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

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Here are some links

http://www.wecareamerica.org/index.c...sDetail&NA=221


http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_10...pinion_04.html

Do I have to do EVERYTHING :cool"

Neither of which is where I got my information. I glad to see others picked it up. The mainstream media pretended it never happened. I guess Dubya is not the only one getting free passes.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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

Yup. Last year I walked right up to him and pretty much told him he was f*ck-up. Then I had a conversation with Teresa about her hair dye.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Therefore, it was perfectly OK to diss dissention to the point of suggesting he perform fellatio on Dubya. It was OK to call him all manner of nasty names.

At least we know what kind of mentality we're dealing with here.

No sale. If you think you're going to turn dissention and I agaisnt each other, you can take your Jedi mind bull**** elsewhere.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

No sale.

Ain't selling you ****. Ain't trying to prove anything to you either.

I couldn't care less if you think I made it up.

Your candidate is going to lose because of all this stuff. You'll see. I am going to laugh my ass off on Nov. 3.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Ain't selling you ****. Ain't trying to prove anything to you either.

I couldn't care less if you think I made it up.

Your candidate is going to lose because of all this stuff. You'll see. I am going to laugh my ass off on Nov. 3.

As I suspected, there's a hole in this argument somewhere. I'm going to find it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

They give liberals a bad name.

Like that's hard to do - SSQQUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEe

(meant in jest)

Originally Posted by dissention

Now, this is what Kerry said three days ago:

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

He's saying he would have voted regardless, but that he would have used the authority differently.

THose are night and day to me. What he is saying is "we" gave W the power and he was not cautious with it. He essentially immediately used it. I, John Kerry, would not have done that as evidenced by that speech he gave around that time. His point is although I had the power, I would have waited until all ave. were explored until I used it, and if a better solution was found, I may not have had to use it, which would have saved the 900 American lives and countless Iraqi lives W essentially killed in his rush to war. I think that is a big difference. If you want Kerry to say the whole WMD was just a big lie to get at the oil. He is never going to say that because he does not believe it. Note: I am not saying you actually want Kerry to say that.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

THose are night and day to me. What he is saying is "we" gave W the power and he was not cautious with it. He essentially immediately used it. I, John Kerry, would not have done that as evidenced by that speech he gave around that time. His point is although I had the power, I would have waited until all ave. were explored until I used it, and if a better solution was found, I may not have had to use it, which would have saved the 900 American lives and countless Iraqi lives W essentially killed in his rush to war. I think that is a big difference. If you want Kerry to say the whole WMD was just a big lie to get at the oil. He is never going to say that because he does not believe it. Note: I am not saying you actually want Kerry to say that.

But the thing is, he's saying that he still would have voted to authorize Dubya knowing what he now knows. That's fundamentally wrong in every way, shape, and form.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

As I suspected, there's a hole in this argument somewhere. I'm going to find it.

The hole is IMO and as I said earlier, there are many faith based charities out there that do a great job of helping people who cannot help themselves. As long as the govt. supports all faith based charities, there is no violation of the Est. Clause - that is what Kerry is saying when he talks about comporting with the Const. He also does not say the govt. agencies that help the poor like SSI are going to be aboloished. He is just, and rightly so IMO, recognizing the efforts of these organizations. Personally, I do not think this is that big of a story and I think Carne's equating of this statment to Kerry supports the same faith based charity scheme that W does has little merit.

But, Carne is most certainly entitled to his opinion as we all are

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

But the thing is, he's saying that he still would have voted to authorize Dubya knowing what he now knows. That's fundamentally wrong in every way, shape, and form.

But his statement "I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively" clearly indicates he is talking about the Pres.' duty to defend and protect the U.S. and the power that takes. He is not saying I agree with W - at least that is not what I get out of it, esp. when that quote is considered with all of his other quotes on this. But, reasonable minds will differ. Just out of curiousity, would you be okay with Kerry saying I like everyone else thought there were WMD, SH failed to meet his burden, blah blah blah. So, that is why I voted to authorize the Pres. to use force. That statement is what he has said all along

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But his statement "I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively" clearly indicates he is talking about the Pres.' duty to defend and protect the U.S. and the power that takes. He is not saying I agree with W - at least that is not what I get out of it, esp. when that quote is considered with all of his other quotes on this. But, reasonable minds will differ. Just out of curiousity, would you be okay with Kerry saying I like everyone else thought there were WMD, SH failed to meet his burden, blah blah blah. So, that is why I voted to authorize the Pres. to use force. That statement is what he has said all along

When you vote to authorize a war, you have no say in the timetable the man with the authority is going to go by. He knew that once he gave Bush the authority, he could have taken us to war the very next day. Now, over a year later, he still stands by his vote, says it was not a mistake, and knwoing what he knows now, he STILL would have authorized Bush to invade Iraq. It's so ludicrous and mind-bogglingly stupid that even I, the great liberal, cannot defend it. It's comments like those that are going to sink his candidacy. Not only does it piss off the anti-war Dems, but it tells the undecideds that he's no different than Bush on Iraq. Sure, he can say what he would have done differently had he been president, but the question was whether or not he would have authorized force knowing what he know nows. He said yes and that is wrong.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Your candidate is going to lose because of all this stuff. You'll see. I am going to laugh my ass off on Nov. 3.

And then crying about Bush on the day after.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The hole is IMO and as I said earlier, there are many faith based charities out there that do a great job of helping people who cannot help themselves. As long as the govt. supports all faith based charities, there is no violation of the Est. Clause - that is what Kerry is saying when he talks about comporting with the Const. He also does not say the govt. agencies that help the poor like SSI are going to be aboloished. He is just, and rightly so IMO, recognizing the efforts of these organizations. Personally, I do not think this is that big of a story and I think Carne's equating of this statment to Kerry supports the same faith based charity scheme that W does has little merit.

Yes, but isn't it a violation of the establishment clause to assume everyone belongs to a faith? Wouldn't the government then be endorsing all religion instead of just one? This reminds me of the Pledge of Allegiance argument. Some have proposed letting people say "Under God, Allah, Universe, or whomever," but the fact it is in there assumes all people are of a faith.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

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.

Careful editing. Here's the full text.

In a “fact sheet” distributed to Jewish activists after the speech, he called for a “Presidential Advisory Group on Expanding Faith-Based Initiatives.”

But in the same document, his campaign wrote that government funding should not “support religious proselytizing or other religious activity and should not finance discrimination.”

And Kerry promised to “recraft” Bush’s Executive Order on Faith-Based Initiatives to “ensure that it encompasses all necessary constitutional and civil rights considerations and does not unnecessarily subject small faith-based organizations to litigation or other administrative difficulties.

See the difference? Silly rabbit. Trix are for kids.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The hole is IMO and as I said earlier,

I've got my own hole, thank you.

Kerry's fact sheet distributed after the speech states:

that government funding should not “support religious proselytizing or other religious activity and should not finance discrimination.”

And Kerry promised to “recraft” Bush’s Executive Order on Faith-Based Initiatives to “ensure that it encompasses all necessary constitutional and civil rights considerations and does not unnecessarily subject small faith-based organizations to litigation or other administrative difficulties.

That's a 360 from the Bush policy.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Neither of which is where I got my information. I glad to see others picked it up. The mainstream media pretended it never happened.

As they shouldn't when the 1000th soldier is about to die in Iraq, oil is $45 a barrel, the federal deficit sets a record daily, you've got a bunch of "Swift Boat Vets" who never served with Kerry smearing him, a California court is voiding same sex marriage licenses,people are being ethnically cleansed in the Sudan, Cheney is a crook, Cheney is a crook and oh, Cheney is a crook.