Do we REALLY want children raised by people on drugs?
By dhunley • Jan 21st, 2008 • Category: ArticlesThis is the kind of idiotic position modern liberals find themselves! (yeah…yeah…I know….I’m a one trick pony and you guys are doing fine without me…lol…but still, I wanted to hear what you all think about this?)
I picked up a Lexington-Herald Leader this morning. On page B1 was the headline:
WELFARE PROPOSAL HAS FEW FANS
Would tie benefits to drug tests!
.
It seems legislation has been proposed to test welfare recipients for illegal drug use; those found positive would lose their benefits.
Of course, the modern liberals don’t like it. That would threaten their voting base, and they know it! The whole modern liberals political philosophy is to convince people they’re helpless, hopeless and must depend on THEM (i.e. government) for hand-outs or they’d…they’d…why, they’d just die, I reckon.
Mr. John Rosenberg, former head of the Appalachian Research and Defense Fund in Prestonsburg said:
“Welfare is for the children, and so if you’re doing such a thing you’re punishing the children!” (always “the children”, eh?…the final refuge of the scoundrel maybe? 
Oh REALLY Mr. Rosenberg? So you think it’s alright for a child to be raised in a home where illegal drug activity is taking place? That’s just fine with you Mr. Rosenberg?
Sane people (and people who actually cared about “the children”) might think it’d be a good idea to get these children out of such an unhealthy environment. But children don’t vote do they?
And before someone goes all “sop eyed” on me and starts trying to say “What are we supposed to do with the children?” That’s a cop-out and you know it. Have you looked at the requirements for adoption lately? MY GOODNESS…if our parents would have had to meet the same requirements, most of us would never have been born. They’re ridiculous and designed (once again) for political reasons and NOT what is best for “the children”.
The ACLU (of course) filed suit against the state of Michigan in 1999 to stop
Michigan from continuing with a similar plan. Said it was “unconstitutional”!
Oh REALLY Mr. ACLU? So you think it is perfectly alright for a man working to provide for his family to be tested for drugs…but someone who’s taking money from that working man should be allowed to continue doing so even if they’re breaking the law? THAT’S CONSTITUTIONAL Mr ACLU?
That’s utterly ridiculous. Of course, I think State Rep. Melvin Henley, R-Murray identified the real problem. He said.
“It makes sense to a person who has to work for a living and has to undergo drug testing and who sees people on welfare who don’t have to abide by any rules.”
Of course it makes sense Mr. Henley…and that’s the problem—for modern liberals like Mr. Rosenberg, the ACLU, and the Lexington Herald. The LAST thing they want is something that makes sense and helps the working man; those people are in this business for power—and they’re not going to let a little thing like common sense get in the way of their vote buying.
The modern liberals and the so-called democrats in government always find themselves making these dumb arguments…I don’t think they fooling anyone, though.
ON the whisleblower thread idea:
my concept was for a ongoing thread/article that by itself had to be moderated, to avoid posts that would be just slanderous & not actually expose what needs exposing with some level of credibility.
I supose it could be done by annon email account set up by each whisleblower?
Or all the entrys are sent to a moderation cue & when actually openly viewable are COMPLETEly anon without even a identifiable moniker only something like this would be seen:
6/31/08 Anon says: Son of state rep buys county property for development see plat book 683 page 1239; Where did the money go? Price per acre below 1/2 open market.
7/1/08 Anon Post: Drug Dealer
Check out the
drug dealer on thursdays at the quicky mart off 32south;
shows up with her left earring only. Police watching for weeks no arrest made except for some of the teen customers shaken down and searched. usually 5-9pm drives a Green VW
Entrapment or making informants?
——
7/04/08 Anon post claim:
County road equip seen on private drive
^*seen here off Opossium ridge off Rt 949 grader and gravel for 4hours used on private drive Accross from Paul’s Mill church.
(((the moderator would have to file off site any isp or id info attached to the post IN CASE some law enforcement trace is forced upon the site ))
I dont know; just a idea alot of folks wants someone else to do their civic citizens duty for them for fear of reprisals or they are party to the system/mind your own business types.
That might be doable but it would most certainly be beyond my abilities. Not that we can’t give it a try in the future.
This would require a thread of it’s own, moderated as you have already described, but the only way to keep the IP thing moot would be to create .html or .php pages (i suppose .txt would even work), and link to them from the thread like
Report for 01/01/01
Or just copy and repost the entire thread, but then everything comes back to the moderators IP.
Maybe Dhunley or Dave know of some ways of doing this that I don’t.
For example a subdomain like informant.rowanreview.com could be set up with a different set of permissions than this site has.
norn gardenmaking gripgrass aberroscope nonfixation amyclaean latirostral orchis
Doonagore Farmhouse
http://www.fibics.com/
can anyone stop or delete these nuts from posting? This latest one from “Shayne Andrews” came from http://www.archongroup.com
Actually that last one made it in via a comcast router.
Either dhunley or Dave would have mark it as spam, alter it, or just delete it.
Optionally, if they were to bestow editor privileges upon me, I wouldn’t abuse them, and could help moderate the spam out.
Atomoxetine….
Atomoxetine….
Another in a lost liberal skeme justified by “IF it saves just one child”
it is worth what every we spend triillions or more
Of course if you apply the same reasoning for alot of this nanny state big brother crap you could logically say if it saves one child get rid of child protective services since there have been numours stories of them losing THOUSANDS of childen or placed in situations where they are MORE likely to be abused than with biological parents.