Mad_Machine76
Mad_Machine76's JournalI can tell you which one most people
AREN'T talking about.
I don't approve of fraud in any event and certainly not in this case (she should have to pay back what she took after she got her $500K) but welfare fraud is peanuts compared to the kind of vast waste, fraud, and abuse that comes from the Defense Dept or, as you said, to big oil. We lost billions in Iraq during our "occupation" that will probably NEVER be accounted for and the Republican Congress and the Bush (mis-)administration didn't even lift a finger to investigate. People should be outraged about stuff like that but aren't (mostly because that stuff doesn't get reported). I'll start getting worked up into a frenzy over poor "welfare queens" when the media starts reporting horrific stories of rich ones.
What makes McConnell certain that he will be able to win repeal of ACA after the November elections?
Only way in hell that will happen is if one of their clowns winds up getting elected POTUS AND the Senate and House go Republican, which is highly unlikely IMHO the way things are going now. The only wildcard is SCOTUS and what they will do but the worst that will probably happen IMHO is that the mandate would be judged unconstitutional but I can't see the entire law falling because of it, particularly since only one court has killed the entire law whereas all of the others have either upheld it in its entirety or attacked the mandate. I still don't understand all the fuss over the mandate b/c, as I understand it, the "mandate" is rather toothless and nobody is going to be hauled off to jail or fined if they don't buy health insurance- and most people already have some form of health insurance coverage, so...........?
Jobs and energy security (to the extent the pipeline would improve either) are great things
but not despoiling and/or severely damaging the environment is a good thing too. At the very least, the environment health of our land should be thoroughly reviewed. I know, of course, however, the Republicans REALLY don't care about such things. I guess no Republicans live in the areas that the pipeline might negatively affect?
Boy, talk about trying to cram stuff down our throats!
Hypocrites
They'd be screaming bloody murder if a Democratic Congress was trying to "tie" the hands", "second-guessing", "questioning" a Republican "Commander-in-Chief". They'd jump up and down and proclaim that the venal Democrats are interfering with that Republican President's ability to conduct foreign policy.
Oh, wait, they actually did back in 2007-2009 when they tried to force an Iraq withdrawal timeline on Bush.
Hypocrites!!!
The sad thing about such a "debate" in Congress over Iran and authorizing the use of military force is that it would be about as rational and insightful and intelligent as the one over Iraq back in 2002-2003.
It's almost like right-wingers are brainwashed- like cult members
it's eerie. The foundation of their beliefs seem unshakable. There is, I believe, a process by which people can "deprogram" cult members. Maybe we need to learn those techniques and use them on right-wingers?
I'm concerned about the Senate as well
however, the final vote will come down to Democratic turnout. If lots of people get out to vote for President Obama, that will help the downticket races significantly. If voter turnout is low on our end, yeah, we're probably going to lose the Senate (or at least lose a lot of our seats). I will say that, overall, things are starting to look better for us than they did a year ago between the expected GOP overreach, the rise of the Occupy movement, and the healing economy. IMHO we need to capitalize on voter discontent with GOP rule in the states, misrule in Washington in the House, obstructionism in the Senate, and get our people to the polls and make sure that every eligible voter of ours can actually cast a ballot! If we can do that, we stand a chance of holding or even improving our Senate share of seats, as well as maybe even taking the House back. I think that I saw a poll out there that 46-40 people want the Dems back in control of Congress, which is a good sign that people have really soured on the Republicans.
Feeling better now?
What does (did) the Florida do to them if positive
other than not give them back the money they paid for the drug test and refuse to give them benefits for a specific period of time?
Also, I have to ask: Why does there some to be different standards regarding drugs in this country? If the police show up at somebody's house and finds them doing drugs, more than likely they will be arrested and, if convicted, sent to prison or, at the very least, ordered to some kind of drug treatment (which they will have to pay for out of their own pocket). If, however, a woman delivers a baby that tests positive for drugs at birth, the state steps in (sometimes removing the child) and provides, at taxpayer expense, drug treatment for the parent. Likewise, with the Florida drug testing law, people simply don't get benefits but they don't go to jail nor do they gain any access to treatment services. Why can't we figure out whether we believe that drug use/addiction is a crime or a medical condition that needs treatment and act accordingly? It's very confusing.
That sort of thinking *seems* reasonable
until you stop and consider just how necessary/appropriate drug testing for most jobs actually is. It certainly makes sense in a job where you are operating machinery/equipment and/or caring for children, etc. but in other jobs like, say, random desk jobs, nobody is (usually) going to die if you show up for work high/intoxicated. Likewise, nobody is going to die if welfare recipients are using either. It's not desirable, of course, but "because other people have to take drug tests for EMPLOYMENT" isn't (shouldn't be) a good enough reason IMHO for welfare applicants/recipients to have to do it. In fact, people should really stop and think more about why THEY should HAVE to take drug tests just to get a job as well. Most people, I'm sure, do it because, well, they need a job and relatively few of us can afford to be picky about such things but sometimes I think that we all should start paying a little more attention to our rights and freedoms and how they're slowly being whittled away by things like drug testing for employment (in all but a few circumstances).
I support this
I'm sympathetic to some of the arguments made here and don't think less of anybody- on the right or left- whom chooses to homeschool their children. However, ultimately, it seems hopelessly impractical to carve out a ton of exceptions for homeschooled children. To me, either you are willing to accept the pros and cons of sending your children to public school or you aren't and if you aren't, you're free to keep your children out of public school and educate them yourself at home with full recognition that if you do, your children are going to forfeit the pros of public school (i.e. sports). That's just how it is IMHO. For those wanting their homeschooled children to participate in sports, why not find some other homeschooling parents with whom to form teams, purchase equipment, etc?
Profile Information
Name: Mara Alis ButlerGender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 01:13 AM
Number of posts: 24,407
