RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Shortwave (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/)
-   -   Shutting Down Dissent (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/138758-shutting-down-dissent.html)

David Hartung November 29th 08 01:00 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question-Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 
Soumay Nonay wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement,
although for different reasons.
Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the
Church. The church.
No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church
was politically active.
These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to
have nothing to do with the government.
You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a
different category from Robertson and Falwell.
- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.
So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .
I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same
rights as any other group.

My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in
partisan politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy
Ministry. Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the
purpose of proclaiming His kingdom.

- Partisan politics is outside their scope.

Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?

Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?

- This is my belief, others differ.

Clearly We Differ ~ RHF
.


If they are to be active politically, they cannot keep tax free status.


Incorrect.

That is a rule of relatively recent vintage, and one which should be
done away with.

Despite the fact that I believe it inappropriate for a minster of the
Gospel to involve himself in partisan politics, he still has that right.

David Hartung November 29th 08 01:04 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State : It's About EqualTreatment and Equality for All
 
Soumay Nonay wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:26 pm, David Hartung wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:15:19 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:
Real Americans support Equal Political Rights for
both Believers {Persons-of-Faith} and Non-Believers
{Secularist}.
Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, David Dobson
sure as **** don't.
Evidence?

- - Their mission is to replace all secularists with
- - "believers" and to change the function of government
- - from secular to doctrinal----(fundamentalist, of
- - course)

Wrong.

- On this we likely agree.

Wrong Again.

Their Mission is to Transform 'Secularist' into "Believers"
and Transform the Function of Government from a Secular
Anti-Religious Apparatus into an Entity that is Not Hostel
to Persons-of-Faith and Respect the Beliefs of All Citizens.
- - - It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All :
Believer and Non-Believer Alike.

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State :
It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All

Pat Robertson chalkboarded his entire strategy for
doing so after his last defeat in a primary
Presidential election.
Cite?

Jerry Falwell funded/paid for a video smearing Clinton
Cite please?


http://www.salon.com/news/1998/03/cov_11news.html


Thank you, but I was hoping for something more credible than Salon.

David Hartung November 29th 08 01:09 PM

(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and Statein America Today.]
 
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:26:32 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:15:19 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:

Real Americans support Equal Political Rights for
both Believers {Persons-of-Faith} and Non-Believers
{Secularist}.
Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, David Dobson
sure as **** don't.

Evidence?

Their mission is to replace all secularists with
"believers" and to change the function of government
from secular to doctrinal----(fundamentalist, of
course)

On this we likely agree.

Pat Robertson chalkboarded his entire strategy for
doing so after his last defeat in a primary
Presidential election.

Cite?


Told you before

If you want to discuss CURRENT EVENTS, you have to be
aware of them

Pat Robertson gave a series of lectures on the 700 club
noting his agenda and not disbanding his campaign staff
in order to push the goal of electing religious
republicans to all levels of public office

Lastly, even a fruitcake like you knows that it's not
just something I made up----and evade the truth because
you know it's correct.


It may be correct, Robertson is certainly capable of doing something
like this.

You have a long track record of posting claims that you cannot support,
and which are often either inaccurate or outright incorrect. I have lost
track of the number of times that I have been unable to find a
supporting cite for one of your claims.

For this reason, I believe nothing you claim, unless it is individually
supported.

David Hartung November 29th 08 01:11 PM

(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and Statein America Today.]
 
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:28:54 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

It is patently wrong for a religious dominated person
to control public officials with threats and
retaliation. Immoral as hell, BTW

Why would it be more immoral for a "religious dominated person" to
control public officials with threats, and okay for a "non-religious
dominated person" to do so?


Constitutional proscriptions


There are no constitutional proscriptions against private relifios
organizations engaging in partisan political activity.

His network is (probably) tax exempt


So?


Brenda Ann November 29th 08 01:29 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 

RHF wrote:
Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU
when it comes to Politics.


The problem is not when a member of a church makes their political opinion
known, or even works to elect any politician. It comes when that person uses
the power and/or facilities of the church to do such political work. A
preacher/parson/vicar/rabbi/priest/etc. should never promote any political
position as a part of a church/synagog activity. Nor should a lay person use
the power or facilities of such church/synagog for such purpose.

As individuals, they have the same right to voice an opinion or vote for
whomever they wish, as long as they are not trying to do so as a
representative of the church/synagog. This is much like the law that
prohibits government employees from promoting any candidate (including those
in the armed services).



Brenda Ann November 29th 08 01:37 PM

(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and State in America Today.]
 

"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:28:54 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

It is patently wrong for a religious dominated person
to control public officials with threats and
retaliation. Immoral as hell, BTW
Why would it be more immoral for a "religious dominated person" to
control public officials with threats, and okay for a "non-religious
dominated person" to do so?


Constitutional proscriptions


There are no constitutional proscriptions against private relifios
organizations engaging in partisan political activity.

His network is (probably) tax exempt


So?


No Constitutional proscriptions per-se.. but there are specific laws about
tax exempt status and lobbying or political campaigning that are very clear
(and have been in existance for quite some time).

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

See pp. 5-8 et.seq. especially.



Brenda Ann November 29th 08 01:38 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

RHF wrote:
Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU
when it comes to Politics.


The problem is not when a member of a church makes their political opinion
known, or even works to elect any politician. It comes when that person
uses the power and/or facilities of the church to do such political work.
A preacher/parson/vicar/rabbi/priest/etc. should never promote any
political position as a part of a church/synagog activity. Nor should a
lay person use the power or facilities of such church/synagog for such
purpose.

As individuals, they have the same right to voice an opinion or vote for
whomever they wish, as long as they are not trying to do so as a
representative of the church/synagog. This is much like the law that
prohibits government employees from promoting any candidate (including
those in the armed services).


http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

See pp. 5-8 et. seq especially




CharlesTheCurmudgeon November 29th 08 03:44 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

RHF wrote:
Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU
when it comes to Politics.


The problem is not when a member of a church makes their political opinion
known, or even works to elect any politician. It comes when that person
uses the power and/or facilities of the church to do such political work.
A preacher/parson/vicar/rabbi/priest/etc. should never promote any
political position as a part of a church/synagog activity. Nor should a
lay person use the power or facilities of such church/synagog for such
purpose.

As individuals, they have the same right to voice an opinion or vote for
whomever they wish, as long as they are not trying to do so as a
representative of the church/synagog. This is much like the law that
prohibits government employees from promoting any candidate (including
those in the armed services).


Sorry, the ban of using churches to promote candidates only exists becase of
one power-hungry Texas senator, one Lyndon Johnson, who had the codicil
added to the IRS code in 1954 so he could get re-elected and not have to
rely on Box 13 again.

Until Bill Clinton, I held Lyndon Johnson to be the worst president in my
lifetime.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon



RHF November 29th 08 03:46 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today-question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American PoliticalProcess ?
 
On Nov 29, 4:56*am, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:24 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? *Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement, although
for different reasons.
Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the Church. The
church.
No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church was
politically active.
These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to have
nothing to do with the government.
You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a different
category from Robertson and Falwell.
- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.
So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .
I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same rights
as any other group.
My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in partisan
politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy Ministry.
Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the purpose of
proclaiming His kingdom.
- Partisan politics is outside their scope.
Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?
Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?
- This is my belief, others differ.
Clearly We Differ *~ RHF


- Do you understand that something may be legal
- and constitutional, but still be inappropriate?


OK - So tell me how is exercising one's basic
human rights inappropriate ?


Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU
when it comes to Politics.


? Are People-of-Faith To Be Denied a Seat . . .
at the Table of American Politics ?
* And Thereby be Relegated to the Role of Second-Class
Political Citizens.
* Hey may be Ministers, Preachers, Rabbis, Imams,
Priests, etc should not even be allowed to Vote.


Has Religion become "The-R-Word" in American Politics ?


has god -proclaimed- thou shall not
be political and religious too ~ RHF


- A question, if I may.
-
- In you eyes, what is the job of an ordained minister?

-basically-
To Be Faithful to His/Her Faith and Minister to the Faithful.

CharlesTheCurmudgeon November 29th 08 03:46 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 

"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
Soumay Nonay wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement,
although for different reasons.
Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the
Church. The church.
No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church
was politically active.
These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to
have nothing to do with the government.
You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a
different category from Robertson and Falwell.
- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.
So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .
I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same
rights as any other group.

My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in
partisan politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy
Ministry. Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the
purpose of proclaiming His kingdom.
- Partisan politics is outside their scope.

Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?

Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?

- This is my belief, others differ.

Clearly We Differ ~ RHF
.


If they are to be active politically, they cannot keep tax free status.


Incorrect.

That is a rule of relatively recent vintage, and one which should be done
away with.

Despite the fact that I believe it inappropriate for a minster of the
Gospel to involve himself in partisan politics, he still has that right.


As a matter of fact the change was made by one power-hungry Texas Senator by
the name of Lyndon Johnson in 1954 so he could get re-elected.

We've had 3 really bad presidents in my lifetime, LBJ, Bill Clinton and now
Barack Obama.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon



David Hartung November 29th 08 03:52 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question-Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process?
 
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:56:11 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

A question, if I may.

In you eyes, what is the job of an ordained minister?


Better to ask what they are NOT

First of all, using a tax exempt status to promote a
political action advocacy as an official of a church.


Why would this be wrong, in a moral sense?

David Hartung November 29th 08 03:53 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question-Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process?
 
RHF wrote:
On Nov 29, 4:56 am, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:24 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement, although
for different reasons.
Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the Church. The
church.
No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church was
politically active.
These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to have
nothing to do with the government.
You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a different
category from Robertson and Falwell.
- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.
So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .
I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same rights
as any other group.
My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in partisan
politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy Ministry.
Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the purpose of
proclaiming His kingdom.
- Partisan politics is outside their scope.
Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?
Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?
- This is my belief, others differ.
Clearly We Differ ~ RHF
- Do you understand that something may be legal
- and constitutional, but still be inappropriate?
OK - So tell me how is exercising one's basic
human rights inappropriate ?
Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU
when it comes to Politics.
? Are People-of-Faith To Be Denied a Seat . . .
at the Table of American Politics ?
* And Thereby be Relegated to the Role of Second-Class
Political Citizens.
* Hey may be Ministers, Preachers, Rabbis, Imams,
Priests, etc should not even be allowed to Vote.
Has Religion become "The-R-Word" in American Politics ?
has god -proclaimed- thou shall not
be political and religious too ~ RHF

- A question, if I may.
-
- In you eyes, what is the job of an ordained minister?

-basically-
To Be Faithful to His/Her Faith and Minister to the Faithful.


How does that task relate to the sort of political activity taken by
Robertson and company?

David Hartung November 29th 08 03:54 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question-Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:00:12 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

Despite the fact that I believe it inappropriate for a minster of the
Gospel to involve himself in partisan politics, he still has that right.


Not as an official of a tax exempt status
church----without suffering the consequences.


Only because LBJ was trying to silence those who opposed him.

David Hartung November 29th 08 03:55 PM

(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and Statein America Today.]
 
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:11:12 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

There are no constitutional proscriptions against private relifios
organizations engaging in partisan political activity.


If they are tax exempt under religious affiliation,
yep.


There are restrictions in the IRS code, not in the Constitution.

RHF November 29th 08 04:09 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today-question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American PoliticalProcess ?
 
On Nov 29, 5:29*am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
RHF wrote:
Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU
when it comes to Politics.


The problem is not when a member of a church makes their political opinion
known, or even works to elect any politician. It comes when that person uses
the power and/or facilities of the church to do such political work. A
preacher/parson/vicar/rabbi/priest/etc. should never promote any political
position as a part of a church/synagog activity. Nor should a lay person use
the power or facilities of such church/synagog for such purpose.


And You Will Be The Judge Of All That ? ? ?

DANG SO THEY HAVE NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH [.]
AND THEY DO NOT HAVE POLITICAL FREEDOM [.]
BECAUSE THEY ARE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE-OF-FAITH.

Until the US Government Passed the Income Tax Laws
and Created the Charitable Income Tax Exemption :
There Was True Freedom of Speech and True Separation
of Church and State. Since Then - The US Government
has been Dictating to Churches and Ministers :
What They Can and Can Not Do as a Church.
THAT AIN'T SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

- As individuals, they have the same right to voice an
- opinion or vote for whomever they wish, as long as
- they are not trying to do so as a representative of the
- church/synagog.

Last Time I looked around a Minister of God was a
Minister of God 24/7 : On Call and Duty Every Hour
of Every Day.

-*This is much like the law that prohibits government
- employees from promoting any candidate (including
- those in the armed services).

It may be "BAD's Law" {Bad Law} But It Ain't Federal Law
to Limit the Freedom of Speech of Church Leaders and
Members.

Minister are Ministers -and- Federal Employees are Federal Employees.
-ps- there is a difference.

Ministers are Private Citizens and 'may' get in your face.
-IF- You Let Them.

Federal Employees are Agents of the US Government and
"CAN" Get In Your Face -cause- They Have The Power of
The US Government Behind Them.

yes - i said that {freedom of speech} ~ RHF

RHF November 29th 08 04:30 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today-question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American PoliticalProcess ?
 
On Nov 29, 5:38*am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message

...

RHF wrote:
Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU
when it comes to Politics.


The problem is not when a member of a church makes their political opinion
known, or even works to elect any politician. It comes when that person
uses the power and/or facilities of the church to do such political work.
A preacher/parson/vicar/rabbi/priest/etc. should never promote any
political position as a part of a church/synagog activity. Nor should a
lay person use the power or facilities of such church/synagog for such
purpose.


As individuals, they have the same right to voice an opinion or vote for
whomever they wish, as long as they are not trying to do so as a
representative of the church/synagog. *This is much like the law that
prohibits government employees from promoting any candidate (including
those in the armed services).


- http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
-
- See pp. 5-8 et. seq especially

Yes and It is BAD Regulation {Law} : Where the US Federal
Government Dictates : What a Church can-and-can-not Do [.]

Note Again - That the IRS only took on this Role of Silencing
Churches and their Leaders after the Income Tax was Passed :
Before then there was True Freedom of Religion and Actual
Separation of Church and State in the USA.

THAT AIN'T SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE :
That's the US Federal Government Dictating What a
Church can-and-can-not Do [.]
* Restricted Freedom of Speech
* Restricted Freedom of Political Activity
* Limited Freedom of Religion

HEY -if- We Go To A Flat National Sales Tax and Abolish
the Income Tax for 90% of Americans : Then How Will
the US Government Enforce
1 - Individual Charitable Donations to Churches
[No Income Tax = No Deduction :]
2 - Tax Exempt Status of Churches
[No Income Tax = No Exempt Status :]
-Result- A Return to True Separation of Church
and State in the USA.
-WHY- Cause There Won't Be Any Income Tax
for 90% of the People.

American Needs a Flat National Sales Tax Now and
Needs to Abolish the Income Tax Now to Restore Our
Freedoms for All Americans.

yes - i said that {freedom of speech} ~ RHF

RHF November 29th 08 04:35 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today-question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American PoliticalProcess ?
 
On Nov 28, 10:17*pm, "Soumay Nonay"
wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement,
although for different reasons.


Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the
Church. The church.


No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church
was politically active.


These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to
have nothing to do with the government.


You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a
different category from Robertson and Falwell.


- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.


So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .


I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same
rights as any other group.


My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in
partisan politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy
Ministry. Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the
purpose of proclaiming His kingdom.


- Partisan politics is outside their scope.


Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?


Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?


- This is my belief, others differ.


Clearly We Differ *~ RHF
*.


- If they are to be active politically, they cannot keep tax free
status.

That is Right in the USA there now is "NO" Separation
of Church and State : Cause the US Federal Government
has step-in via the Income Tax and Limited the Freedom
of Speech and Political Freedoms of Churchs and their
Leaders.

THAT AIN'T SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE [.]

RHF November 29th 08 04:42 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today-question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American PoliticalProcess ?
 
On Nov 29, 7:46*am, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:56:11 -0600, David Hartung

wrote:
A question, if I may.


- - In you eyes, what is the job of an ordained minister?

- Better to ask what they are NOT
- First of all, using a tax exempt status to promote a
- political action advocacy as an official of a church.

Move-On ! -so- Secular Charitable Status Political Activity
and Advocacy is A-OK -but- It is the Role and Duty of the
US Federal Government to Limit the Freedom of Speech
and Political Freedom of Churches.

THAT AIN'T SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE [.]

Yeah - That's True Equality for All ~ RHF

RHF November 29th 08 05:46 PM

(OT) : Pre-Defining the Future Name Calling of "The Criminal Obama{Clinton#3} Administration"
 
On Nov 29, 9:35*am, Bob Dobbs wrote:
RHF wrote:

Don't flinch when you start reading the words
"The Criminal Obama {Clinton#3} Administration"
"The Obama Chicago Crime Family"
"The Obama {Clinton#3} Regime"


Why would anyone flinch, unless they got hold of some right wing
republican conservative christian publication unknowingly, then they
would probably do the responsible thing and deposit in the nearest
dumpster.
As to your chronic wailing against anything progressive,
that's what kill filters are for, but for the time being I enjoy
watching you squirm.
History will record the glowing accomplishments of President Obama
and some future student will have to google long and hard to find the
footnotes about McCain, the hotshot cowboy who did an in your face
low altitude barnstorming flight and caught that missile, Oh and Palin,
wasn't she the truck stop trollop that made such an ass of the pitiful
republican effort back when President Obama was getting started. g

--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42


-"The Criminal Obama {Clinton#3} Administration"
-aka- The Corrupt "Clinton # 3" Administration

-"The Obama Chicago Crime Family"
-nix to family-
Correction : "The Obama 'Chicago' Crime Syndicate"

-"The Obama {Clinton#3} Regime"

BDK[_5_] November 29th 08 05:52 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 
In article , says...

"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
Soumay Nonay wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement,
although for different reasons.
Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the
Church. The church.
No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church
was politically active.
These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to
have nothing to do with the government.
You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a
different category from Robertson and Falwell.
- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.
So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .
I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same
rights as any other group.

My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in
partisan politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy
Ministry. Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the
purpose of proclaiming His kingdom.
- Partisan politics is outside their scope.

Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?

Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?

- This is my belief, others differ.

Clearly We Differ ~ RHF
.

If they are to be active politically, they cannot keep tax free status.


Incorrect.

That is a rule of relatively recent vintage, and one which should be done
away with.

Despite the fact that I believe it inappropriate for a minster of the
Gospel to involve himself in partisan politics, he still has that right.


As a matter of fact the change was made by one power-hungry Texas Senator by
the name of Lyndon Johnson in 1954 so he could get re-elected.

We've had 3 really bad presidents in my lifetime, LBJ, Bill Clinton and now
Barack Obama.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon






LOL, how can you call Obama a bad president, when he hasn't taken office
yet????

My bad presidents:

1. G.W. Bush nobody comes close, a total embarrassment.
2. Jimmy Carter, worthless.
3. Nixon, a crooked *******.
4. LBJ..Vietnam.

I did just fine with Clinton, and I couldn't care less who he screwed,
was blown by, etc.

--
BDK

BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster

BDK[_5_] November 29th 08 06:01 PM

(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and State in America Today.]
 
In article ,
says...
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:26:32 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:15:19 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:

Real Americans support Equal Political Rights for
both Believers {Persons-of-Faith} and Non-Believers
{Secularist}.
Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, David Dobson
sure as **** don't.
Evidence?

Their mission is to replace all secularists with
"believers" and to change the function of government
from secular to doctrinal----(fundamentalist, of
course)
On this we likely agree.

Pat Robertson chalkboarded his entire strategy for
doing so after his last defeat in a primary
Presidential election.
Cite?


Told you before

If you want to discuss CURRENT EVENTS, you have to be
aware of them

Pat Robertson gave a series of lectures on the 700 club
noting his agenda and not disbanding his campaign staff
in order to push the goal of electing religious
republicans to all levels of public office

Lastly, even a fruitcake like you knows that it's not
just something I made up----and evade the truth because
you know it's correct.


It may be correct, Robertson is certainly capable of doing something
like this.

You have a long track record of posting claims that you cannot support,
and which are often either inaccurate or outright incorrect. I have lost
track of the number of times that I have been unable to find a
supporting cite for one of your claims.

For this reason, I believe nothing you claim, unless it is individually
supported.



How convenient that you somehow forgot Falwell's Clinton tape..

http://waasinfo.com/clients/waas/geo...onnection.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Chronicles

And the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLl7uVWF6pY

The people who made it scare me a lot more than Clinton ever did.

--
BDK

BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster

CharlesTheCurmudgeon November 29th 08 08:48 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 

"BDK" wrote in message
...
In article , says...

"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
Soumay Nonay wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement,
although for different reasons.
Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the
Church. The church.
No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church
was politically active.
These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to
have nothing to do with the government.
You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a
different category from Robertson and Falwell.
- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.
So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .
I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same
rights as any other group.

My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in
partisan politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy
Ministry. Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the
purpose of proclaiming His kingdom.
- Partisan politics is outside their scope.

Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?

Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?

- This is my belief, others differ.

Clearly We Differ ~ RHF
.

If they are to be active politically, they cannot keep tax free
status.

Incorrect.

That is a rule of relatively recent vintage, and one which should be
done
away with.

Despite the fact that I believe it inappropriate for a minster of the
Gospel to involve himself in partisan politics, he still has that
right.


As a matter of fact the change was made by one power-hungry Texas Senator
by
the name of Lyndon Johnson in 1954 so he could get re-elected.

We've had 3 really bad presidents in my lifetime, LBJ, Bill Clinton and
now
Barack Obama.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon






LOL, how can you call Obama a bad president, when he hasn't taken office
yet????

My bad presidents:

1. G.W. Bush nobody comes close, a total embarrassment.
2. Jimmy Carter, worthless.
3. Nixon, a crooked *******.
4. LBJ..Vietnam.

I did just fine with Clinton, and I couldn't care less who he screwed,
was blown by, etc.

--
BDK

BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster


Then you, sir, are suffering from the ID10T bug. I lived in Arkansas in the
80's and watching Clinton as the best presdient Chinese money could buy was
like deja-vu all over again. He screwed Arkansas, but swept things under
the rug so it all fell on the next Governor. He screwed America, too, but
he swept it all under the rug for Bush to get hit with.

And Obama can't help but be a bad president. He's a Chicago Democrat. Part
of the Machine, one of the most corrupt and dishonest political
organizations in the county. Not only does he have William Ayres as a
friend but he also has Jesse Jackson Jr and Todd Stroger, both of which are
typical tax-and-spend Dimocrats as friends. The Dims here in Chicago are
now ruling by primogeneture. Richard J was replaced by his son Richard M.
John Stroger was replaced by his son. Emil Jones is trying to replace
himself with his son. Edward Madigan is trying to replace himself with his
daughter. Next thing Obama will start ruling by Divine Right. . . .

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon



CharlesTheCurmudgeon November 29th 08 08:50 PM

(OT) : How Liberals Define "Troll"-----we call it HARTUNG
 

"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:09:18 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:26:32 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:15:19 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:

Real Americans support Equal Political Rights for
both Believers {Persons-of-Faith} and Non-Believers
{Secularist}.
Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, David Dobson
sure as **** don't.
Evidence?

Their mission is to replace all secularists with
"believers" and to change the function of government
from secular to doctrinal----(fundamentalist, of
course)
On this we likely agree.

Pat Robertson chalkboarded his entire strategy for
doing so after his last defeat in a primary
Presidential election.
Cite?
Told you before

If you want to discuss CURRENT EVENTS, you have to be
aware of them

Pat Robertson gave a series of lectures on the 700 club
noting his agenda and not disbanding his campaign staff
in order to push the goal of electing religious
republicans to all levels of public office

Lastly, even a fruitcake like you knows that it's not
just something I made up----and evade the truth because
you know it's correct.
It may be correct, Robertson is certainly capable of doing something
like this.

You have a long track record of posting claims that you cannot support,



You have a long track record of requiring "cites" for
things that are historically accepted, matters of
public record, or a host of other things that most
normal, educated, well-informed people have no trouble
accepted as fact

You're they type that would deny most of what Nixon, or
Reagan did in their criminal adminstrations because
either you can't remember, hate the fact it's true, or
just were too stupid to pay attention


You might be surprised to know that I see Nixon's coverup of criminal
activity as the thing which destroyed his presidency.

You counter everything by saying "cite"---which is
evasive.

The litany of untruth, lies, stories, innuendo,
conjecture, theory, rumors that your side leveled at
clinton were so bizarre, out of place, unbelievable
that it was embarassing to have to deal with you turds
who bought it


Now it is you who is ignoring fact.

Jerry Falwell made a Video that compiled a mountain of
outright lies, testimonials by paid "witnesses" and you
can't even remember it-----skating over the fact that
was part of the rightwing, religious reich's railing
against the Clintons


You might be aware that I am not defending Falwell.

You ignored all of Reagan's criminal activities,
impeachable offenses---even in the face of the facts
and highly credible allegations (which eventually were
proven)


You have no idea what I may have "ignored" during the Reagan
Administration.

Yet your entire character shows when public events,
common knowledge, and logical/credible things are
laid before you, you THEN demand "cites


I learned long ago that even commonly known events take on different
character, depending on who is relating the event.

You're nothing more than a troll, and it's not just Me
that says it, Hartung


Your point?

Everyone who whacks you across the snout says the same
thing

you're a miserable, sleazy troll

For me, you're comic relief


Funny, I have much the same opinion of you.

By the way, when did you drop out of high school?


hasn't started yet. They don't usually let you into
high screwel until age 14.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon



David Hartung November 29th 08 08:52 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question-Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 
CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote:

Then you, sir, are suffering from the ID10T bug. I lived in Arkansas in the
80's and watching Clinton as the best presdient Chinese money could buy was
like deja-vu all over again. He screwed Arkansas, but swept things under
the rug so it all fell on the next Governor. He screwed America, too, but
he swept it all under the rug for Bush to get hit with.

And Obama can't help but be a bad president. He's a Chicago Democrat. Part
of the Machine, one of the most corrupt and dishonest political
organizations in the county. Not only does he have William Ayres as a
friend but he also has Jesse Jackson Jr and Todd Stroger, both of which are
typical tax-and-spend Dimocrats as friends. The Dims here in Chicago are
now ruling by primogeneture. Richard J was replaced by his son Richard M.
John Stroger was replaced by his son. Emil Jones is trying to replace
himself with his son. Edward Madigan is trying to replace himself with his
daughter. Next thing Obama will start ruling by Divine Right. . . .


I have been waiting for this to come up.

Obama is a politician from Chicago. It is rational to believe that he
has some connection with the Daily machine.

Is there any evidence to support this belief?

Brenda Ann November 29th 08 09:38 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 

"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:00:12 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

Despite the fact that I believe it inappropriate for a minster of the
Gospel to involve himself in partisan politics, he still has that right.


Not as an official of a tax exempt status
church----without suffering the consequences.


Only because LBJ was trying to silence those who opposed him.


Lyndon Johnson, asshole that he was, did not write or pass tax law by
himself.. there were at least 40 other senators that followed his lead (and
likely at least 50).



Soumay Nonay November 29th 08 10:19 PM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 
CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote:
"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
Soumay Nonay wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to
religious, an evangelical figures, seems to violate the
entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement,
although for different reasons.
Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the
Church. The church.
No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the
church was politically active.
These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to
have nothing to do with the government.
You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a
different category from Robertson and Falwell.
- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.
So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .
I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same
rights as any other group.

My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in
partisan politics comes from my understanding of the Office of
Holy Ministry. Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for
the purpose of proclaiming His kingdom.
- Partisan politics is outside their scope.

Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?

Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?

- This is my belief, others differ.

Clearly We Differ ~ RHF
.

If they are to be active politically, they cannot keep tax free
status.

Incorrect.

That is a rule of relatively recent vintage, and one which should
be done away with.

Despite the fact that I believe it inappropriate for a minster of
the Gospel to involve himself in partisan politics, he still has
that right.


As a matter of fact the change was made by one power-hungry Texas
Senator by the name of Lyndon Johnson in 1954 so he could get
re-elected.

We've had 3 really bad presidents in my lifetime, LBJ, Bill Clinton
and now Barack Obama.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon


Bovine fecal matter..



David Hartung November 30th 08 12:18 AM

(OT) : How Liberals Define "Troll"-----we call it HARTUNG
 
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:52:24 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

You might be surprised to know that I see Nixon's coverup of criminal
activity as the thing which destroyed his presidency.


His entire view of the presidence was criminal

His actions were impeachable.


And he resigned to avoid impeachment.

So?

Billy Burpelson[_2_] November 30th 08 12:30 AM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question-Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 
BDK wrote:

My bad presidents:

1. G.W. Bush nobody comes close, a total embarrassment.
2. Jimmy Carter, worthless.
3. Nixon, a crooked *******.
4. LBJ..Vietnam.


You forgot that #4 also qualifies for a "crooked *******"...big time!


BDK[_5_] November 30th 08 02:45 AM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 
In article , says...

"BDK" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
Soumay Nonay wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement,
although for different reasons.
Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the
Church. The church.
No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church
was politically active.
These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to
have nothing to do with the government.
You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a
different category from Robertson and Falwell.
- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.
So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .
I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same
rights as any other group.

My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in
partisan politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy
Ministry. Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the
purpose of proclaiming His kingdom.
- Partisan politics is outside their scope.

Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?

Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?

- This is my belief, others differ.

Clearly We Differ ~ RHF
.

If they are to be active politically, they cannot keep tax free
status.

Incorrect.

That is a rule of relatively recent vintage, and one which should be
done
away with.

Despite the fact that I believe it inappropriate for a minster of the
Gospel to involve himself in partisan politics, he still has that
right.

As a matter of fact the change was made by one power-hungry Texas Senator
by
the name of Lyndon Johnson in 1954 so he could get re-elected.

We've had 3 really bad presidents in my lifetime, LBJ, Bill Clinton and
now
Barack Obama.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon






LOL, how can you call Obama a bad president, when he hasn't taken office
yet????

My bad presidents:

1. G.W. Bush nobody comes close, a total embarrassment.
2. Jimmy Carter, worthless.
3. Nixon, a crooked *******.
4. LBJ..Vietnam.

I did just fine with Clinton, and I couldn't care less who he screwed,
was blown by, etc.

--
BDK

BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster


Then you, sir, are suffering from the ID10T bug. I lived in Arkansas in the
80's and watching Clinton as the best presdient Chinese money could buy was
like deja-vu all over again. He screwed Arkansas, but swept things under
the rug so it all fell on the next Governor. He screwed America, too, but
he swept it all under the rug for Bush to get hit with.

And Obama can't help but be a bad president. He's a Chicago Democrat. Part
of the Machine, one of the most corrupt and dishonest political
organizations in the county. Not only does he have William Ayres as a
friend but he also has Jesse Jackson Jr and Todd Stroger, both of which are
typical tax-and-spend Dimocrats as friends. The Dims here in Chicago are
now ruling by primogeneture. Richard J was replaced by his son Richard M.
John Stroger was replaced by his son. Emil Jones is trying to replace
himself with his son. Edward Madigan is trying to replace himself with his
daughter. Next thing Obama will start ruling by Divine Right. . . .

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon




BWHAHAHA! So you claim to be a psychic?

--
BDK

BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster

BDK[_5_] November 30th 08 02:46 AM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 
In article ,
says...
CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote:

Then you, sir, are suffering from the ID10T bug. I lived in Arkansas in the
80's and watching Clinton as the best presdient Chinese money could buy was
like deja-vu all over again. He screwed Arkansas, but swept things under
the rug so it all fell on the next Governor. He screwed America, too, but
he swept it all under the rug for Bush to get hit with.

And Obama can't help but be a bad president. He's a Chicago Democrat. Part
of the Machine, one of the most corrupt and dishonest political
organizations in the county. Not only does he have William Ayres as a
friend but he also has Jesse Jackson Jr and Todd Stroger, both of which are
typical tax-and-spend Dimocrats as friends. The Dims here in Chicago are
now ruling by primogeneture. Richard J was replaced by his son Richard M.
John Stroger was replaced by his son. Emil Jones is trying to replace
himself with his son. Edward Madigan is trying to replace himself with his
daughter. Next thing Obama will start ruling by Divine Right. . . .


I have been waiting for this to come up.

Obama is a politician from Chicago. It is rational to believe that he
has some connection with the Daily machine.

Is there any evidence to support this belief?


My car has a connection with gasoline. Who would have thunk it?

--
BDK

BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster

BDK[_5_] November 30th 08 02:47 AM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 
In article ,
says...
BDK wrote:

My bad presidents:

1. G.W. Bush nobody comes close, a total embarrassment.
2. Jimmy Carter, worthless.
3. Nixon, a crooked *******.
4. LBJ..Vietnam.


You forgot that #4 also qualifies for a "crooked *******"...big time!




That's true. But I wasn't listing all their problems.
--
BDK

BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster

RHF November 30th 08 03:24 AM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today-question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American PoliticalProcess ?
 
On Nov 29, 12:52*pm, David Hartung wrote:
CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote:
Then you, sir, are suffering from the ID10T bug. *I lived in Arkansas in the
80's and watching Clinton as the best presdient Chinese money could buy was
like deja-vu all over again. *He screwed Arkansas, but swept things under
the rug so it all fell on the next Governor. *He screwed America, too, but
he swept it all under the rug for Bush to get hit with.


And Obama can't help but be a bad president. *He's a Chicago Democrat.. *Part
of the Machine, one of the most corrupt and dishonest political
organizations in the county. *Not only does he have William Ayres as a
friend but he also has Jesse Jackson Jr and Todd Stroger, both of which are
typical tax-and-spend Dimocrats as friends. *The Dims here in Chicago are
now ruling by primogeneture. *Richard J was replaced by his son Richard M.
John Stroger was replaced by his son. *Emil Jones is trying to replace
himself with his son. *Edward Madigan is trying to replace himself with his
daughter. * *Next thing Obama will start ruling by Divine Right. . .. .


I have been waiting for this to come up.

- Obama is a politician from Chicago. It is rational to believe
- that he has some connection with the Daily machine.

- Is there any evidence to support this belief?

It's A Belief : Take It On Faith ;-} ~ RHF

RHF November 30th 08 03:34 AM

(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and Statein America Today.]
 
On Nov 29, 4:10*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:02:05 -0800 (PST), RHF

wrote:

- - American Needs a Flat National Sales Tax Now and
- - Needs to Abolish the Income Tax Now to Restore Our
- - Freedoms for All Americans.

- Sorry, but That would mean Bill Gates would have a LOT
- more "freedom" than anyone else.

D'Oh! - Bill Gates Presently Has A Lot More FEEDOM
then anyone else : Plus the Money to Buy More. ~ RHF

But under a Flat tax Plus System :
* Average American "The 90%ers"
Pay As You Spend Via a National Sales Tax
which in-fact Taxes the Chinese Made Product
at an Equal Rate as the American Made Product.
* High Income Americans "The 10%ers" with
Incomes above $250K : Pay the same National
Sales Tax as Everyone Else : Plus They Pay a
Flat Tax on All Income above $250K with No
Deductions.

RHF November 30th 08 03:37 AM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today-question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American PoliticalProcess ?
 
On Nov 29, 4:30*pm, Billy Burpelson wrote:
BDK wrote:
My bad presidents:


1. G.W. Bush nobody comes close, a total embarrassment.
2. Jimmy Carter, worthless.
3. Nixon, a crooked *******.
4. LBJ..Vietnam.


You forgot that #4 also qualifies for a "crooked *******"...big time!


LBJ took your Social Security Money; and put
it into the General Fund - DA CRIMINAL !

Soumay Nonay November 30th 08 04:15 AM

(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and State in America Today.]
 
RHF wrote:
On Nov 29, 4:10 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:02:05 -0800 (PST), RHF

wrote:

- - American Needs a Flat National Sales Tax Now and
- - Needs to Abolish the Income Tax Now to Restore Our
- - Freedoms for All Americans.

- Sorry, but That would mean Bill Gates would have a LOT
- more "freedom" than anyone else.

D'Oh! - Bill Gates Presently Has A Lot More FEEDOM
then anyone else : Plus the Money to Buy More. ~ RHF

But under a Flat tax Plus System :
* Average American "The 90%ers"
Pay As You Spend Via a National Sales Tax
which in-fact Taxes the Chinese Made Product
at an Equal Rate as the American Made Product.
* High Income Americans "The 10%ers" with
Incomes above $250K : Pay the same National
Sales Tax as Everyone Else : Plus They Pay a
Flat Tax on All Income above $250K with No
Deductions.
.


And the flat tax would be regressive as hell. The wealthy obviously
favor it for a reason, it would clearly reduce their taxes greatly,
while making it tougher on the middle and lower classes.

Republicans favor it for those reasons.



Soumay Nonay November 30th 08 04:18 AM

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 
RHF wrote:
On Nov 29, 12:52 pm, David Hartung wrote:
CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote:
Then you, sir, are suffering from the ID10T bug. I lived in
Arkansas in the 80's and watching Clinton as the best presdient
Chinese money could buy was like deja-vu all over again. He screwed
Arkansas, but swept things under the rug so it all fell on the next
Governor. He screwed America, too, but he swept it all under the
rug for Bush to get hit with.


And Obama can't help but be a bad president. He's a Chicago
Democrat. Part of the Machine, one of the most corrupt and
dishonest political organizations in the county. Not only does he
have William Ayres as a friend but he also has Jesse Jackson Jr and
Todd Stroger, both of which are typical tax-and-spend Dimocrats as
friends. The Dims here in Chicago are now ruling by primogeneture.
Richard J was replaced by his son Richard M. John Stroger was
replaced by his son. Emil Jones is trying to replace himself with
his son. Edward Madigan is trying to replace himself with his
daughter. Next thing Obama will start ruling by Divine Right. . . .


I have been waiting for this to come up.

- Obama is a politician from Chicago. It is rational to believe
- that he has some connection with the Daily machine.

- Is there any evidence to support this belief?

It's A Belief : Take It On Faith ;-} ~ RHF
.


It's another Republican spit ball.



Soumay Nonay November 30th 08 04:22 AM

(OT) : How Liberals Define "Troll"-----we call it HARTUNG
 
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:50:45 -0600,
"CharlesTheCurmudgeon" wrote:

hasn't started yet. They don't usually let
you into high screwel until age 14.



Well, that must really suck for you

Being whipped by what you consider "inferior" sure
don't look good on your resume.

SNICKER


High "screwel" is Limbaugh's term. He had a tough time in high "screwel"
and a worse time in college.

The only thing lamer is a poor little Ditto repeating his master's words.



David Hartung November 30th 08 04:37 AM

(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and Statein America Today.]
 
Soumay Nonay wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 29, 4:10 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:02:05 -0800 (PST), RHF

wrote:

- - American Needs a Flat National Sales Tax Now and
- - Needs to Abolish the Income Tax Now to Restore Our
- - Freedoms for All Americans.

- Sorry, but That would mean Bill Gates would have a LOT
- more "freedom" than anyone else.

D'Oh! - Bill Gates Presently Has A Lot More FEEDOM
then anyone else : Plus the Money to Buy More. ~ RHF

But under a Flat tax Plus System :
* Average American "The 90%ers"
Pay As You Spend Via a National Sales Tax
which in-fact Taxes the Chinese Made Product
at an Equal Rate as the American Made Product.
* High Income Americans "The 10%ers" with
Incomes above $250K : Pay the same National
Sales Tax as Everyone Else : Plus They Pay a
Flat Tax on All Income above $250K with No
Deductions.
.


And the flat tax would be regressive as hell. The wealthy obviously
favor it for a reason, it would clearly reduce their taxes greatly,
while making it tougher on the middle and lower classes.

Republicans favor it for those reasons.


Where does it say that taxers must be "progressive"?

Soumay Nonay November 30th 08 05:31 AM

(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and State in America Today.]
 
David Hartung wrote:
Soumay Nonay wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 29, 4:10 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:02:05 -0800 (PST), RHF

wrote:

- - American Needs a Flat National Sales Tax Now and
- - Needs to Abolish the Income Tax Now to Restore Our
- - Freedoms for All Americans.

- Sorry, but That would mean Bill Gates would have a LOT
- more "freedom" than anyone else.

D'Oh! - Bill Gates Presently Has A Lot More FEEDOM
then anyone else : Plus the Money to Buy More. ~ RHF

But under a Flat tax Plus System :
* Average American "The 90%ers"
Pay As You Spend Via a National Sales Tax
which in-fact Taxes the Chinese Made Product
at an Equal Rate as the American Made Product.
* High Income Americans "The 10%ers" with
Incomes above $250K : Pay the same National
Sales Tax as Everyone Else : Plus They Pay a
Flat Tax on All Income above $250K with No
Deductions.
.

And the flat tax would be regressive as hell. The wealthy obviously
favor it for a reason, it would clearly reduce their taxes greatly,
while making it tougher on the middle and lower classes.

Republicans favor it for those reasons.


Where does it say that taxers must be "progressive"?


Where does it say that the poorest Americans must bear the greatest porportionate
tax burden?

Perhaps the wealthiest people should simply not have to pay taxes at all?




Dave[_18_] November 30th 08 02:04 PM

(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and Statein America Today.]
 
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:11:12 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

There are no constitutional proscriptions against private relifios
organizations engaging in partisan political activity.


If they are tax exempt under religious affiliation,
yep.


If an organization is subsidized by government it cannot use its power
help shape that government. That is a conflict of interest.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com