Bush touts religion as a solution to drug addiction

[John Ho]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...drug_treatment

Wasn't Bush all about lowering the amount of govt. spending? I can understand increased spending due to 9/11 issues but why should my tax money go to a bunch of religious organizations? Is this guy for lower spending or just lower spending on stuff he doesn't understand or has never been around. He guts environmental laws but is also a nature lover. Of course, the elite Bush has grown up around will always have unspoiled terrain to appreciate due to their wealth but common people may not have that luxury if things keep going this way. Does Bush realize this and not care or does he just not give a rat's ass?
Bush is one of the worst Presidents of all time. What does he stand for when he does crap like this? He is lucky he has so much political capital from 9/11. Let's face it, you could put a junior high kid as President and he/she would know to kick Afghanistan's ass after 9/11. I can't believe that last year I thought he was doing great. The more and more I see of him the more I'm sure the stereotype of him (dumb and elitist) is accurate.
BTW, I don't blame Bush for the economy. This is part of the natural economic cycle. You don't get a boom like we had in the 90s without a sharp cutback to compensate for all the excesses.

[Ray Zee]

1.isnt this similar to what the hard line muslims do to their people. use religon to keep them under control.
2.he doesnt give a rats ass. and he is not a nature lover. he loves oil comany people with their money and power.
3. i think maybe milard filmore will still be ranked lower than him.

[John Ho]

And US Grant might be lower too. WH Harrison I believe only served 30 days. But at least he didn't f*!% everything up.
I think it's possible he may not realize that he is furthering the interests of only a few. He may just be too dumb to realize that he has been brainwashed by them as well.

After, this power structure is what allowed him to goof off and be a drunk until he was 40 and then become "independently" wealthy, governor, and President all in a relatively short time frame. He may be the guy who was born on 3rd and truly believes he hit a homer.

[Chris Alger]

It makes more sense of you think of our political system as a marketplace for dollars instead of ideas. In fact, to an extent, the faith-based initiave is an old-fashioned kickback, like the way Republicans raise campaign funds by requesting a portion of the most recent tax cut be funnelled to those responsible.

Look at the components: The religious right solidly supports Bush. Governments control a huge and growing market for diversion and therapy programs for substance abuse, domestic violence and the like.

The "faith-based" initiative amounts to certifying conservative religious groups so they can receive a piece of the action, put their pastors on salary as "administrators" and "recovery guidance counselors" and so forth Of course, there also are ideological benefits: it furthers the campaign to confuse scripture and science, it's a sop to those offended by the primacy of secular therapy and if puts some of the the lumpenproletariat directly under the thumb of the religious right.

[John Cole]

Some wag might comment that religion is, indeed, already a form of drug addiction--but not me.

John

[Zeno]

"Examine the religious principles which have, in fact, prevailed in the world, and you will scarcely be persuaded that they are anything but sick men's dreams."

-David Hume


"Religions are like pills, which must be swallowed whole without chewing."

-Thomas Hobbes



"Open your mouth and shut your eyes, and see what Zeus shall send you."

-Aristophanes


Three wags in sardonic order.

[HDPM]

It makes more sense of you think of our political system as a marketplace for
dollars instead of ideas. In fact, to an extent, the faith-based initiave is an
old-fashioned kickback, like the way Republicans raise campaign funds by
requesting a portion of the most recent tax cut be funnelled to those
responsible.


I think this is a valid point. In fact, it is the reason why I am very conservative economically. Anytime the government has the power to take money from one group and give it to others, problems arise. FWIW I totally oppose any tax dollars going to these church groups. I also oppose any tax dollars being spent to help dopers. Or help Africa to the tune of 15 billion. Or pay for prescription meds for old people. Or mentoring programs. Or most of the stuff Bush spoke about last night. Bush is very far left economically. I suppose because it sells. He is way too far right wing in terms of the religious kooks and his positions on things like cloning. Needless to say, I didn't like the speech last night. All I could do was think of how much worse Gore would be. And that is significantly worse. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[John Ho]

I'm all for the prescription drugs and Africa thing. There's nothing wrong with helping other people. And the AIDS epidemic in Africa is at ridiculous proportions. There are actually people there who believe the infection can be cured by having sex with a virgin. Thus you see stupid 40 year old men (who really don't know any better)having sex with their 6 month old nieces. It is tragic.

Cynics might say this is Bush's attempt to court African American voters. But whatever the reason, it's a good thing.

[HDPM]

There is nothing wrong with helping people. But the Constitution of the United States of America was not designed to set up a charitable foundation. Any taxation that is used for charity is totally wrong. It is immoral. Helping with the admitted horrors in Africa is charity. If I want my money going, I can give it. But the government takes my money by force and they have no right spending any on foreign (or domestic) charity. Period. No matter how sympathetic the recipients or how bad the problem is. I do think it is an appropriate expenditure for the government to spend money educating people about rationality, i.e. their religions are wrong and they are stupid to believe in myths. this is because these whackos pose a threat to our national security. However, maybe we should start at home on that front, although there are some minor first Amendment problems with that approach. [img]/forums/images/icons/smirk.gif[/img]

[IrishHand]

lol

It's not charity - it's dealmaking. Our "aid" is always tied to something or another. "How about you forget about taxing all the resources we're going to be raping from your country, and in return, we'll dump $50 million dollars worth of medical supplies and food to your people?"

Very few things we do that involve "giving" money away are 1/2 as altruistic as they seem.