News-Record.com

Tommy, that "higher standard" to a liberal means voting for someone with whom they agree.

Tommy, If you are going to present a LTTE discussing a "higher standard", shouldn't it be truthful, at the very least? Your statement, "If Christians had voted for Kerry in 2004, or for Gore in 2000, they would have voted knowing what these people were all about: abortion on demand and gay rights." is a fabrication, not a true representation of the facts.

I personally heard Kerry, not once, but on several occasions say, as a Catholic, abortion was not a personal belief but it was legal. And since it was legal, as president, he would be charged with upholding the laws of the US. He stated he would put personal feelings aside to follow the letter of the law.

On gay rights his position was based on the constitution, which he said he would uphold also. It provides for the separation of church and state and equal rights for all. He said we all are created equal, and as such, everyone deserved to be treated equally.

What galls you and the likes of neocon is he was honest with the American public regarding these issues while your beloved Bush has been proven a liar and a con man. It is my opinion that you, Tommy, were one of those who called for parishioners to vote for Bush. Now that he is such a disappointment, you have to make up lies about those who you advised aganist.

Bush won, get over it.

"Bush won, get over it."

Yvonne, you're scaring me.

Kerry honest...heh, heh, thanks for the laugh Yvonne, you made my day. Kerry would turn his story on a dime depending on the latest polls. Just yesterday he was talking about a strategy for success in Iraq when a month ago he was talking about pulling out.

Which does the Bible address more frequently: abortion, homosexuality, or a concern for the poor? Which do many Republicans seem more concerned with: abortion, homosexuality, or easing the burden of the poor? The policies of today's Republican party are out of line with the expressed priorities of the Bible, in my opinion.

Welcome, Potato Stew, It's good to hear a new voice. Yvonne, Dan, neocon, and I have written the same thoughts over and over, so we know each other's views pretty well.

It bothers me to see religious beliefs so used and abused. IMO Bush, his "advisors", VP, and the Republican party used fear and religion to get elected and start a war.

When writers say what liberals or conservatives think or believe, they are playing God. Both terms are used by their opposition as BAD. Most of us are in the middle, not the extreme right or left. I'm a liberal, I guess. I don't believe in the war, the death penalty, abortion for myself but am pro-choice, and want my tax money spent on the poor in America.

United we stand, divided we fall. Our nation is being divided by politicians and those citizens who allow it. We need to agree to disagree, not call names, and judge one another. Let's stick together and pray for our leaders.

Hugh, Thanks for my laugh of the day.

Dan, I didn't say Kerry was not above riding whatever horse was in the stable at any given time. I just said I thought he was being square with the American people re the two issues mentioned in the letter. And thank you for not kicking my butt about my Bush statement. You know I have been better about not joining in on those topics lately.

Welcome back, Potato Stew. Good to see you posting again. I concur with your opinion.

Carol, You are an impressive lady. You express yourself well and do not get your feathers easily ruffled.

Mr. P says there are more of the middle of the road folks than there are extremist on either side. Yet the far right and far left run the show. Since you identify with the majority (as do I), how do you explain how so few control so many? Is it money, which in turn buys power? Is it the squeaky wheel getting the grease? Is it a Hitler or Jim Jones syndrome?

Potato Stew's comment about helping the poor and the focus of some extremists started me in this direction. This phenomenon has perplexed me for years.

IMHO, until we know how this happens, we can't fix the problem of division. I agree with you that we need to unite. And I think (though you may disagree) most of us basically are. But what purpose does united serve if united has no power?

Kerry riding a horse? Man, I thought Kerry was the horse! :)

No, he is the horse's...well, you know.

Just kidding! It was begging to be said.

Yvonne, I like your stuff too. Since I was taught not to discuss religion or politics in social situations, it is great to be able to discuss it here. Love to see different slants on things.

"What galls you and the likes of neocon is he was honest with the american public"... What?

Christmas (Not Really) In Cambodia, August 12, 2004
It's getting worse for John Kerry on his Christmas in Cambodia lie. And worse. But the New York Times and the Washington Post are still covering for him, even though one of the accusations made against Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has now proven to be true. Donald Sensing has a long and worthy post on Kerry's Cambodia lie.

This is but one of many I can come up with. And if not for the liberal media there would be countless more coming to light.

Yvonne,
Kerry honest???
Dec 1,2005 Kerry we need to get 20,000 troops out of Iraq by the holidays! Later in the day.
Dec 1, 2005 Kerry, getting 20,000 troops out of Iraq is unachievable. Which is it???

PStew,

The Conservatives are addressing homosexuality because the homosexual community has throw the issue in our faces. I can't even believe I need to say this but we are addressing abortion because killing babies is really bad (JDR stat man - can you help with this number?)and the poor - humm....tell me where in the Bible does it say that the government needs to take care of anyone? I think Jesus asked everyone to take care of her/his neighbor. How many of your neighbors (not just the ones that live next door to you) have you helped lately? How about yvonne and carol d - what are you doing to help anyone?

"The Conservatives are addressing homosexuality because the homosexual community has throw the issue in our faces."

As if they're trying to force you to be gay or something. They're throwing it in your face in the same manner that civil rights activists threw civil rights issues in your face a few decades ago.

"we are addressing abortion because killing babies is really bad"

And the fact that there are small children, living hungry in cars and under snowy overpasses this winter is not bad?

"tell me where in the Bible does it say that the government needs to take care of anyone? I think Jesus asked everyone to take care of her/his neighbor."

And imagine how many of your neighbors could be taken care of if the government got behind the effort. The bible doesn't say the government *has* to do this, but it also doesn't say the government *shouldn't* do it. It's our government, and we can direct it towards our own priorities. Besides, it's in the government's interest. The more citizens that are clothed, housed, fed, and getitng decent medical care, the more citizens there are who are potentially productive, contributing members to society.

"How many of your neighbors (not just the ones that live next door to you) have you helped lately? How about yvonne and carol d - what are you doing to help anyone?"

Nice finger pointing.

John Kerry managed to get in on the Democrats response to President Bush's speech at the Naval Academy. Here's a reporting on his response as reported by the Washington Post:

"This debate is not about an artificial date for withdrawal," Kerry said. He said a Nov. 15 Senate resolution, which called on the administration to hasten an eventual U.S. pullout by turning over more control to Iraqis, did not advocate "an artificial date for withdrawal" but sought to "set an estimated timetable for success which will permit the withdrawal of our troops." The resolution, which passed 79 to 19, said 2006 should be "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," creating conditions for "the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."

"No one has ever suggested or believes that we should run in the face of car bombers or assassins," Kerry said, referring to a passage in Bush's speech. "No one is talking about running in the face of a challenge. We're talking about how to win, how to succeed, how do you best achieve our goals? That's the choice here. And what the president did not do today again is acknowledge the fundamental reality of the insurgency."

Is this Kerry's secret plan for winning in Iraq that he talked about during the 2004 presidnetial campaign? Can someone interpret Kerry's nuanced position and restate it in clear terms?

potatoS,

1.I'm not finger pointing - just asking those throwing stones what they are doing to help anyone? Sounds like I hit a nerve with you.

2.Civil Rights and homosexuals - can you really make these two groups a comparison? Anyway, if you don't understand why conservative Christians do not support this lifestyle and why we are having to deal with it on a national level then this blog cannot help you.

3.Get off the Federal government "having" to help anyone. Do you have any idea what the original intent of our Federal government was?

"And the fact that there are small children living hungry in cars under snowy overpasses this winter is not bad?"

I have logged many,many miles throughtout this state(and a few others) and I have yet to see a "hungry child living in a car under a snowy underpass". I HAVE seen a few homeless people sleeping under bridges,but the vast majority of these have other serious issues other than just down on their luck. A great deal of them have drug or alcohol problems and even then there are places where they can go for a warm meal and a place to sleep if they so desire. Most of them refuse because the people who offer such help will allow no drugs or booze.

At any rate, Tater stew tries to leave the impression that this is a common thing to have 'small hungry children' sleeping under bridges. I don't swallow this crock.

bgh:

"Sounds like I hit a nerve with you"

Whenever a potentially civil discussion turns to personal attacks it hits a nerve with me. Your comments were an ad hominem. Rather than address arguments made by others, you chose to call into question their personal actions. Whether any of us is personally involved in helping others is irrelevant to whether our arguments have merit.

"Civil Rights and homosexuals - can you really make these two groups a comparison? "

Homosexuals are looking for the same rights that non-homosexuals have. That's the comparison.

"if you don't understand why conservative Christians do not support this lifestyle"

I understand why they don't support it. I also understand that many conservative Christians also used the bible as justification to oppose interracial marriage and even support slavery.

"this blog cannot help you"

Thankfully, I'm not looking for help from this blog.

"Do you have any idea what the original intent of our Federal government was?"

Well, according to the opening lines of the Constitution, it was "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." That leaves some room for interpretation, and I'd say that helping to ease the plight of the poor definitely works towards domestic tranquility and the general welfare.

neocon:

"At any rate, Tater stew tries to leave the impression that this is a common thing to have 'small hungry children' sleeping under bridges. I don't swallow this crock."

According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, "In 2003, children under the age of 18 accounted for 39% of the homeless population;42% of these children were under the age of five" ( source: http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/Whois.pdf ).

Whether you swallow it or not, the fact is there are many children who are homeless.

Tater,show me the bridge. I just went under about 40 today and never saw a "small hungry child" under any of them. You are trying the tried and true liberal ploy: tug at the heartstrings and the facts be damned.

This is for everyone, but especially for neocon:

On January 26, 2005:

-- 440 homeless students were attending Guilford County schools
-- 188 homeless children (of all ages) were counted living in shelters, hotels, and other locations
-- 13 of those children were sleeping outside

Source: Point-in-Time Count of the Homeless 2005; Homeless Prevention Coalition of Guilford County -- http://www.hpcgc.org

I personally took part in this count. We did not count everyone because we did not have enough volunteers to cover the whole area. We will count again on January 25, 2006. Please join us.

We absolutely DO have homeless children of all ages in Greensboro, and some DO sleep outside and in abandoned buildings or cars. It's unlikely that you'll ride by and see them from your car window, though, because homeless parents are usually careful to stay out of sight.

And yes, there are people living under bridges, too. We counted 1,940 homeless folks in Guilford County, 680 of them in Greensboro (plus school count - numbers not broken down by city). We counted 276 folks living outside last January. We see many of them on Friday nights during Night Watch, a street outreach program for the homeless, sponsored by the Salvation Army of Greensboro.

There is shelter and/or transitional housing space for about 1/4 of the 1,940 folks that we counted. And not everyone can meet the eligibility requirements of shelters. Our shelters and transitional programs in Greensboro work very hard to serve the homeless, but we need more housing and supportive services to get all of our friends off the street.

And there's more to poverty than just the homeless. We have children (and adults) living without heat, electricity, adequate food, even beds. I agree with PotatoStew that this is an issue for the Church. We cannot follow Christ and ignore the needs of the poor. That is contrary to Scripture. And this idea of the "worthy poor" is dangerous.

As for the role of the government, I believe that the Bible gives us a model for how individuals, families, the Church and even the government (whose authority is established by God) are to work together to protect and care for the poor. Ronald Sider's book, "Just Generosity," describes this very well.

Misinformation perpetuates stereotypes that damage folks who are already vulnerable and hurting. With respect to all, may I please encourage everyone (myself included!) to strive to be educated before posting in a public forum on such sensitive topics.

I would welcome any of you to come and volunteer with those of us who serve the homeless in Greensboro and Guilford County. It is a labor of love. And the blessing will be yours.

Peace,
Cara Michele, "Chosen Fast"
http://www.untangledweb.net/blog

Oh and neocon, I'm a Baptist-lovin', Bush-supportin', pro-life, evangelical Christian. So don't even try that "liberal" business on me, bro. But feel free to call me a radical. Like my Savior. Jesus. He loves you. Me, too. Peace out.

"Homosexuals are looking for the same rights that non-homosexuals have. That's the comparison."

Stew, can you name me the rights that non-homosexuals have that homosexuals don’t?

"I also understand that many conservative Christians also used the bible as justification to oppose interracial marriage and even support slavery."

Hmm, and what about all those liberal Christians that used the same justification. However I would like to point out about the slavery issue, if you will look a little back in history it was Evangelical Christians that worked toward ending slavery, they were the groups that started the movement.

"Well, according to the opening lines of the Constitution"

What about the opening lines of the Articles of Confederation, which after all was our first form of government. The Constitution did not magically appear, it took a lot of “lobbying” and letter writing (the Federalist Papers) to win support for a strong central government.

"And imagine how many of your neighbors could be taken care of if the government got behind the effort."

Can you explain to me the benefits of having the government take care of people? Did we not see with our own eyes what happens when the government has taken care of people for their entire lives when Katrina hit? What about the “Great society” of Johnson are the people better off now then they were then? I find it hard to believe that people are better off having someone take care of them, then them learning to do it on their own. And speaking of which, what stops them? Anyone in this country can work hard and succeed, there have been too many immigrants (many who didn’t even know how to speak English) that are extremely successful, proof enough that this is true. Now I am not all up on my biblical quotes but wasn’t it said something to the effect of “teach them to fish and they are feed for life” or something like that?

"The more citizens that are clothed, housed, fed, and getitng decent medical care, the more citizens there are who are potentially productive, contributing members to society."
Only if they want to be, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t force him to drink. Citizens have the opportunity to be clothed, housed and fed, its called working hard.

Chosen Fast,

Great work you do, I think the Salvation Army is one of the best charities around. It is one I also support. However I do find the need to point out a small fact. We constantly hear about hungry children. Let me just say that I do not agree with that. First off there is the WIC program, where infants to children age 5 are given the basic food. Then there is the free lunch program, not only do these kids get free lunch but breakfast also. Then there is the great government program of food stamps. Also almost every single church I know of has a food pantry then of course there is the food bank, Urban Ministereys as well as the Red Cross and Salvation Army. But regardless in my opinion private charities do a whole lot better then any government program.

Hi Trish:

"Stew, can you name me the rights that non-homosexuals have that homosexuals don’t?"

Until 2003, it was still illegal for them to have consensual sex in many parts of the U.S. In some states they are currently not allowed to adopt children. In most places they still can't marry (or some equivalent) the person of their choosing to receive the benefits associated with marriage, such as the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their partner. I don't mean to imply that there are tons of rights that they are missing out on. Things have changed for the better in recent years, but there are still a few areas where they really aren't receiving equal treatment.

"Hmm, and what about all those liberal Christians that used the same justification."

There may indeed be liberal Christians who used the same justification. That still doesn't make it right.

"However I would like to point out about the slavery issue, if you will look a little back in history it was Evangelical Christians that worked toward ending slavery, they were the groups that started the movement."

That's fine. It still doesn't change my point, that many other Christians used a biblical justification to oppose civil rights and support slavery, just as some do now to oppose homosexuality. You seem to think I'm saying that all Christians are all bad, but I'm not. My statements have been very limited and qualified so as not to do that.

"What about the opening lines of the Articles of Confederation, which after all was our first form of government."

But it is not our current form of government.

"The Constitution did not magically appear, it took a lot of “lobbying” and letter writing (the Federalist Papers) to win support for a strong central government."

Right, and yet, now we have the constitution and a stronger central government. Surely you're not suggesting we should still be governing ourselves by the articles of confederation?

"I find it hard to believe that people are better off having someone take care of them, then them learning to do it on their own. And speaking of which, what stops them? Anyone in this country can work hard and succeed ... Citizens have the opportunity to be clothed, housed and fed, its called working hard"

There will always be people who hit hard times through no fault of their own: Getting laid off without the means to move to a location with more jobs. Medical disasters. Natural disasters. Men walking out on their wives and children. Numerous examples could be thought of. And sure, there will be lazy people who try to take advantage of the system. But that's a poor reason to withhold help from those who truly need it.

No one is saying that we shouldn't teach them how to "fish for themselves" (not a biblical saying, by the way). Only that there will be times in people's lives when they may be unable to fish, or unable to catch enough fish.

By the way, I must admit that I'm a bit confused. You respond to Cara Michele and say that we shouldn't hear about hungry children because of WIC, free school lunches, and food stamps. However, these are the very sorts of things you seem to be saying the government shouldn't be doing. There seems to be a little bit of a disconnect there.

neocon:

You have the facts now. I provided you with a national statistic. Cara Michele has provided you with local statistics based on first-hand experience. You can debate what should be done about those facts, but to say that none have been provided is demonstrably false.

To the baptist lovin' Bush supportin',pro life christian" Chosen Fast: I donate on a regular basis to the SA. This is the one org. that gets more bang for the buck than any other. My problem with tater stew is that he/she makes it sound as if there is 'hungry children' living under overpasses and the reason for this is that we,as a soceity,are to blame for this because we don't support the government enough via the tax system to eradicate the problems of the homeless.

As noted above there are many,many,government 'programs' designed to feed the 'hungry children'. I am not saying that there is no problem. I AM saying that the "government getting behind the effort" as stated by the stew is definately not the answer.imo,of course.

You can throw all the stats you want at me, and I'm sure there are some very needy people in the country, (this is why I donat $ to the SA) but to say there is 'hungry children' sleeping in cars under bridges is a common thing is pure BS imo.

neocon:

My point was only that the bible focuses much more on poverty than it does on abortion or homosexuality, and that it seems strange to me that so many believers in the bible want the government to have the opposite focus. I'm not blaming people for things, I'm simply pointing out something that in my opinion is the reverse of the way it should be.

There are many reasons for poverty and homelessness, and many possible solutions. I'm not saying that government intervention is the end all, be all solution, only that I think that it should be a part of the solution.

"You can throw all the stats you want at me, and I'm sure there are some very needy people in the country, (this is why I donat $ to the SA) but to say there is 'hungry children' sleeping in cars under bridges is a common thing is pure BS imo."

Again, you're ascribing arguments to me that I did not make. I never said it was "common". I did say that it happens, and you've been shown data to back up that simple claim. The "under a bridge" part was just an illustration, and I'm sorry that you're getting so hung up on it. It matters not if they're under a bridge, in a car, down an alley, or wherever. But the fact is, they are out there. According to the site I linked to, well over 1 million children are homeless during a given year. That may not qualify as "common", but it's way too many, in my mind.

Tater and Chosen Fast, here is some info on the homeless that we will never read or hear about from the liberals that makes quiet a good point I think. Some of them are there for reasons beyond their control, and for them, I have all the compassion in the world. For the others....

http://i2i.org/article.aspx?ID=676

neocon:

Thanks for the link. I'll take a look more in depth later, but I did notice that it appears to have been written in 1991. All of its data therefore is at least 15 years old, so I'm not sure how relevant it would be today.

Tater,yes the date is 1991. So we can assume that number of homeless was even less under the Clinton years,no?

Sorry ,just had to jab a little bit. lol

neocon:

That article contains inaccuracies and false statements, which I won't argue here, but will address by making sure we put accurate information on our local Coalition's web site.

Trish,

There is food, but unfortunately, some kids don't get it, for different reasons.

And when I talk about the government's role in helping the poor, I'm really talking about policy, like the fact that it's the government who sets the minumum wage and maintains housing standards. I'd love to see most entitlement programs end someday, because we've done enough to help individuals and families to be able to make it on their own.

Chosen Fast, I have tried to find out more about how hpcgc is funded,but cannot come up with anything. Is this a privately funded org.? I saw no links to donate any $. Why is this?
Also you state that the article contains "inaccuracies'. Since you took part in the count of the homeless, does this mean that you can count better than Andy Bane? You have your stats and he has his. Both may have a bias,this is true,but who are you to say your's is the right one. No malice intended,just curious.

"Also you state that the article contains "inaccuracies'. Since you took part in the count of the homeless, does this mean that you can count better than Andy Bane? You have your stats and he has his. Both may have a bias,this is true,but who are you to say your's is the right one."

Chosen Fast may have some specific inaccuracies in mind, but I would just like to point out again that the data from your article is over 15 years old. Do you really mean to suggest that 15 year old data is more likely to be accurate than data that's less than two years old?

Tater, like I said if anything the number of homeless would (should have) declined under a democratic president. Point is if the mumber was being overstated in 1991 by about 2.5 million,what reason do I (we ) have to believe it is not overstated by a similar percentage now?
I would think if the number of homeless people were anywhere near the number Chosen Fast says, (and I accuse no one of lying,just defective data)
we would see them under EVERY overpass and on EVERY street corner. This is not the case. I have come to believe that when someone-or some org.- has a cause and that cause depends on numbers to keep them afloat, it is easier to believe the number which favors keeping your org. funded,be it public or private funding.

Please understand, I have no malice for Chosen Fast and her org. I think it is a noble thing to help others in need. But at the same time I do not believe that America is drowning in homeless people who are there through no fault of their own. A great deal of the homeless people are homeless because that is the lifestyle they have chosen,and no ammount of funding will change that.

Neocon, no malice taken, I promise. I'm just a stickler for accuracy, because these "numbers" represent the real lives of real people that I really love!! ;)

Here are two of the things I remember from the article. 1) The article stated that 60-70% of the homeless are mentally ill or substance abusers. We do see numbers this high among the chronically homeless, but that subgroup is about 10-15% of the total homeless population. The numbers of mentally ill and substance abusing folks in the general homeless population is lower, and that is fairly consistent across the nation. (And Mr. Bane may have just been writing about a particular group of homeless folks that he works with and the number was that high in that group. But looking at the whole gives better numbers. Even in Greensboro, we have the 10-15% chronic number, just like the national, and we see the higher MI/SA number there, too. It's important to look at the whole so that you don't stereotype folks from a set of numbers pulled from one group.)

2.) The article implied that if a person is an alcoholic or substance addict, that alone is enough to qualify them for Social Security disability benefits. That is false. The criteria requires the presence of disabling physical or behavioral changes associated with the substance addiction. Mr. Bane simplified it too much. I think throughout the article that I just saw some things that needed to be edited a bit for accuracy and clarity.

As for HPCGC funding, I'd rather you email the treasurer for specifics, because I'm afraid I won't give a very intelligent answer (it's not my area), but basically, the Coalition is funded by membership dues. Anyone is welcome to join, or give a donation. The real work of the Coalition is done by its member agencies, which are service providers, non-profits, government agencies, faith-based groups, individuals and others. They are each funded in different ways, such as grants, charitable contributions and fundraisers.

And I appreciate your interest. We'd love to have you (all of you!!!) join us for a meeting (2nd Thurs at 9:15am, Jamestown Prez), or at the upcoming National Homeless Persons Day Observance Dec. 21 (watch the web site for details - hpcgc.org) or for the Homeless Count on Jan. 25th. And most all of our member agencies have openings for volunteers!!

Neocon, thank you for giving me some ideas about information that needs to be added to the HPCGC web site. Your questions were helpful!!

"Tater, like I said if anything the number of homeless would (should have) declined under a democratic president."

Two points: 1) You don't have any evidence to support this -- you're just guessing. 2) We've had a Republican president for the past 5 years.

The fact is we have more recent statistics than the ones you presented, so we don't need to guess at whether the homeless population has increased or decreased over the past 15 years. We can look at the stats.

"Point is if the mumber was being overstated in 1991 by about 2.5 million,what reason do I (we ) have to believe it is not overstated by a similar percentage now?"

From reading your link, and the info at the site I provided, it sounds like the difference is in the period of time looked at. The 400,000 average that your guy cites is on "any given night". The thing is, some of those people will go on to find some kind of housing, and other people will become homeless as the year goes on. That leads to the statistics from my source (if I'm understanding this correctly), which say about 3.5 million people are homeless in a given year. The 3.5 million aren't homeless all at once necessarily, but they will be at some point during the year.

"I would think if the number of homeless people were anywhere near the number Chosen Fast says, (and I accuse no one of lying,just defective data) we would see them under EVERY overpass and on EVERY street corner."

What was that you said about "facts be damned"? You can't point to anything wrong with how they gathered their data, you just brush it off by labeling it "defective" with no support for that view. They actually went out and *counted* the people. Claiming you would see them everywhere doesn't hold water. She said they counted just under 2000 people. Some of those people were in shelters. Of the rest, I seriously doubt they courteously spread out across the county and each took an overpass to sleep under. It's not unreasonable to think that there are certain more concentrated areas where many of them take shelter, quite possibly areas that you don't regularly travel through.

I'm not sure there's much point in continuing the conversation if you're going to dismiss any data presented to you as "defective" for no other reason than that it doesn't support your opinions.

Chosen Fast..... Godspeed. Really.

Tater, conversation over. chill out. This forum IS about opinion.