between you and I. I am going to find the candidate that most supports the constitution, and go with that candidate. We are not a theocracy. I am not looking for a religious leader. I want a candidate that believs in our bill of rights I worship God, not a politician. My beliefs will not change to match any person in the White House.

You are the opposite. You match yourself to your candidate like a chameleon does the plant he sits on. You are religious like with your support to your candidate.

Reagan was a good president, but was not perfect. He had policy that I did not agree with. I never saw any real indicator that he was a born again Christian. Same goes for Calvin Coolidge, he was a good president, but he was not perfect.

The majority of libs give a religious like loyalty to a man (or woman). They worship a Bill Clinton or an Obama, and the lib will sacrifice their own morality to bend with their president. Notice how the feminists and women’s groups like the NOW ignored Clintons sexual assaults on women, but will bend because of his support for abortion. They are hypocrites. They do the same with Obama. They ignore the Muslim’s treatment of women, and refuse to speak out. Hillary is all about some support from Saudi, and would not dare mention how the Saudi gov treats women by stoning them, or will not mention that Saudi kills gays.

I can sit down and give you an extensive list where I find fault with Walker, Rubio, Christi, Paul, and others. I bet you cannot do the same with Hillary.

What is interesting with Hillary is the lack of accomplishment. Her Hillary care was a failure. As a Senator she voted for war in Iraq, and never penned any major legislation. As a Sec of State, she was an abject failure. Look at how the reset button with Russian turned out. Look at Benghazi, look at Libia, look at the support of the failed Muslim Brotherhood take over in Egypt. She has the reverse Midas touch, where everything she touches turns to poop.

Take note. If Hillary gets the nomination, you will see a change of course for the MSM. Instead of tying everything to racism to give a smoke screen to Obama, they will begin to tie everything to sexism to give a smoke screen to Hillary.

.

RangerP: Hillary's health care was not a failure. It merely failed to pass into legislation. We all know now she was ahead of her time. Obamacare is actually working very well. Hell, even Ted Cruz signed up for it.

Keep going, you skipped the foreign diplomacy failures

If you are thinking about voting for Hillary, I suggest you go to the following link, and watch the clips.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/judge- ... tim-laugh/

http://social.mrctv.org/blog/10-scandal ... -forgotten

Her intentionally breaking the law with the email stuff is irrelevant to most liberals as well. And I am very familiar with laws regarding electronic mail and what systems are allowed and not, and what traffic a government official is allowed to send over those systems. She can't be trusted to abide by the law, as she knowingly broke it with her choosing to communicate using an unauthorized email system. It will go unpunished due to political crap, but doesn't change what she did, and the risks associated to our country's citizens she created or increased with those communications.

What may derail Hillary though is that it is looking more and more like her foreign policy was for sale to get payments for her foundation and to get Bill speaking engagements that brought in over 10 million in one year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/po ... tions.html

When there are more and more scandals against Hillary, maybe some will wake up. She is all dried up, but libs will be dumb enough to elect her for a 3rd Obama term. There will not be a dimes width difference between the two. But we have to elect her because she has a vagina and we have to check that "box" next. Well I am not going to check her box on the voting machine. her other box probably smells like an old wet possums pouch.

The minute someone says something against her, they will be called misogynist and sexiest.

I wonder what Hillary looks like nude?

Since you want to talk Benghazi, putting someone on trial for a crime because a "situation developed rapidly" shouldn't happen according to your explanation. I disagree. Whether innocent or not, there is a process, and you can't ignore it just because you like the person or because of their position. Getting rid of evidence that exonerates or implicates is still illegal. Do you disagree? I don't await your answer or justification, because I realize you still offer nothing to these discussions due to your one sided political views. You have continually shown an inability to admit someone did something wrong (when they did) because of their political affiliation.

Hillary as Sec of State was an absolute failure, and anyone with an ounce of sense can see.

She denied additional security in Benghazi. She helped spread the lie that a complex attack with rockets was a protest concerning some stupid video.

She lied about murders in Mexico being a result of our legal guns sold in America

Russia pushed into Ukraine, after Hilary's reset button nonsense - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7930047.stm

The entire middle east is going down the tubes. The Muslim Brotherhood deal in Egypt did not go so well. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... encer-case

Factor in ISIS take over in Iraq and Syria and a whole host of other failures to include Libya.

Sorry, should have been VoodooChild, as in Stevie Ray Vaughn.

Barack Hussein Obama....sounds strikingly Christian.

I don't know about Maryland. I ate crabs in Annapolis once and paid $60 for a dozen only to find out they were from Louisiana.