• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Court Rules Bush Can be Sued over Faith-Based Initiatives

KCConservative said:
When did I start trouble? I posted a yawn icon as my response to your thread. That is how I felt about it. If you're going to start a thread, then be man enough to read what others have to say about it. The way you handled it was cowardly.

Here's a hint:

When grownups discover a thread they think is boring, they just move on to the next one.

To say your posted "Yawn" wasn't intended to start start trouble is nonsense. Being deliberately rude is always intended to cause trouble.

Try growing up.
 
KCConservative said:
.................... :yawn: ......................

Translates To:

Vote Republican, It's Easier Than Thinking.
 
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar:
Is there something factual in what I said that you disagree with, or are you just having a testosterone moment?

I won't say the defense budget isn't a bloated cow, it is. Every state views it as just another federal program bringing money in, every congressman wants to make sure their district gets a piece of the action.

But national defense IS a legitimate and a Constitutional priority of the federal government.

Being everyone's nanny is not.
Homelessness in America is a bigger problem for this country than the bullshit war on terror.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Here's a hint:

When grownups discover a thread they think is boring, they just move on to the next one.

To say your posted "Yawn" wasn't intended to start start trouble is nonsense. Being deliberately rude is always intended to cause trouble.

Try growing up.

The constitution says that the Federal Government is to provide for our defense. As to what that actually means is debatable.

The constitution says that the Federal Government is to promote the General Welfare. As to what that actually means is debatable as well.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The constitution says that the Federal Government is to provide for our defense. As to what that actually means is debatable.

The constitution says that the Federal Government is to promote the General Welfare. As to what that actually means is debatable as well.


No. James Madison denied completely that what you people think of "welfare" had any place in the Constitution. Madison was right.

It certainly was never intended to justify feeding large groups of the indolent off the backs of Americans who work. That stupid notion would never even have arisen in 18th century colonial American. Those people beleived fully in John's Smith's dictum, "He who shall not work, shall not eat".

If it worked for the Pilgrims, it can work for us.

And while the role of the military, it's size, and it's composition can be debated, the need for one probably cannot. Though, of course, one also has to realize that the Founders were for the most part opposed to large permanent standing armies, also. Clearly this topic should be pursued on it's own thread.

(BTW: You quoted the wrong post )
 
Stinger said:
If they are not prostelitizing why not give them assistance just like any other group?



Then why not all other groups too?



Well let's deal with this precieved on your part crossing.

I don't think state should fund church, regardless of the intention of the church. Patrick Henry fought hard to federally fund religion in Virginia, but he was not allowed to, because of the more clear minded Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Wonder why these two were against him? Because he was wrong, un-American, and Constitutionally confused.

I would apply this to all religious groups.

I don't think that you can honestly deny that at least one of the groups always attempts to prosyletize, because they think it is their religious duty.
 
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
And while the role of the military, it's size, and it's composition can be debated,
This is total horseshit! We do not need a $400+ billion army when China (the second highest in military spending) has a $44 billion one!
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. James Madison denied completely that what you people think of "welfare" had any place in the Constitution. Madison was right.

It certainly was never intended to justify feeding large groups of the indolent off the backs of Americans who work. That stupid notion would never even have arisen in 18th century colonial American. Those people beleived fully in John's Smith's dictum, "He who shall not work, shall not eat".

If it worked for the Pilgrims, it can work for us.

And while the role of the military, it's size, and it's composition can be debated, the need for one probably cannot. Though, of course, one also has to realize that the Founders were for the most part opposed to large permanent standing armies, also. Clearly this topic should be pursued on it's own thread.

(BTW: You quoted the wrong post )

You would have to admit though that there was a great deal of differences in political philosophies among the founders. What one my view as a role of government, another might dismiss as not.

Just the same, over the last 100 years or so, as a society we have decided that it is a responsibility of a moral and just society to provide some sort of safety net. The extent of which is debatable, but either way, its not unconstitutional.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Here's a hint:

When grownups discover a thread they think is boring, they just move on to the next one.

To say your posted "Yawn" wasn't intended to start start trouble is nonsense. Being deliberately rude is always intended to cause trouble.

Try growing up.
You call that trouble? Why is the icon available to us, I wonder. If you think the icon is rude, then you haven't seen rudeness. And asking me to grow up is what? Is that not rude?

To you I say

:yawn:
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Translates To:

Vote Republican, It's Easier Than Thinking.
Don't look now, but your sour grapes jealousy is showing.
 
Hoot said:
...perhaps the Prez could implore the American people, through donations, to support these programs without taxpayer money?

Good idea. This is what he should do. He should urge Americans to give to charities, religious and non-religious. This is proper, and no violation.
 
KCConservative said:
Don't look now, but your sour grapes jealousy is showing.
Not really, because as Civil Libertarian and Economic Moderate, I know that my side always has won and always will win. The reason for this is that document called the “constitution” is on my side. Faith based initiatives wont stand because they violate the separation of church and state.

Even though the religious and social right has control of Congress, the Whitehouse, and the Federal Judiciary, they still win nothing.

Intelligent Design – Loser. One of Bush’s Judicial Appointments struck it down.
Ten Commandments in the Court Room – Loser
Terry Shiavo – You guys lost that one and come to find out, she was indeed a vegetable.
Teaching Creationism – Loser. You lost that one in the 80s.
Not enforcing environmental law – Loser. Every time the Bush Administration goes to court on that one, they lose.
Drilling in ANWR – Loser. It’s only been before congress about 20 times.

I can go on and on. However, I cannot think of a single cultural war that the Religious and Social Right has ever won, or ever will win for that matter. Progressives always have won and they always will win.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Not really, because as Civil Libertarian and Economic Moderate, I know that my side always has won and always will win. The reason for this is that document called the “constitution” is on my side. Faith based initiatives wont stand because they violate the separation of church and state.

Even though the religious and social right has control of Congress, the Whitehouse, and the Federal Judiciary, they still win nothing.

Intelligent Design – Loser. One of Bush’s Judicial Appointments struck it down.
Ten Commandments in the Court Room – Loser
Terry Shiavo – You guys lost that one and come to find out, she was indeed a vegetable.
Teaching Creationism – Loser. You lost that one in the 80s.
Not enforcing environmental law – Loser. Every time the Bush Administration goes to court on that one, they lose.
Drilling in ANWR – Loser. It’s only been before congress about 20 times.

I can go on and on. However, I cannot think of a single cultural war that the Religious and Social Right has ever won, or ever will win for that matter. Progressives always have won and they always will win.

I can think of a couple of Novembers that went our way. And a House and a Senate and Supreme Court and a governorship majority. ;)
 
Billo_Really said:
This is total horseshit! We do not need a $400+ billion army when China (the second highest in military spending) has a $44 billion one!

That's not the purpose of this thread. (Could the fact that a chinaman gets paid 90% less than an American be a factor in the disparity?)

but not here, please.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You would have to admit though that there was a great deal of differences in political philosophies among the founders. What one my view as a role of government, another might dismiss as not.

Just the same, over the last 100 years or so, as a society we have decided that it is a responsibility of a moral and just society to provide some sort of safety net. The extent of which is debatable, but either way, its not unconstitutional.

No, not "we as a society". A majority of Congressmen got elected on the promise of raiding my wallet to pay off their voters.

A moral and just society permits people to donate to charity who want to, and permits those who do not to keep their own money.

A gangster society steals the money and pays off voters with it. We live in a gangster society in which the concepts of morality and justice are raped to provide pregnant expectations of politically acceptable behaviors.
 
KCConservative said:
You call that trouble? Why is the icon available to us, I wonder. If you think the icon is rude, then you haven't seen rudeness. And asking me to grow up is what? Is that not rude?

To you I say

:yawn:

Asking you to grow up is an attempt to remind you that maturity is a virtue independent of biological age. Some people never get there.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Asking you to grow up is an attempt to remind you that maturity is a virtue independent of biological age. Some people never get there.
I wonder what it would be like with the tables turned? Can you hear the original poster whining now if I were to create false quotes and put his name on them. But, as the moderator has already told me, it's perfectly legal. We'll see.
 
KCConservative said:
I can think of a couple of Novembers that went our way. And a House and a Senate and Supreme Court and a governorship majority.

You are missing my point. You have everything, but you have gotten nothing out of it.

You have yet to win a single cultural war and you never will. I mean it must truly suck to be a member of the religious right or to be a cultural conservative. Even though you have the federal courts, your man in the Whitehouse, and congress, you still never win anything.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, not "we as a society". A majority of Congressmen got elected on the promise of raiding my wallet to pay off their voters.

A moral and just society permits people to donate to charity who want to, and permits those who do not to keep their own money.

A gangster society steals the money and pays off voters with it. We live in a gangster society in which the concepts of morality and justice are raped to provide pregnant expectations of politically acceptable behaviors.

We will just have to agree that their is a philosophical difference between us on this issue.;)
 
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
That's not the purpose of this thread. (Could the fact that a chinaman gets paid 90% less than an American be a factor in the disparity?)

but not here, please.
Yeah, let's get back on topic since you didn't have an answer for that last one.
 
Middleground said:
Shesh, GySgt, is that all you got? Dan spends a bit of time to carefully layout and explain his logic (which I think is most excellent and eye-opening) and you come back with "such desperation." I thought you were more open-minded. Now you reply like Navy Pride.

Instead of accusing the messenger, why don't you try to debunk the message? If it bothers you so, and if you feel Dan is being misleading, then debate away. I, for one, would be interested in hearing your side of things, though, of course, if done properly.

Just a quick question. How do you feel about separation of church and state? I get the feeling that you don't agree with it.

1) It's not the subject it's the track record of the poster. I tire of the quest to bash the administration above all. I don't care to debunk it. I have no love loss for Pat Robertson. I've been clear.

2) I agree with the seperation of church and state. So much for your "feelings." However, if "church" can help with social problems we have in our country, then it is wreckless and irresponsible of us not to exploit that tool.
 
Back
Top Bottom