(09-19-2010 12:55 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-19-2010 12:29 PM)jh Wrote:  I'm not sure what the bio of the executive director has to do with anything. Just because she used to work for democrats in congress doesn't mean she's a partisan political operative.

No. But when you take that, along with their communications exec, combined with the other members of the org, the majority of which have worked for dems or other dem supporting groups in the past, it's not exactly far fetched to think they're partisan dems.

Quote:By the way, their listing of the 15 most corrupt congressmen includes seven republicans and, wait for it, eight democrats (that's more).
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/

That's nice, but I was talking about their most corrupt candidates list you can find Here

I know, I looked at that before my original post. It also includes a couple of independents. Do you really expect the numbers to be equal, or nearly so, every year? It couldn't be that there are actually more corrupt republican candidates this year, could it?

If they were so partisan (I never claimed they were non-partisan), why would their listing of the most corrupt congressmen include more democrats than republicans? That's a pretty big mistake for a partisan organization. Sure, include a couple so you can pretend to be fair, but if democrats are more corrupt overall what good does it do them? How can they then claim that Pelosi is indeed cleaning up the republican's culture of corruption? Why include independent Charlie Christ in their listing of corrupt candidates (who is expected to take votes away from Rubio & should be much more acceptable to democrats)?

Regardless, you have done nothing to address the charges, merely attack the source. I thought only liberals did that. Suppose they do care more about republican ethical violations - that doesn't mean the violations aren't there. If anything, it would mean that there should be a similar group run by republicans.

(09-18-2010 06:59 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Oy vey.

Here's the thing for me on this. If she loses it is no different than if Castle had won. So it's a wash.

Not if it is a difference between a 50-50 senate and a 51R-49D Senate. GOP only gets the committees with a 51-49 advantage.

(09-19-2010 07:56 PM)jh Wrote:  If they were so partisan (I never claimed they were non-partisan),

True. "not particularly partisan" doesn't in turn mean non-partisan.

Quote:why would their listing of the most corrupt congressmen include more democrats than republicans?

Cause the dems they list have been caught. Can't really deny the claims against them. Unlike their candidate list that calls some of the GOP candidates corrupt merely on the basis of their associations and without any evidence they ever did anything wrong. It's easy to call someone corrupt when they're, you know, being prosecuted for it. It's quite another to call them corrupt based merely on the fact that they have had associations with others who have done wrong.

Quote:Regardless, you have done nothing to address the charges, merely attack the source.

Did you see me say anything about the charges? Nope. You saw me respond to your contention that there weren't "particularly partisan."

The source is a group made of up dem political operatives who are partners with disgraced liar Joe Wilson and his wife suing Dick Cheney and Karl Rove over the leak that wasn't even a crime. I read the bios of the people who work there and nearly every one of them has worked for the dem party or dem causes. Didn't see one single republican politician or organization on that list. Doesn't it seem reasonable to think if they were really non-partisan that they would have someone from the other party on their staff?

It is fairly ludicrous to assume an organization made up of people who have worked for dems and dem causes isn't partisan. "Non-partisan" groups, at minimum, ought to have representation for different ideological and political view points.

Quote:Suppose they do care more about republican ethical violations - that doesn't mean the violations aren't there.

Note I never said it did. I merely took issue with your contention that they weren't "particularly partisan."

(09-17-2010 03:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  btw................ I wouldn't use the pill. I would use Norplant. It fits under the skin. It's pretty effective.AND................. this is not forced. If you want help you get the Norplant under the skin.

I tend to agree. If one chooses to waddle up to the government feeding trough...there should be stipulations in place in regard to receiving the hay. If that is submission to contraception and that is objectionable?...then one can certainly choose to seek help from private charity.

I would go further than you and include drug testing and other things designed to improve the both the health and the financial status of the individual seeking assistance.

One of the main problems with government assistance programs is that they are designed to KEEP people on assistance...not...improve their lives. Government bureaucrats have NO incentive to get people off of these programs. To do so would be to counterproductive to their job security.

Getting government assistance SHOULD BE VERY HARD... NOT EASY!!!

(09-21-2010 07:40 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-17-2010 03:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  btw................ I wouldn't use the pill. I would use Norplant. It fits under the skin. It's pretty effective.AND................. this is not forced. If you want help you get the Norplant under the skin.

One of the main problems with government assistance programs is that they are designed to KEEP people on assistance...not...improve their lives.

This

yup

(09-19-2010 01:25 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  1) While I don't like the idea of the government becoming more involved in things, I have no clue how you made the leap that birth control in exchange for taxpayer subsidized support is eugenics? I'm with Mach in the sense that if you need govn't help, you now follow their rules (i.e. no more kids until you don't need us). Its a simple agreement regardless of who its between: if I give you this, you must do this to continue to receive it.

2) The biggest challenge I see is ensuring the right of a child to grow up in a proper environment (think basics: food, education, shelter, etc). To what extent should the government get involved? Either they have to take children to ensure that they a raised in a proper environment or provide subsidies to allow parents to create a proper environment. I won't go into too much detail, but you get the general conundrum.

1) The government *can't* nor should it sanction legal behavior in exchange for 'help'. It's one thing to submit people to drug screenings or mandate treatment for addiction. It's quite another to tell htem how to dress, walk, what to believe, or weather or not to reproduce.

Any short term financial benefit to be had by keeping people on assistance from breeding is nothing compared to the value of freedom lost for all.

2) 'Right' to grow up in a government approved environment? are you kidding comrade?

(09-17-2010 06:15 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  O'Donnell racks

I see what you did there WMD Reid.

(09-21-2010 02:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-19-2010 01:25 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  1) While I don't like the idea of the government becoming more involved in things, I have no clue how you made the leap that birth control in exchange for taxpayer subsidized support is eugenics? I'm with Mach in the sense that if you need govn't help, you now follow their rules (i.e. no more kids until you don't need us). Its a simple agreement regardless of who its between: if I give you this, you must do this to continue to receive it.

2) The biggest challenge I see is ensuring the right of a child to grow up in a proper environment (think basics: food, education, shelter, etc). To what extent should the government get involved? Either they have to take children to ensure that they a raised in a proper environment or provide subsidies to allow parents to create a proper environment. I won't go into too much detail, but you get the general conundrum.

1) The government *can't* nor should it sanction legal behavior in exchange for 'help'. It's one thing to submit people to drug screenings or mandate treatment for addiction. It's quite another to tell htem how to dress, walk, what to believe, or weather or not to reproduce.

Any short term financial benefit to be had by keeping people on assistance from breeding is nothing compared to the value of freedom lost for all.

2) 'Right' to grow up in a government approved environment? are you kidding comrade?

on 1) as their decisions create an obligation on the part of "the people", not to mention the people's obligation to their offspring, who DIDN'T have a say in that decision, I think an argument could be made that help from the government can CLEARLY come with strings as it does for many things. You have to go to interviews and document it to get unemployment benefits etc. We aren't mandating behavior... we're mandating the terms of our assistance. Rights have to be balanced, no??

2) I think he was implying that the government has a supposed duty to remove children from unacceptable environments... CPS and all... that has to be balanced with people's rights to raise their own children. It's a challenge to balance that