Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Bush's $1.5 billion "family values" bonanza

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/politics/campaigns/14MARR.html?hp]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/politics.../14MARR.html?hp[/url]

    Honestly, the sarcasm of the subject line aside, I'm curious how the die-hard conservatives on this board can spin this one:

    1. Even if you take away all the paranoia about this being a reactionary measure to the Mass gay marriage quandary or a bone tossed to the religious right, what you're basically talking about is over a BILLION dollars for personal counseling and 'marriage training'? You don't want the government to tie your shoes for you, you don't want them giving people money to sit around doing nothing -- and I agree with those principles.

    Most of you also don't want them providing basic preventive healthcare or job skills training. So how can you possibly want them to provide what amounts to "group therapy" and psychobabble to convince couples they can and should get married, or worse yet play matchmaker on your tax dime when there's a zillion personal ad services out there, a zillion other more practical things that are underfunded, and a zillion dollar budget deficit Bush is carelessly cultivating?

    2. I've asked this one 100 times, but I gotta ask it one more time: why in the world does marriage need "promoting"? It's thriving just as much now as it ever has. I could see if the argument was that marriage needs "preserving"; the divorce rate in this country is insane and could probably be improved if people worked through their s**t more, but I also think a lot of the divorces happen because the people were never right for each other in the first place OR one of them turns out to be abusive or unfaithful.

    And even if you believe marriage could use some "promotion", why in the world would you want the Big Bad Government doing that? Does that not strike you as remotely "thought policey"? And yes, I'm always one of the first people in line to call out the leftist version of "thought police". I don't want the government involved in any aspect of my personal life or consumer choices other than to monitor products and services for fraud and unhealthy side effects.

    3. Finally, I question the demographics this bloated program is aimed at. I don't have the exact stats in front of me (anyone), but I remember reading that poorer, less educated (in terms of college, grad degrees, finishing high school, etc.) people tend to get married at a much higher rate than people with a career or extensive education. It goes back to the creepy argument people make about those damn evil feminists who think it's OK for a woman to put a career before a baby, but plenty of upwardly mobile men and women follow this pattern as well with no politicized intentions.

    I have to be really cynical that anyone with a good career or sense of independence would seek out this type of counseling from a cheesy government service, so again I question if this is a ploy to micromanage and coerce the poor -- usually the domain of annoying socialists and not the modern conservative. But that's always been one of my biggest critiques of conservatism outside the recent 'neocon' and 'libertarian' varieties. Always against government spending, nanny hand-holding, and invasion of personal privacy until it comes to pandering to religious zealots. Marriage is a very personal and special rite of passage; why try to interfere with it? And I'd say the same thing (even more passionately, perhaps) if some whacko Democrat president was signing a 1.5 billion bill to discourage marriage as an outdated institution.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Agreed. It's wasteful, election-year pandering. I hate it.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    open minded conservatives like [b]5ever[/b] aside

    at this point Bush could piss on his supporters' backs, tell em it was rain, and they'd believe it.

    "at least he&#39;s not getting blowjobs in the oval office" <_<

  4. #4
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,024
    Post Thanks / Like
    Can&#39;t get the link to work. NY Times web site has never liked my Mac. Are you saying that the govt. will provide marraige counseling? Sounds ridiculous to me, but I&#39;d like to be able to see the story for myself...

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 15 2004, 12:38 PM
    [b] open minded conservatives like [b]5ever[/b] aside

    at this point Bush could piss on his supporters&#39; backs, tell em it was rain, and they&#39;d believe it.

    "at least he&#39;s not getting blowjobs in the oval office" <_< [/b][/quote]
    It&#39;s just some meaningless tip-toe that Bush and his advisors have determined will satisfy their right-wingers enough, yet enable Bush to stop short of endorsing the Defense of Marriage amendment, so he can come up with a conservative version of the "having it both ways" stance on gay marriage that the dems have, which is currently, "Against gay marriage, but for gay civil unions which are de facto marriages, but don&#39;t use that highly-potent word." Bush can pander to his base, say he&#39;s against gay marriage, yet not be considered as heartless as to deny gays their civil rights. It&#39;s like when pro-choice politicians say things like, &#39;I&#39;m pro choice, but MY choice would be life." It&#39;s as insulting as it is stupid.

    It&#39;s just appeasement to an alienated base, for Bush. I am starting to get really glum, to be honest.

    I can&#39;t stand politics, even though I am very interested in them and hold pasisonate opinions. There is more and more to not like about Bush and more and more to not like about the others. (Sigh) I honestly don&#39;t know what to do for this election and am starting to realize more and more that it just doesn&#39;t matter.....

    Bush is f*cking pissing me off. The only Dem I would ever consider voting for is Clark...perhaps I need to familiarize myself with Wes. I just wish he wouldn&#39;t say such irresponsibly stupid things, like his "up until the moment of birth" line. Well, no candidate is perfect on EVERY issue, so we&#39;ll see. I still can&#39;t see myself ever voting for a Democrat, even one who is pretty much a Republican.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [b]5ever[/b] to be completely accurate in the article from which that "quote" was taken those words weren&#39;t quoted. There were many quotes (including the HIGHLY regrettable "life starts with the mother&#39;s decision :blink: ) but that particular "quote" wasn&#39;t an actual statement - It was a sentence like "the general told this reporter that up until the moment of birth..." - it was a paraphrase more than a direct quote - hence the statement i got from Clark campaign that "its not exactly clear what the General said."

    i agree he definately needs to be more careful what he says - and i also disagree with his statements RE: abortion (you know what i believe and how science can solve the debate)

    however for a guy running for office for the first time he&#39;s doing a hell of a job. In NH he is the candidate on the move, in some polls only 9 points behind Dean (the average current deficit is around 12 points... still a big jump from this time last month when Dean had ~25 point lead)

    the best i can come up with is he&#39;s got flaws but is not Bush and WAY more electable than Dean (no one south of the mason-dixon line will vote for the governor of Vermont). I bet he makes a strong showing in NH and win&#39;s Tenn as well as a surprise victory or two (arizona is possibity).

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    It would be interesting if you came around on Clark, 5ever. It would be hilarious to see you, me, and Bitonti all agreeing on the same Presidential candidate. I&#39;m still leaning more towards the much maligned Dean (warts and all, sic) from the Democratic side and think he&#39;s currently weathering a lot of ridiculous mudslinging from all sides (Dem and Rep) that will make him stronger IF he survives. But I&#39;d get 100% behind Clark if he got the nomination.

    Just as I&#39;d be much more tolerant of McCain or Elizabeth Dole if they had gotten the Republican nomination in 2000 even though I don&#39;t agree more than maybe 60% with their views; they very well might have come up with a bill like this, too, in good time. But a lot of this comes back IMO to the Texas Republican Party, which sired Bush II and Tom DeLay et al. I know complaining about it as some kind of sinister &#39;force&#39; is right up there with calling the Congressional Progressive Caucus a rogue communist conspiracy, but if you ever check out their platform it&#39;s pretty right wing even for most Republicans -- they want to annex the Panama Canal back and put Creationism back in schools as an option per-county school board.

    Agree with you 100% about political pandering, which exists plenty on both sides of the aisle.

  8. #8
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,024
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 15 2004, 02:23 PM
    [b] [b]5ever[/b] to be completely accurate in the article from which that "quote" was taken those words weren&#39;t quoted. There were many quotes (including the HIGHLY regrettable "life starts with the mother&#39;s decision :blink: ) but that particular "quote" wasn&#39;t an actual statement - It was a sentence like "the general told this reporter that up until the moment of birth..." - it was a paraphrase more than a direct quote - hence the statement i got from Clark campaign that "its not exactly clear what the General said."
    [/b][/quote]
    bit, I will not let you (or Clark&#39;s spinners) get away with this. See his EXACT words below:



    A transcript of the session reveals the following exchange between Clark and Joseph W. McQuaid,
    publisher of The Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News.

    McQuaid: Let’s take an issue. Abortion. Are there any limits on it in your mind?

    Clark: I don’t think you should get the law involved in abortion—

    McQuaid: At all?

    Clark: Nope.

    McQuaid: At all?

    Clark: It’s between a woman, her doctor, her friends and her family.

    McQuaid: Late term abortion? No limits?

    Clark: Nope.

    McQuaid: Anything up to delivery?

    Clark: Nope, nope.

    McQuaid: Anything up to the head coming out of the womb?

    Clark: I say that it’s up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience, and law — not the law. You
    don’t put the law in there. Yesterday, Simmons said “Republicans and conservatives want to pin
    you down in debates about timing, but this isn’t about timing, it’s about whether we trust a woman
    and her doctor to make medical decisions that are in the best interest about her and her life.”

    “The issue here is whether or not we’re going to try to inject politics and government into a
    medical decision by a woman and her doctor and his answer is ‘No, we’re not going to do that.’”


    [url=http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=31422]Here is the link[/url]

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Put it this way guys - I am rip-sh*t pissed off at Bush and his domestic policies. I swear to God he is NOT a conservative&#33; There is no way anyone can convince me that he is, at least fiscally. Aside from lowering taxes, (which if he DIDN&#39;T do, his base would completely abandon him) he is as big-government as they come.

    Campaign Finance, amnesty, bloating medicare, this recent pandering, it makes me sick to my friggin stomach. I am sick of defending him - there are more important things in the world than George Bush&#39;s political career and I have to be honest enough with myself to admit that if anyone else, especially a Democrat, had a domestic policy that mirrors Dubya&#39;s, I&#39;d be KILLING him for it. I have to call a spade a spade, regardless of the implications. I am not the only one, trust me. I have friends who are conservatives (believe it or not&#33;) and they too are getting restless. He is blatantly, blatantly only thinking about the short-term benefits of his own career (trying to BUY PA and Florida with that Medicare bloating, trying to get the latino sympathy from the carrot of amnesty, etc) This is the exact kind of thing I railed against liberals for doing&#33; He said he&#39;d veto that campaign finance bill during his campaign - wrong&#33; It baffles me....

    What good is a victory in 2004 if the cost of that victory is everything you believe in, philosophically? Seriously? Why should I root for Bush when he is turning into something I do not like?

    Obviously, I support him in his war on terror - not trying to get into that debate here. But I have a hard time believeing that he and his team are the only ones who are able to handle this problem and even if Bush wins in 2004, the war on terror (or threat of terror) won&#39;t go away, sooner or later, we&#39;re going to have to trust someone else with that issue.

    I am finding it harder and harder to defend Bush, period. And I shouldn&#39;t have to...I am really, really disappointed right now and frankly, a little depressed....

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    jets5ever: That is some very encouraging news. I respect you for objectivly going against your party leader based on facts rather than blind faith. I can only hope a significant amount of your Republican comrades follow suite.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    5-ever have I got a guy for you&#33;

    [url=http://www.johnkerry.com/]http://www.johnkerry.com/[/url]

  12. #12
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    5ever, what you are describing is exactly how most intelligent liberals felt in 1996 about Clinton -- by that time he had waffled on almost every one of his campaign promises, signed the stupid CDA, and instituted a much-needed but ultimtately crappy welfare-reform bill that gave more corporations money for grunt labor instead of training and community-centric work. I wouldn&#39;t have even cried if Dole had somehow beat him, but Bob was too busy perfecting his stiff grumpy old man act to lighten up and use his intelligence and sense of humor in the campaign.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bob Dole - he wanted to be President so badly he could taste it. Poor guy, now he does Viagra commercials.


    I don&#39;t know what to do. I mean, let&#39;s face it - I live in Massachusetts, so my vote doesn&#39;t count&#33; :o


    But I will say with honesty, sincere honesty, that I am "undecided."

    You know, I bought into it, a bit. I did. I genuinely LIKE Bush, you know? It was almost ebough to make me forget why I swore off the GOP after the impeachment fiasco.

    We don&#39;t elect people - we elect parties. I guess that fact has just been hammered home to me over the past few months.

    Understand - this is all coming from a guy who 100% supports the war in Iraq AND who thinks the war on terror is THE biggest issue in the 2004 election. I am STILL PISSED OFF ENOUGH to vote against him.

    I am continually reminded of why I just don&#39;t identify with EITHER major party. Give me a fiscally conservative, socially moderate, hawkish on terror guy who respects privacy and I&#39;ll vote for him/her...I don&#39;t care which party they are from&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

    I actually got into a HUGE fight with my wife about this last night - it&#39;s why I am so emtional right now. She was ripping the Dean and Gep and talking about socialism and I lost it - I started talking about the wasteful and shamefully political spending (among other things) by Bush and we just had at it. (She is a one-issue voter, like her mother...they will never vote for someone who is pro-choice. Hey, that&#39;s their right, but it&#39;s just not practical for me, even though I admit to thinking abortion is a huge deal)

    Suffice it to say, afterwards, my request for her to throw on a Marilyn Monroe wig and a nurse&#39;s outfit fell upon deaf ears&#33;

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Jan 15 2004, 03:19 PM
    [b] Suffice it to say, afterwards, my request for her to throw on a Marilyn Monroe wig and a nurse&#39;s outfit fell upon deaf ears&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Happy Birthday...Mr. President&#33;

    [img]http://www.ellensplace.net/mmballtt.jpg[/img]

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    That was pretty hilarious comic timing, tail.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Jan 15 2004, 02:50 PM
    [b] Put it this way guys - I am rip-sh*t pissed off at Bush and his domestic policies. I swear to God he is NOT a conservative&#33; There is no way anyone can convince me that he is, at least fiscally. Aside from lowering taxes, (which if he DIDN&#39;T do, his base would completely abandon him) he is as big-government as they come. [/b][/quote]
    Cut to the chase, 5ever:

    Is there anyone running against Bush that you would vote for (or that your lack of a vote would help to elect)?

    That&#39;s the bottom line, libs. There is no politician that will meet 100% of your or my agenda. When you vote, you vote for the candidate that is closest to your agenda for the country.

    But then again, I&#39;m sure you liberals out there agreed 100% with your patron saint, Saint Clinton.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Jan 15 2004, 03:16 PM
    [b]
    Cut to the chase, 5ever:

    Is there anyone running against Bush that you would vote for (or that your lack of a vote would help to elect)?

    That&#39;s the bottom line, libs. There is no politician that will meet 100% of your or my agenda. When you vote, you vote for the candidate that is closest to your agenda for the country.

    [/b][/quote]
    Well, that&#39;s the rub, isn&#39;t it Weeb.

    The problem is, however, that Bush is straying farther and farther away from my agenda.

    I am trying to keep an open mind, I am. I may very well still vote for Bush, but for the first time in a while I am seriously considering not doing so.

    Again, I live in MA. Bush is going to lose MA regardless...

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever+Jan 15 2004, 04:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jets5ever @ Jan 15 2004, 04:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Jan 15 2004, 03:16 PM
    [b]
    Cut to the chase, 5ever:

    Is there anyone running against Bush that you would vote for (or that your lack of a vote would help to elect)?

    That&#39;s the bottom line, libs. There is no politician that will meet 100% of your or my agenda. When you vote, you vote for the candidate that is closest to your agenda for the country.

    [/b][/quote]
    Well, that&#39;s the rub, isn&#39;t it Weeb.

    The problem is, however, that Bush is straying farther and farther away from my agenda.

    I am trying to keep an open mind, I am. I may very well still vote for Bush, but for the first time in a while I am seriously considering not doing so.

    Again, I live in MA. Bush is going to lose MA regardless... [/b][/quote]
    I don&#39;t buy that logic. As we saw in Florida, every vote counts. Bush probably won&#39;t win in NY or NJ either, but I&#39;ll be damned if I make the same mistake I made in &#39;92, especially if the election has the potential to be close again (I voted for Perot).

    Again I ask: [u]If[/u] your vote were crucial to MA&#39;s electorial votes, would you vote for any of the challengers or would you allow your non-vote to elect one of them?

    If you don&#39;t like some of Bush&#39;s social agenda (and I can&#39;t say I do either), how bad do you think the other side will screw it up?

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Weeb -

    A big part of what pisses me off so much about Bush is precisely what you are getting at. He KNOWS there is no one else for guys like us and he is banking on "us" doing exactly what you describe - sticking with him even though we are pissed off because the "other" side is far, far worse.

    I guess I am just mad at being taken for granted, is all and have been coldly reminded of why I detest the two-party system.

    I suppose if I lived in a swing state, things would be different.

    I am not clear-headed now, just a ball of anger. I am very reluctant to vote for a Dem, believe me. I may end up writing in Alan Keyes or Pat Buchanon.

    There is a lot about Bush that I like, trust me. You and I see eye to eye on most things, and, dare I say, most of the things we seem to consider important.

    I just don&#39;t know...I am sure I&#39;ll end up voting for him, my wife was laughing at me when I was "threatening" to vote for Clark.

    I guess I am just pissed and annoyed at ALL of them and hate it that it ALWAYS comes down to the lesser of two evils in these things.

  20. #20
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]I am not clear-headed now, just a ball of anger. I am very reluctant to vote for a Dem, believe me. I may end up writing in Alan Keyes or Pat Buchanon.
    [/b][/quote]

    Vote for Ficus if your vote doesn&#39;t matter in MA. Ficus is the FU vote.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

Follow Us