T > wrote:

> Indeed, the whole War on Drugs is assinine. The other fun fact about the
> laws behind it are that if you are convicted you loose all access to
> financing an education through the student loan program.
>
> We need serious Homeland Security reform.

And public housing, and food stamps, and a bunch of other "benefits"
meant for people down on their luck.

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:
> T > wrote:
>
>> Indeed, the whole War on Drugs is assinine. The other fun fact about the
>> laws behind it are that if you are convicted you loose all access to
>> financing an education through the student loan program.
>>
>> We need serious Homeland Security reform.
>
> And public housing, and food stamps, and a bunch of other "benefits"
> meant for people down on their luck.
>
> -sw

"Down on their luck", sure. Habitual lazy-asses, nope.

-dk

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:26:48 -0400, D K wrote:

> Sqwertz wrote:
>> T > wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed, the whole War on Drugs is assinine. The other fun fact about the
>>> laws behind it are that if you are convicted you loose all access to
>>> financing an education through the student loan program.
>>>
>>> We need serious Homeland Security reform.
>>
>> And public housing, and food stamps, and a bunch of other "benefits"
>> meant for people down on their luck.
>>
>> -sw
>
> "Down on their luck", sure. Habitual lazy-asses, nope.
>
> -dk

how do you propose to tell the difference?

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:26:48 -0400, D K wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>> T > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Indeed, the whole War on Drugs is assinine. The other fun fact about the
>>>> laws behind it are that if you are convicted you loose all access to
>>>> financing an education through the student loan program.
>>>>
>>>> We need serious Homeland Security reform.
>>> And public housing, and food stamps, and a bunch of other "benefits"
>>> meant for people down on their luck.
>>>
>>> -sw
>> "Down on their luck", sure. Habitual lazy-asses, nope.
>>
>> -dk
>
> how do you propose to tell the difference?
>
> your pal,
> blake

Limited time frame for benefits and no "bonuses" for new kids.

There should also be some accountability as their is with unemployment -
they should be actively seeking a job and be able to document that.

-dk

D K > wrote:

> Limited time frame for benefits and no "bonuses" for new kids.
>
> There should also be some accountability as their is with unemployment -
> they should be actively seeking a job and be able to document that.

Women with children never have to produce proof of anything except
fertility.


-sw