It appears that Republican John McCain's presidential campaign staff need not endeavor to find a way to "divide and conquer" the Democratic Party. Obama seems to have figured out a way to do that for them.

This has been a very troubling time for me Dan. I never thought I'd ever be an "undecided" voter, and in fact doubted if they ever existed.

I know one thing-I'm not voting for McCain. Now I'm wondering if I can in good conscience vote for Obama.

What's worse is I'm well aware that not voting for him only helps McCain.

Jet,

I know what you mean. My earlier focus had been on the Obama-Clinton contest. For various reasons, I decided that I could under no circumstances vote for Senator Clinton and that I would vote against her.

Now my focus is on the McCain-Obama contest, and I am still trying to make up my mind. There are things which I like, and things which I dislike, about both of them. I am "tilting" toward McCain, but that's it.

Dan

Wow. Maybe Obama can get the religious right to switch back to the Democratic Party and the GOP can be set free

Dave

Dave,

Amen!

Dan

Dave, my only hope is that they are orphaned and are thrust upon the Libertarian Party-who deserves them...

(:)

The religious right may be the boil on both political Party's asses, but they have one undeniable strength-unfortunately.

They are the only reliable voting block in America. Like sheep or lemmings, they vote as their respective TV minister orders them to. On top of that, if they're reluctant, like fourth-graders, they're picked up by the church school busses and driven to the poling places, and handed a "voter's guide" to take with them into the booths.

As in my precinct here in downtown Columbus, our previous GOP secretary of state left us a goodbye present... our voting place has been moved from a neutral location to a Baptish church.

It is a damning thing, that the majority of Americans aren't as committed.

The problem really is that you have no way of knowing if he's sincere, or just playing politics-he's got ZERO background record, so what he says to day may or may not be what he thinks...today, but you've no way of knowing if that's what he'll be thinking to-morrow.

of all the forces on "the right", the Religious Fundies are the most irrational, and at the same time, most highly organized, they're also not happy with the GOP's Choice of McCain. Strategically, they're a good target for a Democrat with a proven record of church-attendance (or would be if Obama hadn't been attending Rev. Wright's church.) I could see a Democratic strategist looking at them as a good target for a move like this, since it would be a direct strike at what is often percieved as the Republican Base, and Obama's whole campaign message (and lack of serious scandals at this point) is practically designed as an ad to appeal to Christians whom are Christian mainly because they feel guilty or want to feel superior to others.

So, it COULD just be a crass political move. The problem is, distinguishing it as such, rather than a sincere gesture... (i.e. the Democratic Party's not going to split over this even a little bit, methinks.)

Cannon, I'm sure you've read some of my posts here, so you know how commited I am... If I'm wavering what about the less informed?

As for the Fundies, they've got to learn sooner or later that backing a president that promises them their agenda is inneffective at best.

Look at how Carter, Reagan and both Bushes succeeded at banning abortion, even with a congress of the same party like W had.

Like it or not, the vast majority (though they'd never admit it to pollsters) just don't hold religious beliefs that important in their lives.

Unfortunately the Christian cause has recruited millions of people to give up their grocery money to fund fat-cat preachers who live in multi-million dollar mansions and have "churches" the size of football stadiums. Preachers whose only goal in life is to grab as much power and money that they can, and the rest of us be damned.

For many years I've assumed that any politician who proclaims his faith in God and Religion is simply a faker and he is pandering for easy votes.

If I ever began to think that one was serious I would be truly frightened.

Fortunately, though GWB made a lot of noise about God and Virtue his actions have proven him to be A Sinner like the rest of us. In fact, one could easily argue that he has embraced Sin with even more enthusiasm and lack of shame than the rest of us.

Phew! Dodged a bullet there!

Obama is currently practicing what he learned from Chicago politics:hope, change and lofty ideals may be great longterm goals(or not)but first you've got to get elected. So, you've got to COUNT the voters who are or may be persuaded to be on your side.

He's pragmatically counting votes now, and seeking them from every side, source and region. It's smart politics.

By appealing to those who want faith to support their vote, he's unlikely to lose a significant number of his true-believers on the left, and he has a good chance of winning over a substantial number of those in the middle who might be worried that an Obama presidency could be too much of a radical domestic change. And it gives him a better chance at some of those right-of- center voters who are looking for a rationale to abandon McCain, and/or punish the GOP, anyway.

It's not on a par with Kennedy's "Catholic" speech to the Baptists, but it's Obama's version and not a bad tactic.

Thanks Blif, I am really convinced that Bush hopes that the Isrealis will attack Iran, so that he can claim the holy war of the book of Revelations, and he can glide to heaven as the leader of the righteous people.

My fear is that if he can't do it himself, he'll somehow nudge Isreal into doing his work for him and claim emergency presidential powers and install himself for a third unconstitutional term.

Lee the problem is with empty promises of anything to get elected and usless words.

Blacks could desert him in droves if he alienates them too much, not wanting an inexperienced and ineffective man to be first on the job that might screw up, causing white bigots to point at him and say that he's the reason not to ever elect another black man again to the office of President of the United States.

We've got very tough economic times ahead and Obama might not be experienced enough to handle the problem, or bring with him good advisors instead of religious political flunkies.

I could tell a joke about now... but I won't.

Ah what the heck....

An atheist died and subsequently was laying in a casket at his funeral. The mourners filed by, placing little trinkets or speaking encouraging words to the cadaver. His oldest sister came up to the casket during the time set aside for familty viewing and being the good baptist that she was, leaned down close to the body and said... "look at you Davy, all dressed up with no where to go."

I'm gone.

Okaaaaaaay....... and this relates to the article how? :)

Condor,

Of course, that is true of all of us. None of us are going anywhere but 6 feet under or into a tastefully designed urn.

When you're dead, you're dead.

B-tone

Jet,

I know what you are saying and feeling. Obama has made a number of moves over the last couple of weeks that are at best, unsettling.

I hope, as suggested above, that these are more than anything else pragmatic moves to garner votes from a broader spectrum of the electorate. Pretty much all of the moves are centrist in nature.

I am not a fan of so called "faith based initiatives." I am not happy about the Supreme Court's decision regarding guns, and I do not favor the death penalty. Obama has come down on what I believe are the wrong sides of all these issues. It is troubling.

I assume that these things are not being done willy-nilly. I have to assume that Obama's strategists are attempting to plot his course for the next 4 months to, as I noted above, broaden his appeal and succeed in snatching up a larger portion of the undecided moderate/independent vote.

Obviously, it could backfire by turning off less moderate liberals who have, thus far been backing him with enthusiasm. I think Obama is a very smart man. I hope he and his staff don't overcalculate, get too clever and wind up blowing this election which they should win going away.

Frankly, just the thought of a McCain presidency makes me queazy. I was at one time ambivalent about the man, but over the past few months I have come to dislike him as a man and certainly am not aligned with him politically. I see him as somewhat of a Bush clone and as a mean spirited vindictive old fart.

I find it somewhat humorous that a number of commenters here were, a few months ago, staunchly against McCain citing that he was far too liberal for their tastes. Now, it appears that he's their guy, by god!

B-tone

Thanks Mr. B. As for the supreme court, Bush has done his damage, and I fear it will be long lasting damage taking decades to repair-at least until his appointees retire.

My worry is that the economy is souring, but that big business and big Oil will do all they can to prop it up until after the election, all the while raking in more and more on fat-but-vague multimillion dollar defence contracts and raking in huge oil profits... while they can.

After the election, they're banking on Obama winning so they can pull the carpet right out from under the American People and laugh all the way to the bank, knowing Obama will get the blame.


I've struggled with Obama being my "second choice" and over the last month or so, I've tried to make piece with it and balance my intellectual scales, but damn it, he's sounding more and more like Bush, even to the point of saying what he thinks his current audience wants to hear.

I see a bumper sticker reading DON'T BLAME ME I VOTED FOR HILLARY!

I'm deeply afraid for this country, because any way you look at this you lose no matter whether McCain gives us four more years, probably bringing all of Bush's advisors into his cabinet-and die of old age in office leaving a probable vice president chosen by the religious right to balance the ticket, or Obama wins with not enough experience to pick the right cabinet advisors, and caving to the wishes of his financial backers' demands as to personel...

It's a problem I'll probably struggle right up to the election damned if I do and damned if I don't...

Baritone,

You characterize Senator McCain as a mean spirited vindictive old fart. I would have you know, Sir, that we mean spirited vindictive old farts are a protected class and that, as such, we resent the slur. For shame! Sensitivity training is the only solution to your problem. Perhaps in the new golden age about to dawn, it will be mandatory.

Merely as an interim solution, until you find time to undergo such training I offer, as an unwarranted gesture of kindness, a rephrasing along the following lines "as a sensitivity challenged senior citizen." Not great, but it's the best I could come up on the spur of the moment and in my white hot anger over your scurrilous remark.

Dan

My God Dan, the spin on that was so fierce I nearly lost my balance reading it...

Dan,

I am on the cusp of old fartdom myself with 62 years under my rather too large belt. I think I've earned enough stripes to use the "old fart" moniker.

In fact, I see myself as leading the charge of Boomers into the realm of old fartdom come hell or high... hey, speaking of "high", that sounds pretty good about now.

B-tone

I disagree with Obama on guns and on the death penalty, but these more conservative stands are congruent with things he said as a state legislator, before anyone dreamed he'd run for president. And he got his start as a community organizer for a Catholic social agency, so his background would make him sympathetic with government partnering with religious organizations that attack poverty and addiction. He is
not the ultra-liberal of Republican myth. But for those of us who are more liberal than he is, the alternative is McCain, Bush's third term. I don't know that the country can survive more Republican mismanagement. Better Obama, the moderate liberal, than McCain, a hundred years in Iraq, and more tax cuts for the wealthy. Work for Obama, fight for Obama, give to Obama, not because he is perfect, but because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

Not surprisingly, Dan, B-tone is a boomer...

I know it was a long time ago Mr. B. but didn't your mother teach you to share with your little friends?

Gary, I have only one problem with Obama, but it's a big one; Washington is a town that takes some getting used to, and even more to know the difference between a dolphin's fin and a shark's fin when they're both swimming towards you.

I love a candidate with fresh ideas, but he also needs the experience to set them in motion using the powers that be and the capital's secret tunnels of love and politics.

Jet,

I'm not quite as fearful of the future as you seem to be. While a McCain presidency does not sit well with me, I don't imagine that my day to day life will change dramatically one way or the other. After 8 years of W, how much worse can the "Old Fart" {;-) be?

Likewise, if elected, should Obama fall short of his ardent following's expectations (which almost certainly he will) I imagine I will be able to live with it.

I do believe that the relative success or failure of an Obama (or any) presidency may well rest on the choices he makes for his staff, his cabinet and the rest. Often a president is no better nor worse than the information and advice afforded him by those given the task to administrate.

You seem to fear Obama will prove to be weak willed, and/or that his inexperience will wind up smacking him (and the rest of us in consequence) in the face. That could certainly happen. It's a crap shoot no mater how you look at it, or who you support.

I believe (and hope - keeping fingers crossed) that he will prove to be a forceful and intelligent leader who will surprise and perhaps chagrin his detractors. Of course, first, he has to get himself elected. In the process I imagine that he will make other moves that serve to confound, even anger his base. It is a delicate balancing act that may propel him into the oval office or leave him in McCain's creaky old dust.

B-tone

"Work for Obama, fight for Obama, give to Obama, not because he is perfect, but because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate if you're a liberal.

There. Now it makes sense.

Jet,

My "high" minded dream was just that. I haven't imbibed in anything stronger than Vernor's Ginger Ale for around 30 years. I did fly with Lucy in the Sky on a few occasions and pull a few tokes now and again, but those days are long gone.

I do like to alternately sniff a sprig of Basil and one of Rosemary while visiting my sadly overgrown, weed infested garden now and again. I find it 'tres difficile' to get down to the earth with stiff, arthritic knees.

B-tone

I know the feeling Mr. B. Sniffing my cat's catnip is doing nothing for me (despite how much it looks like that other stuff) anywhere near what it apparently does for her.

Maybe I should go out and get some rolling papers...

Clav,

Did I sense a bit of derision in your noting my charter membership in Boomerworld?(:~#)>-<==<|

B-tone

Derision? Derision?

Moi??

Why, B-tone how could you even think such a thing?

I'm cut, B-tone.

Cut to the quick, I say.

Clavos, that HAD to be the worse fake remorse I've ever seen. Are you ashamed of yourself? :)

... you need to work on your French accent too.

(:^p~~~~~~~~

Actually, I was proclaiming my innocence.

It's mind-boggling that B-tone would suspect me, the most even-tempered, kindly, pollyanna-like guy on this site, possibly the entire blogosphere, of being derisive...

What is this world coming to?

Can't we all just get along?

Next he'll accuse me of sarcasm, mark my words...

Jet,

You mention Obama's inexperience as a big concern in a couple of your comments. Everyone elected to a first term as president is inexperienced in that office.

More important to me is the experience, intelligence, honesty and common sense of the people a new president will surround himself with, consult, and listen to. His advisors, cabinet, staff, and think-tank friends should have all kinds of experiences and varied backgrounds(business, military, state and federal government, international relations, etc.), be willing and able to present facts and viable options to him, and help the president reach carefully considered and reasoned decisions.

The entire executive branch--under a smart president exercising good judgement--is what makes an administration more likely to be successful.

The presidency, by necessity, is on-the-job training.

Be careful Jet, I think this site is regularly monitored by Homeland Screwinus, or something like that. Swat teams will be busting down your door momentarily. [;)

B-tone

Clav, I can't seem to remember when I was so moved... forgive me for doubting you?

God I hope they're cute, musclebound, blond...

Lee, I'd say that Hillary undeniably has both a literal and figurative leg up on everyone by watching her husband learn the job first hand and then have to deal with Washington insiders and outsiders for eight years...

...and downstairs maids

suddenly i am feeling young again...

oh i almost forgot to respond to the article...

i agree with everything lee richards said.

I'm with the Obnoxious American. I'm sick and tired of your elections already, and all your yammering about it. Unless some really major earth shattering event occurs, I'm voting for Obama in November, in hope that he wins, so the reservists here will see what a real Jew-hater (surrounded by a whole flock of the bastards) does in office - and get good and mad and kick out the American puppets in office here.

Carry on, though....

YAWWWWWWN!!!

Ruvy, our TV has been taken over by reality shows. We need the election to keep us entertained.

Dave

We need the election to keep us entertained.

Dave,

You would do better with a cup of Turkish coffee and a game of shesh besh, Dave.

Yes Dave, but "Are you smarter than a 5th Grader?"

Clav,

I would NEVER accuse you of sarcasm. Derision yes. Sarcasm, no. I have long considered you the "Mr. Rogers" of BC, and, perhaps, as you suggest all of blogdom.

Won't you be my neighbor?

B-tone

B-tone,

ROFLOL!

Lee pretty much mirrored my comment as regards the quality of those Obama chooses to make up his administration should he prevail in November, but he also wisely took it one step further in noting that Obama (or any president) must be intelligent and wise in his (or her) reaction to their advice and council. That, obviously, is of paramount importance. At times, it may be the wiser choice to ignore that advice and counciling and go in a different direction altogether. It takes brains and wisdom, and, yes, courage to make those kinds of choices. Will Obama measure up? Stay tuned.

B-tone

Dear god, please don't say we're going to have to reply "Correct as usual, you majesty" to him?

Re: 48... but Mr. B. how do you explain Bush?

Explain Bush?

Well, Bush and his administration would be the antithesis of everything I've said, wouldn't they?

Pardon my French, mon ami, but don't the Bush years pretty much amount to a cluster fuck of the entire country, perhaps the entire world?

I think some key words I used above that but a rare few would ever consider in the same thought would be "intelligence" and "wisdom" juxtaposed with "George W. Bush." For my money the now rather infamous photo of our current pres taken while attending Yale; the one with the floppy hat on his head and a megaphone in hand pretty much says it all regarding the relative intelligence of GWB. It's hardly an image that has "future president" written all over it.

B-tone

The photo that haunts me is him sitting there reading "My Pet Goat" while the country was in crisis mode.

There are two saving graces for our country...

A lousy president with a good staff
A good president with a lousy staff

Bush was a lousy president with an even worse staff of advisors... probably why they had the last GOP congress sneak him and his croneys immunity against being prosecuted for war crimes.

How did he know he'd need it?

With Obama being SUPPOSEDLY as pure as the driven snow, he might be naive enough to pick a bunch of political con men as advisors and not realize it untill it's too late-like Bush did.

Let's hope that Obama has the innate intelligence to dodge that particular bullet.

Early on I was backing Clinton. I still could certainly live with her as president. She actually might me damn good at it. But, ultimately I had to read the handwriting, even if she didn't. I felt, and still feel that Obama represents something new or different. Whether that's good or bad only time will tell and will be judged in the eyes of the beholder.

I don't see him as some kind of great saviour. We all too often hang our hopes on the rising star of someone who, regardless of how talented and smart could not possibly achieve the grandiose heights those hopes represent.

I just hope that should Obama prevail, that he is able to shake things up, just enough to set a bit of a different course for this country. I frankly don't believe that radical change would be good for anyone. Basically, our system works, just not as well, as equitably, or as timely as most would wish it. We don't need wholesale changes, but rather tweaking here and there to get us off of the status quo.

B-tone

I'm skeptical, but skeptically optomistic. If Obama continues on the course that inspired this article, I won't in good conscience be able to vote for him.

The campaign has a long way to go. Some people seem to think it's in the stretch run, but, hell, we haven't even had the conventions yet. A lot of things will change over time.

I am looking forward to the debates. They may shake things out a good deal - seeing the two of them one on one as it were. The biggest advantage Obama has is that he can go to his left. (haha)

B-tone

That's one thing I'll give him, he's a damned good speaker, but unscripted might be dicey up against a practiced veteran of the campaign trail like McCain.

Oh, I don't know. Obama thinks on his feet pretty well. He only rarely succumbs to those momentary brain farts that often plague lesser pols, and rarely looses his cool.

McCain, on the other hand, is not so quick, and his temper seeps through often when someone pushes him harder than he's comfortable with.

And, Obama has it all over McCain when it comes to style points. He looks good in his suits, and I've yet to see him sporting a band-aid on his head.

B-tone

You know, the way Bush screwed over McCain in the southern primaries in 2000 it's a wonder they even speak to each other.

I rather imagine that their supposed alliance is more for show than anything else. Even more so than the 'forgive and forget' motions that Obama and Clinton have been going through of late.

That rather odd photo of McCain attempting to hug Bush is reminiscent of a scene in the Seinfeld episode wherein Jerry and George start to hug after their "show" is picked up by NBC. They make a couple of awkward passes at it, but then give it up, neither of them being capable of such emotional demonstrations.

B-tone

B-Tone, I haven't seen that photo, but bearing in mind what happened to that guy who decided to kvetch at Cheney when he ran into him in a mall a couple of years back, I wonder if McCain was a bit worried that he was about to be jumped by the Secret Service for laying hands on the president...

I just popped out to get some prescriptions filled ... Can any of you change a tire?

I can. If you can pull up out back of the house - drive slowly so as not to damage the rim, I'd be glad to change it for you. Let's see you're in Columbus and I'm in Indy. Naw, that's not too far. You can do it. And I'll have a cold brewsky awaitin' for ya.

B-tone

Maliki's Recent Remarks Could Derail Democratic Campaign For The White House

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect on Monday of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.

Now that the Iraqis have made their move (as Bush asked us to wait for) Does this mean that Obama's platform will be limited to increasing taxes, expanding affirmative action and supporting the racial (anti white) hate speach of his supporters and close friends?

Mojo

When and where has Obama stated that he intends to raise taxes, other than for the rich?

When and where has Obama stated that he intends to expand affirmative action?

When and where has Obama EVER stated support for hate speach?

All this crap is made up out of thin air because there is really nothing substantive to attack him with.

B-tone

Mojo,

Obama's platform is quite extensive, but I'm damned if I can see where it contains any of those things. Perhaps you can indicate where he espouses all or any of them.

Perhaps they're on his website*. For his platform, click on the 'Issues' tab where you'll find the various topics helpfully listed by category.

Shouldn't be too hard to find. Have fun!


_{* I attempted to provide a link to Obama's website, but Akismet for some unfathomable reason declared it to be spam. Not to worry: give you one guess what the website address is...}

TAXES
*Associated Press 11/2007 - Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday that if elected he will push to increase the amount of income that currently is taxed to provide monthly Social Security benefits.

*During a speech with John Edwards - He stated that he wants to raise the capital gains tax to 40%, and he's talked about raising the dividends tax as well.

*Repealing the Bush tax cuts is raising taxes

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

*Obama's in an interview with Stephanopoulos stated that we should "change the focus of affirmative action policies in higher education -- away from race to economic" CODE WORD - expand affirmative action to include middle class minorities...

HATE SPEECH
*He sat in a pew and listened to and even socialized with an avowed racists Rev Wright for over 20 years...and did nothing but support him financially and politically...

If you want to debate the issues please take the time to research the candidate and their positions before blindly voting the party line...

Mojo

B-tone,
Verners today is not the Verners of 30 years ago. Verners of 30 years ago was brewed and casked in used bourbon barrels for 1 year.

Today it is chemically reproduced.

Mama was from Charlevoix, I have local knowledge.

Mojo,

That AP reference on taxes is from November 2007 - before the primaries even began.

The interview with Stephanopoulos took place even longer ago - May 2007.

What potential presidential candidates say in the run-up to their candidacies are not necessarily what will end up in their platforms.

As to your third point: first of all, whether the words of Jeremiah Wright constitute hate speech is debatable and secondly, you claimed that Obama supported such. He has, as I shouldn't have to tell you, gone on record condemning Wright's sentiments.

Obama's presidential platform - as distinct from his personal private opinions - is on his website for all to see.

You said it yourself: if you want to debate the issues please take the time to research the candidate and their positions before blindly voting the party line.

Wait-a-minute...

[Logs onto comments tool, checks Mojo's IP address]

What's up, JOM?

Yeah, the nuckleheaded blather made it suspect. Glad for the confirmation. Move along, nothing to debate here (at least not with O-JOM)

Oh.....I see even though these statements are true and documented, it doesnt matter to you. Its obvious that this is a pattern with him...he is worse than Kerry.

You beleive what he shouldnt be accoutable for what he said less than 6 months ago or what he did at least once a week for 20 years?

Oh I forgot with affirmative action we have to lower the standards in order to level the playing field...

Its all clear now

Mojo

Dregde....I cum in peace...

Mojo

Bennett this article was designed to accomadate both sides of the argument with a civil tongue, which it was right up to a few minutes ago...

Dregde....I cum in peace...as you can see no personal attacks from me, Mojo...but alas I am again threatened with bodily harm and personal attacks..why is the left so mean spririted?

Ill just ignore them and stay on topic...
Mojo

Jet, he is banned, but a ban can only do so much. As he's figured out, all he needs to do is go to a public library or an internet café and post under another name.

Unfortunately, this means we can't be 100% certain that it is JOM.

We are keeping a close eye, but in the meantime I think the best thing for you to do is just ignore him.

Baritone, Re: 62. I got road service to come out and change it for the doughnut, took it over to National Tire and Battery and they wanted $39.99 to plug a tire?

I went to another NTB and they only wanted $24.99 so I said okay. They came back ten mintues later because they said with Fix-a-flat in it, they couldn't fix it and I wound up paying $117.45 for a damned tire on a car that I have to turn in at the end of my lease... August 17th!!!!

This has not been a good day...

Doc, my last comment should explain my mood. Please get your death-ray gun out and delete the effected comments for me.

Sorry I blew up...

see my previous comment...

Jet

Sorry to all, I'm going to take a break for a while...

Maybe he'll run out of quarters?

That "knucklehead blather" is the only voice of dissent on this board so far. There's nothing more boring than an internet site where everyone agrees....

How about this: either Obama has lurched radically toward the Right, or faith-based initiatives aren't as radically Rightward as you think. No one's calling for churches to receive government funding because they're churches. They're calling for churches to not be excluded from government funding because they're churches. If the government has to give money to local social programs, it shouldn't discriminate against the religious ones.

What makes more sense, Obama being a secret conservative, or faith-based programs being constitutional and beneficial?

Terrible SF Gate article, by the way. Unless it was supposed to be an opinion piece.

Baronius,

I've been to one of those "faith based" charities that's taking taxpayer money. I spent half a day there when I thought I'd hit bottom and was forced into bankruptcy last year. Several editors and some of my readers here at BlogCritics got together to help me get through it, sending me hundreds of dollars for the lawyers when Legal Aide wouldn't help because Bush made the Bankruptcy laws so complicated, that they wouldn't handle it for free anymore.

I was flat broke and had to sell everything I had including most of my clothes in order to get by. I went to a soup kitchen, intending to offer my help in return for a couple of meals.

In return for their help, I had to renounce my faith and join their church.

In return for their help, I had to promise that I wasn't a jew, and if I was, I was required to reform with their help.

I watched desparate needy men, women and children told to pray to a soutnern Baptist "god" in order to receive their meals, or they wouldn't get them. I celebrated when a local tv station here exposed them for the sham they were.

Though not showing any outward appearance of being one, I was asked if I were gay, and if so would I accept counselling from them in order to renounce my homosexuality. I was near storming out, when I realized that they were askiing everyone that, and it was on a mimeographed paper that we were all required to sign.

It's called the concept of --separation of Church and State--. Something that "faith" based initiatives don't now nor will they ever take seriously... just as long the government keeps feeding them taxpayer money by the bales full.

Don't presume to lecture me about why you THINK you know about those charities... I've seen it first hand.

Doc that library must be open oftle damned late.

Jet - You went to a bad charity, which was exposed for its inappropriate actions. I guess the system works.

Jet and Baronious, I've no problem with reasoned debate, but if the Doc is correct, I would rather pass on reading the continued expression of ugly and inentionally distorted misrepresentations (why JOM was "asked to leave" a while ago).

That's not dialogue, it's nonsense designed (extending credit where it may not be due) to bury the truth, and to disseminate racist/sexist/anti-rational-objective propaganda.

But hey, he's entitled to his opinion on a soapbox somewhere in the blogosphere, however crass that opinion may be.

Carry on.

Baronius, if gays can all be judged by one well publicised pervert chasing little boys, that faithbased institutions can too.

I maintain that no TAX EXEMPT religious organization has any business taking tax money.

the separation of Church and State.

Can you imagine the hubbub if it was a Islamic charity flying an islamic flag over the door, or a jewish one flying the star of David?

There are no federally recognized Jewish holidays for a damned good reason... the right wing religious nuts wouldn't hear of it, and call for the ouster of any candidate that supported one.

The "in God we Trust" on our money doesn't not include Jews, nor moslems or even Catholics-it's the sole property of the southern baptists... you know it and I know it.

I call that a blatant disregard for the separation of church and state.

In fact I don't give Obama a pass on the "faith based initiatives" issue. I find it disturbing. But, as I noted above I see it more as political maneuvering than anything substantive.

I know that Obama is making a move to the center to broaden his appeal. But I am also aware that it is a rather dangerous game. It certainly won't send me into McCain's camp, but the faith based issue among other things I noted above do have the effect of dampening my enthusiasm.

B-tone

Point taken

In reference to #81... a couple of comments.

Jett
First off I generally do not get involved in religious discussion, because they tend to blather on and on and of course as the old saying goes ".... Everybody has an opinion." But I have a couple of questions regarding some confusion as to what exactly is a faith-based initiative. It my be my complete lack of understanding or perhaps a controlled wording to mean charity but I'm not sure.

But first....

Was this soup kitchen run by Margaret Shot (spelling error and I'm to lazy to google it this morning) the ex-owner of the Cincinnati Red's?

And secondly... if you're hungry enough you'll eat anything... including Baptist soup; I wonder where the water came from.

Anyway... I'm sorry you had such a negative experience; Any Catholic missions out that way? I used to volunteer at one in San Francisco, and I'm not even Catholic, but it was close by and lots of homeless were nourished there. You could even pray for the soup to be tasteful!

Also, I am totally confused by the term Faith based initiatives. Are these entities receiving direct operational funding, or is it tax exemption related? And, as charities are granted 501(c) 3 status for tax exemptions, are the opinions expressed here stating that the exemption is the same as operationally funding them with tax dollars?

I'm not getting the tie in here. I was under the assumption that church run charities are costed out from church member donations (which are tax exempt for those donating). I could be wrong, just never thought of it as any thing other than that.

If they those donations are tax exempt, what's the problem, more money to the initiative, less money the government has to directly pay out (providing my understanding is correct).

Federal campaigns for donations are tax-exempt for all kinds of weird stuff. Plus if you're working for UNITED WAY you can take lavish vacations in exotic locations with your tax-free office assistant!

So, if we're bashing church run charities, let's bash all charities that function poorly, or are tax exempt and/or provide tax exemptions for donators. Just look at the annual "gift giving" catalog provided "free" from United Way or Combined Federal Campaign and pick a few, there are some real winners, also note that overhead percentages are also posted in the descriptive paragraphs for each sanctioned charity listed.

This includes organizations that donate facilities and run relocation shelters (of which churches are included), which are used to house victims of flooding, tornado's, hurricanes, and act as staging areas for food and clothing distribution etc... FEMA loves these sites especially now that God has decided to rid us of places like New Orleans etc...(just kidding). Isn't it nice to have available resources willing to step up during times of local, regional, and national crises? Isn't it?

Anyone against a tax exemption? Is that what the discussion is about? Or is it a general aversion to church(s) in general. I was always under the impression that Faith is different from religion. Religion was described to me as writings of antiquity restated with someone's opinion thrown in, and denominations as an extension of those writings and opinions with yet more opinion heaped on top... at least that's what I gained from my religion 101 (I signed up late and missed the Art and Gym openings) class in college years ago. BTW, it was a state run school.

So please, help me out here. Is this discussion centered around the opinion that the government should be (1) very selective of organizations providing shelter for victims of natural disasters, or crisis intervention (rape, beating etc...) or other charitable functions, and (2) should not grant tax exemption status for just any organization willing to step up and provide the needed facilities and services, and (3) that the government should increase our taxes to provide all the services and facilities necessary for all contingencies. If so, then we're talkin' Big Brother here (the actual big brother organization is tax exempt as well, don't you know).

Or... are you miffed that Obama isn't sounding liberal enough to you any longer?

Enlighten me... I'm cornfuzed.

Interesting points/questions...

Condor, I went there not because I was hungry, but because I was severely clinically depressed. My shrink knew it was nearly impossible for me to leave my home due to posttraumatic stress, and set a goal that I get out and possibly volunteer at a local soup kitchen to help me deal with strangers due to the robbery and beating.

I went in "seeking help" from them just to see whom I was going to have to deal with. I didn't stay to get indoctrinated after what I saw that afternoon and left after a few hours.

Bush apparently wants money to go to "Christian" charities that help local people in need of help in finding them jobs, shelter or a meal. Some of these organizations actually do that like the local food bank and homeless shelters here and they do a great job, (which I've also seen first hand, as I've been both a volunteer and a contributor when I was much better off.

Others like the one I also described, demand church membership, or a promise to pay back their "charity" through "good works" to their church or to become a member, promising to "tithe".

One had needy people selling mimeographed "newspapers" in green-shirted gangs to stopped cars at intersections walking up to your car and soliciting before the light changed. Some of these are very good charities others send the money to a corporate church "somewhere" near Cleveland or St. Louis which has been exposed as one of Bush's "faith based" initiatives.

Yes you will eat anything when you're hungry, up to and including Baptist soup, and will unwillingly or gratefully or both get a dose of judgmental and bigoted Christianity to wash it down with. You'll be told that you have failed because you've strayed from the path that God and Jesus Christ has put you on, and the only way back to a decent life is to pray... but only at their church.

All funded by federal tax dollars-the soup-the utilities-that rented building they use and the salaries of the brainwashers for God. It's one of the things that has turned me away from Christianity, after seeing these con artists working their "magic" in the name of the lord, being paid with our tax dollars.

I've contributed a lot of money to Catholic Charities (I'm Presbyterian) because I've seen first hand their good work, and was glad to do it. Unfortunately they're too far away now with gas prices.

The ones I speak of were exposed as tax-exempt "churches" that had no fixed address. There are actually churches here that have an awning with their church name followed by "Inc." or LLC right-on-the-building. I pointed one out on another string but it escapes me. If you go to their website they actually display a photo of their building... it disgusts me.

The ones that were exposed were "incorporated" so that they could "administer" help to the needy, were tax-exempt, and were taking in government money to help the poor and themselves.

What am I saying? No tax-exempt "religious" organization should be given our tax dollars in order to indoctrinate people rather than help them.

The "state" religion in this country is Southern Baptist Christianity-which is why there are no Jewish or Moslem Holidays celebrated/acknowledged by our government-which violates the separation of Church and State.

At the high point of these religious organizations, they had enough influence to stop all alcohol from being sold in this country (Prohibition) and had our sacred constitution changed to enforce their beliefs. At one time because of them it was illegal to conduct commercial business on the "Lord's day" Sunday. Our money now says "In god we trust" on it despite the constitutional ban on state sponsored religion.

Rather than admit that their God and Jesus' teachings had failed them, and that they were incapable of influencing their own church members to follow "God's" laws, they have repeatedly tried to force our own government to implement their teachings on all Americans whether they were Christians or not. (Abortion, marriage, etc.)

Why this article?, because Obama is beginning to sound a lot like Bush in many ways and I wanted to point out that their objections to Judges trying to "legislate morality from the bench" every time they disagree with a ruling has another side of the coin they don't want you to see...

Namely-Legislating Religion from the Bench... or the Oval office.

While we're on the subject of Catholic charities, according to the Catholic League's website, it is stated in part:

"The whole purpose behind funding faith-based programs is that they are, in fact, superior to secular programs. And the reason they are has everything to do with the inculcation of religious values disseminated by people of faith.

Jet,
Are you sure that was an FBO sanctioned facility or a Missions Kitchen? GAO guidlines state that:
Faith-based organizations are eligible to participate in federally administered social service programs to the same degree as any other group, although certain restrictions on FBOs that accept government funding have been created by the White House to protect separation of church and state.
· They may not use direct government funds to support inherently religious activities such as prayer, worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.
· Any inherently religious activities that the organizations may offer must be offered separately in time or location from services that receive federal assistance.
· FBOs cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when providing services (GAO 2006:13[2]).
[2] (June 2006). "Faith-Based and Community Initiative: Improvements in Monitoring Grantees and Measuring Performance Could Enhance Accountability" (PDF). United States Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Hence my confusion. If it was an FBO operation under the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives signed into law on an Executive Order (EO), which I'm not too keen on, and it was clearly not operating within code.
If it was a Missions Kitchen and a church funded outreach center AND not using FBO funds then WYSWIWYG (What You See Is What You Get). Meaning they were not in violation of the EO.
I'm not getting picky but based on what I have learned today, (more than I knew this a.m.), there is probably broad distinction between a mission and an FBO. Now, in saying that, I am sure there are unscrupulous "churches" out there that are somehow justifying breaking the law and using the money for what they deem okay. But they are to be reported. The storefronts would probably be the worst offenders.
FBO aside, I knew a food collection ministry (an older retired couple), locally, who were collecting foodstuffs for homeless, or poor... and siphoning off some of that for their own catering business. Or... how about the "Help the poor" canned food drives (with no religious affliation) on Halloween night. Who instead of trick or treating, collected canned goods. Then ATE FOR FREE for several months. If they are really organized, they might collect enough food to supplement their pantry for a year!

Addtionally, I would like to think (or tend to think), that a Baptist organization would be on the Baptist conference and thus on the dole for FBO monies and would operate within the guidelines. There is an accountability issue at hand, and knowing several accountants who work with churches, they have stated that many churches to day, especially large ones have to be above the board as they are scrutinized by the IRS and the accountant are thus hired to ensure that all business functions regarding the church and its outreach are carefully monitored by the accounting firms under their employ.
This leads me (personnally) to summarized many statements stated thoughout this thread are rife with anacdotal generalities, unless there is documented or resourced proof otherwise, it doesn't carry any weight. But it is an opinion piece. No offense is intended, however you are talking about a program that is being endorsed by a prospective president, who is averting the the slings and arrows of a public that are looking for change. FOB's are a change. But should be monitored by watch dog groups and government agencies (i.e. IRS etc...).
Let me qualify my position. I am not a volunteer anylonger, however I am called into disaster regions to help with restoration of the power grids in those afflicted areas. I have seen the shelters and the missions at their best and it is highly commendable. There is true passion and compassion for the victims, the sick, the wounded, the homeless of all ages. It would bring you to tears to see the suffering the the selfless giving that these organizations and people bring to the table and the front lines of these catastrophic events. Places and conditions that would keep the average couch potato on the couch and playing armchair turd sucker (complainer). These resources are needed and the government is making the effort to ensure that as much help as is necessary is brought to those in need. Believe me, they are needed and at times of great hardship are welcome.
Oh and one more thing.... There are certain slangs applied towards turd sucking newscasters who wouldn't dare put down the microphone or muss their hair to help a wounded crawling old woman to an aid station... I saw plenty of those examples.

"In other words they're superior because they try to force or indoctrinate needy people into their faith as it is superior to all others."

No they are superior because the overwhelming majority of these volunteers are trying to change the world one life at a time. Rather than a government worker seeking to sleep on the job and leave at 3:30. It is very sad when someone reaches out and gets help and then turns on the hands that feeds them because of they question their altruistic intentions...


The reason the majority are Christiain groups is because Jewish and Moslem groups typically focus on the own believers...rather than all people in need..

Mojo

Why shouldn't they be able to give a little morality training while they feed you? I mean come on, all you have to do is wander down any busy city street and somebody somewhere will be proselytizing or letting you know the end is near.

Sorry, but nobody gets something for nothing. It seems to be a small price to pay for a free meal and you don't even really have to pay attention! It'd be like being in church on Sunday! Oh wait, that's just bringing up my last few experiences in church....

You want a meal from a religious charity, then suffer the wrath of the preacher while you eat...otherwise, there's always panhandling, living under the bridge (not you troll) and creating those awesome signs I always see.

I give the most credit to the panhandlers in the Embarcadero section of SF...these guys had signs that said, "need money for liquor." I gave 'em money for being honest!

I tried that on a guy one day that had a sign that said, "will work for food". I offered to let him come to my house and cut my grass, he fucking laughed at me! Guess he wasn't that hungry...

I just don't see what the big deal is here. I don't go to church, but I don't see the problem with letting the govt pass out cheese to the religious charities to pass out to the needy...who else is gonna do it?

Or is it that secular progressives have such a problem with religion that it doesn't matter how good something is that they do, it's just the fact that it's them doing it???

Condor and Andy, I've an eye appointment at OSU for presurgery. I'll be home later this afternoon/evening and will try to respond then.

Thanks for contributing
Jet

I don't see the problem with letting the govt pass out cheese to the religious charities to pass out to the needy

I don't have a problem with that either, per se, Andy. The problems start when said charity puts religious conditions on the help they give. That's unscrupulous and I'd have a problem with it whether the charity was using government money to do so or not.

"I'd have a problem with it whether the charity was using government money to do so or not."

I don't agree with you, Doc. If they're not receiving government money, they are essentially a private operation, and therefore entitled to set whatever parameters they want.

Religious conditions? If the facility or kitchen is a mission, run by donations from the church members and people are talking with the visitors, and someone is talking about giving, and hope and tying it all together for a complete experience with the mission and the church; it's what they do.

Scenario: Soup kitchen, gospel music on the radio, happy smiley volunteers working with the helpless, or homeless. Talking with them, feeding them, seeing if they need anything like a place to sleep, or some clean clothes, or offering conversation and an ear to listen, along with a shoulder to lean on (excuse me if I getting sappy here, but I will get to the point).

The weary victim hears the music, eats his meal, and looks around at the operation, talks to the workers and thinks, "Gee these certainly are kind people."

Knowing that "sometimes the only bible a person reads is the example you set" mixed with the setting... and that the weary victim knows this is a Christian operated soup kitchen... is that religious conditioning?

Perhaps the government ought to bring some field kitchens with pissed off cooks and line monitors ensuring that all are speedily fed, no clean ups are performed, the trash cans are overflowing, the flies are horrible, and the port-o-potties haven't been dumped in a week... and nobody working there gives a shit. In fact the only thing that matters is that the crowd is fed and out of there so the workers can their butts back to camp with the whores and booze.

Once again, WYSIWYG. We're not "supposed" to profile, but everybody does. From the magnetic fish to the I love Jesus bumper sticker, if the person driving the car that lets you in to a traffic lane, or pulls off to help you change a tire... you are GOING to profile that person, either as "gee whiz what a kind person"... or "Piece of crap' Christian Scum, Leave me alone!" Which is going to be? If you are in need it will probably in all honesty be a positive assessment rather than one of loathing.

So, some of the faith-based charities do a good job, and others don't. That's true of any institutions. Should we shut down the State of New York because someone tried to sing "God Bless America" at a high school graduation?

We mostly all agree that a non-government-funded charity can do whatever it wants to, and a government-funded charity should follow government guidelines with respect to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment prevents an FBO from using federal money for a religious purpose. The free exercise clause prevents the government from discriminating against a charitable organization on the basis of religion.

So what's the problem? It seems to be two things: the appearance of the establishment of religion, or a lack of confidence in FBO's to not preach with federal funds. I personally don't care if there's a Star of David, a cross, a crucifix, or a crescent over the door of a charity. I don't care if they're chanting druidic spells in the next room, just as long as they're obeying the Constitution.

Doc, Clavos, how about this: you can have a problem with how private charities are run, if you want to. You can have a problem with the way I decorate my apartment, if you want to. You just have no say in the matter.

Clav, Condor:

It's not just that the imposing of conditions on charity is unfair to those in need; the charities aren't doing themselves any favors either. As has been noted, desperate (and not so desperate) people will say and do anything for a free lunch.

A few Christmases ago my wife and I volunteered to go with a group from her mother's church to visit inmates of the local juvenile hall for games, supper, chat and of course a little evangelizing. (My mother-in-law carefully forgot to mention the evangelism part beforehand.) At the end of the visit, just before we left, the group leader asked the boys for a show of hands as to who was interested in learning more about Jesus Christ.

Every hand in the room went up.

Now I guarantee you that for most of those kids it wasn't about finding faith; it was about making their lives behind bars a little easier: they saw it as a way to build a case for early release, or at least to possibly get out of school, work or chores one or two days a week.

I wonder how many of the volunteers went home that night rejoicing at the prospect of all those souls to be saved, and how many took a more cynical and realistic view.

You can have a problem with the way I decorate my apartment, if you want to. You just have no say in the matter.

I do if I'm the landlord.

If I'm giving my money willingly to another person, you aren't the landlord.

Also, Dread, your analysis is probably accurate about the number of kids who really cared about the evangelization. So what? It's not your business how a private charity operates; it's really not your business how effective a private charity is in terms of conversions. It sounds to me like the only person in your story who was duped was you.

Doc #101:

What does it matter?

Everyone involved got something they wanted out of the event.

"You can have a problem with the way I decorate my apartment, if you want to. You just have no say in the matter.

I do if I'm the landlord."

Not necessarily. I'm a landlord, and by Florida law, my tenants have the right to decorate any way they please, short of painting without authorization, ripping up carpet, or doing anything of a similar permanent nature.

If it really did happen as posted here, these do-gooders were doing what they do in a Christian charity - comfort and help people by using the power of Christ. Which they believe to be a valid source of support for those in trouble and in need. In addition thats the whole idea behind faith based charity - they work better because of the faith and dedication of the workers.

Hey if someone is down on their luck with no money, family or friends...whats wrong with a little prayer!

I highy recommend the next time someone is in need to go to their local State Department of Motor Vehicles Facility and see what type of help they gets...

Mojo

I'd love to see any of you sit silently in a soup kitchen eating while an Islamic Fundamentalest sect leader stands at the table preaching loudly that Allah will punish the infidels who have invaded the middleastern holy land.

I'd like you to sit quietly while being quized as to your personal private faith, afraid that if you told him you were christian, he'd pull the bowl of greul you were eating away and ask you to leave.

I'd like you to sit peacefully knowing that the mosque above your head was renting its own basement from itself using government money, along with them charging taxpayers for the food they're serving, the electric used to play the arabic music playing in the backround interspersed with anti Jewish announcements.

Faith-based means any CHRISTIAN-ONLY fundamentalist sect in this country can charge our taxpayers for anything they can get away with, and no one will complain about the money spent...

None of your are looking at the big picture. Just like Prohibition in the constitution, just like states passing measures against sodomy HETROSEXUAL OR homosexual, like the anti-abortion restrictions, like laws passed to prohibit business on sunday, the right wing won't be happy until the KING JAMES bible has completely replaced our constitution. even local sects trying to prohibit hospital care for people because medicine overrules God's will for that person to live or die.

Baronius (and Clav):

You're quite right: I am entitled to my opinion about the decor in your apartment. (Hideous portrait over in the corner there, by the way. It doesn't really go in that frame. And those drapes are so 1985.) And I can't make you change it.

I know I don't have any say in how a private charity doles out its funds. I can, however, express my disapproval of its methods, and that is what I did.

But this conversation arose from Jet's experience with the soup kitchen which, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), had been receiving federal funding under Bush's Faith-Based Initiative.

In that case, as a taxpayer (the landlord in Baronius's analogy) I do have a say.

And Clav @ #105: I don't think Mr Rogers was ever quite that cynical...

"the right wing won't be happy until the KING JAMES bible has completely replaced our constitution."

Jet, Given to bouts of hyperbole?

I am a right wing person (albiet more on the center) and I don't think the bible should replace the constitution. There are plenty of pro-choice, pro-gay republicans just like there are liberal democrats who are in favor of the defense of marriage act or tax cuts. Not all liberals like Obama either.

I am getting a huge kick out of this thread. It seems like you guys are starting to realize that with Obama, there is no there there. I was never impressed with Obama, he gives great speech, not much else. Have yet to see evidence of any "judgement" that he is so famous for.

I'd advise yall to take a gander at bret stephen's article on WSJ.com. He correctly notes Obama's shifting position on Iraq since last year, his opposition to the surge, the fact that the surge worked making his main platform issue much more straightforward to deal with should he actually get elected.

But most importantly the article notes that Obama's main selling point, his supposedly superior judgement, considering his shifting positions and his being against the surge in the first place, is really in question at this point. Not that any of the kool aid drinking liberals here would call Obama's judgement into question. But they should, they really should. Too late to nominate Hillary?

And incidentally I favor faith based program sponsorship. I agree with some of the points you made, but it's never as you describe.

How many homeless are fed or clothed by church sponsored soup kitchens or thrift shoppes? And these faith based organizations are already getting assistance from the government in the form of different tax treatment. Why wouldn't we want these groups to do even more for the community?

The scenario you describe simply isn't based on reality. And what's to stop so-called non-faith based groups from pushing a faith based adgenda? Nothing. This is a meaningless point. Nobody seems to care that NYC created a public school centered around Islamic study, the ACLU is fine with that, but the left screams if the big bad church gets a dime. Puleeze with a huge eyeroll on top.

"None of your are looking at the big picture." That's right this is America. No one forces people to do anything. Rather than play the role of a victim, due to your own misfortunes and financial mismanagement you could have simply walked out the door and went to some other agency.

Mojo

Not to mention the pink shower curtain with the flamingos... good lord!

Obnox, I've very rarely had a kind word for Obama so there was no "coming over to your side". In addition, I purposely wrote this one in a way to show both points of view.

I have one problem... this election it looks like I'll be voting against someone instead of for someone.

Simply because I don't think I could bear to see McCain in the white house, have him die of old age or alzhiemers and some far right-wing vice president that got on the ticket to balance it, take over as President.

Damn, I need to use that period key more often...
now where did I put it?

Mr. Rogers (Fred) was a personal friend of my highschool choir director. He did his broadcasts from Channel 13 in Pittsburgh and I'm one of the few who could say that I've actually walked through the Neighborhood of Make-believe studio.

He was also an ordained Presbyterian Minister who would occasionally sub for our minister maybe once a year.

He was a sweet and gentle man
Jet

Obnox, I don't give a flying fuck whether you believe it or not, it happened just as I described it.

Doc,

I didn't mean #105 in a cynical way; I really believe that if everyone involved got something they considered good out of it, then where's the harm?

On the contrary I see it as a positive. I agree that it's unlikely that the kids suddenly acquired religion, and some of the congregants also might have erroneously thought that they had brought religion to the kids, but they probably also got a good feeling out of just helping the kids, don't you think?

I don't even see how that is cynical, actually.

Jet, did you even read my comments? Never mind that; did you even read your comments? You said that you've seen FBO's that operated without evangelizing.

The Baptists are not taking over the country. Maybe they'd want to; I don't know. But according to the law that Obama and Bush support, they can't. There will be no preaching at the Muslim, Jewish, or Christian FBO's if the government does its job in patrolling them. I know that there are Muslim ones. I've never heard of Jewish ones, but I don't study the issue.

I just can't imagine why you think faith-based initiatives matter. There is no "big picture".

B, I was reacting to "The scenario you describe simply isn't based on reality" which I somehow took as your accusing me of making the whole thing up.

Sorry,

I'm a little edgy now that a certain asshole is back in town. The anger shouldn't have been directed at you and I apologize.

I'm man enough to admit I was wrong...
Jet

Think of it this way,

You've found yourself laying horizontally under a door, every 60 seconds a five pound rock is put ontop of it until you can't stand it any more.

Your tormentor has the nerve to ask you which one of those stones matter the most?

It's not the little insignificant things, it what they mean collectively.

I'm not nit picking at each one, I'm trying to sound the alarm at the collective effects of our constitutional freedoms beeing limited and/or taken away by the Carey Nations, Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons and Anita Bryants of our Nation.

#108 "Faith-based means any CHRISTIAN-ONLY fundamentalist sect in this country can charge our taxpayers for anything they can get away with, and no one will complain about the money spent"

That's not correct. According to the Executive Order and the GAO FBO are not exclusively Christian.

Also... prohibition opened more drinking establishments, and hired more professional musicians than if the Constitution wasn't tinkered with. Hence, my 2 rules for selecting my candidate for any presidential election

1. don't mess with the constitution
2. don't mess with the constitution

Except that they're not taking away our freedoms. Your fear of its happening isn't the same thing as its happening. There are laws against FBO's using government money to fund envangelization. Obama isn't trying to use the government to wipe out gays. Most people spend most of their time not caring about what you or I do. That's not a sad thing, in fact it's healthy for them. Some people disagree with you or me; some agree. There's no unchecked mass movement against either one of us. To see Barack Obama as a leader of the anti-gay hit squad is just unfounded.

"You've found yourself laying horizontally under a door, every 60 seconds a five pound rock is put ontop of it until you can't stand it any more.

Your tormentor has the nerve to ask you which one of those stones matter the most?"

Good example. If I were that situation and could still pass air over my vocal chords I would tell the tormentor that the rock which mattered most is one that will bash my head in and cease the agony. And then I would ask the tormentor to quit screwing around and get it over with.

I agree with Baronius, most people are too busy with life and really just don't want to be squeezed hard with taxes and consumer costs.

I would like to think that people want as unencumbered lifestyle as possible.

You know... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Didn't we just celebrate that?

"More weight!"

Our constitutional freedoms beeing limited and/or taken away by the Barak Obama's of our Nation.

Mojo

"With Obama's recent declaration of support for Bush's Faith Based Initiatives giving federal taxpayer's money to religious institutions, it is both troubling and a little frightening that Obama is beginning to sound more and more like Bush in many ways... "

Don't worry Jet....Obama doesn't really believe in faith based programs, he's just pandering his ass off.

In fact if you were to get Obama alone in a room I'm sure you'd be pleased as punch to discover that he agrees with everything you believe. Conversely if I was in a room alone with Obama I'd find he agrees with everything that I believe in. Gee who knew we were so alike Jet.

Arch, I'm honored you read it all the way through... unlike one of your wannabe's.

It was written to spawn debate on both sides and I'm glad I succeeded.

Big deal out of nothing. Barack's asking for faith based initiatives is not a bad thing--if it continues to get Americans involved in making the world a better place.
ANYONE who would not vote because Hillary isn't nominated or who would stay home from the polls for any reason has no business spouting off about anything.

ANYONE who votes on only one issue is simply not informing him or herself. Be he or she left, right or center.

What every needs to do is read each candidates positions. Listen, think, learn. Vote intelligently.

We all should stop spouting off about nothing. Spout off about what matters.

Anti-abortionists do it all the time, so do anti-gay marriage, born-again christians. It's a fact of life Lisa

I don't get why anybody cares if they evangelize. It's not like the folks that frequent soup kitchens vote very often anyway! And I would bet those that have a problem with evangelizing wouldn't have a problem with anti-evangelizing...I mean, come on, you read just as many comments against religion here at BC as you do for it...

I bet some of you would love a soup kitchen that preached there is no god...

"I don't get why anybody cares if they evangelize."

Neither do I.

"I bet some of you would love a soup kitchen that preached there is no god..."

Yes, I would.

Again... the more our government is involved with ANY religio9n, the more likely that new laws will be passed reflecting religious dogma.

You'd be royally pissed if someone came up to you and said that beer you're holding is illegal. You laugh but because of religion mixing with politics, that's exactly what happened during Prohibition.

Mixing religion and politics is dangerous, especially when one is preferred over another as is southern Protestaamt-vs Judism, Islam, Catholisism.

Jet - It's only 10:30, how'd you know I already started drinking?

I'm already pissed off because of something else I like to partake of that the govt of this "free" country tells me is ill-eagle. And I'm sure it's ill-eagle for pretty much the same reason. God bless Amsterdam!

Clavos - wouldn't a soup kitchen that preached there is no god still be preaching??? Then again, you don't seem to be to concerned about the preaching aspect of the whole thing either...

My god I got through to one person, what the hell did I do with those rolling papers?

I'm not a big fan of papers...

Walk a mile in my shoes before you laugh it all off and brand me paranoid. I'm sure there are stereotypes that apply to you that aren't true.

Mexicans are lazy and stupid enough to work for nothing.

Arabs are invading this country and refusing to learn our ways or even speak our language.

Irish are drinkers

Blondes are easy suxual pickings for sex and aren't all that intelligent.

I've lived my whole life with influencial groups in this country convincing my friends, neighbors and employers of lies that...

A. I kidnap little boys from playgrounds, and inocent husbands from gym locker rooms, and them sodomize them into becoming fags so I can propogate my species.

B. That I only have one thing on my mind at all times-sex.

C. That god gave all faggots AIDS and that if you talk, shake hands or accidentally touch me, you'll get it.

D. That any hetrosexual that proclaims to be my friend will instantly be branded a faggot too by his peers and ostrasized for being perverted by me.

E. That it's alright to fire me from a job I held for 10 years because you found out I was a homosexual.

And finally
That I CHOSE to live this way...

Think about why none of you would go out and tell five of your closest friends you are gay (even though you're not) and see what happens-then you'll see the hell I live every minute of every day of my life and why I fucking fear fundamentalist Christianity influencing politics.

I used to think that way Andy, but if I get really stoned my bong gets broken and I have to get a new one.

Andy that harangue was aimed at the general public-not you...

I bet some of you would love a soup kitchen that preached there is no god...

It would be very strongly preferable to a soup kitchen that preached there was no soup.

Nope, they all preach there is no soup without God.

"Clavos - wouldn't a soup kitchen that preached there is no god still be preaching??? Then again, you don't seem to be to concerned about the preaching aspect of the whole thing either..."

Correct on both counts, Andy. See Doc's #41 for further amplification.

"Blondes are easy suxual pickings"

Oral is it with them, huh?

Thank god I'm due at my shrink at noon today.

call it a freudian slip of the finger... then again, forget it...