Our state rep, Kasha Kelley, wants to have random drug testing for people who get welfare. Here is an AP story about it.
DRUG TESTING: Some Republicans in the Kansas House are pushing for random drug testing for people who receive cash assistance from the state.
A bill mandating such testing has cleared the House Health and Human Services Committee and is headed to the entire chamber for debate.
The measure would affect about 14,000 people receiving help under the Temporary Assistance for Families, General Assistance, Child Care Assistance and Grandparents as Caregivers Assistance programs.
People who fail the tests and don't complete a treatment program would lose their benefits. The testing would cost $800,000 a year and start in July 2010.
Committee Chairwoman Brenda Landwehr, a Wichita Republican, told The Topeka Capital-Journal that the state has a duty to make sure tax dollars don't finance drug habits.
But Democrats are skeptical of the proposal, and the committee's endorsement Tuesday came on a party-line vote.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
137 comments:
Kasha is my new hero! You go girl. I believe this program will pay for itself in the long run. Many "users" are spending welfare dollars. Many can be found in this town!
The only reason this will not work is that drug addicts who do not receive assistance in some form will only resort to crime and violence to feed their habits. Is this the argument from the Democrats, or will they even admit to this? It sucks, but it is true. People will have to be on high alert and work with the police department when this begins.
Either way, they are stealing our money. Whether they get it from the government checks or take it from our homes in the middle of the night. I'd rather fight them than the politicians who give them a free ride.
Oh, and in some states they just give them a different type of check. I think they let drug addicts receive "disability". It's just not right!
My problem with it is that Republicans dont have the same zeal when it comes to corporate welfare.
Even before the bailouts, we were spending more on corporate welfare than we were on social welfare.
If you are going to be strict with poor people, should you not also be strict with very rich people who are also getting welfare ?
Im not so opposed to the drug testing. I just see real inequity here in the whole attitude.
Are there random drug tests for corporate executives who get million dollar bonuses from tax dollars ?
probably not.
And from what line item are they going to get 800,000??? Does the state have money to burn?
What happens to the users that are caught? Is there room in the system for them if the state is closing correctional facilities?
Wow, good point there JJ! Just because all those execs are rich, doesn't mean they aren't doing drugs. I guess the first poster is implying that a large majority on social services programs are addicts. What about the children?I'm curious who pays and how will the treatmeant programs be paid for. They are not exactly cheap. Not saying that Kelleys idea is not a good one though. It could help.
I like how the article says how much it will cost taxpayers, but says nothing about the money that it might eventually save taxpayers.
That's fair and balanced alright.
how about making farmers pee in a cup before we give them government subsidies?
big difference between "will cost" and "might eventually"
how would it save money ?
Sounds good except that some of the people that will be denied because of drug use have innocent children that have no way to earn money to feed themselves or pay for heat, shoes, etc. What happens to the innocents that are too young to care for themselves?
"how would it save money?"
Uh, by not giving it out to junkies?!
deleted post because it was signed, and i question the authorship.
if it turns out to be legit, ill repost it
Off topic, but I would love to thank which ever person it was from the city limb dump for smoking up the east side of town. I love to step outside and cough my lungs out.
personally I like the smell all over town. that smell like burning off fields is one of the best.
the bill has problems but that is because it has been amended by politicians. it is neither the author's fault nor because of any problems with the intent. fact is, there are too many people on welfare PERIOD who shouldn't be. the BIG deal turns out it was a BAD deal and should have been ended in the 30's or 40's.
that said - james is right. welfare at EVERY LEVEL needs looked at. here in KS we don't have any say over corporate welfare being handed out in DC. but we sure don't need any corporate welfare here either (kind like a TIF).
The smoke was so thick and heavy this morning in our area, you couldn't hardly breath. Went to work smelling like the burn site.
you people will bitch about anything
You're not very nice.
Maybe these folks that no longer have money to feed their kids can take them to their Aunt Gertrude or Grandma's. Since when is it the State of KS's obligation to raise ours and yours kids? Besides, do you really think kids are going to starve? Schools serve 2 free meals a day to at risk and low income kids as it is.
It is true that some parents will have to make some difficult decisions such as: texting less on their phones, buying less cigarettes and beer, and reducing their 10 daily trips to the Quick Trip. They might have to get a job or beat the pavement looking for odd jobs. With this new found sense of urgency and responsibility, they will have less time to lay at home and have more kids.
The government raises the "sin" tax to encourage us to quit smoking and put some money in the till. Why not cut off welfare to junkies if they do not stop using? I'm not sure this will work, but is it not the same principal?
Also, I agree with your views on corporate welfare. They are not acceptable, either. Honestly, I'm against most forms of government handouts. There are some really good points made here by posters. My grandmother always said that if the parents did not take care of their kids or households, it should be the responsibility of the grandparents or other family members to "pick up the bill". Family should take care of "family problems". It should not be the burden of their neighbors. However, in some cases there may not be family to step in. This may be a good time for a community to step in? No one can blame the children. I do not have all of the answers, I just know that it's not right to support drug addicts or businesses which may just need to fail if they can't get their bottom line right.
If you really think that the schools or grandma can raise the kids then you haven't visited any public school in this town lately.
WITH welfare, the current homeless rate for our kids would astound you. If you think testing the parents and taking away the income for those kids means nothing then please come to my classroom.
We have too many people on welfare, I agree. We also have too many people on drugs but we also have too many kids that are in foster homes and many more that need to be.
Kids are innocent. They did not ask to be born into families with parents that use drugs or that are mentally unstable but this law will make their predicament much more severe. It is a great idea but we will have to address the needs of those kids when they are left with no income.
I'm glad you responded. I'm interested to know your opinion as you work in a public school. You probably get a different perspective.
Tell me this, do you think the kids are better off at home if their parents are "users" or would they be better off in a foster home? I have heard horror stories both ways. I have, also, heard success stories about kids in foster homes. I guess it depends on the foster parents?
Anyway, if the kids have to be removed from their homes or are abandoned because the parents lose their only source of income, I'm sure it would get VERY expensive for the state. I'm sure the foster program is not cheap.
Still, I do not support my tax dollars going to drug addicts. Too bad it could not go to the kids, instead. At least the school food program directly benefits them and not the parents.
It does drive me crazy that our welfare dollars support drug habits but I would rather that people have to work to get welfare dollars than be tested for drugs.
I see kids from foster homes and from those with a parent on drugs and some with parents in jail. I also see some with parents struggling with mental illness. Kids in a stable foster home are very lucky but good foster homes are hard to find and some kids end up going from home to home.
There are MANY grandparents caring for kids. I am sure that if this program goes into effect even more will move into grandparents' home. It is hard for those of us with "normal" homes to fathom what these children and families really do go through.
I would favor testing but I would have to ask how it would be done. Does it create more red tape, more expense, more opportunity for the government to be our keeper.
I also worry that many kids will live in terror. Most kids are aware that their parents are users and knowing that they may be tested and lose income or go to jail would be very disturbing to them.
I just wish we could live in a different place where people had jobs, kids could be kids, and drugs were only used by really bad people...that is not the reality. If we could just get some of those things back...it would sure be a good world.
Who is Patrick?
Sends out defaming emails, bashing commissioners behind their backs then
lies about it (coward, sneak).
Owns no property, lives in the basement of Mom’s house and she helps
support him (phony).
Claimed all of the transparency issues came from him not Margolius (liar).
Even the paper knows the puppet masters gave him a jerk causing the
flip-flop on the hospital board size (manipulated).
He had nothing to do with the neighborhood counsel that was Smith
(despicable).
Patrick voted yes on every item for the last two years, including the
water bill and the crash tax (bobble head).
None of the above nor any thing he has done in 4 years show any leadership
qualities, (toady).
He is making a mockery of the system (embarrassment).
The Ark City Tea Party ~ Arleta Rice
Hey guess what? I saw Arelta Rice asking all the people downtown to sign a petition supporting McDonald, The AC Industries guy, and the old school guy. Pretty cool Arleta, sick 'em girl. One question though? Why should I vote for them over Scott or Dotty or anyone else for that matter. What can they offer to Ark City? Not themselves, but to Ark City?
How do the Kelleys feel about the poor? Gross generalizations. "They are probably mostly on drugs." I know, let's test elected officials too. How about business owners? How about the rich? Married people? They all get tax breaks.
BUT, as previously stated and removed, it makes them look good to those who they know vote.
I just read the last paragraph of your post JJ. Nice to see we agree. Albeit in principle only, I'm sure.
Uh, by not giving it out to junkies?!
March 19, 2009 10:14 AM
Junkies to what !!! Some of them spend money to buying things not needed to llive, they can ge said that they are addicted to a dream life style buying and giving a little t much for somethings they do not need and how will tis effect our school system when the little bit they spend wisely like enrollmen or clothing.. Drugs are bad weather it is illegal or hooked on persrictions drugs like lroitab percaseit or other leagal drugs. Some may have a script for things like weed for the eyes do they not get any more money..
And like others have said WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS..
WHERE IS IT ALL GOING TO STOP.. i WOULD BE WILLING TO SAY THAT A PART OF THOSE WHO BUY DRUGS WITH THE WELFARE MONEY COULD NOT GET A JOB FOR THE SAME REASON CANNOT PAST THE TEST.. SO WE WILL BE LOOKING AT MORE RUB DOWN HOUSING THAT THE landlord will not fix up, because thepart of welfare that paid the rent will not be there anymore, THEN WE WILL HAVE MORE HOMELESS ON OUR STREET..
i THINK THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE TO LIST ALL DEBTS AND FOOD EXPENSES AND GET NOTHING MORE AND IF THEY DON'T TAKE CARE OF THE KIDS THEN jAIL THEM FOR CHILD NEGLECT AND ENDAGERMENT, but then we still have to find a way to take care of the children whose parents are jailed or at treatment... And that a terrible thing to dump on graparents eho don't want their grand kids in the system!!!!!
What if we took the money being used to fight drugs -and pay for drug tests - and used it to help people get over drugs?
And further, what if we addressed the societal issues that result in people getting on drugs in the first place?
I really think this whole drug war is misguided. It is a waste of money and time and is not helping the people who need help.
Why are people getting on drugs?
Why do people feel they need "dope to cope." ?
Drug tests and jail is not the answer. It is not working, has never worked and obviously never will work.
Which is more insane.
Continuing the same course and expecting different results?
or
Taking drugs to feel better?
Everyone know someone who is living on either disability or aid to families with dependant children or just vision card that we see/think/know is only drawing the money because that can for for a need but for a knowledge of the system. I think the problem is that you have to start somewhere.
The children that you speaking about living with drug parents, are not living in the lap of anything special. They are already living in ruined communities they are already living without. Would you really be punishing the children. Put yourself in the grandparents place. You grown child has just failed a drug test and is denied services for themselves. you get the call your grown child has failed and here are the options the children will need a safe place to be for this time. parent can enter program, parent can not enter program. Children have set up and they are the first concern.
I understand every program has pitfalls, but it seems as if you don't want to do anything but complain about not only problems but any possible solutions as well.
How about testing those on welfare for drugs,giving them the boot if they are on drugs, making those who do pass and are on welfare work for the state,county, or city doing every thing from picking up trash cleaning out gutters, to sweeping the streets by hand if they have to. Make those who say they cant work because of children take their children to daycare ran by the state using (you guessed it) other welfare recipiants, eating food cooked and grown and preserved by other welfare recipiants. If they don't show, they don't get the money. How long do you think it would take them to get a real job? I am not sure how this would work but the state,county and city would be much cleaner, and I would bet that it wouldn't take long for only the very needy to be on welfare.
I hate what drugs do to people and what they have done to society but I think that testing people before we give them their welfare checks does not address the issues. It is a punishment for a crime that punishes more than the offender.
If we take every drug offender off of welfare we do save lots of money but what happens to the people and their families that really do need the checks to survive. Will the offenders then go to jail, mandatory rehab and at whose expense? Who pays for the testing and how do they decide who "randomly" gets tested.
Welfare is not a guaranteed right as an American citizen but I think it might be more effective and a better use of my tax dollars to get people off of welfare with better jobs and job incentives. I would like to see those on welfare be required to work as volunteers and to earn their checks. As they volunteer they might actually get skills that will get them employed. It is a positive approach and not another negative that will just make drug users more desperate.
.
what's wrong with more junkies living on the street? we could use them to fill the potholes!
If someone were to test positive for drugs and get booted off welfare, they would not be able to pass a drug test to get a job.
about having farmers pee in a cup before getting their subsidy check: this will be extremely difficult because we're used to peeing off the steps of the tractor. better stand upwind.
The assistance would only be removed from the person who didn't pass the test. For instance lets say you were drawing $375 cash assistance and there are 3 people in your family. and you are drawing 300 per month in food assistance vision.
You don't pass they remove your portion of the money. $125 and your portion of the Vision $100 the rest of the money is still available for the children but you are not the person in charge of the money anymore. Until you can pass a drug test another family member will have to step in as payee for the children
It is the administration of the existing and new laws that are the pits. Proportional reductions in welfare based on the number in a family testing positive together with new testing before reinstating the welfare sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare. How about cutting off welfare for 1 calendar year per family or household unit?
How bout this. It would be a step in the right direction if the state could find a way to start coordinating what doctors, hospitals and pharmacies are doing more. Alot of peoples pill problems begin with the family doc.
I think this is one of the best initiatives yet. Sure, you could gripe about the cost OR you could realize that we as taxpayersare paying for drug users to buy their drugs and it can be stopped. You mention innocent children- really? Do you really think that drug users are spending that money on their kids? This initiative will most likely go after the ones receiving welfare checks- not just the ones on food stamps. Do you really want taxpayer money supplying drugs? You, as an employed taxpayer are most likely subject to drug tests in order to keep your job and receive pay- why shouldn't people getting FREE money be subject to the responsibility of using it for the things needed to give them a hand up and not be allowed to continue to use it as a crutch? No, not everyone on welfare is a drug user, so those people should not be offended- we are protecting their right to continue welfare while getting rid of abusers of the system. This program will pay for itself by releaving taxpayers from exploiters of the system. The only thing that could make this initiative better is that it included removing all illegal immigrants from welfare also. As long as they are fed for free they will continue to exploit our country.
Kasha is requesting RANDOM testing. That is the smartest way to deal with this- not everyone is tested, but they are SUBJECT to random testing which means they would not get advance warning so they could clean out for the test. At the point of failing the test, they would be subject to the consequences. Anyone who doesn't see that as positive must be protecting a user, because it is insane to believe that you would still hand over money to someone you know is on drugs so that they could buy more- especially when it is an able-bodied person who simply does not want to get a job or makes BS excuses why they can't.
You've got the wrong idea about Kasha. She doesn't live in an ivory tower- she looks at the situation and she listens to what is being said and makes a serious effort to make positive changes in the world. She worked on the stalker bill because someone from her community that she cared about was put in a horrifying position they could not do anything about, so she worked with her community to make it safer. She worked for transparancy not so she could take taxpayer moeny but so that we as taxpayers could see what our money is spent on. She is making this current initiative because she is constantly complained to about the wasteful spending of taxpayer moeny and this is definately a place where moeny could be better spent. Its easy to throw rocks at Kasha because she is successful, but please don't resent her for being a motivated person who works hard- not only to make her business successful but to also help her community. She is a hometown girl and works hard to make a difference here and I am glad to call her my representative.
especially when it is an able-bodied person who simply does not want to get a job or makes BS excuses why they can't.
>>>
I just dont think there are that many that fit this category. Stastistically speaking, most welfare recipients are single white mothers with small children.
Not defending drug users, but I just think theres too much worry over someone stealing a penny from the system and not enough concern about real issues.
I wouldn't expect any less (or more) from you JJ. Consequently, I'm glad Kasha is in office and you are not. (I don't mean anything mean by that, just that you do better at reporting than supporting)
Real issues? Do you mean like providing free education and welfare to illegal immigrants? What is your stand on that JJ?
Just for the record.
I like Kasha a lot. I think she is great and does a fine job.
Im entitled do disagree with her on an issue here and there, doesn't affect how much i like her at all.
Statistically, JJ, 86% of statistics are wrong 78% of the time- or is it 87% os statistics are wrong 68% of the time? Oh, who cares, throw them out there JJ.
76% of stastics are made up on the spot , like i said 85% of stastics are made up on the spot
Kasha has quickly become a good politician. She is obviously very smart. She is doing what is popular and what will get her press. When it is popular to be really mindful of our government money - she makes this proposal. When it really popular to propose and anti-stalking law, she does so. Maybe she is giving the public what they want. I will be watching hard to see if and when she supports something that is obviously good, but obviously not popular. Also, when does she break from party lines?
She is a very mindful of the the voting public, always. I have seen her and her husband in public at a eating establishment in AC and again once in Wichita at a similar establishment.. It was very interesting to see how they act in AC and how they act when the are not amongst the voting public. Very outgoing, courteous, overly nice to all in AC; quite entitled and self centered outside of it.
I have seen her at events where she looks like she is ready for Church with the Mennonite congregation or the lunch with the Daughters of the Confederacy, and seen her walk the Arkalalah parade looking like she is ready to ride the bull at Club Rodeo, undoubtably playing to the crowd.
I would like to see more of a real person, a real public servant, who is a bit more consistent in her actions towards others and the public.
Also, when does she break from party lines?
>>
She has on the smoking ban, which republicans oppose. She supports a statewide smoking ban.
Lets wait and see when they vote.
Kasha is as real as it gets. Yes, she may TONE DOWN for the public, but who doesn't? To insenuate that she is different out of town that in town is silly. Maybe she was just more relaxed at that particular moment. Its not easy to live under glass.
Bravo to Anonymous at 8:09 am (I like your plan) and 10:06 am. I agree--not just for drug users, but for all welfare recipients who are capable of working. I also agree with Anonymous at 10:45--if people aren't here legally, why should they receive ANY tax dollar support? And, does anyone know if the doctors who determined someone is "temporarily disabled" have to re-check to see if and when they are capable to return to work? I know of a few "handicapped" tags that aren't returned after the person is capable of working again and/or the handicapped person is deceased. Shouldn't the DMV or whoever hands those out recall them at some point? I don't know how the system works.
@ 10:21
The testing would cost $800,000 a year but how much does the required treatment program cost? Is this an inpatient program or outpatient program? Inpatient programs are quite expensive and outpatient programs for addicts will not work. Substance abuse is a disease people.
SRS Secretary Don Jordan stated that about one third of people participating in state programs would be tested and expects 3-8% of those to fail. A majority of those from marijuana. Jordan continues to say that SRS will give people advanced warning of random drug test, possibly up to seven days!
This bill is ridiculous but I suppose will look nice for KK's 2010 reelection campaign.
I agree 11:48am. And that is exactly what we should be trying to improve. Milking taxpayers has got to stop and starting with wasteful spending is key. Checking up on these things is way more efficent in the long run!!
Excuse me byte daily:Substance abuse is a disease people.
Are you suggesting that we enable these people? I thought you were more intelliigent than that. We are not idiots- idiots enable drug users- sounds like that is the wagon you are on or maybe a user yourself. Are you saying there is no hope from these 'diseased people' as you call it? Personal accountabiility will make them drug free, and not excusing their behavior and giving them an out by calling it a disease. Drunks and druggies can be cured and to excuse that behavior is reprehensible. You- byte daily- should be ashamed. The healing HAS to start somewhere- so come off your box and be a solution not part of the problem!!
To the Poster above on: March 19, 2009 10:47 PM
It is one thing to express valid concerns or even poke fun at people and issues, but the debate has to remain civil.
I think I can speak for all of us in saying we are sick of politics as usual. We have to maintain a minimum respect for the process and the FAIR play of ideas.
Let's put personal agendas aside and focus on problems and issues.
Thanks for listening.
Scott Margolius
@ 11:58
Don't be so simple minded. My opposition to this bill doesn't mean that I do drugs.
Have you ever known an addict? If not, might I suggest reading "Tweak" by Nick Sheff or his father's (David Sheff) book "Beautiful Boy: A Father's Journey Through His Son's Addiction". Meaningful books that look at addiction. Beautiful Boy is available at our public library for the record.
I do not support enabling addicts however I do believe the issue is more serious then what was presented in the bill. If you are going to offer treatment then I have a right to ask what type of treatment is being offered. Cookie cutter treatment programs, especially outpatient programs, will not work and in my opinion a waste of taxpayer dollars in the long run.
What about follow up care? Is that being offered?
Addicts relapse multiple times before they successfully complete treatment programs, that is the reality. I suggest talking to a police officer or a doctor who might have experience with this.
Also, what is the point of testing if you are going to give people advance warning? Pot smokers can pass a pee test with little notice given.
I ask you to dig deeper. If you really care about this issue then more needs to be done. The bill as is is nothing more then a band aid and isn't going to resolve anything.
to byte daily
YOU HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE- STICKING YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND IS NOT THE ANSWER
Anon. said: When it is popular to be really mindful of our government money - she makes this proposal.
You also mentioned later you would like to know the real Kasha.
If you knew her you would know she has been working on transparancy for a very long time- not just this week. She is responsible for the website showing spending that has been in process for a while and it didn't happen overnight. Part of her platform is reduction of wasteful spending. It is easy to cast around accusations, but in order to have legitimacy you should be educated in the areas in which you speak. If you want to know Kasha- she is easy to research and not that hard to contact and ask the questions you are curious about- she is a very approachable person and is always (in my experience) willing to listen when it comes to real issues. She appreciates the input and as you mentioned very smart- smart enough to listen to what is important to her voters and work towards achieving the positive goals they elected her for. She is also not a coward like many politicians so she doesn't shrink away from the hard issues- even when they aren't the most popular. She will look you in the eye and tell you where she stands and why, and I for one appreciate that about her. Also, keep in mind she is held to the same standards as she requests in spending transparancy, so know that when she is working with your money- you will know where it goes.
ditto...
also, I think the proposal is to do RANDOM testing.
Why is their mandatory treatment? Why would the tax payers be responsible for paying this if the welfare recipient turned in a dirty UA and was cut off of welfare?
Don't get me wrong, I know it will change and upset life as most of us know it. I know their kids will suffer, Kansas towns will suffer greater poverty and crime will go up. I know it will be horrible. Maybe, though, we should stop enabling drug usage and take some of the "glamour" out of it. Let it show for what it really is so that our youth will think twice about smoking that first joint or snorting that line. It only takes once!
People do not murder because they know it is wrong and that their lives will be ruined for it. Same scenario, though. It only takes once. Kids know that drugs are wrong, but they still become drug addicts. Let's expose it for what it is and make an example out of current users so that future ones will not exist.
Byte Daily would argue that the sky was purple if Kasha says it's blue. Unless Obama says something, Byte is against it. Typical liberal sheep.
Addicts relapse multiple times before they successfully complete treatment programs, that is the reality. I suggest talking to a police officer or a doctor who might have experience with this.
So are you saying that a police has the same expertise as a doctor and can evulate wha woprk for any body or are you saying the streets teaching the officers about medicine, the brain. and how to physo analyze a person.
If so they are on the wrong job or maybe they just do not realize that they can make more money as a doctor. ooooh that would disquialfy them if they are not smart enough to know they are really doctors. Just maybe they could help someone and not lock them up if they know weather someone can be cured and how to clean that persons life up and get them off drugs
@ 10:34
The sheep you are referring to are the majority of the people posting on this blog. I on the other hand am sick of fake politicians offering pretty on the surface bills that waste tax payer money and do not solve problems.
Don't let me stop you from waving your 'You Go Girl' banners though. But do assume you'll still be bitching about this problem in 10 years.
@ 12:51
You've missed my point. Again, I am stating that addicts almost always relapse despite treatment programs. Look up recidivism rates of drug addicts, ask a cop.
If you think booting an addict off welfare is going to save taxpayer money then I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.
addicts almost always relapse despite treatment programs. Look up recidivism rates of drug addicts, ask a cop.
>>
Yes,
That is why i think our approach is totally wrong. We as a society, need to figure out that what we are doing about this problem is not working, and that we need new solutions.
It is a fact that over half the prison population are in prison for drug use.
There is something within is that seems to make us either addicts or non addicts.
Here is something that will get me in trouble on here:)
The only thing I have seen that has actually worked to cure an addict is a good dose of the Holy Spirit of God.
When people get truly born again, they are able to live a new life as a non-addict. Even then they struggle, but ive not seen anything else that worked very well.
The article says: People who fail the tests and don't complete a treatment program would lose their benefits. The testing would cost $800,000 a year and start in July 2010.
It is talking about what the initial testing would cost. That does not mean that taxpayers pay for treatment, it means most likely the user would have to independantly complete and provide proof of completeing it- which is fair treatment for misusing funds. In the long run repeat users and people not willing to quit the drug use will be off the system and working independly somewhere to avoid the hassle. The program will most likely not just pay for itself eventually, but save taxpayer money.
byte daily- the great enabler
I find your point hard to aurgue with JJ. The chances of success are greater when the power of God is with them. I've known several addicts and the one that accepted God into their life is the one that had greater success. Granted, this person did relapse after several years, but was able to get off the drugs for the past 15+ years.
That said, prison and turning these people back onto the streets is not the answer. Looking at the mental health issues of an addict or causual user is a good step and creating drug rehab prisons could be another good step. Parents really opening their eyes to what the kids are really doing and why. People might be surprised to find alot of kids are using alcohol and drugs to cope with problems and not just for the fun of it.
"When people get truly born again, they are able to live a new life as a non-addict."
It is a solution of replacing one psychological compulsion with another, which is why it works.
There are many different personalities out there and a large number of people have a compulsive personality which shows up as over eating, over shopping, over partying, etc which is the basis of most self - destructive behaviors. Sometimes this leads to drug use which, once started, can be difficult to stop.
It has been shown that exercise doesn't really burn enough calories on its own to create weight loss.
The only success stories for weight loss (other than surgically blocking the pie hole with a stomach band)consist of getting these people to obsess about running or weight lifting, etc,.
This alternative obsession occupies the time where the person would be normally sitting on the couch eating jumbo bags of Lays potato chips.
Generally this substitute obsession is in a social setting, like a community rec center or gym for weight loss, or for religious obsession, church or church socials.
In a social setting, you have peer pressure to continue the change.
It is why AA works. You create an alternative social obsession (12 steps) and a social peer environment to encourage (and embarrass) the drunk into continuing with the substitute lifestyle.
That is why "therapy" sometimes works. It isn't the "therapy", it is a substitute life-style that is created for the drug user that removes them from the time, environment and access, and substitutes another obsessive environment.
The thing that never works is arrest and imprisonment. There are a lot of studies about that and almost all conclude that they never "cure" the person. It is a waste of resources ($)which accomplishes nothing.
They get out of jail or probation and find because of their record they can't get a job.
Then they have to go on (yes, you guessed it) welfare. The problem feeds itself and doesn't create any change.
If we could stop the cycle, we could say we've really done something.
Maybe Kasha's proposal is a good thing, but doesn't go far enough. It needs to extend toward a real solution to the problem as well.
What works the best?
Threat of something bad in the future (losing welfare payments for example)while being monitored over a long term with a mandatory choice from a number of otherwise voluntary recovery programs.
AA, Church, Shrinks, etc.
Change the person. It is the only solution.
@March 21, 2009 8:39 AM
Mr. Editor,
Thank you for being open & honest with your feelings. I realize these are your feelings.
I must say, they are mine too.
The prison (corrections), judicial, legal system is a joke. No one is "corrected". Only worse off when released. We are almost maxxed out in prison bed space. God is our only hope (all our only hope, not just those who struggle with addictions)
I could say more... but, again, thanks for taking a stand.
D.Q.
byte daily said-The sheep you are referring to are the majority of the people posting on this blog. I on the other hand am sick of fake politicians offering pretty on the surface bills that waste tax payer money and do not solve problems.
Please byte daily- don't embarass yourself by thinking that we agree with your weak opinion (you say majority but I highly doubt that), not only is that very egotisitical but also very inaccurate. You see, what you are not getting is that sometimes money has to be spent in a different direction to achieve true change in a negative situation. It will cost money initially for the testing, but the user becomes responsible for treatment, we should not have to pay for treatment- that should be handled independantly- I know- this is where you will probably cry foul for the user- but taxpayers should not be responsible for that, if the user cannot take the initiative to complete a program (most local ones go off of income anyway so if they could get drugs they can finance this) then they will not be allowed to get free taxpayer money in the future- its pretty simple. As for the crying over innocent children- they will still get their portion- just with the requirement of a different payee than the drug user. Well- now you cry what if the drug user is the single mommy with a basket of kiddies? Well, then she would be required to find a responsible person (imagine that) to help her with those kids. Now, I know from listening to your rambling in the past byte daily that you will attempt to find error in this or try to make Kasha look like she is spending irresponsibly, but MAYBE- just maybe you might help trying to be part of a solution some time instead of always looking for and pointing out (even when false) fault in others. It feels pretty good and I'll bet if you used the same effort as you do to be negative even you could help bring positive change to the world.
JJ- if they relapse and are caught they go through the treatment process again, like pavlov's dogs and they learn what it takes to get welfare. it sounds mean, but you can't save everyone- they have to be at least a little bit willing to save themselves. what we can choose is not to pay for it and we have that right too. taking care of the disabled and the weak are important- supplying drug users is not. they have to be taught that there isn't an excuse for their behavior. PERIOD.
Kasha is a remarkable person. I had her in classes in high school and she has always been friendly and caring about others no matter what social group the person was in. I do question though if she has knowledge of what a struggling addict really goes through. I personally don't think cutting an addict off welfare will solve the addicts problem. If they do not want to kick the drug habit, they will find another way.
which is fine Jamie, but should tazpayers fund them? I don't think so.
I'm not a politician, I don't have the answers. Each situation is unique and it would take trial and error to find what works best, but I don't think only the poor should be punished.
I have a solution to the drug problem, so gather round and listen closely.
We spike every hard drug, such as heroin, meth, coke, etc with ricin, so that the first time a person hits it..BAM. DRT! (Dead Right There)
TA-DA! Fewer junkies!
Response to JJ -
JJ posted-
"The only thing I have seen that has actually worked to cure an addict is a good dose of the Holy Spirit of God.
When people get truly born again, they are able to live a new life as a non-addict."
I have seen this work, but I have seen good treatment programs work too. Usually the good treatment programs are not tied to corrections or the state.
Also JJ, have you seen the movie Religulous (sp?) with the commedian Bill Mahr (sp? again). I would be interested in your reactions. Most of it is clearly for entertainment purposes, but if you look up some of his claims about ancient gods (pre-Christ) like Dionysus and Horus, with similarities to the story of Jesus like the virgin birth, 12 disciples, and other similarities, it made me wonder about things that I had not questioned before. I would be very interested in your reactions if you have seen it.
JJ, have you seen the movie Religulous (sp?) with the commedian Bill Mahr (sp? again). I would be interested in your reactions.
ancient gods (pre-Christ) like Dionysus and Horus, with similarities to the story of Jesus like the virgin birth, 12 disciples, and other similarities, it made me wonder about things that I had not questioned before.
>>>
There are some similarities to other ancient things. Hamaradi had 10 commandments and some people claim moses copied them, But there is no proof that hamaradi didnt copy moses. Both are very ancient.
I dont see why they could not have come up with them separately.
I dont make as much of the similarities as some people do.
Most of the similarities are very vague.
Pagans had a dying god who rose again, and people say that similar to the story of Jesus. Its not similar enough to me.
Lots of scholars try to make the copying argument, but i just dont see it as a reasonable argument.
Ive not seen the movie, but ive heard those types of arguments.
So, there are some similarities, but i would say that doesnt mean anything.
You know, in ancient cultures around the world, tools were pretty much the same. What worked for digging or plowing in china also worked in south american and europe etc.,
Doesnt mean they copied each other.
Kasha is a remarkable person. I had her in classes in high school and she has always been friendly and caring about others no matter what social group the person was in.
>>>
I agree with that. I have a real high opinion of Kasha. Disagreeing with her on a point or two, does not diminish that at all. :)
they have to be taught that there isn't an excuse for their behavior. PERIOD.
>>>
True, the only love a druggie understands is tough love.
I was involved with a woman when i lived in Arkansas who was a druggie. Best thing i ever did for her was leave the state :)
Im not for coddling druggies. I just think the whole way we deal with drugs and druggies is all wrong. Trying harder at what doesn't work wont work.
Here is a radical thought.
Take drugs completely out of the judicial system.
Make it legal.
Take all that money we are now wasting on chasing down users, and building prisons for them,
and spend it on treatment.
You could give whats left over back to the taxpayer.
The problem with the drug war is that we are fighting the wrong enemy.
"Take drugs completely out of the judicial system.
Make it legal."
Won't work. It will never happen.
I would expect it to be legal to skateboard in Ark City before drugs are legal.
It isn't about what should or shouldn't, it is about what can be voted in.
On the other hand, it appears that federal enforcement guidelines are being changed and that the medical benefits of marijuana (for cancer patients, etc.) are going to be recognized and protected.
@March 21, 2009 10:45 AM
?Question: have you ever had family or friends with a substance abuse problem?
D.Q.
Question: have you ever had family or friends with a substance abuse problem?
D.Q.
Im gonna move this to a new post
People need something to help them understand that the void they seek to fill with drugs and alcohol, can only be filled with Jesus. He can make the 'desire' go away!
We all holler and scream, but if we will begin too pray for those involved with 'd' and 'a' we can believe for the change to take place. (people are not garbage, nor are they disposable trash) For whatever reason they turned to these outside influences, there is only One true way out.
I hope that the mercy of God rest upon all that are so negative and short sighted.
God bless us all!
Yes, i have had a step sibling that was involved in drugs. Same goes for them. They were weak, and needed something to follow. Guess what it was after drugs? Religion! Almost as bad in my book. Then in a few years they moved on to something else. All these things prey on people who need to belong. Weak People.
To the poster who asked about RELIGULOUS,
Yes, that movie makes many valid points. Points that jj will try to twist around and make them seem like they don't matter, but they do.
If you liked RELIGULOUS, you should check this out. This is the first part with links to the others on the right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E
10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ&feature=related
Points that jj will try to twist around and make them seem like they don't matter, but they do.
>>
Maybe its you thats doing the twisting.
Explain to me how one person having 12 friends makes him non existant because someone else 500 years earlier in a different part of the world had 12 friends.
just explain that logic :)
ive seen these arguments.
no serious scientist or scholar would give them the time of day, believer or not.
I saw the 10 questions.
THey all can be answered easily, but you will say the answers are wrong or dont make sense or something.
I really think you protest too much.
Why is it you hate christians so?
Do you go around harassing buddhists? muslims? shintoist?
why not?
THAT is an interesting question.
Explain to me rationally why you do not persecute other religions, and ill consider answering one of your 10 questions.
Fair enough?
By the way, amputees are healed all the time.
THey most often do not die from their amputations.
often amputations save the lives of people who have other problems.
doctors can put back on a limb that has been amputated.
sooooooo
ive given you one answer.
you gonna answer my question?
"By the way, amputees are healed all the time.
THey most often do not die from their amputations.
often amputations save the lives of people who have other problems.
doctors can put back on a limb that has been amputated.
sooooooo
ive given you one answer.
you gonna answer my question?"
REALLY? You have seen amputees missing limbs grow back? Oh, that's not what you meant? Why is that I wonder?
A simple coincidence like someone going into remission after praying about it can be CALLED a miracle, but a limb growing back WOULD be a miracle... and there are no such thing as miracles.
You show me a person who'd limb has grown back after praying about it, and I'll believe in your god.
As to your question, that's easy.. because you are delusional, and I am simply pointing out the rational, as any caring person should.
And, I am an equal opportunity rationalist. You tell me a god, any god, and I will denounce him/her/it.
Watch the videos.
visit the website
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com
Studies are showing that more and more people are denouncing religion everyday. Imagine a world without religions to fight over.
"... and there are no such thing as miracles.
You show me a person who'd limb has grown back after praying about it, and I'll believe in your god."
Gosh, you sound so silly!
Imagine a world without religions to fight over.
>>>>>>>
You are the only one fighting.
No one else on here is doing any fighting.
hmmmmm
If you saw TWO limbs grow back on, you would just say it is fake or something.
I doubt you would believe even then.
I dont understand why you are so hatefull and angry ... but then again, maybe i do.
God loves you.
Some animals do grow their missing limbs back.
Why have humans not evolved that ability?
Amputees are healed.
growing a limb back is not healing.
Prov 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
Prov 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
"Gosh, you sound so silly!"
If I sound silly to you, then it must be because you have seen an amputees limbs grow back, or witnessed a miracle, right?
Please enlighten us all.
JJ, again you miss the point. Yes, some animals can regrow limbs.. that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. You always try to sidetrack the debate by labeling me angry (I'm not.. just rational), or switching the focus to other things, in this case animals, but you never answer my questions. You should be a politician since you are so good at dodging questions. How are you at dodging shoes?
The statement about how little fighting there would be without religion had nothing to do with this blog, or our debate, it had to do with the BILLIONS of people that have been killed throughout history because of religious beliefs. But, I think you know that, and it was just another dodge. You are fairly skilled at shifting the focus. I bet many of your readers don't even notice.
"Amputees are healed.
growing a limb back is not healing."
It's NOT? I bet if you took a survey of 100 amputees and asked them if they'd rather god made their stump seal up good, or make their limb grow back, 100% would ask for their limb back.
ah JJ, the artful dodger.
You are fairly skilled at shifting the focus. I bet many of your readers don't even notice.
>>
I answered your accusations in a reasonable manner.
You know that I did, and you know I answered them well.
So you accuse me of shifting focus.
You are sidestepping the reality that your accusations are baseless, as i have shown.
If you dont realize how hostile you sound, you need to let other people read what you wrote and ask them.
Still i think you protest too much.
Jesus loves you.
thast all i can say.
Thanks JJ, he can't argue with that! He was just cutting and pasting and now he's repeating himself and trying to be argumentative for the sake of it. If I were you I would agree to disagree and stop the silliness.
We find ourselves at another paradox, there is no way to prove or disprove any religion. Many believers in their religion will often say God is testing us as he has faked much of the things we see in history. Such as dinosaur bones being millions of years old. However skeptics usually point out other facts, such as the second you accept one religion you are literally rejecting thousands of others. Skeptics will also point to the overwhelming evidence that all so-called effects of prayer can be explained through mere coincidence. They will also point to errors in the Bible writings, and problems with the whole idea of heaven in general. Despite this evidence many people continue to worship their gods. Skeptics generally believe that religion was established for one of two reasons. Reason one because people were scared and looked for a way to say this life isn’t all you get. The second reason is that people were confused and tried to come up with an answer as to why and how all this stuff got here, so they came up with the ideas of gods. Nonetheless, following certain things from certain religions isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
The one common thing you will find in all religions usually written in different words but with the same meaning: do unto others what you would want others to do to you. A fine motto to live by.
@March 22, 2009 12:37 PM
Thank you for that great post. Excellent!
Despite this evidence many people continue to worship their gods. Skeptics generally believe that religion was established for one of two reasons. Reason one because people were scared and looked for a way to say this life isn’t all you get. The second reason is that people were confused and tried to come up with an answer as to why and how all this stuff got here, so they came up with the ideas of gods.
>>>>
There is evidence.
Ive heard those two reasons. There is also the possibility that God exists and has communicated with man, which started religion.
Why is that more unreasonable than the two possibilities you mentioned?
I do not believe in blind faith.
You cannot prove or disprove God with physical evidence,because God is spirit. Two different realms,very extreme example of apples and oranges.
BUT .. there is circumstantial evidence.
There is all kinds of evidence.
People say the bible is full of errors, i have yet for anyone to show me an actual error in the original languages that has any impact on any key teaching.
Where there appear to be conflicts with science, usually it is just a matter of not understanding the text.
But I would say that the writers of the bible were limited to the knowledge of their time. so they dont mention the other continents because they could not have known about them. ..
Im just saying, it isnt reasonable - logical - or fair. to say that all religions people are idiots who ignore evidence.
:)
Jamie, I think you must have been a part of a select few that were priveledged to speak and know Ms. Kelley in school. She presented herself in school as being better than everyone there. She has never had to work for anything she had...she was one of those in school that asked and she received. I have a better plan for Ms. Kelley to pursue...how about sterilization so we don't have to pay for babies upon babies that many people have for the money!
"I answered your accusations in a reasonable manner.
You know that I did, and you know I answered them well.
WHERE? I didn't see you answer anything except that some animals can regrow limbs. That is not an answer to any of the questions posed.
"So you accuse me of shifting focus.
You are sidestepping the reality that your accusations are baseless, as i have shown."
You haven't shown anything of the sort, yet you state that you made a case and won the debate. Maybe in your mind you did, who knows. After all, you believe in talking bushes, boats big enough to hold millions of animals, and talking snakes... what's a little debate winning on top of all that!
Not once did you answer any of the 10 guestions from the video with a decent answer. You probably didn't even watch the video all the way through. I dare you to do so.
But, at least you left the links up so others could decide for themselves.
thanks for sharing your world of make believe. people made fun of Kasha in school because her parents worked so much and were never home. she herself has worked for everything she has and stands on her own two feet. their business has only been successful since after she graduated from college. when she was in high school they were scraping just like everyone else.
as for the God debate.... that is why it is called "faith" and it is referred to a "gift". the only evidence is circumstantial. you could see an arm grow back right before your very eyes but that does not mean you would believe automatically. you could still doubt if you didn't have faith. it is easy to doubt. it is hard to have faith.
Didn't Kasha drive a cherry 67 Corvette in High School? Yeah they were really roughin it. She's lucky she had clothes on her back. haha
Reason one because people were scared and looked for a way to say this life isn’t all you get.
.................
Well if you believe reason #1 then there is no reason to live a moral life! You need to get all you can while you can and do all you can to whomever you can!
Welcome to the "New Age"!
If thats your reasoning it is most likely this life is all you will get! Unless someone else decides to take it from you first!
BTW: Bill Mahr is a talking snake!
James, I believe most drug addicts in prison were not convicted of "using drugs". I believe most were convicted of a crime which resulted from either being "high" or trying to get money to buy narcotics. Not sure legalizing drugs will change anything.
you mean the vette she bought with her own money that she saved from WORKING???
Wow, that must have been some part time job.
Let me say this. I have no problem with Kasha. i voted for her, and I like a lot of her ideas.
But to say she was barely getting by is a crock. She has always been handed things. Not that any of us would have turned them down if our parents had done the same. Just don't make her out to be something she isn't. She has never had to wonder if the rent was going to get paid, or whether she should let this bill go to pay this other one. Not that that makes her a bad person. I just take exception to your working class hero post from earlier.
Religion is the greatest hoax ever perpetuated in the history of the world. The fact that so many people still fall for it attests to this.
barely getting by is how it was for them for a long time. please don't speak about what you don't know. while we are on the subject if you are going to pretend to know about her get your facts straight at least. it was a white 60 or 61 not a cherry 67. they didn't hold the same kind of value then as now. but back to the subject at hand people from all walks of life support her philosophies based on what they think is right rather than how much money they do or don't have or how much money she has. it isn't about personal income or what someone drove in high school. it is about how tax a dollar should or shouldn't be used.
Not once did you answer any of the 10 guestions from the video with a decent answer. You probably didn't even watch the video all the way through. I dare you to do so.
...
I answered two of them
You just didnt like my answers.
The amputee thing is totally bogus. Its called a straw man debate.
If someone's arm did grow back, you still would find an excuse to reject the idea of God.
Its fine for you to do that,.
I just question why you seem to need to try to make others doubt, and try to insult those that do believe.
There is evidence,
There are good reasons to believe.
But you will just reject those too.
You come on here every weekend and attack me and my beliefs.
You dont even just disagree.
You have to call people who believe idiots and stuff like that.
I know you want to believe.
Your like a man in the water drowning and fighting those who try to rescue him.
Ill be praying for you.
Here are a couple of sites to check out.
I looked at your video, so ... it would be only fair for ou to look.
are you brave enough?
http://www.carm.org/apologetics/evidence-and-answers
http://www.carm.org/apologetics/evidence-and-answers/miracles-cannot-happen
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties
http://www.reasons.org/
@ anonymous March 22, 2009 5:16 PM
No, I wasn't in her group of friends or social circle at all. I was in a couple classes with her and she always was friendly. Everyone has a differing opinion I guess.
"it is easy to doubt. it is hard to have faith."
not true. it is easy to have faith. it is hard to doubt.
ask mother teresa
jj,
I did not "attack anyone or call them idiots. I was simply talking to another poster about the movie religulous when YOU butted in and started debating with me. Then you don't like what I have to say so you say I fight dirty. It was you who got defensive and started being derogatory. The only thing I said that could be considered a slight is that you were delusional. I didn't mean it ina bad way. I think all religious people are delusional. Anyone who can believe that stuf in the face of all the scientific evidence IS delusional. I saw a preacher on TV just yesterday saying that the Earth was only 4-6 THOUSAND years old. I just want to throw a brick through my TV. And people believe that crap. It's obvious to me why pastors call god's followers his sheep. I just don't understand how people can be so blind.
And you are wrong about me. I am not angry. And, if I were to see something that could not be explained by the scientific method, and was obviously a miracle (such as a limb growing back), or if your god appeared to me while I was relaxing in the hot tub and said "yep, I'm real!" I would probably have no choice but to believe in him. But then I would try my best to punch him in his face for letting 20 thousand starving children die EVERY DAY! And for never getting involved in all the catastrophes and atrocities that happen every day. After all, what good is an all powerful god who just sits on his butt and watches while his followers die horrible deaths?
"I want to believe"
-Fox Mulder
Cherry is not a color.
nsidered a slight is that you were delusional. I didn't mean it ina bad way. I think all religious people are delusional. Anyone who can believe that stuf in the face of all the scientific evidence IS delusional.
>>>
THis is not insulting ????
just saying you dont mean it in a bad way does not make it not insulting....
you have no idea why i believe.
you wont even ask.
how open minded are you :)
not being argumentative, im just curious...
dang, that's an awful lot of reading. I offered up a ten minute youtube video, and you give me 200 pages worth of reading material. I'm not going to read through all that. How about the cliff notes version?
at. How about the cliff notes version?
>>>
It takes a lot of reading to study anything in a rational and complete way.
But
Just click on a few links. .. pick some at random
From the first link you gave me:
God cannot stop evil and suffering because He is powerless.
Of course, this does not stand up to biblical truth. God allows evil to occur partly for reasons we do know and partly for those we do not. We know that God uses evil to discipline people (Prov. 3:11) and to teach them (Prov. 15:32). But we cannot know all the reasons that God has for allowing evil and suffering in the world. It is not logically necessary that since God has not stopped evil and suffering in the world, that He cannot. God could be using suffering for His divine plan, in order to teach, for discipline, because people are free, etc. The existence of suffering does not at all mean that God cannot stop all of it. It means that He simply has chosen not to do so.
_______
Basically every answer is the same: we can't know god's will, therefore we just have to have faith that he is doing it for a good reason.
BAH!
The most logical answer to all the questions is "Because he doesn't exist."
"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows."
Mark Twain
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned
in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has
existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America
Just for the record
there is no biblical support for slavery
people used to say that,but nowhere in the bible is it condoned.
just wanted to point out truth.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
Leviticus 25:44-46
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
Exodus 21:2-6
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Exodus 21:20-21
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
Ephesians 6:5
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.
1 Timothy 6:1-2
@March 23, 2009 10:51 AM
You need to read and understand.
Please don't misinterpret those verses.
Anonymous: Jamie, I think you must have been a part of a select few that were priveledged to speak and know Ms. Kelley in school. She presented herself in school as being better than everyone there. She has never had to work for anything she had...she was one of those in school that asked and she received. I have a better plan for Ms. Kelley to pursue...how about sterilization so we don't have to pay for babies upon babies that many people have for the money!
March 22, 2009 5:16 PM
I'm not sure who is making this type of post about Kasha, but I also had her in class and she spoke to everyone who spoke to her. She was always nice and rarely said an unkind thing about anyone or anything. You may have wished to have a life more life hers or been jealous of her- which is no big surprise. She has a great, supportive family and was blessed with appealing looks and an even better attitude. Regardless, even if you didn't like Kasha (because you thought she had to much or had it too easy), she wouldn't have resented you for that- she's just not that type of person. I have known her since before Middle School and none of the things you are making up here are correct- just because you are envious or jealous of her you should not spread lies to make yourself feel better- she works hard to be where she is at in life and it is doubtful that you could fill her shoes on a daily basis. While her parents may own their own business they created it from the ground which takes lots of effort and hard work and resenting Kasha for working for the family business is silly- You would do the same thing- help to grow and protect your heritage.
This just in, I saw Kasha wearing a golden barrette in her hair when a woman of the people would wear a rubber band.
She wore a pair of brown trowsers in church instead of a dress.
I was in Maurices the other day and ran into Kasha. I was ticked off that she did not look at me . . . then I realized I was actually looking at a mannequin.
I would like Scott better in a Fu Manchu.
Maybe the Traveler should have a separate Entertainment Blog. Half of the stuff posted here sounds like stuff in the grocery aisle magazine racks.
Don't let the liberals get under your skin. They have their own agenda that Kasha doesn't fit into.
why does it go back to a debate on Kasha
That isnt the issue:)
One thing to her credit.
We roasted her idea pretty good in the paper Saturday, and she was very gracious about it.
Got to give her credit for being thick skinned and not taking stuff personally.
I think what many of the anonymous people critizing Kasha are saying (in a more hurtful way) is that she doesn't understand where the people like "us" come from so we don't feel she can represent us well. I attended school with her and often thought of her as shy but I could see where others saw it differently. When you grow up with people and then they become politicians it is hard to see them apart from how they were in school. She may very well be nice and caring but when it appears that she has never had to work for anything how can she honestly say she knows how it is to not wonder where the next meal is going to come from or live paycheck to paycheck. As for the drug testing and taking away welfare money...if you can take care of the kids in the process then go for it.
The Kansas House of Representatives could consider House Concurrent Resolution No. 5017 as early as tomorrow morning. This resolution is a constitutional amendment to guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. HCR 5017 is the companion bill to the Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1611, sponsored by State Senator Mike Petersen (R-28). These identical bills are crucial in the quest to protect Kansans' individual right to keep and bear arms.
Kasha, if you are reading this, please stand up for our second amendment rights. Your strong support of the second amendment is the reason i voted for you, and I hope you continue to fight the good fight.
I heard there are some concerns that this bill could actually WEAKEN the right to gun ownership. It is an interesting argument I don't fully understand.
I just want to throw a brick through my TV.
............
John 4: 1-26
21 Jesus declared "Believe me, woman a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit, and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.
Instead of throwing bricks - asked Him to prove himself to you!
"Instead of throwing bricks - asked Him to prove himself to you!"
HOLY COW!
I DID WHAT YOU SAID, AND NOW JESUS IS SITTING IN MY LIVING ROOM WATCHING MY BIGSCREEN!! WHAT DO I DO NOW?
Oh wait, he's leaving. He was just on his break from Creekstone.
False alarm.
ok that one made me laugh
but ... God is a rewarder of those that seek him.
Oh wait, he's leaving. He was just on his break from Creekstone.
False alarm.
-------------
Too bad! You might just be the one that God could use to save some of those starving children.
Maybe even something greater!
I guess you'll have to turn Hindu so you can convince Jesus from Creekstone that killing cows is evil!
If they didn't kill the cows, I couldn't have my steak. And when i don't get my steak, I get ANGRY!!! "
You wouldn't like me when I'm angry!"
-David Banner
Post a Comment