You don't have to swear on a Bible
- Thread starter strummingram
- Start date
I hope someone is publicly sworn-in with their hand on a paperback of 50 Shades Of Grey one day. Maybe a Harry Potter book.
I understand the conviction that is implied with placing your hand on the Bible. I just wish simple-minded people could stop and realize that not everyone reads the same book for spiritual enlightenment and resolve. A Jewish person would probably refrain from the New Testament. The Qu'ran, the Bhagavata, the Tripitaka; They all work and there could very well be an elected official who is of a different religion.
I understand the conviction that is implied with placing your hand on the Bible. I just wish simple-minded people could stop and realize that not everyone reads the same book for spiritual enlightenment and resolve. A Jewish person would probably refrain from the New Testament. The Qu'ran, the Bhagavata, the Tripitaka; They all work and there could very well be an elected official who is of a different religion.
What a moron. That's hilarious.
It's looking like Roy Moore won't need any book for his swearing in since he is about to lose this election.
It's looking like Roy Moore won't need any book for his swearing in since he is about to lose this election.
I'm pretty shocked myself. I figured Moore was going to win for sure.
25 years since there was a democrat senator from Alabama. I wonder if Charles Barkley made it happen?
25 years since there was a democrat senator from Alabama. I wonder if Charles Barkley made it happen?
I'm all about the Bible but thought everyone knew you didn't have to be sworn in with one. I mean, I don't even really know that much about this sort of thing and I know that.
He refuses to concede because he thinks there will be a mandatory recount, or some kind of recount.
I always heard that was the passage that made expletives and cursing to be sins, or forbidden, or whatever.
I've never heard that. I always just heard people say it meant not to swear to something, not to actually not 'swear'. Lot of nots in that sentence there.
So some guy who's involved with the campaign of a losing candidate somewhere far away from me is crazy? Man, this is big news. Thanks for poasting.
This makes trump look like shit. If you're going to endorse an alleged child molester for shameless partisan political gain, then you should probably at least make sure he isn't going to lose...
No more so than dozens of Dems losing their races when Obama was stumping for them. Personally, I've never seen that as a reflection of the party in power in the White House. Local and state elections are just that. As far as this guy being an alleged child molester, I don't really see how that has anything to do with Trump either.
Look, I know you folks hate Trump but he said something during the election that I completely agree with - he could literally stand in the middle of 5th Ave and shoot someone and not lose voters. It will be reflected in 2020. I'm not saying he'll necessarily win again in 2020, but if he doesn't, it will be damn close.
Once trump endorses him it absolutely has something to do with him. Maybe he'll endorse Sandusky for public office next.
I personally find it hilarious that anyone would be stupid enough to support a moron like Roy Moore.
Lot's of people also personally think that anyone that could support a moron like Sanders is hilarious.
When Trump tweets it's like a laser pointer and you anti-Trumpers are like cats, it's hilarious.
He went with Luther Strange(awesome name) first, but he lost the primary. I'm not sure why presidents get involved with state elections.
He doesn't want to lose the Senate. But hell half of the Rep are against him as well.
I can't imagine why. He's so genuine, articulate, sensible and humble. A born leader.
I dunno, I feel like Sandusky would run as a Dem. He loves giving free handouts.
Objective people don't think Sanders is a moron. He's one of the most articulate and consistent politicians in Washington. You may disagree with his politics, but calling him a moron just makes you sound dumb.
Not sure what you're talking about, this has nothing to do with tweets. Trump recorded a robocall for Moore, it went a lot further than some Tweets.
But its also pretty stupid to expect people not to react to the POTUS tweeting stupid bullshit.
Why is it stupid to assume people have better things to do with their lives than to monitor the twitter account of someone they know says stupid bullshit to see if he says stupid bullshit?
Probably because that person happens to be the president of the United States. Do we really need to get into why it's an issue for he person holding that office to lie multiple times per day and post like an petulant 12 year old?...
As is yours! But boy was inferring that I was not objective.
