If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salt Lake Tribune)   Bush to spend $1.5 BILLION on a "healthy marriage" initiative. Bachelorhood surrenders   (sltrib.com) divider line 330
    More: Silly  
•       •       •

12263 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jan 2004 at 3:46 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



330 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-01-14 04:08:26 PM
MrNiX
I could use a new HD, but I'm a married male.
 
2004-01-14 04:08:57 PM
KevinOfOz

Did you read the article? It says nothing of the sort.
 
2004-01-14 04:08:58 PM
What's he gonna do, pay you to stay married? Pay you to get married? This is a fiasco! I have a sneaky feeling the contractor in this initiative is a close personal friend of GW's.

Pamphlets, yes, pamphlets ladies and gentlemen! Also, education for the children, won't you think of the children?! This isn't going to come cheap, but, by God, marriage is worth it! We've had great success with pamphlets and education in the war against drugs! We're applying those same principles here. All we need is a measly 1.5 BILLION dollars.
 
2004-01-14 04:09:34 PM
And let me point out that the only reason he's spending $1.5B USD on the promotion of marriage is because the ultra-conservative pukes want him to amend the constitution to outlaw same-sex marriages. This is his way of appeasing them.
 
2004-01-14 04:09:49 PM
I still don't understand how these people can be fervent about people being married, but so against allowing people of the same sex to be married.

"Everyone should be married, but not you gays because...umm...well, we just don't want you people married, so no."

I doubt this will change divorce rates though. Divorce rates are high because people can afford to get divorced. There are not the economic ties that once existed. Women can work now and don't need a second male father figure to take care of them.
 
2004-01-14 04:09:59 PM
$1.5b to teach people how to talk to each other and to tell them marriage is a good thing?

I voted for Bush and all, but this is silly. I've been married 14+ years and I managed to figure all that out for myself. Can I have the money? I'll tell people how I did it for half that

I'm a SITCOM...Single Income, Two Children, Oppressive Mortgage.
 
2004-01-14 04:10:09 PM
downstairs(I'd never vote for a democrat)

I don't understand people like you. Are you so close minded to think that NO democrat could do better than Bush? Do you even know each candidates platform?

Here is Bush's platmorm:
1. Cut taxes (mainly for the rich with the dividends tax)
2. Increase government spending more than any other president since
"The New Deal"
3. Strip environmental regulations like the relaxation of the clean air act
4. Strip civil liberties with the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II
5. A foreign policy of preemption for us but nobody else
6. Break down the barriers between church and state

I think that we need a president that is more middle of the road than Bush is. Check out Clark, Dean, and Kerry's platforms before you dismiss them without even knowing what they stand for.
 
2004-01-14 04:10:27 PM
2004-01-14 04:06:29 PM KevinOfOz
Did anyone actually read the article? According to the article, the $1.5 billion will come from conservative groups. That is not taxpayer money.


Kevin
I'm betting that reading comprehension was not your real strength in school. Of course the money is coming from the Treasury. The administration has been working with conservative groups to develop the program.
 
2004-01-14 04:10:53 PM
The communities with the highest rates of unwed mothers have the highest rates of crime. Turn a blind eye to it if you like, trot out contrary anecdotes if you like, but the rest of us would like to see these communities succeed in society.

I'm aware that you Dems wouldn't, because it would deprive you of votes, but I don't mind if you lose those votes.
 
2004-01-14 04:10:59 PM
Marriage is a good thing. What is wrong with promoting it?

I think the problem is that Bush and Company only want to promote 'healthy' marriages. That is 'heterosexual, same race, Christian, had no sex before it, only have sex during it for procreation, raise your kids to be good republican ditto-head' marriages.
 
2004-01-14 04:11:03 PM
Well,they certainly won't want ME to set up a training program,now will they?Gave marriage a try a coupla times,just don't seem to get any further than about 10 years.I guess I'm just an optimist........:)Been single now for the best 6 years of my life!!Got me a fine GF too!
 
2004-01-14 04:11:05 PM
Man oh man, I'm seriously thinking of changing my vote in the upcoming election. I really think he's going crazy. Let's see jsut what shiat we can make up and get through congress....

Keep your laws off the women's bodies and let them decide if they want abortions.

Keep your laws off gays and let them decide what hole they want to put what in.

I don't mind spending a billion on seeding the space program, who knows what good we will find out there, we'll have a place to go when the terrorists blow up this planet, and it'll boost the economy.

Keep the damn money you want to use to promote *your moral values* and spend it on balancing the damn checkbook!
 
2004-01-14 04:11:16 PM
Bush says: Everytime a marriage ends, it makes baby Jebus cry.
 
2004-01-14 04:11:23 PM
After seeing the picture in your profile, might I suggest a decent camera with a self timer and a professional hair cut?

Awwww... (sniff)
 
2004-01-14 04:11:33 PM
Or, GW, you could give $5 to every person in the country to buy jelly bracelets. That would eliminate a lot of needless confusion.

 
2004-01-14 04:11:45 PM
Well, I'll be. Someone actually made use of the silly tag. Three cheers! It's a totally underused tag in my opinion. In fact I would even go so far as to say it is the 'Homsar of Fark.'

That is all.
 
2004-01-14 04:11:58 PM
$1.5B is a drop in the bucket. We spend much more money on much more frivilous stuff each year. Marriage is a good thing, and statistically, low income people who marry -- even at a very young age -- do a hell of a lot better (money, education, life expectancy) than those who do not. Similarly, minorities and women who marry are far better off on the whole than those who do not. Isn't this worth a try? I think so. If the National Organization for Democrats Women actually wanted to help women rather than help the Democrat party, they'd think it was worth it, too. But shockingly, they are opposed!
 
2004-01-14 04:11:58 PM
I really hate these Republicans, always trying to tax me to death so they can give money to their favorite churches and raid foreign lands so their corporate buddies can have some new market to exploit.
 
2004-01-14 04:11:59 PM
hey, maybe Shrub knows we are gonna need more and more soldiers in the next 3 or 4 decades, and is trying to make sure we have enough "resources" to cover our losses while we chase windmills, er, Islamists around the globe.

like after WWII, the so called Marriage Penalty was created, to encourage women to stay home and produce more babies to make up for the number of young men lost in the war.

this time, they are going to make the babies _before_ the war.
 
2004-01-14 04:12:11 PM
KevinOfOz

No, I read it, he will work WITH Conserivate Groups to promote this. It is still taxpayer money.

For months, administration officials have been working with conservative groups on the proposal, which would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain "healthy marriages."

It is also in the NYT version of this story which has more details.
 
2004-01-14 04:12:30 PM
That is NOTHING, in comparison to taking these guys off air.........



/i'm sad
 
2004-01-14 04:12:36 PM
This is pretty stupid. I 've seen a lot of couples who shouldn't have ever gotten married. They either did it too young, or for the wrong reasons, and should divorce - preferably before any children are born.

As far as I'm concerened, good marriages are rare and take a lot of work. I can't imagine how government money can help anyone make a better choice of mate. The best way to do that is to promote responsible serial monogomy as a reasonable means to find the most compatible match without producing too many illegitimate pups. But I can't imagine the bible-belters supporting that one. They'd rather have people marry as virgins, and stay together no matter what. Recipe for disaster, if you ask me.

I should also wonder out loud, in the interest of starting a flame(r) war, if Bush is interested in promoting gay marriage, too, in the interest of social stability? Hmmmm...
 
2004-01-14 04:13:28 PM
So what if he beats you and rapes your children, he can change!! Thanks to GWB's marriage initiative, you too WILL STAY MARRIED!
 
2004-01-14 04:14:38 PM
Hey, MrNix I think yer kinda cute. And I don't want your money either. ;)
 
2004-01-14 04:14:40 PM
2004-01-14 03:58:51 PM newmoonpuppyhead
But it's okay, we're only what, a half a trillion in debt?


That's just the amount that was added to the federal debt for this year alone. We're actually now at $7 trillion in debt, and counting, for the first time in history. Each household's share of the debt is $101,000 dollars. Will that be cash or check?
 
2004-01-14 04:14:55 PM
Wow, I'm sure glad that the Republicans restored fiscal responsibility to the federal government!
 
2004-01-14 04:15:30 PM
BritneysSpeculum

It doesnt bother you in the least when the gov't gets in bed with any special interest group? Weather you feel this is for the common good or not, it makes me uneasy. It's a slippery slope to aligning church and state. If the conservative groups really cared that much about this issue then they can fundraise, buy ad space, etc all on their own. They dont need the government.
 
2004-01-14 04:15:49 PM

The thing I think is cool about it is that we can point to all the kids from single-parent homes and tell them what UNHEALTHY FREAKS they are! With government endorsement!

After all, kid, you ain't gotta dad, you ain't gotta future. So heck with making any infrastructure to offer opportunities down the road -- we'll just spend the money on making sure more FREAKS like you don't appear.

Hey? Why that bad attitude, kid?

 
2004-01-14 04:16:02 PM
What I don't understand about this is why, if he's so hopped up on the benefits of marriage, would he be against /gay/ marriage?

What smells worse than a Bush daughter after an all-night binge about this whole thing is that this is an incredibly transparent move by the government to impose religious values on American citizens. "Let's support marriage, and then tell gay people they can't get married, because being gay is WRONG! It's like a double slap in the face!"

What coherent reason can anyone have to be against gay marriage that ISN'T rooted in religious theology?
 
2004-01-14 04:16:14 PM
I'm gonna vote for Bush just to piss all of Fark off.
 
2004-01-14 04:17:08 PM
It doesn't take money to promote marriage, just brains...something of which Bush and friends have very little.

Hell, want to make marriage better? Enhance the definition to enclude same-sex unions. Then tax the shiat out of them.... That's not illegal because homosexuals are not a protected status.

Am I evil? No, but yes.
 
2004-01-14 04:17:10 PM
Americans value marriage. That's why we do it multiple times.
 
2004-01-14 04:17:10 PM
VinDiesel <- This guy can justify anything. I think I'll print his last comment up and wipe my ass with it. At least then it will be useful for something.
 
2004-01-14 04:17:36 PM
you guys are all wrong about this...just think of the number of new MILF's flooding the market! Ol' George may be on to something here!
 
2004-01-14 04:18:16 PM
anathama & Wasserspeier

This is nothing compared to what liberals want to spend on promoting extra-marital sex.

The general liberal (as opposed to a moral conservative) supports things like condom dispersal, safe-sex education, government endorsement/recognition of non-traditional marriage, and would never dream of suggesting that a monogomous marriage is the only place where sex should occur.

That's what I was referring to. I was drawing the distinction that people who will condemn this initiative as a waste of money, would probably support spending money that would teach teenagers how to "safely" have sex with each other.
 
2004-01-14 04:18:32 PM
The ironic part of all of this is that the Federal government cannot do jack shiat about marriage, absent a Constitutional amendment, either between a man/woman or man/man or woman/woman. Watching the federal government waste $1.5B on something that they have zero power over should be a cause for alarm.

If you think that this is a great idea, think about this hypo. Your state allocates a fair percentage of its budget to the U.S. military. Would you think this is wise spending? No, becuase the states have no business getting involved with the U.S. military. It would be a waste.

It's the same thing here.
 
2004-01-14 04:18:46 PM
Thanx pixiepuke! If you were closing than CA, I might ask you out for a drink :)

// Relevance to thread: 0
// 24hr banishment for 0 relevance: probably
 
2004-01-14 04:18:55 PM
Huzzah for small government! Huzzah for spending cuts and balanced budgets! Huzzah for letting the individual live life as he/she chooses! Huzzah for the Republican Party!
 
2004-01-14 04:19:00 PM
Al Franken doesn't report news.. he "reports" opinions.
 
2004-01-14 04:19:26 PM
This is step one of turning gay marriage into a campaign issue. Bush is a farktard.
 
2004-01-14 04:19:42 PM
I checked out MrNix's profile, too... but there's an unwholesome resemblance to Joe Camel there.
 
2004-01-14 04:19:45 PM
WasabiChimera

I don't understand your criticism. I believe that education on every topic is always a good idea. In accordance with that, I believe that inner city kids would be advantaged by a program that informed them about the implications of single family homes and how they and their kids will be better off if they marry. This message doesn't have to have a fundamentalist twist to it.
 
2004-01-14 04:20:39 PM
Bush has no issue with gay marriage because, as far as the right is concerned, there is no gay marriage issue. After all, gays aren't really people! Whatever would they need rights for?

/sighs
 
2004-01-14 04:20:44 PM
Captain_Grammar
What coherent reason can anyone have to be against gay marriage that ISN'T rooted in religious theology?

There isnt one. Marriage itself is rooted in religious theology.
 
2004-01-14 04:20:50 PM

MrNiX :


// any farkettes wanna play with a 30-something w/ > $100K income and nothing to spend it on??

Somehow, I suspect you will find a few takers. I'll bet 100k goes a lot further in NC than in NYC, where it means still eating a lot of ramen.

But, dude! Java developer? Please tell me you have nothing to doing with those stupid browser crashing java ads!

 
2004-01-14 04:21:03 PM
I heard some crackpot on TV with a surprisingly compelling argument:

People naturally want 3 mates: 1 to have children, 1 to raise children and 1 to live out the rest of your life with.

Perhaps people HAD to have multiple mates in the past when life-expectancy was much shorter, and generations of this have made us accustomed to a life with 3 partners...

/crackpots and their daytime-TV ideas
 
2004-01-14 04:21:13 PM
So Bush is a "Big Government" conservative that spends HUGE amounts of money on corporate welfare and religious stuff.

A "Big Government" liberal will spend HUGE amounts of money on drug treatment, schools, and job training.

Tell me again why voting for a liberal would be worse in 2004 than voting for Bush again?
 
2004-01-14 04:22:15 PM
 
2004-01-14 04:23:13 PM
I give Bush a lot of credit - he obviously realizes that logic and reality are no longer important in American culture - as long as you say something loud and repeat it often, it is true.

In a country where many people actually believe "Reality TV" is real, he has his finger directly on the pulse of America - and what a stupid, stupid pulse it is...
 
2004-01-14 04:23:22 PM
spleef420
I'm gonna vote for Bush just to piss all of Fark off.

Careful, spleef. With a name like that, you'll probably have Mr. Ashcroft show up on your doorstep soon.

Bid you to have any spleef, man?
 
Displayed 50 of 330 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report