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!