drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,
drieuxster
drieuxster

Someone Needs To Ask The Question Again...

Most of the typical left wing fanatics were all willing to support Roberts in his nomination to the Supreme Court because he was an offically apostate Roman Catholic who had openly established that he would limit himself to merely the American Secular Law, rather than concerning himself with his former religious position as a Roman Catholic.

But now we really do need to know if Roberts will seek to

Put The DubYa back into Wmas
As the Argument From Intelligent Design Demands?


Or is that a part of the current crisis of faith that some such as the Right Reverand Pat Robertson have stumbled themselves into?

That they didn't want to talk about 'religion' when it wasn't their professional product being pushed. But now Holy Moldy, we gots to have us the right kinds of religions for them thar High Courts.

So maybe it is time to ask them Anti-War Types like the so called Right Reverand Pat Robertson

Will YOU Put The DubYa back into Wmas
As the Argument From Intelligent Design Demands?

Or do you want to Side with the TERRRORISTS who oppose the
Greatest Military Leader EVER!!!


I mean folks has got to know where folks stand!
Subscribe

  • The asymetric problem

    A friend of my recently raised the fear point - what happens when some stateless actor up and does a nuke strike on some american friendly space. { I…

  • Which family values?

    A man who had long been vocal in his opposition to abortion was shot to death Friday morning while staging an anti-abortion protest outside a…

  • Speaking of Fighting Against the Obamanite Tyranical Government

    95 killed on Iraq's deadliest day since U.S. handover One has to wonder which side the AstroTurfers are on? do they support the HORROR of the…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments