I told you Repub support for GWB and Iraq was slipping

97silverlsc said:
They say they are for christian values, but their actions in cutting programs that help the sick,poor and elderly seem to me to be against christian values.

Well... follow me with this logic, if you will, and you might agree that christian values for charity work out even better than just govt programs.....

those programs are paid for from money that is taken by force (tax dollars). Is it right for me to hold a gun to your head and take your money if i am going to give it to the poor? No! and it is even worse if I take money from you and keep half of it to buy better weapons to further my force over you. Spending tax dollars, that are taken from us without our choice in the matter, on programs for charity is wrong!! And, the programs are horribly inefficient due to governmental control. In contrast, the Christian churches, do not take money by force, but they do charity work to feed and cloth the poor with money that is given freely by members and wealthy donors after they pay taxes (by force), and it is done a lot more efficiently than govt programs.
The conservative side of america pays taxes by force to fund inefficient programs and liberal agendas, they give money and their time to the church on top of that, and they still have the means to meet all thier own provisions for themselves -- it's called being blessed!!!! And since the head of the democratic party maliciously labels us conservatives as mostly (white) Christian (which we are christian), what are the liberals doing to support the church in comparison?? Not much!! they are trying to stifle the church (excep islam) in favor of their inefficient govt. programs.... and GEEEEE for some reason, they NEED help from the govt. because they can NOT provide for themselves because they are NOT blessed!!

It's great to consider liberal politics.... it forces us to think and become more conservative! :Beer
 
Gruuvin8 said:
Well... follow me with this logic, if you will, and you might agree that christian values for charity work out even better than just govt programs.....

those programs are paid for from money that is taken by force (tax dollars). Is it right for me to hold a gun to your head and take your money if i am going to give it to the poor? No! and it is even worse if I take money from you and keep half of it to buy better weapons to further my force over you. Spending tax dollars, that are taken from us without our choice in the matter, on programs for charity is wrong!! And, the programs are horribly inefficient due to governmental control. In contrast, the Christian churches, do not take money by force, but they do charity work to feed and cloth the poor with money that is given freely by members and wealthy donors after they pay taxes (by force), and it is done a lot more efficiently than govt programs.
The conservative side of america pays taxes by force to fund inefficient programs and liberal agendas, they give money and their time to the church on top of that, and they still have the means to meet all thier own provisions for themselves -- it's called being blessed!!!! And since the head of the democratic party maliciously labels us conservatives as mostly (white) Christian (which we are christian), what are the liberals doing to support the church in comparison?? Not much!! they are trying to stifle the church (excep islam) in favor of their inefficient govt. programs.... and GEEEEE for some reason, they NEED help from the govt. because they can NOT provide for themselves because they are NOT blessed!!

It's great to consider liberal politics.... it forces us to think and become more conservative! :Beer

You must be a lifetime member of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker's televangilists "religious" organization, eh? You are more clueless than I first gave you credit for.

The majority of self-proclaimed "organized religions" (if one could truly call them a "religion") are worse than even the republicans for stealing hard-earned $$ from the less fortunate to line their own pockets and the pockets of the elite. They are so busy patting themselves on the back for "helping the needy" that they can't be truthful about their real agenda of "helping the greedy". 'Yall just don't walk the talk.

I'd rather my hard-earned money be taken from me and given to programs that help people and have at least some hint of accountability, rather than be fooled into "giving" my money to a black hole only to have it end up lining the pockets of the greedy.

But HEY! This is a free country. You GO boy!
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
You must be a lifetime member of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker's televangilists "religious" organization, eh? You are more clueless than I first gave you credit for.

The majority of self-proclaimed "organized religions" (if one could truly call them a "religion") are worse than even the republicans for stealing hard-earned $$ from the less fortunate to line their own pockets and the pockets of the elite. They are so busy patting themselves on the back for "helping the needy" that they can't be truthful about their real agenda of "helping the greedy". 'Yall just don't walk the talk.

I'd rather my hard-earned money be taken from me and given to programs that help people and have at least some hint of accountability, rather than be fooled into "giving" my money to a black hole only to have it end up lining the pockets of the greedy.

But HEY! This is a free country. You GO boy!

jim n tammy baker? lol @ you again.... dude thats such old news! they dont get the peoples money anymore because of their scandal. ppl who send money to tv organizations send it to pat robertson on the 700 club.... they have a great reputation and help a lot in need... dude, it's not the 80s anymore! less than 1% of charity donations go to tv organizations... the rest go to local groups that donors are involved with and are kept honest.

So you judge all church charities by the one scandalous one you saw on tv back in the 80s? the Jim n Tammy deal is one bad case out of thousands of honest church charities.... and if that's all ya know about churches, you are quite outta touch with reality.... hey guess what!.. life isn't quite like it appears on tv! and with statements like that.... you know nothing about the majority of church charity... or the majority of anything i suppose! poor you!... again!
you are really digging yourself deeper in your hole. the more you post, the more un-informed you appear! keep it up johnny...., you're earning your name. :monkey:
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
You must be a lifetime member of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker's televangilists "religious" organization, eh? You are more clueless than I first gave you credit for.

The majority of self-proclaimed "organized religions" (if one could truly call them a "religion") are worse than even the republicans for stealing hard-earned $$ from the less fortunate to line their own pockets and the pockets of the elite. They are so busy patting themselves on the back for "helping the needy" that they can't be truthful about their real agenda of "helping the greedy". 'Yall just don't walk the talk.

I'd rather my hard-earned money be taken from me and given to programs that help people and have at least some hint of accountability, rather than be fooled into "giving" my money to a black hole only to have it end up lining the pockets of the greedy.

But HEY! This is a free country. You GO boy!

Trust my money with some liberal politician bwahahaha. Accountable Liberal bwahahaha whoe... man can I email this to my friends so they can read the jokes this is great stuff.

I'd rather face the cohersion of some tv evangelist than a Liberal Wallet Jacking any day.

It will be close to being fair if and when we get the flat tax.
 
Gruuvin8 said:
jim n tammy baker? lol @ you again.... dude thats such old news! they dont get the peoples money anymore because of their scandal. ppl who send money to tv organizations send it to pat robertson on the 700 club.... they have a great reputation and help a lot in need... dude, it's not the 80s anymore! less than 1% of charity donations go to tv organizations... the rest go to local groups that donors are involved with and are kept honest.

So you judge all church charities by the one scandalous one you saw on tv back in the 80s? the Jim n Tammy deal is one bad case out of thousands of honest church charities.... and if that's all ya know about churches, you are quite outta touch with reality.... hey guess what!.. life isn't quite like it appears on tv! and with statements like that.... you know nothing about the majority of church charity... or the majority of anything i suppose! poor you!... again!
you are really digging yourself deeper in your hole. the more you post, the more un-informed you appear! keep it up johnny...., you're earning your name. :monkey:
good work!

I have never tithed to a TV Church.

For the Liberals out there thithing is when you give one tenth of your income to the church. But since you aren't white church attending devils this would not be familiar to you.

10% of my income goes to an organization that helps feed, cloth and build homes. This organization has very little administrative costs and none of the red tape. Further, they turn peoples lives around in shorter time. If sermons are given attendance is VOLUNTARY unlike my contribution to your bloated, low results and zero accountibility programs.

It is not to hard to conclude that if my household had more income that that 10% would increase not multiply that by all teh church going white devil conservatives and you have a whole lot of helping going on.

I know, I know we preach wacky things like be good to thy neighbor and abstinence, honor thy father and thy mother which apparently you are diametrically opposed to but think people would be getting the help they need. after all isn't that what your agenda is?
 
Conyers stopped at the gates to the White House

By PETE YOST

WASHINGTON (AP) - Amid new questions about President Bush's drive to topple Saddam Hussein, several House Democrats urged lawmakers on Thursday to conduct an official inquiry to determine whether the president intentionally misled Congress.

At a public forum where the word ``impeachment'' loomed large, Exhibit A was the so-called Downing Street memo, a prewar document leaked from inside the British government to The Sunday Times of London a month and a half ago. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, organized the event.

Recounting a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair's national security team, the memo says the Bush administration believed that war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam.

``The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy,'' one of the participants was quoted as saying at the meeting, which took place just after British officials returned from Washington.

The president ``may have deliberately deceived the United States to get us into a war,'' Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said. ``Was the president of the United States a fool or a knave?''

The Democratic congressmen were relegated to a tiny room in the bottom of the Capitol and the Republicans who run the House scheduled 11 major votes to coincide with the afternoon event.

``We have not been told the truth,'' Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son was killed in Baghdad a year ago, told the Democrats. ``If this administration doesn't have anything to hide, they should be down here testifying.''

The White House refuses to respond to a May 5 letter from 122 congressional Democrats about whether there was a coordinated effort to ``fix'' the intelligence and facts around the policy, as the Downing Street memo says.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan says Conyers ``is simply trying to rehash old debates.''

Conyers and a half-dozen other members of Congress were stopped at the White House gate later Thursday when they hand-delivered petitions signed by 560,000 Americans who want Bush to provide a detailed response to the Downing Street memo. When Conyers couldn't get in, an anti-war demonstrator shouted, ``Send Bush out!'' Eventually, White House aides retrieved the petitions at the gate and took them into the West Wing.

``Quite frankly, evidence that appears to be building up points to whether or not the president has deliberately misled Congress to make the most important decision a president has to make, going to war,'' Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said earlier at the event on Capitol Hill.

Misleading Congress is an impeachable offense, a point that Rangel underscored by saying he's already been through two impeachments. He referred to the impeachment of President Clinton for an affair with a White House intern and of President Nixon for Watergate, even though Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment.

Conyers pointed to statements by Bush in the run-up to invasion that war would be a last resort. ``The veracity of those statements has - to put it mildly - come into question,'' he said.

Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson said, ``We are having this discussion today because we failed to have it three years ago when we went to war.''

``It used to be said that democracies were difficult to mobilize for war precisely because of the debate required,'' Wilson said, going on to say the lack of debate in this case allowed the war to happen.

Wilson wrote a 2003 newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. After the piece appeared someone in the Bush administration leaked the identity of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, exposing her cover.

Wilson has said he believes the leak was retaliation for his critical comments. The Justice Department is investigating.

John Bonifaz, a lawyer and co-founder of a new group called AfterDowningStreet.org, said the lack of interest by congressional Republicans in the Downing Street memo is like Congress during Nixon's presidency saying ``we don't want'' the Watergate tapes.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
President Cheney '06!


(although hardly the lesser of the two evils)


We'd be dealing directly with the puppeteer instead of the puppet. :F
 
eL eS said:
I'd rather face the cohersion of some tv evangelist than a Liberal Wallet Jacking any day.

And the difference between "liberal wallet jacking" and conservative government funding of "faith-based initiatives" IS??????????? SSDD, the only difference is the first one is FAIR to all those receiving aid, and the latter is prejudiced based on the beliefs of those receiving aid.


eL eS said:
It will be close to being fair if and when we get the flat tax.

Now that :I


SSSsssswwwwwooooooosssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

What was that sound? It was the sound of my joke flying right over the head of Gruuvin8. It would've been so bad except that it was a ground ball. :N
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top