Hmm, in 2004 the country was all Red. Why you ask? Well I will tell you, look who was running.
Honestly.
Also, vote republican so I can get a raise. Lol
05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447 12.523@111.30
And Mr. Goody, before you paste that googled proof that Christian churches get more...be sure to include a ratio...not just total numbers. There are more "Christian Churches" in this country than mosques, synagogues put together.
Just on a side note....when was the last time you saw a homeless shelter, hospital, or orphanage built by and atheist group? Not an example of some atheist who donated 5 milion or so, but a group of atheists who paid for the building and funded the operating expenses for years.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Labotomi wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Labotomi wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Plainly put. Politicians don't bring religion to law making or spend tax money to religious establishments. Voters exercise your religious right at church, temple, Mosque, home, where ever with friends, family with other religious gatherings, not the White House or any where else in DC. There is a separation of church and state, follow it. That's the American way
I can't make it simpler then that.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This doesn't state nor was it ever meant to prohibit religious views from influencing political decisions as long as the decisions don't promote one religion over others or infringe upon any religion. Tax money can be spent upon religious establishments as long as other religions get the same benefits. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention a separation of church and state, that actually came from letters penned by Jefferson
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Nowhere in the constitution does this term exist.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Really?
NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion.
Actions:
In order to get your VISA or citizenship quicker or guarantee it, you must get married. Homosexual's civil union can't get benefits like married Hetero folks, a 18 year old girl can't get an abortion at 8-10 weeks, or a Hetero couple jointly living together for 20+ years can't get gov't pension benefits because they are not married. Where do you think these laws derive from?
Sounds to me we are respecting the laws of Christianity. No?
No, It sounds like they are coming from common sense
it doesn't. You only choose to look at it that way. Do you really think that Christianity is the only religion that prohibits homosexuals from getting married. Do you know the kind of abuse the system would endure if you allowed non married couples to get benefits? I personally am not against homosexual marriages as long as they don't get any preferential or additional benefits than heterosexual marriages. Visa and citizenships are granted to married people faster because one of those people is already an American citizen.
Abortion isn't only a religious stance, it's a pro lift stance. the same girl that can't get an abortion at 8-10 weeks can get one earlier and that goes against Christianity, so your argument is poorly suited to the topic. Murder is murder no matter what your religion (well, maybe it's a jihad in Islam, but I've never heard a jihad being called on an 8 week old fetus).
I don't think any religion accept homosexuality (correct my ignorance if I'm wrong) but their lives to live "normally" is always threaten because it is a SIN!!!! My thing is... WHO CARES? Oh yhea.... religious folks do. That is why there are so many regulation against them from getting benefits: they can't get "MARRIED." And if you call it "Civil Union," in some states they still can't benefits, why? IT IS A SIN. They can't get couple's insurance, etc. All of this stems from RELIGION.
Abuse from non-married couples? Do you actually think there is no abuse coming from married couples already? Do you need to be reminded with the VISA? Same deal with the Homosexuality thing up there, one must be married to get benefits. MARRIAGE: an religious form of action.
And one getting VISA quicker if you get married to a US Citizen? Why? That's an abuse on marriage and the system, because we know that the majority of immigrants will be doing that to get settled here. Hell, money and contracts are being done for this religious form of practice.
OH MAN... Abortion is not a RELIGIOUS stance now? That's funny. For religious folks, life starts at conception. I believe it is living when it is breathing on its own and out of the womb. So abortion to some is killing, because religion dictates that. I am not going to talk on it, because would call for a different thread. But Abortion laws are there to satisfy the religious folks... therefore it is strongly suited to that: religion should be out of politics.
Labotomi wrote:
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
If tax money will be spent on religious establishment (I personally would not send a dime), be fair... send to Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah witness, Quakers, Scientologists, etc. Not just Christians. Because this is exactly where it has been going the passed years. Looks like another: "respecting an establishment of ( A ) religion.
Thomas Jefferson and John Locke must be turning over in their grave.
Provide proof that Christian churches get greater benefits than Islamic Mosques or Mormons or Jewish establishments. The benefits (tax breaks) are used by all recognized religions. Any benefit that the Christian churches get are also available to the other recognized religions.
Read here.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e2340.htm
Read the NY TIMES & WASHINGTON POST, as I read some there too.
Labotomi wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
And like I said above. What is more important? What is more important to your household, abortion laws or keep your job (because it is being threaten to go to China) in order to put food on the table?
This is why religion should be left out of politics and campaigns. REAL issues are not talked about, we are BSing on the the rights for homos not to get married, but nobody talks about how come oil refineries has not built and we are paying the price at the pump. The oil IS there, the gas isn't. $55+billion (gross) was made in profit by Exxon alone, you'd think they would spend it on a refinery here? Why no ban on assault weapons? Do we really need to shoot 100 rounds in 10 seconds?
Why so much emphasize on religion and not the problems we face? Is someone afraid to stand up to it?
What the "real" issues are to you are not what the "real" issues are to everyone.
Who should spend money on a refinery? The government? That's not their job. If another company comes in and wants to build one, I'm sure it'll be ok with everyone. If you really think that Exxon is not building refineries to keep prices inflated, then you really don't understand economics at all. I guess you think nintendo is not making enough wiis to keep the price up also.
If you haven't noticed, the dollar is really weak right now which is making labor cheaper in this country than others. If things don't change, you'll begin to see those jobs coming back to the US.
But to address your comment. I want what's right for the country for the long term not just what's right for me and my family at this particular moment. I think that politicians with strong religious beliefs are better suited than the ones without to lead this country for the long haul. Sometimes you sacrifice a battle to win the war.
I'm not in your position. The economy may have more of an effect on you than it does me. I'm not hurting right now and don't think I will for quite some time. I'll vote based on what I thinks best and you try and vote for what you thinks best. We both have to live with the results.
Who should fund a refinery? Oil companies, thats who. It would lower the price of fuel and creates the jobs in the process. They don't do it, because they are banking it in, while not spending a dime. You do realize the major part we are paying more is because we got to refine our oil some where else, transportation from and back adds a sizable cost. Like i said there is PLENTY and I mean PLENTY of oil, but there is limited fuel. Our refinery is 30+ years old, dated and some have been destroyed because of natural disaters. But the oil tycoons in office shrug it off. Oh yhea Texas' Oil Corp HQ are moving to Dubai in a years time, pay less taxes? You decide.
"Jobs coming back to the US," wishful thinking. They are not coming back. Reagan imposed a system that you get a tax break if you build outside of the US. Cheaper labor, healthy tax break (Corporate welfare)... yhea business' are not building here. MADE IN CHINA is here to stay.
"I think that politicians with strong religious beliefs are better suited than the ones without to lead this country for the long haul."
And that's just the thing. What good has a religious based Presidency done for this country? Because with this last administration alone, there are immorality issues aplenty. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Look I am the biggest fan of the US and i don't want it to faultier, but every time I see or read a Republican in office, the country as a whole goes to the pits. So why vote them in?
(Side note)
I gotta watch my posts.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Who should fund a refinery? Oil companies, thats who. It would lower the price of fuel and creates the jobs in the process. They don't do it, because they are banking it in, while not spending a dime. You do realize the major part we are paying more is because we got to refine our oil some where else, transportation from and back adds a sizable cost. Like i said there is PLENTY and I mean PLENTY of oil, but there is limited fuel. Our refinery is 30+ years old, dated and some have been destroyed because of natural disaters. But the oil tycoons in office shrug it off. Oh yhea Texas' Oil Corp HQ are moving to Dubai in a years time, pay less taxes? You decide.
"Jobs coming back to the US," wishful thinking. They are not coming back. Reagan imposed a system that you get a tax break if you build outside of the US. Cheaper labor, healthy tax break (Corporate welfare)... yhea business' are not building here. MADE IN CHINA is here to stay.
"I think that politicians with strong religious beliefs are better suited than the ones without to lead this country for the long haul."
And that's just the thing. What good has a religious based Presidency done for this country? Because with this last administration alone, there are immorality issues aplenty. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Look I am the biggest fan of the US and i don't want it to faultier, but every time I see or read a Republican in office, the country as a whole goes to the pits. So why vote them in?
(Side note)
I gotta watch my posts.
Like I said before, you obviously don't understand economics. If there is a market for the product and it is economical to build a facility to produce that product, companies will invest the money to capitalize on that opportunity. If one more refinery is built it will have minimal impact on oil prices but the company who built it would be reaping huge profits. Do you think that there are no companies out there that would build a refinery for fear of gas prices falling. That argument is absurd to put it mildly.
The reason companies moved out of the US was due to cheap labor and favorable currency rates. Now the rates aren't as favorable and the labor is becoming cheaper in the US. If the current trend continues, you bet jobs will be coming back to the US. Made in China is here to stay? I can say for a fact that in the steel industry imports are lower than they have been in the past few years and our exports are higher. Why? Because the value of the dollar keeps it that way. A weak dollar is good for exports and bad for imports. It's as simple as that. The economy comes in cycles. Republicans and Democrats affect is somewhat, but free market trade and natural swings are vastly more influential. If you just want to bury your head in the sand and blame is solely on republicans, then go right ahead. Enjoy your ignorance.
Are you implying that every politician with strong religious beliefs have been bad ones? Or are you just going to put Bush in that category and base every argument based on his decisions? I'm going to make an assumption based on your age. You've only really understood politics since the Clinton administration and as such you've seen the economy go through a single boom and bust cycle. Don't for one minute believe that the presidency is the only factor that dictates the economy. There are many factors that are out of our control or happen without warning. A lot of it has to do with stock trader speculation (eg. dot.com bubbles and housing bubbles). People trying to inflate prices to make a profit and when it's realized that those upswings in value are unwarranted, the market makes a correction, sometimes quickly and sometimes it takes a while.
You've already made up your mind, so why did you even start this thread?
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
OH MAN... Abortion is not a RELIGIOUS stance now? That's funny. For religious folks, life starts at conception. I believe it is living when it is breathing on its own and out of the womb. So abortion to some is killing, because religion dictates that. I am not going to talk on it, because would call for a different thread. But Abortion laws are there to satisfy the religious folks... therefore it is strongly suited to that: religion should be out of politics.
You have your opinion on when life begins and I have mine, and mine is not based on my religious beliefs. As you stated "For religious folks, life starts at conception". If the laws were there to satisfy religious folks then there would be no abortion even befor 8 weeks.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:labotomi wrote:Provide proof that Christian churches get greater benefits than Islamic Mosques or Mormons or Jewish establishments. The benefits (tax breaks) are used by all recognized religions. Any benefit that the Christian churches get are also available to the other recognized religions.
Read here.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e2340.htm
Did you even read the article you referenced?
There's not one reference to Christianity. The point of the article is to help organizations promote better fatherhood and that's a good thing even if you're not religious. Most of these organizations exist already and he wants to help fund them. The "church based" reference is non specific and it does not say anything about allowing only certain churches of specific religions to be eligible.
.
goodwrench: do you not realize that you are simply using blanket statements against religion and religious people? do you think that something as complex as an individual's belief system can be so neatly classified? you keep busting on Christians.....but Christianity is an umbrella term that might encapsulate a few hundred or more different factions underneath of it. each separate sect has different views on these topics, yet you think that simply because they fall under the heading of Christianity that they are all the same. to me, that is as near-sighted and foolish as posting up the WBC as if they were representative of Christianity as a whole like you did the other day. are you just trying to sway uninformed readers in your stead or do you really think that they are all the same?
Quote:
Like I said before, you obviously don't understand economics. If there is a market for the product and it is economical to build a facility to produce that product, companies will invest the money to capitalize on that opportunity. If one more refinery is built it will have minimal impact on oil prices but the company who built it would be reaping huge profits. Do you think that there are no companies out there that would build a refinery for fear of gas prices falling. That argument is absurd to put it mildly.
What is absurd? Do you understand that, pump the oil out, take it somewhere else, refine, transport the refine fuel to the states, does add to what you pay at the pump? I guess in your world, refining elsewhere and transporting it back is free.
You fail to understand $40 BILLION (net) in profit... How much more do you need? A record for any US company PERIOD! I guess it is ok that with record profits, to not build a refineries in Texas and build the country with some industry jobs. Our hand is on Iraq's oil, now ex-CEO Chaney's Haliburton should refine it. Oh that's right, what they are doing is morally correct, so it is ok.
Quote:
The reason companies moved out of the US was due to cheap labor and favorable currency rates. Now the rates aren't as favorable and the labor is becoming cheaper in the US. If the current trend continues, you bet jobs will be coming back to the US. Made in China is here to stay? I can say for a fact that in the steel industry imports are lower than they have been in the past few years and our exports are higher. Why? Because the value of the dollar keeps it that way. A weak dollar is good for exports and bad for imports. It's as simple as that. The economy comes in cycles. Republicans and Democrats affect is somewhat, but free market trade and natural swings are vastly more influential. If you just want to bury your head in the sand and blame is solely on republicans, then go right ahead. Enjoy your ignorance.
Yes cheaper labor yes, but read on what Reagan did to promote US companies to build in Mexico and overseas, then get back to me. I'm not here teach you your history.
And your weak dollar argument is weak. As long you have to pay $10 an hrs to build a toy as oppose 0.50 cents in China and still charge $30 no matter where it is built, weak dollar or not, manufacturing will be done elsewhere. The only way to counter that is to do the opposite to what Reagan did.
Republicans/corporations fail to see that if people internally does not have an income, the economy WON'T move. Hey the 20th century was working like that, and everybody seemed satisfied, no? Isn't there scripture in bible against being greedy? Hypocrisy?
Quote:
Are you implying that every politician with strong religious beliefs have been bad ones? Or are you just going to put Bush in that category and base every argument based on his decisions? I'm going to make an assumption based on your age. You've only really understood politics since the Clinton administration and as such you've seen the economy go through a single boom and bust cycle. Don't for one minute believe that the presidency is the only factor that dictates the economy. There are many factors that are out of our control or happen without warning. A lot of it has to do with stock trader speculation (eg. dot.com bubbles and housing bubbles). People trying to inflate prices to make a profit and when it's realized that those upswings in value are unwarranted, the market makes a correction, sometimes quickly and sometimes it takes a while.
No, I will say, politician with a religious beliefs HAVE BEEN NO GOOD for this country whether believe it or not. These people will cause disasters all in the name of god. Repress women, remove liberties from certain people. Point blank: some of radicalism is no different from the middle east. And yet some have the nerve to complain how they are. Again, Hypocrisy?
LOL now basing off my age? Heh I bring up Bush because people forget too easily of their history or lack of knowledge there of. My age wow. With a Associate's in Journalism, two Bachelor's Journalism/Political Science, and a Master's in Political Science, I have just a little room to have my say. Where do YOU base off, age? Albeit age with a bad memory at that. Senile much? Don't deter the topic because of age.
Clinton not only had dot.com boom, but imposed INTERNAL spending and not start insignificant wars, the money was spent here by opening federal/state/county jobs. Where people once worked for the industry that got sent to Mexico, now was working as police officers, or city clerk, post offices, etc. That is why not only the Dow Jones was strong, but people were economically strong. Today the economy is some what strong, but people are not: Industries are not hiring internally. So a select few is capable of moving the economy forward and that select few is not the low/middle class: where about 80% of the population is at.
Quote:
You've already made up your mind, so why did you even start this thread?
I wanted to see some outlines to what Republican did for this country. I may have missed something that you all see.
And it is not like I won't ever vote for one, hell a Republican has my vote for governor because his actions has been excellent for the state so far.
Quote:
Did you even read the article you referenced?
There's not one reference to Christianity. The point of the article is to help organizations promote better fatherhood and that's a good thing even if you're not religious. Most of these organizations exist already and he wants to help fund them. The "church based" reference is non specific and it does not say anything about allowing only certain churches of specific religions to be eligible.
The real question is did YOU read it?
Quote:
Bush announced the proposal Tuesday at a church-based program that counsels men how to be better fathers, saying initiatives like this ''across the country remind dads, if you have a child your biggest responsibility is to love your child with all your heart and all your soul ... there is a certain responsibility to fatherhood and that responsibility is showing up'' and setting a good example.
Quote:
Bush said he has no problem with the government giving money to church-affiliated groups that promote parenthood.
Looks like there is a "respecting an establishment of religion." No?
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:
Bush said he has no problem with the government giving money to church-affiliated groups that promote parenthood.
Looks like there is a "respecting an establishment of religion." No?
No you're wrong in your interpretation of the constitution. It means that the government shall not promote one religion over another, not that they can't give money to churches. And like I said, there is nothing in that article that indicates he is violating any laws.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:LOL now basing off my age? Heh I bring up Bush because people forget too easily of their history or lack of knowledge there of. My age wow. With a Associate's in Journalism, two Bachelor's Journalism/Political Science, and a Master's in Political Science, I have just a little room to have my say. Where do YOU base off, age? Albeit age with a bad memory at that. Senile much? Don't deter the topic because of age.
It wasn't age bashing, but obviously that is what you've resorted to by labeling me senile. It's that you have only been old enough to comprehend politics while only 2 families have been in office. And your degrees don't impress me in this argument because I'm fully aware of what college teaches (liberalism). I've taken a few political science classes myself and had run ins with professors who only wanted me to agree with their point of view. When I went back to school (in my 30s), the professors were much less hesitant to argue because they knew that I wouldn't be as easily converted (intimidated) by their tactics. I still had run ins, but at least the professors were willing to listen to my views instead of ignoring them. Colleges in general are liberal organizations and do their part to promote their views. BTW, my degree is EE with a minor in Business so I'm not going to try and impress you with what I've taken. You still need to learn some economics.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:What is absurd? Do you understand that, pump the oil out, take it somewhere else, refine, transport the refine fuel to the states, does add to what you pay at the pump? I guess in your world, refining elsewhere and transporting it back is free.
You fail to understand $40 BILLION (net) in profit... How much more do you need? A record for any US company PERIOD! I guess it is ok that with record profits, to not build a refineries in Texas and build the country with some industry jobs. Our hand is on Iraq's oil, now ex-CEO Chaney's Haliburton should refine it. Oh that's right, what they are doing is morally correct, so it is ok.
The refineries mostly are located where the oil comes from. Either near the oil fields (Texas and Alaska) or near seaports where the oil comes in from other countries. Some are located elsewhere and they probably have a close source of oil for their supply. It's not like all the oil in the US is located in Texas and Alaska.
Do you think that the refineries get the transportation cost for free? They shoulder that expense and then pass it on to the consumer. It may help consumers with gas pricing, but not the companies themselves. In my industry we pay for scrap steel including shipping here and then shipping the finished products out. We pay the shipping cost. That cost is factored into the price of the finished products, but we make no more profit because of shipping.
Maybe the record profits are due to us using a record amount of fuel, plus we have to compete with developing countries using oil and driving up prices (supply and demand). China during the past decade has more than quadrupled it's use of fuel.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:I wanted to see some outlines to what Republican did for this country. I may have missed something that you all see.
And it is not like I won't ever vote for one, hell a Republican has my vote for governor because his actions has been excellent for the state so far.
As long as he doesn't have strong religious convictions
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:And your weak dollar argument is weak. As long you have to pay $10 an hrs to build a toy as oppose 0.50 cents in China and still charge $30 no matter where it is built, weak dollar or not, manufacturing will be done elsewhere. The only way to counter that is to do the opposite to what Reagan did.
Republicans/corporations fail to see that if people internally does not have an income, the economy WON'T move. Hey the 20th century was working like that, and everybody seemed satisfied, no? Isn't there scripture in bible against being greedy? Hypocrisy?
As long as China manipulates their currency to be artificially weak when compared to the dollar then yes, labor will be cheaper in China. That is one of the major things that politicians need to address. When China allows it's currency value to freely float, you'll notice a rise in the price of Chinese labor, goods and services. Because of the artificial manipulation of their currency which leads to the huge trade deficit, they currently have enough US dollars to purchase 10% of our economy.
This country has gone from one of being producers to being consumers. we want the cheapest goods we can get and China continues to provide that because they provide government subsidies to manufacturing countries along with keeping their currency under inflated. They have a weak currency as compared to us and they seem to be doing quite well. If we were to tie the value of our currency to theirs and under inflate it's value, it would be more expensive to buy their goods and less expensive for them to buy ours. The US allows it's currency value to freely float. China doesn't. That is what keeps us in a deficit.
Quote:
No, I will say, politician with a religious beliefs HAVE BEEN NO GOOD for this country whether believe it or not. These people will cause disasters all in the name of god.
politicians with religious beliefs are no good to this country? wow, thats really a broad statement now! whether or not
YOU want to believe it, our country was founded BY religious people with religious beliefs! dude, open your eyes and realize this! there is a HUGE difference between making laws that suit a certain, large demographic of your population based on their beliefs and the sort of mindless zealotry that you seem to think is going on. i mean you are comparing us to nations like iran?
youre point of view on this is skewed beyond imagination.
^^^^^^^
Damn. I told you to go back in time and tell the fore fathers. yank the first few dozen presidents out of office.
05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447 12.523@111.30
it amases me that the goverment can give money to 100 diffrent orginasations that are all doing good for the community. but if one of those orginasations happes to be a church group. all the sudden its a bad thing. im not religious by any means but id still give money to church groups if they are out there helping out those in need.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
sndsgood wrote:it amases me that the goverment can give money to 100 diffrent orginasations that are all doing good for the community. but if one of those orginasations happes to be a church group. all the sudden its a bad thing. im not religious by any means but id still give money to church groups if they are out there helping out those in need.
thank you. its good to hear someone use common sense about this sort of thing. even if you dont agree with organized religions that doesnt mean they dont do good for the communities
A pastor I know in Utah (he's a baptist) says that all money that is given as a special offering must, by law, be given to the designated recipient. So, if you were to visit his church, put a check in the offering plate, made out to the church, be designated to go the homeless shelter, it would be against the law to say...recarpet the nursery instead. So, to prevent someone donating $1000 to the local lesbian anti-defamation club...in the churches name, they have written on every envelope, and in the church's bylaws, that EVERY check or envelope made out to the church will stay with the church. Any checks written to charitable organizations deemed inappropriate, will be returned to the sender.
I realize that was unrelated, but I figure it'll bother someone into copying my post and reposting in a little white square, and subsequently go on a tirade about why they hate religion and churches and church mice etc. etc.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
ScottaWhite wrote:A pastor I know in Utah (he's a baptist) says that all money that is given as a special offering must, by law, be given to the designated recipient. So, if you were to visit his church, put a check in the offering plate, made out to the church, be designated to go the homeless shelter, it would be against the law to say...recarpet the nursery instead. So, to prevent someone donating $1000 to the local lesbian anti-defamation club...in the churches name, they have written on every envelope, and in the church's bylaws, that EVERY check or envelope made out to the church will stay with the church. Any checks written to charitable organizations deemed inappropriate, will be returned to the sender.
I realize that was unrelated, but I figure it'll bother someone into copying my post and reposting in a little white square, and subsequently go on a tirade about why they hate religion and churches and church mice etc. etc.
.
Do you think this is wrong? I personally think it is a smart move.
If I wanted to donate to the KKK, I wouldn't expect the NAACP to deliver it.
No, I'm in support of it. But your KKK, NAACP analogy is good. Should deflate the balloons of those pissy about what I said.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
snds: as long as the money goes DIRECTLY to the funding the homeless shelter and not, say, so the pastor can go to the Betty Ford clinic.
With a government donation i wouldn't expect a case like Scott's to be handled in the same way.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T.
I highly suggest you listen to Sean Hanity on the radio. I think he is by far more educated than anybody on this forum about politics. You might like him because he basis his decision on the issues. He calls out republicans when they are wrong just as he does democrats. If you disagree with him and would like to have a mature conversation about the issues he will take your call. Also he will stick to the issue and not belittle you in the process. Check out his show I think you might find yourself in agreement with him.
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
[quote=Keeper Of The Light™ (Strazca)]snds: as long as the money goes DIRECTLY to the funding the homeless shelter and not, say, so the pastor can go to the Betty Ford clinic.
With a government donation i wouldn't expect a case like Scott's to be handled in the same way.
oh i agree with you there. that pretty much goes for any place. anyone who calls and asks me for money i always ask how much money directly goes to the cause. its amazing how much some of these companies take.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
its amazing how much some of these companies take.
like the mda?
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
ScottaWhite wrote:its amazing how much some of these companies take.
like the mda?
has the mda personally wronged you in some way? i mean of all the organizations to rail against, you pick the mda? seriously....what gives?
If I could vote in the US, I'd probably vote Republican. But only because McCain is an old soldier and because he and Palin are bound to be the two most entertaining pairs of President/Vice-President in recent memory.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Still no answer as to what good this party has done for the great ol' USA.
Put us in a never ending war, spending all of our money on the war, and bailing out big companies mainly owned by republicans, sucking the enviorment dry, and picking one of the most iggnat bitches from the ass end of the country to run for vp
Because more of them have served in the Military for this Nation.
(but no, I don't vote for a Party, My thought's are more in line with Ron Paul's)
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
