9:37 Home from bowling. Heard some of the debate on the radio. Nothing was being said that was substantially different from what I’ve heard before.
9:39 Kerry is looking right into camera. Is it that someone told him to do so, is the moderator just sitting in front of the camera?
9:40 My God, I’ve never seen Bush’s smirk more pronounced.
9:42 Any Canadians out there with opinions on whether government controlled health care results in poor quality?
9:46 Wait…is that what Bush said? The way that Kerry put it? Did Bush actually say that young people should be able to take money out of SS and put it into accounts? I thought he was just talking about putting money into savings.
9:48 I find that a bit hard to believe, that that tax cut alone would have kept SS going until 2075.
9:52 Okay, seriously. Did Bush have, y’know, a minor stroke on the left hand side of his face? I mean, the sneer is starting to distract me.
9:53 This is the first question to Bush that he hasn’t used to attack Kerry.
9:53: Whoops. Spoke too soon. Got in a shot under the wire.
9:57 That’s an interesting promise, that Kerry will bring the minimum wage up to over $7 an hour. Kerry’s also using the opportunity to target women.
9:58 AW, COME ON. Bush veered jobs over into education, and now he’s veering minimum wage into education? Jesus.
10:00 Holy crap. Two boldly dodged questions by Bush.
10:02 I mean, I hope American women were paying attention to that. Bush’s out and out dodging of the question was not only pathetic, but it really made clear that, hëll yeah, he would want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
10:04 What the hëll is Bush blinking so much for?
10:07 No, Kerry did NOT talk about a global test in respect to getting permission from other countries to defend himself. Does Bush NEVEr get tired of exaggerating it? Thank God Kerry is meeting that one head on.
10:09 Oh, come on. Bush heard that there wasn’t support for the Assault weapons ban (which I doubt) and therefore decided not to bother to push for it? As if he hasn’t failed to put the full court press to those things that he really DOES believe in.
10:14 I’m not sure if Bush met with the Black Congressional Caucus or not, but he sure as heck didn’t meet with the other organizations Kerry mentioned.
10:17 Jeez, I wish Kerry would find another word to use other than “respect” when it comes to matters of religion.
10:18 Now KERRY swings a question over to education? Oooookay.
10:22 The point isn’t that the country was divided in 2000. The point is that the country was united in 2001 and now is split once again, even worse than before.
10:24 what a powder puff question for the last question in the debate.
10:26 Idear? IDEAR? Kerry can say “nuclear,” but he can’t say “idea?”
10:29 I like the notion that Bush is optimistic. Unfortunately, it doesn’t jibe with many of his speeches that hit again and again sentiments of fear and terror.
I thought Bush’s closing speech was better, but overall Kerry just flat out performed better. I think Bush really hurt himself when he dodged several questions in a row. And I’ll tell you, I was dubious about the whole Bush-listening device thing, but there were moments when it really did look like Bush was listening to someone else talking…Ah well. I dunno.
• 
Did anyone else notice that Bush was frothing at the mouth for the first half of the debate? I found it quite amusing, especially when he was getting worked up and smacking the podium.
It bothers me because it implies that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game.
No, it implies that some people believe that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game. Prayer prayed does not equal prayer answered.
Jeff
(or that some people want God to play favorites)
**It happened with the Edmond High School football games in the late 90’s. Not long after the whole city seal debacle.**
Right. Forgot about it… like I try to forget Edmond exists, even though I technically live there.
Debacle is a word that really explains the city seal. If, just if, the city had said “This is part of our heritage, and this is part of our history. Why shouldn’t we have this cross on our seal?” I may not have liked it, but at least I’d understand it.
But making the statement: “A Cross Represents All Faiths,” is well… dumb. dumber than dumb.
And the lawsuit was not in Oklahoma, it was just enforced in Oklahoma at that time and was brought up because Ernie Istook tried to pass an ammendment called the “Religious Freedom Amendment”… (The actual lawsuit was based out of Rhode Island)… it just was brought to light here at that time.
Most people were up in arms about it around here. What it was talking about was the pre-game prayer at football games. If it’s broadcast across the stadium, done at a school sponsored event, then does it cross the line of separation of state?
Anyway, my two cents… sorry I went on too long.
Travis
Idear? IDEAR? Kerry can say “nuclear,” but he can’t say “idea?”
Yes, he did say “idear.” However, as I remember it, it seemed to be in the context of a quote. I could not figure out if he was trying to say it like the person he was quoting was saying it. It didn’t work if that was what he was trying.
It was not as obvious as some of Bush’s mispronounciations, but it did stand out.
Jim in Iowa
**It bothers me because it implies that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game.
No, it implies that some people believe that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game. Prayer prayed does not equal prayer answered.
****
Silly humans, everyone knows God favors only sides in NCAA Basketball teams… And he wears Orange and Black. (OkState)… all other sports, he’s not that interested in.
Travis
oh, and reference to the first post:
In 1992, Oklahomans were told that the U.S. Supreme Court banned prayers at graduation services, arising from a prayer offered at a Rhode Island Middle School.
As fall football games rolled around, state Superintendent Sandy Garrett said the court decision meant no non-denominational invocations, no voluntary moments of silence, no anything that could be confused with intermixing a school event with a religious act.
In 1994, Rep. Ernest Istook introduced a proposed amendment, constitutionally protecting free exercise of prayer in schools and other public institutions. However, the resolution stalled in the House.
Four years later, Istook is attempting again this week to bring a Religious Freedom Amendment before the House. The congressman concedes that it takes numerous tries before any Amendment to the Constitution is ratified
1998 Edmond Sun.
—-
Travis
I did think Bush got a little too deep into the religion question, it might have swayed some more undecided to Kerry’s favor. Especially concidering the whole Stem Cell/Abortion/Church and State Seperation accusations that have been brought against Bush since he first came into office. Personally, I dont have issues with individuals having religious beliefs, but I have an issue when our leaders base their decisions on imput from higher powers. Consultations with God should not be in any Presidents daily schedule.
No, it implies that some people believe that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game.
Now you’re just playing semantics. That is what I was meaning. People who pray for victory in football games are implying that (in their minds) that God plays favorites in football games.
So are there any presidential candidates that don’t distort the truth? It appears the gentlemen who debated are pretty good distorters.
http://www.factcheck.org/article281.html
With the Cowboys building a new stadium (they hope) in Arlington, we will see if they leave the hole in the stadium for God to watch. 🙂 Go Cowboys!
I fully expect that when the old stadium is demolished, demons will pour out the hole.
I hate and despise the Cowboys.
Go Eagles!
Getting back to the debate, my nomination for the most idiotic statement of last night was Bush’s cop-out on the letting the assault weapon ban expire by blaming it on Tom Delay telling him there weren’t enough votes to renew it. This gave Kerry a perfect opening to argue about how he would have fought for it and how it is supported by most law enforcement agencies. He even got to tell a story about going hunting with a sheriff and a drug bust.
So Kerry was able to portray himself as someone who could take charge and fight for what he believed in, a supporter of law enforcement, and a hunter while Bush looked like an ineffective leader who couldn’t get a popular law renewed despite his party controlling both houses of Congress.
If Bush had said, “I believe the assault weapons ban was a bad law and here is why,” I could have respected his stand on conviction, but to puss out and hide behind Tom Delay’s skirt was just pathetic.
“Funny how those who don’t like Christianity have no problem imposing their morality on others.”
Jim in Iowa, your statement IMO would have more impact if it read:
“Funny how those who don’t like ________(fill in any religious or non religious belief) have no problem imposing their morality on others.”
Bush’s smirk was loathsome throughout the debate. Almost bad enough to make me ignore the fact that John Kerry said, when speaking about immigration concerns, “It is against the law in this country to hire people illegally.”
No kidding. You could look it up.
“I fully expect that when the old stadium is demolished, demons will pour out the hole.”
I pry for all our sakes that Buffy the vampire sayer is in the dallas metro area that day!
“Almost bad enough to make me ignore the fact that John Kerry said, when speaking about immigration concerns, “It is against the law in this country to hire people illegally.”
Well technically that is true. lol
There is a difference between praying for yourself, in your own way, and announcing your prayer to a stadium full of people whether they want to hear it or not.
The same applies to kids reading a prayer over a loudspeaker in a school or wanting everybody to hold hands and sing “Koombaya” before class.
It’s the same respect people want when you’re on a public bus, and people are listening to headphones – not everybody wants to hear what you’re listening to.
Keep it to yourself.
Consultations with God should not be in any Presidents daily schedule.
Actually, it should be in every President’s schedule and thankfully, has been in most!
Shana–Bush would argue that Kerry has been flipflopping between extremel liberal and moderate liberal. So he can still tag him as an evil lilberal AND as someone who changes his mind.
Me, I’m still frustrated that once again, Kerry passed the opportunity to slam Bush, who boasted of creating the Homeland Security Department, that it was a concept that languished in the Bush White House for nine months simply because it was an idea from the departing Clinton administration. Bush elevated his own bias above the good of the nation and then has the stones to take credit for it belatedly while accusing KERRY of changing his mind on issues?
PAD
“Consultations with God should not be in any Presidents daily schedule.
Actually, it should be in every President’s schedule and thankfully, has been in most!”
Yeah, ’cause it’s great when world leaders engage in delusional practices to help “lead” their nations…
They’re supposed to be the leaders, not following the non-existant invisible man in the sky…
Although it’d be hilarious if Allah appeared at the Press Conference before George Bush and said “Ha, you infidel, you picked the wrong god!” and turned him into a pillar of salt, and then turned on the sprinkler system…
Personally, I dont have issues with individuals having religious beliefs, but I have an issue when our leaders base their decisions on imput from higher powers. Consultations with God should not be in any Presidents daily schedule.
Do you realize how out of touch that statement is with both the majority of the public and with American history? If God exists (and no, you don’t have to believe that he does), why would it be such a dangerous thing to “consult” with him (or whatever pronoun you want to use)? Why is it so dangerous to believe there is something greater than ourselves? The Founding Fathers clearly believed there was and stated this in the Declaration of Independence.
It is oxymoronic to say it is ok to have religious beliefs, they just should not matter (at least not if you are a leader). That is really what the comment above means. The fact that Bush prays and looks to God for guidance does not mean he will do something rash or extreme (nor that he won’t). The fact that someone is “reasoned” and “logical” does not mean someone will not be a tyrant. Go reread the history of WW2 Germany and of Communist Russia. Hitler was not a Christian (most historians believe he was heavily into the occult), and Stalin was also not a Christian. Both used “human logic” and reasoning (not a consultation with a “higher power”) to perpretate some of the greatest atrocities of the last century.
This fear of Christians who pray and who look to God ignores the fact that all of the major wars in the last century were for secular, not religious reasons. Strong Christians were a significant portion of those who established this country with its freedom of religion.
Jim in Iowa
Yeah, ’cause it’s great when world leaders engage in delusional practices to help “lead” their nations…
They’re supposed to be the leaders, not following the non-existant invisible man in the sky…
See, y’know, I respect everyone’s right to have beliefs. And I respect a lot of people’s beliefs. The fact that I am not a Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Wiccan, Athiest, Pagan or anything like that, does not hinder me from allowing people to believe what they believe. But because I do believe in civility, I don’t believe in belittiling a person’s faith.
Faith is something that the majority of people in America have. Whether I agree with them or not, over 70% of American’s believe themselves to be religious and/or spiritual.
So if a leader uses prayer and his faith to help him lead the country, I have no issue with it at all.
I do have issues with the way Bush has handled it, but I do have issues with the concept of wearing your religion on your sleeve. But that’s neither here nor there… my point is this: Statements like the above are exactly like the statements made that “You’re Going to Hëll/Sheol/Be Reincarnated as a cockroach if you don’t believe the way I do.”
Faith is faith. It’s believing in things you have no proof of. If you believe there is no god, that’s faith. Because you have no proof there isn’t a god. If you believe there is one, same deal.
So let’s not get into religious flames. No one wins.
My Opinion As Always.
Travis
Thank God I’m not religious! Otherwise, I’d have a tough time chosing either candidate!
🙂
Oh, and firm Kerry backer here.
Travis:
>So let’s not get into religious flames. No one wins.
amen 😉
There is a difference between praying for yourself, in your own way, and announcing your prayer to a stadium full of people whether they want to hear it or not.
In other words, there is freedom of speech, just not religious speech.
As I said above, I understand how public prayer makes some uncomfortable. So does saying the pledge of allegiance or singing the National Anthem or flying the flag. I am against an imposition of religion where someone else is forced to worship (as in made to say a prayer, attend a church service, be baptized, or engage in other clearly religious practices), but I am also against my right to worship being surpressed because someone does not like that I do so publicly (such as praying at a graduation).
Personally, I do not live or die over prayer in schools or at football games. I do have a problem with the growing restrictions on my rights to express myself as a Christian.
Did you know that until 1954, churches were allowed to talk about political candidates, and somehow, our democracy survived? Now, if a church were to say that they are pro-life and that Kerry is not, they would risk their tax exempt status. When John Hancock, one of the founding fathers was asked for a list of who he felt were instrumental in establishing this great nation, his list included a large number of ministers. It is a fact that 24 out of 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were seminary graduates. Some of the strongest proponents of freedom for slaves and for religious freedom were pastors during revolutionary times. President James Garfield was a minister who had preached at revival meetings!
Congress has opened with prayer for over 200 years and we have somehow survived. I suspect we will continue to survive as long as there is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
Jim in Iowa
>Congress has opened with prayer for over 200 years and we have somehow survived. I suspect we will continue to survive as long as there is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
>Jim in Iowa
I have no problems with being surrounded by people practicing whatever type of spirituality they’d like. I agree with much of what you say as well as the above statement. I also am aware that morality is largely guided by religious background and belief. Again, I have no concern for this. What does concern me is when it is blatantly and publicly utilized as a justification or support for legal or international actions. Not only does it not represent me, whcih really is not my main problem here, but it alienates people from one another. Although placating the world around us shouldn’t be the issue, being aware that Christianity and even Americans as a minorty in a larger world should be at least a consideration. When a president or any leader either doesn’t show an awareness of this and an understanding of the the effects or reactions it potentially may ellicit from the global community, I have serious concerns.
Currently, I have very serious concerns.
Fred
Jim in Iowa –
but I am also against my right to worship being surpressed because someone does not like that I do so publicly
Again, I have to shake my head in wonder.
No one can EVER supress your right to worship. If you’re sitting on a bus, walking through the park or sitting on your couch at home, you can be worshiping your god/religion.
If your faith is strong, you don’t NEED to publicly worship. What’s the point, God can only hear you if you’re in a church?
He can’t hear you when you pray silently to yourself?
This has always been my question to anyone of faith.
And they can never answer it.
No one can EVER supress your right to worship. If you’re sitting on a bus, walking through the park or sitting on your couch at home, you can be worshiping your god/religion.
I agree with the core idea of your point. I am talking about public expressions of that worship. Just go to a very large number of countries around the world (such as China) where you can be thrown into prison simply for having 12 friends come to your house for a private, quiet worship service. I don’t take my religious freedom for granted.
One more example: It is absurd for the government to say a church cannot endorse a candidate. It can be a good thing when a religion is engaged with the culture and working to make it better. Clearly there will different opinions on what that looks like, but I guarantee there will be churches on both sides. We do not have a monolithic religion here that can dominate the culture as some countries (such as England) have.
Jim in Iowa
Posted by: Bill Mulligan
“Nice thought but where will we get advances in medicine or for that matter, future doctors? If drug companies are told they will not be allowed to make profits they will go into something more lucrative–advertising breakfast cereal or video games, whatever.”
Actually the idea that -healthcare must be run based on profit meaning whoever can pay more will receive better health care- is necessary to fund medical research and Drug-company research, is a myth.
In Canada we have multi-billion dollar drug companies, an example off the top of my head is BMO. They make profits, they conduct research, etc. but the bottom line is anyone in this country whether working or not has health coverage.
Another poster mentioned having to pay $30 000 out his own pocket to have a baby, had that been the case I would not have had a child because we could not have afforded a bill like that.
Everyone hates taxes I know, but aren’t they supposed to be used to pay for /provide things the individual person could never afford? Shouldn’t health care fall into that category?
Isn’t that why wealthy Republicans hate taxes , because they don’t need help to be able to pay for the expensive things in life such as health care and education?
If your faith is strong, you don’t NEED to publicly worship. What’s the point, God can only hear you if you’re in a church?
He can’t hear you when you pray silently to yourself?
I have a simple question: Which is better? To sit and watch the World Series at home on TV, or to be there at a game in the stadium? For most people, there is something special and exciting when you can share an experience.
God will hear me anywhere, but that is not the point. This country was also founded on freedom of speech. Why is my expression of religious speech different than your freedom of speech (within common sense parameters — I don’t have the right to break into your private house and use a bull horn to say a prayer while you are trying to sleep in bed!)?
Jim in Iowa
**This country was also founded on freedom of speech. Why is my expression of religious speech different than your freedom of speech (within common sense parameters — I don’t have the right to break into your private house and use a bull horn to say a prayer while you are trying to sleep in bed!)?**
It’s not Jim. It’s not my cuppa, tho. I don’t like it, but as PAD has expressed before, I’ll fight like hëll to let you keep it.
Travis
It’s not Jim. It’s not my cuppa, tho. I don’t like it, but as PAD has expressed before, I’ll fight like hëll to let you keep it.
And I the same for you.
Jim in Iowa
Marc initially said:
“There was no cost to us and we never saw a bill or were told of the costs. Even if we had both been unemployed, we would have had the same experience and would not have had to worry about the cost.
Somethings should not be about profit in my opinion.”
Then Bill Mulligan said:
Nice thought but where will we get advances in medicine or for that matter, future doctors? If drug companies are told they will not be allowed to make profits they will go into something more lucrative–advertising breakfast cereal or video games, whatever.
So I’M saying:
The same place they come from now- researchers at public and private institutions. You’re mistaken if you think all medical research is conducted by the private sector. Furthermore, I think, at least from the content of your post, that you may be confusing state-funded medicine (which Canada does have) with State-funded prescription drug benefits, which Canada does *not* have, except for senior citizens and other high-risk groups below a certain income level.
What Canada *does* have is looser (well, looser than the USA’s) regulations on making generic (no-name) copies of “brand-name” drugs. The drug companies are fighting this, as you can imagine, but the regs aren’t stopping them from posting record-breaking profits year after year.
“Although it’d be hilarious if Allah appeared at the Press Conference before George Bush and said “Ha, you infidel, you picked the wrong god!” and turned him into a pillar of salt, and then turned on the sprinkler system…”
Actually it’s my understanding that Allah and the God of Abraham (ie. Jesus’ father) are supposed to be one and the same. So perhaps Allah would be more likely to do the old potato chip seasoning routine on some atheists. Which would still be hilarious, though probably not to the same people.
To marc and A Canuck Redux,
The post I was responding to seemed to imply–and this may have been a misreading on my part–that healthcare (which I took to include drug companies and the work they do) should be nonprofit. My thought was that this would cripple the drug industry, which has benefited us all so greatly (Life expectancy of 85+ hasn’t happened because of our healthier diets, that’s for sure).
The fact that drug companies in Canada are making money hand over fist means that the anti-profit theory has not been applied to them. Thus, I am unsurprised that they are continuing to better our lives.
I just don’t think that it is an Ayn Rand fantasy to suggest that if Western Drug companies are suddenly expected to give up massive profits in the pursuit of drugs that could benefit millions, they may just go into other, more profitable endeavors. yes, government research will take up some slack but the best minds will usually end up at the places where they are best rewarded. Capitalism works, even if it results in the fact that some will grow rich off of new products and treatments (which bothers me not a whit–Bill Gates can have another billion dollars for all I care. Doesn’t diminish my life even a tad–but look at how much pleasure the computer revolution has given me!)
I know this is slightly off the debate topic, but since Kerry & Edwards have regularly stated that the Republicans are going to try to surpress minority and democrat vote, it is appropriate.
The DNC memo asking for a pre-emptive strike has been leaked. For those of you who have not heard, the DNC manual calls for allegations of voter intimidation *BEFORE* it happens. Guess innocent until proven guilty does not count in politics. 😉
There are plenty of examples where both sides engaged in illegal tactics over the years. This is not an issue where Democrats have a better track record than Republicans. But it is troubling for there to be what is in essence a preemptive strike with the assumption Republicans will do something. The very concept is an insult to the many workers in both parties who do not engage in such tactics.
It is important to note that there has not been a single verified example of voter intimidation in Florida in 2000. Lots of annectodal (sp?)accounts, but when it was looked into, there was no evidence that would hold up.
What would the headlines be if there was an official Republican handbookthat asserted that Democrats were going to steal the election, and that there should be preemptive action now?
Drudge did not make this up. The DNC has posted the info in context, and it does say what Drudge claims:
http://www.democrats.org/news/200410140008.html
Jim in Iowa
Actually, I’m a Libertarian. Oh, and a Buddhist. And I can’t say I really pay much attention to sports…what with the whole desire (to win) and suffering thing. Live and let live I always say.
Peace
The minimum wage here in Washington is already something like $7.11, and it’s higher than that in San Francisco, due to a “living wage” ordinance. I was surprised that it was nationally still so low.
GOD:
>Actually, I’m a Libertarian. Oh, and a Buddhist. And I can’t say I really pay much attention to sports…what with the whole desire (to win) and suffering thing. Live and let live I always say.
IMPOSTER!!! …. or have you forgotten your words in the Old Testament?
Heh. Speaking of voter fraud affecting democrats, apparently in Nevada, some bozos have been registering voters…and throwing away the ones who are registering as Democrats.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4107720
At least the GOP there apparently had the good grace to bounce those fools on their heads as fast they could….
The DNC memo asking for a pre-emptive strike has been leaked. For those of you who have not heard, the DNC manual calls for allegations of voter intimidation *BEFORE* it happens. Guess innocent until proven guilty does not count in politics. 😉
Uh, Jim….apparently this was NOT before it happened, as reports in Nevada and Arizona have been trickling in for the last month.
Uh, Jim….apparently this was NOT before it happened, as reports in Nevada and Arizona have been trickling in for the last month.
The exact quote is as follows: “If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a ‘pre-emptive strike.'”
This does not refer to Nevada. It is much more generic, talking about whatever polling the place the person is working at. In other words, it says to cry “wolf” just because you feel like it. It basically say, “Cry ‘foul’ first and then look to see if someone actually did something wrong, since we all know Republicans are evil and they are going to anyways.”
I have no problem with valid challenges. There are many reports about fradulent Democratic voter registrations as well. I personally think most of them are not deliberate attempts of fraud by the DNC, but the inevitable result when you pay people per registration you ask them to collect. The temptation to turn in a fake one or register someone 50 times (as one news report documents happening to a democratic voter who could not say no to the pleading workers who gave him sob stories about how their families need the money) would tempt some people regardless of their party affiliations.
Jim in Iowa
from the dnc website, context:
http://www.democrats.org/news/200410140008.html
part quoted on drudge:
——————————————————————————–
2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a “pre-emptive strike” (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).
In other words, there is freedom of speech, just not religious speech.
I could just as easily use the example that I can’t use the same public address system at a football game to talk about the upcoming KKK rally.
Or should we allow anybody who wants to use hate speech as well whenever they want?
There is freedom of speech until you infringe upon the free speech of somebody else.
Did you know that until 1954, churches were allowed to talk about political candidates, and somehow, our democracy survived?
Yes, and up until about the same point of time, we didn’t have the words “under god” in the Pledge of Allegience either. We didn’t destroy ourselves in those first 150 years…
The text that follows “launch a pre-emptive strike” in that full document clearly states that the content of the pre-emptive strike should be to issue a press release documenting past offenses, quotes denouncing offenses, watch for offenses, educate people as to what consitutes offenses, be prepared to respond to offenses and educate people of their rights.
Would you object to a memo suggesting that if no woman is currently being raped people should concentrate their efforts on denouncing rape, watching out for rape, educating people as to what consitutes rape, being prepared to prosecute rapists and educating people of their rights to not be raped?
Ogf course DOn, those godless heathens the democrats are too ignorant and evil and must be shown the one true way of the religious republicans…
Jim and others – I certainly hope you’re not really under the impression that a church isn’t free to be as involved in the political process as they like, because they are. Reverend Joe Smith can stand at the pulpit and rail against candidate X and for candidate Y all day long.
Or they can take donations which are tax deductable for the donor.
What they can’t do it both. And if you think that’s unfair, well, take it up with MoveOn.org. “Contributions to MoveOn.org are not tax deductible because they will be used to influence legislation.” or the Christian Coalition. “Christian Coalition of America is organized and operates as a 501(c)(4) organization, gifts to which are not deductible for Federal income tax purposes.”
And in reality, they can be involved in the political process. They just have to be very very careful about how they collect and use money to do it. You can read about the particulars at http://www.exempttaxlaw.com/CM/Articles/Articles54.asp if you like but the bottom line is they have to organize a separate arm to do it and can’t spend the collection plate money.
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar
This does not refer to Nevada. It is much more generic, talking about whatever polling the place the person is working at. In other words, it says to cry “wolf” just because you feel like it. It basically say, “Cry ‘foul’ first and then look to see if someone actually did something wrong, since we all know Republicans are evil and they are going to anyways.”
Uh, Jim…yes, it does. I mean, is it REALLY crying wolf if something actually DID do something scummy a month before? Particularly if it’s something like issuing press releases and warnings? That’s sort of saying that community groups shouldn’t be issuing warnings for a potential child molestor if someone tried to snatch a kid a city or two over….
One more example: It is absurd for the government to say a church cannot endorse a candidate.b>
I
Marc
“Another poster mentioned having to pay $30 000 out his own pocket to have a baby, had that been the case I would not have had a child because we could not have afforded a bill like that.”
That was me and actually if you check it was 3000.00 not 30,000, thank God! Curerently we still owe the Doctor and hospital where the baby was born (Willow Creek in Johnson Arkansas)780.00.
We have been paying them between 70 and 100 a month, having worked out a payment plan in April agreeing to pay 50 a month. The 50 a month was thier terms. Last month in spite of exceeding thier terms and having paid close to 1000.00 to them already since May, which has left me for the remainder of this year so far scraping to get by, My wife was to have her gynecological exam by the same Doctor. The billing departmentcalled us 26 hours before the appt and cancelled it saying that even though we were paying, and knowing that we has finally surpassed the cap on our yearly insurance we would not be allowed to have another appountment until we got our balance down below 200.00. For referance our insurance currently works like this. For the first 2000 or so of medical expenses you pay a 20% co-pay. After that they stop paying for about 3000.00, then you hit your cap and they start paying again. at this point they pay about 98% of the medical. then at some point much higher and I’m not sure where they stop paying again. Now out of the 3000.00 around 1800.00 was the ob/gyn, 60% or so of the rest went to our regular doctor who i still owe 170.00 to, and the remainder to the aesthesiologist, whom at this point I have paid in full, as back in May it was the smallest of the bills. Examine that for a moment in our vaunted health care system, which people hold up as so much better than Canadas, my wife has been refused care because we oue money, and were A. paying more than they asked for, B. have insurance that would pretty much cover the entire visit. I’ll have to ask Pad to forgive this outburst, but that is completely F***ed up!! We are not having to look for a new doctor, and I’ll be dámņëd if I’ll pay those bášŧárdš more than the 50 a month we agreed upon. Why should I bust my ášš to pay the bill and end up feeling like I’m scraping before our paycvhecks every other week just so I can be treated like human trash?
sorry that should read
We are now having to look for a new doctor,