Kerry, a.k.a. Bush, supports faith-based initiatives
 

As if we needed more proof that Kerry is Bush, here's what he told the African Methodist Episcopalian convention in July:

"I know there are some who say that the First Amendment means faith-based organizations can't help government," he said. "I think they are wrong. I want to offer support for your efforts, including financial support, in a way that supports our Constitution and civil rights laws and values the role of faith in inspiring countless acts of justice and mercy across our land."

In a fact sheet distributed after the speech, he called for a 'Presidential Advisory Group on Expanding Faith-Based Initiatives.'

Wow. How did the mainstream media, which jumped all over Bush when he launched the initiative, miss this?

In case you were wondering, yes, the AME supports "faith-based initiatives" as well as a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

Can't say I'm surprised, especially with his recent comments about Iraq. How sad.

Interesting. But, what he said is not exactly W's position. W wants all faith based cahrities to get money. Kerry's language "in a way that supports our Constitution and civil rights laws" suggests that financial aid would go only to organizations that did not try to covert. Such organizations exist. In any event, that is the way the US is headed. On the one hand, I think Fed. money is best spent elsewhere. But, on the other, the provate faith based groups on the whole do a great job administering to the poor, caring for the sick, etc. So, it is a condundrum for me.

This is a little bit like you saying that because Kerry thinks life begins at conception, he is like Bush and anti-abortion. Abortion is about pro-choice, not when life begins :shrug: SO, to say W and Kerry are the same on that issue is incorrect.

I just don't get why liberals would vote for this guy. He's worse than Gore.

Meanwhile, Nader's numbers are growing, even though he may not be on the ballot in a lot of states. If he is, he might get more votes than even I would have expected a few months ago.

Extremely dangerous. Setting aside the issue of stave v. religion, the idea that that these organizations will start taking on the roles that belong in government agencies can only mean that poor people who need help the most will get screwed in the end. We are moving backwards by doing this.

James Madison warned about this kind of thing:

Madison founded Kerry's party and authored the Bill of Rights. In 1811, as President, he vetoed "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexander, in the District of Columbia." He gave several reasons for the veto, and closed with this still-applicable conclusion:

"Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty."

I agree the govt. should provide assistance. It is just that the govt. essentially screws up everything it touches. So, if the govt. can give some of this resp. to a private charity that does it ten times more efficiently than the govt. (which would not be hard to do :laugh: ) and the govt. does not discrimminate between the religions when it provides financial aid. Interestingly, we then get into the Establishment Clause and why it was put in there, which was not to make the US establish an official religion a la The Church of England and all of the fighting and bloodshed associated with it. I mean if the govt. provides financial support to all religious charities (Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Wiccan, etc.) then how is that establishing one religion for the land :shrug: Thus, it probably is not a violation of the Establishment Clause.

I do, however, think it is a slippery slope and it scares me to think people like Pat Robertson will get tax dollars, even though they alreasy do because most Churches are taxed differently, etc., and I am SURE they claim all of those cash collections :eek: :laugh:

The government also consistently screws up how it uses my tax money. Mind you, I'm not anti-tax. But, man, if we were to use this reasoning, we would end up even transferring defense to private hands, nyet? Come to think of it, on that last one... it sort of already did. ;)

:laugh: :laugh:

YOu are preaching to the choir!!!!! :cool:

Yeah, but let's not forget the real point here:

Kerry = Bush

Bush = Kerry

Try posting that at the Democratic Underground. I did and I'm still reeling from the response I got. :laugh:

I don't even know what that is. But what was the response?

And by the way, don't you owe me PM?

SEEEEEE - and you thought I was bad . . . :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

I sent you one earlier :shrug: Didn't you get it?

It's http://www.democraticunderground.com The response was not kind, thankyouverymuch. The thread ended up being locked. :laugh:

I had asked you for a couple of examples. Didn't get them.

I didn't get that PM. :shrug: Can you send it again?

Dissention, I was looking at that. Very instructive reaction, though not surprising at all. As in 2000, the Democrats are in denial.

My favorite was when I was told to "Go f*ck myself." I told them, I thought the Democratic party was all inclusive? Their response? This board isn't. :lol:

I particularly enjoyed the dumbass who didn't know "dissention" and "dissension" are both acceptable spellings.

:laugh: The irony of my screename was obviously lost on them. I think it's obvious why I used the rarely used t in favor of the s.

You really pissed 'em off, didn't ya? :laugh: :laugh: :nod:

Oh, darling, you don't know the half of it. They wanted to spill my blood. ;)

There were an awful lot of deleted posts in that thread. And frankly, I thought your original post was pretty mild considering what I've read of you here. :wavey:

Can I get a link?

All the deleted posts were posts telling me to go f*ck myself, to perform oral sex on Bush, and calling me KKKarl Rove. :lol: I have the same politics as the people on that board, but I'm mild in my viciousness compared to them.

Here's one: http://www.thejewishweek.com/JWeekWi...scontent4.php3

I think there was something about in The Nation, too, but I can't remember.

Did you see the DU, darling? I really lit a fire under their asses. :laugh:

Where's the link?

I guess so if that post of yours caused such a stir!!! :)

This isn't it. :shrug:

How you I find the flambaying of Dissention at the DU? I need more ammo for here :cool: :p :D :wavey:

That's what came up when I put it into Google. :sorry:

What is the name of the forum and thread?

No ammo to be found, I simply said that Kerry is disappointing me a bit. Instead of a morale boost, I got called KKKarl. ;) Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=132x613764

In this election, I'm not all too concerned about the minutae and expecially not concerned about this quote as there is no link and it smells of a Republican talking point.
George stole four years of our lives and turned them upside down. It's time for him to go. There's only one option to remove George W Bush from office and that is to vote for John Forbes Kerry. This election will be won in the middle and to that extent, Kerry is playing to it. He must. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'll discuss my response to the faith based initiatives when I see an actual credible link to what Kerry said about them.

You know though, that DU is infiltrated on a daily basis by people that are trying to lambaste Kerry or operatives working for the other side. The regulars get tired of having to debunk these kind of threads. If you use their search function, you can find the asnwers to a lot of these types of attacks on Kerry. The board also allows you to bookmark threads for fututre reference. I've done a lot of that with the Plame threads, which are fascinating, if you read them.
With respect to Kerry's IWR vote, I've posted his entire speech on this board, much to Carne's chagrin. I understand what he's saying and what was said the other day. Unfortunately, a lot of people might not.

LOL - they are a testy little self righteous bunch aren't they. I think you complied with the rules because you gave "[c]onstructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate" in your initial post. They just, according to the other rules, do not want to have anything but a love fest for Kerry. So be it.

I will say I agree with the guy that rebutted your three points that Kerry said he still would have gone to war with Iraq, the gay marriage vs. civil unions thing, and the abortion thing.

I think Kerry's position of Iraq is too complex to reduce it the way you did. He has said and still says it was the timing that was wrong and the inspectors should have been allowed to finish. In my book, that is not the same thing as I would have gone to war too. I think "if the inspections were finished and the evidence then warranted it" has to be added to that conclusion/statement. Will the public pay attention long enough to get that - who knows. The gay marriage thing is so politicized Kerry cannot come out for it and win. Sad, but true. So, that is really a moot point IMO. Finally, if I have said it once, I have said it 1,000 times saying I may be personally opposed to abortion is not in any way the same thing I am not pro-choice. The difference between the two is the latter recognized the individual right of someone to do something I may consider wrong - it is respect for someone to have dominion over their bodies without me telling them they have to do it my way. I think that makes Kerry pro-choice, which is all that is required. Again, Kerry does not have to believe in abortion, he can try to talk people out of it, he can have the govt. print up literature on it, etc. But, as long as he respects the right to choose, that is all that is req. I know I know - the slippery slope argument of well that is just one more small chip of many at the right to choose. But, I do not see it that way. It is not and never has been pro-abortion and everybody support abortion. It has always been allowing people the chance to choose for themselves :shrug:

But, they were IMO jerks for attacking you like that.

My point exactly!!!! :cool: :wavey:

I understand that, but I had over a thousand posts there until I lost my log-in info and had to re-register. They knew I wasn't a right-winger. I know what Kerry said about the vote, but the thing is that I don't agree with his reasoning. He never should have voted for it. The rest of the stuff simply oculd not be debunked because it came from his own lips. And there is simply no excuse for the things said in that thread, regardless. The self-righteousness is a bit too much for my tastes, especially now that the DU has been infiltrated by a bunch of wise-ass kids who know nothing. That's all. :) :xoxo:

What, you think I made it up?

Didn't you ask him face to face about the IWR?
And I agree with you darling, some of the comments were reprehensible. :xoxo:
Don't let these people get in your head so much. You can think for yourself.

I want to see the source and full context of the speech. I always link my quotes.
Is there some reason you don't want me to know where you got this?