<div align="center"><table border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" bordercolor="#111111" bgcolor="#C9C0A7" width="414" height="66"><tr><td><img src="http://somd.com/news/inmyopinion/trr.gif"></td><td width="358"><font face="Impact" color="#000000" size="6">In My Opinion</font><font face="Arial" color="#000000" size="3"><i><br><b> by Trevor Bothwell</b></i></td></tr></table></div>

If we're lucky, the one positive outcome of Hurricane Katrina will be an overwhelming realization by Americans that we should not entrust our welfare to the state. The great irony associated with the current finger-pointing in the wake of Katrina’s destruction is that many of the people so outraged by government dysfunction at the local, state, and federal levels will nevertheless fail to learn that it's unwise to expect politicians and bureaucrats to solve all our problems.

Nothing illustrates more our over-reliance on the federal government than those who condemn President Bush in this disaster. Despite the inadequacies of the federal response to Katrina, only the naïve could expect federal authorities -- not to mention a U.S. president -- to possess the knowledge required for carrying out locale-specific duties that we elect mayors and governors to undertake.

To be sure, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Mayor Ray Nagin and Gov. Kathleen Blanco were tragically incompetent in managing New Orleans's emergency management plan (http://www.cityofno.com/portal.aspx?portal=46&tabid=26), from waiting too long to order a mandatory evacuation of the city to failing to stockpile at least a few days' worth of food, water, and portable toilets in the Superdome and other areas of last resort. And who by now hasn’t heard of Terry Ebbert's failure to utilize hundreds of the city's buses to transport citizens to safety prior to Katrina's arrival? It is this collective mismanagement and resulting effort to shift culpability that primarily has initiated this "Bush is to blame” mantra.

Opponents of the Bush administration complain that there weren't enough National Guard troops deployed to New Orleans, though they hesitate to admit that Mayor Nagin overlooked for too long the looting that was contributing to his city's spiral into chaos. Many in the media also refuse to headline the fact that it was the president who prompted (http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/001821.html) the eventual mandatory evacuation of New Orleans last Sunday, August 28. Bush detractors also conveniently disregard the fact that the president declared a state of emergency in Louisiana and authorized federal aid under this declaration on August 27. And last Friday (Sept. 2) his administration requested federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, only to be denied by politicians in Louisiana who viewed the offer as a way for the administration to blame the locals.

To the rational individual these efforts suggest responsibility in anticipation of terrible crises. But ultimately government is just a bunch of imperfect human beings, just as susceptible to the forces of human nature and poor decision-making as anyone, only more encumbered by reams of red tape. As Thomas Sowell remarked recently, “Maybe the reason we are so often disappointed with [politicians] is that they have over-promised and we have been gullible enough to believe them.”

Among the gullible, it seems, is the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson, who penned a painfully obtuse opinion column Tuesday (Sept. 6), neatly encapsulating the entitlement mentality that has apparently penetrated the psyches of far too many Americans.

Mr. Robinson complained that an administration that has warned of potential terrorist attacks since 9/11 “should have had in place a well-elaborated plan for evacuating a major American city.” That even if a specific plan wasn’t in order for New Orleans, “there should have been a generic plan.” Demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of federalism, Robinson also wrote that “someone should have thought about what to do with hundreds of thousands of evacuees,” whining that “it was officials at the state and local level who rose to the challenge, making it up as they went along.” And, incredulously, Robinson asked, “Does the White House really believe that primary responsibility should fall on volunteers, church groups and individuals?”

If this is what we’ve come to expect from a columnist at one of the country’s most prolific newspapers, it’s no wonder so many Americans have surrendered control of their lives to the state. It is downright absurd to expect the federal government to have a "generic" plan for the evacuation of any American city, as if generalities and specifics simply overlap. And it's a stunning admission that Robinson actually believes federal authorities have more responsibility for evacuating citizens than do state and local governments, which are expected to disseminate information and maintain order, and assist those who are unable to do what the majority of individuals are responsible for doing themselves.

Moreover, Robinson’s insinuation that without government the evacuees of this disaster would be hopeless is a personal affront to every individual volunteer from church groups, rescue squads, and organizations like the Red Cross and Salvation Army, all of whom dispatched from around the country to assist relief efforts. And it might be worthwhile to point out that everyday Americans have already donated over half a billion dollars to Katrina’s victims. These are the first-responders who -- along with brave firemen, policemen, and paramedics of the public sector -- will save the vast majority of lives in dire emergencies.

The state certainly has a role to play in trying times. But so many Americans have been conditioned to nurse at the government teat in so many ways -- from public education and housing to medical insurance and retirement planning -- that many of us are rendered helpless when we must fend for ourselves in life and death situations, preferring instead to sit around and wait for the government to bail us out.

Our gravest failures do not lie with our mayors, governors, or beltway bureaucrats but with our misplaced compulsion to assign to them so much control over our lives in the first place.

©2005 Trevor Bothwell

Trevor Bothwell is a freelance writing living in Maryland. He is a contributing writer at Democracy Project (http://www.democracy-project.com/) and can be contacted at bothwelltj@yahoo.com.

I think that the lesson learned from Katrina should be that there's no point in developing a plan if you're not going to implement it. NO and Louisiana did have planes, they just didn't follow them. The governor, as commander-in-chief of her armed forces, did mobilize some guard troops, but not enough. There were no supplies at the Superdome because city government viewed it as a temporary shelter for people to hole up in for a couple of hours until the storm passed.

In short, the local and state leaders took actions that satisfied immediate needs - NG troops to ensure security at the dome, use of short-tem shelters only, no real evacuations, etc., and then failed to follow through on the long-term needs. FEMA is not a first responder organization. It's just a holding place for a lot of "stuff" that's needed to support state and local efforts. The Federal government normally has no control over any relief efforts or National Guard deployments for these efforts, and blaming the Feds for a "slow response" is pointless.

Bush did the exact right thing by declaring an emergency early, thereby making it possible for the governor to get her requests in early. The fact that she either didn't make the requests, didn't know what to request, or didn't know how to request it, isn't a problem at the Federal level.

NO and Louisiana did have planes,

:frown: Just as feared, that was them piling off a cheap JetBlue flight lastnight :frown:

If we're lucky, the one positive outcome of Hurricane Katrina will be an overwhelming realization by Americans that we should not entrust our welfare to the state. The great irony associated with the current finger-pointing in the wake of Katrina’s destruction is that many of the people so outraged by government dysfunction at the local, state, and federal levels will nevertheless fail to learn that it's unwise to expect politicians and bureaucrats to solve all our problems.
Unfortunatly, the people who trust the government to provide them with food and shelter will continue to do so. They'll just whine amd moan when it's not done in a timely fashion. I'm always amazed that someone would choose to not be self supporting and have the nerve to complain about the quality of their life.

Unfortunatly, the people who trust the government to provide them with food and shelter will continue to do so. They'll just whine amd moan when it's not done in a timely fashion. I'm always amazed that someone would choose to not be self supporting and have the nerve to complain about the quality of their life.


You found me!! :lol:

I agree with those that complain when they get a free ride off the backs of us folks that try to make something of our selves. :frown:

I agree with those that complain when they get a free ride off the backs of us folks that try to make something of our selves. :frown:[/QUOTE]
:confused:

I agree with those that complain when they get a free ride off the backs of us folks that try to make something of our selves. :frown:
:confused:[/QUOTE]
double :confused: :confused:

I agree with those that complain when they get a free ride off the backs of us folks that try to make something of our selves. :frown:
:confused:[/QUOTE]


I was in agreement with the above stated post in reference to his opinion concerning those that complain when they get a free ride off the backs of us folks that try to make something of our selves. :spank:

Dems, people don't complain when they're getting a free ride - the people whose backs they're riding on do.

Dems, people don't complain when they're getting a free ride - the people whose backs they're riding on do.

Maybe I should re-read it but the statement I was referring to was someone had gotten upset and posted at the gall it takese someone to complain when they are in fact getting a free ride. :shrug:

This is what I had replied too...

"Unfortunatly, the people who trust the government to provide them with food and shelter will continue to do so. They'll just whine amd moan when it's not done in a timely fashion. I'm always amazed that someone would choose to not be self supporting and have the nerve to complain about the quality of their life."


Nevermind. :frown:

Maybe I should re-read it
I just did re-read it and now it seems like you're saying you agree with the complainers who are getting the free ride.

:confused:

I just did re-read it and now it seems like you're saying you agree with the complainers who are getting the free ride.

:confused:


:banghead:


:roflmao:


It might just be easier to agree with them at this point in the dicussion... :roflmao:

there was a gentleman who went to the astrodome to volunteer in serving food and compassion (in attempt to get a good natured feeling about humanity) instead he came back disappointed in the way the evacuees treated him like a servant.

Let's face it...we're screwed
Honestly, if a disaster was to strike this area today, I myself, am ill prepared, even after having seen others become victims to it.

Honestly, if a disaster was to strike this area today, I myself, am ill prepared, even after having seen others become victims to it.
Not me. I could take care of me and mine for at least a month with no government intervention. Longer if I'd decide to evacuate to a friend or relative in another state.

... Longer if I'd decide to evacuate to a friend or relative ...


You are welcome to stay over at Me, Christy and Steve's house!! :yay:

:lol:

I myself, am ill prepared, even after having seen others become victims to it.

You've had two weeks to prepare. Are you any more prepared now? :confused:

NOPE! Sooo busy always

The purpose of the federal government is to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". (Yes, this is the expressed purpose of the Constitution, but it is, by default the purpose of the government that the Constitution established.)

Does providing relief to millions of Americans caught up in a disaster several orders of magnitude larger than any state or local government could handle fall under any of these areas? Does it help to "insure the domestic tranquility"? Of course it does. Does it "promote the general welfare"? No honest person can say that it does not.

Compare this to the hundreds and hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars being spent in Iraq. Where does this fit in to the responsibilities? Does it "establish justice"? No; how could it? Does it "insure domestic tranquility"? No. In fact it is the most divisive issue that I have seen in my life. Does it "provide for the common defense"? No, it does not. Not only did the promise of WMDs prove to be a paper tiger, there has never been a splinter of credible evidence that Iraq was ever an imminent threat to the United States nor that it was even a terrorist haven before the U.S. invasion. Does it "promote the general welfare"? I cannot see how. In fact, the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on that war ALREADY would make a nice dent in repairing and upgrading the infrastructure of, for example our public school systems. THAT would promote the general welfare. Does it "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"? If it does, someone will please explain how.

The reason that I make this comparison is that I believe that very many of the same people that say that it is not the federal government’s place to provide relief will say that it IS the federal government’s place to waste hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives in an immoral, illegal, unethical and pointless war thousands of miles away.

(Judging from what I have read so far, I appear to be one of a very tiny number of centrists in a bastion of right-wing members. So let the flames begin. From all that I have experienced, people who do not toe the forum party line get flamed and, if they are also newbies, they get incinerated. I hope that this is not the case here but that any replies will address what I said and not be simply an attack on me because I am a newbie and am not right-wing. We will soon see, I believe.)

Don't rely on anyone else, except, maybe, family. Keep bottled water, canned goods of food that can be eaten as is, cold, out of the can. Keep cash on hand, don't depend on banks or ATMs being open and working. Stores, if open, may not take plastic or checks if they have no way to verify account, since that is now done electronically.

I grew up in a big city, Philadelphia, have been down here since 1975. Politicians always advertized, vote straight Democrat ticket, keep entitlements coming.

Do you read Joseph Sobran? He feels no one getting a government check should have a vote.

Do you read Joseph Sobran? He feels no one getting a government check should have a vote.

I feel that it will be pretty shameful to cut off the voting RIGHTS of disabled war veterans simply because they get a govenment check.

Or perhaps he means that voting RIGHTS should be cut off for people who get government checks that he feels are unworthy.

I feel that it will be pretty shameful to cut off the voting RIGHTS of disabled war veterans simply because they get a govenment check.
He's talking about people who didn't do anything to earn it, like welfare recipients and such.

I'm curious why you say the war in Iraq is "immoral, illegal and unethical"? "Pointless", I'll give you because that's a matter of opinion.

Let's take "illegal" first - why do you think the war is illegal?

He's talking about people who didn't do anything to earn it, like welfare recipients and such.

I'm curious why you say the war in Iraq is "immoral, illegal and unethical"? "Pointless", I'll give you because that's a matter of opinion.

Let's take "illegal" first - why do you think the war is illegal?

It is illegal because Congress attempted to delegate authority which it had no constitutional authority to delegate. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says (in part):

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Congress shirked its responsibility and attempted to delegate its authority to President Bush by passing legislation that he could, in effect take us to war if he felt the need. Nowhere does the Constitution say that Congress can delegate the authority to go to war to the president. That decision MUST be made by Congress.

He's talking about people who didn't do anything to earn it, like welfare recipients and such.


"Everyone who gets a government check" is a pretty general and all-inclusive statement. What about people who are disabled? Have they "earned it"? Should we throw them to the dogs because they have not "earned it"?

Read the last paragraph of Article I, Section 8 and then do a search for the the War Powers Act.

Read the last paragraph of Article I, Section 8 and then do a search for the the War Powers Act.

Congress cannot delegate a constitutional authority simply by passing a law.

Congress shirked its responsibility and attempted to delegate its authority to President Bush by passing legislation that he could, in effect take us to war if he felt the need.
THAT I agree with you wholeheartedly. Talk about passing the buck. But the fact of the matter is that Congress did indeed authorize the President to use force at his discretion.

Write your Congressman.

Congress cannot delegate a constitutional authority simply by passing a law.
They didn't delegate the Declaration of War authority to the President. They authorized him by law to use military force to execute their will as they are constitutionally allowed.

What about people who are disabled? Have they "earned it"? Should we throw them to the dogs because they have not "earned it"?
We're not talking about "throwing them to the dogs" - we're talking about whether they should be able to vote or not.

And actually we're not even talking about that - we're talking about how entitlements ruin communities and make the citizens so dependent that they can't so much as get out of the way when a hurricane comes. I got off track by asking you a question - sorry. :frown:

I think New Orleans is a perfect example of how entitlements destroy people. And one city does not a "general welfare" make, so the Fed has nothing to do with it. The city and state should have taken care of business. They didn't, so now they want to blame Bush rather than look at their own failings.

THAT I agree with you wholeheartedly. Talk about passing the buck. But the fact of the matter is that Congress did indeed authorize the President to use force at his discretion.

Write your Congressman.

The fact that Congress did it does not make it legal.

And you can be quite assured that I write my representatives at all levels on a regular basis.

They didn't delegate the Declaration of War authority to the President. They authorized him by law to use military force to execute their will as they are constitutionally allowed.

Again, the fact that they did it does not make it legal. The fact that they passed a so-called War Powers Act in an attempt to relieve themselves from their constitutional responsibility does not make what they did legal. Yes, they can certainly pass laws that facilitate carrying out their responsibilities, but they cannot shirk such a basic and fundamental responsibility as the making of war.

The fact that Congress did it does not make it legal.
Considering that Congress is our legislative branch of government, I think we can safely say yes, it does.

Again, the fact that they did it does not make it legal. The fact that they passed a so-called War Powers Act in an attempt to relieve themselves from their constitutional responsibility does not make what they did legal. Yes, they can certainly pass laws that facilitate carrying out their responsibilities, but they cannot shirk such a basic and fundamental responsibility as the making of war.
You're grasping for straws, if it was illegal to make such a law one of the many that voted against it would have had sought an injunction in court prior to the commencement of hostilities.

We're not talking about "throwing them to the dogs" - we're talking about whether they should be able to vote or not.

Then you feel that disabled people should be prohibited from voting? So much for Equal Protection of the Law.


And actually we're not even talking about that - we're talking about how entitlements ruin communities and make the citizens so dependent that they can't so much as get out of the way when a hurricane comes. I got off track by asking you a question - sorry. :frown:

Then we were talking about the question that you asked me, no?


I think New Orleans is a perfect example of how entitlements destroy people. And one city does not a "general welfare" make, so the Fed has nothing to do with it.

I am pretty sure that this impacted a LITTLE bit more than only one city. And where will you draw the line at the "general welfare"? Will significant portions of several states not qualify, in your opinion? And do you actually believe that how the Katrina recovery is handled (well or poorly) will not impact the entire nation?


The city and state should have taken care of business. They didn't, so now they want to blame Bush rather than look at their own failings.

Yes, they SHOULD have and they failed miserably. This does not absolve the Bush Administration from its failures.

(Oops! I just felt my karma drop another half million points for failing to compliment Bush.) :lol:

Considering that Congress is our legislative branch of government, I think we can safely say yes, it does.

What you are SAYING is that any law that Congress passes is Constitutional. Is that what you really MEAN to say?

Then you feel that disabled people should be prohibited from voting? So much for Equal Protection of the Law.
Did I say that? :confused:

Tell you what - why don't I just sit here and you can do my posting for me, since you seem to want to attribute things to me that I never said.

You're grasping for straws, if it was illegal to make such a law one of the many that voted against it would have had sought an injunction in court prior to the commencement of hostilities.

The problem is that you cannot simply go to court and have a law declared unconstitutional. It must be tested in the form of a case. When it was finally used, it was not challenged for the same reason that the Republicans did not employ the "nuclear option" to end Democrat filibusters. No one wished to open that can of worms.

What you are SAYING is that any law that Congress passes is Constitutional. Is that what you really MEAN to say?
No she is not saying that, but Constitutionally how must the Congress declare war. Do they have to say "The US is at war with #########". Or can they make a law that says "failing XXXXX we will do YYYYY?

What you are SAYING is that any law that Congress passes is Constitutional. Is that what you really MEAN to say?
No. If it's not Constitutional, some judge will rule so or maybe it will go to the Supremes and it will be struck down. I give you the partial birth abortion ban as an example.

What I can't do is give you Iraq as an example because...well...

Did I say that? :confused:

Tell you what - why don't I just sit here and you can do my posting for me, since you seem to want to attribute things to me that I never said.

Perhaps you can be a little bit more clear in what you DO say. I believe that the conversation ran similar to this:

You implied by your use of a reference that you supported eliminating voting rights from anyone that receives a government check.

I asked you if this included disabled war veterans.

You said that the reference meant only those that had not earned their checks.

I asked you if you would include throwing other disabled people to the dogs because they had not earned their payments.

You said that we were not talking about throwing them to the dogs; only of depriving them of their voting rights.

Now please tell me where this summation is inaccurate.

No she is not saying that, but Constitutionally how must the Congress declare war. Do they have to say "The US is at war with #########". Or can they make a law that says "failing XXXXX we will do YYYYY?

They did neither. They left it up to the president to decide.

The problem is that you cannot simply go to court and have a law declared unconstitutional. It must be tested in the form of a case. When it was finally used, it was not challenged for the same reason that the Republicans did not employ the "nuclear option" to end Democrat filibusters. No one wished to open that can of worms.
Wrong, once the bill passed and was signed into law it could have been challenged. In this instance that was Nov 2002 that the bill became law and there was plenty of time for the law to be pre-empted by a judicial challenge.

You implied by your use of a reference that you supported eliminating voting rights from anyone that receives a government check.
See, you're wrong right off the bat, which makes the rest of your "examples" invalid.

Fred Hoeck said it and he was referencing an opinion by someone else. He didn't say whether he was in favor it or not, either.

They did neither. They left it up to the president to decide.
Guess you have never read the law -

It says "SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677.
(b) REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION THAT USE OF MILITARY FORCE IS NECESSARY- Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with the United Nations Security Council resolutions cited in subsection (a); and
(2) that those efforts have not been and would not be successful in obtaining such compliance.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution."

See, you're wrong right off the bat, which makes the rest of your "examples" invalid.

Fred Hoeck said it and he was referencing an opinion by someone else. He didn't say whether he was in favor it or not, either.

"See you're wrong right off the bat." This is the best that you can do? You may twist, squirm, backpedal and spin all that you wish but the implication was clear. If you regret having said it, you can always edit it.

Guess you have never read the law -

It says "SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677.
(b) REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION THAT USE OF MILITARY FORCE IS NECESSARY- Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with the United Nations Security Council resolutions cited in subsection (a); and
(2) that those efforts have not been and would not be successful in obtaining such compliance.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution."

Actually, I HAVE read the law but thank you for your erroneous assumption. The fact that you can copy and paste means little. The end of it all is that Congress STILL left it up to the president whether to go to war. Yes, there were conditions and limitations but the ultimate decision was STILL left in the hands of the president. There is not constitutional authority for that.

So the War Powers Resolution/Act whereby they gave him authority to act is faulty, even though it has been around since the 1970s and has been used numerous times?

(Judging from what I have read so far, I appear to be one of a very tiny number of centrists in a bastion of right-wing members. So let the flames begin. From all that I have experienced, people who do not toe the forum party line get flamed and, if they are also newbies, they get incinerated. I hope that this is not the case here but that any replies will address what I said and not be simply an attack on me because I am a newbie and am not right-wing. We will soon see, I believe.)[/QUOTE]

DEMS
How many screen names are you? :lmao:

:popcorn:

"See you're wrong right off the bat." This is the best that you can do? You may twist, squirm, backpedal and spin all that you wish but the implication was clear. If you regret having said it, you can always edit it.
You are officially crazy. It's right there in black and white what was said. Now what you interpreted may be something different, but that would be your interpretation and obviously not based in reality.

Just like most leftist Bush bashers. :razz:

So the War Powers Resolution/Act whereby they gave him authority to act is faulty, even though it has been around since the 1970s and has been used numerous times?

That is correct, just as the Separate But Equal doctrine was around for some time before it was struck down.

(Judging from what I have read so far, I appear to be one of a very tiny number of centrists in a bastion of right-wing members. So let the flames begin. From all that I have experienced, people who do not toe the forum party line get flamed and, if they are also newbies, they get incinerated. I hope that this is not the case here but that any replies will address what I said and not be simply an attack on me because I am a newbie and am not right-wing. We will soon see, I believe.)

DEMS
How many screen names are you? :lmao:

:popcorn:[/QUOTE]

I am one. How many are you?

You are officially crazy. It's right there in black and white what was said. Now what you interpreted may be something different, but that would be your interpretation and obviously not based in reality.

Just like most leftist Bush bashers. :razz:

Show me where I have bashed Bush. Show me where I have said anything leftist. Do you always suffer from such mindless assumptions or is it episodic? (Or perhaps you suffer from political parallax and from your position in the political spectrum, anyone to the left of Pat Robertson appears to you to be leftist.)

You are giving me the opinion that you are one of those people that spends about ninety-five percent of their time engaging in insults and name calling and arguing about arguing and five or less percent of their time discussing any actual issues.

You are giving me the opinion that you are one of those people that spends about ninety-five percent of their time engaging in insults and name calling and arguing about arguing and five or less percent of their time discussing any actual issues.
:killingme Takes one to know one, baby! :lmao: If you don't like it, LEAVE. PLEASE! :lmao:

You are giving me the opinion
Good thing I don't give a crap about your "opinion", huh?

"Everyone who gets a government check" is a pretty general and all-inclusive statement. What about people who are disabled? Have they "earned it"? Should we throw them to the dogs because they have not "earned it"?
How many get disability checks that are not disabled? Like the commericals on TV.. I tried to get MY social Security, and was denied THREE times.. then lawyer man stepped in and I no longer have to work.

Some people work for 5 years (or less) then think the government OWES them for the rest of their lives..

From what I can tell most people that are TRULY disabled want to work and be a part of society, and most that get disability really aren't!

(Judging from what I have read so far, I appear to be one of a very tiny number of centrists in a bastion of right-wing members. So let the flames begin. From all that I have experienced, people who do not toe the forum party line get flamed and, if they are also newbies, they get incinerated. I hope that this is not the case here but that any replies will address what I said and not be simply an attack on me because I am a newbie and am not right-wing. We will soon see, I believe.)
DEMS
How many screen names are you? :lmao:

:popcorn:[/QUOTE]
No worries there - this one ain't Dems, I know for a fact. I know Carmalita.

Good thing I don't give a crap about your "opinion", huh?

:killingme Takes one to know one, baby! :lmao: If you don't like it, LEAVE. PLEASE! :lmao:

Wow. What a mature and thoughtful group of people. Are there any adults here?

How many get disability checks that are not disabled? Like the commericals on TV.. I tried to get MY social Security, and was denied THREE times.. then lawyer man stepped in and I no longer have to work.

Some people work for 5 years (or less) then think the government OWES them for the rest of their lives..

From what I can tell most people that are TRULY disabled want to work and be a part of society, and most that get disability really aren't!

You can tell this from what? Did you hear in a bar? Did a friend tell it to you? Is it based on some study? Or is it simply your feeling?

The issue was not whether there are people getting paid disability that are not truly disabled. Do you actually believe that NO ONE that gets paid disability is actually disabled? Surely you must feel that there is at least ONE person in the U.S. that is actually disabled. Should THAT person be denied equal protection of the law because s/he is getting a check from the government?

]

DEMS
How many screen names are you? :lmao:

:popcorn:

I have no mpds :banghead: :banghead: and I havn't even been on in a few weeks :killingme: Flattered just the same though :killingme:
:smooch:
:popcorn:

I have no mpds :banghead: :banghead: and I havn't even been on in a few weeks :killingme: Flattered just the same though :killingme:
:smooch:
:popcorn:
Are you sure you ain't just a whistling 'Dixie'...:shrug: