| Author | Message | ||
     Maplewoody Citizen Username: Maplewoody Post Number: 423 Registered: 5-2001 |
It is time for BUSH to retire to Crawford TX! http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/politics/campaigns/14MARR.html?ei=5062&en=4de1 d4434bd90853&ex=1074661200&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position= More of our tax $$$ wasted on his ANITI-GAY marriage Promo, and More $$$ spent on unnecessary manned Moon/Mars missions.... NO BUSH in 2004! VOTE DEAN 2004 ! | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 452 Registered: 8-2003  |
The stupidity of this idea is so overwhelming that I am unable to respond.  | ||
| mfpark Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 166 Registered: 9-2001 |
This guy is sounding more and more like a deficit spending, pork producing Democrat every day. He is throwing away $1.5 billion to a special interest group--radical right wing "pro-family" groups who will get the bulk of the funding. A full-employment program for the Christian right. Yesterday it was space spending that even Nixon shot down--which will benefit many in Texas and Florida. So much for fiscal conservativism. | ||
| barbara wilhelm Citizen Username: Bartist Post Number: 102 Registered: 1-2003 |
i "vow" not to vote for bush in 2004. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1728 Registered: 1-2003  |
Remember when Republicans said Democrats are too interested in social engineering? Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| thegoodsgt Citizen Username: Thegoodsgt Post Number: 356 Registered: 2-2002 |
Given that half of all marriages end in divorce, I think we can use all the help we can get. In fairness, however, whether that help should come from the government is debatable. | ||
| Duncan Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1421 Registered: 12-2001  |
sarge..its not debatable. The "help" should not come from the government on this one. "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" Wayne Gretzky | ||
| drewdix Citizen Username: Drewdix Post Number: 437 Registered: 7-2001 |
I'm interested in hearing MOL's Bush apologists on this one. | ||
| Pippi Citizen Username: Pippi Post Number: 21 Registered: 8-2003 |
I was just logging on to start this thread and I am thrilled to see it's been started! I can't help but think that if there is an extra $1.5 billion somewhere, there must be better uses for it....And it's disgusting that what goes on behind people's closed doors would be more troublesome to Bush and the conservatives than what goes on in our schools and our hospitals and our homeless shelters. I feel the same way about the new Mars initiative: it's a fine idea, but not at the expense of other, more important domestic issues. The analogy I used recently is to compare this egregious misappropriation of federal funds to a struggling family. They really WANT to go to Disney, but they need to feed and clothe their children first. Where are our priorities?? | ||
| eliz Citizen Username: Eliz Post Number: 662 Registered: 5-2001 |
What happened to the Republican ideal of less government in our lives? This is as bad as a month into his presidency, after promises of compassionate conservatism, he yanked the funding from any NGO's that could be considered to promote abortion. | ||
| JJC Citizen Username: Mercury Post Number: 166 Registered: 12-2002 |
Insane. Marriage and Mars. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2709 Registered: 10-1999  |
Actually, space exploration and interpersonal skills in marriage do go together.  "To the moon, Alice!" | ||
| Insite Citizen Username: Insite Post Number: 199 Registered: 10-2002 |
As long as they never legalize gay marriages, I'm a happy guy. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2710 Registered: 10-1999 |
That's a puissant statement, indeed, which will no doubt be met with equally strong rejoinders. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 692 Registered: 8-2003 |
Limited government is a conservative idea, not necessarily republican. Republicans aren't defacto conservatives. Look at NJ. As for this proposal, I this it's worthwhile if what the 'liberal' sociologist says is true -- that there's abundant evidence that these programs would work. The trickle-down effects of that type of success are immeasurable. N.O.W. is hilarious in their concerns that it may put and keep women in dangerous and abusive relationships. Why don't they add their ideas to the debate rather than attack the whole concept outright. There is an answer to that question. | ||
| Pippi Citizen Username: Pippi Post Number: 22 Registered: 8-2003 |
"The trickle-down effects of that type of success are immeasurable." such as? I don't see it. I don't see how we should spend the money in the hopes of trickle-down success instead of just putting the money where it belongs. I hope such trickle-down effects you refer to possibly include national healthcare, less homelessness, better education. If we put the money toward improving those areas FIRST, wouldn't the trickle-down effect there mean "better" marriages and families? | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1736 Registered: 1-2003 |
I really don't see why we should object to the principle of this proposal. The question is, how would we implement it? I do think marriage is good for the society, and if we invested in strengthening it, many would benefit, whether or not you use the term trickle-down. Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| Pippi Citizen Username: Pippi Post Number: 23 Registered: 8-2003 |
Tom - You're right.... I probably wouldn't object to it if I thought we were covering what seems to me to be far more important territory. It's about priorities. If we can implement it for far less than 1.5 billion dollars, I'm all for it! | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 359 Registered: 6-2003 |
Cool. Let's give the money to Planned Parenthood, which would actually do some good. I'd also vote for the restoration of urban churches so that folks in those areas can have nicer places to get married, and for better care of our public parks, so that everyone can have nicer wedding photos. Also, U.S. citizens should be encouraged to marry illegal aliens, so that government money doesn't have to be wasted on fruitless enforcement efforts. All in all, it's a very progressive agenda, and quite a departure from the usual Republican approach. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1767 Registered: 5-2001 |
What are the things that put strains on these marriages in the first place? I'd guess family budgets, and education for the kids, would be high up there. |
