[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996] Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment? Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit "The Addled Activist Mind" "Don’t Stop with Harvard" "Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?" "Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF" "'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal" Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Trump: I'm an evangelical, Cruz is Cuban Source: Washington Examiner URL Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t ... ticle/2578224?custom_click=rss Published: Dec 12, 2015 Author: Anna Giaritelli Post Date: 2015-12-12 09:41:10 by Willie Green Keywords: None Views: 12297 Comments: 62 Donald Trump tweeted Friday morning that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was planning an attack on him. He then questioned Cruz's religion and ties to Big Oil in comments Friday night. "I am an evangelical. I'm a Christian. I'm a Presbyterian," Trump said to an Iowa town hall rally. In contrast, he said that while he personally liked Cruz, "not a lot of evangelicals come out of Cuba, in all fairness." Trump may be feeling pressure from Cruz after the Texas senator snatched first place from the billionaire in a Monmouth University Poll released Monday. Cruz is also ranked first in the Washington Examiner's power rankings. Trump went on to criticize Cruz's opposition to ethanol, saying it was because the first-term senator is loyal to the Lone Star state's oil industry who "give him a lot of money." But for all the tough talk, Trump didn't say whether he would or wouldn't consider taking Cruz on as his vice president should he win the party's nomination. There are less than two months until the Feb. 1 Iowa Caucus. Cruz and Trump's campaigns have said they will focus that time on connecting with voters in the primary state. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 49. #1. To: Willie Green (#0) (Edited) I haven't heard Presbyterians -- which Trump claims to be -- ever saying that they are evangelicals. They do admit to being Protestants. It seemed like just another half-baked non-newsworthy remark by Trump that is getting way more media attention than it deserves. I would like for someone to directly ask Trump if he is a sinner and has ever asked God for forgiveness or salvation through Christ. I expect someone will get around to it, sooner than later. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-12-12   10:07:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: TooConservative (#1) I haven't heard Presbyterians -- which Trump claims to be -- ever saying that they are evangelicals. They do admit to being Protestants. Well, of course they are Protestants, but I can't see how it can be said they are Evangelical. I have to wonder if Trump even knows what that means. Trump has looked masterful for most of his campaign on his attacks and counter-attacks, but these attacks on Cruz just look clumsy and mean. What's more, Cruz isn't taking the bait. Trump needs to go after Hillary. no gnu taxes  posted on  2015-12-12   12:17:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: no gnu taxes, tomder55 (#7) I have to wonder if Trump even knows what that means. I think somebody like Roger Stone huddled with Trump over martinis, telling him the rubes will love him if he's all evangelicky. Trump has a strange reluctance to discuss his own religion but seems to want to make fun of devout Adventists like Carson and Southern Baptists like Cruz. I think it wears thin and Trump doesn't hold in Iowa. Then he looks weak in NH against Christie (who really is the kind of guy that NH will like). Then all he has is South Carolina but only as long as he keeps up his evangelicky schtick for the rubes and hillbillies. And Trump won't be getting all the free media then that he's been getting. It won't be so easy to utter some bilge and get a lot of attention. I recall Giuliani at 65% approval rating in the fall of 2007 but then no one showed up to vote for him. And by the time Florida came along, it was all over. And Trump won't even have Florida to contest. There will be other deep Southern states, all in a row. And Cruz has good organization in nearly all of them. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-12-12   13:08:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: TooConservative (#8) I recall Giuliani at 65% approval rating in the fall of 2007 but then no one showed up to vote for him Only dumb asses believed Rudy had any chance at all. Rudy is a liberal. With few accomplishments. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-12   17:14:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: A K A Stone (#15) if Rudy is a lib then Pat Buchannan is a Zionist . Only someone who did not live in NYC before Rudy could claim he had few accomplishments. tomder55  posted on  2015-12-12   18:48:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: tomder55 (#17) Only someone who did not live in NYC before Rudy could claim he had few accomplishments. Do you think stop and frisk is unconstitutional and a violation of peoples rights? Do you think a police state to fight crime is a good idea or a bad one? Guiliani was better then Bloomturd though. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-12   19:30:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: A K A Stone (#23) (Edited) Do you think stop and frisk is unconstitutional and a violation of peoples rights? Do you think a police state to fight crime is a good idea or a bad one? The 4th amendment protects against 'unreasonable ' searches . Stop and frisk does not violate that . Stop and frisk was only part of the crack down on quality of life crimes . Before Rudy NYC had become a cesspool of crime. Rudy changed the primary mission of the police department to preventing crime from happening rather than responding to it once it had occurred. Some of the things done was simple police scheduling . Detectives used to clock out at 5 PM ,just as most of the crimes were to occur. His police Commish William Bratton reorganized the NYPD, emphasizing a street crimes unit that moved around the city, flooding high-crime areas. He also brought modern management techniques to the force . It began compiling a computerized database ( Compstat)to track the city’s crime patterns and the effectiveness of the NYPD’s responses to them. You can't argue with the results .There was a historic drop in crime with total crime down by some 64 percent during the Giuliani years,, and murder down 67 percent, from 1,960 in Dinky Dinkins’s last year to 640 in Rudy's last year. The number of cars stolen in New York City every year plummeted by 78,000. What libs fail to mention in their critique of his policing policies is that civilian complaints of excessive force by the NYPD declined from one complaint per ten officers to one per 19 officers. Meanwhile, shootings by cops declined by 50 percent and were far lower under Giuliani than under Dinkins ,and in fact lower than cities that boasted about their community policing policies. Those who claim the policies were racist fail to point out that the biggest beneficiaries were the minority communities . Rudy was delivering them equal protection under the law .In the majority Hispanic Washington Heights , murders dropped from 76 in 1993, Dinkins’s last year, to only 7 by Rudy’s last year, a decline of more than 90 percent. But law enforcement was only a part of his management that was conservative .I can discuss welfare reform ,reorganization of city hall ,changing the budget ,providing the climate for new job creation in the city ,the complete restoration of the Time Square area ,tax cuts ,his hard ball negotiations with municipal unions ,his reforms on how city contracts were awarded . Bottom line ,the combination of a safer city and a better budget environment ignited an economic boom. Safer streets meant that city residents would go out at night and spend money in restaurants ,theaters ,and clubs. Tourism soared . The city gained 430,000 new jobs. tomder55  posted on  2015-12-13   5:00:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: tomder55 (#29) Stop and frisk does not violate that . Yes it does. You aren't constitutionally literate. They did that kind of stuff in the Soviet Unionnot America. You McGovern supporters are wweirdos. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-13   10:11:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: A K A Stone (#33) (Edited) Stop and frisk does not violate that . (4th amendment ) Yes it does. You aren't constitutionally literate. They did that kind of stuff in the Soviet Unionnot America. Terry v. Ohio 1968 : SCOTUS held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." The meaning of the exclusionary rule of the 4th is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers. It's hilarious that you think this is a liberal position. tomder55  posted on  2015-12-13   11:04:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: tomder55 (#38) Terry v. Ohio 1968 : SCOTUS held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." The meaning of the exclusionary rule of the 4th is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. - There you have it the Supreme court lied. You boutht the lie because you are constitutionally illiterate. Let me explain it to you child. The people have a right to be secxure in their person, houses, papers and effects. That is a right. A right to be secure. That means don't fuck with it. It says those rights sahll not be violated. It says no warrants shall be issued unless you have probable cause. So if they have probable cause they can do what? Can they search you? Look closely it doesn't say they can search gou if they have probable cause. It says that they have to get a warrant and it hos t be specific as to what they are searching for and where. Furthermore there has to be someone who swears to or affirms the suspicion. It doesn't meant a pig fro New York on Gayianis orders get to violate peoles rights because they think it is reasonable. If you don't get it it is because you suck establishment cock, and are a liar. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-13   11:19:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: A K A Stone (#42) sorry ,you couldn't be more wrong . Police may search without a warrant if they have reason to fear for their safety or for the public's safety. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say warrants are required for all searches and seizures. Stop and frisk pat downs are one of many exceptions to the warrant requirement. All the cop needs is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot before the stop, or a reasonable suspicion someone may be armed and dangerous, before the frisk. tomder55  posted on  2015-12-13   11:48:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: tomder55 (#45) All the cop needs is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot before the stop, or a reasonable suspicion someone may be armed and dangerous, before the frisk. That may be all they need in practice. I will agree with that. But it is still contrary to the very plain third grade words in the constition. You can't make your case by using the words of the constittion. So you use the word of whores in black robes. Remember to tell everyone Obamacare is constitutional, because your Lords in black robes said so. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-12-13   14:09:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 49.         There are no replies to Comment # 49. End Trace Mode for Comment # 49. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com