That sound you hear is the ACLU howling in protest. Florida Governor Rick Scott, a Republican, just signed a bill that requires welfare applicants to get drug tested. The theory behind it is that if taxpayers are required to get drug tested at work, then the people supported by their tax dollars should be required to meet the same strict standards. Seems fair to us.
CBS Miami has the pee particulars:
The bill also requires that those who apply for welfare must pay for the drug testing out of their own pockets. However, the cost would be reimbursed if the person passes the drug test.
Republicans said the measure was needed because if taxpayers are screened at their place of employment, so should welfare recipients. The drug testing bill was a priority for Scott.
“While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction,” Governor Scott said. “This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars.”
Next stop? We say candidates for political office should also be drug tested.
Overuse of controlled substances may be the only way to explain Democrat policies.
Source: CBS Miami
This post was last modified on June 4, 2011
View Comments (113)
She supports parents rights to snip....we're slowly converting her.
So Olivia, how do you feel about circumcision?
So Olivia, how do you feel about circumcision?
***********************
It makes it a tiny bit easier to catheterize male patients, since there's no foreskin to pull out of the way.
Other than that, I have no strong opinions pro or con. ;)
How about you?
I was honestly wondering, I have run into a lot of "liberal" folks who seem to think cutting the foreskin as unnatural and unholy, yet are of the opinion that cutting out a fetus is quite natural and fine to do. It made me curious as to your opinion on the same. I personally think it is hygienically preferred, and makes lovemaking better due to a slight desensitizing of the glans.
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/03/proof-that-s-f-s-circumcision-ban-is-anti-semitic/
This is something that this conversation prompted in my mind. This comic book from a liberal San Francisco politician disgusts me. In any case not sure how this has to do with peeing in a bottle other than the obvious organ that is used for that activity, but hey like I said reading your post reminded me of this situation going on right now.
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/03/proof-that-s-f-s-circumcision-ban-is-anti-semitic/
This is something that this conversation prompted in my mind. This comic book from a liberal San Francisco politician disgusts me. In any case not sure how this has to do with peeing in a bottle other than the obvious organ that is used for that activity, but hey like I said reading your post reminded me of this situation going on right now.
**********************
Well, I looked at your excerpts of the comic book, and then, in true critical-thinker fashion, I googled up the whole thing and read it from cover to cover. And I agree: it's obnoxious. It panders to the lowest sensibilities of gullible readers---religious and cultural bigotry---in order to make its point. And, yes, I immediately noticed that the main characters in it looked as if they'd stepped right out of a Nazi propaganda poster.
Now that we've got that settled, let me ask you a question. Were you assuming that all or most liberals support this kind of propaganda? If so, why?
I was honestly wondering, I have run into a lot of “liberal” folks who seem to think cutting the foreskin as unnatural and unholy, yet are of the opinion that cutting out a fetus is quite natural and fine to do. It made me curious as to your opinion on the same. I personally think it is hygienically preferred, and makes lovemaking better due to a slight desensitizing of the glans.
***********************
That's the problem with getting all your information about us liberals from hostile right wing sources, Hardwork: they ALWAYS seem to get it wrong.
In fact, I've never known any liberal who's argued that circumcision is "unholy" (and I know a lot of liberals). Most who oppose it do so because they see it as a cruel and unnecessary thing to do to a newborn, just for the sake of conformity. And, having observed circumcisions many years ago as a nursing student, I guess I can see why.
By the way, it's just foolishness to assume that pro-choice people regard abortion as "quite natural and fine to do." In fact, it has nothing to do with our personal preferences, and everything to do with supporting the woman's right to make her own decisions, pertaining to her own uterus and the contents thereof, just as we support parents' right to decide whether their male child should be circumcised.
Actually Olivia, my sources are left wing liberals that I know personally, work with, and ones that I have contact with on a regular basis. You are assuming that my information came from some "source", yet it is my personal experience and natural curiosity that led me to ask the question of you to see what your honest response was, and that is all. I also gave my honest opinion. There was no subtext or pretense there, and those folks I mentioned above have said those very things to me in the course of our very interesting conversations. So, no assumption was made on my part. I used empirical evidence gathered from personal opinions by those who call themselves "liberal" to put together my opinion. What evidence do you have for the opinion of me you stated?
Actually Olivia, my sources are left wing liberals that I know personally, work with, and ones that I have contact with on a regular basis. You are assuming that my information came from some “source”, yet it is my personal experience and natural curiosity that led me to ask the question of you to see what your honest response was, and that is all. I also gave my honest opinion. There was no subtext or pretense there, and those folks I mentioned above have said those very things to me in the course of our very interesting conversations. So, no assumption was made on my part. I used empirical evidence gathered from personal opinions by those who call themselves “liberal” to put together my opinion. What evidence do you have for the opinion of me you stated?
***********************
The fact that you're using a buzzword that's popular among the religious right, and attributing it to liberal acquaintances who aren't here to defend themselves, that's how. As well as the fact that people who oppose circumcision don't do so on religious grounds, since there's no religious doctrine that I'm aware of that teaches that there's anything "unholy" about a circumcised penis. If you have information about such a doctrine, I'd love to see it.
I'm as skeptical as you would be, if I claimed to know a whole lot of ultraconservatives who preferred the term "antichoice" to "prolife" to describe their position on abortion. Or who preferred to be called "teabaggers" rather than "Tea Partiers."
You never fail to disappoint.
You never fail to disappoint.
************************
Translation: "You're right. I can't think of even one."
Yet another good example of my above post. Man... These things write themselves.
Can't be disappointed when you know what is coming :)
You seem awfully willing to jump to conclusions about evil right wingers yet find it equally easy to deride all of us for doing the same thing. Hardwurkindaddy asked you a question and you actually answered without vitriol for once. You should've left it there - adding the rest kind of sinks any other argument you'll make. Instead of going on and on about how bad we are, why not have an open mind and discuss things instead of always being on the defensive? Even when there is no reason to be - such as HWD's question/answer.
That is my main issue with most liberals I know - they don't want to discuss, they want to argue. There are a few that re genuinely interested in talking but not many. Olivia, you prove that you aren't the exception to the rule through this.
You seem awfully willing to jump to conclusions about evil right wingers
************************
I've never yet used the term "evil" in reference to right wingers, either here or anywhere else, so it's dishonest of YOU to use it in reference to my comments, Warren.
This is an example of why I was skeptical when you claimed to know many liberals who regard circumcision as "unholy." Sounds to me as if you're inserting your own buzzwords, in an effort to make us look more rigid and judgmental than we actually are.
************************
yet find it equally easy to deride all of us for doing the same thing. Hardwurkindaddy asked you a question and you actually answered without vitriol for once. You should’ve left it there – adding the rest kind of sinks any other argument you’ll make.
************************
Come on, Warren, be realistic. He made a false accusation about us liberals---that we regard abortion as "cutting out a fetus is quite natural and fine to do." Not only is that a false and unfair claim about liberals----it's also a false depiction of the abortion procedure (in fact, it's much more descriptive of a C section).
Like it or not, when I see someone posting falsehoods or unfair accusations, I'm going to challenge them.
Wouldn't you do the same, if the situation were reversed?
Now that we've got that out of the way, have you come up yet with an example of a religion that teaches that circumcision is "unholy"?
Keep that martyr's attitude there, missy. It'll do you well in life.
Keep that martyr’s attitude there, missy. It’ll do you well in life.
*********************
Don' t be silly, my boy. It's you, not I, who whined that I wasn't being nice enough in my response to HWD.
Nah I just thought you could be civil, not necessarily nice.
You are amazing - just digging yourself deeper and deeper yet you don't even realize it.
After this I'll let you have the last word, cause you obviously can't let anyone else have it :)
Nah I just thought you could be civil, not necessarily nice.
You are amazing – just digging yourself deeper and deeper yet you don’t even realize it.
After this I’ll let you have the last word, cause you obviously can’t let anyone else have it
*********************
I have every right to defend myself here, Warren. And that goes for vague, passive-aggressive attacks and name calling, as well as intelligent rebuttals.
If you can't handle that, there's a simple solution: can the petty sniping. Or don't, if you prefer. It's all the same to me.
That is my main issue with most liberals I know – they don’t want to discuss, they want to argue.
******************
But arguing IS discussion, Warren. Discussion, by definition, is an exchange of ideas. And argument is putting forth reasons for or against a given premise.
Sounds to me as if you think discussion involves everyone agreeing with each other. What earthly use is a political discussion where everyone's opinion is applauded by everyone else, and no one expresses a viewpoint that isn't pre-approved?
Better yet how do you feel about Rep. Weiner's weiner?
Better yet how do you feel about Rep. Weiner’s weiner?
**********************
No opinion one way or the other. But I think his behavior was profoundly stupid.
Too bad he isn't a Republican. Then he could just say that he'd prayed a lot, that Jesus had forgiven him, and that there's therefore no need for anyone ever to bring it up again. ;)
The question put forth to the audience is repeated thusly: How does one feel about Rep. Weiner's Weiner being circumcised?
All I ask of my law makers or someone asking for something from me is to be held to the same standards I am. I can’t smoke weed or crack at work or after work. I was even tested just to get the job. Why? If I get hurt at work or do anything at work that might give them probable cause I have to go pee in a bottle. So why can’t we ask the same from people who want our money?
**************************
But this isn't about "probable cause." It's about presuming guilt until proven innocent.....and making the benefit recipient pay for that presumption of guilt.
It's also not about "ask(ing) the same from people who want our money," because nothing has been said about testing the urine of social security and disability benefit recipients, or those who get other kinds of benefits (including corporate welfare). It targets only one group of benefit recipients----and, by an amazing coincidence, that group just happens to be the one that's most hated and resented by the far right (excepting only illegal immigrants from Mexico), and is targeted by the most vicious stereotypes.
**************************
I would add one thing. They get one second chance. (I do not get that where I work. Positive results on a urine test = unemployment) If you test positive you get counseling and a chance to clean up. After that too bad get a job.
**************************
What good is "counseling" going to do if the person is an addict? Counseling is only an adjunct to addiction treatment. It's also going to be expensive, making sure that professional counselors are available (and accessible) for everyone who needs one. Again, is that consistent with Florida's stated goal of saving money?
I enjoyed your pat solution "get a job," too. Did anyone tell you that the national unemployment rate is still >9%, and that, therefore, it's not always possible just to go "get a job"? (Hint: that's why they qualify for assistance in the first place!)
Um, HELLO??? I had to take AND PASS a drug test to get the job that takes tax dollars out of my check to help people on Welfare that need to be able to take AND PASS a drug test to get a job to get off of Welfare. The 60's called, Olivia. They want their number one stoner back...
Olivia, after reading your comments on most articles throughout this website I have just one question, are you really this stupid?
Olivia, after reading your comments on most articles throughout this website I have just one question, are you really this stupid?
********************
Translation: "I can't dispute a single thing you said on factual or logical grounds, so I'll call you childish names instead. Am I winning the argument yet?"
I've stopped reading Olivia's comments. They usually are like this:
(Quote of a comment she doesn't like)
*****
(really bad pseudo intellectual half baked explanation of why she doesn't like the quote with a 'translation' that intentionally screws up what the person is trying to say.)
***
See above for an example.
I’ve stopped reading Olivia’s comments. They usually are like this:
(Quote of a comment she doesn’t like)
*****
(really bad pseudo intellectual half baked explanation of why she doesn’t like the quote with a ‘translation’ that intentionally screws up what the person is trying to say.)
***
See above for an example.
********************
Yeah, it does kind of put a damper on things, if you're hoping to palm off juvenile insults as thought-provoking debate, doesn't it?
Ah another example!
Nice!
No (big surprise) you're acting stupid again.
Yes, Tex. She is.
She's more of a situational ethicist. When it suits her, killing is bad. When it suits her, it is "choice", "privacy", or whatever figleaf covers enough of the ugliness to get by. When one party erodes our freedom, it's bad. When another does, it's good. When we like a candidate because of his ideas, we get belittled because the man happens to have a high melanin content -- as if we are some kind of imitators of the supposedly enlightened left in attempting to foist an equal opportunity hire into the highest office in the land. She feels we are racist in our acceptance of the man because she cannot conceive that some of us like the man because of his beliefs..
This is why she can argue all day long with people -- the minute you try to hold her to her words, she changes the subject or attacks. Any discussion with her is by definition a bad faith discussion -- if she has totally been obliterated by logic, she falls back on ad hominem attacks, and if she provokes hostility, she gets her smug buzz on.
That's not stupid. That's a cretin.
While her quoting style is unreadable, it is the ideal metaphor for her mentality. She seriously does not care what the people she is conversing with are thinking or even if they are able to make sense of her unintelligible replies -- unless they echo her opinion in all respects, they are wrong, and all's she has to do with her time is to come up with some lame reason as to why they are wrong.
You, for example, have arguments and discussions with people. She, on the other hand, has arguments with what she considers to be *things* -- unworthy of holding an opinion reached through any kind of thought or introspection. This objectification of humans in this case is brought upon ourselves by having the "wrong" opinion.
She has a lot in common with wife-beaters and serial rapists in that regard -- sociopathy clearly isn't limited to the male of the species.
She’s more of a situational ethicist. When it suits her, killing is bad. When it suits her, it is “choice”, “privacy”, or whatever figleaf covers enough of the ugliness to get by.
*******************
Nah, that's the oversimplified right wing spin on my viewpoint. Personally, I'm opposed to abortion. But I also realize that it isn't my place to dictate what another woman chooses to do about her own pregnancy. I also accept (as so many right wingers apparently do not) that a woman is probably better qualified to make appropriate decisions involving her own uterus (and the contents thereof) than a bunch of religious zealots and political manipulators who don't know anything about her or her situation.
I'm also a bit more far sighted than some of you, I think, since I realize that endowing fetuses with civil rights would open up a legal can of worms. Can you imagine the mess if a woman could be sued by her own fetus? Or charged with manslaughter (or fetislaughter) if she had a miscarriage? In short, I see the whole issue as just another attempt by the far right to clip women's wings, and convince them that they're not wise enough to make responsible decisions about their own bodies. And as a smokescreen, designed to camouflage the fact that the GOP has no ideas on how to create more jobs, even though they're condemning Obama day and night for the same thing.
************************
When one party erodes our freedom, it’s bad. When another does, it’s good.
***********************
Another gross oversimplification, designed for lazy minds. The problem is that we all have different ideas of what "freedom" entails. I don't see it as "freedom," for example, when women are forced to carry pregnancies (including grossly malformed and nonviable ones, or those resulting from rape or incest) to term, because a bunch of Nosy Parkers want to run their lives for them. Perhaps you do, though.
************************
When we like a candidate because of his ideas, we get belittled because the man happens to have a high melanin content — as if we are some kind of imitators of the supposedly enlightened left in attempting to foist an equal opportunity hire into the highest office in the land.
*********************
All I can say, Perlcat, is that (with the exception of David Bishop) not one poster here, who praises Cain to the skies, has been able to explain why they think he's so great. On the other hand, I've seen many posters gloating at the prospect of calling liberals racists if they don't support Cain's decidedly far right wing ideas. One poster even enthused that Cain is ALL black, whereas Obama is only HALF black. So tell me again why it's wrong to assume that race has anything to do with their support of this guy?
**************************
She feels we are racist in our acceptance of the man because she cannot conceive that some of us like the man because of his beliefs..
**************************
You're not qualified to interpret my feelings, Perlcat. In any case, I'm remembering how the far right panned Obama in 2008 (and afterward) because of his perceived lack of experience in government. Yet now they're capering with glee at the prospect of having a president with NO government experience, who has trouble distinguishing the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution, and who is a self-described religious bigot. In what way is any of that a reliable indicator of superior leadership potential?
*****************
This is why she can argue all day long with people — the minute you try to hold her to her words, she changes the subject or attacks.
*****************
No, I seldom "attack"----and even then, it's usually just poking fun at a lapse in logic, rather than going for the jugular. I seldom change the subject, either. 90% of the time, I'm just responding to what the previous poster said.
******************
Any discussion with her is by definition a bad faith discussion — if she has totally been obliterated by logic, she falls back on ad hominem attacks, and if she provokes hostility, she gets her smug buzz on.
That’s not stupid. That’s a cretin.
******************
Now, this is funny: you accuse me of "attacking," then you turn around and call me a "cretin." (As well as a lot of other nasty things later on in the post.) Tell me, Perlcat, when have I ever called you uncomplimentary names, or accused you of unsavory behavior or mental illness?
************************
While her quoting style is unreadable, it is the ideal metaphor for her mentality.......
************************
My goodness, you really have an issue with my quoting style, don't you? It's really not that hard to figure out, Perlcat. A row of asterisks means "And then the other person said." MUCH easier, in fact, than simply responding to another person's post, without quoting their words.
tl;dr
tl;dr
* * * *
Translation: Same Stuff, different post :)
So she is a sociopath if you are a conservative...yes that sounds exactly right.
Oh.... so... she is a liberal.
Got it in one :)
All I ask of my law makers or someone asking for something from me is to be held to the same standards I am. I can't smoke weed or crack at work or after work. I was even tested just to get the job. Why? If I get hurt at work or do anything at work that might give them probable cause I have to go pee in a bottle. So why can't we ask the same from people who want our money? I would add one thing. They get one second chance. (I do not get that where I work. Positive results on a urine test = unemployment) If you test positive you get counseling and a chance to clean up. After that too bad get a job.
I have to do it but I'm a functional human being. I'm not sure I want these unemployable pieces of shit that can't pass going around killing old ladies for their checks or money.then again it's Florida and a lot of those old bities are packing heat so it might make for some funny news stories Oh yea they don't print stories where guns save people
I have to do it but I’m a functional human being. I’m not sure I want these unemployable pieces of sh*t that can’t pass going around killing old ladies for their checks or money.
************************
Where did you get the notion that everyone who's ever received welfare is an "unemployable piece of sh*t that can't pass going around killing old ladies for their checks or money"?
*************************
then again it’s Florida and a lot of those old bities are packing heat so it might make for some funny news stories Oh yea they don’t print stories where guns save people
************************
Actually, they do. We just had a story of that nature here in my area, and it was all over the local papers. But you don't see many of them, because they're comparatively rare. On the other hand, there are many stories about guns KILLING (or injuring) innocent people----so many that our profit driven media tends to gloss over (or ignore) all but the most lurid.
Typical left-wing revisionism. That’s why in 2006, Bush had approval ratings of 31%. Close your eyes and yell “I’m right!! I’m right!!” and clump all republicans in one group and be a bigot. You’ll never be right, unfortunately. You can scream and holler all day and say social safety nets are working and they don’t need reform.
******************
David, I'm neither yelling, screaming nor hollering. I've heard all that propaganda many, many times before. If it didn't cause me to fly into a rage then, it certainly isn't going to now. ;)
******************
You can buy into your parties love of addling people in poverty, and using them as a backbone for being propelled into office.
******************
Now, that's just stupid talk, David. You know very well that I have no interest in seeing people mired in poverty, nor do Democrats in general. But, so far, I haven't seen anything from the GOP to suggest that they're very motivated to get people working and self-supporting. So far, their main goals----other than discrediting Obama at every opportunity----seem to be giving big tax breaks to wealthy investors, and eliminating safety nets for the nation's poorest and most vulnerable. How is that likely to get us all back on the road to prosperity?
************************
Atleast the republican party tells the truth to the people, instead of letting them believe they can have unicorns and fairies and golden roads and the rich will always only be the ones to pay for it.
************************
David, if you honestly believe that that's what Democrats are telling people, then you're not only gullible----you're profoundly foolish. Let's get honest, shall we? You know perfectly well that the biggest fairy tale of the moment is the notion that rich investors and corporate executives will magically conjure up millions of jobs, if only the government will give them lots and lots of tax breaks. Then there's the fairy tale that poor people will lose their initiative and productivity if they get money handed to them, but rich people won't. Or the one about poor people losing their initiative if they get GOVERNMENT money, but not if they get CHARITY money.
Which brings us to your own fairy tale-----the idea that you, who are so dead certain that giving unearned money to the poor is bad for them, would voluntarily hand over $4000 (allegedly about 15% of your own annual income) to a homeless shelter. I do wish you'd stick with one stance or the other. :D
It is not a fairy tale, but an experiencial fact that when sufficient money is provided to survive, most will not work to change their status. Please, show us YOUR facts that welfare (after soooo many years) has worked? What are the percentages, how long does it take people to change their status, despite opportunities offered for education, nutrition, housing, medical care, psychological support, child care and time? The bottom line is that unending sustanence does not encourage one to improve one's position in life. Have I known welfare "queens" who took that money and assistance, and care for their children, worked their asses off to improve their lot and that of their children? Sure. You betcha (and don't go there-I was saying that before anyone ever heard of Palin). Have I also seen literally hundreds that line up to collect their welfare check, use it for drugs, sell their food stamps for cash and use that for booze, or a fancy phone, or whatever, and the food they buy is Cheetos and Big Red at the local ice house? Absolutely. Have I heard welfare moms commenting on having additional children to stay on the roles, or to enhance their "take?" Oh yeah. Don't live in a dream world Olivia. In your world everyone is hard working, law abiding, cares for their children and their elders. But you know what? Its not a perfect world. There are sleaze buckets and whores and lazy ass bums everywhere. Most of my life I worked and went to school, or worked 2 jobs after I got out of school. I supported my family as best I could, as well as 2 other family members who needed help. Then I hear someone at the welfare office saying they can't get a job because they don't have a car? Puhleeze. I have done rides, busses, even hitchhiking and WALKING to work (and in Texas, that's not a block and a half.) I have worked sick, missed my own medical care to be sure I had the money my kids needed for all THEY needed. So quit pontificating on how all of us "hate" the poor and underserved. We don't. And we DO care if our very hard earned dollars are going for ANY program that doesn't work. I'm not wild about the FDA either-for their money, they have done a shitty job in approving and regulating drugs in this country. I don't like free cell phones for welfare recipients, I don't like it when the local groups providing gifts for the poor at Christmas have people take their gifts, then go home to a tree full of stuff for their kids-they didn't NEED that handout, they were just greedy and took it. You always ask for fact from everyone else, you accuse us of getting our information from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the like. You read everything with an eye to start an arguement-no wonder our governement cannot get anything done. They are ALL behaving like children, just like you do. Since you are an RN, I assume you are at least in your 20's but your arguements can be heard nearly word for word from every snotty high schooler and pseudosophisticated college student in the country. Most people grow out of it. And please don't say no one can refute you. EVERY ONE has refuted you, provided opinion, facts, references, and you claim they are simply falling back on insult. Look in the mirror honey. You will see the reflection of yor accusations. Ok Rant done. I'm going to have some tea.
It is not a fairy tale, but an experiencial fact that when sufficient money is provided to survive, most will not work to change their status.
*****************
And you can back up this "experiential fact" with statistics or logic? Because, if that's true, then why are we giving tax breaks to wealthy investors? Why not just tell them to get a job, if they want more money?
If this is true, then why do we bother with social security and Medicare? Why not just tell the nation's seniors to get off their behinds and find jobs? (Don't bother arguing "But it's their money." Most seniors go through whatever they paid into social security within a very few years of retirement.)
If this is true, why give out disability benefits? Why not just give pep talks to the disabled, and pat ourselves on the back for giving them this opportunity to rise above physical or mental or cognitive disorders without any help?
If this is true, then why is it that a social democracy like France, with far more extensive safety nets than we have here in the U.S., boasts a much lower percentage of children being born into poverty?
I'll tell you what I see, when I see a bunch of right wingers griping 24/7 about welfare recipients: I see a group of lazy minds. It's a lot easier to cling to stereotypes than it is to take an honest look at the problem of poverty, and to figure out why even hardworking people have such a hard time breaking out of that cycle. To do that, you have to identify causative factors, and some of those causative factors might be things that you don't want to look at (for example, unaffordable health care, ruinous interest rates on loans and impossibly high late fees on rent and utility payments). But that's a lot of work, and, besides, it might mean stepping on the toes of wealthy and powerful individuals, corporations and lobbyists. Much easier and more comfortable just to accuse all poor people of being lazy and stupid. They don't have any lobby.
*****************
Please, show us YOUR facts that welfare (after soooo many years) has worked? What are the percentages, how long does it take people to change their status, despite opportunities offered for education, nutrition, housing, medical care, psychological support, child care and time?
*****************
YOU'RE the one asserting that welfare---or, more accurately, TANF---- doesn't work, Deb. Therefore, it's incumbent on YOU, not me, to back up your assertion with facts or logic. And that means something a little more compelling than "Hey, I know some welfare queens" (and arguing that you've heard them boast about having more kids to collect more money, even though welfare reform put a stop to that option almost 16 years ago).
*************************
In your world everyone is hard working, law abiding, cares for their children and their elders. But you know what? Its not a perfect world. There are sleaze buckets and whores and lazy ass bums everywhere. ***************************
Deb, do you think I never see lazy or dirty or shiftless people coming to the ER for treatment? I see them all the time. (If it weren't for HIPAA laws, I could tell you some recent stories about....but I digress.) But that's not a good reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, unless you have SOLID evidence that few or no people benefit from receiving financial assistance. And I mean ALL financial assistance, not just the right wing's favorite program to b*tch about. If you're truly convinced that receiving TANF makes people lazy and shiftless, then it doesn't make sense to think that receiving charity help or social security or corporate welfare doesn't do the same thing.
**************************
Most of my life I worked and went to school, or worked 2 jobs after I got out of school. I supported my family as best I could, as well as 2 other family members who needed help. Then I hear someone at the welfare office saying they can’t get a job because they don’t have a car? Puhleeze. I have done rides, busses, even hitchhiking and WALKING to work (and in Texas, that’s not a block and a half.)
*******************
Hitchhiking is illegal, Deb. It was more socially acceptable forty years ago----as a college student, I did it too-----but let's not pretend that it's a smart thing to suggest to anyone today. Public transportation is a good alternative for those who can't afford a car----but I don't see a lot of right wingers clamoring for better public transportation these days, either.
********************
I have worked sick, missed my own medical care to be sure I had the money my kids needed for all THEY needed.
********************
No doubt. Has there ever been a right winger who didn't claim to have worked like a demon all his life, overcoming countless obstacles singlehandedly, and assuming that THEIR life story was proof positive that ANY American can achieve prosperity under ANY circumstances? Yet the U.S. still has an unacceptably high percentage of people living in poverty (many of them working, as you say you did, and doing without medical care), and many more struggling to avoid falling INTO poverty.
Why is that, Deb? Are you suggesting that Americans are inherently lazier or less intelligent or less resourceful than people of other nations? Or might it possibly be that poverty is self-perpetuating-----that once you fall into such a situation, it's almost impossible to climb out again without help?
********************
So quit pontificating on how all of us “hate” the poor and underserved.
*********************
I didn't use the word "hate" in reference to your attitude toward the poor, Deb, so it's rather dishonest for you to suggest I did, by putting it in quotes.
********************
We don’t. And we DO care if our very hard earned dollars are going for ANY program that doesn’t work. I’m not wild about the FDA either-for their money, they have done a shitty job in approving and regulating drugs in this country.
********************
As evidenced by......?
********************
I don’t like free cell phones for welfare recipients
********************
......because.......?
********************
I don’t like it when the local groups providing gifts for the poor at Christmas have people take their gifts, then go home to a tree full of stuff for their kids-they didn’t NEED that handout, they were just greedy and took it.
******************
Well, that isn't really your business, since you don't have to support such programs if you disapprove of them. But I'd be interested in hearing what qualifies you state with such confidence that those families don't really need those gifts. Did you go around to their houses and peer into their windows on Christmas morning? Did you examine their bank statements? Or are you merely generalizing, based on one or two anecdotes you heard about people taking gifts that didn't really need them?
******************
You always ask for fact from everyone else, you accuse us of getting our information from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the like.
******************
I do that whenever I see someone repeating a Beckish or Limbaughesque talking point, complete with buzzwords and stereotypes. Both those guys tend to be long on stereotypes and pejoratives, and short on logic. It's entertaining to take a transcript of one of their rants, and identify all the propaganda techniques used in them.
*********************
You read everything with an eye to start an arguement-no wonder our governement cannot get anything done. They are ALL behaving like children, just like you do. Since you are an RN, I assume you are at least in your 20′s but your arguements can be heard nearly word for word from every snotty high schooler and pseudosophisticated college student in the country. Most people grow out of it.
**********************
Actually, that's not true at all-----there are many intelligent adults who believe as I do. But you're probably unaware of that, if you limit your political discussions to websites that cater to the far right.
**********************
And please don’t say no one can refute you.
**********************
I don't. But I'm not dumb, and when I see another poster (I'm not referring to you here) flinging childish insults at me, or calling me juvenile names, I grasp immediately that s/he's incapable of debating the issue.
**********************
EVERY ONE has refuted you, provided opinion, facts, references, and you claim they are simply falling back on insult.
**********************
Expressing an opposing opinion isn't the same as "refuting" a point, Deb. Refuting means knocking down someone's argument, either through facts, logic or both.
**********************
Look in the mirror honey. You will see the reflection of yor accusations. Ok Rant done. I’m going to have some tea.
**********************
I'm not your "honey," Deb. But I hope your cup of tea relaxed you a bit. Sounds to me as if you're taking my posts far too personally.
Okay, I get it now. You’re not in favor of these drug tests because you think they’ll save the state any money, or because it might increase productivity in the long run. You’re in favor of it because you’ve been taught to despise welfare recipients, and are anxious to punish them in any way possible.
I admit it: it does grab my attention when I see angry right wingers cheering at the idea of a state spending millions it doesn’t have, just to punish a particularly unpopular group of benefit recipients.
I agree that Rush Limbaugh is looking pretty bad these days, and (as far as I know) has never actually received treatment for his admitted opiate addiction
Or were you, like Pittsburgh, just trying to come up with creative new ways to punish people for not being able to make it without some assistance?
You “feel.” It’s very telling that you used the word “feel” instead of “know.” And where did you get that euphemism, “situationally financially challenged”? No one here was using such a term. Sounds to me as if you made it up, in an effort to trivialize the plight of the poor. How about if we just stick to plain English?
But, so far, I haven’t seen anything from the GOP to suggest that they’re very motivated to get people working and self-supporting.
David, if you honestly believe that that’s what Democrats are telling people, then you’re not only gullible—-you’re profoundly foolish.
Those are just a few of your responses. Challenging people's beliefs, saying they can't say how they feel (though in another post you accused others of interpreting YOUR feelings. Repeated references to "left wingers" (which many on this site are not) who want to punish ALL welfare recipients. I rest my case. You are tangled in your own web of deceit. I am sure you will pick and choose words and lines out of context to make yourself look better, but we've got your number. Administrator, I think you have the right idea. Just trash the emails and go on being normal. One cannot discuss or even argue with someone so convinced of their own status.
Those are just a few of your responses. Challenging people’s beliefs, saying they can’t say how they feel (though in another post you accused others of interpreting YOUR feelings.
*******************
There's nothing inconsistent about that, Deb. Feelings are a notoriously unreliable substitute for facts and logic, since they can be swayed very easily by propaganda and selective reading (and listening). When people say they "feel" a particular way about Muslims, for example, it's been my experience that that feeling is based on stereotypes, not accurate information or logic. And you'll notice that most of the more corrupt governments throughout recorded history have depended heavily in instilling emotional reactions (rather than honest information) in their followers. That's why I'm not big on people expressing their emotions during a political discussion.
************************
Repeated references to “left wingers” (which many on this site are not)
************************
Well, first of all, I'm the "left winger" here. I refer to most others here as "right wingers," because they usually embrace far right wing principles. I don't tend to use the term "conservative," because many on today's right don't have much in common with classic conservatives. In any case, I think we can agree that almost everyone here is to the right of me on almost every issue we've discussed here, can't we?
************************
who want to punish ALL welfare recipients.
************************
Some do, Deb. I've read any number of arguments based on, "Well, I had to take one to get my job, so how come they don't have to take one to get taxpayers' money?" In essence, the argument is "No fair! If I have to stay after school for talking, THEY should have to, too!"
Then there are those who argue that welfare recipients with a "dirty" urine should be summarily dropped from the welfare roles, with no thought to the rest of the family, who don't use drugs, and who are depending on that money to make ends meet each month. Again, that's a punitive attitude, not a problem-solving one.
************************
I rest my case. You are tangled in your own web of deceit.
************************
No, no deceit here. Can you honestly state that NO ONE here has presented the above arguments?
************************
I am sure you will pick and choose words and lines out of context to make yourself look better, but we’ve got your number. Administrator, I think you have the right idea. Just trash the emails and go on being normal. One cannot discuss or even argue with someone so convinced of their own status.
************************
Deb, we're ALL convinced of the rightness of our own viewpoints here. If we weren't, why, then, we'd be rather foolish to defend them so vigorously, wouldn't we?
You seem to be taking my arguments personally. I'm not here to attack people, although I've been called plenty of nasty names, and accused of plenty of nefarious deeds here, myself. I'm here to defend and challenge viewpoints. But, hey, if you prefer to ignore my comments, feel free. It's easy enough to do, given that they get voted down and "hidden" pretty quickly after they're posted here.
Honestly, I joined the army. Hilariously enough, the best rag to riches tool that requires zero previous experience and can be used as a tool to go from poverty to being a college-educated contributor to society is also something that is constitutionally mandated. If people are on welfare, throw them into the army, navy, air force, or coast guard. BAM!
**********************
Sorry, but we don't have a draft any more, David. And we're not likely to get one, as long as war hawks in Congress have (to quote Dick Cheney) "other priorities" for their own kids than sending them off to war.
You're also doing the same thing you did in your other post: assuming that everyone on welfare is just like yourself----young, single, childless and in good physical shape. What about those who (through no fault of their own) can't pass the physical? And what about welfare recipients with children? Are you proposing that their kids put into foster care throughout their military service? That would kind of defeat the whole purpose of saving the state money, don't you think?
Personally, I liked the idea of the now-defunct Welfare to Work program. I also like the idea of the Army prep school, that gives qualified high school dropouts the chance to earn a GED and acquire some discipline at the same time. But, before we start demanding that ALL welfare recipients enter any sort of job program, we need to make sure that they can manage whatever obstacles are currently keeping them from being able to support themselves. And that means IDENTIFYING those obstacles, rather than just assuming it's all (and only) about laziness.
Sorry, but we don’t have a draft any more, David. And we’re not likely to get one, as long as war hawks in Congress have (to quote Dick Cheney) “other priorities” for their own kids than sending them off to war.
************************************************************
You assume modern day republicans are war hawks. Yet Conservatives are the ones who spoke out against Bush during his terms (along with econo-isolationists, isolationists, liberals, anti-war hippies, and others), and are yet speaking against Obama's actions against Libya. It isn't a partisan issue. There are plenty of democrats and republicans alike who simply hung onto the coattails of some success then ditch them as those same principals dive directly into fire. Let's assume for the benefit of us both that neither those truly "liberal" nor those truly "conservative" believe in war for the sake of war, though there be plenty in the middle that see the benefit.
***********************************************************
You’re also doing the same thing you did in your other post: assuming that everyone on welfare is just like yourself—-young, single, childless and in good physical shape. What about those who (through no fault of their own) can’t pass the physical? And what about welfare recipients with children? Are you proposing that their kids put into foster care throughout their military service? That would kind of defeat the whole purpose of saving the state money, don’t you think?
***********************************************************
You do not need to be in shape to join the army. They have fat camps dedicated to shedding pounds before you actually ever even end up in Basic. One of the soldiers that arrived to my unit was 340 lbs before he applied to be a part of the army. There is a physical at the military entrance processing station (MEPS) but there is a simple waiver that is an auto-sign off for the most part allowing these people through. You also do not need to be young. I believe at the current time that the maximum age is 34, with waivers out to 38 to join. You bring up welfare recipients with children. Well, you may gain some points on this, because the Army does not have a "childcare" plan for you while you are going through basic / additional training. However, I would love for you to cite a left statistic of the amount of people trying to go into the army with kids who have no alive family members. I know plenty of divorced dads who went through basic while their kid(s) were in the custody of their parents or siblings, just to receive them on the other side and succeed in the army.
***********************************************************
Personally, I liked the idea of the now-defunct Welfare to Work program. I also like the idea of the Army prep school, that gives qualified high school dropouts the chance to earn a GED and acquire some discipline at the same time. But, before we start demanding that ALL welfare recipients enter any sort of job program, we need to make sure that they can manage whatever obstacles are currently keeping them from being able to support themselves. And that means IDENTIFYING those obstacles, rather than just assuming it’s all (and only) about laziness.
***********************************************************
I would like to take your ideas and go on a separate tangent. You brought up the draft earlier, and how we don't have it. I believe we do not have a draft because 1) It is a gross allocation of government power to attempt to draft people into fighting wars 2) It is unconstitutional 3) We performed so well in WW1 and WW2 because of our voluntary force.
If you are sitting there reading my above statements and agreeing with me, then you may begin to see where I am going with this. If people are free to not be brought into a system of defending their government, then they should be free of that system on the reverse. I agree, there is always going to be that white, unwed mother who has been raped 7 times and due to her beliefs has 31 children because she doesn't believe in abortion and naturally has quadruplets. (that is not an actual case, but an exaggeration meant to cover a lot of situations that fall between the cracks of offered social programs) I feel though, that the majority of funds allocated to "the situationaly financially challenged" are misappropriated. Instead of covering the majority in this group, we should be covering the fringe members of it, as there are programs in place already to help those belonging to the status quo of poverty stricken people.
Sorry, but we don’t have a draft any more, David. And we’re not likely to get one, as long as war hawks in Congress have (to quote Dick Cheney) “other priorities” for their own kids than sending them off to war.
************************************************************
You assume modern day republicans are war hawks. Yet Conservatives are the ones who spoke out against Bush during his terms (along with econo-isolationists, isolationists, liberals, anti-war hippies, and others),
*************************
Revisionist history, David. There was precious little criticism of Bush among the right wing back then. They were too busy accusing us liberals of "hating America" when WE criticized him. I wish I had a nickel for every time I pointed out that Bush isn't America, and that opposing his actions isn't the same thing as being an enemy of the country.
It was only after the economy crashed, and McCain was soundly defeated, that that the right wing decided to reinvent itself, claiming that they never really, actually, wholly, completely 100% supported Bush's policies, even though they forgot to mention it at the time. ;)
*****************************
and are yet speaking against Obama’s actions against Libya.
*****************************
Come on, David. If it had been Bush who took action against Libya, you KNOW they would have been cheering and waving flags. Certainly the right showed little opposition to McCain's campaign pledge to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." The right became opposed to war only after Obama took the driver's seat.
*****************************
It isn’t a partisan issue. There are plenty of democrats and republicans alike who simply hung onto the coattails of some success then ditch them as those same principals dive directly into fire. Let’s assume for the benefit of us both that neither those truly “liberal” nor those truly “conservative” believe in war for the sake of war, though there be plenty in the middle that see the benefit.
********************************
In the case of the Iraq war, David, it wasn't "war for the sake of war." It was "war for the sake of greed," disguised as "war for a principle." Bush, Cheney & Co. sold it to the public as a short military action that would be paid for with Iraq's oil----and the right wing (yes, I mean the very same people who are now claiming that they're not Republicans) roared its approval. Don't give me a lot of BS about the far right opposing the war then. It didn't happen.
***********************************************************
You’re also doing the same thing you did in your other post: assuming that everyone on welfare is just like yourself—-young, single, childless and in good physical shape. What about those who (through no fault of their own) can’t pass the physical? And what about welfare recipients with children? Are you proposing that their kids put into foster care throughout their military service? That would kind of defeat the whole purpose of saving the state money, don’t you think?
***********************************************************
You do not need to be in shape to join the army. They have fat camps dedicated to shedding pounds before you actually ever even end up in Basic.
*********************
I'm not just talking about people who are overweight, David. I'm talking about people with developmental and medical and cognitive disorders. You do realize, don't you, that inadequate medical attention to small problems often means that those small problems turn into big and complicated ones?
*********************
One of the soldiers that arrived to my unit was 340 lbs before he applied to be a part of the army. There is a physical at the military entrance processing station (MEPS) but there is a simple waiver that is an auto-sign off for the most part allowing these people through. You also do not need to be young. I believe at the current time that the maximum age is 34, with waivers out to 38 to join. You bring up welfare recipients with children. Well, you may gain some points on this, because the Army does not have a “childcare” plan for you while you are going through basic / additional training. However, I would love for you to cite a left statistic of the amount of people trying to go into the army with kids who have no alive family members. I know plenty of divorced dads who went through basic while their kid(s) were in the custody of their parents or siblings, just to receive them on the other side and succeed in the army.
***************************
Come on, David. That's asking a lot of any parent, to hand over custody of their kids to a "living relative," whether or not that relative is willing or able to take on the task of raising someone else's child.
Sure, if the child is comfortable going to live with Grandma for a while (maybe a long while, if the enlistee ends up going to Afghanistan), and Grandma wants and can afford to raise another child, that's great. But not everyone has such a relative. Not every willing relative would make a good surrogate parent. And not every child would thrive in such a situation.
You, yourself, claim to have been emancipated at age 16. If you couldn't even find a suitable relative to house you for a short time while you finished high school, then why are you assuming that all (or most) welfare recipients have such an option for THEIR kids?
***********************************************************
Personally, I liked the idea of the now-defunct Welfare to Work program. I also like the idea of the Army prep school, that gives qualified high school dropouts the chance to earn a GED and acquire some discipline at the same time. But, before we start demanding that ALL welfare recipients enter any sort of job program, we need to make sure that they can manage whatever obstacles are currently keeping them from being able to support themselves. And that means IDENTIFYING those obstacles, rather than just assuming it’s all (and only) about laziness.
***********************************************************
I would like to take your ideas and go on a separate tangent. You brought up the draft earlier, and how we don’t have it. I believe we do not have a draft because 1) It is a gross allocation of government power to attempt to draft people into fighting wars 2) It is unconstitutional 3) We performed so well in WW1 and WW2 because of our voluntary force.
If you are sitting there reading my above statements and agreeing with me, then you may begin to see where I am going with this. If people are free to not be brought into a system of defending their government, then they should be free of that system on the reverse.
*********************
Doesn't work that way, David. You've benefited from government programs all your life----the highways you drive on, the paycheck and benefits you received in the military, the schools you went to (including any community or state colleges or universities), the agencies that regulated the water you drink, the food you eat, the cars you drive, the and the medical care you receive. It's both childish and irresponsible for you to balk at giving back to the very system that protected you throughout your life.
****************************
I agree, there is always going to be that white, unwed mother who has been raped 7 times and due to her beliefs has 31 children because she doesn’t believe in abortion and naturally has quadruplets. (that is not an actual case, but an exaggeration meant to cover a lot of situations that fall between the cracks of offered social programs)
************************
Interesting that you used the term "white" as if white "welfare" recipients were a rarity. Were you unaware that 31.2% of TANF funds are given to white Americans, David? (As opposed to 34.2% going to black Americans)? Were you also aware that 25.8% of black Americans fall below the poverty line, but only 9.4% of white Americans? Therefore, it would seem that white Americans are receiving proportionately more TANF assistance than black Americans, even though black Americans, on the average, are poorer. http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/#2
(And right wingers wonder why they can never quite shake that reputation for harboring racial prejudices.......)
************************
I feel though, that the majority of funds allocated to “the situationaly financially challenged” are misappropriated.
*************************
You "feel." It's very telling that you used the word "feel" instead of "know." And where did you get that euphemism, "situationally financially challenged"? No one here was using such a term. Sounds to me as if you made it up, in an effort to trivialize the plight of the poor. How about if we just stick to plain English?
************************
Instead of covering the majority in this group, we should be covering the fringe members of it, as there are programs in place already to help those belonging to the status quo of poverty stricken people.
**********************
And the source (and statistics) you used to arrive at that conclusion would be......?
Typical left-wing revisionism. That's why in 2006, Bush had approval ratings of 31%. Close your eyes and yell "I'm right!! I'm right!!" and clump all republicans in one group and be a bigot. You'll never be right, unfortunately. You can scream and holler all day and say social safety nets are working and they don't need reform. You can buy into your parties love of addling people in poverty, and using them as a backbone for being propelled into office. Atleast the republican party tells the truth to the people, instead of letting them believe they can have unicorns and fairies and golden roads and the rich will always only be the ones to pay for it.
The next step should be denying welfare benefits to anyone who does not finish high school or obtain GED.
The next step should be denying welfare benefits to anyone who does not finish high school or obtain GED.
***********************
Oh, now, THAT makes a lot of sense-----throw in an extra obstacle, to make it even harder to go back for that GED.
Or were you, like Pittsburgh, just trying to come up with creative new ways to punish people for not being able to make it without some assistance?
Olivia, you are absolutely wrong on this one. There is no reason for anyone in this country not to graduate from high school. NONE! Pregnancy is not an obstacle, hunger isn't an obstacle, nothing is an obstacle except the student themselves.
Or, you might even try not getting pregnant while in school. What a novel concept.
Imagine that, I thought there was something wrong with me for not wanting to be a ho and experiment or end up with a child in high school. I feel so much better now that I made the right decision.
...which leads to my new drinking game. Watch 16 & Pregnant, or Teen Mom, and every time you hear the phrase "I didn't think", take a chug.
you'd kind of have to be drunk or on your way there to watch those shows, heh.
Yep, I sit there with my foam brick, my sucker dart gun and a bottle of jack, and it ain't so bad.
I was forced to emancipate myself from my mother when I was 16. I dropped out because I didn't want to be a ward of the state and therefore needed to work several jobs to be able to afford an apartment in the all-too-expensive state of California. There are plenty of folks who don't immediately graduate due to circumstances beyond their control.
That a very good point and I respect your views and usually give them a good amount of consideration (and a thumbs up). I'm just saying that there ARE ways around dropping out, not in every case perhaps, but in some. And it probably is a bit over dramatic to require a high school education to receive wellfare but it isn't overdramatic to ask that they do SOMETHING to further their education, or to in the least get a job, such as you did, instead of doing nothing and collecting money that the government doesnt really have to begin with.
Honestly, I joined the army. Hilariously enough, the best rag to riches tool that requires zero previous experience and can be used as a tool to go from poverty to being a college-educated contributor to society is also something that is constitutionally mandated. If people are on welfare, throw them into the army, navy, air force, or coast guard. BAM!
Do you really want to lower our armed forces overall quality that badly? Yes, there are many who benefit from service, and the service benefits from them, but lots of the people on welfare would just drag the armed forces down.
Honestly, RHG, almost everyone who joins the army (not a statistic, speaking from personal experience only, and only in my army profession, the infantry), hardly anyone is taking a "pay cut" to join. The army has plenty of ways to get rid of the people who join and don't wish to conform to army principles like respect, discipline, and diligence. There is a reason chapters and article 15's exist. We do very well at punishing the incomers who prefer to get DUI's and beat their wives then actually serving their country. If they learn, they advance; if they don't, they get seperated. And for the most part, most "patterns of misconduct" discharges get few, if any, VA benefits.
I chose NOT to join the Air Force Nurse Corps specifically because I WOULD have had to take a serious pay cut. I had 2 childen and was the main bread winner, so did not feel I could afford the cut, which was figured after looking at uniform allowance, housing allowance, shopping at the BX and Commissary. I would stilll be taking a several thousand dollar a month pay cut. That was for an officer's position. While many of our troops are on food stamps (no, we don't pay them enough to eat) the pay is generally still better than the minimum wage or part time jobs they had before, and they get training as well. And of course, the GI bill allows them to attend college, something many would never had had the opoportunity to do otherwise.
Olivia, you are absolutely wrong on this one. There is no reason for anyone in this country not to graduate from high school. NONE! Pregnancy is not an obstacle, hunger isn’t an obstacle, nothing is an obstacle except the student themselves.
***********************
That makes an attractive bumper sticker slogan, but it's not always true. Sure, a lot of kids ditch high school for dumb reasons (and live to regret it later on), but you're oversimplifying when you claim that no adolescent EVER encounters an obstacle that keeps him/her from graduating.
You can't solve a problem unless you first define it, which also means identifying all (or most) contributing factors. And you can't do that, if you're determined to believe that character flaws are the ONLY factors that cause people to fail.
I totally agree. Even if you are pregnant you can take some classes online, or even get involved in the homebound program. And most hungry people SHOULD be in school anyway since school is probably the only Place where they can get cheap, and sometimes free, food.
Hey, you all know how flighty and touchy Mz. O the Ogress Troll is, since you already know what's going to come dribbling out of her PC/MAC just thumbs down her and do not answer her posts! This way we don't have to listen to her crap, since she is obviously using this particular web-site as her personal soapbox, and we'll know the gist of what she posts according to the responses those of you who don't take my advice will be posting. This way we're not preventing her her !st amendment right to be a pain in everyone's ass and we don't have to read through her drivel. I think it a win win for everyone, including Ol' Snagglepuss the Ogre Princess!
The 1st amendment gives her the right to make her own web page and speak her mind there with out government interference. She ,like the rest of us, are here as guest of the owners of this page. At the point any one of us wear out out welcome for any reason, the page owners have every right to ban us.
Put a different way, the first amendment guarantees your right to say what you want in your living room. When you are in my living room you are a guest. If you keep saying things I don't like you may be asked to leave. If so your rights have not been trampled.
The 1st amendment gives her the right to make her own web page and speak her mind there with out government interference. She ,like the rest of us, are here as guest of the owners of this page. At the point any one of us wear out out welcome for any reason, the page owners have every right to ban us.
Put a different way, the first amendment guarantees your right to say what you want in your living room. When you are in my living room you are a guest. If you keep saying things I don’t like you may be asked to leave. If so your rights have not been trampled.
*******************
I agree with you, Guy: since this is a privately managed forum, those who run it would be within their rights to run me off. But I have to say, it's rather odd to think of a political forum running people off just for presenting an opposing or unpopular viewpoint. Seems to me that a political ideology that isn't worth the trouble of defending is also not worth the trouble of holding.
But that's just my opinion. Others might feel differently about it.
PS - The DOLLAR COST REQUIRED TO TEST CONGRESS SHALL BE TAKEN OUT OF THEIR SALARIES - AND WHEN FOUND DRUNK (OFTEN) AND ON DRUGS - UPPERS IN ALL LIKELIHOOD - TIME FOR SOME COUNSELING, GROUNDING, AND OTHER JUDICIAL MEMBERS, AND SOME HOURS OF CLASSES AND LECTURES FROM THE LIB EXPERTS IN PSYCHOLOGY !
DO IT NOW !