Chist/Jindal in 2012.... candidacy starts this Sunday

[liberalismo]

"Intelligent design should be discussed (OBVIOUSLY), But not "taught as an alternative to evolution". It's NOT an alternative to Evolution"
-I agree with this.

"The government spends BILLIONS on the War on drugs, especially on Marijuana. We've got people in PRISON for marijuana. People's lives are RUINED because of a goddamn plant? This is unacceptable. This is disgusting"
-Yep

"I oppose Hate crimes. I think that any violent crime is a crime of hate. Increasing persecution because it was racial or gender based or religious based is BULLSHIT".  "Britian and Europe is being INFECTED  with these OUTRAGEOUS " anti hate" laws which try to protect fascist and violent religions like Islam, and punish people for even saying that Islam is a violent religion. This is BS"
-Agree

Good! Then A Crist/Jindal candidacy is BAD.

If they could develop a spot test for marijuana (like they have with the breath alcohol test) then it should be legalized for adults.

No. Marijuana stays in the system for days or even weeks. But the actual effects don't last that long. So any "spot test" would be unreliable even if invented.

Marijuana should be legalized regardless. Any cop worth his merit could determine if someone had been smoking marijuana due to the smell, and that would warrant a search which would almost likely turn up the drug. And (like with alcohol, not being allowed an open bottle in the car) one would not be allowed to have a lit marijuana cigarette in the car.


 

 AAS is a tough situation.  I am totally against abusing drugs and spend more time telling people they should quit but I just don't see how people that use AAS do anything but hurt themselves and that typically occurs with moderate to heavy use. Perhaps we could find safer anabolics if scientists were allowed to actually research and test steroids.  Instead, the gov allows tons of supplements sold that are mostly a waste of our money.
Most other drugs (in general) are pretty harmful...coke, heroin, chronic narcs, LSD derivatives, ketamines, etc.  I never cared for drugs myself but in no way should we imprison people for drug use alone.

If people want to hurt themselves...It is "themselves" that they are hurting. Make sure they get higher healthcare costs and it's all on them. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
I'm sick and tired of living in a goddamn NANNY STATE where the Govt. thinks it has a right to tell me what I can or can't do with my own body in my own fucking home.


LSD isn't harmful (in fact no one has died from an LSD overdose). The only thing harmful associated with it are accidents while people are using it. But even this is very rare.

Other drugs like narcotics should be legal.

Coca plants themselves should be legal. As with Poppy (and all other related plants)

Mushrooms should be legal also.

[liberalismo]

Though your name is liberalismo...you seem more like a libertarian, no?

I'm a social libertarian/liberal.

Fiscal conservative.

[liberalismo]

Both Crist and Jindal are classic Bushera Neo-Cons who love BIG GOVERNMENT, NO PERSONAL FREEDOMS, NANNY STATE, TONS OF SPENDING, LOW TAXES.

The problem? Low taxes are good, but we can't have a nanny state, big government and high spending with low taxes. Or else we end up with a fucking 9 billion dollar debt! Which is exactly what we have.


Crist= Jackass

Jindal=Jackass


End of story

[tonymctones]

Marriage doesn't need "redefining". There are MANY definitions of it.

In fact..Laws must be CREATED to prohibit Gay marriage.


I'm AGAINST making new laws for stupid reasons. I'm AGAINST keeping laws for stupid reasons.

There should be as few laws as possible. MANY laws on the books only hurt our society and waste money and make things more difficult. I say repeal them. Less Govt. More freedom.

Only keep the laws that are proven to be totally necessary. Banning gay people from getting married is NOT ONE OF THEM.


OH GOD THE IRONY!!!

Americans who died for our country died...FOR OUR COUNTRY. For the people. For the freedoms.
NOT FOR A FUCKING PIECE OF CLOTH. The flag "represents" something, but it isn't that thing. This is magical fairy thinking, to try to associate a symbol of something with that thing itself.
The flag being destroyed doesn't mean we lose freedom, it doesn't mean we lose America. It doesn't mean anything really.

But you SPIT IN THE FACE of people who died for this country by trying to take away freedoms (like burning the flag) that they died for. You say they died for the freedom to burn the flag? Totally right. So why the fuck would you try to take that freedom of expression away just because you disagree with it?

When you see someone burning a flag...You can debate them and demand an explanation. You can IGNORE THEM..But you can not justifiably take their freedoms away because you disagree with them.




You're misunderstanding the issue. Intelligent design is BASED on Christianity. It has spread and grown since then, but it's essentially a religious idea.

What's more...It's PSEUDO SCIENCE. It's been proven to be pseudo science and religiously based in court. (Dover trials)

See above explanation of the dangers of teaching pseudo science.

If you want to teach "alternatives" in the public's mind to various scientific ideas..Here are some equally prevalent in public understanding:

Teach Astrology alongside Astronomy.
Teach Homeopathy and Faith healing alongside medicine.
Teach about Psychic powers alongside physics.






You only want Steroids legalized because you know about them since you're a bodybuilder. That's the only reason. Educate yourself on other drugs and there are just as many reasons for allowing them as there are for steroids. Look into it.

Marijuana? Same laws as Alcohol. Cops can tell if someone is high on marijuana. Same penalties as drunk driving (currently there are ALREADY penalties for Driving while under influence of marijuana).

Addicts will exist..Legal or illegal. Fact of life.


There will be more people using Marijuana (OBVIOUSLY)

But think of the benefits we get


1. Less tax dollars wasted.
2. More freedoms.
3. GOOD PEOPLE don't get their lives ruined for smoking a fucking plant!!!
4. More revenue due to taxing the drugs.
5. No more Gang wars or Turf wars over drugs (Like existed during Prohibition with the Gangsters). Companies, legit companies, would sell the drugs (or people could grow them) and no more criminal enterprises or gangs could profit.
6. Saving the environment (we spend billions a year polluting south American, and U.S., environments to kill marijuana or Coca crops. We kill many species and valuable farmland in the process, also pollute the environment and water).

Do you even know the #1 profit for most gangs in the world? DRUGS!
Once they are illegal...These gangs would basically vanish. Why? Because legit companies (like tobacco companies) would be selling these drugs. And tobacco companies don't settle disputes with automatic machine guns and mass slayings! Fuck!

for fucks sake dude try and not write an epic novel with every post...
Again if you want to do away with marriage officially then fine make them all civil unions, no marriage should not be redefined as anything other then a man and a women.

I see the irony i saw it when i was typing it that doesnt change the fact that ppl shouldnt be allowed to burn the American Flag. If it doesnt mean anything to you then why not ban it, it means a great deal to me it means disrespect towards america and its ideals. They died for freedoms of which one is self expression well that has limits bro and burning a flag is one of them.

I think you misunderstood im not saying push intelligent design im saying educate about intelligent design. It is a prevalent concept in todays society not synonymous with christianity as you believe.

I dont know anything about steroids ive never done a cycle in my life i have however smoked tons of pot done coke, opium and other drugs in my past many many years ago I know a ton more about marijuana et all then i do steroids...I dont think ive ever even seen injectable roids in my entire life.

What ways do the police have of detecting if someone is high on marijuana? it isnt the same as alcohol and you know it, you cant give a person a test as simple as a breathalizer and prove they are high. What limit would you put on marijuana as in how high can somebody be and still drive? you cant answer these things and until they can be it shouldnt be legalized. Addicts will exist one way or the other only an idiot would think that there wouldnt be more addicts with drugs legalized as opposed to when they are illegal.

I agree that there would be a great upside to legalizing drugs but also a great downside which you seem to downplay or dismiss all together.

LOL you really think gangs will dry up and just vanish HAHAHAH   ohhh goodness im guessing you where raised in a good part of town away from shit like this. Trust bro gangs arent going anywhere they will simply change how they make their money, my guess robbing ppl.

[liberalismo]

for fucks sake dude try and not write an epic novel with every post...

Have to respond to everything.

Again if you want to do away with marriage officially then fine make them all civil unions, no marriage should not be redefined as anything other then a man and a women..

That's stupid. Already explained why.

I see the irony i saw it when i was typing it that doesnt change the fact that ppl shouldnt be allowed to burn the American Flag. If it doesnt mean anything to you then why not ban it, it means a great deal to me it means disrespect towards america and its ideals. They died for freedoms of which one is self expression well that has limits bro and burning a flag is one of them.

People are allowed to disrespect America and its ideals in America...THAT'S ONE OF ITS IDEALS. FREE EXPRESSION!

I think you misunderstood im not saying push intelligent design im saying educate about intelligent design. It is a prevalent concept in todays society not synonymous with christianity as you believe.

That's not what Jindal wants. He wants it as an "alternative to evolution" Which it isn't.

I dont know anything about steroids ive never done a cycle in my life i have however smoked tons of pot done coke, opium and other drugs in my past many many years ago I know a ton more about marijuana et all then i do steroids...I dont think ive ever even seen injectable roids in my entire life.

What ways do the police have of detecting if someone is high on marijuana? it isnt the same as alcohol and you know it, you cant give a person a test as simple as a breathalizer and prove they are high. What limit would you put on marijuana as in how high can somebody be and still drive? you cant answer these things and until they can be it shouldnt be legalized. Addicts will exist one way or the other only an idiot would think that there wouldnt be more addicts with drugs legalized as opposed to when they are illegal.

These are things which aren't as important as the fact that Marijuana should be legal. Even if there is no way to determine if someone is high accurately, police should be allowed to take them in and test them if they have just cause to believe that they are high on marijuana. The amount in their system would be a set amount required to be illegal to drive, but since this would vary from person to person (just like alcohol) there is no sure fire way to determine who is and who isn't too high to drive (same with alcohol). We just assume that anyone who gets spotted as being high and tests positive is indeed to high and gets charged. Common sense.


I never said that there would not be more addicts if it was legal. There would be. But addicts have the right to be addicts. Based on studies of other countries, this number would likely be much lower than most expect and it wouldn't be as bad as it is now. Addicts in a society where drug users aren't ostracized would be much less disruptive since the drug prices would be low and police would have more resources to focus on the users themselves who actually have trouble with the drugs (as most users don't, tons of people use Marijuana every day in America and are normal contributing citizens) and not focus on all of the other B.S. created in a prohibition state like ours. 

I agree that there would be a great upside to legalizing drugs but also a great downside which you seem to downplay or dismiss all together.

Because the benefits outweigh the risks. That's why it's called "harm reduction". Look it up.

LOL you really think gangs will dry up and just vanish HAHAHAH   ohhh goodness im guessing you where raised in a good part of town away from shit like this. Trust bro gangs arent going anywhere they will simply change how they make their money, my guess robbing ppl.

Most would dry up and vanish. Their funding would be gone. There would still be gangs, but they would be a shadow of what we see today. Today gangs are TAKING OVER all over.

JUST LIKE IN THE 1930S PROHIBITION ERA WITH AL CAPONE AND HIS BUDDIES.


Americans NEVER learn from history. It makes me sick.

[Eyeball Chambers]

Have to respond to everything.


That's stupid. Already explained why.


People are allowed to disrespect America and its ideals in America...THAT'S ONE OF ITS IDEALS. FREE EXPRESSION!



That's not what Jindal wants. He wants it as an "alternative to evolution" Which it isn't.



These are things which aren't as important as the fact that Marijuana should be legal. Even if there is no way to determine if someone is high accurately, police should be allowed to take them in and test them if they have just cause to believe that they are high on marijuana. The amount in their system would be a set amount required to be illegal to drive, but since this would vary from person to person (just like alcohol) there is no sure fire way to determine who is and who isn't too high to drive (same with alcohol). We just assume that anyone who gets spotted as being high and tests positive is indeed to high and gets charged. Common sense.


I never said that there would not be more addicts if it was legal. There would be. But addicts have the right to be addicts. Based on studies of other countries, this number would likely be much lower than most expect and it wouldn't be as bad as it is now. Addicts in a society where drug users aren't ostracized would be much less disruptive since the drug prices would be low and police would have more resources to focus on the users themselves who actually have trouble with the drugs (as most users don't, tons of people use Marijuana every day in America and are normal contributing citizens) and not focus on all of the other B.S. created in a prohibition state like ours. 


Because the benefits outweigh the risks. That's why it's called "harm reduction". Look it up.


Most would dry up and vanish. Their funding would be gone. There would still be gangs, but they would be a shadow of what we see today. Today gangs are TAKING OVER all over.

JUST LIKE IN THE 1930S PROHIBITION ERA WITH AL CAPONE AND HIS BUDDIES.


Americans NEVER learn from history. It makes me sick.

I agree with you on everything except the Marriage issue.

They should settle for Civil Unions for now.

[tonymctones]

Have to respond to everything.


That's stupid. Already explained why.


People are allowed to disrespect America and its ideals in America...THAT'S ONE OF ITS IDEALS. FREE EXPRESSION!



That's not what Jindal wants. He wants it as an "alternative to evolution" Which it isn't.



These are things which aren't as important as the fact that Marijuana should be legal. Even if there is no way to determine if someone is high accurately, police should be allowed to take them in and test them if they have just cause to believe that they are high on marijuana. The amount in their system would be a set amount required to be illegal to drive, but since this would vary from person to person (just like alcohol) there is no sure fire way to determine who is and who isn't too high to drive (same with alcohol). We just assume that anyone who gets spotted as being high and tests positive is indeed to high and gets charged. Common sense.


I never said that there would not be more addicts if it was legal. There would be. But addicts have the right to be addicts. Based on studies of other countries, this number would likely be much lower than most expect and it wouldn't be as bad as it is now. Addicts in a society where drug users aren't ostracized would be much less disruptive since the drug prices would be low and police would have more resources to focus on the users themselves who actually have trouble with the drugs (as most users don't, tons of people use Marijuana every day in America and are normal contributing citizens) and not focus on all of the other B.S. created in a prohibition state like ours. 


Because the benefits outweigh the risks. That's why it's called "harm reduction". Look it up.


Most would dry up and vanish. Their funding would be gone. There would still be gangs, but they would be a shadow of what we see today. Today gangs are TAKING OVER all over.

JUST LIKE IN THE 1930S PROHIBITION ERA WITH AL CAPONE AND HIS BUDDIES.


Americans NEVER learn from history. It makes me sick.

LOL im not married to the intelligent design, or flag burning so lets agree to disagree in the name of not creating novel sized post like we are doing now.

Christianity and most religions say homosexuality is wrong or sinful, doesnt matter whether gay ppl are religious how does that justify redefining marriage?

How do you decide the amount of thc or pot is in a persons system? LOL i can see the slew of law suits coming down the line from the "just cause"

I agree to a certain extent about the addicts the fact of the matter is harder drugs do create addicts that are worse then pot. you really want alot more coke or crack addicts running around? meth heads and ppl on x and shit? Fact of the matter is the problem that would be created right now by legalizing outweigh keeping it illegal the only pro is saving money...the cons are numerous.

LOL you really arent that ignorant bro...ppl dont create gangs to make money dude its an protection thing, an us against them, haves and have nots thing legalizing drugs wont rid us of gangs bro. 

These ppl wont just go straight and become contributing members of society, and if you think that your an idiot.

[liberalismo]

Christianity and most religions say homosexuality is wrong or sinful, doesnt matter whether gay ppl are religious how does that justify redefining marriage?

Because it doesn't hurt anyone.

How do you decide the amount of thc or pot is in a persons system? LOL i can see the slew of law suits coming down the line from the "just cause".

Same with alcohol and sobriety tests now.

I agree to a certain extent about the addicts the fact of the matter is harder drugs do create addicts that are worse then pot. you really want alot more coke or crack addicts running around? meth heads and ppl on x and shit? Fact of the matter is the problem that would be created right now by legalizing outweigh keeping it illegal the only pro is saving money...the cons are numerous.

No. But it's better than the alternative (having over 1 million people in prison and billions in wasted tax dollars each year and robbing citizens of civil liberties). We can deal with more addicts. That's the easy part. We just need to end the disgusting war on drugs.


Ecstasy, BTW, is frequently used maturely by a lot of adults. We only hear about the rare cases of abuse and health issues because, like all drugs, Ecstasy is demonized. The truth is that it's not that dangerous. Overusing it and getting on a dance floor and dancing for hours without water is dangerous.

LOL you really arent that ignorant bro...ppl dont create gangs to make money dude its an protection thing, an us against them, haves and have nots thing legalizing drugs wont rid us of gangs bro. 

These ppl wont just go straight and become contributing members of society, and if you think that your an idiot.

No. But they will shrink in size. History proves this since this is what happened to all of the Gangs during the 1930s that thrived off of prohibition. With alcohol illegal they made TONS of money. With alcohol legal they essentially vanished over night.
Modern gang's lifeline is drug revenue from selling and importing illegal drugs. Not just gangs in the U.S. but gangs all over.
Al Quaeda also are funded by the war on drugs. If Opium were legal to grow, it would be grown here in the U.S. and thus Opium growers in Afghanistan would have to find a new way to make money and the millions in revenue would stop going to Al Quaeda for protection schemes.


Plus, The U.S. would get better credibility around the world when we stop poisoning entire towns or landscapes just to kill a few marijuana or coca crops.

[tonymctones]

Because it doesn't hurt anyone.


Same with alcohol and sobriety tests now.

No. But it's better than the alternative (having over 1 million people in prison and billions in wasted tax dollars each year and robbing citizens of civil liberties). We can deal with more addicts. That's the easy part. We just need to end the disgusting war on drugs.


Ecstasy, BTW, is frequently used maturely by a lot of adults. We only hear about the rare cases of abuse and health issues because, like all drugs, Ecstasy is demonized. The truth is that it's not that dangerous. Overusing it and getting on a dance floor and dancing for hours without water is dangerous.




No. But they will shrink in size. History proves this since this is what happened to all of the Gangs during the 1930s that thrived off of prohibition. With alcohol illegal they made TONS of money. With alcohol legal they essentially vanished over night.
Modern gang's lifeline is drug revenue from selling and importing illegal drugs. Not just gangs in the U.S. but gangs all over.
Al Quaeda also are funded by the war on drugs. If Opium were legal to grow, it would be grown here in the U.S. and thus Opium growers in Afghanistan would have to find a new way to make money and the millions in revenue would stop going to Al Quaeda for protection schemes.


Plus, The U.S. would get better credibility around the world when we stop poisoning entire towns or landscapes just to kill a few marijuana or coca crops.

creating civil unions for gays doesnt hurt anyone either...

They dont have a breathalizer for weed do they? dude just admit that regulating pot and driving is exponentially harder then regulating alcohol and driving.

Exactly you hit the nail on the head waste of tax dollars thats the only pro to legalizing drugs cutting cost, you again dismiss or minimalize the problems it would create. I would be willing to bet that more kids then adults use X in a recreational sense and we all know how that turns out...dude dont tell me about the one or two cases that get overplayed drugs are rampant in most schools in this country bro and legalizing them wont change that fact it will make it worse.

LOL the mob hasnt gone anywhere bro they are still very much alive and kicking they just went underground as to avoid the spot light. you dont seem to understand bro gangs arent necissarily started to make money what part of that dont you understand? by legalizing drugs you take away the money stream to them but you dont take away them you create a hole where the money used to be and they will fill the void with something else.

[liberalismo]

creating civil unions for gays doesnt hurt anyone either...

No. And if some gays want to have civil unions, they can do that too. But if some gays want to get married, they should be able to do that if they choose to as well.

They dont have a breathalizer for weed do they? dude just admit that regulating pot and driving is exponentially harder then regulating alcohol and driving.

It doesn't have to be a "on the spot" test. In most cases police actually arrest people suspected of being drunk and only test them later. Obviously being under the influence is cause enough for the police to take you in. The PAS tests for alcohol (the kind you blow into) aren't always used in the field anyway.

Exactly you hit the nail on the head waste of tax dollars thats the only pro to legalizing drugs cutting cost, you again dismiss or minimalize the problems it would create. I would be willing to bet that more kids then adults use X in a recreational sense and we all know how that turns out...dude dont tell me about the one or two cases that get overplayed drugs are rampant in most schools in this country bro and legalizing them wont change that fact it will make it worse.

It's easier for kids to get illegal drugs than it is for them to get alcohol.
Studies have shown this.
Why is this? Because marijuana or ecstasy dealers rarely give a shit if they sell to teenagers or to adults, they are breaking the law anyway. But most alcohol dealers could go to jail or lose their license.

LOL the mob hasnt gone anywhere bro they are still very much alive and kicking they just went underground as to avoid the spot light. you dont seem to understand bro gangs arent necissarily started to make money what part of that dont you understand? by legalizing drugs you take away the money stream to them but you dont take away them you create a hole where the money used to be and they will fill the void with something else.

The Mob today is NOTHING compared to the Mob in the 1930s. Also, We're discussing "gangsters" not "mobsters". The Mafia is quite different from gangsters, and even the Mafia today is nearly dead.

Gangsters, on the other hand, are in fact growing. Why? They are getting rich from selling drugs which they wouldn't be selling if they were legal. Corporations would be selling them.

What would gangsters fill the massive revenue hole with when drugs are gone? I'd like to know. The only reason they are into selling drugs is because it's so easy and so profitable.

In addition to legalizing drugs, I also support legalizing gambling and prostitution.

So this leaves gangs with nothing more than petty robbery or other similar things to get funding, which would mean, like I said, they would shrink faster than the balls of a juicer.

[tonymctones]

No. And if some gays want to have civil unions, they can do that too. But if some gays want to get married, they should be able to do that if they choose to as well.


It doesn't have to be a "on the spot" test. In most cases police actually arrest people suspected of being drunk and only test them later. Obviously being under the influence is cause enough for the police to take you in. The PAS tests for alcohol (the kind you blow into) aren't always used in the field anyway.

It's easier for kids to get illegal drugs than it is for them to get alcohol.
Studies have shown this.
Why is this? Because marijuana or ecstasy dealers rarely give a shit if they sell to teenagers or to adults, they are breaking the law anyway. But most alcohol dealers could go to jail or lose their license.


The Mob today is NOTHING compared to the Mob in the 1930s. Also, We're discussing "gangsters" not "mobsters". The Mafia is quite different from gangsters, and even the Mafia today is nearly dead.

Gangsters, on the other hand, are in fact growing. Why? They are getting rich from selling drugs which they wouldn't be selling if they were legal. Corporations would be selling them.

What would gangsters fill the massive revenue hole with when drugs are gone? I'd like to know. The only reason they are into selling drugs is because it's so easy and so profitable.

In addition to legalizing drugs, I also support legalizing gambling and prostitution.

So this leaves gangs with nothing more than petty robbery or other similar things to get funding, which would mean, like I said, they would shrink faster than the balls of a juicer.

no they shouldnt be allowed to marry again take away marriage all together and give all civil unions if its that important.

What test is there then is what im asking? you going to give them a blood test? does that show concentration of weed? whats the limit? using just common sense doesnt work bro you need a set of standard rules. There isnt a reliable way of determining if somebody is under the effects of marijuana at that time is there?  piss test could pick up results weeks old, same for blood so what test to you have that will show that this person recently as in the last few hours smoked and is still under the influence?

The mafia is still very much around but again underground more so as to avoid the spot light. There are still gonna be dealers b/c there will be an age limit and those below will go to dealers, i had no problem getting alcohol bro i was drinking my junior year in high school and many of my friends since they were freshmen.

You made my point for me bro your only taking away the gangs source of income not the reason for being in the gang in the first place I.E. the gang will still exist only find another way to bring in money.

[liberalismo]

no they shouldnt be allowed to marry again take away marriage all together and give all civil unions if its that important.

What test is there then is what im asking? you going to give them a blood test? does that show concentration of weed? whats the limit? using just common sense doesnt work bro you need a set of standard rules. There isnt a reliable way of determining if somebody is under the effects of marijuana at that time is there?  piss test could pick up results weeks old, same for blood so what test to you have that will show that this person recently as in the last few hours smoked and is still under the influence?

The mafia is still very much around but again underground more so as to avoid the spot light. There are still gonna be dealers b/c there will be an age limit and those below will go to dealers, i had no problem getting alcohol bro i was drinking my junior year in high school and many of my friends since they were freshmen.

You made my point for me bro your only taking away the gangs source of income not the reason for being in the gang in the first place I.E. the gang will still exist only find another way to bring in money.

I don't want to argue about Gay marriage anymore.

But concerning Marijuana..


I think that even if there isn't a reliable way to test for Marijuana, police officers could bust most people since they would find it in their car and smelling its smoke or them acting odd is cause for a search. For the few who have none in their car, I think that any other instances, if the person isn't obviously high then the typical traffic violations would due. For people who are obviously high, there are instant saliva tests and scientists can figure out the necessary levels for being too high to drive.



I'm totally unaware of any significant underground alcohol greymarket. Essentially all kids who get alcohol get it from their parents or older friends as far as I know. The only significant alcohol underground market deals with moonshine.


I think it's unlikely that gangs would exist like they do today. They would SHRINK. Just like they shrunk to almost nothing after prohibition.

[Parker]

I thought Christ was at an Obama event earlier this week or last week and was in support of the $$'s

when did CHrist rise, this should be front page news, and he was at a Obama event, could Christ and Obama be one in the same? So in stead of the Holy Trinity, whe have the Holy Quadrant?


 I'm sorry I couldn't resist....