The Post of the Day is about drug testing and welfare
Note from Dan: In the past, certain posters here have ardently defended the practice of drug-testing folks on public assistance, under the theory (they claimed) that government should spare no expense in ferreting out welfare recipients with hidden addictions, and helping them move past those. A couple of states have actually done this, and Ron May presents some results.
“To date Arizona has tested approximately 87,000 potential welfare recipients for drugs. 1 potential welfare recipient tested positive.
To date Florida has tested approximately 51,000 potential welfare recipients for drugs. 21 potential welfare recipents tested positive.
Each drug test costs $42. Thus those two states have paid approximately $5.8 million in order to prevent 22 people from collecting less than $300,000 in welfare aid.
I guess that unless you live in Arizona or Florida you needn’t worry about wasting taxpayers’ money.”
February 22, 2013 - 12:05 PM
I’m not saying that Ron May is wrong but it is more convincing to have a source to support these statistics. Just curious where the information came from….
……also, not trying to instigate anything. Just coming from the mind of history major. Happy Friday!
A brief update. Florida’s program has been blocked temporarily by a federal judge. Also, the article linked below talks about Virginia’s efforts to start a similar program. I don’t know the status of the legislation in Virginia.
For the record, I don’t believe those who use illegal drugs should get welfare benefits. However, it appears that many such users already don’t apply for welfare.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/va.-gop-revives-drug-testing-for-welfare-recipients/article/2515096#.UMI9IOSdNWx
Let’s add drug testing for Social Security to the mix. Sounds fair to me.
Here you go JD:
–
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-03-18/drug-testing-welfare-applicants/53620604/1
–
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7494415-how-much-money-is-lost-by-spending-time-in-facebook-while-at-work
–
http://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/advisories/1109075503.aspx
–
http://www.newjimcrow.com/
Thanks!
The 1% are just imposing their morality on the 99% who understand that wefare payments are a right with no strings attached.
BTW, someone has to keep buying a 6 pack, smokes and a few lottery tickets.
The above numbers JD came from a study in 2011. Since that study, a further examination of the Florida program showed the positive test rate was about 2.5 %. What was not factored in was how many didn’t apply because of the drug test requirement. The biggest dollar losses were in Arizona. Florida, before the federal judge shut them down experienced a net loss of about $50K.
Interesting how much energy the right invests in trying to relieve others of their constitutional protections.
I agree with Cold, but I think we should also drug test anyone who gets a library card, a driver’s license, or a voter ID card. I don’t want some druggie using the library that my tax dollars help pay for. I don’t want some reefer-crazed madman on the roads my tax dollars fund. I surely don’t want any addicts voting on machines my tax dollars help pay for.
Let’s be fair and drug test anyone and everyone who uses any government program or resources. How about sobriety checkpoints on the Greenway? That seems reasonable.
I am interested in how drug testing stacks up against the
Fourth Ammendment to the United States Constitution.
“Let’s be fair and drug test anyone and everyone who uses any government program or resources. How about sobriety checkpoints on the Greenway? That seems reasonable.”
–Contra
Roads are built and maintained with taxpayer dollars. Should all licensed drivers be drug-tested? Should the tests be only for illegal drugs? What about legal ones, such as alcohol?
Sobriety checkpoints on the greenway! That’s a great idea! A drunk cyclist could seriously injure a sober (or drunk) pedestrian.
We should spare no taxpayer expense in ensuring that all greenways users are not on drugs, and helping them get off drugs if they are.
You got the “Right” idea Contra.
For people so all concerned over the debt and deficit of this nation and the budgets all states are struggling with, it is very hard to take this “effort” as anything more than the punitive “know your place” crap it is. The overlords just got a new cudgel thanks to the GOTP, that’s all, nothing about this is helpful, cost effective or “worth it”.
I suspect we would stop all this drug testing discussion if we started by requiring all members of Congress, members of their staff, Cabinet officials, and the White House to stand (or sit) & deliver (so to speak). No sample, no paycheck. No sample, no voting on or discussing legislation. What do you think fellow bloggers??
Indeed, Ron, back in the day when a couple of friends worked on the Hill (when Ronnie was the prez), drug testing would have created a lot of vacancies. Breathalyzers would have cleared some more out.
The Daily Show had a clip of a press conference where Aasif Mandvi asked Florida governor Charlie Crist if he would pee in a cup. The answer of course was “no.” My tax dollars pay politicians salaries, I don’t want my money going to dopers. While we’re at it, test them for STD’s. I’m against funding promiscuous sex as well.
“While we’re at it, test them for STD’s. I’m against funding promiscuous sex as well.”
Right Art. The only problem is, STD testing would catch only the IRRESPONSIBLE promiscuous welfare sexers. The others might be spending their welfare checks on condoms, good lord!
I was talking about politicians!
We should drug test anyone who wants a building permit … and the contractor … oh wait … we should drug test all mothers every six months … then we should make it illegal to get any pain killers and drive ….. not just for driving but lock them up because they could burn down the house … LMAO … WTF people? why are you so fast to throw away someones rights … American today are chicken$hits and are afraid to be free ……
Fnp…they’re ready to throw away someone ELSE’S rights. Because of course these upright citizens assume that they and theirs will never need any public assistance. So it doesn’t effect them.
@ Ron May’s ‘…stand (or sit) and deliver….
LOL!!
@Rob Thommins re: Fourth Amend
It seems to me that drug-testing for employment, welfare, etc. is a presumption of guilt before innocence.
Now the next question is: What do we do about people on Medicaid who become addicted to legal prescription painkillers that are prescribed to them?
I was subject to random drug testing as part of my former job with the US Courts. There was good justification, in my view, because of the job responsibilities.
-
However, I can’t support such an intrusion for most citizens. I favor legalizing most currently illegal drugs, and moving away from the war on drugs, which by the way, disproportionately targets the poor. But I guess that is the point, isn’t it? Target the poor.
-
It’s been said before, and I’m going to say it again. Conservatives stand loud and proud against government intrusion into the lives of citizens of the US, UNLESS, of course, that citizen is poor, black, hispanic, female, may need reproductive health advice, might just need healthcare in general, gay, lesbian, wants to vote …
Cold n p———Most people on social security Are on drugs—-legal ones, to keep us alive and moving . I hope when you get my age you don’t need medication for gout., I would not wish that on any one. However indocin releives the pain a bit. Or for heart problems(might quit at any time ) Or for a multitude of other health problems you will invariably face in your latter years. —–Judge now be judged latter! Hope I get selected to be on the jury!
Dan——You suggested testing for drunk driving to keep drunks from hitting a sober citizen/ I saw something somewhere a while back that stated that over half of the deaths from drunk drivers WERE the drunk driver Granted,drunks kill a lot of people,driving or otherwise but I thought God was suppose to take care of children and drunks. (Thats what my Grandmother use to tell me.—Come to think of it she drank a little bit of “Shine” herself.on occasion
Random alcohol tests for all under-21 recipients of financial aid at colleges and universities.
People on disability are often on some of the strongest narcotics medicine offers and IMO that is not our business. This is a disgraceful, wasteful and yet another extremely intrusive right winger BS.
One person tested positive out of 87,000 Arizona welfare applicants? We’re supposed to believe that? Sounds as likely as obama winning those 59 precincts by 19,620 to 0.
I dunno. I guess there are some low-information folks that buy all this made-up crap fed to them by the far left.
“The above numbers JD came from a study in 2011. Since that study, a further examination of the Florida program showed the positive test rate was about 2.5 %. What was not factored in was how many didn’t apply because of the drug test requirement. The biggest dollar losses were in Arizona. Florida, before the federal judge shut them down experienced a net loss of about $50K.”
You have links to studies or official reports that show these numbers, and not just USA Today articles and the like (which don’t cite sources.)?
Is the lenten season over? I see the self-annointed one is back again spreading her special brand of tolerance.
Darn and I hardly had a chance to color my eggs.
Doug Dobson: google has all the links you need. The figure of $45,780 that it cost Florida to drug test TANF applicants is available from more than 3 dozen different sources. And that doesn’t even include the legal costs.
-
That being said, it’s been a little more difficult to verify information on Arizona. Seeing as it is supposed to be public information, I find that curious. Could that possibly be because the results are so abysmal that they won’t readily make the information available? It follows logic that if the program was such a big success, Jan Brewer would be putting her nose in front of every camera she could find touting the results of the program. Yet, the state of Arizona is very quiet about it. Conjecture aside, I would be interested to see the numbers for myself, really.
-
For the record, I have no problem with testing welfare recipients, but only if it’s applied all the way across the board – recipients of corporate welfare, any and all publicly elected officials, and all TANF and food stamp recipients. Of course, this would get ludicrously expensive in a hurry and thus far, the existing results are less than compelling. The complete impracticality of that aside, I’m willing to bet that the instant you start requiring that all elected officials be tested will be the same instant you hear the cry of, “This is unconstitutional! Absurd! Outrageous!”
-
Until we hold our politicians to the same standards that they would like to hold to us, I’m afraid that we’d better get used to having our pockets and our rights raped, by one side, the other, or both. Personally, I’m getting sick of nearly ALL of our elected officials treating their constituents as [guilty] red-headed stepchildren.
In 1997 the Supremes, unfortunately in my view, ruled drug testing of political candidates unconstitutional. Below is a quote from Justice Ginsberg in her majority opinion. On this occasion it is my view that Justice Ginsberg & her collegues used the wrong definition of “public safety.”
“Where the risk to public safety is real and substantial,” mandatory testing “may be reasonable,” wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “But where, as in this case, public safety is not genuinely jeopardized, the 4th Amendment precludes the suspicionless search, no matter how conveniently arranged.”
http://articles.latimes.com/1997-04-16/news/mn-49193_1_drug-test
Now JM, would that be “legitimate rape” of my rights and my pockets? Because if it is, I am pretty dang sure that my rights and my pockets auto-release an invisible spray, somewhat akin to a skunk don’t ya know, that keeps my rights and my pockets from reproducing.
-
Seriously, I think making sure our elected officials are subject to their own whimsical actions may well help restore order. For example, to run for statewide office, the potential candidate must pass the 10th grade SOLs and submit to a drug test. The results of both would be made public. Moreover, state and federal legislators should be subject to random drug testing prior to casting any vote. Test 4 or 5 just prior to the vote. A positive test result nullifies your vote and you are fined $500. A second positive result leads to 6-months of counseling. A third positive test result triggers immediate expulsion.
-
Ron, I am only being partially farcical here, because I agree totally with you. An elected official’s actions have a very direct impact on public safety!
Jason,
I’m perfectly serious. My life experience has taught me that political leaders of all stripes and political affiliations reach a point at which they don’t believe the rules apply to them or shouldn’t. As a result, the decisions they make are typically guided more by their own interests rather than the public good. I don’t approve of someone being on the public dole who doesn’t need to be there and that includes most politicians I know.
Jason Perdue #30:
It’s really just a matter of having no will power.
I see the self-annointed one is back again spreading her special brand of tolerance.
You buying the 1-in-87000 garbage, Jason?
Is anybody here buying it? Let’s see a show of hands. That’s what I thought.
This number has been circulating for more than a year Suzie. If it was not true why has not one official in government from Arizona contested it?
You buying, Ron?
This is like one person in Roanoke turning up positive after testing the whole population. Well, except the welfare population is MORE likely to be users, not less.
This thread has been up a day and a half, yet I’m the first person to question the ridiculous figure? Jeez, this is why you people need me.
Ron May | February 23, 2013 at 4:57 pm
In 1997 the Supremes…
-
What a crazy coincidence. That’s about the same time politics really started falling to pieces, too. I can just see it…
-
Congress is pulling a “late-night session”, which is really a booming, techno-thumping rave, where ecstasy and a host of designer drugs are passed around on a variety platter under strobe lights and copious amounts of neon. The lights dim and the music fades to a lone, pulsing bass beat. The fog machines and blacklights kick on and 5 lb. bottles of nitrous with masks attached are passed out by bikini-clad interns. Over half of the HoR are missing two or more items of clothing and Eric Cantor is waving handfuls of glowsticks and twirling around while making helicopter sounds. The country careens off into the abyss as Boehner and Pelosi sneak off to a private room while giggling like naughty teens.
-
{shudders}
Whoa… I have no idea from whence that came. My fingers started typing and I just couldn’t stop myself.
Look as if, when she/he fell off the wagon, Suzie fell off big time. Surprise, surprise. Who-a-thunk!
-
If one could buy his/his pronouncements / promises / assurances / take-it-to-the-bank guarantees / etc for what they are actually worth and then sell them for what she/he thinks they are worth, you could get rich, quick.
-
Now he/she is thinks we need her/him. LOL
-
If one could buy his/his actual contributions to the blog for what they are actually worth and then sell them for what she/he thinks they are worth, you could get far rich, far quicker.
Very interesting read — albeit about a trivial issue:
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21545819
-
**
23 February 2013 Last updated at 21:13 ET
-
How do you count Catholics?
-
By Wesley Stephenson BBC News
-
The figure of 1.2 billion, in theory, represents the number of people who have been baptised into the Catholic faith.
-
This might seem like an easy figure to calculate. Many people assume that when someone is baptised this is recorded and passed on to the Vatican.
-
But religious organisations vary in how much importance they attach to keeping good statistics, according to David Voas, professor of population studies at the University of Essex’s institute of social and economic research.
-
“The Catholic Church tends to be a little more on the relaxed end of the scale and along with that you have got to remember it’s an absolutely huge organisation. There are more than a quarter of a million Catholic parishes.”
-
So the reporting process can be a bit hit and miss.
-
SNIP
-
The Vatican Statistical Yearbook itself points out this variation:
-
“It must be remembered that a worldwide survey of this kind is bound to be influenced by some extent by the often considerable differences in the circumstances of the ecclesiastical jurisdictions in various countries.”
-
SNIP
-
The Pew Research Center in the US makes its own estimates by counting people who self-identify as Catholics. It collates census and survey data and its latest estimate stands at 1.1 billion, 100 million lower than the figure put out by the Vatican.
-
SNIP
-
He gives the example of Brazil. According to the Vatican, 163 million people are identified as Catholic, but the 2010 Brazilian census shows that just under 127 million people identify themselves as Catholic.
-
“There is widespread acknowledgment that many Brazilians who grew up Catholic are now worshiping in Protestant churches,” says Hackett.
-
SNIP
-
“These counts include people who seldom pray or go to worship services. In the United States, for example, 17% of self-identified Catholic adults report that they seldom or never attend worship services,” says Hackett.
-
And if you do the maths behind the figures, this is hardly surprising.
-
“If you think even with a quarter of a million parishes that still means you’ve got four or five thousand self-identified Catholics on average per parish, and that’s far more than you could fit in church over the course of a week,” says Voas.
-
SNIP
**
-
———-
As an aside, if one were to use Suzie’s proclamation of what constitutes a true Roman Catholic (in her/his opinion) one might assume that it is one of the minor Christian denominations.
Garland,
Please google Sarcasm. Sounds to me like you are the one who wants to be judge, jury, and executioner.
“Well, except the welfare population is MORE likely to be users, not less…”
We’ll need a link for that, Frank.
What would the testers and the pols who pushed the testing gain from under-reporting the number of positive drug tests? Apparently being anonymous (and obsessive) means you no longer care if credibility will stay in the same room with you (and it won’t). If the media, whatever media it was, had been lying about the test results, a normal person would figure that would last about as long as it took the people who would know to read about it. Yet here you are whining about unproven fraud and lies, yet again.
–
Grow up! And again, stop blaspheming Suzie!
What would the testers and the pols who pushed the testing gain from under-reporting the number of positive drug tests?
Well, if they were leftwing activists, providing a ridiculous “result” could “prove” honest attempts to curb welfare abuse are futile.
———-
Apparently being anonymous (and obsessive) means you no longer care if credibility will stay in the same room with you (and it won’t).
You think only 1 in 87000 down-and-outers are on drugs? If so, you must be that one.
Suzie | February 24, 2013 at 7:51 pm
Sort of like Karl Rove, Mitt Romney & those millions of right wingers who thought Romney was going to win in 2012.
It sounds as if Suzie believes that Arizona & Florida are caught in the clutches of left-wing activists.
Those states are largely controlled by winger activists, all right. But they’re RWers.
Right. That’s how obama was able to steal those critical precincts in Florida with “99%” of the vote . All those RWers.
When Dan dutifully posted this account, I guess it never occurred to him how preposterous the numbers sounded. Not even Ron, the guy who sent it to Dan believes them.
Sort of like Karl Rove, Mitt Romney & those millions of right wingers who thought Romney was going to win in 2012.
They assumed fair elections. Not the ridiculous numbers they’re asking us to believe.
I wonder how crazy of a figure somebody could come up with that would be too much for leftwingers believe. I’m thinking there is no limit.
Still just dropping by to express your condolences huh suzie
Kristen nailed it. The hypocrisy of the right leaves a stench in my nostrils. Why would the GOTP want to test welfare recipients anyway? It is a FACT red states benefit more from these programs than blue states.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html
Yes, it is true, we really are out to get you!
Yes Suzie, i do believe those reports from Arizona & Florida.
Wow, I guess Lent ended early.
It IS funny watching folks bait her right back in, though. Just mention something like Romney getting creamed fair and square and there she is.
Yes Suzie, i do believe those reports from Arizona & Florida
But notice Ron is very careful not to say he believes only one of those 87000 welfare applicants was a drug user. There’s not one person in the blog who believes that. Yet, that is what the far left asks us to believe.
It IS funny watching folks bait her right back in, though.
What’s funny is seeing how many people I can get to comment about the Lent thing. That’s three for you alone, Gdad. Working like a charm. lol.
Your own blasphemy is the issue here Suzie, not how many or how often others comment on it. You have never had any integrity and why should your own Lenten promise be any different.
#57 Ah, so suzie is admitting now that she never intended to stay away from the blog for Lent but instead made that up (lied) to see how many comments she could get when she came back (and she’s even spending time tracking those comments).
-
Wow, I bet Jesus is truly impressed with her use of religion for trolling purposes.
Kinda like drug dealers “bait” an addict?
About that 4th Amendment Right and drug testing:
[F]ederal courts generally have ruled that such policies violate the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches, say attorneys and legal scholars.
“You can’t do blanket tests like that. They’re facially unconstitutional,” said Ephraim Hess, a Davie attorney who prevailed over the City of Hollywood in April 2000 when U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp ruled that governments cannot require prospective employees to take drug tests unless there is a “special need,” such as safety.”
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-03-28/news/mh-drug-testing-challenges-20110328_1_random-drug-testing-drug-testing-drug-testing-of-government-employees
Another federal court supported the ACLU in 2004, ruling that Florida had violated the Fourth Amendment by ordering random drug testing of all the agency’s employees.”
Where are the libertarians [little L] when you need them?
Of course REAL Catholics know that Lent [in 2013] started on Wednesday, Feb,13th and will continues through Holy Saturday.
Of course there are those “special” cafeteria Catholics that will pick which date they say Lent ends…and thus will break their “promise” to Jesus about giving something up during lent.
“…our Lenten disciplines are supposed to ultimately transform our entire person: body, soul, and spirit, and help us become more like Christ.” http://www.churchyear.net/lent.html
Well, there is always next year….so give us all a break, and stop the false piety…
I think Jesus understands the two times I re-entered the blog. The first was to warn everyone of Andrew Cuomo’s evil war on children abortion bill. The second was to console Debbie. And while on here the second time, I thought it would be helpful to point out the ridiculously crazy numbers Dan and everybody apparently missed. Then along the way, I answered a few queries directed my way.
I am reminded of the gospel passage where t he elders chided Jesus for his acts of charity on the Sabbath (in His case, performing some healing miracles). He scolded the hypocrites pretty soundly for putting the letter of the law ahead of love for their fellow man.
BTW, Hillary and Gdad are two of the negative/angry/depressed people I am especially praying for.
Interestingly, the five I had in mind when I mentioned this last week, ALL responded in character to my promise to pray for them, kind of reaffirming in my mind that I correctly identified those most in need.
“I think Jesus understands the two times I re-entered the blog.”
–Suzie
It must be hard for Jesus to keep up with all of the blogs. Hell, I can barely keep up with one!
Suzie | February 25, 2013 at 12:03 pm
BTW, Hillary and Gdad are two of the negative/angry/depressed people I am especially praying for.
Interestingly, the five I had in mind when I mentioned this last week, ALL responded in character to my promise to pray for them, kind of reaffirming in my mind that I correctly identified those most in need”
- – -
First – please direct me to a post I made in response to your comment regarding your “especially praying” for me.
I made no comment to your post. [Lying during Lent is "especially" heinous in conjunction with your broken Lenten promise, no?]
- – -
Second, as I use to say to prisoners I taught, who would ask if they could “hug” me,- “Please don’t”. So to the avatar of St Maria Goretti, I say the same, “Please don’t” pray for me – any association with your prayers cannot end well…
Oh no doubt a “Jesus” as convenient as yours does indeed “understand”. How much more accommodating can he be, he condemns those you disagree with, he will send those you don’t agree with to hell AND he understands when you just cannot tell the truth, or keep your own word, or show compassion or feel empathy or comprehend facts? Who cannot get on board with their own personal “Jesus”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQcNiD0Z3MU
“Two times”? Wow.
I think it’s funny that the blog’s Best Catholic ‘charged Ron May with an assignment’ yet she cannot commit to her own Lenten promise. To be fair though, it wasn’t much of a promise to begin with. She left herself a couple of easy outs by saying things like, ‘I *think* I’ll give this place up for Lent’ and ‘All right, guys. I’m out again *unless*…’
Now she’s admitting to using a religious/spiritual instrument (Lent) meant to bring one closer to Jesus for purposes of goading other bloggers into paying attention to her.
I’m sure the Christians on this blog are very thankful that Jesus wasn’t as committed to His promises as ‘suzie’ is to hers…which is not at all.
You’ve created God in your own image (rather than the other way around) if you believe He hates the same people that you do!
I don’t know where that quote originated, but it’s true and appropriate for many of the most religious among us today.
“I think Jesus understands the two times I re-entered the blog. The first was to warn everyone of Andrew Cuomo’s evil war on children abortion bill. The second was to console Debbie.”
-
Of course we all know you did a lot more than that — and you’re still commenting on stuff that involves neither of those topics.
-
As for me, I think Jesus understands why I decided to break my Lent vow and drink — it was SAINT Patrick’s Day.
#68 “Two times”? Wow.”
suzie the “engineer” has trouble with numbers.
I swear it’s like clockwork. I make a post reaching out to a group of lost souls, and four of them immediately respond in character. I’m sure the other one will chime in as well.
And while on here the second time, I thought it would be helpful to point out the ridiculously crazy numbers Dan and everybody apparently missed. Then along the way, I answered a few queries directed my way.
I am reminded of the gospel passage where t he elders chided Jesus for his acts of charity on the Sabbath (in His case, performing some healing miracles). He scolded the hypocrites pretty soundly for putting the letter of the law ahead of love for their fellow man.
First it was Rush Limbaugh who was like Jesus and now its Suzie herself.!
Too funny!
Sounds to me like somebody dropped LSD and had a vision.
-
Maybe its just a flashback.
Second, as I use to say to prisoners I taught, who would ask if they could “hug” me,- “Please don’t”
I can read between the lines, Hillary. Your comment reminds me of the white libs who talked a good game about Katrina victims, but they didn’t really want to go down there and rub shoulders with “those people”. It was busloads of church people doing the dirty work.
It must be hard for Jesus to keep up with all of the blogs.
Blogging is old school. Jesus has taken his mission to Tumblr: http://slacktory.com/2012/06/tumblr-jesus/
No Suzie, I read Hillary’s post too. Criminals in prison for god knows what wanted to hug Hillary. She was wise to firmly say no.
-
As she is wisely asking you not to pray for her.
-
There is a huge difference between convicted criminals and victims of natural disasters. You may not know the difference, but rational people do.
PS. Please don’t pray for me either.
Suzie | February 25, 2013 at 4:42 pm
Second, as I use to say to prisoners I taught, who would ask if they could “hug” me,- “Please don’t”
I can read between the lines, Hillary. Your comment reminds me of the white libs who talked a good game about Katrina victims, but they didn’t really want to go down there and rub shoulders with “those people”. It was busloads of church people doing the dirty work.”
—
Passing out bibles is not doing “dirty work”. I have worked with the people you have denigrated on a regular basis on this blog, and never judged them regardless of their income, their body weight, their disability, their ethnicity, race or educational level. Can you say the same?,
- – -
As always you manipulate and redirect. Here is the bottom line St Maria Goretti, – save yourself, pray for your own “soul” and leave me out of your prayers and your impiety…
—
BTW, I have actually taught adults of all economic groups, and almost always, after they have completed their court ordered classes – they are grateful – and wish to hug me. i have said the same to these individuals. I personally save my “hugging” for loved ones. I also never pray for others’ souls….
@77. That is funny as Gehenna!
I’ll pray for you, ‘suzie’.
http://www.slack-time.com/music-video-8321-Jaron-And-The-Long-Road-To-Love-Pray-For-You
Criminals in prison for god knows what wanted to hug Hillary. She was wise to firmly say no.
Very nice way to look at other human beings, Cold and Hillary. What was it Jesus said about how to treat the least of your brethren?
As she is wisely asking you not to pray for her.
Everyone needs prayers.
-
Passing out bibles is not doing “dirty work”.
I’m sorry. I thought you said you didn’t believe in the Bible or organized religion at all. Why would you be handing out stuff you don’t believe in?
I’m using a pic of my favorite saint as my avatar. Hope you guys like it.
Love it Contra!
Contra | February 25, 2013 at 8:17 pm
I’m using a pic of my favorite saint as my avatar. Hope you guys like it.
-
lol
Aces.
Suzie | February 25, 2013 at 8:05 pm
Passing out bibles is not doing “dirty work”.
I’m sorry. I thought you said you didn’t believe in the Bible or organized religion at all. Why would you be handing out stuff you don’t believe in?”
—–
Wow! Absolutely no comprehension skills. Let me explain in the language you may or may not understand.
—
It was you who posted, “It was busloads of church people doing the dirty work.”
I mentioned that handing out bibles by that busload of church people is actually NOT doing “dirty work”. Hope that helps your limited understanding regarding my post.
—
I would never practice your false piety by arrogantly handing out the bible [which as a history book it's lacking] to people without food, housing or an ability to shower…or would I pray that god would intercede on their behalf. Seems the all knowing guy did the damage in the first place, no?
—-
Lent might be a good time for you to read up on comprehension skills – you know during the time you promised you would not be posting on the blog for “lent”.
Oh wait….you didn’t keep that promise. Never mind.
It was you who posted, “It was busloads of church people doing the dirty work.”
I mentioned that handing out bibles by that busload of church people is actually NOT doing “dirty work”. Hope that helps your limited understanding regarding my post.
What on earth makes you think these church workers were handing out bibles? They were in neighborhoods and homes helping people clean up. Forgive my misunderstanding of your post. I just didn’t anticipate such a ludicrous implication.
suzie has no comprehension as to why many of those prisoners want a “hug.”
Gee what made me think the busloads of church members would be handing out bibles during disasters like Katrina?
From just ONE Baptist church’s blog:
“After we had prayer we hit the road. In Hattiesburg we touched base with my son Damon and left him some Bibles to distribute.”
—
“Every family that we help gets a Bible, tracts, and Gospel booklets.”
—-
“Every cleaning bucked that we hand out has a Bible…”
http://www.elliottbaptist.org/katrina.html
—
And for your edification ONE example of how money corrupts religious organizations:
“New Orleans church misused over $200,000 in FEMA funds after Katrina”
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/01/new_orleans_church_fema_katrina.html
—
And in case you thought church’s provided only charitable help:
“FEMA Will Repay Faith-based Shelters”
http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050927/news_1n27fema.html
—
Many many churches pitched in to help with food etc. and did not look to recruit new “followers”, and they did a wonderful job. But ultimately, “charity” from faith organizations often has an ulterior motive…
And just to be clear about those FACTS regarding bibles going to Katrina victims:
—
“Many found some conditions similar to those that they left behind at the Superdome, like clogged toilets and foul restrooms. But in Houston, there were hot showers, CRATES OF BIBLES, and stacks of pizzas, while in New Orleans, many refugees scrounged for diapers, water and basic survival.” http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/02/national/nationalspecial/02storm.html?pagewanted=all —-
“100,000 Bibles to be Sent to Survivors of Hurricane Katrina”
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/100000.bibles.to.be.sent.to.survivors.of.hurricane.katrina/3893.htm
Evidently the newly sainted do not like to respond to FACTS…I love the sound of crickets…