|
Post by rawlinsonend on Feb 7, 2017 12:18:10 GMT
109,631,000 folks on some sort of government assistance that does not include veterans benefits. That's over 35% cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/354-percent-109631000-welfareThere are roughly 22 million Americans taking illicit drugs. thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/08/study-22-million-americans-use-illegal-drugs-3/I don't care if folks use drugs in their own home, with their own money, as long as they don't drive, I don't see much difference tween that and drinkin, and they aint botherin me. But when they spend my tax money buyin drugs, that does bother me. Drug test em, and forget their excuses. If they fail, they dont get a dime. They made bad choices, and that's on them, it aint my job to clean them up, it aint the governments either. If liberals want to pay for them, let them start up a go fund me account, yall can do what you want with your money, but I don't want a dime of mine goin to buy drugs for junkies. Can you find anyone that supports the idea of purchasing of illegal drugs with tax money? Why on earth would you think liberals would support such a thing? Whilst were at it, do you have evidence that welfare money is used by a proportion (or all) of those illegal drug users to purchase drugs? Not to mention the fact that drug addiction is an illness, just like alcoholism or smoking related cancer. The idea of people getting ill and then just cutting them off is horrifying. The idea that people simply "made bad choices" is abhorrent and has no place in a civilised society. People get sick, you treat them. What leads people to a drug like heroin isn't simply making bad choices. It has deeper roots. And drugs take hold because they're usually looking for some kind of peace from a horrible life and then those drugs drag them further down. They don't stop being human. They don't stop being in need of help. That's just basic human compassion. Maybe if there wasn't such a disgusting attitude in society of dismissing addicts as "junkies" and deeming them unworthy of help then more people could get into rehab and get treated and find the help they need to turn their lives around. Addictions of all kinds come from both environmental and genetic factors.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Feb 7, 2017 15:32:11 GMT
We truly are in uncharted waters here. It isn't just that we have a President, a White House and a administration that lies with impunity, it's also that they lie so poorly. But David Gergen, a political analyst and former adviser to four US presidents, condemned Trump’s remarks.
“I think this is one of the most outrageous claims the president has made, among many, because it really says, basically, that the press is not doing its job because it has its own political agenda,” he told CNN. “It doesn’t want you to know the truth about how dangerous terrorism is. It doesn’t want to be out there, it’s just pulling a leftist agenda on you, which is clearly not true.”
Gergen added: “He engages in these falsehoods without producing any serious evidence. The list includes San Bernardino, as if the press didn’t cover that sufficiently. It’s just astonishing and it’s beneath the dignity of the presidency and I think it tears at the fabric of what holds us together as a people when we can’t trust each other, we can’t trust the White House, and he’s telling us we can’t trust the press. This is the way democracies come unravelled.”
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 7, 2017 17:11:10 GMT
Can you find anyone that supports the idea of purchasing of illegal drugs with tax money? Why on earth would you think liberals would support such a thing? Whilst were at it, do you have evidence that welfare money is used by a proportion (or all) of those illegal drug users to purchase drugs? Not to mention the fact that drug addiction is an illness, just like alcoholism or smoking related cancer. The idea of people getting ill and then just cutting them off is horrifying. The idea that people simply "made bad choices" is abhorrent and has no place in a civilised society. People get sick, you treat them. What leads people to a drug like heroin isn't simply making bad choices. It has deeper roots. And drugs take hold because they're usually looking for some kind of peace from a horrible life and then those drugs drag them further down. They don't stop being human. They don't stop being in need of help. That's just basic human compassion. Maybe if there wasn't such a disgusting attitude in society of dismissing addicts as "junkies" and deeming them unworthy of help then more people could get into rehab and get treated and find the help they need to turn their lives around. Addictions of all kinds come from both environmental and genetic factors. The illness argument just don't fly with me. Try telling a jury, "i was flyin high on meth when I killed those 3 people." and see how that works out. I didn't put a needle in their arm, and while some folks do get hooked on prescription drugs, they have the option of getting help. Problem ive seen in my experience in dealing with drug users, is that they don't want help, they want to get high. And it is bad choices, people choose to smoke pot, the high gets weaker over time, they choose to go to something with a better high. They chose to start. Their bad decision, and it's not my job to pay for their bad choices. I'm all for payin for their treatment, to get em clean, but not willing to give them one dime until they get clean. If they have kids, then we have children's services, and the argument about the kids is simple. I didn't make their parents use drugs, they chose that themselves and put their own kids into the system. Until folks start taking responsibility for their own actions, and blame everything and everyone but themselves, I don't have any sympathy for them. One last thing, any mother, who gives birth to a child hooked on drugs, deserves to lose her child, permanently, and I mean all her children. Ive seen those babies born on crack, and on meth, and those mothers deserve a lot more than just losing their children.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 7, 2017 17:37:57 GMT
jasonward , icecreamdf stated that he didn't think anyone wanted to be on welfare. I believe many folks want to be on welfare. Now if he would have said, nobody wants to be on disability, again, I would point out, I personally know at least 1 person who intentionally smoked pack after pack of cigarettes hoping to be diagnosed with COPD, so she could draw disability. Why work, when the government will take care of you, that's their mentality. Jason, to answer your question, here's a reason. www.inquisitr.com/2015388/woman-on-welfare-wants-taxpayers-to-pay-for-15000-wedding-being-a-bride-is-a-basic-human-right/Nothing to do with drugs, just stupidity, and you and I both know, she will have supporters, who agree with her. I don't think all liberals are ok with people spending their government benefits to buy drugs, but I do question why anyone would think that just a few(less than 5 percent), are actually doing that. Here's a link, but I can fill up a page with stories of the same type. www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ig-welfare-recipients-traded-food-stamps-cash-buy-drugs-and-gunsWhat I want to know is simple. Are you or anyone on here in favor of drug testing welfare recipients, and I don't mean those on unemployment, social security, and disability. I mean just those on actual welfare, that are young enough to hold a job. And by welfare, I mean, food stamps, and cash for doing nothing other than having children(that's blunt, but that's it), and folks living in public housing.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 7, 2017 18:39:52 GMT
Reason for what? That doesn't answer any question I asked.
|
|
|
Post by icecreamdf on Feb 7, 2017 18:42:34 GMT
What I want to know is simple. Are you or anyone on here in favor of drug testing welfare recipients, and I don't mean those on unemployment, social security, and disability. I mean just those on actual welfare, that are young enough to hold a job. And by welfare, I mean, food stamps, and cash for doing nothing other than having children(that's blunt, but that's it), and folks living in public housing. Absolutely not. Drug addicts still need to eat and provide for their kids.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 7, 2017 20:42:24 GMT
What I want to know is simple. Are you or anyone on here in favor of drug testing welfare recipients, and I don't mean those on unemployment, social security, and disability. I mean just those on actual welfare, that are young enough to hold a job. And by welfare, I mean, food stamps, and cash for doing nothing other than having children(that's blunt, but that's it), and folks living in public housing. Absolutely not. Drug addicts still need to eat and provide for their kids. Why would you assume that addicts are providing for their kids, when everything we know about addicts says they aren't? www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/22/craigslist-makes-turning-food-stamps-into-cash-snap.htmlwww.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/18/feds-more-americans-selling-their-food-stamps-for-cash.htmlwww.cbs5az.com/story/23509709/food-stamp-recipients-selling-benefits-for-cashPerhaps these folks are just paying their rent with their cash, we know they aren't buying food with it.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 7, 2017 23:05:10 GMT
No, no, we don't know that, we know some don't, but unless a study has been made, no one knows what percentage that is. It could be the tip of the iceberg, it could be the lions share, but reports of people selling their food stamps does not mean that all drug users are on welfare and that they sell all their stamps for cash to get drugs, any more than one terrorist means that everyone that shares their religion is also a terrorist.
|
|
|
Post by icecreamdf on Feb 8, 2017 0:40:55 GMT
No, no, we don't know that, we know some don't, but unless a study has been made, no one knows what percentage that is. It could be the tip of the iceberg, it could be the lions share, but reports of people selling their food stamps does not mean that all drug users are on welfare and that they sell all their stamps for cash to get drugs, any more than one terrorist means that everyone that shares their religion is also a terrorist. Exactly. That's just anecdotal evidence. If you have enough people on welfare, some people are going to abuse it. The question is, do a statistically significant number of people abuse it. Also, the only reference to drugs was in one of the Fox News articles (which you have to remember have a conservative bias), and even that just said "Critics suspect sellers either don't need them any more because they have found work, or simply want to exchange them for cash so that they can buy drugs or other items that are not permitted under the rules of the program." They offer no evidence, so it is pure speculation. The CBS article quotes one of the people selling food stamps as saying "he knew what he was doing was illegal, but his mother needed the cash." Now, without more information, we don't know if his mother needed the cash for a life saving operation, or if she needed it to fund her drug habit. One of the buyers is auoted as saying "I know it's wrong. And I won't stop, because I have to feed my kids." It sounds to me like both the buyers and the sellers are desperate hear. Maybe the food stamp system needs to be improved, but cutting funding or providing drug tests won't help anyone.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Feb 8, 2017 1:28:58 GMT
No, no, we don't know that, we know some don't, but unless a study has been made, no one knows what percentage that is. It could be the tip of the iceberg, it could be the lions share, but reports of people selling their food stamps does not mean that all drug users are on welfare and that they sell all their stamps for cash to get drugs, any more than one terrorist means that everyone that shares their religion is also a terrorist. Don't have a link handy at the moment, but in fact, Florida did study this and found that the money they spent on drug testing recipients far outweighed the amount they supposedly saved - the percentage of recipients who tested positive for drugs was minimal. Even assuming that they were all addicts - a stupid assumption given that only 1/10 of alcohol consumers and 1/4 of heroin users are addicts - it didn't make a dent. All we see here is politicization of a military tactic: dehumanize the foe so that it becomes easier to wrong him. Don't want your taxes helping someone else? Say something that if believed makes that person or group morally blameworthy.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Feb 8, 2017 1:38:52 GMT
The illness argument just don't fly with me. Try telling a jury, "i was flyin high on meth when I killed those 3 people." and see how that works out. I think that's maybe the legal end of it rather than the medical end of it. Addiction shouldn't be an alibi, but it is a medical problem and I think it finds a lot of ways to get worse until it's classified and addressed as such. (Ironically, that very defense you mention was employed by the US military who "apologized" for numerous attacks on civilian wedding parties which repeatedly included children, by informing us they had the pilots on meth - "go pills" - to milk more hours of duty out of them, and the pilots responsible had ended up with blurred vision and impaired judgement. There's something I really didn't want to see tax money spent on. There will likely be addicts to come out of that process that Uncle Sam may have some personal responsibility for. One could even ask whether military actions abroad that result in drugs becoming more widely available at home don't earn a government some small responsibility for addicts). Until folks start taking responsibility for their own actions, and blame everything and everyone but themselves, I don't have any sympathy for them. Thank you for that one, I owe my sobriety to that particular understanding. I think I do have some sympathy for an addict that can't figure out that simple, empowering truth - that they are the only ones who can make them stop using. I think that often eludes people for being so simple - but sometimes it still isn't so simple. Just knowing that may not keep any dangerous or difficult drug withdrawal from being dangerous or difficult, or get cleaning up to just magically work on the first try. And it is bad choices, people choose to smoke pot, the high gets weaker over time, they choose to go to something with a better high. They chose to start. Their bad decision, and it's not my job to pay for their bad choices. You may not like my response to this one, but I think that could be an oversized kettle of fish in one paragraph. It includes whether the idea of "gateway" drugs is valid - and if it were, alcohol is probably at least as qualified as pot to help someone make a bad decision to try something harder. It may include how prohibition creates a black market and puts lighter substances like cannabis into the hands of crack and meth dealers and gives them the opportunity to make sales pitches at pot users, and encourages all kinds of outrageous contaminants to deliberately enter into substances of all kinds. It also includes the cost to society of NOT trying to accommodate addicts - I would personally rather someone's habit were subsidized with my taxes than find an addict breaking into my house and threatening my family. FWIW, I think the government probably has the buying power to get the pill for 25 cents that an addict would have paid fifty dollars for and be in a position to enlist physician supervision of patients, as opposed to someone having some serious infection go untreated because they're afraid the doctor will recognize the signs of their addiction. That can easily escalate the cost to society and that doesn't include costs resulting from contagion yet. God only know how much in medical costs can be saved with something as simple as a needle exchange program, but even now they can be hard to come by or even non-existent. Many people expressed the opinion that they were pointless because addicts won't choose to be safer, but successful programs have shown otherwise. (Many people expressed the opinion that it would somehow be promoting addiction, as if free syringes suddenly make you want someone to be your pimp). Maybe that really should inform us that addicts remain human beings and that we should strive to treat them that way. Not necessarily easy questions any of these, though. I believe many folks want to be on welfare. Now if he would have said, nobody wants to be on disability, again, I would point out, I personally know at least 1 person who intentionally smoked pack after pack of cigarettes hoping to be diagnosed with COPD, so she could draw disability. Why work, when the government will take care of you, that's their mentality. Somehow I question this. That almost sounds like something an addict might say - "I'm not hooked, I'm just scamming the government" - is this person not hooked yet? Does anyone actually think that life on disability is glamorous or desirable? I wonder if a person hasn't earned a pension one way or another when life on welfare looks like up to them. Case in point, deliberately trying to give yourself COPD? Good God! If someone genuinely has that mentality, there might actually be a mental health issue involved. Perhaps these folks are just paying their rent with their cash, we know they aren't buying food with it. Look, addicts categorically don't to complicate their lives by starving their kids, and if they aren't finding themselves food at some point, what are they still doing here? I think maybe the conservative media is just trying to get us all wound up again. Maybe if we sit down to the math, it actually turns out to be cost effective to try to be a little more humane, and some of these particularly offensive scenarios really are the exception rather than the rule? BTW, the opinion you expressed in a previous post - that Liberals want to pamper addicts in exchange for their votes. That especially sounds like contrived media scandal. Honestly, do you think either party could get addicts to put a high priority on filling out voter registration forms if it's that hard to believe they'd even put a priority on food? It's not easy, but if we can just keep media of any stripe from pushing our buttons...
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Feb 8, 2017 2:42:07 GMT
BTW, the opinion you expressed in a previous post - that Liberals want to pamper addicts in exchange for their votes. That especially sounds like contrived media scandal. Honestly, do you think either party could get addicts to put a high priority on filling out voter registration forms if it's that hard to believe they'd even put a priority on food? It's not easy, but if we can just keep media of any stripe from pushing our buttons... And thank you for that. The idea that liberals want to somehow coddle addicts for votes is absurd and the absolute worst kind of right wing media bs. And I would add that as a society we need more empathy and less retribution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 2:56:23 GMT
I can't believe people are debating whether or not to hit Nazis.
|
|
|
Post by Hieronymus on Feb 8, 2017 5:28:49 GMT
...and today Dolores Umbrage billionaire Betsy DeVos buys a seat on Trump's Cabinet.
On the plus side, Sen, Massey introduced a bill today to abolish the US Dept. of Education, which would eliminate her job.
|
|
|
Post by icecreamdf on Feb 8, 2017 5:41:59 GMT
I can't believe people are debating whether or not to hit Nazis. Well, on the one hand I am against violence. On the other hand, they're freaking Nazis. Seriously though, hitting Nazis doesn't actually accomplish anything. The Nazis want people to hit them. Then they can say "Oh, we were just having a peaceful discussion about the benefits of white nationalism, when this crazy liberal came up and punched me. Don't you all feel sympathy for me now."
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 8, 2017 6:11:04 GMT
No, no, we don't know that, we know some don't, but unless a study has been made, no one knows what percentage that is. It could be the tip of the iceberg, it could be the lions share, but reports of people selling their food stamps does not mean that all drug users are on welfare and that they sell all their stamps for cash to get drugs, any more than one terrorist means that everyone that shares their religion is also a terrorist. I don't believe all drug users are on welfare, and I don't believe all welfare recipients are drug users. We don't know what people who sell their food stamps are doin with the cash, we do know, that in itself is a crime. How would someone even do a study on folks who sell their food stamps? Not to be smart-alecky, but, someone committing a crime is probably not gonna tell the truth bout it. And I think it's safe to assume that not everyone who does it gets caught.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 8, 2017 6:26:26 GMT
barnabaslivesI read your post from 4 hours ago, you made some very good points and gave me some things to think about. I don't have a bit of problem, helpin somebody who wants to help themselves. In my life ive been hooked on prescription drugs, and got off them. So I have some understanding for those hooked by prescription drugs. I just don't have much sympathy left for those who don't care about anything except for getting high. I appreciate you takin the time to make the points and I'm gonna think on that for awhile, and see what transpires. I'm still in favor of drug testing welfare recipients, at least until we get enough of a reading, to determine if it's a problem in the system or not. My biggest problem is that a lot of folks seem a lot more concerned about the drug user, rather than those in the drug users household, namely, for me, its the kids. IMO a child would be better off in foster care, in many cases, and I know that aint no picnic. But, its happening more and more.
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Feb 8, 2017 10:07:49 GMT
***** Moderation *****Guys and Gals, we currently have a few threads that are hotbeds of controversy and by their very nature, very emotive. Even though these threads are not about subjects this forum was created for, The Mod Team don't actually want to ban such topics from conversation as discussion is generally a good thing and can help us to understand different issues that affect different cultures and we are looking at the best way to allow them (but also stop them from spreading across the rest of the forum). However, the discussions have to remain polite and cannot descend into name calling, threats, abuse or bad behaviour. The Mod Team are spending far too much of our time having to move/delete posts and look at reported posts because of these threads. If it carries on we will have no choice but to ban the topics and take serious action against members who break the rules ( and those who sail close to breaking them without actually breaking them). Rules of the forum can be found here and before posting I urge everyone to re-read them. Remember, you don't actually have to break them fully to be disciplined and we are looking very closely at what happens in these threads. Remember the rules: - Respect your fellow members. Refrain from making inflammatory or defamatory comments (including but not limited to: flaming, taunting, degrading comments, and general disrespect).
No offensive posts, links, or images. Please do not post messages, images or links to content that is obscene, vulgar, pornographic, racist or likely to cause offence
- Highly contentious discussions will not be allowed on the forum if they are offensive or if they generate too much work for the moderators. If something becomes too heated the thread may be closed, edited or even deleted.
Our advice is don't get into arguments, if you feel yourself getting wound-up or in the middle of a heated conversation - walk away. You don't have to get the last word, if you think someone is trolling, report it to us and add the member to your ignore list but don't feed the trolls!This post will be copied into all of the political threads - there will be no more warnings! ***** End Moderation *****
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 8, 2017 12:03:35 GMT
No, no, we don't know that, we know some don't, but unless a study has been made, no one knows what percentage that is. It could be the tip of the iceberg, it could be the lions share, but reports of people selling their food stamps does not mean that all drug users are on welfare and that they sell all their stamps for cash to get drugs, any more than one terrorist means that everyone that shares their religion is also a terrorist. I don't believe all drug users are on welfare, and I don't believe all welfare recipients are drug users. We don't know what people who sell their food stamps are doin with the cash, we do know, that in itself is a crime. How would someone even do a study on folks who sell their food stamps? Not to be smart-alecky, but, someone committing a crime is probably not gonna tell the truth bout it. And I think it's safe to assume that not everyone who does it gets caught. Studies into crime, criminal behaviour, who commits it and why are not that rare, researchers and statistician have ways to get to the truth of the matter, and believe it or not, people who commit crime are often happy to talk about it when those asking are not law enforcement or judgemental, and this is especially true when those that commit crime do so from need rather than greed.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Feb 10, 2017 17:22:16 GMT
Welcome back to one of the best writers of American politics & faith, Andrew SullivanWhat do I mean by denial of empirical reality? Take one of the most recent. On Wednesday, Senator Richard Blumenthal related the news that Judge Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s nominee for the long-vacant Supreme Court seat, had told him that the president’s unprecedented, personal attacks on federal judges were “disheartening” and “demoralizing.” Within half an hour, this was confirmed by Gorsuch’s White House–appointed spokesman, who was present for the conversation. CNN also reported that Senator Ben Sasse had heard Gorsuch say exactly the same thing, with feeling, as did former senator Kelly Ayotte.
The president nonetheless insisted twice yesterday that Blumenthal had misrepresented his conversation with Gorsuch — first in an early morning tweet and then, once again, yesterday afternoon, in front of the television cameras. To add to the insanity, he also tweeted that in a morning interview, Chris Cuomo had never challenged Blumenthal on his lies about his service in Vietnam — when the tape clearly shows it was the first thing Cuomo brought up.
What are we supposed to do with this? How are we to respond to a president who in the same week declared that the “murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 45 to 47 years,” when, of course, despite some recent, troubling spikes in cities, it’s nationally near a low not seen since the late 1960s, and half what it was in 1980. What are we supposed to do when a president says that two people were shot dead in Chicago during President Obama’s farewell address — when this is directly contradicted by the Chicago police? None of this, moreover, is ever corrected. No error is ever admitted. Any lie is usually doubled down by another lie — along with an ad hominem attack.
|
|