It Should Be Fun To Hear From The Libs On This

[Sitarro]

I can't wait to hear how the libs are going to spin this into a good idea.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02campaigncnd.html?nl=pol&emc=pola1

Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Jae C. Hong/Associated Press
Senator Barack Obama spoke about faith in Zanesville, Ohio, on Tuesday.

By JEFF ZELENY and BRIAN KNOWLTON
Published: July 2, 2008
ZANESVILLE, Ohio — With an eye toward courting evangelical voters, Senator Barack Obama presented a plan here on Tuesday to expand on President Bush’s program of investing federal money in religious-based initiatives that are intended to fight poverty and perform community aid work.

“The fact is, the challenges we face today — from saving our planet to ending poverty — are simply too big for government to solve alone,” Mr. Obama said. “We need an all hands on deck approach.”

On the second day of a weeklong tour intended to highlight his values, Mr. Obama traveled to the battleground state of Ohio on Tuesday to present his proposal to get religious charities more involved in government programs. He delivered remarks after touring the Eastside Community Ministry here, a program providing food, clothes and youth ministry.

[Yurt]

good lord....

[Psychoblues]

Wut's the prob, zero? I don't see anything even remarkable about it. Are you reading more into it than is intended by our future President Obama?

[Noir]

I apear to be missing the scandel here,


to expand on President Bush’s program
So this is program that was supported by a rep president, now a lib wants to expand apon in and the lib is in trouble?


investing federal money in religious-based initiatives that are intended to fight poverty and perform community aid work.
He wants to invest money into initatives intened to fight poverty ect? what a bad bad man he is :poke:


“The fact is, the challenges we face today — from saving our planet to ending poverty — are simply too big for government to solve alone,”

Seems sensable enough, it is obvious that religion plays a huge part in allot of americans lives, and by using the church Obama will be able to reach as many as he can to try and help them out of poverty.

So unless i've missed the mark completly (i.e. if this is a very 'un-liberal' policy to have ect.) then whats wrong with it?

[Sitarro]

Wut's the prob, zero? I don't see anything even remarkable about it. Are you reading more into it than is intended by our future President Obama?

I know you will deny the absolute cow the Democrats here and everywhere had when President Bush started this a few years ago...... looks like a vote for Obama is a vote for 4 more years of Bush.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

You fail to see the irony in and of your own statements don't you, zero?



I know you will deny the absolute cow the Democrats here and everywhere had when President Bush started this a few years ago...... looks like a vote for Obama is a vote for 4 more years of Bush.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

The program as promoted by the shrub and the one that will replace it are completely different. One is designed to turn millionaire contributors into billionaire contributors while the other is designed to help regular Americans. At least that's the way I see it.

[Sitarro]

I apear to be missing the scandel here,


So this is program that was supported by a rep president, now a lib wants to expand apon in and the lib is in trouble?


He wants to invest money into initatives intened to fight poverty ect? what a bad bad man he is :poke:



Seems sensable enough, it is obvious that religion plays a huge part in allot of americans lives, and by using the church Obama will be able to reach as many as he can to try and help them out of poverty.

So unless i've missed the mark completly (i.e. if this is a very 'un-liberal' policy to have ect.) then whats wrong with it?

This program was started by the Bush administration against the wishes of every Democrat that could get a microphone in front of them.

"He thus embraced the heart of a program, established early in the Bush administration, that critics say blurs the constitutional separation of church and state. Mr. Obama made clear, however, that he would work to ensure that charitable groups receiving government funds be carefully monitored to prevent them from using the money to proselytize and to prevent any religion-based discrimination against potential recipients or employees."

They say critics in the article but it was every Democrat and their supporters like the very newspaper that this article came from. This is so typical, the Dems will now pretend they never said anything negative about it and will adopt the idea as their own....... they truly have no constructive ideas at all.

[Sitarro]

You fail to see the irony in and of your own statements don't you, zero?




The program as promoted by the shrub and the one that will replace it are completely different. One is designed to turn millionaire contributors into billionaire contributors while the other is designed to help regular Americans. At least that's the way I see it.

Why does that not surprise me, how many cases have you had today?

[Psychoblues]

Cases of what, zero? If you're talking about my old friend Mr. Busch I haven't had one in several days now and not even a drop so far today. You are always such a damn fuddy duddy character assassin.

Did you read the article you posted, zero? There are words there that you probably don't understand but the meaning is as plain as anything and the meaning is quite different than you intimate.




Why does that not surprise me, how many cases have you had today?

You crack me up, zero!!!!!!!!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[April15]

Faith is what churches do, not our government. I don't like that Bush has done it and I don't like that Obama says he will continue it.

[Sitarro]

Faith is what churches do, not our government. I don't like that Bush has done it and I don't like that Obama says he will continue it.

He's not gonna get the U.S. out of Iraq either so get ready for reality. His post election slogan will be "No We Can't Change"...... :laugh2: he will throw all of you under the bus before it's over with.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Noir]

"He thus embraced the heart of a program, established early in the Bush administration, that critics say blurs the constitutional separation of church and state. Mr. Obama made clear, however, that he would work to ensure that charitable groups receiving government funds be carefully monitored to prevent them from using the money to proselytize and to prevent any religion-based discrimination against potential recipients or employees."

Ok, well i honestly don't have to much knowledge about this but, what if Obama-Though he was against the bill at its foundation- has realised its full potentional and now whichs to expand apon it. Is it not right that he is sollowing some pride and backing a system that expands apon good work that has been done (knowing full well that it would come out that he was against the bill a few years ago) or would you rather he was stubborn and decided that even if it was for the good of the people he must not support any expansion.

Somtimes being a good leader is not only knowing that you've made a mistake but acting apon it, no ones perfect.

[Psychoblues]

I've always had FAITH that my government would treat me fairly and that my government would assist me if any other citizen treated me unfairly. I've been very wrong on both accounts April. But, the promotion of a religiously faith based initiative that is not pandering for unearned support of a political party and is purely designed to advance the ideology of community is not distasteful to me at all.




Faith is what churches do, not our government. I don't like that Bush has done it and I don't like that Obama says he will continue it.

And like you, I believe the wall of separation of church and state should remain strong and high. That said, churches, synagogues, etc. already enjoy almost total tax free status. Most charities, religious or not, are also at least tax deductable. With proper regulation and oversight, which the gwb administration has never properly advanced or even considered, the faith-based programs should work well for our community and our planet. But, this argument has been made many times on this board and others and I don't suspect you and I will solve the situation with our conversation either.

Thanks for the contribution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[retiredman]

He's not gonna get the U.S. out of Iraq either so get ready for reality. His post election slogan will be "No We Can't Change"...... :laugh2: he will throw all of you under the bus before it's over with.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:


I am confident that Obama will bring the debacle in Iraq to as swift a conclusion as possible..... I cannot say that for McSame

[Sitarro]

I am confident that Obama will bring the debacle in Iraq to as swift a conclusion as possible..... I cannot say that for McSame

Sure he will, I bet he's suiting up Wesley right now to go take care of it.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

Obama will end the American participation within the war in Iraq. It is now and has been since the downfall of the Saddam Hussein regime an Iraqi problem. As Americans, we certainly have some loose ends that we created to tie up but Obama will protect our troops and end their combat related missions there.

[retiredman]

Sure he will, I bet he's suiting up Wesley right now to go take care of it.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:


do you care to have an intelligent conversation about this, or is it all about laughter and derision for you?

[Yurt]

so we have another proud bush accomplishment where the dems admit he has had zero...and now the messiah is copying him...

[Kathianne]

I apear to be missing the scandel here,


So this is program that was supported by a rep president, now a lib wants to expand apon in and the lib is in trouble?


He wants to invest money into initatives intened to fight poverty ect? what a bad bad man he is :poke:



Seems sensable enough, it is obvious that religion plays a huge part in allot of americans lives, and by using the church Obama will be able to reach as many as he can to try and help them out of poverty.

So unless i've missed the mark completly (i.e. if this is a very 'un-liberal' policy to have ect.) then whats wrong with it?

A program that was condemned by liberals, now Obama wants to make it a center piece? LOL! Let him at it, make sure McCain expounds on the beginnings.

[Psychoblues]

Yes, bush had zero but I think zero got tired of bush, not the other way around.


so we have another proud bush accomplishment where the dems admit he has had zero...and now the messiah is copying him...

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[avatar4321]

This program was started by the Bush administration against the wishes of every Democrat that could get a microphone in front of them.

"He thus embraced the heart of a program, established early in the Bush administration, that critics say blurs the constitutional separation of church and state. Mr. Obama made clear, however, that he would work to ensure that charitable groups receiving government funds be carefully monitored to prevent them from using the money to proselytize and to prevent any religion-based discrimination against potential recipients or employees."

They say critics in the article but it was every Democrat and their supporters like the very newspaper that this article came from. This is so typical, the Dems will now pretend they never said anything negative about it and will adopt the idea as their own....... they truly have no constructive ideas at all.

So basically Obama wants to take Bush's program and use it as an excuse to regulate religion.

[April15]

So basically Obama wants to take Bush's program and use it as an excuse to regulate religion.Well that wouldn't be right either.

[avatar4321]

Well that wouldn't be right either.

The problem with taking money from the government is it opens the door for them to tell you what to do.

[Hagbard Celine]

Take away their tax-free status!

[Psychoblues]

Exactly, HC, exactly.



Take away their tax-free status!

And reward their deeds of community enhancement with like tax exclusions. Or does that open other doors? How come these people can't be trusted?

[Yurt]

Yes, bush had zero but I think zero got tired of bush, not the other way around.



:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

are you tired of zero bush?

[Hagbard Celine]

Exactly, HC, exactly.




And reward their deeds of community enhancement with like tax exclusions. Or does that open other doors? How come these people can't be trusted?

In my book, they lost their "neutrality" when church leaders overwhelmingly influenced the elections in 2000 and 2004. We had church leaders telling their congregations who to vote for. Either they're political or they're not. If they are, they should be taxed like everyone else.

[Psychoblues]

I didn't realize it was that obvious, yuk.



are you tired of zero bush?

Silence is Golden!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On the other hand, 'zat all you got? You ain't got much do ya?

[retiredman]

In my book, they lost their "neutrality" when church leaders overwhelmingly influenced the elections in 2000 and 2004. We had church leaders telling their congregations who to vote for. Either they're political or they're not. If they are, they should be taxed like everyone else.

I certainly pledge to never suggest who anyone should or should not vote for in this or any other election while I am in the pulpit.

[Psychoblues]

Although I do not pretend to answer for HC, the person to whom you directed your reply, I duly note and appreciate your attitude on the subject.



I certainly pledge to never suggest who anyone should or should not vote for in this or any other election while I am in the pulpit.

Fantastic!!!!!!! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: Excellent, mfm!!!!!!!!!!!

[bullypulpit]

I can't wait to hear how the libs are going to spin this into a good idea.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02campaigncnd.html?nl=pol&emc=pola1

Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Jae C. Hong/Associated Press
Senator Barack Obama spoke about faith in Zanesville, Ohio, on Tuesday.

By JEFF ZELENY and BRIAN KNOWLTON
Published: July 2, 2008
ZANESVILLE, Ohio — With an eye toward courting evangelical voters, Senator Barack Obama presented a plan here on Tuesday to expand on President Bush’s program of investing federal money in religious-based initiatives that are intended to fight poverty and perform community aid work.

“The fact is, the challenges we face today — from saving our planet to ending poverty — are simply too big for government to solve alone,” Mr. Obama said. “We need an all hands on deck approach.”

On the second day of a weeklong tour intended to highlight his values, Mr. Obama traveled to the battleground state of Ohio on Tuesday to present his proposal to get religious charities more involved in government programs. He delivered remarks after touring the Eastside Community Ministry here, a program providing food, clothes and youth ministry.

Unlike the Bush administration's program, there will be accountability and oversight...no discrimination in hiring practices...no proselytising. Personally I would prefer NONE of my taxpayer dollars to go to religious organizations.

[Psychoblues]

What's that supposed to mean, bp? Proselytising without accountability and oversight are the mantra for the conservatives, or didn't you know?




Unlike the Bush administration's program, there will be accountability and oversight...no discrimination in hiring practices...no proselytising. Personally I would prefer NONE of my taxpayer dollars to go to religious organizations.

What was that genius quote from the CIC, "You can fool some of the people,,,,,,, but,,,,,,, you,,,,,, can't be fooled" or something on that order?

I don't think there would even be a Republican Party at all if we eliminated proselytising without accountability or oversight. There is no question the proselytising thing fits their bill quite well and avoiding, so far, the accountability and oversight has been their main attraction. The times, they are a changing.

[Sitarro]

Unlike the Bush administration's program, there will be accountability and oversight...no discrimination in hiring practices...no proselytising. Personally I would prefer NONE of my taxpayer dollars to go to religious organizations.

Sure he will, maybe he can start with his own racist shithole of a church....... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwQWuQVE6sw&feature=related.......

yea, he certainly will stop this kind of garbage...... right?:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[GW in Ohio]

I know you will deny the absolute cow the Democrats here and everywhere had when President Bush started this a few years ago...... looks like a vote for Obama is a vote for 4 more years of Bush.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Sitarro: A lot of liberals, including myself, never had a problem with Mr. Bush's faith-based initiatives.

[avatar4321]

Well, from the reactions it's clear that those who opposed President Bush when he proposed the faith based initiatives, have no problem with Obama's initiative because of the prospect of telling churches what they can and can't do.

At least April15 is consistant. The only one I've seen here.