myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
the big lie "the media is liberal"
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 115, 116, 117 ... 136, 137, 138  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5745

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Any time someone gets cash from the government they should piss in a cup. As for the war on drugs, it is ludicrous. They are 2 different matters."


How easy it is to be a hypocrite when it comes down to government control over people's lives. I'm sure that you, like isobars, thinks it's appropriate to drug test everyone. How easy it is to let your employer be some kind of feudal lord to take away your freedom and control your private life? Social conservatives have this thing about using the government to force their agenda. It's so easy to see the tyranny hidden under the cloak.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1614
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
stevenbard wrote:
pueno wrote:
swchandler wrote:
Bard, I have to ask, did you read the linked article? As I recollect, you're the guy advocating drug testing for folks receiving government assistance.

I wonder if Mikey has to piss in a cup in order to receive his disability check.
.


Any time someone gets cash from the government they should piss in a cup. As for the war on drugs, it is ludicrous. They are 2 different matters.

So, Steve ...are you suggesting that if a mom on welfare, tests positive, she gets no welfare? Wouldn't that mean her kids get no food, and shelter...and for no fault of their own, they get screwed?

Yep, that's the way it works in this country, the kids are just thrown out onto the streets to die from exposure and/or starvation.
What, you've never heard of court assigned foster homes?
Or court ordered rehab?
Well informed response you got there.

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5080

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW has all the solutions:

Quote:
What, you've never heard of court assigned foster homes?


Have you ever talked to a get, or tried to teach them something, that was from a household that might end up in a foster home? Do you have any idea how bad things are before a kid gets taken from their parents and assigned to a foster home? Do you think that foster homes are ideally places that prepare kids for adulthood and gainful employment at 18?

The very saddest story in my 8 1/2 years of volunteering in an elementary school involved a child, one of three brothers, whose mother had a substance abuse problem. They were staying with an aunt, who had kids of her own and didn't know if she could keep them. He was a hot mess. He had more reasons, good reasons, to be angry, than you right wing ranters could ever dream of.

Quote:
Imagine for a moment that you went to a doctor and he told you the following:

· 80 percent of my patients don’t get any better.

· A lot of the time, they get worse.

· One-third of the time, I commit malpractice.

But, the doctor continues, if you’ll just pay me even more money than I already get and build me a fancy new hospital, I’m sure I can reduce my failure rate to only about 60 percent. Do we have a deal?

Odds are you’d look for another doctor.

But what if all the other doctors told you the same thing? And what if none of them let on that there were, in fact, better treatments with fewer side effects?

Odds are you’d be furious.

Now, consider a study released on April 7, 2005 by a large, Washington State-based foster-care provider, Casey Family Programs, and Harvard Medical School. The study used case records and interviews to assess the status of young adult “alumni” of foster care.

When compared to adults of the same age and ethnic background who did not endure foster care:

· Only 20 percent of the alumni could be said to be “doing well.” Thus, foster care failed for 80 percent.

· They have double the rate of mental illness.

· Their rate of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was double the rate for Iraq War veterans.

· The former foster children were three times more likely to be living in poverty – and fifteen times less likely to have finished college.

· And nearly one-third of the alumni reported that they had been abused by a foster parent or another adult in a foster home.

The authors went on to design a complex mathematical formula to attempt to figure out how much they could improve these outcomes if every single problem besetting the foster care system were magically fixed. Their answer: 22.2 percent.

Even if one argues that foster care didn’t cause all of these problems, clearly foster care didn’t cure them. Yet the authors of the study recommend only more of the same: Pour even more money into foster care to “fix” it to the point that maybe the rotten outcomes could be reduced by 22.2 percent.

At a two-and-a-half-hour briefing for advocates, there was barely a word about keeping children out of foster care in the first place.

Why, then, do we continue to pour billions of dollars into a system which fails 80 percent of the time and actually abuses at least one-third of those forced into it?

We do it because, over 150 years, we’ve built up a huge, powerful network of foster-care “providers” – “a foster care-industrial complex” with an enormous vested interest in perpetuating the status quo. They feed us horror stories about foster children whose birth parents really were brutally abusive or hopelessly addicted. But such cases represent a tiny fraction of the foster-care population.

As is documented in NCCPR’s Issue Papers, far more common are cases in which a family’s poverty is confused with child “neglect.” Several studies have found, for example, that one-third of foster children could be back home right now if their parents simply had adequate housing. (See NCCPR Issue Paper 5).

Other cases fall on a broad continuum between the extremes, the parents neither all victim nor all villain. What these cases have in common is the fact that the children would be far better off if states and localities used safe, proven alternatives to foster care – alternatives that don’t come with an 80 percent failure rate, and a 33 percent risk of child abuse. (See Twelve Ways to do Child Welfare Right).

Nearly as disturbing as the study’s findings is how the study authors attempted to spin them.

The finding about the rate of abuse in foster care is not mentioned in the press release accompanying the study. It’s not in the Executive Summary. It’s not in any of the glossy material that accompanies the report. One must dig it out of the report itself, on page 30. (The full report is available here)

During the entire briefing for advocates, I waited in vain for the study authors to even mention the issue of abuse in foster care. When I finally asked about it, at the very end of the briefing, one of the researchers tried to blame birth parents, speculating, without a shred of evidence, that maybe the foster children had been abused during visits.

But that is contradicted by the study itself, which states:

“One third (32.8%) of the sample, however, reported some form of maltreatment by a foster parent or other adult in the foster home during their foster care experience, as recorded in their case files” [emphasis added].

If anything, this underestimates the true rate of abuse, since a major problem in foster care is foster children abusing each other (see NCCPR Issue Paper 1), and those cases apparently were not counted in the study.

Of course, some will rush to conclude that because family foster care has failed so badly, we should go back to orphanages. There’s just one problem with that. Over a century of research is nearly unanimous: The outcomes for children warehoused in orphanages are even worse. (See NCCPR Issue Paper 15).

Though the authors try desperately to ignore the obvious, their study is one more indication that the only way to fix foster care is to have less of it. Until we realize that, foster care systems will continue to churn out walking wounded – four times out of five. times.
from http://nccpr.info/80-percent-failure/

Those of you who, rightly but without much discernment, mistrust government, somehow now trust understaffed social workers to take children from bad families and place them with good families. And then end assistance for them or their foster family at 19. The results are terrible.

If you have any real interest in the outcomes, poke around on this site. It might nurture your empathy a bit.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/cwo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1614
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac, thanks for another longwinded diatribe about something that I wasn't referring to.
I was only stating that kids don't get thrown out onto the streets.
Or is that something that you think would be better?

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5080

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But they do get thrown into the streets, at 19. Glad you try hard to understand points of view that may differ from your own.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bajaDean



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 842
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
But they do get thrown into the streets, at 19. Glad you try hard to understand points of view that may differ from your own.
If I a liberal owned the media this and the info you posted would be understood by all. the right wing owned media just wants its right wingers to live in ignorance.

they would rather keep people thinking 2 independent councils run by partisans about a land deal 20 years before he ran for president was actually worthy of the front pages more than 3 days. and these right wingers think a liberal would care about it when a right wing partisan independent council said there was nothing to it. again like a liberal would ever spend more than a week on it in a paper or any media is just proof the media is right wing.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bajaDean



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 842
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

just heard on MSNBC a study by a media group. This is a push propaganda to help incumbants in congress keep their job. again congress at record lows. When the dems are in control it was throw out the racals. When the right wing control it it is just record lows never seen and the right wing media is not saying throw th rascals out.

But even more the right wing media just put out a push project that is complimentary to keeping the losers in power.

National Journal just came out with a propaganda page to support these right winger that have brought congress to the lowest trating in the history of keeping records.

They claim congress people work much more than americans. This has always been true and obvious but they are releasing doing their defense propaganda now for some reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Journal

and the owner of this and more right wing media...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_G._Bradley

David G. Bradley (born 1953)[1] is the owner of the Atlantic Media Company, which publishes several prominent news magazines and services including The Atlantic, National Journal, The Hotline and Government Executive. Before his career as a publisher, Bradley founded the Advisory Board Company and Corporate Executive Board, two Washington-based consulting companies.

Quote:
briefly interned in the White House during the presidency of Richard Nixon.


Quote:
In 1997, Bradley made his first acquisition as a publisher, purchasing the National Journal. He hired Michael Kelly, a well-known journalist who had just been fired from The New Republic after frequently clashing with owner Martin Peretz. Kelly was known for his controversial criticisms of Al Gore and Bill Clinton, but he got along well with Bradley.

Quote:
Politically, Bradley considers himself a centrist,[1] although he has also described himself as "a neocon guy" who was "dead certain about the rightness" of invading Iraq


Quote:
In 1979 while only 26 years old, Bradley founded the Research Counsel of Washington, later renamed the Advisory Board Company. The purpose of the company, at least initially, was to do research on any question for any industry. In 1986 the company began doing special research for the health care industry, which eventually became the main focus of the Advisory Board Company.[5]

In 1983, his company had begun advising other firms in the financial services industry. In 1997, this part of the business was spun off as the Corporate Executive Board.[6] Both companies are now publicly traded, with the Advisory Board on the NASDAQ and CEB on the NYSE. Bradley reportedly earned over $300 million from their sale.[1]

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5080

PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baja Dean's these is correct, even if he is over the top from time to time. This one should chill Bard's blood. From Rolling Stone, where the press held up coverage of the NSA until after Bush's re-election.

Quote:
The program was exposed in a December 16th, 2005, article in The New York Times written by investigative reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau. But the Times, under pressure from the Bush administration and from Bush himself, had sat on the piece for more than a year. The paper finally published the story 13 months after reporting it, and a year after Bush was re-elected. "It was as disgraceful as anything the Times has ever done in terms of betraying what they're supposed to be as a journalistic institution," Greenwald says. "After that, I decided that I needed to sort out what was actually true, and what wasn't."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/snowden-and-greenwald-the-men-who-leaked-the-secrets-20131204page=2#ixzz2nqRCFEKV
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

If you look at this article, and the current issue of the New Yorker together, you would have a little better perspective on the national security state. It actually started under Reagan, and has steadily increased. Contrary to promises, Obama has been unwilling to curb it in any significant way. Although he has pulled spying back so that it meets the legal requirements of the Act--passed at the insistence of Bush--he hasn't gone beyond that. Whether this is because of an unwillingness to take on this huge area of government, or because he is convinced that the benefits of intelligence work, which allowed him to get Bin Laden, are greater than the costs is not clear. He has, however, been more aggressive at prosecuting leaks than any previous president.

Bard--you are right about much of the implication of the national security state, and this is one area where Rand Paul is right, not nuts. But you are wrong on blaming it on Obama.

Nothing wrong with legitimate, and non hate-filled criticism of the sitting President, of whatever party. Constant ad hominem attacks based on lies from talk radio--that's hating.

Read the whole article.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4012

PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
stevenbard wrote:
pueno wrote:
swchandler wrote:
Bard, I have to ask, did you read the linked article? As I recollect, you're the guy advocating drug testing for folks receiving government assistance.

I wonder if Mikey has to piss in a cup in order to receive his disability check.
.


Any time someone gets cash from the government they should piss in a cup. As for the war on drugs, it is ludicrous. They are 2 different matters.

So, Steve ...are you suggesting that if a mom on welfare, tests positive, she gets no welfare? Wouldn't that mean her kids get no food, and shelter...and for no fault of their own, they get screwed?


Immediate drug treatment or the kids go to foster care, or the sober parent/grand parents. As important, I don't want cops, public workers, or POLITICIANS on HARD drugs either. I am not for any prison time for drug users, but am for strict penalties for anyone receiving government money in any form.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 3500
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How do you define GOVT money? The biggest subsidies from the Federal GOVT are 401K's, and Mortgage Interest Deductions...both of which I max out. Are you saying I can't light up from time to time?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 115, 116, 117 ... 136, 137, 138  Next
Page 116 of 138

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group