smitty Posted July 2, 2014 Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 It's funny how things come back around eventually. This recent Supreme Court decision concerning religious freedom was sweet poetic justice. And, it drew out hypocrisy at it's finest. This was not a Constitutional ruling. This was a "statutory" ruling. The sweet irony is that obama was being sued for violating the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act." But, I wonder who signed that into law?? Well -- Bill Clintonista in 1993!! The House and Senate voted for it unanimously! One major hypocrite? Hillary Rodman Clintonista! You should have heard here whining about the decision. Why can she get away with it? Because she knows there are a lot of "Low Information Voters" out there that does not have a clue!! ;) Eagle11 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Posted July 2, 2014 Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 No its because the media is run by the dems and yep theres lots of idiots that vote for her! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smitty Posted July 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2014 ttt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvc184 Posted July 3, 2014 Report Share Posted July 3, 2014 It's funny how things come back around eventually. This recent Supreme Court decision concerning religious freedom was sweet poetic justice. And, it drew out hypocrisy at it's finest. This was not a Constitutional ruling. This was a "statutory" ruling. The sweet irony is that obama was being sued for violating the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act." But, I wonder who signed that into law?? Well -- Bill Clintonista in 1993!! The House and Senate voted for it unanimously! One major hypocrite? Hillary Rodman Clintonista! You should have heard here whining about the decision. Why can she get away with it? Because she knows there are a lot of "Low Information Voters" out there that does not have a clue!! ;) I was going to bring up in the other thread that the ruling was in favor of federal law and not a constitutional issue per se but figured it would fall on deaf ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smitty Posted July 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 I was going to bring up in the other thread that the ruling was in favor of federal law and not a constitutional issue per se but figured it would fall on deaf ears. I like to bring up sweet irony. Especially when it's liberal irony! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.