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

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Actually, all of these purported hateful and new police investigatory tactics the PA allegedly created were pretty much all (I do not know all of them ) avaiolable under other Federal Acts. So, all of this "the PA created unprecedented police power" is just not true. One of those other acts was RICO and the expansion of RICO into the civil arena. RICO was the IMO single largest blow to the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searchs and seizures and it has been on the books for years. Moreover, Congress and the courts have expanded the scope of RICO far beyond the original intent to capture the mob on intrastate racketerring charges. So, the PA, while still frightening to me, is really nothing new to me. Hopefully, it will expire.

Kerry is pushing to let it expire. W is not.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Wow, that many? They're practically dropping like flies.

I don't know why we're even all still having these conversations. Bush is going to win in November. We're all fighting amongst ourselves about why this candidate isn't good enough and that candidate isn't good enough, who's too liberal and who's too conservative, and who did this and who voted for what, and Bush is just going to coast right back in.

The only ones that seem to not squabble are the conservatives. Even many of the ones who don't really care for Bush, are voting for him to keep a conservative in the White House.

I guess they figure that "too conservative" is better than nothing. But us liberals are all bent out of shape over who's not liberal enough, and can't come to any kind of agreement other than "my guy is better than yours."

Nose cut off.
Face spited.

Dubya might as well write his victory speech now.

That's right Johnny! My God, what was I thinking? You are right. We must give it up now. Just let W win. That way in 2008, the idealists can nominate...they can get...you know they'll ask...
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road


Then Glinda will wave her magic wand and everything will be just as it should be....

F*ck Ralph Nader. Maybe the house will fall on him.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Then Glinda will wave her magic wand and everything will be just as it should be....

F*ck Ralph Nader. Maybe the house will fall on him.

BBWWWWHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Actually, isn't Nader a Rupublican now - after all they are giving him financial support and helping him Poor Nader - ego ego ego Again, he has done some great things for the world, but he would be the worst Pres. in history because no one would work with him and he has come across as a little wild eyed and slightly insane in recent interviews

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

BBWWWWHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Actually, isn't Nader a Rupublican now - after all they are giving him financial support and helping him Poor Nader - ego ego ego Again, he has done some great things for the world, but he would be the worst Pres. in history because no one would work with him and he has come across as a little wild eyed and slightly insane in recent interviews

Remember OJ?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

That's right Johnny! My God, what was I thinking? You are right. We must give it up now. Just let W win. That way in 2008, the idealists can nominate...they can get...you know they'll ask...
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road

Then Glinda will wave her magic wand and everything will be just as it should be....

F*ck Ralph Nader. Maybe the house will fall on him.

I really think it's what people want. All or nothing.
Well, the idealists at least.
They'd rather ensure Bush has another 4 years in the White House (and that Republicans have God-only-knows how many years after that in the White House), rather than working together to cultivate some reasonable changes over a period of time.

As I've said before, I feel it's far more important to get the Democratic candidate in the White House right now... even if he isn't quite liberal enough for some tastes, and even if he's made some moves we disagree with... and then, having done that, start working to make positive changes within the party.

Some call it blind-partisanship... I call it realism, and our best chance to make the changes needed in ALL aspects.

But again, it seems that "all or nothing" is the preferred choice of many.

As far as this election is concerned, a candidate from an independent party is just not going to have enough votes to win. And it's unrealistic to think otherwise.
So all that this squabbling will get us, is a win for George W., and about 102 votes for an Independent candidate.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.faithandvalues.com/tx/IA-26/1/

What's your perspective on President Bush's faith‑based initiatives?
I thought they reached too far. I support faith‑based efforts to serve people. We've had faith‑based efforts to serve people for a long time in America. And different faiths do it in different ways. You have Catholic Charities that does certain kinds of work. You have Jewish Community Centers that do a certain kind of work. You have Methodist Centers and soup kitchens. And you have Latter Day Saints missionaries. I mean, there's all kinds of wonderful work going on, and I salute it and I applaud it and I embrace it. But the government shouldn't be funding it. It's very simple. And we need to draw that line. Excuse me ‑‑ that's wrong. The government shouldn't be supporting those things that are actually the proselytizing of the faith. But the services are important to us in many cases. And I am for supporting legitimate, separated faith‑based services that help communities to deal with problems like teenage pregnancy or soup kitchens for people who need to be fed or things like that. That's very legitimate work. And I think there is a way for us to be supportive of it.

[Johnny Stew]

What's your perspective on President Bush's faith‑based initiatives?
I thought they reached too far. I support faith‑based efforts to serve people. We've had faith‑based efforts to serve people for a long time in America. And different faiths do it in different ways. You have Catholic Charities that does certain kinds of work. You have Jewish Community Centers that do a certain kind of work. You have Methodist Centers and soup kitchens. And you have Latter Day Saints missionaries. I mean, there's all kinds of wonderful work going on, and I salute it and I applaud it and I embrace it. But the government shouldn't be funding it. It's very simple. And we need to draw that line. Excuse me ‑‑ that's wrong. The government shouldn't be supporting those things that are actually the proselytizing of the faith. But the services are important to us in many cases. And I am for supporting legitimate, separated faith‑based services that help communities to deal with problems like teenage pregnancy or soup kitchens for people who need to be fed or things like that. That's very legitimate work. And I think there is a way for us to be supportive of it.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

But then, I'm not looking for every little excuse to lambaste the guy.

[CarneVaca]

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

[gldstwmn]

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

F*ck Ralph Nader.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

F*ck Ralph Nader.

And there you have it. This is the same kind of behavior you were defending before on DU.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

But then, I'm not looking for every little excuse to lambaste the guy.

That interview was from December 16, 2003. His position has not changed. And yes, it is reasonable.

[CarneVaca]

You guys who are defending this faith-based nonsense are full of crap. Did you support it when Bush launched it? Now that Kerry says it's OK, you're OK with it?

I am going to be rolling on the floor laughing on Nov. 3 when the Democrats once again lose because they managed to confuse the masses with their Republican Lite message. Then you'll all be bitching about how it's Nader's fault. Or the media's fault. But never because it's the party's fault for its cowardly take on the issues.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

[gldstwmn]

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

F*ck Ralph Nader.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

F*ck Ralph Nader.

I know what I stand for, and it hasn't changed to suit the candidate. See, the candidate is supposed to represent you, not the other way around.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush. Hell, in Florida, a vote for Kerry is two votes for Bush!

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

I know what I stand for, and it hasn't changed to suit the candidate.

Care to elaborate? Bet you don't. Keep in mind, it's two hours earlier here.