Figleaf Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 "President Bush worked with Republicans in Congress to pass legislation changing the way the federal government regulated, taxed and funded charities and non-profit initiatives run by religious organizations. Although prior to the legislation it was possible for these organizations to receive federal assistance, the new legislation removed reporting requirements which required the organizations to separate their charitable functions from their religious functions. Bush also created the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives." - http://www.answers.com/topic/domestic-poli...-administration The Whitehouse Office of Faith Based Initiatives existence and mandate couldn't be more clear. Bush's government is actively substituting religious services for services that should be supplied by the (secular) government. I remember the days when provincial legislature members insisted on having their own staff deliver the welfare cheques in their riding. The message, as with the Faith Office, is 'Remember who you owe for this'. The MLAs wanted to have the credit. Bush wants the churches to have the credit. It's prosletyzing with tax dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted December 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 (edited) f/this crappy forum Edited July 24, 2007 by Figleaf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 Oh, look, yet a FOURTH thread with Bush bashing in mind, started by you-know-who. (Figgy). Yikes! I don't think Figs even realizes his pattern of hatin' on Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted December 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 Oh, look, yet a FOURTH thread with Bush bashing in mind, started by you-know-who. (Figgy). Again, do you have a problem with that? Do you have any substantive comments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 I forgot to mention, this thread has almost no posts either. Seems everyone else sees your hatred as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted December 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 I forgot to mention, this thread has almost no posts either. Seems everyone else sees your hatred as well. Do you think it bothers me to say I hate Bush? It doesn't. I hate Bush. I hate Bush for many reasons ... undermining the US constitution, destroying America's image abroad, trashing international law, and catering to the undeserving rich, being chief among them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 I can say I am not a big fan of Bush as well. Evil SOB. (Son of a Bush) I see your hatred and understand it and I am with you on this one. Baseball bat to the knees would work well on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Violence is the fave resort of a weak mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 I can say I am not a big fan of Bush as well. Evil SOB. (Son of a Bush) I see your hatred and understand it and I am with you on this one.Baseball bat to the knees would work well on him. I don't think Bush is evil as compared to other world leaders, incompetent perhaps but not evil. As for the baseball bat to the knees comment, how are you any different from any common thug in that case. I think many have forgotten the ways of Ghandi and Martin Luther King when it came to protesting for human rights. Each respected EVERYONES human rights, even those who disagreed with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted January 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2007 So do no Bushites have any reply to the OP of this thread ... Bush's Faith-based initiatives are an unconstitutional program to prosletyze with tax dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 So do no Bushites have any reply to the OP of this thread ... Bush's Faith-based initiatives are an unconstitutional program to prosletyze with tax dollars. No Figleaf they would rather attack you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 I can say I am not a big fan of Bush as well. Evil SOB. (Son of a Bush) I see your hatred and understand it and I am with you on this one.Baseball bat to the knees would work well on him. Oh, Margrace, speaking of attacks, how about this one? With a baseball bat on Bush. Now, who's doing the attacking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 Hatred is too strong of a word. I think that Bush is incompetent, but he doesn't deserve to be hated. I disagree with the faith based initiatives program, and I think that money should go into Medicaid, Social Security, Education, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 Figleaf, if you want to know what a real theocracy is, I suggest you get on a plane and fly to Teheran or Riyadh for a few days. You will quickly be cleared of any confusion you may harbour of American Christian fundamentalists and an Islamic Republic on one hand or a Holy Kingdom on the other. The US was founded as a rejection of the divine right of kings and that basic principle has not changed. Iran and Saudi Arabia were founded on precisely divine principles. The Whitehouse Office of Faith Based Initiatives existence and mandate couldn't be more clear. Bush's government is actively substituting religious services for services that should be supplied by the (secular) government.Where is the harm in assisting private organizations to wade through the bureaucracy and get available funds?More specifically, we have to rethink how we deliver social services. Unionized government bureaucrats with a job for life are not the best agents to provide ordinary care to people in trouble. Government doesn't do love or concern. I'm beginning to fear that future taxpayers will face horrendous liability suits (far in excess of what Indians or Quebec orphans seek against the Catholic Church) for the horrendous treatment government child protection bureaucrats now inflict on kids. Government funding of private faith-based groups, subject to accountability, strikes me as a possible way to ensure that people in trouble receive proper care. The North American Left is weak and in retreat. It has become ideological and partisan. It rails against neo-liberalism and free markets. It is confused about diversity and Islam. Yet, the Left has a very good argument to make. Bob Rae was one Leftist who had an inkling of what the Left must do. Modern governments don't help poor people in trouble and money isn't the problem. It's the way government works. Bush Jnr knows this. ---- Lastly Figleaf, did you have to pick such a crappy web site as answer.com inc. for your link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 Violence is the fave resort of a weak mind. You got that one right there Mr. Bush. Violence is for the weak minded. That is why the US is in the Middle East right now at this very moment. And if you want to take every word on here I say at face value then go for it. I'd hate for anyone to read between the lines and look for more of a meaning. Leaders should be held accountable for their actions. Also baseball bat to knees is way less of a punishment than each familiy of each dead/fallen soldier. Bush would be able to walk one day possibly. There is no possible return of those dead soldiers. Which I think they have died in vain for a worthless cause. I would hope that weighs in on Bush's concience. Sharkman. How about something to add to this thread? Instead of just pointing out that Figleaf hates bush in EVERY thread he makes. Again another thread proving that there really is no separation of Church and State. Dangerous roads we are heading down people. Dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 Again another thread proving that there really is no separation of Church and State. Dangerous roads we are heading down people. Dangerous. Oh come on please. No one is forcing religion on anyone here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 Well, doesn't that go for any wartime leader in the past half century? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 Violence is the fave resort of a weak mind. Oh,Oh I know lets invade someone then........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
America1 Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 I can say I am not a big fan of Bush as well. Evil SOB. (Son of a Bush) I see your hatred and understand it and I am with you on this one.Baseball bat to the knees would work well on him. Whenever you think you're man enough, just come on down to the US and try it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted January 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 Figleaf, if you want to know what a real theocracy is,... Actually, I'd prefer not to pursue an irrelevant non sequitur at this time. ... Bush's government is actively substituting religious services for services that should be supplied by the (secular) government. Where is the harm in assisting private organizations to wade through the bureaucracy and get available funds? It's government money and time dedicated to helping specificly FaiTh-oriented activity. Ergo, it's unconstitutional. Government funding of private faith-based groups, subject to accountability, strikes me as a possible way to ensure that people in trouble receive proper care. I see no advantage and some disadvantage in recruiting faith into government services. The advocates and fellow-travelers of creeping theocracy would like us to think that separation of church and state is an optional condition for a free democracy. They are wrong; it is fundamental. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 I recently saw a 60 Minutes piece on the Faith Based Initiatives office, in which David Kuo, a former Deputy Director of the office, contends that only a tiny fraction of the promised assistance or funding has actually been provided, and that the office itself is nothing more than a sham to get religious voters to vote Republican. Kuo in fact goes so far as to claim that Bush and his inner circle actually mock and ridicule the leadership of Christian movements behind closed doors. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogs Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 All governments use one god or another for manipulative purposes, and in the end, to steal money with any excuse, and get their mitts on it. My god, Harry, created the Earth in only one day because he didn't believe in wasting time. He lives third cloud on the right. Harry can change water into Bourbon Manhattens. With a cherry! Aside from Harry (I hope he doesn't mind), there were two popes that have written how foolish people are to believe the Jesus stories, Pope Leo the 10th was one, .. don't recall the other. They laughed about the lavish lifestyle these stories created for them. And so it goes .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 It's government money and time dedicated to helping specificly FaiTh-oriented activity. Ergo, it's unconstitutional. Oh, you mean like Canada/Provinces funding most Catholic schools until 1998 (Education Act). Oh my! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted January 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 (edited) [.) Edited July 24, 2007 by Figleaf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Well, technically, in Ontario (which I think is the only jurisdiction left funding Catholic schools), it is constitutional. (Not that that makes it right.) Wait...it get's even funnier for Quebec: Until the changes of 1998, the law required all religion teachers in Catholic schools to be practicing Catholics. Religion courses at the time, while dealing with theology and Church history, were more pastoral in nature, especially in elementary schools. It was thus assumed that a non-believer could not properly instruct children in the Faith. [wiki] I thought only Iran had this kind of problem? LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.