cwsox Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Who gives a damn about the law when we are morally self righteous? the fact that 501©(3) status means that a religious organization shall not participate in partisan politics in exchange for its tax exempt status - which means I can say in church "please vote" but no way under the law am I allowed to say, in church, for whom to vote, and I have always kept a separate phone line for political work and not used the parsonage home telephone line because obeying the law in this matter is a matter of morality and public trust... involving churches and congregation phone directories etc is about as unethical as it gets (and besides Jesus has endorsed no one and know what, Jesus won't...) Party Appeal to Churches for Help Raises Doubts By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK Published: July 2, 2004 he Bush-Cheney campaign has laid out a brisk schedule for legions of Christian supporters to help enlist "conservative churches" and their members, including sending church directories to the campaign, according to a Bush campaign document. The document, which was reported yesterday in The Washington Post and given to The New York Times by Americans Coming Together, a left-leaning group, underscores how heavily Mr. Bush is relying on conservative Christians. The campaign is asking conservative churches and churchgoers to do everything they can to turn their churches into bases of support without violating campaign finance laws or jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. The effort has drawn accusations from liberals that the campaign may be inviting churches to risk accidentally or deliberately crossing the lines. Under the heading "Coalition Coordinator: Duties," the schedule lists 22 objectives with deadlines from July 31 to Oct. 31, including sending the campaign their directories and receiving back lists of "all nonregistered church members and pro-Bush conservatives"; talking to their senior or "20-30 something" groups; asking pastors to hold a "citizenship Sunday" and voter registration drive; identifying another conservative church "who we can organize for Bush"; giving a "party for the president" with church members; recruiting up to 10 church members as volunteers; distributing "voters' guides" in the church; and posting reminders of the duty of "Christian citizens" to vote. After earlier reports about the campaign's courtship of churches and their members, the Internal Revenue Service sent a letter to political parties reminding them that a church violates its tax-exempt status when it supports a candidate. Legal experts say that churches are allowed to hold nonpartisan voter registration drives and that individual church members are free to lobby church acquaintances on behalf of a candidate, but that any use of church resources to support a political campaign, even a gesture like placing campaign fliers on a literature table, can run afoul of the tax-exempt requirements. A spokesman for President Bush's campaign, Steve Schmidt, confirmed that it had distributed the document. Mr. Schmidt said the church program, including the collection of registries, was proper. "We are collecting all kinds of lists from many different sources, and it is completely appropriate to do so," he said. "People of faith have as much right to participate in the political process as anybody else." Liberals called the effort an exploitation of religious faith for political gain and a potential violation of privacy. In a statement, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, a liberal religious group in Washington, said, "As the pastor of a local congregation, if I found out that my church membership directory was shared with a campaign or political party, I would begin immediate legal action against the campaign or political party." More theological conservatives also questioned the plan. Richard J. Mouw, president of the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., one of the largest evangelical Protestant seminaries, said: "Theologically speaking, churches are really in a position to speak truth to power. But this smacks of too close an alliance of church and Caesar." Mr. Mouw added that the Bush campaign should not take evangelical votes for granted. "I find,'' he said, "that a lot of church people, including a lot of evangelicals, are increasingly nervous about the credibility of the Bush administration on issues that a year or two ago people were ready to trust them on, like foreign policy. "Rather than just assuming that evangelical churches are ready to hand over their membership lists, they would do much better to spend some time trying to convince us that they really do have the interests of biblical Christians at heart." At Mr. Bush's campaign, Mr. Schmidt said he was confident of churchgoers' support for President Bush. "There is a wide and diverse coalition formed to make sure that President Bush has a second term," he said. "The level of support is at record levels," comparable to the support for President Ronald Reagan at the same point before his re-election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beast Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 cwsox...check your pm's...i sent you one, and I'm not sure if you got it from me. Also...what is your political opinion on bringing illegal fireworks, M-80's, bottle rockets and such into Illinois? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Who gives a damn about the law when we are morally self righteous? the fact that 501©(3) status means that a religious organization shall not participate in partisan politics in exchange for its tax exempt status - which means I can say in church "please vote" but no way under the law am I allowed to say, in church, for whom to vote, and I have always kept a separate phone line for political work and not used the parsonage home telephone line because obeying the law in this matter is a matter of morality and public trust... involving churches and congregation phone directories etc is about as unethical as it gets (and besides Jesus has endorsed no one and know what, Jesus won't...) You're surprised by the actions of any conservative religiosos to keep their GOP friends in offoce when there's all that sweet and 'impartially awarded' faith-based charity gravy to hand out?? Bet you'll get this one on the first guess... And if these words you do not heed - Your pocketbook just kinda might recede When some man comes along and claims a Godly need He'll clean you out right through your tweed (That’s right, remember there is a big Difference between kneeling down AND BENDING OVER...) He’s got twenty million dollars in his heavenly bank account... All from those chumps who was born again, Oh yeah, oh yeah He’s got seven limousines and a private plane... All for the use of his special friends, Oh yeah, oh yeah He’s got thousand-dollar suits and a Wembley tie Girls love to stroke it while he’s on the phone, Oh yeah, oh yeah At the house of representatives, he’s a groovy guy... When he gives thanks he is not alone... He is dealin’ He is really dealin’ - IRS can’t determine where the hook is... It is easy with the bible to pretend that you’re in show biz... They won’t get him, they will never get him for the naughty stuff that he did... It is best in cases like this to pretend that you are stoopid. He’s got presidential help all along the way... He says the grace while the lawyers chew, Oh yeah, they sure do And the govenors agree to say: "He’s a lovely man!" He makes it easier for them to screw - All of you... Yes, that’s true! ’cause he helps put the fear of god in the common man Snatchin’ up money everywhere he can, Oh yeah, Oh yeah He’s got twenty million dollars in his heavenly bank account... You ain’t got nothin’, people (TAX THE CHURCHES) You ain’t got nothin’, people (TAX THE BUSINESSES OWNED BY THE CHURCHES) You ain’t got nothin’, people thank the man... Oh! Oh! Oh! Yeah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 there are doing nothing wrong..the letter they sent out even says they are asking for support but to make sure not to violate the law.. you guys think when jesse jackson brings his congregation to the voting booth he isnt pushing the dem agenda???..democrats for years have used inner city churches to get votes..if it gets more people involved in the process legally whats the problem???...we always b**** every election about lack of voter turn out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 1) Republicans have tried (but so far failed) to stick in amendments to bills that would allow churches to violate the law a couple times before they faced punishment 2) Losing your tax-exempt status isn't that bad when you're gonna conveniently get bag with a dollar sign on it for the purposes of "faith-based initiatives" we're planning a canned-food drive! cool, here's $1M to help you with your effort! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 there are doing nothing wrong..the letter they sent out even says they are asking for support but to make sure not to violate the law.. you guys think when jesse jackson brings his congregation to the voting booth he isnt pushing the dem agenda???..democrats for years have used inner city churches to get votes..if it gets more people involved in the process legally whats the problem???...we always b**** every election about lack of voter turn out That argument does not meet the proper agenda. Therefore was not mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 That argument does not meet the proper agenda. Therefore was not mentioned. The argument suggests a botton-up potential violation of Separation of church and state. Therefore it's not part of the present debate about the propriety of TOP-DOWN courtship of the churches - INITIATED BY A POLITICAL party and possibly getting them to cross the line into illegality (as per the posted article). I'll give you the lead-in to the article again: he Bush-Cheney campaign has laid out a brisk schedule for legions of Christian supporters to help enlist "conservative churches" and their members, including sending church directories to the campaign, according to a Bush campaign document. The document, which was reported yesterday in The Washington Post and given to The New York Times by Americans Coming Together, a left-leaning group, underscores how heavily Mr. Bush is relying on conservative Christians. The campaign is asking conservative churches and churchgoers to do everything they can to turn their churches into bases of support without violating campaign finance laws or jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. The effort has drawn accusations from liberals that the campaign may be inviting churches to risk accidentally or deliberately crossing the lines. The schedule does make overtures about pushing the line without crossing it, bending but not breaking the law, and if all the churches manage to do that then the mobilization strategy has worked. Because it's a hard line to toe, the IRS sent a remined out to the parties to be careful. As far as Jesse Jackson - He's come up before here in argument counterpoints and I've had to claim ignorance of the details of most of his activities. I followed him a lot more closely when I lived in Chicago, and now only get national snippets. If you or Baggio or anyone has news stories that show his CHURCH BODY lobbying for the Democratic party or partisan candidates and using church funding to do so, post it and it will be the basis for a discussion with merit. As the article above states, "individual church members are free to lobby church acquaintances on behalf of a candidate," as long as church resources are not used to support a political campaign. In regard to Jackson, I don't even know if he is the pastor of a church congregation (Vince??). I really think his name gets tossed around, as it has here, as a hasty attempt at a counterargument whenever the unsavory and incestuous relationship between the GOP and the Religious Right is touched on ("Well, uh... what about Jesse Jackson? He's a minister and he's political..."). Again, it's difficult for me to follow him closely so if I am incorrect please put me right. As far as jeopardizing the tax exempt status of any of his organizations, he has been in the hot seat before that I know of but not for political lobbying and not is association with a church. His non-profit Citizen Education Fund (CEF) was accused of violating its status when it apparently took money to lobby for minority investigators in their 2001 push to buy Viacom. As far as his other organizations, the visibly politically active ones are FOR PROFIT (Rainbow/Push Coalition, NRC, Keep Hope Alive, and his wife's Jacqueline Inc. fall in this category). His Push For Excellence, Push Foundation, and CEF are non-profit, as was Operation Push when originally founded. None of these represent a church and thus none are relevant to the discussion at hand. Again though, the point of te article was that the GOP is the one initiating the push to get conservative churches to flirt with infractions of church/state separation for the sake of the party. I challenge you to find and post news stories suggesting the Democratic Party at the national level has mounted a similarly ethically questionable campaign (now or in past elections) to push churches toward potential church/state infractions. Then we will have a valid comparison and not just an offhand remark that the "does not meet the proper agenda" and was ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted July 3, 2004 Author Share Posted July 3, 2004 Rev. Jackson is not serving as the pastor to a congregation to my knowledge, FlaSoxxJim. As for the rest, very well said so I will add nothing other than to note to my good friend baggio that there is a major legal difference between saying "get out and vote" and a political party getting congregations involved in identifying voters for that party and sumbitting church directories and I am surprised you cannlt discern that difference. Meanwhile with Dr. E. James Kennedy and Pat Robertson and all the religious right (the Christian Caolition, etc. many time over) being involved in walking that thin line (except of course 700 Club Rev Robertson running for president) in pushing the republican agenda and candidates, the mention of Jesse Jackson is raher weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 "The campaign is asking conservative churches and churchgoers to do everything they can to turn their churches into bases of support WITHOUT (ding - ding - ding - ding - ding - key word there) violating campaign finance laws or jeopardizing their tax-exempt status." again..where's the problem??...they are asking for help from conservative based churches and reminding them to do it in a way that doesnt violate any laws...should any conservative church decide to help its their responsiblity to make sure all their help is w/i the rules of the law...they are not asking anyone to break the law... are you guys really that worried about the elections in november??..there is no story here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 "The campaign is asking conservative churches and churchgoers to do everything they can to turn their churches into bases of support WITHOUT (ding - ding - ding - ding - ding - key word there) violating campaign finance laws or jeopardizing their tax-exempt status." again..where's the problem??...they are asking for help from conservative based churches and reminding them to do it in a way that doesnt violate any laws...should any conservative church decide to help its their responsiblity to make sure all their help is w/i the rules of the law...they are not asking anyone to break the law... are you guys really that worried about the elections in november??..there is no story here That quote/caveat is central, and I said as much. However, the intent of the campagn schedule is more like... "The campaign is asking conservative churches and churchgoers to do everything they can to turn their churches into bases of support WITHOUT (WINK - WINK - WINK - WINK - WINK - key sentiment there) violating campaign finance laws or jeopardizing their tax-exempt status." As far as being worried about November, it is obviously the Bush Reelection campaign that is quite rightly worried. They have taken the vote of the Christian Right for granted and, despite the absurd and unfounded statements from the Bush camp that "the level of support is at record levels," there are credibility issues and a concern by much of the Christian Right that the Bush Administration doesn't have it's best interests at heart. Hence the 11th hour threat by Bush to wipe his ass with the Conststution (re the proposed gay marriage ban ammendment), the continued attack on women's reproductive rights, etc. Gotta convince the Uberchristians there is still room in the busy Pax Americana agenda for good ol' fashioned repression dressed up as morality. And gotta do it by November. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 the continued attack on women's reproductive rights, etc. president bush has made it clear from the day he stepped into politics that he was pro life... and that position was not going to change...and it hasnt to about 40 to 45% of the population , women's reproductive rights = murder...and those numbers are moving more in our direction...those of us on that side of the fence need to be represented too...as bill clinton said not too long ago at a democratic fund raiser...george bush is only doing what he said he was going to do during his campiagn...cant fault him for that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 That quote/caveat is central, and I said as much. However, the intent of the campagn schedule is more like... "The campaign is asking conservative churches and churchgoers to do everything they can to turn their churches into bases of support WITHOUT (WINK - WINK - WINK - WINK - WINK - key sentiment there) violating campaign finance laws or jeopardizing their tax-exempt status." As far as being worried about November, it is obviously the Bush Reelection campaign that is quite rightly worried. They have taken the vote of the Christian Right for granted and, despite the absurd and unfounded statements from the Bush camp that "the level of support is at record levels," there are credibility issues and a concern by much of the Christian Right that the Bush Administration doesn't have it's best interests at heart. Hence the 11th hour threat by Bush to wipe his ass with the Conststution (re the proposed gay marriage ban ammendment), the continued attack on women's reproductive rights, etc. Gotta convince the Uberchristians there is still room in the busy Pax Americana agenda for good ol' fashioned repression dressed up as morality. And gotta do it by November. I actually agree with you on this one, FSJ. As Baggio rightly points out, though, let's not use Jesse Jackson, but what about the Rev. Al Sharpton? Now you KNOW the same type of thing is going on in reverse. But, to try to bring people along in a political spin, either Dem or Repub, and tie that to their "faith" is rediculous, and downright shameful, no matter which party is doing it, and it HAPPENS BOTH WAYS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted July 3, 2004 Author Share Posted July 3, 2004 "The campaign is asking conservative churches and churchgoers to do everything they can to turn their churches into bases of support WITHOUT (ding - ding - ding - ding - ding - key word there) violating campaign finance laws or jeopardizing their tax-exempt status." again..where's the problem??...they are asking for help from conservative based churches and reminding them to do it in a way that doesnt violate any laws...should any conservative church decide to help its their responsiblity to make sure all their help is w/i the rules of the law...they are not asking anyone to break the law... are you guys really that worried about the elections in november??..there is no story here ding ding ding ding sending the campaign their directories and receiving back lists of "all nonregistered church members and pro-Bush conservatives"; talking to their senior or "20-30 something" groups; <clip>; identifying another conservative church "who we can organize for Bush"; giving a "party for the president" with church members; recruiting up to 10 church members as volunteers; ding ding, thatere is your problem, all that violates 501©(3) status sending the campaign their directories and receiving back lists of "all nonregistered church members and pro-Bush conservatives" is about as illegal under the non profit code as is possible. identifying another conservative church "who we can organize for Bush"; giving a "party for the president" with church members those two take you well over the top oh but because they say they are not asking anyone to violate 501©(3), that makes it all good, right? anyone who does this should have their 501©(3) tax exempt status revoked and then assessed proper back taxes. Look at all the tax exempt property out there. I as a payer of income, sale, and property taxes pay more tax in each category because of the tax exempt status and how it is ued, legally, to defray taxes. So I am very angered when I saw this type of abuse of the public trust by politicans and churches. When a political campaign asks churches to violate their legal obligations, I think conspiracy to violate federal law would be a fun charge, and if they did this through the mail, racketeering. Do all the "be sure to vote" things you want. That is good citizenship. What this thing involves is an intentional effort to violate 501©(3) status - by law, non political status - for politcal purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted July 3, 2004 Author Share Posted July 3, 2004 Now you KNOW the same type of thing is going on in reverse. I don't KNOW that. I'd like proof. I have serving congregations since 1975. I have yet to get a piece of mail or any type of request from any Democratic or Republican source or candidate to do these types of things. Never. I've been swamped with the straddling the line so called "voter's guides" all from the religious right since I got into this field. This is a new and outrageous thing. Maybe you KNOW better than me but until this year I have never heard of this type of politcizing within the church, sending in member directories, etc., and I reject your claim that both sides do this. I have never seen a suggestion to have the church hold parties for the president. We are supposed to have parties for Jesus. Not since I got into this field from Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton. This is NOT something both sides do whatever you KNOW. This is a new thing, a new type of lawbreaking, and it is unique to G W Bush and Karl Rove and company and they should take the credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Let me rephrase, as I see what you're saying, but I'm talking about the spirit of what's happening here and not necessarily the act itself. In most inner city churches that I have been exposed to, the same types of things happen - at least the ones I've seen down here, but it's not nearly as clear in terms of "lawbreaking" as you're putting it, but when the "get out the vote" mantra is happening, it's to push a Democratic Agenda. I have a good set of freinds that attend a congregation down here that while they are never told which party to vote for, you know where the message is coming from, because "that other party" is getting the message out there and, "we're not gonna let that stand, are we", stuff starts going on. Low and behold, Dem flyers start showing up in their mailboxes because they're considered "inner city folks" who tend to vote Democratic. It's not a direct correlation, but, c'mon... again it happens both ways, just not specific to this law you're pointing out. As I said above, I agree with FSJ's assessment. You are taking a particular facet of this and making it sound like it's totally unique. In this instance, yes, it's a violation or intent to violate what the spirit of the law that was intended, but the other side does too, that was my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 president bush has made it clear from the day he stepped into politics that he was pro life... and that position was not going to change...and it hasnt. I'll just tosss this grenade and then get out of the way. We all know it is very likely that Baby Bush did get a girl in Texas pregnant and then got her an (illegal) abortion – much as 'Number One Public Citizen' Larry Flynt has asserted and claims he will publish proof of. IF that is the case, then Bush is only pro-life when it is convenient, and when it is someone else's problem. This has been heatedly debated here before and doesn't need to be again. But for all the Bus***es at the end of the debate who said, 'well, so what?? can't someone change his opinion/make a mistake/make youthful indisretions/DO WHAT ALL YOU MORRALLY BANKRUPT DEMS AND LIBERALS DO??'... If it's shown to be true, he didn't change his opinion and he hasn't come clean on the issue. He was publicly anti-abortion back then too, but apparently had a change of heart when he was in the hot seat. Morality, 'family values,' etc., at least nominally, are a core part of the GOP platform. When they get caught with their pants down the cry foul, because there are Dems behaving just as onerously (and certainly there are). But it's the GOP and their partners-in-slime the Religious Right that stump with moralitty and values high on their platform agenda. When they start to walk it like they talk it their integrity will be less at issue, but it doesn't seem like that is happening soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 I'll just tosss this grenade and then get out of the way. We all know it is very likely that Baby Bush did get a girl in Texas pregnant and then got her an (illegal) abortion – much as 'Number One Public Citizen' Larry Flynt has asserted and claims he will publish proof of. IF that is the case, then Bush is only pro-life when it is convenient, and when it is someone else's problem. This has been heatedly debated here before and doesn't need to be again. But for all the Bus***es at the end of the debate who said, 'well, so what?? can't someone change his opinion/make a mistake/make youthful indisretions/DO WHAT ALL YOU MORRALLY BANKRUPT DEMS AND LIBERALS DO??'... If it's shown to be true, he didn't change his opinion and he hasn't come clean on the issue. He was publicly anti-abortion back then too, but apparently had a change of heart when he was in the hot seat. Morality, 'family values,' etc., at least nominally, are a core part of the GOP platform. When they get caught with their pants down the cry foul, because there are Dems behaving just as onerously (and certainly there are). But it's the GOP and their partners-in-slime the Religious Right that stump with moralitty and values high on their platform agenda. When they start to walk it like they talk it their integrity will be less at issue, but it doesn't seem like that is happening soon. if this was heatedly debated before and doesnt need to be again they why did you bring it up??? and why go on about some crap from larry flynt about bush getting a girl pregnant and having an abortion .. where's the proof?? bush never claimed to be a choirboy in his youth..in fact he owned to being the exact opposite...and has shown compassion for others in similar situations...while he might court the votes of the religous right he is not taking their positions on all issues...the artice CWSOX printed proves that...spokesman for some religous right group said bush shouldnt count on the christian vote because he hasnt proved he is for their issues... cant have it both ways...use that article against bush saying even the religous right is against him and then turn around and say he is one of them btw...should dems really be talking about presidents getting caught with their pants down??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 We just got done deposing a theocracy in Afghanistan (although a lot of the Taliban forces are regrouping there and the ideological movement is very popular in Pakistan and India), why would we want to have one in the US? All this BS about a bishop denying Kerry communion because he's pro-choice, where does he get off choosing who can get communion and who cannot? Why not adulterers or liars too? Here is a good article on it: http://www.dailyillini.com/opinions/2164 snip -- Father Richard McBrien of Notre Dame has a view that is something to think about: "Burke in St. Louis is angling to become a Cardinal. Sheridan in Colorado Springs would love to be an Archbishop. What better way to get noticed than to deny communion to politicians and voters who are pro-abortion? They get points in Rome!" -- And re: the Bush abortion while working for Daddy's campaign in the 1970s...Flynt has obtained affidavits from the woman, her friends who heard what happened right after the event took place, the doctor who performed the procedure. He's known about this for a while but did not want to put the safety of the woman at risk because she asked him not to (since Bush does have the CIA, Secret Service etc. at his disposal) Whatever you may think about Flynt, he's a guy who is not a hypocrite and does expose those who are by "Flynting" them like he did to Bob Barr and others. He's got a track record of being on the right track when things like this go down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 You're talking about the 2 biggest groups of hypocrites...Religion and Politics. They are both a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted July 3, 2004 Author Share Posted July 3, 2004 Let me rephrase, as I see what you're saying, but I'm talking about the spirit of what's happening here and not necessarily the act itself. The ACTS (what this thread is about) suggested by the Bush-Cheney campaign is what is new and it is illegal. I do not know why that is so hard to grasp, but then you keep trying to change the subject. The "Mommy, all the kids are doing it" thing is tiresome. Everyone knows how to stay one side of the law. The Christian Right has been masters at turning out voters since 1980 so spare me the inner city ghetto stories and look at suburban America and its community churches and others who are just astride the law with their so called family values thing which is code words for vote Republican. Start with the Moral Majority and do some research on how the Christian right has been politicizing within the churches for decades and spare us any more ghetto stories. But this: how can I say: this Bush Cheney thing is a new and creative and illegal and unethical flouting of the law. I am sure Ashcroft will get right on it and do a full impartial investigation and make arrests prior to election day. Bush Cheney has found a new way to be sleeze and to sue churches to do it. Be proud all ye fans of Bush and Cheney - send in your church membership lists for partisan politcal purposes, violate the law, have your church host parties for Bush (put Jesus on hold for a while, we have a political agenda here). But Mommy, all the kids do it. Not this one they don't. This is a whole new dimension in illegal acts and you may wish to change the discussion to "the spirit" again but this is about specific illegal acts that violate the IRS code that are conveneiently timed so that any legal sanctions will fall after election day and be evaluated by Bush Cheney people if they pull this off. But Mommy, all the kids do it. Not this one they don't. This is a new world of specific illegal acts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 You let me know when "BUSH/CHENEY" actually SUES churches for not following their mandate. I'll be waiting for a while. I know what you're saying, but you're parsing something here, and slivering it to fit your needs. Yes, mommy, they all do it. But *gasp*, "My Democrats are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo righteous" that they would never push to eliminate military votes. I don't mean to start that whole thing again, because both sides were completely wrong in 2000, we know it. But let me guess. The 2000 election "was stolen". Bitter, table of one? That would be why all this stuff gets parsed to make everything so one sided. Bush sucks balls, Cheney hangs off of them. (or the other way around... ) We all know it. But it strikes me as quite funny when Dems never, ever, do no wrong, in less inconspicuous ways. The only thing is Bush/Cheney are dumbasses for flaunting it, but you know what they are up to, as opposed to the Dems, who do the same things without it going public. So, yes, mommy, THEY ALL DO IT. And last but not least, Bush/Cheney are wrong for this. I think the action itself is despicable, tasteless, shameless, desparate, etc. But remember, mommy, they all do it. You just won't see the dems get the press on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmmmbeeer Posted July 4, 2004 Share Posted July 4, 2004 I'd agree that recruiting from churches could certainly be considered illegal. The republicans have always done shadey things to get votes. http://html.themilwaukeechannel.com/sh/ele...105-222208.html The democrats have also always done shadey things to get votes. f*** em both, they're one and the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted July 4, 2004 Share Posted July 4, 2004 These last two posts sum up my feelings perfectly. Both parties are run and manned by hypocrits, crooks and scumbags. God Bless America. Please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 Flynt has obtained affidavits from the woman, her friends who heard what happened right after the event took place, the doctor who performed the procedure. He's known about this for a while but did not want to put the safety of the woman at risk because she asked him not to (since Bush does have the CIA, Secret Service etc. at his disposal) Let me get this straight...the woman in question gave Larry Flynt an affadavit stating that George W. Bush forced her to have an abortion, and then after giving the affadavit said not to use it? I'm not saying anything about the veracity of what you're saying, but does that really make sense to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 Let me get this straight...the woman in question gave Larry Flynt an affadavit stating that George W. Bush forced her to have an abortion, and then after giving the affadavit said not to use it? I'm not saying anything about the veracity of what you're saying, but does that really make sense to you? IIRC, she gave the affidavit to Flynt in 1998 when Flynt began to amass his campaign against hypocritical Congressmen. He was exposing the ones that were bashing Clinton for having affairs when they were doing so themselves. He did get quite a few of them (Livingston, Barr and a few others I can't remember the names of) He had taken out a full page ad in the Washington Post saying they would pay a million dollars to anybody who had documented evidence that would expose a hypocritical Congressman. When Bush took power in 2000, she asked him to keep her name private for legitimate fears for her life. Flynt's been right about most everything he's gotten his smut peddling hands on when it comes to exposing politicians. You can say a lot about Flynt, but he's pretty damn solid evidence wise when he exposes something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.