Hope and Change...
Different kind of politician...

He's a pandering fool and a majority of you losers fell hook, line, and sinker.

Now why don't you Obama ball buffers tell the class why this isn't what it seems? Tell us how this isn't a bad thing.

Republicans need to be punished for electing Bush, in hopes we never have a Bush again. Many will vote Obama just on that basis and, know what, that's pretty solid.

Zed's a holy roller so his opinion is as usual, useless.

I'd have thought "punishment" a concept you could understand, Chairborne.

101

i've said it in the past
months and months ago
and i'll say it again

obama > mccain

simple as that

now you can think obama sux, but in the end mccain sux more

a lot more

the economy is fucked, no matter who the president is

oil prices are fucked, no matter who the president is

what an obama presidency will do is change the atmosphere in a country where we're at a all time low in morale and division.

what an obama presidency will do is change the world view of america for the positive

the best reason for voting obama is that we've steered so far right, that we need some left to move us back to center.

don't worry
republicans will be back in the future.

"don't worry
republicans will be back in the future."

Posted by klifferd

Just like a stubborn case of athlete's foot.

zat as hillary puts it
only 3 out of the last 10 elections have been dem

its a SERIOUS case of athlete's foot
over the counter has no chance of fighting this one

I wonder why Obama didn't mention this during the primaries? Obama is crazy if he thinks his supporters liked the faith based bullshit of Bush. If we wanted Bush programs expanded, we would have voted for McCain.

Let's hope we don't have two McCains on our hands here.

That is probably the worst headline I've ever seen on the DR. It clearly shows the hate in the heart of conservatives. I bet he loves jesus though--fear is a strong incentive for worship.

Firing or hiring based on religious preference? By itself, it's bad enough, but couple that with the refusal to let those two muslims in his picture and POW...Well not really "POW" because he's a Dem. Had a Rep done those 2 things we'd still be reading about it and watching it on the news.

I'm shocked a black person would be open to such discriminitory practices.

Shit, the headline rules. I'm as religious as you are sane.

The headline is full of racial bigotry and hate.
Just--like--you.

101

i get the headline
dave chapelle
black bush

as far as the hiring/firing based on faith... i need to read more on this

because you are right its bad from anybody

and the two muslim girls thing is getting much flak in the muslim american circles

but the truth is nobody in the usa... rep. or dem. courts the muslim american vote.

10 million muslims isn't enough
i guess we have to push for 20 million ;)
maybe i'll reneg on my 2 kids in the future
to 5 ;)

"Had a Rep done those things...."

Well, according to Boortz, at least, the Muslim women Obama chased away were associated with radical causes. Boortz thought Obama was being set up, to lose whatever he did about the situation.

Racial bigotry for sure. Some of it real (like every other person in the world), and some of it for comedic and taunting effect.

Don't confuse taunting and trolling with hate. "Hate" is the emotion I evoke from the limpwrists around here. It's easy to get you fruit all wound up.

Now tell me how this religious zealot in the white house will make you feel?

btw

not every muslim "looks" muslim
most of us
look like everyone else

so if you see brown people standing behind barack
they might be muslim
if you see white people standing behind barack
they might be muslim
if you see yellow people standing behind barack
they might be muslim
if you see black people standing behind barack
they might be muslim

"Hate is an emotion I evoke...."

Ah, a legend in his own mind. But at least we know why he posts here.

Where are the regulars on this thread?

Sticking their heads in the sand pretending it didn't happen?

Be quiet, Hagbard, Chairborne is invoking stuff.

HC,
Exactly. They are waiting for the spin. TonyRoma will be here shortly to tell us that it's not what it appears to be (well he won't do it, he'll cut and paste somebody else's 15,000 word explanation).

There is no excuse for this. It's pandering, it's sickening, and it's the complete opposite of Hope and Change.

Sometimes so much stuff is invoked in me, I can hardly finish my day.

I would say that I told you so, but I'm not that kind of person........ the hell I'm not!

"as far as the hiring/firing based on faith... "

Not surprisingly, no where in the article does Obama advocate this. That was a feature that was in the law Bush proposed and the writer has made an assumption.

However, this article specifically says that Obama does not feel such a law is necessary.

More faux outrage from the right.

Be quiet, Hagbard, Chairborne is invoking stuff.

Posted by Zed

LOL... stuff.

Nothing to see here.
-SanAn

More faux outrage from the right.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Come on, rogue. That wasn't the only thing in this article to be upset about... and the right shouldn't be upset about a single thing in that article.

HC,
Not everyone on the right believes in god. Nor do we all believe religion should have such a prominent role in any administration.

Faux Outrage? Really? I could swear it was the people on the left side of the aisle that shit their pants most over faith based initiatives. They were horrible then, but now that they are expanded it's no big deal? Is it Obama's Halo that blinds you or are you just a blatant hypocrite?

Is it Obama's Halo that blinds you or are you just a blatant hypocrite?
Posted by 101Chairborne

chair,

you were talking about the so called left, not me, right?

I know there are some old school republicans left out there, conservatives minus the religious dogma... I thought most of them have gone libertarian.

HC,
I was refering to SanAn with the halo shot.
I'm as "minus religion" as you can get with out being one of those "anti-religious" kooks.

This thread seems to have died. Some how Chicagos 10% sales tax is more important than Obamas religious pandering.

This thread seems to have died. Some how Chicagos 10% sales tax is more important than Obamas religious pandering.

Posted by 101Chairborne

I was just wondering how the Texas Grand Jury Thread could be doing so well today when there is a thread like this. Shameful.

I guess everybody is the same as everybody else, willing to ignore what doesn't play to promote their chosen candidate.

Change we can believe in.... si se puede?

Si podemos.

hagbard
thats because we are bitter
and clinging to guns ;)

haha

HC - can you tell me what, exactly, you find offensive about Obama's support of continuing faith-based initiatives?

As far as I can determine he was never against them, but unlike Bush doesn't think they need to be codified into law.

As the article puts it... "Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.

'Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help,' he was to say."

Hillary Clinton also advocated greater involvement by religious organizations just a few short months ago.

"HC - can you tell me what, exactly, you find offensive about Obama's support of continuing faith-based initiatives?"
Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Are you serious, rogue? Every dollar that goes to "faith based initiatives" is a dollar spent on evangelizing. A dollar that won't go to someone who really needs it unless they are willing to be prostelytized.

Does Separation of Church and State mean anything anymore?

I'm already taxed at 40% and Obama has guaranteed that it'll get worse for me and I don't exactly hate him for that... I understand the issues at play. What I don't want is for my tax money to go to any church for any reason. Are we so inept as a nation that we can't help one another otherwise?

"Hillary Clinton also advocated greater involvement by religious organizations just a few short months ago."
Posted by SanAntonioRogue

And she was wrong too. You forget that I didn't support HRC (at least Corky remembers), only tried to keep the Hillary attacks coherent, substantive and on point.

HC - I didn't say you supported Hillary. Just pointing out that both Dem. candidates supported the issue and that it isn't so much a right or left thing.

"Every dollar that goes to "faith based initiatives" is a dollar spent on evangelizing."

Obama:
"I want to keep the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives open, but I want to make sure that its mission is clear," Obama said in response to a question about his commitment to reduce poverty in America. "It's not to simply build a particular faith community. The faith-based initiatives should be targeted specifically at the issue of poverty and how to lift people up."

He added that government should partner with religious organizations to provide social services as long as it is done within the requirements of the Constitution.

"We make sure that it's open to everybody," he said. "It's not simply the federal government funding certain groups to be able to evangelize."

Also this from Salon.com - content from the speech Obama will deliver today (courtesy of Spud)

"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea -- so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them -- or against the people you hire -- on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

"We make sure that it's open to everybody," he said. "It's not simply the federal government funding certain groups to be able to evangelize."
Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I don't think he can control that at all. People aren't going to be encouraged/invited to participate in religious functions? People will be treated the same if they walk in not being interested in the religious part of the whole deal? It's ludicrous to suggest so and he's more than smart enough to know it.

"Just pointing out that both Dem. candidates supported the issue and that it isn't so much a right or left thing."
Posted by SanAntonioRogue

It's a right thing, and a "left" pandering to the right thing.

"It's a right thing, and a 'left' pandering to the right thing.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine"

That's pretty insulting HC. You normally don't just issue a blanket condemnation of everyone who doesn't agree with your point of view.

I'm pretty solidly on the left and I absolutely support a reasonable partnership between faith communities and the government. Being open to doing whatever it takes to help lift people out of poverty and dispair is NOT pandering in my book.

Chair is going to vote for McCain!!!

Now that is about as funny as I have ever seen him, and I am a fan.......but.......

Chair is going to vote for McCain!!!

That makes you a pathetic piece of shit Chair.

HAHA!!!!

Many,
I'm not saying never, but as of today I'm in the "anyone but Obama and McCain" camp for my vote. The guy that gets the job is going to screw something up, screw somebody over, and make a lot of people unhappy.

I'm thinking Barr, although it's another case of voting against people and not for people.

McCain is too unpredictable, as is Obama. If I want unpredictable, I want crazy unpredictable like a Biden or a Celisary.

That's pretty insulting HC.
Posted by SanAntonioRogue

All apologies. Sincerely.

I watch all this "tacking right" and I get it, but I think this is over the top.

The idea that the only way to help people is to subsidize churches... who are already subsidized up the redacted through not being taxed... seems like utter BS to me, with consequences that we're not even willing to discuss because its Obama who suggests it.

What an utter failure our government is, we are, if we can't get these things done without the churches.

If I want unpredictable, I want crazy unpredictable like a Biden or a Celisary.

Posted by 101Chairborne

Whew, lmao... thanks, chair. I needed that. Really, really needed that.

Sincerely,

Angrynyliberal

Its a delicate balance, HC. The government can't do everything. And IMO they shouldn't do everything. It really DOES take a village. Many churches and other civic organizations do a lot to help the poor and needy. But their resources are limited. A reasonable, balanced program of partnership with the gov't that would allow them to help more people shouldn't be off the table, no matter who suggests it.

A reasonable, balanced program of partnership with the gov't that would allow them to help more people shouldn't be off the table, no matter who suggests it.
Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I think its a REALLY bad idea, for a number of reasons. I think the money would be better spent expanding the freedom corp, or somewhere else... anywhere else.

How does he plan to pay for this?

What with UHC and mandatory pre-K schools and tuition for illegals and such?

Forget about 40% HC--it's going to go to 65%.

And two income families that make over 120k a year are going to pay dearly for every dollar they earn over that mark.

Obama is so wrong on so many levels.

McCain is wrong on stuff too--don't get me wrong--but McCain is less wrong.

So did you speak out forcefully against this program when President Bush proposed and then implemented it, Murphy?

"And two income families that make over 120k a year are going to pay dearly for every dollar they earn over that mark."

I'm so screwed.

Sincerely,

fullyemployedcollegeeducatedan
dpovertystrickeninnyc

Again, did you speak out forcefully against this program when President Bush proposed and then implemented it, Murphy?

"Forget about 40% HC--it's going to go to 65%."

I love it when you throw out your "facts and figures". Could you please provide any evidence of that claim?

It doesn't matter what Obama claims to support now the weirdos on the left will vote for him anyway.

Tomorrow he could come out and say I am in favor of raping babies and you lefturds would find a way with your twisted logic to find it acceptable.

You Libs would probably call it "preteen sex education".

What is hilarious is Obama criticized Bush for this program saying it was politicized or some such. And now Obama says it's ok and of course Obamamites love it! LOL

And San the question is how to pay up 500 million for the expansion.

And he dictates that they have to use it on secular programs--like they are now.

Paying for meals is secular I hope. But you know they do say "Grace" before they eat. So I guess that excludes all of the soup kitchens in America because that is preaching.

But now if a church only hires Baptists to be in the their church--that would be considered discrimination. If the Baptist church does not hire gays--that would be discrimination.

Since Obama is the great constitutional law attorney and he knew all along that banning guns was in the constitution--Lord knows what lengths this guy will take this country.

Everything will be just fine with Obama in charge--NOT!

Should be Comrade Obama!

Good grief you are inane. Did you bother to read the proposal, or do the tired old talking points suffice for your extraordinarily incurious mind?

MURPHY

Guess you'll be voting for the biggest flip-flopper of them all, eh?

Not to worry. I doubt your vote will make the difference. Obama's gonna win.

14% of America think we're headed in the right direction. McCain's made it clear he wants to keep the bus in the ditch by being Bush's 3rd term. That just isn't gonna fly.

Pretty funny, Murphy. Have another drink. Bottoms up.

"But now if a church only hires Baptists to be in the their church-"

Hire people to be in their church? What does that even mean?

If any church wanted to participate in the program they would have to comply with EEOC laws. But I'm pretty sure no one will be forced to participate against their will.

Where are all of the leftists who condemn religion and are for a barrier between church and state. Somehow they have fallen silent, or have appeared as apologists for breaching the church/state barrier. The rationalization is impressive.

Cat got the leftist-atheists tongues?

Excerpt:

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.

They are "principled." If Bush does "X," it's bad, condemnable, inexcusable. If Obama does the same "X," it's laudatory, praiseworthy, beneficial to mankind.

Let's see. I'm having a bit of difficulty discerning the principle. But since lefties overriding influence is subscribing to the "Cult of theb Personality," they can adapt like the communists of old did in switching overnight from supporting Hitler during the period of the Stalin-Hitler Pact to excoriating Hitler immediately upon the invasion of the USSR.

There are leftists, who say they oppose torture, and yet as lefty Fidelistas, they never were turned off by the actions of the Castro regime in Cuba, which routinely tortured and killed opponents. That was okay since they idolized Castro. And although they support territorial integrity of totalitarian regimes, they nevertheless supported the murderous rampages of Che into foreign countries. Che fever. That was okay.

So since Great Leader Obama has broached the desirability of the churches operating as an arm of government, it's okay. You lead Il Duce, and your loyal followers will adopt your positions.

Lockstep leftists. Hup, two, three, four. Hup, two , three, four.

"Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support their ability to hire and fire based on faith."

You are WAY behind the times bud. That story was erroneous and taken down by AP like 12 hours ago.

But if you want to read what he actually said today, here's an excerpt...

""Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea -- so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them -- or against the people you hire -- on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

Sorry to disappoint you.

Well Rogue, I just this minute got this off of "google news." Maybe they're unaware that the story has been "pulled." Pulled because it's not favorable to Obama? Or because it was untrue?


Obama Proposes Expanding Faith-Based Program
Washington Post - 43 minutes ago
Democrat Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups.


Time will tell, Rogue. But the returns are not in yet. Let's wait until tomorrow for the retraction if one is forthcoming. There's no sign yet of the story not being factual.

For such a huge gas bag, you're kind of slow-witted, Johnson. Yes, he proposes to continue and refine the program. The part that was false was the "in a move sure to cause controversy - support their ability to hire and fire based on faith."

Here's a thought. Why don't you read his actual plan (linked posted previously), then read up-to-date media on it, THEN comment?

he's pandering to evangelicals.

we're not buy into it.

funny how being a person of faith is so chic for some and for others of us it is being a "fundie".

...Bush's faith based initiatives? Now they're expanding! -- Chair

And you believe Obama will keep his word because...?

And you believe Obama will keep his word because...?

Because he's not John McCain.

John "Captain Flapjacks" McCain is a flip-flopping, disingenuous, pandering, "say anything" typa pol who's proven he can't be trusted over and over again.

In his defense he's so old he prolly fergits his promises as quickly as he makes 'em.

Be Well.