machine

Story hosted on NY Times... didn't bother clicking...

I was saying making BIRTH CONTROL MANDATORY FOR GOV ASSISTANCE. I don't think it is currently MANDATORY. And while we are at it, drug testing. Illegal drugs would get your benefits cut, no warnings either. One infraction, you are off. '

I like the idea, but that does not prevent these people from breeding and continuing the same lifestyle of dependence on others that actually work for a living. Birth control would limit these people from reproduction and eventually stop the cycle of dependence on the system. We have wasted millions/billions on education reform for a society that largely does not even bother opening a book and bettering them self because we have had a system that will take care of people that refuse to contribute. This community was only emboldened by the idea of 'redib-of-wealth'. Why work when you can just get free money from the people that DO work for a living? Imagine it like this. You go to school for 8 years. You work hard and get your degree. But, under the new system, you now need to give up 4 years and give them to someone else that would not go to school and achieve anything on their own. Sounds fair me me.

What is so wrong with intensely regulating the lives of the people on assistance? I am all for less government obviously, but if someone needs the help of the government, what is wrong with Uncle Sam being 'all up in yo business' ? Mandatory birth control while on gov assistance would be an excelent start. Cost? What cost? The cost of a pill/IUD vs. a LIFETIME of assistance (since many -NOT ALL-)on assistance have NO motivation to get off it anyway? Light a fire under the ass and I am sure things might turn around just a bit. If someone won't help themselves, why are they entitled to help? Those that don't abuse the system would not have a problem with the mandatory birth control, seeing as if they are on the system for honest reasons, they MUST be making an effort to get OFF the system.... right?

I understand it's trendy and hip to rail on Bush. I understand you are part of the trendy/hip crowd too. I suspect you own an Apple device of some sort, have an Apple sticker on your car, and get your Starbucks every morning. I get it, trends are what's in. Good for you. If you actually knew the things Bush did do, and for the reasons he did them, I am sure you would be singing a different tune, but since you (obviously) don't know any better, I really can't expect more but the same talking points any other trend-setting Bush hater would use... So, I will have to just ignore your Bush comments and focus on your other "points". Though I am having a hard time finding the substance to any of them...

People can afford a computer and an Internet connection, but need gov assistance to feed themselves/family...

How about something that says you need to have 'x' years experience with governing/politics before you may run for office?? x being more than 8years total experience...

Well, the gov should also add one more provision to welfare: While receveing government assistance, females must be on some form of permanent birth control. Maybe an IUD... If you can't/won't afford to take care of yourself or your family, you should not be allowed to breed and bring more tax burdens into the world that will only follow the same lifestyle.

Story carried on Fox News.... must be a fake. ....

I don't understand why the generic come back to anyone that loves their country, or supports the military, or is a supporter of conservative ideals, is that they are somehow how a Fox News fan of some sort? Rather ignorant.

fixed.

We agree on something?

As soon as I saw the Coexist bullshit, I exited the page.

And that should be the extent of your view. Again, this can't be that hard to comprehend. If you are not actively serving your country, your opinion matters NOT, as it is not one of the many that ARE serving the country. DADT should be reviewed by the Pentagon as it is, and let the results of the study then do the talking. As Gen Amos has said, and talking with any active member of the military (heres one), the response to the repeal has been overwhelmingly negative. Just because a tax payer is my "boss" does not mean they have any say in what I do. The President is my boss, and lucky for me, the UCMJ super-cedes the president in many aspects, DADT being one of them. So, if this is going to change, congress has to do it, not the prez. And I think it was candyman that was complaining about lack of equip/poor quality for the Army.. Maybe you have not noticed, the Army is the MOST funded of all the branches, and their ground units get new shit on a REGULAR basis, yet the Army has sustained more causalities in IRQ and AFG than the Marines, who for a LARGE period of time had more combat troops on the ground, in the cities, doing to job 'some other guys' couldn't do. (Fallujah anyone?) You don't hear (the most underfunded branch) Marines bitching about the lack of armor, do you? Nope. Why? Well, maybe if the Army started TRAINING their soldiers like the Marines train their Marines, the Army just might 'get it'. It's about making do, and doing the job, no matter what. And by the way, the saying is "Every soldier Marine A Rifleman"... BUT, at least we can agree that over-turning DADT would destroy the military. And that is what civilians won't understand until they cowboy up, sign up, and go and fight. A change of DADT start at boot camp. We already separate men/women for the obvious and not so obvious reasons, now we need to seperate gay/straight for the same reasons. This will cost more than it is worth.