kimbatiste wrote:This Josh Mandel guy is incredible.

pacino wrote:the most CURRENT most disgusting, most anti-poor and anti-woman bill in the PA legislature, co-sponsored by my freaking 'Democratic' representative

snip.

CalvinBall wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:This Josh Mandel guy is incredible.

In what sense?

CalvinBall wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:This Josh Mandel guy is incredible.

In what sense?

BDawk wrote:

bdawk wrote:

pacino wrote:the most CURRENT most disgusting, most anti-poor and anti-woman bill in the PA legislature, co-sponsored by my freaking 'Democratic' representative

snip.

This is hard to read, so I didn't go over it with a fine tooth comb and my response is more a general one. I am absolutely in favor of some type of change in policy for tanf or ccis(what I do) clients having more children while on subsidy. Thy already have a family they can't support and mouths they can't feed, having more children is horrible and a slap in the fax to taxpayers, who are footing the bill to care for their family and provide programs if aid under the auspice that they are atempting to better their situation. The name of the program itself is temporary assistance, it's not intended to be a way of life for people but many of these clients have that intention solely. And I don't know how we break this cycle if we don't address this specifically. I'm sure you'll disagree with me.

I do, but this seems like a punishing mechanism more than anything. We already take money away if they don't go for support. I don't think it is the government's say in how many children you have or when you have them.

The second part (rape part) is the most egregious though, which only serves to humiliate an already damaged and humiliated person.

pacino wrote:I do, but this seems like a punishing mechanism more than anything. We already take money away if they don't go for support. I don't think it is the government's say in how many children you have or when you have them.

The second part (rape part) is the most egregious though, which only serves to humiliate an already damaged and humiliated person.

gr wrote:Is it me or is this Zakaria column just wishcasting?

BDawk wrote:

pacino wrote:I do, but this seems like a punishing mechanism more than anything. We already take money away if they don't go for support. I don't think it is the government's say in how many children you have or when you have them.

The second part (rape part) is the most egregious though, which only serves to humiliate an already damaged and humiliated person.

I agree completely on the rape aspect. As for the additional children had willingly, its not that I'm unsympathetic to the circumstances of people on assistance but its just not right to keep having children you can't afford, bringing them into these horrible conditions, while someone else pays for it all and birth control is available for free.

Above Jeff gets to the heart of my point more articulately than I'm doing.

Philly the Kid wrote:I continue to be troubled about how to face the question every 4 years of the "lesser of two evils". Democrats get infuriated when idealists, true liberals, and people just fet-up -- talk about "wasting" a vote on a 3rd party (has-no-chance) candidate. And this has bothered me forever...

I know 3rd parties are irrelevant at the moment, but how do we change that if we always hold our nose and vote for the lesser evil which - is still evil?

ChuckGrassley ‏@ChuckGrassley
Fred and I hit a deer on hiway 136 south of Dyersville. After I pulled fender rubbing on tire we continued to farm. Assume deer dead

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:obama up 51-47 in colorado according to ppp.

all of their polls had large democratic samples today, so who knows.

They're doing their part to generate the narrative

It will be interesting to see if Nate treats them separately or if he lets them pull his model even further from the most likely outcome