BJean

Are you saying that yours doesn't?

I know what I know Beth and that ain't it. War kills. And it sure doesn't always make people free. That's a myth.

Wrong doers? Evil doers? I have a feeling that anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of the Bible and doesn't share your spiritual beliefs is an "evil doer" or a "wrong doer".

plain: "It was the name of the strategy developed when Clinton was president. If it had been named "Fat Boy", would you object to Bush saying it over and over?" You're effing kidding, right?

Your posts would indicate that Congress, by a vote, declared war on Iraq. That just isn't the truth. And you know that. I'll bet you've read several of Ron Paul's statements and perhaps those of other people who are concerned with the way our Constitution was tossed to the side when Congress gave Bush the ability to "shock and awe" the citizens of Iraq. And of course the whole world was shocked. And sure, it has happened many times in the past. That of course, does not make it right. And in fact, one would think that America would have learned from our ruinous participation in Vietnam and other places. And maybe most Americans have, but politicians still sell us down the river in these non-declared wars that we wage. And most importantly good people die tragically, for ill-gotten gains. We should be horrified, ashamed and angry.

Gosh patty it sounds like you have an area of fairly unique case workers. I know there are case workers who are over zealous, but as others here have said, those aren't the norm - except maybe in your town. It seems understandable that people get outraged if they are investigated, but the real outrage comes when parents aren't investigated enough and eventually a child dies or is maimed. You can't complain about them investigating charges of abuse and then be angry when a child dies because people didn't intervene by doing a thorough investigation. Well I guess you can, but it doesn't make any sense.

But Beth, with all the tax breaks and incentives that rich folks and corporations have enjoyed for the last decade, THEY sure aren't paying their fair share. How many really wealthy folks do you know personally? Have you asked them how much they pay in taxes every year - the bottom line amount?

When people regret something, it is a sure indication that they wish they hadn't done it. Hopefully Congress, and America, understands why the law was put into effect that doesn't allow a single person to make the decision to go to war and they won't make the same mistake again.

Beth, do you disagree that many people who voted for giving him that power later regretted it?

So plain, you must be one of the people who believes that you shouldn't pay taxes, eh? If you agree that they're a necessary evil, then why in the world would you support a policy that allows the wealthiest Americans to get big tax breaks? If you say that it makes sense because it will benefit the economy for the rich folks to get richer, that has been proven to be totally ineffective in helping most Americans. Furthermore, the proposed increase in taxes for the wealthiest Americans is a rate that is still less than what they paid under President Reagan. The propaganda that is being put out that rich folks are being taken advantage of and gouged is B.S. And if you believe that taxes are necessary, then you should understand that the proposed tax increase for the top very small percentage of Americans is exactly what is fair to mainstream Americans. The rich folks have for some time now had practically a free ride.

Aren't you saying, plain, that Congress voted to give Bush the authority to bomb Iraq, not that Congress voted to allow Bush to bomb Iraq? To me it isn't the same thing. It was a gross error on the part of Congress to give Bush free reign to make a decision like that - and Bush was very manipulative to get them to agree to it. And many people who did vote to give Bush that power were very sorry that they did. Since the Congress is normally directly involved in any decision to declare war, I do not feel that America declared war on Iraq; George Bush declared war on Iraq. And the term "shock and awe" was used over and over and over, ad nausem, by Dubya. Before he coined the phrase, most Americans were relatively unfamiliar with it. The author is irrelevant. It was just a tool.

"There are alot of people who report people to DCF out of their own anger towards the accused. This happens more often than not." If people report parents (or other caregivers of children) to DCF because they are angry, it is probably because they are angry that a child or children are being abused. To say that people report things just because they are angry at the accused "more often than not" is not a believable statement. Whether there is actual abuse may be debatable, but is it better to have some kind of interview/investigation on behalf of the children than to ignore it. Or do you think that a person who sees what they think is abuse should just turn their head away and pretend it isn't happening? No one likes intrusion by outsiders into their personal business, but too many people abuse children in this country. We cannot allow that to happen to our precious babies just because we fear that a social worker could abuse their right to question or investigate child caregivers. If social workers are assuming too much power or don't fairly investigate alleged problems, we should handle it by making sure that we are just as careful about hiring social workers as we need to be when we hire school teachers and people who run daycare centers. Safe children is the goal. Not unwarranted harrassment.

Beth sez: "I am all for helping those who, for a short time, may need a hand up. What I can't stand is how we reward baby makers and those with no intention of EVER working with my hard-earned money. If I knew it was only being used for the elderly with no means of support or those who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, I could deal better with it." And Beth, believe it or not I wholeheartedly agree with you on this.

Beth, I completely agree that having people on the "dole" has kept them down. And I also agree that there is a generation that has lived on the "dole" with never having become working, contributing members of society. However you must realize how it all came about - at least for the most part. Many minorities in our country were discriminated against in a very inhumane way. They were barred from some of the very basic things in society that so many of us take for granted. They did not have the opportunities educationally, or in any other way, that the majority of Americans had. How could we expect them to compete in the work force if we kept them beaten down? They were dirt poor with little means of survival on the level that most Americans enjoyed. And for many years, they often starved to death or died from untreated, treatable medical conditions. Fortunately Americans got smarter and knew that what we were doing and had done was not humane or even smart for our country. So programs were put into place to help the unfortunate people in this country - to guarantee that they got the help they so desperately needed. Unfortunately as time wore on, some of what you described certainly happened. Interestingly enough, some of the majority of our citizens liked the resut. It had the effect of keeping the minority "in their place" and under the control of the people who were calling the shots. That was very ugly. Things are finally beginning to get right in America with regard to this very real, very unfair problem. There have been some better checks and balances of the system and there are not so many people on the "dole". More corrections need to be made, granted. But if you think that we should allow people in this country to go hungry and to die from not having medical care, I think you are wrong. If we continue to work to make the system one that does a good job of helping people who, in spite of them trying to work, but are unable to because of health or accident occurrences, then we should all be happy that we are not a people who are satisfied with having people dying in our streets or in some shanty somewhere.

Beth you asked my opinion on why I believe that Palin is a right wing nut. I gave you a brief (yup) synopsis of why I put her in that category. I'm not up for debating it. She is who she is and she is about as far right as one can get and still be called a Republican. If you agree with her on those things that are so extreme, then that's your right of course. I don't know you but from your postings you don't seem as far right as some people here, but you're pretty rigidly to the right. I have never said that I wasn't a left wing nut or a liberal. I am moderate on some things but I am sure that if you do not consider Sarah Palin an extremist, then I will fill your category of liberal pretty easily. You have attributed several things to me that I have not said. I have let them go, except for the California thing. It just isn't worth it to me to correct you. But although I know I can be argumentative and harsh, I doubt seriously if I am the raging maniac you think I am. But whatever. It doesn't bother me if you call me names or hate my guts or hang on and love every word I type. I find it fun therapy to participate on rants and raves and when it becomes no fun or a chore, I will move on to something else. Fortunately for you, when that happens I'll be outa your life forever.

Nite ya'll. Btw, Colorado, I used to live in Chantilly, VA and I love Leesburg and surrounding area. Thinking about it makes me miss it!

I know Beth. I'm not sure that I completely understand people's perception of left-wing nuts either. First of all, she's not into making sure that her off-spring have birth control methods in place before they engage in sex. She believes that telling them to abstain is the right approach to raising a child. Yeah, how's that working for her? She's totally against a woman's right to choose an abortion if she finds it necessary. I believe she was against stem cell research. I am strongly (as strongly as I can possibly be) for women's right to choose and I support stem cell research. Next, she's into creationism. I'm not. She's like many of you, she doesn't think people should pay taxes. That's one of the things her other half has been very involved in. Timothy McVeigh was also a proponent of refusing to pay taxes. Those people scare me. They want to (and have) form a militia and if I thought they were into fairness and peace that wouldn't scare me. But they are not into those things. She's into the whole home schooling thing and I believe people opting out of the system is contributing to our schools' decline. I believe in a strong public school system. I believe we owe a good education to our children and I believe that only if we have well-educated children should we expect to continue to be the strongest, best nation on earth. She's into killing animals. I could never do that. I'm a carnivore so I can eat them, but I don't want to actively participate in their deaths. I would also wear fur because I believe that natural products are preferable to synthetic ones. She said some very harsh things from the platform - things that could have incited, and actually did, some very negative behavior and attitudes. I found that irresponsible and reprehensible. She was for the war. I was against it. She is proud to send her son over there and I would have been devastated if my son had to fight in a senseless war like that. I could go on but I think you probably have read it all before.

I'm pretty old and we haven't experienced a crisis of this magnitude in my lifetime. So I'm not so confident that given enough time, things would have worked themselves out. But hell to the yeah! Ball kicking!!! Count me in!!! Yeah baby, knee to the groin, yee haw, now we're talking!

Beth I wasn't being insulting. I know my posts must sound harsher than I am feeling since I get some pretty negative feedback sometimes. I just know that you enjoy speaking your mind and that you undoubtedly appreciate another woman who is strong enough to get up and speak her mind in a no-nonsense way too. My main quarrel with her is her right wingedness (yep, I made that up). She's way out on a limb as far as her politics and lifestyle are concerned - at least in my world. She's absolutely not the kind of person that I would want to see as my governor, much less my president. But I do understand her appeal to some people.

Hey Colorado, you didn't offend me at all. You were making a point - as was I. You DO all understand that the money that the banks are working with is OUR money, don't you?

Good job, Colorado. Thank you. I would agree with you about government interference or bail outs. Except for the fact that it's the taxpayers who are hurt in this economic debacle. Everyone (that I know of) agrees that much of this happened because of absolutely no oversight. It would be interesting to know if allowing chips to fall where they may, would have been a better solution. But this was affecting most countries and most Americans. It really seemed like it was time for someone to take the bull by the horns and wrestle it to the ground. Guess we will learn something in this process. At least I hope so. I hate the idea of the bailouts. I just do not have a better plan to offer up and I'm afraid I have to disagree with you about bankruptcy being a reasonable plan for all these companies.

I'm just guessing here but Beth I have a feeling that the reason Palin's entry into the race resonated with you is because she stood up and railed against Obama. She made outlandish claims from the podium. She was given her scripts and doggone it she stuck to it, day after day, venue after venue. She didn't do well when she got called on some of the stuff she said, but no matter, she got to say it, right?

And it's interesting to hear about a bank that didn't want any of the bail out money. Now why do you think that would be the case? Why do you think they want to be able to operate with no oversight? What do they have to hide?

Is there really anybody here who doesn't understand why companies go into business as Colorado suggested? Are you familiar in any way with companies that do have a conscience, so to speak? Companies like Hewlett Packard, for instance. Ben & Jerry's is a very small company by most standards but they have developed a company with a conscience. What I mean by that is that they not only opened their doors in order to make a profit. They also wanted to create a decent work place for their employees. They put policies into effect that protected employees from a lot of things that other companies have not. There are so many things I could cite to explain this better, but I honestly think you know what I'm talking about. And the interesting thing is that those companies (many more than I mentioned) DO make a profit - in fact, they have become very successful. Their employees are loyal and are much more productive than employees who are just a number to corporations. People who cared about more than money started a lot the good businesses in America many years ago. Companies cared about their employees and treated them with respect. By the same token, employees loved their jobs, took pride in them and became part of a team. Then many things happened to change it. Way too many things to list here, but for the past 30 years companies have become more and more greedy. They are not satisfied making a healthy profit. Their executives were not satisfied making several million dollars a year. They clamoured to become billionaires - and did not care one whit who they had to hurt to get it. Employees were expendable. In fact, they figured out lots of ways to get as many employees off the books as possible. They farmed out the work to part-timers, illegal aliens and to other countries. Capitalism is not a bad thing. But with no limitations or checks and balances, they can become bad and detrimental to a decent way of life. In theory what you all are saying is true, people should be able to start a company and run it any way they like. But when they start running on the edge of legality and intentionally harming people just for the bottom line, they need a daddy to slap their greedy little hands.

Colorado: Can you help me out, please. I would like to better understand exactly how a bankruptcy works. I mean a large bank or other large institution that goes bankrupt - what actually happens? What money goes where, who doesn't have to pay what, what happens to the creditors, and all the rest. I have a good idea about personal bankruptcy but I don't believe that corporations are handled in exactly the same way. I would like to understand how allowing these big guys to declare bankruptcy is a better solution than helping them with taxpayer money with the hope that the taxpayers are going to be able to recoup some of the investment in not only profits, but also they won't be experiencing the losses that they would if a company went bankrupt. I am sure I'm not understanding how this all works. I'd appreciate you enlightening me. Is your degree(s) in finance?