Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Seeking the Religious Vote

  1. #1
    [u]SOURCE:[/u] NOVEMBER 2004 Issue of Playboy (yes, the Very Leftist Magazine with the great articles and pictorals). If Drudge can be used a source, so can Playboy. B)

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [quote][b]From a Memo sent to Volunteers by the Bush-Cheney Campaign. Earlier, the campaign had asked volunteers to identify 1,600 "friendly" churches where Bush supporters could meet, prompting the IRS to remind both parties that churches that endorse candidates risk their tax-exempy status:

    "(1) Send your church directory to your state Bush-Cheney 04' Headquarters or give to a BC04 rep. (2) Identify another conservative church in your community that we can organize for Bush. (3) Talk to your pastor about holding a Citizenship Sunday and Voter Registration Drive. (4) Hold a "Party for the President" with Church Members. (5) Talk to your church seniors or 20- to 30-something group about Bush-Cheney"[/b][/quote]

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both sides in this election have very clearly been guilty of attempts to violate U.S. Tax Code laws in reference to Tax-Exempt Church/Religious Organizations. This is only one of a number of references (from both parties) to their attempts to utilize tax-exempt church groups in their politcal campaigns, in violation of the law.

    As I said in another thread, I have absolutely no problem with Churches promoting whomever they wish in politics based on their beliefs. Their freedom of speech is something I defend (for ANY group). However, churches and religions that choose to do so should have their tax-exempt status removed immediately, as prescribed by U.S. Tax Law. There are damn good reasons why that law exists, and sadly both parties have sunk to violating these laws for their own political gain.

  2. #2
    Speaking of sticking a drill in my ear........

    On HBO right now (11:13 pm EST) is Jessie "UH" Jackson and Alanis "Oh, the Irony" Morrisette on the Bill Maher show. :rolleyes:

    Five minutes of watching this show (the Liberal version of RightyRadio) is enough to make the drill in the ear sound good.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    Funny..but everytime you turn around there's kerri in some church, usually a black Baptist church...sucking up for votes.

    Of course if the President was photographed in a church he'd be called a religous zealot!

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    I am really tired of every black church in America allowing politics to be shouted from the pulpit EVERY ELECTION AND NO ONE SAYS A DAMN THING . But if one Catholic bishop mentions without endorsement that Kerry is simply totally wrong about abortion, the secularists in the press start crying about seperation of church and state and yanking tax exemptions. Do us all a favor-audit Jesse"Keep Out of the Bushes" Jackson and Al"I Don't Own Anything or Pay My Bills" Sharpton first. Until then, stop it. If you want to bring up a double standard, let's talk about that, which the press won't. Funny, no one in the Catholic Churh threatened Anheuser Busch with a boycott until they gave Jackson's son a Chicago Bud distributorship, nor do they mention Sharpton being a paid FBI rat or how he treated his matching funds like a piggy bank.

    In a twisted way, go ahead and yank the exemptions. The Catholic Church will still be standing. But I don't know if Sharpton could survive real scrutiny for 10 minutes. And JAckson could drive one of his son's Bud trucks, if he wants a real job(highly doubtful) to support his love child.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,417
    As Bugg just posted, Democrats have been been banging on pulpits in baptist church's for years, and I never saw a word printed against it.

    But now that the shoe is on the other foot, everybody gets enraged about it, including Warfish. I guess their all just becoming deeper thinkers at the same time.

    Hey Warfish, should the Noble Laureates give up their government funding for campaigning for Kerry?

  6. #6
    [quote][b]But now that the shoe is on the other foot, everybody gets enraged about it, including Warfish. I guess their all just becoming deeper thinkers at the same time.[/b][/quote]

    I knew some jackass would try to attack me for this. Listen you ignorant fool, my position is against [u]ANY[/u] religious tax-exempt group promoting [u]ANY[/u] political candidate, [u]Democrat OR Republican OR Third Party[/u].

    Unlike so many here, I am not loyal to a political party. I can think something is wrong, no matter who does it (unlike some here, who only criticise things that go against THEIR chosen party.) And this is wrong, when Kerry does it AND when Bush does it. One does not excuse the other.

    See, the difference

    [quote][b]Hey Warfish, should the Noble Laureates give up their government funding for campaigning for Kerry?[/b][/quote]

    Well, there are two answers to that:

    #1: If it's in the Tax Law that Govt. funded groups, like the Nobel Laureates, face the same restrictions churches do (and recieve the same Tax-Exempt status), then YES, their funding should be removed.

    #2: In my opinion (not the law, obviously) ANY Govt. funded or Tax-Exempt group should be required to remain politically neutral in regards to elections.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,417
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 09:52 AM
    [b] [quote][b]But now that the shoe is on the other foot, everybody gets enraged about it, including Warfish. I guess their all just becoming deeper thinkers at the same time.[/b][/quote]

    I knew some jackass would try to attack me for this. Listen you ignorant fool, my position is against [u]ANY[/u] religious tax-exempt group promoting [u]ANY[/u] political candidate, [u]Democrat OR Republican OR Third Party[/u].

    Unlike so many here, I am not loyal to a political party. I can think something is wrong, no matter who does it (unlike some here, who only criticise things that go against THEIR chosen party.) And this is wrong, when Kerry does it AND when Bush does it. One does not excuse the other.

    See, the difference

    [quote][b]Hey Warfish, should the Noble Laureates give up their government funding for campaigning for Kerry?[/b][/quote]

    Well, there are two answers to that:

    #1: If it's in the Tax Law that Govt. funded groups, like the Nobel Laureates, face the same restrictions churches do (and recieve the same Tax-Exempt status), then YES, their funding should be removed.

    #2: In my opinion (not the law, obviously) ANY Govt. funded or Tax-Exempt group should be required to remain politically neutral in regards to elections. [/b][/quote]
    And yet you only bring it up when Republicans start using it? Funny, I don't remember seeing your moral outrage as Kerry appeared in all those Baptist churches.

    You knew you'd be called on it because you knew how shallow an argument it was.

    You're a transparent fence sitter, constantly posting just to stir the soup with no intellectual integrity whatsoever.

    And pretty quick with the personal attack's as well.

  8. #8
    [quote][b]And yet you only bring it up when Republicans start using it? Funny, I don't remember seeing your moral outrage as Kerry appeared in all those Baptist churches.

    You knew you'd be called on it because you knew how shallow an argument it was.

    You're a transparent fence sitter, constantly posting just to stir the soup with no intellectual integrity whatsoever.

    And pretty quick with the personal attack's as well. [/b][/quote]

    I don't even know where to start is responding to this tripe. :rolleyes:

    I am a "fence sitter" because my opinions aren't handed to me by the GOP? I am lacking in "intellectual integrity" because I actually can form my own opinions, and I don;t base my views on which party I vote for?

    Your ignoraant biased hypocricy astounds me Piper. I called out [u]both[/u] sides for doing the same WRONG thing, and you simply cannot handle it. Pathetic, that in your world the most important thing is political affiliation. But I expect nothing less from you by now.

    Bet if I used a Kerry example instead of a Bush example in my unilateral criticsm, you would be applauding this thread instead of attack me.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Piper+Oct 19 2004, 10:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Piper @ Oct 19 2004, 10:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Warfish[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 09:52 AM
    [b] [quote][b]But now that the shoe is on the other foot, everybody gets enraged about it, including Warfish. I guess their all just becoming deeper thinkers at the same time.[/b][/quote]

    I knew some jackass would try to attack me for this. Listen you ignorant fool, my position is against [u]ANY[/u] religious tax-exempt group promoting [u]ANY[/u] political candidate, [u]Democrat OR Republican OR Third Party[/u].

    Unlike so many here, I am not loyal to a political party. I can think something is wrong, no matter who does it (unlike some here, who only criticise things that go against THEIR chosen party.) And this is wrong, when Kerry does it AND when Bush does it. One does not excuse the other.

    See, the difference

    [quote][b]Hey Warfish, should the Noble Laureates give up their government funding for campaigning for Kerry?[/b][/quote]

    Well, there are two answers to that:

    #1: If it&#39;s in the Tax Law that Govt. funded groups, like the Nobel Laureates, face the same restrictions churches do (and recieve the same Tax-Exempt status), then YES, their funding should be removed.

    #2: In my opinion (not the law, obviously) ANY Govt. funded or Tax-Exempt group should be required to remain politically neutral in regards to elections. [/b][/quote]
    And yet you only bring it up when Republicans start using it? Funny, I don&#39;t remember seeing your moral outrage as Kerry appeared in all those Baptist churches.

    You knew you&#39;d be called on it because you knew how shallow an argument it was.

    You&#39;re a transparent fence sitter, constantly posting just to stir the soup with no intellectual integrity whatsoever.

    And pretty quick with the personal attack&#39;s as well. [/b][/quote]
    [b]Ain&#39;t that the truth Piper&#33;&#33;&#33;[/b]

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,417
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 11:10 AM
    [b] [quote][b]And yet you only bring it up when Republicans start using it? Funny, I don&#39;t remember seeing your moral outrage as Kerry appeared in all those Baptist churches.

    You knew you&#39;d be called on it because you knew how shallow an argument it was.

    You&#39;re a transparent fence sitter, constantly posting just to stir the soup with no intellectual integrity whatsoever.

    And pretty quick with the personal attack&#39;s as well. [/b][/quote]

    I don&#39;t even know where to start is responding to this tripe. :rolleyes:

    I am a "fence sitter" because my opinions aren&#39;t handed to me by the GOP? I am lacking in "intellectual integrity" because I actually can form my own opinions, and I don;t base my views on which party I vote for?

    Your ignoraant biased hypocricy astounds me Piper. I called out [u]both[/u] sides for doing the same WRONG thing, and you simply cannot handle it. Pathetic, that in your world the most important thing is political affiliation. But I expect nothing less from you by now.

    Bet if I used a Kerry example instead of a Bush example in my unilateral criticsm, you would be applauding this thread instead of attack me. [/b][/quote]
    You&#39;re full of it. Your pattern here is well established. 98% of your criticism is on one side of the aisle with the other 2% mixed in so you can claim neutrality.

    You have no intellectual integrity because by your own admission you criticize the Right because of some bizarre need to balance the scales of argument.

    Like I pointed out, in this particular example, Democrats have been campaigning from pulpits for years, including Kerry. But the only time it piques your moral outrage is when the Republicans do it. Am I wrong, have you pointed it out before?

    And when your pablum is exposed, you attack the poster as being brainwashed.

    And in the world as it exists today, party affiliation does matter, because for all your pious pontificating, no libertarian candidate is getting elected this year so the sad truth is that we are stuck choosing from the two weak candidates we have before us.

  11. #11
    [quote][b]Like I pointed out, in this particular example, Democrats have been campaigning from pulpits for years, including Kerry. But the only time it piques your moral outrage is when the Republicans do it. Am I wrong, have you pointed it out before?[/b][/quote]

    Actually, [u]BOTH[/u] parties have been doing it "for years" Piper, but your blind loyalty to the Republican Party obviously affects your abillity to see that fact.

    Again, my post used a Republican example, but was a criticism of [u]BOTH[/u] sides for this tactic. And how the hell do YOU know what I think on every issue? This is the first time I recall THIS particular topic (removal of Tax-Exempt Status for breaking Tax-Law) being dicussed.

    Chiefs and others call me out for being a "Moral Relativist", yet no one calls you out for basically stating it&#39;s ok for Republicans to utilize this tactic, because Dems do it? Amazing.

    As I said before Piper, if I had used a Democratic example in this thread, you would have been one of the first to agree and blast the Dems for this tactic.

    [quote][b]Like I pointed out, in this particular example, Democrats have been campaigning from pulpits for years, including Kerry. But the only time it piques your moral outrage is when the Republicans do it. [/b][/quote]

    It is obvious you find the Democratic use of this tactic to be a bad thing, based on your comments. So, conversely, where is YOUR outrage that the Republicans are now using this tactic?

    Seems the only time this piques YOUR moral outrage is when Democrats do it....... :rolleyes:

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,417
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 12:23 PM
    [b] [quote][b]Like I pointed out, in this particular example, Democrats have been campaigning from pulpits for years, including Kerry. But the only time it piques your moral outrage is when the Republicans do it. Am I wrong, have you pointed it out before?[/b][/quote]

    Actually, [u]BOTH[/u] parties have been doing it "for years" Piper, but your blind loyalty to the Republican Party obviously affects your abillity to see that fact.

    Again, my post used a Republican example, but was a criticism of [u]BOTH[/u] sides for this tactic. And how the hell do YOU know what I think on every issue? This is the first time I recall THIS particular topic (removal of Tax-Exempt Status for breaking Tax-Law) being dicussed.

    Chiefs and others call me out for being a "Moral Relativist", yet no one calls you out for basically stating it&#39;s ok for Republicans to utilize this tactic, because Dems do it? Amazing.

    As I said before Piper, if I had used a Democratic example in this thread, you would have been one of the first to agree and blast the Dems for this tactic.

    [quote][b]Like I pointed out, in this particular example, Democrats have been campaigning from pulpits for years, including Kerry. But the only time it piques your moral outrage is when the Republicans do it. [/b][/quote]

    It is obvious you find the Democratic use of this tactic to be a bad thing, based on your comments. So, conversely, where is YOUR outrage that the Republicans are now using this tactic?

    Seems the only time this piques YOUR moral outrage is when Democrats do it....... :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
    Consistent with past practice you are incorrect on all counts when trying to speak for others.

    I have always thought it laughable when democrats did, especially pseudo-Reverands like Sharpton and Jackson. But is so far down the list of what is wrong with the process that, quite frankly I could care less what their tax-exempt status is.

    So it doesn&#39;t pique me at all. And to say both sides do it is laughable, as it is a study in extremes. While Bush is shown in Church, stories like the above related to a church advocating a Republican candidate are rare. That&#39;s what makes them newsworthy.

    If you had used a democratic example of this, my reponse would have been

    <yawn> so what else is new.

  13. #13
    How easy it is to say all that [u]after the fact[/u], eh Piper.....

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,417
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Oct 19 2004, 01:59 PM
    [b] How easy it is to say all that [u]after the fact[/u], eh Piper..... [/b][/quote]
    After [u]what [/u]fact?

    When you tried to think and speak for me?

  15. #15
    [quote][b]If you had used a democratic example of this, my reponse would have been

    <yawn> so what else is new. [/b][/quote]

    Ok, so if this is true, and this issue means little to you (as you just said), then why the criticism of me for bringing it up? I criticized both sides equally for this tactic (breaking the law). I didn&#39;t single out a single religion or church either. And this is the first time this particualr point (Tax-Exempt status of Churches breaking the law) has come up to my knowledge. My only "sin" in your eyes is using a Republican example.

    So why the criticism of me for riasing the issue? After all.....

    [quote][b]But is so far down the list of what is wrong with the process that, quite frankly I could care less what their tax-exempt status is.

    So it doesn&#39;t pique me at all.[/b][/quote]

    So you don&#39;t care, yet you&#39;ve now been berating me as an evil liberal for half a dozen + posts? Your actions and your words don&#39;t match Piper. How can you not care, yet you attack for for an un-biased criticism of an issue you don&#39;t care about?

    By the way, when you say "Consistent with past practice", that is exactly why I think what I think of you. This thread is merely another example of your obvious Conservative bias. My assumption that you would defend conservatives and berate liberals for essentially the same illegal practice is not as far fetched as you would like to make it seem Piper. You too have a history of posts here for others to draw upon.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us