Is "compassionate conservatism" a slogan and nothing more?

LW--
You can be sure there are some creepy people in churches.
I have gone to all the churches in my area, seeking help for my mentally ill consumers. Some give without question, others want some info (which I won't give them) and others have formed some type of 'web of information' making sure the same people don't get 'too much' help.

Still, some are wonderful people, who give out of their own pockets. I can tell you from experience: churches, on the whole, make a great difference to people in need.

"I just thought most people agreed..."

Uh, no. Most don't. Most think that a vaccine could be developed that would not do more harm than good. Then of course, most people aren't scientists. Or lobbyists for multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical conglomerates. Or corrupt pols.

I don't know what inning it is, Lash (after all, there's no timeclock, right?) but I think that if there were a ten-run rule this ballgame would be over.

Or if this were another non-clocked game, I might say:

Checkmate. Wanna play again?

Checkmate? That's what I was going to say.

Oh well...
Play ball!

It's a slogan without meaning. c.i.

*heavy sigh*

And here's another quote from the article, way down at the bottom that I read all the way to, fish:

===========================================

He blames, bitterly, Saddam Hussein; the Western weapons suppliers who sold Iraq its poisons; his own government, for its "deplorable" treatment of vets.

"All I want is my health back," he says, wearing an Army sweat shirt, which he will take off and put on repeatedly as he feels chills, then fevers. "I want my military command back. I want to wear the green uniform. I want my medical practice. I want to be able to get my social and family life back."

It's a long list, but one thing isn't on it. He doesn't ask for an answer. He believes he already has one.

An article from the CATO Institute on the Faith-based initiative:

http://www.cato.org/new/03-01/03-22-01r.html

Wait until the government bureaucracy starts to tangle with the myriads of organizations who call themselves religions, let alone what is an oxymoron -- organized religion. Someone is pulling someone's leg over this whole experiment -- it isn't progressive, it's regressive.

PDiddie--you said:

As we prepare to send more young men and women off to battle in the Middle East, it would be valuable to see how the veterans from the last Gulf War are being treated by their VA:
------------------
I would like to point out, while Bush's handling of Vets is awful, and must be addressed, some godawful things have occurred recently. There are epidemics of Hep C in vets, due to 70's lax blood products. Desert Stormers are hit with epidemic illnesses. The costs to pay for their care and 'pensions' and 'disability' payments is astronomical.

I expect better, and I will fight tooth and nail for better, but I think if we're fair, I don't imagine any other President would have done much better.

Read your link. Thought provoking. I believe Bush's idea of helping something that works so good is a great idea. I do hope they look at it carefully to avoid what problems your article uncovers.

Yes, he blames the government for deplorable treatment of vets. But is he blaming the Bush administration as you've been pushing or is he blaming the years of nothingness that the vets got from the government in the intervening years since the Gulf War that were discussed in the paragraphs immediately preceeding that quote?

Every single item mentioned in that article that covers Bush's term in office mentions IMPROVEMENTS towards vets that were thwarted by the Clinton administration. What in that article backs your statement that Vets are pissed at Bush?

lw; one of the things President Eisenhower warned us about was Colleges and Universities becoming dependent on Federal and Pentagon grants. he argued that when the universities become dependent they skew there research to me the needs of their fund sources. i see much the same problem with faith based charities, should they become dependent of federal funding, what had been their own goals will be subservient to the govt ageny that supports them.

Nothing in that one, fishin', but a bunch in this one:

TROA Legislative Initiatives

Excerpt:

===============================================

The White House has riled up the enemy. But is the enemy Iraq's Saddam Hussein or the hundreds of thousands of U.S. career military veterans who have become disabled fighting to protect America for all these years?

Many disabled veterans and their families may wonder. They are frustrated by years of political double-talk, and they are particularly angry that President George W. Bush, who campaigned two years ago as a friend of veterans, would now hide from them and have House Speaker Dennis Hastert maneuver more delays on so-called concurrent receipt legislation.

It all comes down to money and priorities, and apparently disabled vets who are hurting are not a Bush priority. Tax cuts certainly are, though, for a president who in his first year in office rammed through Congress $1.35 trillion in tax cuts that will kick in over a decade. Yet the Bush administration can't find $58 billion for those Americans who sacrificed their lives and suffer all sorts of maladies.

Pathetic.

==============================================

And in this one:

Frustarted Veterans Accuse Bush of Breaking Promise

Bush had two years to head off the Medicare cuts -- what did he and his adminstration do? Ignored it. This is only one thing that makes the Democrats look more like the Republicans and defuses what any of us really believes is a choice. Let's give Bush another year of enjoying a small majority in the legislature and see what he does. I do believe he is personally compassionate but I don't believe it was a good idea to use it as a slogan. In fact I believe it was one of the things in the campaign that was stupid, stupid, stupid. I don't think he has a chance in Hell to deliver anything but insignificant token assisstance to the poor that will in turn be eaten up by the projected tax hike on low wage earners. I do believe the minimum wage should be raised. It will give those high paying executives something creative to do -- create profit by other means than paying pauper wages.

Religious organizations handling education for employment, don't make me laugh -- they're lucky to remember to get the church doors open on time for Sunday service.

fishin', et al--
I wish I didn't have one, but...
This was Bush pre-election,...
and here is what happened.

I am not a blind Bushite, as this proves. I agree with most of the decisions he makes, but treatment of the country's vets...
D-

Religious organizations handling education for employment, don't make me laugh -- they're lucky to remember to get the church doors open on time for Sunday service.

Furry nay-sayer,
You be wrong. I've seen it in action. When the churchies (the one I have seen) don their teaching attire, they get serious. And compassionate. Patient... And they have killer links to assisting in finding jobs, as well.

Of course, they may gossip about it later, but...

My religiou groups has a number of private schools throughout the US I wonder if they will get any govenrment funds to operate, ever?

Friend's Schools

Yes.. Even more pathetic that the law they want overturned has been in place since the end of the Civil War.

The issue the TROA is fighting over is that they want double compenstation, somthing I and many other vets disagree with. The claim that the issue effects "hundreds of thousands" is also greatly inflated.

But.. The article you referened is dated October 22, 2002.

Of course since that time Bush SIGNED the legislation and they got what they wanted. The News Bulletin from the same organization dated December 2nd, 2002 says:

"President Bush came to the Pentagon on December 2 and ceremonially signed the FY2003 Defense Authorization Act into law (Public Law 107-314).

Among other things, the Act provides active duty, Guard and Reserve personnel a 4.1% to 6.5% pay raise (depending on grade and years of service) and 8% housing allowance increase as of January 1, 2003. It also substantially eliminates the disability offset to retired pay for certain retirees with at least 20 years of active duty and (a) any disability rating that is associated with a Purple Heart or (b) a disability rating of 60% or higher that is due to a combat-related or operations-related disability. Eligible retirees will have to apply for this new compensation."

http://www.troa.org/Legislative/WeeklyUpdate3.asp#Issue%202

How pathetic is that?

Fishin are you a member of TROA? I used to attend all their meetings in San Diego with my father in law. They do great things for Vets, my opinion of course.

joannedorel: just to brighten you evening Friends was included in the Denver Police Dept list of of subversive activity groups. you just never know who the enemy is according to the Denver police.

I'm not Joane. They do do some great things but one needs to keep in mind just what they are. They are largely a PAC for military members and retirees (and they aren't the only one, I do belong to 3 others but TROA is mostly Army types.. ). Keeping in mind that they are a PAC and have their own paid lobbyists they tend to ratchet up the rhetoric as well as any other PAC when it comes to issues they hold near and dear.