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

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

How's the weather up there?

If deep down I knew my positions are inconsistent and therefore really indefensible, I would be trying to shout down those who point it out, as you are. Fortunately they aren't and you can't shout me down, try as you might.

Kerry = Bush

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by dissention

She sounds more foreign than Teresa, for cripes sake. And the sly grin she has plastered across her face just like her husband drives me to drink.

I like Teresa. But I gotta say, I had a good laugh when she claimed she's African American. That's like saying an American who is occupying Iraq and then moves to Canada is an Iraqi Canadian.

Sheer nonsense.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

I like Teresa. But I gotta say, I had a good laugh when she claimed she's African American. That's like saying the Americans who are occupying Iraq are American Iraqi.

Sheer nonsense.

I looooooooooooooooooooooove Teresa. Her quirkiness is a major draw for me. She rarely censors herself and says whatever pops into her head, it's very refreshing and comes across as very human. Much better than the Stepford-ish Pickles Bush.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Sorry, I'm against all faith-based initiatives and don't believe that any government funds should go to any religious organization. Not in any way. I think Kerry's explanation on this issue is ridiculous and I certainly cannot be faulted for "looking for ways to lambaste him." Unfortunately, to hear him say these things is depressing to me. He's our only shot to defeat the anti-Christ and it really gets me down to hear him say these things. No faith-based initiatives now or ever, government dollars should not aid religious organizations period. I take separation of church and state to be just that, my dear. If Kerry wants to support religious organizations, let him break up his presidential salary and give it to those organziations. But don't tell me you're going to take my tax dollars and give them to organizations that promote the raping of young boys, promote a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, promote pro-life stances, and so on. Use my tax dollars to fight poverty and crime.

But they already effectivley are. Churches are exempt from some taxes

Also, there technically is no "separation of church ande state" - all the Const. prohibits is the establishment of a religion a la the Church of England and it exspressly authorizes the freedom to practice religion, which again is realted to the idea of prohibiting ONE religion from being THE only religion allowed a la England under the Tudors. The govt. is in no way "establishing" a state sponsored one church if it funds all such charities whether they are faith based or not. So, while I object to it to some degree on the grounds you set forth, I am at a loss to see how the Const.'s Establishment Clause prohibits it

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

I like Teresa. But I gotta say, I had a good laugh when she claimed she's African American. That's like saying an American who is occupying Iraq and then moves to Canada is an Iraqi Canadian.

Sheer nonsense.

No, she is from there isn't she (I do not remember - but I think she is)? I mean most AA here have never even been to Africa and cliam this based on their relatives coming over about 200 years ago. So, while I get your objection to the occupation, I think she technically was correct

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

I'd never really heard her speak at length before. Her diction is horrible. She sounds like west Texas trash.

See I think she sounds nice. I think she sounds intelligent and she made intelligent contributions last night even though I may not have agreed with them. But, I do not automatically want to hate her like some I know (I mention no names )

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But they already effectivley are. Churches are exempt from some taxes

I know they're exempt from taxes, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I'm saying that I don't want my tax money going to religious organizations. If they want to give a dollar to the Catholic Church, give a dollar to Atheists International, too. Otherwise, don't use our money to further promote religious institutions. End of story.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Also, there technically is no "separation of church ande state" - all the Const. prohibits is the establishment of a religion a la the Church of England and it exspressly authorizes the freedom to practice religion, which again is realted to the idea of prohibiting ONE religion from being THE only religion allowed a la England under the Tudors. The govt. is in no way "establishing" a state sponsored one church if it funds all such charities whether they are faith based or not. So, while I object to it to some degree on the grounds you set forth, I am at a loss to see how the Const.'s Establishment Clause prohibits it

Obvously not if they're legally giving money to these, in some cases, evil institutions. If the US governemnt wants to give money to Catholic, Christian, and Jewish institutions and call that fair, I'm going to call it bull****.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

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.

This is why Kerry's new conservative appeal is such a brilliant political move. He knows he can take people like you for granted, no matter what he says. So he works on the undecided, less liberal vote. Disingenuous but smart, because I do think most Democrats are like you: absolutely desperate and willing to justify anything Kerry does as long as the end result is ejecting Bush from the White House. This strategy makes perfect sense, if his assumption that he can take the Democratic vote for granted is accurate. If this assumption is inaccurate he's shot himself in the foot - but obviously he is confident enough in his base that he's not worried about that.

And it's working on conservatives to some extent. I no longer think Kerry would be a bad president, if he follows through on these conservative statements. Despite the fact that I'm voting for Bush, Kerry's only trying to make himself more electable. If that means abandoning his liberal ideology, well... so be it. At this point, ideology is expendable in light of the greater goal: win. So, your point is well made.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

See I think she sounds nice. I think she sounds intelligent and she made intelligent contributions last night even though I may not have agreed with them. But, I do not automatically want to hate her like some I know (I mention no names )

I thought she sounded like a ditto-head.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I thought she sounded like a ditto-head.

With all due respect, she could rarely sound anything but bad to you and Goldie just because of the sheer fact that she is who she is - so I think there might be just a little prejudgement and some possible prejudice there But, if you say you have none - who am I to tell you what you feel

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I know they're exempt from taxes, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I'm saying that I don't want my tax money going to religious organizations. If they want to give a dollar to the Catholic Church, give a dollar to Atheists International, too. Otherwise, don't use our money to further promote religious institutions. End of story.

. . .

Obvously not if they're legally giving money to these, in some cases, evil institutions. If the US governemnt wants to give money to Catholic, Christian, and Jewish institutions and call that fair, I'm going to call it bull****.

But, my point is while you can certainly have your opinion, no legal grounds clearly exist in the Const. to base it on if they give to all charities. That is not "establishing" one religion - which is what is prohibited. I do not see how it could be. Without a legal ground to prohibit this (and there very well may be one I do not know about because I do not know everything ) , it can go into effect.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

This is why Kerry's new conservative appeal is such a brilliant political move. He knows he can take people like you for granted, no matter what he says. So he works on the undecided, less liberal vote. Disingenuous but smart, because I do think most Democrats are like you: absolutely desperate and willing to justify anything Kerry does as long as the end result is ejecting Bush from the White House. This strategy makes perfect sense, if his assumption that he can take the Democratic vote for granted is accurate. If this assumption is inaccurate he's shot himself in the foot - but obviously he is confident enough in his base that he's not worried about that.

And it's working on conservatives to some extent. I no longer think Kerry would be a bad president, if he follows through on these conservative statements. Despite the fact that I'm voting for Bush, Kerry's only trying to make himself more electable. If that means abandoning his liberal ideology, well... so be it. At this point, ideology is expendable in light of the greater goal: win. So, your point is well made.

You are correct. AND - while W shored up his base earlier this year, in his own way, he is playing to the middle and the middle in like 10 states as he knows that will determine the election. AH - POLITICS

P.S. You are far too lovely and talented to vote for Bush

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

With all due respect, she could rarely sound anything but bad to you and Goldie just because of the sheer fact that she is who she is - so I think there might be just a little prejudgement and some possible prejudice there But, if you say you have none - who am I to tell you what you feel

I have none. To be honest, after the monster she shares a bed with was selected president in 2000, she was on TV a few days after the inauguration tlaking about education. And I agreed completely with what she said. Then her husband screwed it all up with his ridiculous No Child Left Behind trash and it became apparrent what she truly was: a ditto-head. I'm not saying she's not a nice person, but when she talks politics, she looks like a back asswards ditto-head.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, my point is while you can certainly have your opinion, there is no legal grounds in the COnst. to base it on if they give to all charities. That is not "establish" one religion. i do not see how it could be. Without a legal ground to prohibit this (and there very well may be one I do not know about because I do not know everything ) , it can go into effect.

Then tell me why they are allowed to selectively choose which religious organizations to give funds to? How can they fund one over another?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I have none. To be honest, after the monster she shares a bed with was selected president in 2000, she was on TV a few days after the inauguration tlaking about education. And I agreed completely with what she said. Then her husband screwed it all up with his ridiculous No Child Left Behind trash and it became apparrent what she truly was: a ditto-head. I'm not saying she's not a nice person, but when she talks politics, she looks like a back asswards ditto-head.

Touche' - I have my hat in hand, my head is bowed, I am contrite