Yup this Administration is Helping the "People"

[olevetonahill]

http://news.yahoo.com/doj-money-bank-america-settlement-liberal-activist-groups-212007619.html

[dwarthog]

Can you image the wailing and squealing by Dems if this was a Republican administration's DOJ doling out the goodies to conservative groups?

It is somewhat confusing though. I thought their plans just involved opportunistic looting.

[olevetonahill]

Can you image the wailing and squealing by Dems if this was a Republican administration's DOJ doling out the goodies to conservative groups?

It is somewhat confusing though. I thought their plans just involved opportunistic looting.

Heh, They are Taking the Opportunity to Loot the DOJ

[Sooner8th]

http://news.yahoo.com/doj-money-bank-america-settlement-liberal-activist-groups-212007619.html

ACORN - REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH GRAB YOUR PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES!!!

The money is going to the states according to the wall street journal, then the states either pay into their pension funds what was lost or they pass it out. This article says it is some payoff to liberal groups in "democrat strongholds".

Among the big beneficiaries of the expected Bank of America settlement are a handful of states that are poised to walk away with more than $1 billion in total. The states could include California, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland and New York, according to people familiar with the matter.

That follows hefty payouts to five states from the Justice Department's $13 billion settlement with J.P. Morgan Chase JPM +0.30% & Co. last year, and its $7 billion settlement with Citigroup Inc. C +0.45% in July. J.P. Morgan and Citigroup, in their settlements with the Justice Department, agreed to statements of facts describing how the banks had knowingly misled investors in the sale of mortgage securities.

Most of those states have directed the money to refunding public pensions that lost money on mortgage securities they bought from those two banks. Some, including Massachusetts and New York, also earmarked money for consumer relief or for the state's general budget.

New York, which didn't suffer big losses from mortgage securities in its public pensions, is using most of its $613 million from the J.P. Morgan settlement for "housing and related purposes," according to the New York state division of budget. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman directed that the $92 million from the Citigroup settlement be used for specific housing-assistance programs, such as housing counselors, as well as law-enforcement efforts to fight financial fraud.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/bank-of-america-reaches-17-billion-settlement-1408560100

[Sooner8th]

Can you image the wailing and squealing by Dems if this was a Republican administration's DOJ doling out the goodies to conservative groups?

It is somewhat confusing though. I thought their plans just involved opportunistic looting.


aaaaaahhhhhhhhhh you did under bush - White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - OFBCI was established by President George W. Bush through an executive order on January 29, 2001, representing one of the key domestic policies of Bush's campaign promise of "compassionate conservatism."

MY MY MY How you forget so soon. Check the date it was established January 29, 2001. Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001, it took him nine days to issue the hated executive order to establish it.

2003, groups dubbed "faith-based" received $1.17 billion
2005, more than $2.2 billion

That is TAXPAYER MONEY going to bushes primary supporters. MY TAX DOLLARS to pay off conservative supports.

[Sooner8th]

God I LOVE blowing up your circle jerks.

[olevetonahill]

Never Fear Here he comes to save the Day, Its Mighty 8th on his way to stand up For Libs and Obammy lovers everywhere,

[Sooner8th]

Never Fear Here comes to save the Day, Its Mighty 8th on his way to stand up For Libs and Obammy lovers everywhere,

Cult member conservities run with another bullsh!t story on the obama administration doing exactly the same thing the bush administration did.

Argue the facts.

[olevetonahill]

You are such a shill for the Lib Dems go http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/fuk2.jpg

[Sooner in Tampa]

aaaaaahhhhhhhhhh you did under bush - White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - OFBCI was established by President George W. Bush through an executive order on January 29, 2001, representing one of the key domestic policies of Bush's campaign promise of "compassionate conservatism."

MY MY MY How you forget so soon. Check the date it was established January 29, 2001. Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001, it took him nine days to issue the hated executive order to establish it.

2003, groups dubbed "faith-based" received $1.17 billion
2005, more than $2.2 billion

That is TAXPAYER MONEY going to bushes primary supporters. MY TAX DOLLARS to pay off conservative supports.

So, let me get this straight. You are comparing Faith Based Organizations to organizations that blatantly break the law (by assisting illegal immigrants) or strong arm banks into giving loans to scumbags that don't have a snowballs chance in hell of paying back.


Buried in the fine print of the deal, which includes $7 billion in soft-dollar consumer relief, are a raft of political payoffs to Obama constituency groups.

According to the list provided by Justice, those groups include come of the most radical bank shakedown organizations in the country, including:
• La Raza, which pressures banks to expand their credit box to qualify more low-income Latino immigrants for home loans;
• National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Washington's most aggressive lobbyist for the disastrous Community Reinvestment Act;
• Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, whose director calls himself a "bank terrorist;"
• Operation Hope, a South Central Los Angeles group that's pressuring banks to make "dignity mortgages" for deadbeats.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082714-715046-holders-bank-of-america-settlement-includes-payoffs-to-democrat-groups.htm?p=full%20



Yup...fair comparison...

[olevetonahill]

He Twists, He spins , He deflects. Yet he is still a ****ing idiot.

[Sooner8th]

So, let me get this straight. You are comparing Faith Based Organizations to organizations that blatantly break the law (by assisting illegal immigrants) or strong arm banks into giving loans to scumbags that don't have a snowballs chance in hell of paying back.



Yup...fair comparison...

Let me get this straight, violating the constitution by giving taxpayer money to groups based on religious affiliation and giving money to group who help out those who were damaged by the illegal lending practices of the bank.

Show me where these guy are assisting illegal immigrants.

[olevetonahill]

When yer in the shatter Ya must attack and keep attacking.

[Sooner8th]

When yer in the shatter Ya must attack and keep attacking.

You are the only one attacking here. I am just providing facts. It's just that you don't like the facts going against you and and since you can't argue the facts you attack me.

[dwarthog]

aaaaaahhhhhhhhhh you did under bush - White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - OFBCI was established by President George W. Bush through an executive order on January 29, 2001, representing one of the key domestic policies of Bush's campaign promise of "compassionate conservatism."

MY MY MY How you forget so soon. Check the date it was established January 29, 2001. Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001, it took him nine days to issue the hated executive order to establish it.

2003, groups dubbed "faith-based" received $1.17 billion
2005, more than $2.2 billion

That is TAXPAYER MONEY going to bushes primary supporters. MY TAX DOLLARS to pay off conservative supports.

God I love showing people how stupid you are.

The changes were to allow those organizations to "compete" for the same tax dollars as other organizations by being allowed to file as 501c3 organizations, which they previously were not allowed to do due to being non profits.

But don't worry, good old Lois Lerner, Dem stooge stepped in to deny as many of those she could once Dems were back in control.

By the way, those numbers of yours represent some 8% of the total the government doled out to all groups seeking hand outs, like the AFl-CIO, Planned Parenthood, Acorn etc...

Keep spinning though...

[olevetonahill]

You are the only one attacking here. I am just providing facts. It's just that you don't like the facts going against you and and since you can't argue the facts you attack me.

You call my posts in this thread "Attacks" silly little Lib.
Your "FACTS" are nothing more than a Bunch of copy/paste anti Bush crap.
Discuss FACTS if you want but quit bringing up Old history ya Moran.
Like I said
You cant dazzle us with Brilliance so you try to Baffle us with Bullshat!

[Sooner8th]

God I love showing people how stupid you are.

The changes were to allow those organizations to "compete" for the same tax dollars as other organizations by being allowed to file as 501c3 organizations, which they previously were not allowed to do due to being non profits.

But don't worry, good old Lois Lerner, Dem stooge stepped in to deny as many of those she could once Dems were back in control.

By the way, those numbers of yours represent some 8% of the total the government doled out to all groups seeking hand outs, like the AFl-CIO, Planned Parenthood, Acorn etc...

Keep spinning though...

How stupid I am huh? The reason they could not "compete" was the separation of church and state not being a 501(c)3. Here are the rules that were put into place:

They may not use direct government funds to support inherently religious activities such as prayer, worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.
Any inherently religious activities that the organizations may offer must be offered separately in time or location from services that receive federal assistance.
FBOs cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when providing services (GAO 2006:13[3]).

Now after bush made the change with an executive order billions FLOWED into the conservative faith based organizations. TAXPAYER MONEY, not money from a settlement.

Tell me again the fairy tale about Lois Lerner denying as many of those she could. Show me some proof of your allegation.

[Sooner8th]

You call my posts in this thread "Attacks" silly little Lib.
Your "FACTS" are nothing more than a Bunch of copy/paste anti Bush crap.
Discuss FACTS if you want but quit bringing up Old history ya Moran.
Like I said
You cant dazzle us with Brilliance so you try to Baffle us with Bullshat!

Fact is he used taxpayer money to pay off his supporters through this executive order.

The post was Can you image the wailing and squealing by Dems if this was a Republican administration's DOJ doling out the goodies to conservative groups?


My point is you did, but you used taxpayer money not settlement money.

Try again.

[olevetonahill]

Fact is he used taxpayer money to pay off his supporters through this executive order.


The post was Can you image the wailing and squealing by Dems if this was a Republican administration's DOJ doling out the goodies to conservative groups?


My point is you did, but you used taxpayer money not settlement money.

Try again.

No Moran, YOU try again. I simply titled the thread
Yup this Administration is Helping the "People"

Then posted the Link to the article.
You have jumped to conclusions again.

[dwarthog]

How stupid I am huh? The reason they could not "compete" was the separation of church and state not being a 501(c)3. Here are the rules that were put into place:

They may not use direct government funds to support inherently religious activities such as prayer, worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.
Any inherently religious activities that the organizations may offer must be offered separately in time or location from services that receive federal assistance.
FBOs cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when providing services (GAO 2006:13[3]).

Now after bush made the change with an executive order billions FLOWED into the conservative faith based organizations. TAXPAYER MONEY, not money from a settlement.

Tell me again the fairy tale about Lois Lerner denying as many of those she could. Show me some proof of your allegation.

You just can't help it can you?

The money they got was to help with the charitable causes they were paying for NOT religious instructions.

This was all enabled by a supreme court ruling

Oh look at this...


Obama Announces White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ObamaAnnouncesWhiteHouseOfficeofFaith-basedandNeighborhoodPartnerships

Get em'!

[Sooner8th]

No Moran, YOU try again. I simply titled the thread

Then posted the Link to the article.
You have jumped to conclusions again.

What conclusions am I jumping to? I was answering another post.

Back to name calling huh?

[Sooner8th]

You just can't help it can you?

The money they got was to help with the charitable causes they were paying for NOT religious instructions.

This was all enabled by a supreme court ruling

Oh look at this...



http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ObamaAnnouncesWhiteHouseOfficeofFaith-basedandNeighborhoodPartnerships

Get em'!

Ok dwarthog you have already embarrassed yourself and showed how stupid you are by claiming the reason religious affiliated groups were not able to get grants was because they were 501(c)3s. Which simply is not true, that grant money was going to 501(c)3s and the reason religious affiliated groups were because of separation of church and state constitutional issues.

Now if bush was simply allowing them to compete for these grant and contracts why did he feel it necessary to open up an office in the white house to direct the money?

So what if obama did the same thing. Why should he behave any different than bush?

You made a claim that "This was all enabled by a supreme court ruling" Show me the ruling.

I love it when you show how stupid you are.

[soonercoop1]

Cult member conservities run with another bullsh!t story on the obama administration doing exactly the same thing the bush administration did.

Argue the facts.

Who is a Bush fan? I am a real conservative and disagreed with quite a bit that Bush did. There are very few real conservatives in congress and even fewer in the federal government. Mostly libs and progressives that have been in charge for decades....hence the majority of our problems...

[olevetonahill]

What conclusions am I jumping to? I was answering another post.

Back to name calling huh?

Dont believe I ever left off, So how can I be "BACK" ya dildo faced ferret

[Sooner8th]

Dont believe I ever left off, So how can I be "BACK" ya dildo faced ferret


Too bad BetterSoonerThanLater or rock on sooner doesn't post or pm you to tell you how to treat others like they did me.

Then again you are a conservative so your behavior is ok, but when a liberal behaves the same way its the end of the world.

Typical double standard.

[Sooner8th]

Who is a Bush fan? I am a real conservative and disagreed with quite a bit that Bush did. There are very few real conservatives in congress and even fewer in the federal government. Mostly libs and progressives that have been in charge for decades....hence the majority of our problems...

Where did I say anyone was a bush fan? How many times did you vote for him? "REAL" what a laugh, that is what conservatives hid behind when the "real" conservatives they vote for do things you don't like. Bush was a "real" conservative until the conservative policies he put into place destroyed our economy.

Mostly libs and progressives that have been in charge for decades....hence the majority of our problems... LAUGHABLE, you had total and complete control over the government for 6 long years, if it was so bad why didn't you change those policies. Why is it that it took so long for the libs and progressives policies to create "the majority of our problems". If you will remember correctly - it was liberal clinton who balanced the budget and "real" conservative bush who turned it into record deficits.

[olevetonahill]

Too bad BetterSoonerThanLater or rock on sooner doesn't post or pm you to tell you how to treat others like they did me.

Then again you are a conservative so your behavior is ok, but when a liberal behaves the same way its the end of the world.

Typical double standard.

Ya Moranic dildo nosed idiot. Rock is a a Lib iffen ya aint noticed . And I dont much GAF one way or the other what ya say or how you"Treat" me. Its a ****in message board mouse breath you Typed words cannot have an effect on me unless I allow it and quite frankly ya pencil dicked peanut brain, YOU dont have that power over me . Cause I take most everything ya say and Put it Here!
http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/outhouse.gif

[Sooner8th]

Ya Moranic dildo nosed idiot. Rock is a a Lib iffen ya aint noticed . And I dont much GAF one way or the other what ya say or how you"Treat" me. Its a ****in message board mouse breath you Typed words cannot have an effect on me unless I allow it and quite frankly ya pencil dicked peanut brain, YOU dont have that power over me . Cause I take most everything ya say and Put it Here!
http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/outhouse.gif

http://www.kids-center.org/images/10401537/image001.jpg

Hey, did you know John Kerry is a war hero!

[olevetonahill]

http://www.kids-center.org/images/10401537/image001.jpg

Hey, did you know Im a ****ing moran!

Hey, Yes in fact I do know that.

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

Too bad BetterSoonerThanLater or rock on sooner doesn't post or pm you to tell you how to treat others like they did me.

Then again you are a conservative so your behavior is ok, but when a liberal behaves the same way its the end of the world.

Typical double standard.

8th, VEt may have started the thread, but you are the one that started talking down to others with your pitchfork comments OUTRAGE bull****. Don't bring me into this. I told you how I felt about everything. if you would try responding in a civil manner, rather than like a smartass, then we wouldn't be back here.

Remember, if you aren't willing to change your behavior, then how can you honestly expect others to change theirs. you sound kind of hypocritical.

just my 2 cents, but know your audience man.

[Sooner8th]

8th, VEt may have started the thread, but you are the one that started talking down to others with your pitchfork comments OUTRAGE bull****. Don't bring me into this. I told you how I felt about everything. if you would try responding in a civil manner, rather than like a smartass, then we wouldn't be back here.

Remember, if you aren't willing to change your behavior, then how can you honestly expect others to change theirs. you sound kind of hypocritical.

just my 2 cents, but know your audience man.

So mocking the acorn part of the story that was linked is talking down to people? How is making fun of how people on the right find a story, don't bother to look up any fact's and run with the latest outrage - faux "news" favorite term not mine - is talking down? It's not a problem on here when he spews libtard ect.

Can't you folk take a little ribbing? Or does it hit too close to home?

[olevetonahill]

So mocking the acorn part of the story that was linked is talking down to people? How is making fun of how people on the right find a story, don't bother to look up any fact's and run with the latest outrage - faux "news" favorite term not mine - is talking down? It's not a problem on here when he spews libtard ect.

Can't you folk take a little ribbing? Or does it hit too close to home?

Again you ****ing Jellyfish lipped idiot Where do you see OUTRAGE? you the only one acting all Horshack on us.

[Sooner8th]

Again you ****ing Jellyfish lipped idiot Where do you see OUTRAGE? you the only one acting all Horshack on us.

A little sensitive? You big baby.

http://www.troll.me/images/leave-jimmy-alone/leave-us-alone-so-we-can-circle-jerk-in-peace.jpg

[olevetonahill]

A little sensitive? You big baby.

http://www.troll.me/images/leave-jimmy-alone/leave-us-alone-so-we-can-circle-jerk-in-peace.jpg

LMFAO where do you come up with this shat? Dude you live in your own little universe dont ya.

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

So mocking the acorn part of the story that was linked is talking down to people? How is making fun of how people on the right find a story, don't bother to look up any fact's and run with the latest outrage - faux "news" favorite term not mine - is talking down? It's not a problem on here when he spews libtard ect.

Can't you folk take a little ribbing? Or does it hit too close to home?


there's a difference between ribbing and outright sarcasm. ribbing is fine, if you have the relationship established the person(s) you are ribbing. since you do not have a relationship with these individuals, it comes across as pretentiousness and sarcastic. one might even say, that by responding to posts the way that you do, you are unable to take ribbing yourself, therefore you immediately go on the offensive in order to put people on their heels. its a defense mechanism that prevents you from seeming vulnerable at all. over compensation for low self esteem.

however, since I did agree to a truce with you, I'll hold true to it, and refrain from getting emotional about this stuff. just do me a favor: go back and look at your very first post in this thread, and tell me if you don't think that you played antagonist this go'round.

[Sooner8th]

there's a difference between ribbing and outright sarcasm. ribbing is fine, if you have the relationship established the person(s) you are ribbing. since you do not have a relationship with these individuals, it comes across as pretentiousness and sarcastic. one might even say, that by responding to posts the way that you do, you are unable to take ribbing yourself, therefore you immediately go on the offensive in order to put people on their heels. its a defense mechanism that prevents you from seeming vulnerable at all. over compensation for low self esteem.

however, since I did agree to a truce with you, I'll hold true to it, and refrain from getting emotional about this stuff. just do me a favor: go back and look at your very first post in this thread, and tell me if you don't think that you played antagonist this go'round.

I reread it and i couldn't stop laughing, ribbing at it's finest. The problem is it hits to close to home for people on this board. That is not my problem, grow thicker skin is my suggestion.

Let's talk about pretentiousness - "over compensation for low self esteem"? How pretentious is it of you to think you know me well enough to claim I have low self esteem? You showed by your previous tirade you know absolutely nothing about me and everyone on this board who thinks they know who I am shows none of you know anything about me.

You guys are just pissed off I ruined the "discussion" about acorn, giving money to democrats and the classic if republicans did this liberals would scream and holler.

[olevetonahill]

I reread it and i couldn't stop laughing, ribbing at it's finest. The problem is it hits to close to home for people on this board. That is not my problem, grow thicker skin is my suggestion.

Let's talk about pretentiousness - "over compensation for low self esteem"? How pretentious is it of you to think you know me well enough to claim I have low self esteem? You showed by your previous tirade you know absolutely nothing about me and everyone on this board who thinks they know who I am shows none of you know anything about me.

You guys are just pissed off I ruined the "discussion" about acorn, giving money to democrats and the classic if republicans did this liberals would scream and holler.

Oh good Lord, Get over yerself, snail fart breath.

Its ****in Game day. Back to Iggy with you so I can enjoy the Day of football.

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

there's a difference between ribbing and outright sarcasm. ribbing is fine, if you have the relationship established the person(s) you are ribbing. since you do not have a relationship with these individuals, it comes across as pretentiousness and sarcastic. one might even say, that by responding to posts the way that you do, you are unable to take ribbing yourself, therefore you immediately go on the offensive in order to put people on their heels. its a defense mechanism that prevents you from seeming vulnerable at all. over compensation for low self esteem.

however, since I did agree to a truce with you, I'll hold true to it, and refrain from getting emotional about this stuff. just do me a favor: go back and look at your very first post in this thread, and tell me if you don't think that you played antagonist this go'round.

I reread it and i couldn't stop laughing, ribbing at it's finest. The problem is it hits to close to home for people on this board. That is not my problem, grow thicker skin is my suggestion.

Let's talk about pretentiousness - "over compensation for low self esteem"? How pretentious is it of you to think you know me well enough to claim I have low self esteem? You showed by your previous tirade you know absolutely nothing about me and everyone on this board who thinks they know who I am shows none of you know anything about me.

You guys are just pissed off I ruined the "discussion" about acorn, giving money to democrats and the classic if republicans did this liberals would scream and holler.

I'm not pissed at anything. You brought me into this discussion, and then get butt hurt when I give me two sense. I simply stated how your post could be perceived--not how you may have intended it. By you getting defensive about it you almost prove my point.

Not to mention, it's not ok for me to act as if I know you, but you seem to do the same thing to myself and everyone else in this board.

Here's the deal buddy, and the quicker you understand this the better off for everyone-- perception is reality. If you seem like a dick, you are a dick. Telling someone to get tougher skin, or to take rubbing, and then laughing about it to the very people you are ribbing... You're a dick. Plain and simple.

You are a joke to everyone on this board now. You are a piece if ****. You have no regard for anyone else. Regardless of you political affiliation .
You're just a jerk. I'm done dealing with you. Flame away. I tired to talk reasonable with you, but your attitude just solidifies people's prejudices towards far left libs like yourself.


No tirade here, just contempt.

God bless you.

[Sooner8th]

I'm not pissed at anything. You brought me into this discussion, and then get butt hurt when I give me two sense. I simply stated how your post could be perceived--not how you may have intended it. By you getting defensive about it you almost prove my point.

Not to mention, it's not ok for me to act as if I know you, but you seem to do the same thing to myself and everyone else in this board.

Here's the deal buddy, and the quicker you understand this the better off for everyone-- perception is reality. If you seem like a dick, you are a dick. Telling someone to get tougher skin, or to take rubbing, and then laughing about it to the very people you are ribbing... You're a dick. Plain and simple.

You are a joke to everyone on this board now. You are a piece if ****. You have no regard for anyone else. Regardless of you political affiliation .
You're just a jerk. I'm done dealing with you. Flame away. I tired to talk reasonable with you, but your attitude just solidifies people's prejudices towards far left libs like yourself.


No tirade here, just contempt.

God bless you.

The you guys are pissed comment was not meant to be directed at you but at the larger group of rightwingnuts on here. Sense should be cents and I am not sure what piece if sh!t is. I understand you tried to tell me how my post could be perceived, you need to understand this - I was making fun of those who watch faux "news", listen to limbaugh and read every rightwingnut website and are "outraged" at obama doing the same identical thing bush did. It is laughable not to mention predictable. People on here don't even bother to check things for facts before running with them.

As for acting like I know you and those on here, well, it seems I sure do. I could have told you that you watch faux "news" without you tell me and I'll tell you how. In one of your helper posts you said that I loath the military, that is taken straight out of rnc talking points, hannity and o'riely. EXTREMELY predictable.

So I'm a dick, a jerk and a joke to anyone on here. For arguments sake let's say that is true. Take one example, anyone who knows ANYTHING about the economy or gpd growth for 1Q 2014 KNOWS the weather had a HUGE impact on it. I have seen at least three posters try to mock and make fun of the "cold wind blowing", it snowed and something silly about global warming in reference to the 1Q gpd number. Tell me how I can have any regard for people who will not accept FACTS.

This is a microcosm of our nations totally ****ed up political environment. We have a group of people, conservatives, who belong to a party, republican, who either choose to believe or are simply not bright enough to know they are being lied to about economy, the political process and international affairs. This group of people and party cannot even manage to be consistent from one "outrage" to another. They pretend that bush and his years didn't happen and ANY comparison is blaming bush or sticking up for obama. If you would like to see some proof of this, take a look at the thread titled Heh, I like this and look at the ad or whatever it was for a repubclian for congress. A minute and a half of making fun of democrats and hatin' obama, nothing in there about policies or what he will do if elected.

You didn't try to talk reasonable with me, you told me to be nice to far rightwingnuts. To end things up you, again, show you know nothing about me by parroting rightwingnut talking points and calling me a far left lib.

Contempt for me? Right back at ya, at least I can argue facts, you guys (I don't mean you specifically I'm talking about far rightwingnuts) can't because the facts don't backup your premises.

[Curly Bill]

None of you guys love obamadong, and all manner of progressive dong as much as I do. If I could I'd dig up Karl Marx I'd go to town on that man's communist dong!


We don't doubt ya! You do love that commie dong!

[Sooner8th]

We don't doubt ya! You do love that commie dong!

Right on cue..................just like pavlov's dog.

[Curly Bill]

I love the feel of Obammy's nuts on my chin! It makes me feel like a real fanboy!

Right on cue...................just like Karl Marx's dog.

[Sooner8th]

Right on cue...................just like Karl Marx's dog.

You just reinforced everything I've said about you and conservatives, you can't argue the point with facts so you scream SOCIALIST!

[Curly Bill]

I just reinforced everything I've said about myself and progressives, we can't argue the point with facts so we scream how much we love Marxism and obamadong!

Truth!

[Sooner8th]

Truth!



You just reinforced everything I've said about you and conservatives, you can't argue the point with facts so you scream SOCIALIST!


I just reinforced everything I've said about myself and progressives, we can't argue the point with facts so we scream how much we love Marxism and obamadong!

Typical conservative - just making sh!t up. Can't deal with reality so you just make sh!t up.

You keep talking about dong - all the time!

[Curly Bill]

I'm a typical progressive - just making sh!t up. Can't deal with reality so I just make sh!t up.

I keep talking about dong - all the time!

Tell me bout it!

[olevetonahill]

Tell me bout it!

KC is one twisted MoFo aint he,

[Curly Bill]

KC is one twisted MoFo aint he,

He loves progressivism and dong, lots and lots of progressive dong! So yes, he is one twisted MoFo!

[rock on sooner]

Who is a Bush fan? I am a real conservative and disagreed with quite a bit that Bush did. There are very few real conservatives in congress and even fewer in the federal government. Mostly libs and progressives that have been in charge for decades....hence the majority of our problems...

A few points here...

I'm late to this party 'cause my two grandsons were around but....
one....to say there a very few conservative in congress is off the mark...
there are so many Tea partiers ( I think 86 is the number) whose only
mission, along with McConnell, is to stop Obama at EVERY turn, plus those
who grew some Pub bawls, to say "me, too"...the libs and progressives
have been stymied by the minority (in the Senate) and the majority in
the House, since Obama was elected the first time. two, FYI, it aint the Dems
who shut down government or who threaten it now (Mr McConnell comes
to mind). 8th screeches a bunch and it embarrasses me personally, but there
are some of his points that are accurate...he just can't get passed the screeching!
Yup, I peemed him.... and, three..I truly enjoy civil discourse, but this stuff aint it.

[olevetonahill]

A few points here...

I'm late to this party 'cause my two grandsons were around but....
one....to say there a very few conservative in congress is off the mark...
there are so many Tea partiers ( I think 86 is the number) whose only
mission, along with McConnell, is to stop Obama at EVERY turn, plus those
who grew some Pub bawls, to say "me, too"...the libs and progressives
have been stymied by the minority (in the Senate) and the majority in
the House, since Obama was elected the first time. two, FYI, it aint the Dems
who shut down government or who threaten it now (Mr McConnell comes
to mind). 8th screeches a bunch and it embarrasses me personally, but there
are some of his points that are accurate...he just can't get passed the screeching!
Yup, I peemed him.... and, three..I truly enjoy civil discourse, but this stuff aint it.

Yea I put him back on Iggy. its easier on my mind. As far as the Cons stopping Obammy. I dont see a Prob LOL

[rock on sooner]

Yea I put him back on Iggy. its easier on my mind. As far as the Cons stopping Obammy. I dont see a Prob LOL

Now, why doesn't that surprise me?:highly_amused::friendly_wink::biggrin:

[olevetonahill]

Now, why doesn't that surprise me?:highly_amused::friendly_wink::biggrin:

:adoration:

[Sooner8th]

A few points here...

I'm late to this party 'cause my two grandsons were around but....
one....to say there a very few conservative in congress is off the mark...
there are so many Tea partiers ( I think 86 is the number) whose only
mission, along with McConnell, is to stop Obama at EVERY turn, plus those
who grew some Pub bawls, to say "me, too"...the libs and progressives
have been stymied by the minority (in the Senate) and the majority in
the House, since Obama was elected the first time. two, FYI, it aint the Dems
who shut down government or who threaten it now (Mr McConnell comes
to mind). 8th screeches a bunch and it embarrasses me personally, but there
are some of his points that are accurate...he just can't get passed the screeching!
Yup, I peemed him.... and, three..I truly enjoy civil discourse, but this stuff aint it.

All the points I make are accurate, I don't make up stuff.

[Turd_Ferguson]

All the points I make are accurate, I don't make up stuff.

You're a lying mother ****er.

[Curly Bill]

All the dongs I love are progressive, I don't like women, or men who actually act like men.

There's a shocker!

[olevetonahill]

There's a shocker!

Heh, I put him on Iggy so i wouldnt see that carp and here ya are a quoten him. Shame on ya.

[Curly Bill]

Heh, I put him on Iggy so i wouldnt see that car and here ya are a quoten him. Shame on ya.

It's just amazing how deep (no pun intended) his love is for the progressive dong!

[olevetonahill]

It's just amazing how deep (no pun intended) his love is for the progressive dong!

:highly_amused:

[TheHumanAlphabet]

He Twists, He spins , He deflects. Yet he is still a ****ing idiot.

He drinks and bowls and bowls and drinks...he's Alabama man...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Hey matlock8th, where is this so called separation of church and state? It doesn't exist. It is a recent liberal judge / progressive construct to tear this country down. The ONLY thing stated in the Constitution is the Congress shall pass no law to the free expression of religion. No mention of God not in our government or policies... In fact, most Founding Fathers had a strong belief in God and a strong faith. They would be appalled at today's interpretation to limit God in government.

[Sooner8th]

Hey matlock8th, where is this so called separation of church and state? It doesn't exist. It is a recent liberal judge / progressive construct to tear this country down. The ONLY thing stated in the Constitution is the Congress shall pass no law to the free expression of religion. No mention of God not in our government or policies... In fact, most Founding Fathers had a strong belief in God and a strong faith. They would be appalled at today's interpretation to limit God in government.

This is where the talking down to people comes in. It is stupid sh!t like this that makes me talk down to people on this board.

Where do you get this crap at? Have you even read the constitution? Hint - it's the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Did you just skip over the part about respecting an establishment of religion? You know - the very first thing in the amendment! You did, didn't you?

Let see that part about "They (Founding Fathers) would be appalled at today's interpretation to limit God in government. Let's see is Thomas Jefferson a Founding Fathers? Remind me who WROTE the constitution. Oh that's right, it's James Madison. Let's see if Jimmy would be "appalled at today's interpretation to limit God in government".

James Madison on the first amendment

The law has the further advantage of having been the result of a formal appeal to the sense of the Community and a deliberate sanction of a vast majority, comprizing every sect of Christians in the State. This act is a true standard of Religious liberty; its principle the great barrier agst [against] usurpations on the rights of conscience.

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785;

Thomas Jefferson wrote with respect to the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut):

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.



The person who wrote the constitution including the first amendment was completely for the separation of church and state.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

What part of congress shall pass no law...in my statement don't you get. You are stupid as a rock.

[Sooner8th]

What part of congress shall pass no law...in my statement don't you get. You are stupid as a rock.

This is your statement:

The ONLY thing stated in the Constitution is the Congress shall pass no law to the free expression of religion.

My statement was:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Did you just skip over the part about respecting an establishment of religion? You know - the very first thing in the amendment! You did, didn't you?


You left out an establishment of religion - which is what I said you left out. Why are you arguing this point with me? It's in black and white.

Now apologize like a good little dumbass conservative who cannot read.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

To quote Monty Python..."I fart in your general direction"

[Sooner8th]

To quote Monty Python..."I fart in your general direction"

That's it? That's all you got?

You make a claim

"Hey matlock8th, where is this so called separation of church and state? It doesn't exist. It is a recent liberal judge / progressive construct to tear this country down. The ONLY thing stated in the Constitution is the Congress shall pass no law to the free expression of religion."

When I show you it's in the constitution you act like it doesn't exist by focusing on pass no law. You claim "They (founding fathers) would be appalled at today's interpretation to limit God in government." is just false, all you got is some weak ***, lame Monty Python quote.

You wanted to have is discussion, not lets have one. BOTH of your claims are wrong. I ask again - where do you get crap this at?

[Sooner in Tampa]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It seems to me, and this just one man's opinion...that Christians are certainly being infringed upon when it comes to "the free exercise thereof". The Constitution does not inhibit public displays of faith.

Crosses are ripped down in parks. Prayer has been banished from schools and the ACLU rampages to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.


The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

George Washington believed, “Religion and morality are indispensible supports” for “it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

Faith is not a civil contract, but a personal matter not to be profaned by politics.

Limitations on government have been altered into restrictions on religious expression, which clearly violates the amendment’s next clause: “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” and third clause “abridging the freedom of speech.”


The Constitution only forbids government sponsorship and compulsion of religious exercise by individual citizens. It does not require hermetic “separation”—implying exclusion—of religion and religious persons from public affairs of state.

In a nutshell, government may neither compel nor prohibit religious exercise.

government may not prescribe religious exercise; the Free Exercise side says that government may not proscribe, disfavor or otherwise punish or prevent religious exercise voluntarily chosen by the people. But the two phrases are two sides of the same coin. It is little wonder, then, that the Supreme Court has abandoned entirely the misleading metaphor “separation of church and state.” It simply does not help explain the true meaning of the First Amendment.

Under the original meaning of the Constitution, government must protect religious choices and include religious persons, groups, and speakers on an equal basis. It may recognize and accommodate religion, as long as it does not in effect compel persons to engage in religious exercises or practices against their will—the hallmark of what an “establishment of religion” was understood to mean at the time the framers wrote the First Amendment.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/10/1920/

[dwarthog]

Ok dwarthog you have already embarrassed yourself and showed how stupid you are by claiming the reason religious affiliated groups were not able to get grants was because they were 501(c)3s. Which simply is not true, that grant money was going to 501(c)3s and the reason religious affiliated groups were because of separation of church and state constitutional issues.

Now if bush was simply allowing them to compete for these grant and contracts why did he feel it necessary to open up an office in the white house to direct the money?

So what if obama did the same thing. Why should he behave any different than bush?

You made a claim that "This was all enabled by a supreme court ruling" Show me the ruling.

I love it when you show how stupid you are.

Google challenged as well I see.

The supreme court ruling you can't find, and no I'm not going to explain it to you either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_v._Helms

Regarding 501c3 and faith based organizations, it's more accurate to say they weren't set up as such because they didn't know how to do so, which the grants enabled.

So now they can have a "church" side and a charity side which operates under the 501c3 guidelines just like all of your favorite lib orgs out there that ostensibly do not engage in politics either.

[SoonerorLater]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

So as long as Congress does not make any laws respecting an establishment of religion then the constitutional requirement has been met.

That is all it says. Nothing more. Nothing less

[Sooner8th]

Google challenged as well I see.

The supreme court ruling you can't find, and no I'm not going to explain it to you either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_v._Helms

Regarding 501c3 and faith based organizations, it's more accurate to say they weren't set up as such because they didn't know how to do so, which the grants enabled.

So now they can have a "church" side and a charity side which operates under the 501c3 guidelines just like all of your favorite lib orgs out there that ostensibly do not engage in politics either.

Reading challenged as well I see.

There is NOTHING on the site about being a 501c3. The whole thing is about separation of church and state.

Background[edit]
Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 gave federal funds via state educational agencies to local educational agencies.[1] In turn, educational materials and equipment were lent to public and private elementary and secondary schools to implement "secular, neutral, and non ideological" programs.[2]
In an average year, about 30% of Chapter 2 funds spent in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, were distributed to Catholic or religious private schools. Taxpayers filed suit, arguing that this violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.[3]
Lee Boothby, representing parents who opposed the aid program in Louisiana, said the issue at stake was "our historic commitment that taxpayers not be required to subsidize religious schools."[3]

[dwarthog]

Reading challenged as well I see.

There is NOTHING on the site about being a 501c3. The whole thing is about separation of church and state.

Background[edit]
Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 gave federal funds via state educational agencies to local educational agencies.[1] In turn, educational materials and equipment were lent to public and private elementary and secondary schools to implement "secular, neutral, and non ideological" programs.[2]
In an average year, about 30% of Chapter 2 funds spent in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, were distributed to Catholic or religious private schools. Taxpayers filed suit, arguing that this violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.[3]
Lee Boothby, representing parents who opposed the aid program in Louisiana, said the issue at stake was "our historic commitment that taxpayers not be required to subsidize religious schools."[3]

You display an abysmal ability to connect the dots.

Do you get up in the AM and plug in the DNC portal and get your thoughts for the day? They tell you something is true then that is the way it has to be, so disengage cognitive processes and resume auto pilot?

If you paid for a college education, you got taken to the cleaners dude...

[Sooner8th]

You display an abysmal ability to connect the dots.

Do you get up in the AM and plug in the DNC portal and get your thoughts for the day? They tell you something is true then that is the way it has to be, so disengage cognitive processes and resume auto pilot?

If you paid for a college education, you got taken to the cleaners dude...

WOW you really are that stupid aren't you? There is NOTHING in the link YOU gave that says anything about 501(c)3's. This is completely about separation of state and religion.

[dwarthog]

WOW you really are that stupid aren't you? There is NOTHING in the link YOU gave that says anything about 501(c)3's. This is completely about separation of state and religion.

No shame in admitting you can't comprehend the material provided.

You keep trying though, you'll get extra points for that and probably another participation trophy to add to your collection!

[olevetonahill]

No shame in admitting you can't comprehend the material provided.

You keep trying though, you'll get extra points for that and probably another participation trophy to add to your collection!


Make sure and give him his award
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSsUrUlEd7W2tuzQIZ-3_f3Sf7Gf2QJT3eCEF6YU_fT0u2_Tlq0

[Sooner in Tampa]

WOW you really are that stupid aren't you? There is NOTHING in the link YOU gave that says anything about 501(c)3's. This is completely about separation of state and religion.

THERE IS NO SUCH ANIMAL!!!!

[Sooner8th]

No shame in admitting you can't comprehend the material provided.

You keep trying though, you'll get extra points for that and probably another participation trophy to add to your collection!

Take the link you provided and copy and paste the sentence or paragraph that says it was about 501(c)3's.

I have already provided a link that says point blank it was about separation of church and state.

[Sooner8th]

THERE IS NO SUCH ANIMAL!!!!

From one of the leading founding fathers

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed)
Th Jefferson
Jan.1.1802

[Sooner in Tampa]

Hey dumbass....you **** is from 1802, when people actually understood what TJ was saying...but because the libtards bastardize everything...

Two can play your little petulant game

Supreme Court has abandoned entirely the misleading metaphor “separation of church and state.”

[SoonerorLater]

From one of the leading founding fathers

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed)
Th Jefferson
Jan.1.1802

To most people this would be obvious but a letter written to a Babtist group by Thomas Jefferson is not a Constitutional Mandate. Secondly Jefferson describes in this letter exactly what that "Wall" is. It is the prohibition of the LEGISLATURE from making any LAWS regarding with respect to religion. The wording of the amendment is clear. It has been highjacked to suit popular progressive social thought.

[Sooner8th]

To most people this would be obvious but a letter written to a Babtist group by Thomas Jefferson is not a Constitutional Mandate. Secondly Jefferson describes in this letter exactly what that "Wall" is. It is the prohibition of the LEGISLATURE from making any LAWS regarding with respect to religion. The wording of the amendment is clear. It has been highjacked to suit popular progressive social thought.

I find it funny you guys LOVE to quote the founding fathers and their intentions, right up until you disagree with them. Yes it is clear, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. As shown above, jefferson did not want to have the government to in anyway promote one religion or a sect of a religion over another, that is clear. His letter was an answer to a letter written by the Baptists -

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted."

I believe in the wall between region and the government. Having the wall does not keep me from practicing my religion. And it does not use tax payer dollars from those who are not christian for crosses or any other christian symbols. Frankly, I really don't see what the big deal is, how does not having a cross on a building effect you?

Let's compare your interpretation of the second amendment to what you say liberals are doing to the first.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You and yours ignore the first part of the sentence, A well regulated militia. In 2008 conservatives have done the same with the second amendment as liberals have done with the first. The difference is - we have jefferson on our side concerning the first. The founding fathers would be shocked to see assault rifles in Target.