Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Seran]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ca...?siteid=yhoof2

Ha.

Haha.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Nothing at all could go wrong. Nope, not one thing.

So your problem is that California is attempting to save hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars annually by reducing the number of impairment related hospitalizations, traffic accidents and incarcerations by offering a small stipend to get folks clean and sober?

Just what sort of world do you live in where helping folks and saving money is bad?

[Shaps]

So your problem is that California is attempting to save hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars annually by reducing the number of impairment related hospitalizations, traffic accidents and incarcerations by offering a small stipend to get folks clean and sober?

Just what sort of world do you live in where helping folks and saving money is bad?

You mean helping folks with Foodstamps, Welfare, Shelters, Food Drives, free health care, etc.? You mean community organizations that provide free counseling, rehabilitation, housing/food, clothing, etc.?

I'm for the Government not paying everyone (which if you didn't know is actually someone else's money), for every little thing they do. Have kids? Here's a government check. Do drugs? Here's a government check. So and and so forth.

There are multitudes of ways provided to assist those in need, by many government and community programs already. Now paying someone to stay sober is the next move?

I lean more on the personal responsibility side of the fence... and choosing to show compassion and care in my community if I so choose. Not the Government just handing out money to people for "staying sober". Hell if anything, they should pay people to "be thin" then right? Unhealthy living and eating habits contribute to so much strain on the medical system, it would make sense right? Or, what about we pay everyone that goes to an AA meeting. What about the Government send a check to everyone that does not speed? I mean speeding kills people right, so maybe we should pay people to actually drive the speed limit.

Get the fuck out of here.

There is a difference between compassion and caring.. and the Government being your mama's tit.


Now instead of just complaining - I'll give you what I consider a reasonable alternative:

The Government pays benefits to those in need, who remain sober, and who work a minimum of 20 hours a week for their community... as a form of assistance. If someone is down on their luck, need help, and family/friends/community can not provide that help... then with current Government programs already in place, a safety net is extended to ensure they receive food/shelter/medical care.

BUT, in exchange for this.. the individual must do 20hrs/week of some form of work for their local community government (repaint buildings, roadside cleanup, park beautification, etc.). I don't abhor the idea of helping others, nor the government providing a safety net for people that need it. I do believe there should be some slight (not onerous) recompense/effort from the individual back to their community in exchange for it.

You want to "build, back, better"? There you go.

[Shaps]

That's incorrect, there were a total of ten casualties in 2020, three between March and December.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...in_Afghanistan

You might want to look at the chart that corresponds... and when I said "no casualty since FEB 2020", I meant KIA - as a result of enemy action.

U.S. KIA (hostile) in Afghanistan only by month according to iCasualties.org:

2020 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 – – – – 13

[Seran]

You mean helping folks with Foodstamps, Welfare, Shelters, Food Drives, free health care, etc.? You mean community organizations that provide free counseling, rehabilitation, housing/food, clothing, etc.?

I'm for the Government not paying everyone (which if you didn't know is actually someone else's money), for every little thing they do. Have kids? Here's a government check. Do drugs? Here's a government check. So and and so forth.

There are multitudes of ways provided to assist those in need, by many government and community programs already. Now paying someone to stay sober is the next move?

I lean more on the personal responsibility side of the fence... and choosing to show compassion and care in my community if I so choose. Not the Government just handing out money to people for "staying sober". Hell if anything, they should pay people to "be thin" then right? Unhealthy living and eating habits contribute to so much strain on the medical system, it would make sense right? Or, what about we pay everyone that goes to an AA meeting. What about the Government send a check to everyone that does not speed? I mean speeding kills people right, so maybe we should pay people to actually drive the speed limit.

Get the fuck out of here.

There is a difference between compassion and caring.. and the Government being your mama's tit.


Now instead of just complaining - I'll give you what I consider a reasonable alternative:

The Government pays benefits to those in need, who remain sober, and who work a minimum of 20 hours a week for their community... as a form of assistance. If someone is down on their luck, need help, and family/friends/community can not provide that help... then with current Government programs already in place, a safety net is extended to ensure they receive food/shelter/medical care.

BUT, in exchange for this.. the individual must do 20hrs/week of some form of work for their local community government (repaint buildings, roadside cleanup, park beautification, etc.). I don't abhor the idea of helping others, nor the government providing a safety net for people that need it. I do believe there should be some slight (not onerous) recompense/effort from the individual back to their community in exchange for it.

You want to "build, back, better"? There you go.

I'm all for work requirements, welfare to work and otherwise. Able bodies folks shouldn't get a free ride just because they spread their legs or don't want to work. As it is, those with additions and alcohol dependency are going to get high or drunk and there's a much high her societal costs for their treatment, rather than incentivizing sobriety.

[Gelston]

You might want to look at the chart that corresponds... and when I said "no casualty since FEB 2020", I meant KIA - as a result of enemy action.

U.S. KIA (hostile) in Afghanistan only by month according to iCasualties.org:

2020 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 – – – – 13

Casualty is WIA and KIA. Next time just say KIA. You got your terms wrong.

[Shaps]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrews...h=4b54eddd55b6

Democrats.. playing you jackasses like the ignorant bastards you are. Give them your vote, they care! ROFL

"95 senators voted for Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-Mo.) amendment to hire 100,000 new police officers, which, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) noted, is an extension of a program Biden got passed in 1994 when he was a senator. " - Where those chants in support of BLM and Defund the Police go? ROFL

"All 99 senators present – minus Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) – voted to pass Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s (R-Ala.) amendment to withhold federal funds from localities that defund their police – which, like the Green New Deal, is a left-wing policy the GOP likes to try to pin to Democrats." - Principles.. ROFL.. we only need you suckers in election years. HAHAHAHA.

"At the start of the marathon amendment process, or “vote-o-rama,” on Democrats’ budget resolution, all 50 Democrats joined with Republicans to pass Sen. John Barrasso’s (R-Wyo.) amendment preventing the implementation of the Green New Deal." - We care about the environment! ROFL .. Hey tree-huggers we'll need you all to help us in election years too! ROFL

“This is a gift,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said of Tuberville’s amendment in a floor speech, asserting that it will allow Democrats to “put to bed this scurrilous accusation that somebody in this great, esteemed body would want to defund the police.” He added, sarcastically, "I am sure I will see no political ads attacking anybody here over defund the police." - ROFL This fucking guy.

You shills get it now? Stop being played by your handlers. It can't feel good getting treated like an ignorant child, then backhanded at the dinner table. ROFL

See you next election cycle! You all can preach how "progressive" you all are again. Fucking idiots.

[Shaps]

Casualty is WIA and KIA. Next time just say KIA. You got your terms wrong.

Yea yea. Could have been more clear on the terminology. We're not sending up 9-lines here.

[Shaps]

I'm all for work requirements, welfare to work and otherwise. Able bodies folks shouldn't get a free ride just because they spread their legs or don't want to work. As it is, those with additions and alcohol dependency are going to get high or drunk and there's a much high her societal costs for their treatment, rather than incentivizing sobriety.

Sounds like we're actually a bit closer in thinking then, so we shouldn't be at odds. I just disagree on the point that the Government should be paying people directly to stay sober.

Addicts are already "paid" through the various social programs and support systems that are in place. Giving them a free check just to not do something is a very bad trend IMO.

Local communities, volunteer organizations, and charities already provide a large boost to such things in the US. The Federal Government shouldn't be giving them straight cash though. Again, just my opinion.

[Neveragain]

Sounds like we're actually a bit closer in thinking then, so we shouldn't be at odds. I just disagree on the point that the Government should be paying people directly to stay sober.

Addicts are already "paid" through the various social programs and support systems that are in place. Giving them a free check just to not do something is a very bad trend IMO.

Local communities, volunteer organizations, and charities already provide a large boost to such things in the US. The Federal Government shouldn't be giving them straight cash though. Again, just my opinion.

I actually disagree with conservatives on some of these issues. I believe the current healthcare system we have for the poor works rather well. I'm ashamed of our shortage of public housing, every society has the poor and a society should be judged by how they take care of their poor. I am also ashamed of how the church has taken care of it's poor in the US. We need to completely restructure our safety net and education system.

If we can piss away 2 trillion for war, we can figure out a way to house, clothe and feed our poor.

[Seran]

Sounds like we're actually a bit closer in thinking then, so we shouldn't be at odds. I just disagree on the point that the Government should be paying people directly to stay sober.

Addicts are already "paid" through the various social programs and support systems that are in place. Giving them a free check just to not do something is a very bad trend IMO.

Local communities, volunteer organizations, and charities already provide a large boost to such things in the US. The Federal Government shouldn't be giving them straight cash though. Again, just my opinion.

Problem is that reactionary solutions like voluntary treatment and transitional housing don't have the teeth of mandating 100% sobriety except for rare instances. Like it or not, our carebear society has this notion that the best of us and the worst of us deserve equal treatment. So your doctors curing terminal illness have the same rights as your average junky who is willfully killing himself and stealing from others to enable it.

Unless you can reverse that, go back to letting those who won't help themselves go completely, then you have to put in incentives to being in control.