What that crazy moonbat Palin is saying today!

[Jarod]

No, you weren't ever in support of Bush's Faith Based Initiatives program, and you still claim it's unconstitutional. It's hard to implement a program to include a specific type of group, without showing bias toward that particular group. It's like saying you're all for "civil rights" as long as it doesn't show bias toward black people! No one has EVER advocated we replace non faith-based groups who get federal funding, with faith based groups. If that is your understanding of Bush's FBI program, you are misinformed. We're already funding groups like Planned Parenthood and ACORN.... these are NOT faith based groups. We didn't have a problem with no federal funding available for non faith based organizations, the problem was the exemption of faith based groups, and FBI corrected that exemption. You were opposed.

Liberals can pretend this was all about community outreach, helping those in need, neighbors helping neighbors, it takes a village... but what you REALLY mean is, you want a Liberal village which promotes Liberal viewpoints and principles, and excludes anything religious or faith based. People need to understand, this has nothing to do with you wanting more community outreach, and everything to do with indoctrination of our children.

I'm opposed to a government program focused on assisting "faith based" groups (including Pagans) over secular groups. I belive such a program to be unconstitutional. I am not opposed to a government program focused on assisting community groups, both faith based and secular.

 

[Jarod]

I'd be opposed to a program that was promoting "secular based" programs, to the exclusion of "faith based" groups.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Let's say an Irish Catholic immigrates to America in the 1840s. On the one hand, he can vote for the Whig Party, on the other hand, he can vote for the Democratic Party which is openly racist toward him and also hostile to his faith. Odds are, he still votes Democrat, because the urban machines have been sucking in immigrants since 1792. Now, how Catholic is this moron, really, Dixie?

Well, chances are, in 1840, an Irish immigrant wouldn't have voted because there would have been a poll tax, literacy test, or property ownership requirement they couldn't meet. So your 'argument' just fell apart on itself. I don't understand your bigoted views, how a person does or doesn't vote, has nothing to do with "how much of" a Catholic they are. I don't even fucking know what that is supposed to mean. It's indicative of your bigoted perceptions that put everyone in a box, where you've predefined what they are, based on your own bigoted prejudice and stereotypes.

I don't know what any of this has to do with the fact that a vast majority of Americans identify with some religious belief. A minority report "no affiliation" and this has always been the case in this country. You can try to spin that, but them's the facts.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm opposed to a government program focused on assisting "faith based" groups (including Pagans) over secular groups. I belive such a program to be unconstitutional. I am not opposed to a government program focused on assisting community groups, both faith based and secular.

We already had programs focused on assisting community groups who weren't faith based. That wasn't ever an issue or problem. Nothing in FBI called for ending non faith based programs or funding. Again, what you are saying is equivalent to: "I am all for Civil Rights, as long as it gives white people the right to do whatever they please!" And you are saying this after vehemently opposing Civil Rights for years, claiming it's unconstitutional. What are we to think of this? Are you FOR Civil Rights?

You can believe whatever you like, the SCOTUS ruled differently.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'd be opposed to a program that was promoting "secular based" programs, to the exclusion of "faith based" groups.

But that is exactly what we had with regard to federal funding. Faith based groups were excluded because of your stupid "wall of separation" arguments, and misinterpreting the establishment clause. Bush saw an opportunity to help people in communities, by spending federal money funding faith based community outreach programs, which were prohibited from receiving federal funding. YOU WERE OPPOSED, STRONGLY! YOU STILL ARE OPPOSED, STRONGLY! YOU STILL MAINTAIN IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO DO THIS!

 

[Howey]

Day 3 of the Dixie Meltdown. When will it end?

Bang!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are wrong, faith based orginizations get benefits from the government all the time. At the very basic level, most, if not all, have non-profit status. They can make and keep money without contributing to the community financially. They use the community services, police, roads, ect., yet they dont pay to support those services.

Until Bush enacted his FBI program, faith based organizations were not given federal funds for anything whatsoever. It was against the rules. You see, because liberals argued that it would be a violation of the constitution to do so... remember, like you are still doing? What the FBI program did, was allocate federal funding for certain and specific charity outreach programs operated by faith-based organizations, in order to ENHANCE our ability to help real people in real need at the local levels. The FBI program has many stipulations attached, these faith based groups can't use the money to prosthelytize or "spread the word of God" and they don't, it is used to do things like, buy baby formula and diapers for poor women who can't afford it... pay electric bills for poor people on fixed incomes who are overwhelmed... things like that. Again, you were OPPOSED to this, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED! You continue to claim it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and yet.... by some fucking miracle of logic, you are also ALL FOR IT! Go figure?

 

[Jarod]

We already had programs focused on assisting community groups who weren't faith based. That wasn't ever an issue or problem. Nothing in FBI called for ending non faith based programs or funding. Again, what you are saying is equivalent to: "I am all for Civil Rights, as long as it gives white people the right to do whatever they please!" And you are saying this after vehemently opposing Civil Rights for years, claiming it's unconstitutional. What are we to think of this? Are you FOR Civil Rights?

You can believe whatever you like, the SCOTUS ruled differently.

I dont care what the wackjobs at the SCOTUS rule, I belive it is Unconstitutional. Additionally the S.Ct. never ruled as such.

Secondly, to have a program that was only for "Faith Based" orginizations is wrong, in my opinion. Im not a fan of say, the NAACP, because personally I belive it should be the NAAP.

 

[Jarod]

Until Bush enacted his FBI program, faith based organizations were not given federal funds for anything whatsoever. It was against the rules. You see, because liberals argued that it would be a violation of the constitution to do so... remember, like you are still doing? What the FBI program did, was allocate federal funding for certain and specific charity outreach programs operated by faith-based organizations, in order to ENHANCE our ability to help real people in real need at the local levels. The FBI program has many stipulations attached, these faith based groups can't use the money to prosthelytize or "spread the word of God" and they don't, it is used to do things like, buy baby formula and diapers for poor women who can't afford it... pay electric bills for poor people on fixed incomes who are overwhelmed... things like that. Again, you were OPPOSED to this, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED! You continue to claim it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and yet.... by some fucking miracle of logic, you are also ALL FOR IT! Go figure?

The bulk of your post is simply a LIE. Especally the bolded part.

I said that to favor "Faith based programs" over and above secular ones is Unconstitutional. TO give them equal footing is constitutional and I would not be against it, as long as stipulations like you described are in place.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I dont care what the wackjobs at the SCOTUS rule, I belive it is Unconstitutional. Additionally the S.Ct. never ruled as such.

Secondly, to have a program that was only for "Faith Based" orginizations is wrong, in my opinion. Im not a fan of say, the NAACP, because personally I belive it should be the NAAP.

Funny how it's the "wackjobs at the SCOTUS" when they rule something you don't like, but brilliant geniuses when they give us Roe v. Wade. Until you get to sit on the SCOTUS, we won't concern ourselves with your opinion of constitutionality, the high court has ruled. And YES.... they did make a ruling, I posted the link earlier, I am not going to keep posting the reference. The case was brought by Freedom From Religion, a left-wing anti-religious activist group, who vowed to challenge Bush's EO. They FAILED!

The NAACP is not a government agency. It is a non-profit organization for a specified objective and mission, like thousands of others out there, and it has absolutely nothing to do with federal funding for charity outreach. There has never been any suggestion we have only programs for faith based organizations, if that were the case, I probably wouldn't support it. In order to INCLUDE any different kind of anything, you have to specify them, there is no other fucking way to include them! How were we supposed to give federal funds to faith based groups if we didn't have a program to give money to faith based groups and couldn't make a program to give money to faith based groups?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The bulk of your post is simply a LIE. Especally the bolded part.

I said that to favor "Faith based programs" over and above secular ones is Unconstitutional. TO give them equal footing is constitutional and I would not be against it, as long as stipulations like you described are in place.

No, it's not a lie.

No one ever proposed we "favor" anything. Federal funds for charity outreach did not include faith based organizations. What part of that do you think is a lie? The Bush FBI program gave them equal footing! That was ALL the program was about, making it "okay" to allocate funding for certain community outreach programs, currently being funded and operated totally by faith based organizations. You opposed this, along with just about everyone on the left... maybe you forgot, there was a lot of foam dripping from your chin, because it WAS President George W. Bush who did this, do you remember?

Now you are trying to claim you are okay with it, no problems with it... and that's cool, since it's still in existence under Obama, and never was found to be unconstitutional by SCOTUS... don't blame you one bit for accepting it and being cool with it now! But you were opposed to it, and in this very thread, you have stated repeatedly that it's unconstitutional. So we have a bit of a logical dichotomy here, you are both FOR it and AGAINST it at the same time.

 

[Phantasmal]

Democrats have been turning abandonment of faith (or at least selling out) into an art for two centuries, Dixie. Maineman was a pastor, though, so I assume he is actually somewhat serious about his faith. That places him in a small minority amongst Democrats.

Democrats that attend monthly church services 54%, Independants 62%, Republucans 44%

If you have figures that disputete these, please post, thanks

 

[Howey]

Democrats that attend monthly church services 54%, Independants 62%, Republucans 44%

If you have ignores that disputete these, please post, thanks

Dixie's church is on the reservation held in a sacred royal koi pond on a dike. They're not counted.

 

[Auster]

Democrats that attend monthly church services 54%, Independants 62%, Republucans 44%

If you have figures that disputete these, please post, thanks

LOL @ attends church once a month.

The poll shows that 40 percent of Republicans say they attend church weekly. While 21 percent say they attend nearly weekly or monthly, and 38 percent say they rarely go to church.

Meanwhile of their political counterparts polled, only 27 percent of Democrats who say they go to church every week, 20 percent say they go monthly and 52 percent of Democrats say they seldom or never go to church.

Attends church once a week

Repubs
45%

Indies
25%

Demos
30

lot of this relationship is transmitted through party identification. Highly religious people skew significantly Republican in party ID, and of course, Republicans overwhelming say they are going to vote for the Republican candidate in their local congressional race.

To demonstrate this point, I’ve represented in this graph the relationship between church attendance and net Democratic vote within partisan groups.

The basic pattern is clear. Americans who attend church frequently are significantly more likely to be Republicans and less likely to be Democrats than those who attend church less frequently. Note also that Americans who never attend church are significantly more likely to say they have no partisan choice (i.e., are independent) than are those who attend church, even infrequently.

But the real reason I post:

 

[Howey]

Fuck. I was hoping YurtTwo was gone too.

Do any of you have any idea what these programs are supposed to do?

 

[Jarod]

No, it's not a lie.

No one ever proposed we "favor" anything. Federal funds for charity outreach did not include faith based organizations. What part of that do you think is a lie? The Bush FBI program gave them equal footing! That was ALL the program was about, making it "okay" to allocate funding for certain community outreach programs, currently being funded and operated totally by faith based organizations. You opposed this, along with just about everyone on the left... maybe you forgot, there was a lot of foam dripping from your chin, because it WAS President George W. Bush who did this, do you remember?

Now you are trying to claim you are okay with it, no problems with it... and that's cool, since it's still in existence under Obama, and never was found to be unconstitutional by SCOTUS... don't blame you one bit for accepting it and being cool with it now! But you were opposed to it, and in this very thread, you have stated repeatedly that it's unconstitutional. So we have a bit of a logical dichotomy here, you are both FOR it and AGAINST it at the same time.

You are simply wrong, but if I accepted your premise and pretended it was true, I would simply point out that seperate is not equal.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are simply wrong, but if I accepted your premise and pretended it was true, I would simply point out that seperate is not equal.

I don't know what the fuck you mean. We didn't allow federal funding of initiatives involving faith based organizations, we funded all kind of initiatives from private organizations who were secular. Bush enacted an EO to allow federal funding to ALSO go to faith based initiatives. So now, our government provides federal funding for BOTH faith based and non faith based initiatives. No one has ever suggested equal distribution or separate distribution to these different types of initiatives. So what the fuck are you yammering about?