Text 4724, 67 rader
Skriven 2004-11-08 23:29:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN HULL
Ärende: BIG KERRY WIN?
======================
-=> Quoting John Hull to Frank Scheidt <=-

 JH> 08 Nov 04 07:44, FRANK SCHEIDT wrote to ED HULETT:
 
 FS>>  FS>  EH> The exit polls were paid for by the networks. They were 
 FS>> misleading
 FS>>  FS>  EH> because  they were weighted to show Kerry ahead in an 
 FS>>  FS>  EH> attempt 
 FS>> to
 FS>>  FS>  EH> influence the election. 
 FS>>  FS>  EH> It didn't work.
 FS>>  FS> 
 FS>>  FS> If that *is* the case -- and it looks like it might be -- 
 FS>>  FS> then, it seems to me, an investigation of the process should 
 FS>>  FS> take place.  Such an action *must* be illegal.
 FS>> 
 FS>>  EH> So is campaigning in churches illegal, but that doesn't stop 
 FS>>  EH> the Dems from doing it in black churches every election.
 FS>> 
 FS>> I've *noted* that.  It happens every election yet the news 
 FS>> services *never* seen to notice it.  During much of the year 
 FS>> there's a lot of yakking about, "Separation of Church and State".  
 FS>> Why is that forgotten when Dems *openly* campaign inside of 
 FS>> churches???????
 
 EH>> It's a double standard that the Dems and the MSM will argue in 
 EH>> favor of every time. If you want to see real racism just look at 
 EH>> the left.
 
 FS> What gets me is that there's no attempt to conceal this act by 
 FS> Democrat candidates.  The "news"media present it in the same way 
 FS> as they would if the speech were taking place in some hall 
 FS> *rented* for the occasion by the Democrats.  They don't seem to 
 FS> recall all of the complaints hurled at Republicans regarding the 
 FS> "sacred" Separation of Church And State for which we fought the 
 FS> British over two centuries ago ... [sigh] ... OTOH, if a 
 FS> Republican candidate even discussed his candidacy with a "Man of 
 FS> the Cloth" in a super-market setting he'd be criticized for 
 FS> violating that "sacred principle" ...

 JH> That isn't even the real issue.  What they seem to forget (or
 JH> deliberately ignore - I'm not sure which) is that separation of church
 JH> and state as THEY define it isn't even in the Constitution.  All it
 JH> says is that the federal government can't sponsor any particular church
 JH> and require attendance to it. 

Or interfere with it ...

 JH> WE all know that term comes from a private letter written by Jefferson
 JH> to another private individual.  Bush can push his faith-based
 JH> initiatives as much as he wants and tell all the liberals to pound sand
 JH> if he wanted to.  I just wish somebody had the balls to say "Show me
 JH> where it says that in the Constitution" the next time some idiot
 JH> reporter or liberal Congressman says there is a "violation of the
 JH> prohibition between church and state."   

I know that and, therefore, agree completely.  Reporters *often*, 
if not *usually* neglect to ask the critical question.  Or if 
they *do* ask it and the Congresser just talks in that general 
area but never answers the question, the reporter seems to miss 
that fact and asks another, unrelated, question.

... "Scotty.  Hurry.  Beam me"  uragg^*z~ NO CARRIER.

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)