Printable View
Sincerly - apart from the fact that it's in the first amendment do you think faith based initiatives should get tax cuts and why?
Secondly - the abortion issue. I'm for abortion regulation but you are for banning it completely, under all circumstances? It's just so alien to me for somebody to assert that onto another?
seanchai
Labels, labels, labels ...conservatives, liberals....democrats, republicans and the ineffectual independants....left wing, right wing. Who runs for office? Would you? Have you?
I was thinking of going off on a long Jamie like disertation without the links, but then Tony Bennett came on the tonight show singing "I Left my Heart in San Francisco". And I said fuck it. We are still fucked, not because the mind set of any party in office but because of our own mind set. Because what happens, happens because we let it.
Check out South Park's episode on elections that aired on election nite. Did we vote in the "Giant Douches" or "The Turd Sandwiches" and at the end of the day when you check out the new threads posted does it matter?
Lawyers become law makers and judges and then become richer lawyers. But they have little real life experience with the people. But they rule the world based on winning their case. Which means ensuring their argument prevails. All sides are guilty.
Giant Douches or Turd Sandwiches you decide what we have!
I didn't say faith based initiatives should receive tax cuts. I said I am in support for federal funding for faith based initiatives. Most faith based initiatives are actually tax exempt already.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
I am against abortion except for cases where the mothers life is endangered or several other extreme and rare circumstances.Quote:
Secondly - the abortion issue. I'm for abortion regulation but you are for banning it completely, under all circumstances? It's just so alien to me for somebody to assert that onto another?
seanchai
Ok fair enough but why should they get federal funding?Quote:
Originally Posted by TFan
Do you believe more or less money should be spent on welfare and free healthcare?
seanchai
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Because denying them equal access to federal funding simply because they represent a religious cause is unconstitutional.
I'd like to spend exactly ZERO on welfare and free healthcare. However, all people, at some point or another, need a handout. But when that handout becomes an expectation and that expectation is exploited politically (usually by dems playing class warfare), then I have a problem with it.
Advances in healthcare and medicine put America in the cutting edge. Unfortunately these advances come at a price.
We can chose to reward the innovators who develop new technologies and save lives OR we can regulate them out of business or into obscurity. Technology comes at a cost and with this cost comes tough decisions.
Then who would pay for all those unwanted babies that mothers couldn't afford to. Forget about people taking care of themselves - we both know it's unrealistic. Wouldn't this contribute to more social problems and spending to combat it?Quote:
Originally Posted by TFan
America's health advances are falling behind because some people think stem cell's represent babies and a life and have banned the research.
You bring up the "unconstitutional" - can a document or a constitution be changed when the need comes. Should all faith based initiatives get equal funding based on the amount of people that subscribe to it - ie; should we give the same amount to Muslims as to Jews as to Christians?
Democrats are Republicans too.
Your country desperately needs a mass-based workers' party. It's the only industrialized democracy without one.
Voters bitch-slap bible-bangers...
Losses on ballot measures jolt religious
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
Wed Nov 8, 4:40 PM ET
From the country's heartland, voters sent messages that altered America's culture wars and dismayed the religious right — defending abortion rights in South Dakota, endorsing stem cell research in Missouri, and, in a national first, rejecting a same-sex marriage ban in Arizona.
Conservative leaders were jolted by the setbacks and looked for an explanation Wednesday. Gay-rights and abortion-rights activists celebrated.
The verdict on abortion rights was particularly clear. Oregon and California voters defeated measures that would have required parents to be notified before a girl under 18 could get an abortion, and South Dakotans — by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent — rejected a new state law that would have banned all abortions except to save a pregnant woman's life.
"This was really a rebellion in the heart of red-state, pro-life America — the heart of the northern Bible Belt," said Sarah Stoesz, head of the Planned Parenthood chapter that oversees South Dakota. "It sends a very strong message to the rest of the country."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/...allot_measures
You accidentally edited my quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
My reply was-
I'd like to spend exactly ZERO on welfare and free healthcare. However, all people, at some point or another, need a handout. But when that handout becomes an expectation and that expectation is exploited politically (usually by dems playing class warfare), then I have a problem with it.
I understand that handouts are sometimes necessary. You asked about "WELFARE". In the contemporary context that means "Free money for adults". Now you're asking about money for kids. I'm all for the foster parent system.... well not all for, it's a screwy system that needs reform.
That said, I'm still in favor of a highly regulated welfare system. But I'd rather see that money in the hands of private recovery/education professionals than in the hands of and directly controlled by government.
Many adults living on the public dime are suffering from addiction or other mental illness. If their lives can be redeemed and made productive then they'd be a great asset to America.
That's speculation, pure speculation. SCR has yet to yield a single result. I'm not talking about laboratory results. I'm talking about applicable results. I'm talking about real-world, real-time results that are helping people RIGHT NOW, TODAY. SCR may down the road help people, but it has an equal chance of producing ZILCH.Quote:
America's health advances are falling behind because some people think stem cell's represent babies and a life and have banned the research.
I'd rather spend my tax money on national defense and fire departments and leave the government out of research. IMO, it's not even worth political debate. This is not political, it's capital. CASH.
I don't understand your question.Quote:
You bring up the "unconstitutional" - can a document or a constitution be changed when the need comes.
Faith based initiatives should recieve equal access to federal funding, regardless of what religion they represent.Quote:
Should all faith based initiatives get equal funding based on the amount of people that subscribe to it - ie; should we give the same amount to Muslims as to Jews as to Christians?
Hi first time poster but long time lurker.
Thought I might share this with everyone. I think this may be a first.
Kim Coco Iwamoto a trangendered girl was elected to the State of Hawaii Board of Education Member Position yesterday here.
Here's her website..... http://kimcoco.com/
Way to go Kim!
Was wondering about that. I met her in Kona Brewing Company a couple of weeks back. Nice individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by patricko
seanchai
Thanks for the answers Tfan - can't say I'll ever understand your way of thinking as it seems at odds to where I was brought up but your explanations at least make some sense.
The Constitutional Question. I hear time and time again American's saying they can't change something (gun control, religion, etc) because it's in the Constitution - but why can't the Constitution be changed if it's out of date? Surely the answer should never be to any debate - "it's in the Constituion" or "it's un-Consititional"? It should be open to debate on the relevant merits of how if fits or affects today's society.
seanchai
Agreed, compared to us democrats are far right wing.Quote:
Originally Posted by SC
The problem with faith based initiatives is that politicians have to decided which ones get funding and who gets how much. It has turned into a way to buy church leaders support and to get the ear of large churches. It is easy to say that they should get funding equally but that is unrealsitic. Churches would just start throwing up programs to get the money. Let's not pretend that just because they are based in faith that they are all on the up and up.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFan
Which brings up the fact that there is little oversite of the dollars and how they are spent. If they are going into building bigger chrches, gassing up the minister's Bentley or private jet we got a problem.
Of course there are those problems. But that's no roadblock. Some simple, independent oversight can make sure the cash doesnt fall into the hands of those that preach Jihad or bomb abortion clinics.Quote:
Originally Posted by RangeHova
TFan u are an absolute moron. HeHateme Kiss My Arse over the mispell-If I really gave a fuck I would delete your sorry ass post.
George Bush is not a conservative- he is a big spending, big goverment republican which is a paradox of what conservative goverment is. If it were not for 9/11 he would have not been re-elected. He has backed bills and legislations that are completely agaisnt what republican goverment stands for. Where as Ronald Reagan (which I am not a fan of either) was a unitor, Dubya is a divider. Your arguments are futile and have no basis. You are spewing the same sewage republicans have been for the past 6 years- and as you can see the american poeple have spoken and they are not buying the lies and deciet of this administration. Rumsfeld should have been fired a long time ago-now Bush was forced to let him go because he finally realized that maybe the polls were right; did he just not say two weeks ago that the polls were wrong on the war?
And that whole abortion tirade is just ridiculous. The supreme court will not over turn Roe V. Wade, and as Chef pointed out- in the fucking heartland they turnd down anti abortion laws. Of course you would believe
in denying a woman's right to choose what to do with her own reproductive system- what a piece of work you are. I bet you take out the dishes before you pee in the sink.
BY THE WAY- DEMS JUST TOOK OVER THE SENATE TOO!
Maybe it's time to go into that bunker u have been building huh, T? Filled with lots of guns and amo, and should I guess...lots of cans of pork and beans???? Wow, i can't believe I just figured out your location!
Oh Ari I know the type so so so well-
U know that kills me about these pro lifers- is the hypocrisy in their politics and beliefs. They are agaisnt someone terminating an undeveloped fetus- which is probably one of the most difficul descisions and painful one a woman will ever have to make, if she has to have one. Trsut me, no woman WANTS to have an abortion. These people would rather have back alley abortions, woman sticking coat hangers in themselves and dying of infections or bleeding to death; which is what did happen and will happen again if abortion is ever made illegal
Yet they want to save what is an undeveloped fetus but they are willing to go to war and have Americans and innocent civilians killed, want the death penalty, and want ak 47s on the street- so people can shoot each other out. How does that make any sense?
If T is so worried about murder of children,then maybe he should be concered about the innocent children that have been killed in the iraq war.
Maybe he should be worried about the thousands of Americans who have died in Iraq while he sits his ass at home supporting a war . Maybe he should enlist.
my personal opinion with the american goverment is they should concentrate more on there own country more then the affairs of over countrys
The amount of money they spent on the war could have been put to far better use in america
Ahhh. . . I gotta stand up for the gun nuts. I'm not a NRA member, dont own a gun of any sort, never had and probably never will. I have shot guns and enjoyed it. It's juvenile, but I have to say it is pretty fun blasting holes in a piece of paper or knocking cans off a post or whatever. Guys like guns, we just do.
I also don't think they are any more or less dangerous then many other tools and substances which are legally and readibly available. They are admittedly made mostly for the purpose of killing things, but a person being in a position to kill/injure something or someone in self defense is valid at times.
Hunting, in my opinion, is retarded.
Maybe we should limit gun ownership to women, it generally is men who misuse weapons for the most part. But I'd still like to use my girls gun on occasion to shoot cans.
BLAM!
That is easier said than done. We can't fund EVERY faith based program, no matter how well they are run. Those that play the game and cozy up next to the administration will get most of the money. Who funds the independent oversight. To adequately oversee that kind of money it woul take any another govt. agency, like a smaller verson of the IRS.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFan
The faith based program without serious oversight is the same as us handing out millions after millions to a handfull of ministers and just trusting them because they are ministers. As if ministers don't commit crimes.
LMAO. While I'm being attacked, I have to say, the "womans right to choose" issue has nothing to do with either of you. You really should stay away from the topic.
Your attacks are some of the most angry, childish and bitter remarks I've read in a while. This thread was rolling along very well before you two began commenting on an issue that has nothing to do with you.
:peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter :king :king :king :peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter
OMG, I flipped when I saw the thread title! LOL! Why would you be shouting my name, Allanah? :lol: :lol: But of course, I am indeed ECSTATIC over the election! Here in Mass we elected our first black governor (and, as I understand it, the second in the nation), and nationally won the House and the Senate and swept the governorships! If Bush and Cheney stepped down (or were impeached or whatever), we'd actually have a decent President now!
Fucking A! You are so right!
T Fan you further communite your ignorance when you point out that abortion has nothing to do with us. Why because we are not genetic women? So what in the hell does it have to do with you then either? if you USE that flawed logic my dear bunker frank & bean eater you would not be entitled to an opinion either.
Abortion rights is an issue I care deeply about because before being a tanssexual, a latina, I am a HUMAN. And i care about human beings and HUMAN RIGHTS for everyone. Everyone should be awarded the same rights and freedom in our society and that includes the freedom to do with your body as you please. As I am Ari bith have done.
Don't get all high and mighy on us because we are trans and have opinions on abortion- we both have bigger cojones than u annonymous punter sitting behind a pc screen hiding 'where we kick terrorists ass'.
A true T.S. Elliot.
Don't be bitter dear- envy will be joining your party very soon.
:lol: :lol:Quote:
OMG, I flipped when I saw the thread title! LOL! Why would you be shouting my name, Allanah? But of course, I am indeed ECSTATIC over the election! Here in Mass we elected our first black governor (and, as I understand it, the second in the nation)...
I know you haven't been around much lately, E, but I'm surprised it took you this long to see your name at the head of one of the hottest topics in the LR in a long time. :lol:
Wilder (VA) said something to the effect that it was nice to be the first black governor in history, but he was a bit tired of hearing that he was the "...first and only...". :D I bet Southie is pissed right now. :lol:
My comments are based only on heresay and past experience, but I caught the drift of some of the previous posts. I have found it interesting that gays and particularly lesbians have been with the forefront of the abortion rights issue, throughout its history. WUDDAFUG??? Like what do a bunch of queenie guys and dick-hating dykes have to do with making/breaking babies? It's not about the babies (Gawd bless 'em, whatever their fate), it's about people's rights to make their own decisions, about heir own lives.
As for guns, I love 'em. Spent VD (Valentine's Day) of '98 remembering my last lover with a .22, .38, .357, a .45, and a =LOT= of brass. :twisted: But really, how many Kalischnikovs do you want your neighbors owning? Jeez. :roll:
Oh...I missed a step here: Was Clinton really impeached? I seem to recall they didn't get enough votes to do so.
Baaad President, got a blowjob from a mouthy intern and lied about it.
Baaad Congress, spent millions of OUR MONEY to tell dickboy he was baaad. :roll:
Maroons, both sides of the aisle.
Hell YES!Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardedOne
Thanx for that. I was clearly so bored with the witchhunt at that point that I wasn't paying all that much attention to the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFan
Clinton was impeached but acquitted for recieving a blowjob and supposely messing around with paula jones,they tried to go after him with personal stuff and failed. If anyone needs to be impeached its bush he is a liar which has proven to be costly with lifes of americans soldiers
I've been slammed with work lately (a good and bad thing, lol), and simply hadn't clicked into the forum in a couple of days. I drop by several times a week, though I don't always post (with my post count, I surely don't need any post padding at this point). So when I came in today, I was WTF?!Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardedOne
He was impeached, but not expelled from office. I remember this very well from when Nixon was nearly impeached but stepped down before charges could be laid. Most people think that impeachmend equates to removal from elected office, but in fact it's the legal statement of charges, equivalent to an indictment in criminal law. When the President faces impeachment, he subsquently faces a second legislative vote determining conviction and, thus, removal from office. So Clinton was impeached, but was not convicted. First the House impeaches by a simple majority, if they find that the President has committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" (thought the Constitution does not specify what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors"). Then the President is tried by the Senate, who may then remove the President from office if convicted by a two-thirds majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardedOne
Liar you say? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Legend
Would you care to support that? :lol:
Well, the blowjob would probably qualify as a misdemeanor.Quote:
"...thought the Constitution does not specify what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors"
Ex: "The more blowjobs I miss, de meaner I get". :lol:
ROTFLMFAO...Quote:
Originally Posted by AllanahStarrNYC
A classic...I think the last time you used that one was on our old pal yourdaddy! Not that this right-wing hypocrite stooge isn't deserving of it, also.
But my favorite will always be "I wouldn't suck your dick if I was suffocating and your balls were filled with oxygen!"
And yet Clinton had 70% approval ratings at the time this farce(impeachment) was being orchestrated by the repugs!
But it's all good, because the so-called "Gingrich Revolution" is dead and fucking buried...whether you can deal with it or not, Gomer.
Rumsfield was a lousy secretary of defense that has been proven costly,first bush says his main man is doing a great job and he is sticking by him yet he resigns and the president accepts his resignation obvious he must be doing a pretty terrible job if he cowardly resigns and the president accepts further proving that he has done a terrible job with the war and the president knows that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFan
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...roflcopter.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Legend
So what are you claiming to be the "lie" there? LMAO
Correcting liberals has never been so easy!
This is for you, libs! LMAO
LOL, your buffoon president said rummy was doing a great job and he is sticking by him yet he is canned must be the great job he was doing there that got him thrown away like yesterdays trash.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFan
Sweet Fancy Moses! Now that's a tough one Gomer...prove bush a liar.... :roll: :PQuote:
Originally Posted by TFan
http://www.bushlies.net/
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=165
TFan you are fighting a losing battle against these liberal "sheepels". In their opinion, let socialism rule.
I don't mean to demean anybody. I know most liberals have good intentions.
But liberalism is really nothing. Conservatism is not radically different. In fact, it relies on the same basic tenets of liberal economics (neo-liberalism these days to be more specific).
If American 'left-liberals' (now there's a contradiction in terms!!!) think they're somehow radical or left, then the American education system and media are even more powerful and evil than I imagined.
Liberalism is to the right of political centre. It advocates profit over people and relies on squashing the working class to enrich the bourgeoisie. (Mr. Kerry, their last candidate for the presidency is a billionaire who has built a vast fortune by exploiting thousands of Americans).
So, while I'm sure you liberals are happy right now, I seriously hope you don't believe things are going to change for the better, because that's so naive it literally scares me.
I hope I don't sound anti-American, because I am definitely not. But I thought an outside perspective that brings everybody back to earth was badly needed.
The very term 'ecstatic' to represent the mere shift from one right-wing party to another is so over-blown. Let's not forget the evils that the Democrats have unleashed on the world over the years. Think of Kennedy and LBJ. Thousands of children are STILL being born deformed in Vietnam because of those (Democrat) bastards.
If you want your country to move in the opposite direction of Bush/Cheney (instead of merely pursuing the same agenda at a slower rate with a more warm and fuzzy face -- that's all you'll get with Dems) you need to look outside of the two (read: one) party system.
The USA is the only advanced democracy without a major workers' party, and the USA has a working class of what, like 200 million people? That's cuckoo! The American public is even more brainwashed than all the rest of us poor saps!
Americans are good at standing up for themselves, now let's see you do it!
In Solidarity with my American sisters and brothers.