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

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Like that's hard to do -

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.

Yup.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

When you vote to authorize a war, you have no say in the timetable the man with the authority is going to go by.

That's just the thing darling, this wasn't a war declaration they were voting on.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

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.

Yes it does. Kerry's position would prohibit discrimination and proselytization of religious principles on the recipients of the charities.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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

I just spit out my water!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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.

You're on fire tonight.

Like I said, what bothers me more than his support for faith-based initiatives is that he said this at an organization that supports a same sex marriage ban. He chose the wrong forum to say this.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

You're on fire tonight.

Just gettin ready for Pickles and Bunnypants in 57 minutes on LKL. I can't wait.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Just gettin ready for Pickles and Bunnypants in 57 minutes on LKL. I can't wait.

Tell me you're not tuning in. If so, bless you. I hope Pickles took her Exlax so that she doesn't look so constipated on national television, at least for your sake.

On another note, I was visually assaulted at the supermarket the other day when I saw Pickles and Bunnypants on the cover of Ladies Home Journal. Ladies, stay away from your journal this month.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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

I'm not trying to turn anyone against anyone. I was using your own words to point out you were trying to excuse inexcusable behavior.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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

It couldn't possibly be that he just said it and, once again, made a statement he shouldn't have?

Are you so blindly partisan that you find it to be out of the realm of possibility that your guy makes mistakes? Hell, he does more than make mistakes. Some of the statements he's made lately to ingratiate himself to the right-wing voters, I suspect, are lies.

Yet, if Bush lies, you'll be all over it.

Your robot-like automatic defense of the man has ruined your credibility. You're just a partisan who refuses to deal with the facts.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

So he still believes the WMD are there? He still believes Iraq was a big threat? So what differentiates him from Bush?

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

Jason, just refer back to the Madison statement I quoted earlier. What it comes down to is the people who so vehemently opposed Bush's faith-based initiative now are bending over backwards to defend Kerry's vow to not only continue it but expand it.

Do you guys realize how silly you look? Do you realize this is costing your guy votes?

When we started these discussions last spring, if you'd told me that anyone who was convinced it was necessary to vote for Kerry just to get rid of Bush would eventually become so disgusted with Kerry, enough to switch their vote to a third party, I would have said you're crazy. Yet, here we are. At this point, I count three people I know who've come to this crossroads. I talked about five people into voting for Nader in 2000. This time, I figured I wouldn't even try, considering the anti-Bush passions. I'll just state my position and leave it at that. The funny thing is Kerry has done it himself. He is worse than Gore, and I never thought I would say that, especially having voted for him in Massachusetts.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by dissention

When you vote to authorize a war, you have no say in the timetable the man with the authority is going to go by.

BINGO!!!!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

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.

Perhaps, but I was talking about giving to non-faith based charities as well. So, I think that would make that possible point moot. But, I am not on the United States Sup. Ct. (YET!!!! )

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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.

OH, I'm sorry. I must have missed the part where in Bush's initiative it says that it's OK to "support religious proselytizing" and that it isn't necessary to respect civil rights.

Civil rights have taken a shot all right, but not there as much as in the measure your boy Kerry voted for, The Patriot Act.

You ain't proved bupkus.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

As they shouldn't when the 1000th soldier is about to die in Iraq,

Which your candidate voted to facilitate.

oil is $45 a barrel,

He could always tell Teresa to give up the SUV.