RE: Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

[Guest guest]

Based on what has been posted in the past on this issue I think we all knew

it was coming what I find really interesting is how quickly he's acting on

it. I think he's paying back Pat on and Dr. Dobson the later

actually threatened to call out a voting boycott on him if he were to back

peddle on abortion during the campaign. Considering his radio audience that

really must have scared the holy heck out of Dubya. That and the fact that

every other moralistic minority nutcase would have followed suit.

For some reason he feels the need to act quickly to show he intends to do

everything he promised he would. The major problem with that is he's really

alienating the other side. Most of the people I know were content to wait

out his four years and watch as a new president was elected. He's making

that increasingly difficult now though.

> Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

>

>

>http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010129/14/news-bush

>we dont need no stink'in First Admendment!

>i dont want to say i told you so, but i did Gore wasnt going to do

>this.

>

> " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

>

>my god.

>my tax money is going to this?!?!?! cut taxs and then divert tax

>money to churchs and the miltitary, defend tobabco and

>microsoft and build obsolete missle defense systems. (obsolete

>becuase those who will attack the US wont be using missles.)

>as bugs buny wouild say, " What a moroon!:

>

>cant wait to see what his drug policy will be.

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/29/01 2:17:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,

dmarcoot@... writes:

<< i dont want to say i told you so, but i did Gore wasnt going to do

this.

" White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

my god.

my tax money is going to this?!?!?! cut taxs and then divert tax

money to churchs and the miltitary, defend tobabco and

microsoft and build obsolete missle defense systems. (obsolete

becuase those who will attack the US wont be using missles.)

as bugs buny wouild say, " What a moroon!: >>

........there is gonna be a revolution i tell you!!!!!!!!!! This is

UNACCEPTABLE. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/29/01 2:17:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,

dmarcoot@... writes:

<< i dont want to say i told you so, but i did Gore wasnt going to do

this.

" White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

my god.

my tax money is going to this?!?!?! cut taxs and then divert tax

money to churchs and the miltitary, defend tobabco and

microsoft and build obsolete missle defense systems. (obsolete

becuase those who will attack the US wont be using missles.)

as bugs buny wouild say, " What a moroon!: >>

........there is gonna be a revolution i tell you!!!!!!!!!! This is

UNACCEPTABLE. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/29/01 2:17:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,

dmarcoot@... writes:

<< i dont want to say i told you so, but i did Gore wasnt going to do

this.

" White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

my god.

my tax money is going to this?!?!?! cut taxs and then divert tax

money to churchs and the miltitary, defend tobabco and

microsoft and build obsolete missle defense systems. (obsolete

becuase those who will attack the US wont be using missles.)

as bugs buny wouild say, " What a moroon!: >>

........there is gonna be a revolution i tell you!!!!!!!!!! This is

UNACCEPTABLE. Piper.

[Guest guest]

Don't count on it. The media are mostly controlled by large corporations

whose leaders, naturally, consider such programs as " religion-based

community initiatives " (not to mention AA itself) a good thing because they

tend to produce a docile population. Second, the world around us seems to be

filling up with New People who don't read or think.

Imho there ain't gonna be a revolution unless something REALLY bad happens

(world-wide economic depression, eco-disaster of biblical proportions...)

and maybe not even then.

--wally

----- Original Message -----

> In a message dated 1/29/01 2:17:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> dmarcoot@... writes:

>

> << i dont want to say i told you so, but i did Gore wasnt going to do

> this.

>

> " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

>

> my god.

> my tax money is going to this?!?!?! cut taxs and then divert tax

> money to churchs and the miltitary, defend tobabco and

> microsoft and build obsolete missle defense systems. (obsolete

> becuase those who will attack the US wont be using missles.)

> as bugs buny wouild say, " What a moroon!: >>

>

> .......there is gonna be a revolution i tell you!!!!!!!!!! This is

> UNACCEPTABLE. Piper.

[Guest guest]

" White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it called

White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

divert money to these groups and away from the secular

infrastructure we already had?

smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

[Guest guest]

" White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it called

White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

divert money to these groups and away from the secular

infrastructure we already had?

smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

[Guest guest]

" White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it called

White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

divert money to these groups and away from the secular

infrastructure we already had?

smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

[Guest guest]

> NPR All Things Considered, TODAY

>

> http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/

>

You Bugger! We posted independently and you came in first.. Oh well,

the blurb sounded like it would be VERY interesting to people here,

and it's a popular program.

Jim

[Guest guest]

> NPR All Things Considered, TODAY

>

> http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/

>

You Bugger! We posted independently and you came in first.. Oh well,

the blurb sounded like it would be VERY interesting to people here,

and it's a popular program.

Jim

[Guest guest]

not just press releases, but they actualy buy other netowrks

news segments, so they dont have to produce thier own. its

cheaper. the local here in balitmore has been buying cnn stories

and only thing the do over is re-record the voice over with thier

own people. this is bad for the public good.

>

> You know what controls the media? Laziness (common sloth).

Real

> reporting and investigation is hard work and costs money. For

every

> Stossel there are hundreds who pass on press releases

as factual

> news.

[Guest guest]

not just press releases, but they actualy buy other netowrks

news segments, so they dont have to produce thier own. its

cheaper. the local here in balitmore has been buying cnn stories

and only thing the do over is re-record the voice over with thier

own people. this is bad for the public good.

>

> You know what controls the media? Laziness (common sloth).

Real

> reporting and investigation is hard work and costs money. For

every

> Stossel there are hundreds who pass on press releases

as factual

> news.

[Guest guest]

Quite.

For those who dont like Government 'bureaucrats', how in literally

Holy Hell is better to line the pockets of RELIGIOUS 'bureaucrats'

rather than secular ones? Surely arbitrary favoritism of a

particular interest is precisely the kind of thing that Small govt

folks would want to avoid. Unless their both Xtian I guess!

P.

> " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

>

>

> here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it called

> White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> infrastructure we already had?

>

> smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

[Guest guest]

Pete and Piper,

The theoreticians of compassionate conversatism want to abolish the

welfare state with its entitlements and rights so that we can return

to the glory days of the 19th century when the poor were properly

appreciative of the charity provided by their betters.

They believe that when social services, unemployment compensation,

etc are provided as a right of citizenship it damages the soul of

those receiving the benefit.

> In a message dated 1/31/01 9:52:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> watts_pete@h... writes:

>

> << Quite.

>

> For those who dont like Government 'bureaucrats', how in literally

> Holy Hell is better to line the pockets of RELIGIOUS 'bureaucrats'

> rather than secular ones? Surely arbitrary favoritism of a

> particular interest is precisely the kind of thing that Small govt

> folks would want to avoid. Unless their both Xtian I guess!

>

> P.

> >>

> Here Here!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

Pete and Piper,

The theoreticians of compassionate conversatism want to abolish the

welfare state with its entitlements and rights so that we can return

to the glory days of the 19th century when the poor were properly

appreciative of the charity provided by their betters.

They believe that when social services, unemployment compensation,

etc are provided as a right of citizenship it damages the soul of

those receiving the benefit.

> In a message dated 1/31/01 9:52:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> watts_pete@h... writes:

>

> << Quite.

>

> For those who dont like Government 'bureaucrats', how in literally

> Holy Hell is better to line the pockets of RELIGIOUS 'bureaucrats'

> rather than secular ones? Surely arbitrary favoritism of a

> particular interest is precisely the kind of thing that Small govt

> folks would want to avoid. Unless their both Xtian I guess!

>

> P.

> >>

> Here Here!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

> Pete and Piper,

>

> The theoreticians of compassionate conversatism want to abolish the

> welfare state with its entitlements and rights so that we can return

> to the glory days of the 19th century when the poor were properly

> appreciative of the charity provided by their betters.

>

> They believe that when social services, unemployment compensation,

> etc are provided as a right of citizenship it damages the soul of

> those receiving the benefit.

Yeah and the wallets of those providing it. Well bad news for them is

that UN Human Rights includes the right to Social Security. Bad news

for me is that no-one gives a shit. What beats me however is why it's

alright to give handouts to Xtian do-gooders but not appoint State

secular ones.

[Guest guest]

> Pete and Piper,

>

> The theoreticians of compassionate conversatism want to abolish the

> welfare state with its entitlements and rights so that we can return

> to the glory days of the 19th century when the poor were properly

> appreciative of the charity provided by their betters.

>

> They believe that when social services, unemployment compensation,

> etc are provided as a right of citizenship it damages the soul of

> those receiving the benefit.

Yeah and the wallets of those providing it. Well bad news for them is

that UN Human Rights includes the right to Social Security. Bad news

for me is that no-one gives a shit. What beats me however is why it's

alright to give handouts to Xtian do-gooders but not appoint State

secular ones.

[Guest guest]

Rather uncool Mr coolguy, I would say, and a pretty desperate final

comment. It matters a great deal whether money is spent ion good

thiongs or superstition. " only fitting " indeed. The only thing fitting

is the Compassionate Conservatives' tools up America' ass. I'm an

agnostic pal. Aint my faith thats shafting you. It's your political

bedmates. Hope the earth moves for you.

> > > " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

> > >

> > >

> > > here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it

called

> > > White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> > > divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> > > infrastructure we already had?

> > >

> > > smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> > > that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I must say youre not doing a very good job of ignoring me old chap,

and of indicating that Rand is irrelevant to 12sf.

So apparently everyone who isnt a Libertarian (and Branden describes

Rand as a Liberatarian, and he ought to know) is a communist. Could

you have a little problem with black and white thinking here?

Assuming that you favor Rand's Minimal Government - Cops and GI's

only, how would you fund these forces? Voluntary donations? What if

there isnt enough money? If it's compulsory taxation, aren't you doing

a little " looting " here too old chap? How do you decide how much tax

to levy? Democratic vote? Isnt that ppl voting on how much should be

stolen from ppl and what it gets spent on?

If Government's so nasty by nature, why have a Minimal One? Why not

have none at all?

> > > > > " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it

> > called

> > > > > White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need

to

> > > > > divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> > > > > infrastructure we already had?

> > > > >

> > > > > smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion,

was

> > > > > that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Piper,

I agree with you. Perhaps I should have made it clearer that those

were the views of the " compassionate conservatives " and not my own.

> In a message dated 2/2/01 12:24:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> watts_pete@h... writes:

>

> << properly

> > appreciative of the charity provided by their betters. >>

>

> Stuart. Call me silly. I have this fundamental sense of human

beings all

> having the same worth or value. Not talent, not skills, not so-

called

> intelligence (which CANNOT be measure in univariately) ---but

prized equally

> in humaness.

>

> The poorest of the poor, the neediest of the needy would tell you

to take

> your betterness and your charity and shove it. thank you. Piper.

[Guest guest]

You correclty addressed your reply to Stuart, but the quote appeared

to come from me. It didnt.

P.

> In a message dated 2/2/01 12:24:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> watts_pete@h... did not write:

>

> << properly

> > appreciative of the charity provided by their betters. >>

>

> Stuart. Call me silly. I have this fundamental sense of human

beings all

> having the same worth or value. Not talent, not skills, not

so-called

> intelligence (which CANNOT be measure in univariately) ---but prized

equally

> in humaness.

>

> The poorest of the poor, the neediest of the needy would tell you to

take

> your betterness and your charity and shove it. thank you. Piper.

[Guest guest]

You correclty addressed your reply to Stuart, but the quote appeared

to come from me. It didnt.

P.

> In a message dated 2/2/01 12:24:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> watts_pete@h... did not write:

>

> << properly

> > appreciative of the charity provided by their betters. >>

>

> Stuart. Call me silly. I have this fundamental sense of human

beings all

> having the same worth or value. Not talent, not skills, not

so-called

> intelligence (which CANNOT be measure in univariately) ---but prized

equally

> in humaness.

>

> The poorest of the poor, the neediest of the needy would tell you to

take

> your betterness and your charity and shove it. thank you. Piper.

[Guest guest]

You correclty addressed your reply to Stuart, but the quote appeared

to come from me. It didnt.

P.

> In a message dated 2/2/01 12:24:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> watts_pete@h... did not write:

>

> << properly

> > appreciative of the charity provided by their betters. >>

>

> Stuart. Call me silly. I have this fundamental sense of human

beings all

> having the same worth or value. Not talent, not skills, not

so-called

> intelligence (which CANNOT be measure in univariately) ---but prized

equally

> in humaness.

>

> The poorest of the poor, the neediest of the needy would tell you to

take

> your betterness and your charity and shove it. thank you. Piper.