You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #48: That will never happen. A variant of this law has been on the books for over thirty years. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. That will never happen. A variant of this law has been on the books for over thirty years.
Closer to forty.

And now, we get the "Big Bad Government" argument. Ooooh, the government doesn't CARE!!!!

You know, that's a load of steaming horseshit. Tiresome, too.

I tell ya what 'lack of care' is. Lack of care is women sitting on the cold sidewalks for ten hours a day waiting for a head of cabbage, a few potatoes, and a moth-eaten blanket from the Saint Vincent de Paul Society, because there was NO OTHER CHARITY.

If you did as much work with the poor as you claim, you'd know that the "random anecdote" is anything other than RANDOM. Children are murdered and abused at alarming rates by "boyfriends." And poverty increases the odds a hundredfold. These same "boyfriends" eat the eggs and peas the WIC allowance provides for the infants and toddlers.

Of course, you'd never ask "Where was the government?" when a little kid is beaten to death in a welfare home. You'd NEVER ask "Where were the social workers?" when a child is abused in a residence getting government aid....naaaah, that would interfere with the FREEDOM of the welfare recipient and that beat-down boyfriend!

:eyes:

I've provided cites throughout this thread to prove my case. You've provided nothing but drama, dudgeon and half-baked opinion.

It's not unconstitutional, and the only bullshit here is the arguments that you are shopping. You have a weak understanding of the 4th amendment if you think an inspection for eligibility for services, with NO "search and siezure" involved, no criminal charges, that is agreed to by both parties in ADVANCE, in exchange for cash on the barrel (quid pro quo), is 'unconstitutional.'

See, when you AGREE, it ain't UNREASONABLE. They don't come knocking on the door during the night--ONLY during business hours--ENTIRELY reasonable. And most importantly, no one is FORCED into this agreement. You don't like the terms? Turn on your heel and go.

You don't like the conditions the government requires? Why, there ARE options. Go to the fundy CHURCH for aid, where there AREN'T any of those onerous "condidtions." Oh, you may be expected to show up for services four or more times a week...but what the heck, eh? At least someone won't be coming through your place, making sure your boyfriend isn't running a little business out of your house, and eating the yoghurt and vegetables the WIC money bought for the toddlers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC