SPARC Forums

Main Forums => General Issues => Topic started by: StPaulieGirl on Jan 07, 2004, 11:37:36 PM

Title: George, what the hell were you thinking?
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Jan 07, 2004, 11:37:36 PM
Ohhhh I'm pissed off.  I'm actually faced with the fact that I don't want to vote to reelect George W. Bush after this bs amnesty plan.  George, does Vincente Fox have something on you?  Why are you selling this country down the river????  Jesus Christ, Kalifornistan is bad enough already.  Jobs that Americans won't do???  Your examples of hotel maids, meat cutters and landscapers is bs!  I know unemployed Americans who would jump on those jobs.  We'll jump on those jobs thanks to all the jobs that were sent overseas in the last few years.  The jobs that paid a living wage.  George may you have to sit on the phone for 4 hours trying to find someone who speaks English and can help you troubleshoot your pc.  

http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCenters.cfm?ID=2250&c=15

What's Wrong With the Proposals for a New Guestworker Program?
 
 
 Proposals for a massive new "guestworker" program would:

threaten homeland security
grant amnesty for law-breakers, a step overwhelmingly opposed by the American public
establish a back door immigration program
threaten the jobs and wages of American workers.
The politicians pushing a guestworker amnesty know that Americans staunchly oppose amnesty, and so they shy away from calling it what it really is, instead cloaking it in terms like "earned legalization" or "normalization of status."  They are deliberately misleading the American public.

THEY SAY that the overwhelming majority of people entering the country illegally pose no threat to our country and that if we allow them enter in a lawful manner, we will enhance our homeland security.

THE TRUTH is that there are an estimated 8-11 million illegal aliens in the United States, and it only took 19 to perpetrate the attacks of September 11.  Our immigration system has become overburdened and unmanageable due to mass illegal immigration.  As a result, there is little reason to feel confident that, absent a massive infusion of new resources, which is highly unlikely given current fiscal realities, anything approaching thorough background checks can be conducted on applicants for a guestworker program.  Even without the added burden of an amnesty, people like Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric who masterminded the first World Trade Center bombing, and Mohammed Atta, the leader of the September 11 attacks, managed to slip through the screening process.  There is every reason to believe that adding new responsibilities to an overtaxed system will make us less safe.

No one has yet explained how the millions of applicants would be given security checks or whether that’s even remotely feasible, given an already overburdened immigration enforcement system. Immigration officials would have to deal with hundreds of thousands of more applicants a year, to say nothing of how we would verify eligibility for any of the eight million potential applicants already here illegally, particularly with many of them armed with false identity documents.  When the immigration system can’t adequately perform its most essential mission, adding in the responsibility for security checks, tracking, and removal when necessary for millions of participants in a guestworker program will guarantee disaster.

THEY SAY that the legislation is not an amnesty, but that guestworkers who participate in the program will be eligible for permanent resident status.

THE TRUTH is that the proposal would be an amnesty with an “apprenticeship” provision.  Illegal aliens who are already in the U.S. would  be eligible to apply.  Thus, they would be excused for having violated our immigration laws in the first place, and then be rewarded again with permanent residency--thus making the law, in effect, a double amnesty.  Calling it something else does not change the reality that this proposal is a massive amnesty program.

THEY SAY the program will help regain control of the borders and stop illegal immigration.

THE TRUTH is that the proposal does nothing to discourage future illegal immigration or enforcement of our immigration laws, ensuring that any guestworker or illegal alien who wants to remain in the U.S. can and will.  In fact, about one-third of illegal aliens in the country right now arrived on legal visas and simply never went home.  In addition, it does nothing to strengthen border security to ensure that only guestworkers, and not terrorists, are being admitted.

THEY SAY that spouses and children of illegal aliens may also be eligible to participate in the visa program.

THE TRUTH is that this would be an amnesty not only for those who qualify for this “guestworker” program, but a simultaneous amnesty for their dependents, whether or not they are workers.  Aside from expanding the amnesty to include non-workers, it also grants a benefit to the dependents of illegal aliens that is not afforded to the families of other guestworkers who never violated the law.  Moreover, it undermines the stated – if flawed – purpose of a guestworker program:  that foreign workers come temporarily and then return home.  Employers would be able to utilize a virtually limitless supply of guestworkers at low wages, while the expense for services like education and health care for dependent family members would have to be picked up by taxpayers.

THEY SAY that an electronic job registry operated through the Department of Labor will allow employers to post jobs and American workers would have the first chance to apply.  Moreover, the jobs would have to be offered again at the end of the three-year period, and that workers’ visas would be renewed only if no Americans are willing to take them.

THE TRUTH is that in the estimation of the General Accounting Office and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, the provisions in existing guestworker programs that are intended to ensure that American workers get first crack at jobs have been a complete failure.  Even if the political will existed to prevent employers from bypassing American workers in favor of foreign guestworkers – which there doesn’t – the Labor Department does not have the resources to monitor the hiring process.  A federal government that managed to fine a grand total of 13 employers nationwide in 2002 for violating employer sanctions laws cannot be counted on to enforce the provisions of a guestworker program either.

THEY SAY that BSIIA would be a market-driven program that will negate the reasons why employers hire illegal aliens.

THE TRUTH is that under BSIIA, there would not even be a prevailing wage requirement, meaning that employers will be able to offer wages far below what most Americans would be willing to accept, thereby creating an artificial need for guestworkers.  In effect, the law would grant legal sanction to employers who want to hire workers at low wages and limited leverage.  One of the primary purposes of our immigration laws is to prevent employers from undermining wages and working conditions of American workers.

THEY SAY that the program would prevent abuse of foreign workers by affording them mobility and the ability to file grievances against abusive employers.

THE TRUTH is that the mobility of guestworkers would still be very limited and their ability to change jobs would depend on finding another employer who was willing to go through the procedure of posting a job and wading through the bureaucratic red tape.  The primary interest of the workers would be to hold a job for six years in order to qualify for permanent residency.  Moreover, at the end of the “apprenticeship” period, when the guestworker would be granted permanent residency and would gain bargaining power, there is no reason to expect that the employer would not seek another guestworker who is willing to work at below-market wages.

THEY SAY that the program would prevent deaths along the border.

THE TRUTH is that U.S. immigration laws are not responsible for the deaths along the border – it is the violation of our immigration laws that is  responsible.  If there is any culpability on the part of the American government, it is in its failure to deter illegal immigration by aggressively enforcing laws that prohibit illegal aliens from working here or accessing public benefits.  Sending a clear signal that illegal entry to the U.S. will not be rewarded would have the desired effect of dissuading people from placing their lives and safety into the hands of unscrupulous smugglers.  Besides, when the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE) adopted a measure that demonstrably cut down the likelihood of border deaths – by repatriating illegal alien crossers who were apprehended in Arizona to border towns in Texas – the open borders lobby protested, charging that the program was unfair to illegal aliens.

THEY SAY the program will provide workers when and while they’re needed.

THE TRUTH is that when the economy takes a downturn, there will be millions of guestworkers in the U.S. without a job, without a home, without health care, and with no intention of returning to their home countries.  The guestworkers’ unemployment problems become the public’s burden.


1/04
_________________________________________________ ___________

Okay, there is a grassroots effort that started a couple of weeks ago regarding any amnesty plan.  The deal is to stay home on January 12th.  Don't go to work, school, or buy anything.  If enough people do it across the country, maybe we change some minds.  I seriously doubt it, though.

Admin:  If my post is out of line for this forum, I'll understand if you remove it.  I'm just sooo pissed off, and FR is for some reason, cracking down on those of us who think this is an absolute national nightmare.  don't ask us why.
Title: The issues on this are FAR deeper ...
Post by: MKx2 on Jan 08, 2004, 08:14:38 AM
SPG - I understand where you're coming from on this issue.  However, because money makes the world go 'round, whether we like it or not, allowing the illegal aliens some type of amnesty, as well as the farming out of work to other countries, is probably essential to the future economic development of the world.

I'm not saying that I agree with all aspects of what is being proposed, if any ... nor am I saying that it is "right."   Consider this aspect of a more global nature ...

We stop farming out the manufacturing and assembly, we boot out all the illegal aliens, and essentially take the "isolationist" posture in these areas.  We keep the so-called wealth (which is held by roughly 4% of our population) on U.S. soil.  I think (and someone correct me if I'm wrong with this) that over 2/3 of the world lives in poverty, by our standards, and huge percentage of that is well below what we pampered North Americans consider poverty.  At some point our production will glut our market.  Well then, when that happens we export, but to who?  There isn't enough world wealth to support an export market if we choose this option.  This is a huge economic global infra-structure that is vital to world growth.

So ... ya say who cares about the rest of the world?  Well, I would guess that all of us should.  Without their economic power we eventually go down with the rest of the dominos.

Like it or not, capitalism is what keeps everything turning, and one very small cog in this wheel is those illegal aliens who send their money home to fuel the economy of Mexico.  Directly or indirectly, a portion of that money finds its way back here.

We may not like the situation, but if we want to maintain any standard of living we're going to have to accept it.

There are a gazillion other issues related to this whole thing, but I think you might get the idea of what I'm trying to say.  I don't necessarily like it, but as Indy said recently I am but a "blip" in the overall picture.

Admin ... I too will not be upset if you choose to remove my post either as it is WAAAAAY OT for SPARC.
Title: Yes they are
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Jan 08, 2004, 11:14:53 AM
If enough blips get together it makes for a rather large blip.

The problem I have is that these people come here and knowingly break the laws of this country.  If you are here illegally, explain how you are paying taxes?  Sales tax?  Whoopeee!  That goes a long way towards the overhead.  Schools, emergency rooms, Food Stamps.  It has to stop, because it's burying our state governments.

I truly feel bad for people who live in countries run by corrupt governments, whose only choice seemingly is to run North.  We can't absorb anymore people.  They need to take back their own countries and create opportunities for themselves and their families.  I care about other people around the world.  I fully support our efforts to bring stability to the Middle East, and to get rid of dictators who threaten our security and murder their own citizens.  

This is going to drive down wages for existing jobs.  The jobs that haven't been shipped overseas, that is.  The standard of living is going to come down for all of us.  Those of us who are lower middle class, will slip down further.  I don't think there's anything left to export.  You know, there are a lot of people who just aren't white collar material, and have depended on service positions, and the trades to earn a living to feed themselves and their families.  Those 10 dollar an hour jobs are going to be 6.75.  The employer will guarantee that this "guest worker" has a job.  The "guest worker" will of course bring over his family.  Let's see, if you're in Kalifornia, you couldn't even rent a motel room weekly on 6.75 x 40 hours.  So does the Mrs. clean houses under the table to make ends meet?  Do they team up with relatives and squeeze 12 people into a 1 bedroom apt?  It's the same old thing, except this is going to benefit businesses, not Americans, by lowering wages.  

Here is a thought which kind of makes this topic actually relevent to SPARC.  Not everyone here is a white collar professional.  What happens when your job "disappears", so your employer can hire a "guest worker" who will do it for less?  What are you going to tell the family court judge regarding child support payments?  I read posts by "overeducated" individuals who can't even get a McJob because they're over qualified.  The presumption is that when a real job opens up, the person will quit.  Well duh!  But still, we're looking at a possible disaster for this country and her citizens.

There is another thing to consider.  There is an organization called MeCHA that claims that the treaties which gave America the Southwestern United States, is invalid.  Lt Gov Cruz (gee I can't find my birth certificate to prove I was born in the USA)Bustamante was a member during college, and probably is still an unofficial member.  They want the Southwestern portion of the USA(AKA Atzlan) to be given back to Mexico.  Yet another thing to consider:  Middle Easterners and Hispanics look remarkably similar.   My son in law's family is from India.  He's pretty tall and built like a line backer.  People think he's Hispanic, and have struck up a conversation with him in Spanish....which he can't speak; he's also been mistaken for being Italian, and Yugoslavian!  See the problem with security?

Oh well these are just my opinions, not SPARC's.

Title: RE: Yes they are
Post by: Brent on Jan 08, 2004, 11:27:35 AM
>Here is a thought which kind of makes this topic actually
>relevent to SPARC.  Not everyone here is a white collar
>professional.  What happens when your job "disappears", so
>your employer can hire a "guest worker" who will do it for
>less?  

There is no doubt that off-shore hiring (exporting) of US jobs has helped destroy the economy, no matter what rosy predictions come out of the White House or the Fed. If unemployment is officially at 8%, you can bet the real number is close to double that.

See, they only count people receiving unemployment benefits as "unemployed". No benefits? Then you aren't counted as "unemployed" and don't appear in the statistics. Cute, huh?

So if you're dead broke, have no job, and aren't able to collect  unemployment benefits you aren't "unemployed". Yeah, you have no job and no money, but the government say you aren't  "unemployed". Isn't that clever? That's why the REAL number is quite a bit more than the one they hand out for public consumption. Always double the number you hear, and then you'll have an idea of how bad it really is.

Also, H1-B visas have clearly contributed to the destruction of our economy.

When a company like GM brags about how they're outsourced 75% of their IT staff to India, it makes me wonder if they realize they're slitting their own throat- who, I ask, is going to be left here that will able to afford to buy their cars? Not someone who's job is now done by someone on India, that's for damn sure.

American companies are piggies at the trough, and the execs who make these decisions don't care, becuase they already have their giant salries and pensions and retirement plans all socked away.

The missle class is shrinking to almost nothing, and pretty soon there will be two classes left in this fine country of ours (cogh, cough)- the very rich and the very poor. Guess which group will be bigger?

The politicians don't care either- like the fat cat executives, they already have their huge salries and pensions and retirement plans taken care of. Meanwhile, most of this country doesn't even have health care.

America: "The Land Of The Fee And The Home Of The Knave". :(
Title: RE: The issues on this are FAR deeper ...
Post by: Brent on Jan 08, 2004, 01:14:38 PM
This is the "General" board, so there's almost nothing considered "off topic". This is the best place to post anything you find interesting, newsy, or fun.
Title: Unemployment statistics!
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Jan 08, 2004, 02:02:59 PM
Oh yes!  After you exhaust your benefits, "you no longer exist".  Stories about unemployment rates going down just crack me up. Not cute.  There is a poster who calls himself "Willie Green" on FR, who posts the latest factory closings.  For a while last fall, it was EVERY DAY.  These people are going to work, where?  Brush clearing, fast food?

Housing prices are insane in So Cal.  Who can afford to buy, nevermind rent these places?  What comes up, eventually comes down.  When George AFB was closed in 1989, we ended up "upside down" on our mortgage, as did all of our neighbors.  The economic base imploded.  The real estate market is going to go to hell in this state pretty soon.  I just hope my aunt and I can figure out how to sell the mausoleum "probate-as is" before the market crashes.  I also hope she quits listening to her lawyer and accountant, otherwise I'm going to have a problem :/

I don't mean to be so pessimistic, but like I said, I read first hand accounts of folks who are well educated who can't find a job these days.  The middle class is up to their collective eyeballs in debt just trying to maintain the lifestyle they used to be able to afford.  I'm not talking about conspicious consumption, either.  How can you trust your job security to stick your neck out on a major purchase such as a house or a brand new car? (eat me GM, Ford, etc!)

Carly Fiorina is a smug, uncaring, poor excuse for an American.  Imo...

I have a few remedies to this situation that will never be associated by my IP address.

Let us never forget the spirit of '76!



Title: RE: Unemployment statistics!
Post by: Indigo Mom on Jan 08, 2004, 02:30:41 PM
-----Let us never forget the spirit of '76!-----

Refresh my memory, as I was more concerned with getting potty trained back in '76...lol...lmao...ooohhh hoooo....

ok, feeling a bit cocky today, feel free to whoop my behind for that one!
Title: RE: Unemployment statistics!
Post by: Peanutsdad on Jan 08, 2004, 03:00:58 PM
76?

Oh yes, strawberry papers and columbian gold. Hellova year;)
Title: RE: Unemployment statistics!
Post by: Brent on Jan 08, 2004, 03:52:29 PM
>76?
>
>Oh yes, strawberry papers and columbian gold. Hellova year;)

I remember 1976. Well, part of it, anyway. ;)

Do I wanna go back? Nope. The 70's sucked, in my humble opinion. The clothes, music, and cars were all atrocious, as were the politicians. Ugh.
Title: RE: Unemployment statistics!
Post by: Peanutsdad on Jan 08, 2004, 05:11:28 PM
Ummm Brent, most of us that were of an age to remember the 70's,, CANT LOL.

Totally different societal mores then,, gettin high was not only accepted, it was expected.
Title: Not that '76, people !!!
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Jan 08, 2004, 07:26:42 PM
1776!

ROTFLMAO at potty training, strawberry rolling papers, and (((disco)))!!!

Title: RE: dude...
Post by: Indigo Mom on Jan 08, 2004, 07:55:03 PM
You're one old SOB, now aincha?  We're spring chickens compared to you, ya old coot....what was life like back then?
Title: What was life back in '76? Contribute here!
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Jan 09, 2004, 12:06:09 AM
Yeah I guess I am old, hahaha :-)

The music was great, if you could avoid Disco.  Usually it was word of mouth.  Black Sabbath (of course), Alice Cooper, Deep Purple, Pink Floyd, The Ramones, just too many to name off the top of my head.  Ooooh, Lynyrd Skynyrd!!!!!  Did I spell that right?

My mom thought anything that made anyone happy was a total sin, so I listened to music at my friends houses.  Hell, I was still rolling my skirts!

Cheech and Chong were big back then.  I admit that I did drugs, although nothing involved with needles. Strawberry rolling papers suck!!!!!!!  God I still remember how nasty those things were.  Bongs were the way to go.  Anyone remember scrubbing bongwater out of the carpet?    

Remember Dr. Demento?  He was huge in the Seventies!  I remember bringing my radio into the kitchen to listen to him while doing my chores Sunday night.  I always managed to turn the volume down, when they played "Vatican Rag". ( I think I still know all the lyrics....it was sooo naughty, ya know)  Something cool-I was lucky enough to hear Weird Al's homemade tapes on Dr. Demento!  He's my age too.  Is he still single?

The clothes sucked.  They came up with this synthetic polyester crap call Qiana.  Stuck to everything.  Guys and girls wore it.  Bell bottoms and bikes don't work.  I should dig up my HS yearbook for even more horrible examples.  By this time I was completely fed up with the world and decided to scare people. Jeans.  Black tee shirts, preferably with an offensive logo.  Converse One Stars. These were stashed at my friends house.  To this day, I try and avoid polyester and all its forms like the plague.

Politics.  Well, there was Jimmy Carter.  That's the first president that I was old enough to form an opinion about.  No comment.

As far as sex and things like that, I was into vandalism.  My mom's idea of sex ed was to explain that should I ever do "something bad", that I would have to move out of state, and give the baby up for adoption.  

I met a lot of people while I was being a pain in the butt.  I learned a lot of things that I wouldn't have experienced otherwise sitting between church and my bedroom.  I pieced together my own opinion about Viet Nam by listening to guys who were there.  Not from the crap on tv.  Never trust tv news!  Unfortunately, I probably should have listened to my mom.  My dad was always there, but he was raised that the women took care of the kids.   Lol, my best memories are of helping my dad in the yard, or fixing the car.

I made some bad choices.  Between the liberal assholes I had for teachers, the media, and my innate revulsion towards my moms religious obsessions....I was a disaster.  I don't mean to come off as being hateful towards my mom.  She had problems.  God rest her soul.

Anyone else like to contribute their '70's memories?





Title: RE: I meant 1776, ya big galoot!
Post by: Indigo Mom on Jan 09, 2004, 08:49:59 AM
Now that's a time I'd love to go back to.  I'd love to sit on a hill overlooking a Native American tribe.  It would be fabulous to see how they "really" live, as opposed to the movies we watch now a days.  I'd like to walk among them...and really feel how it was.  

Wouldn't that be sweet????  Ya...I think so.

Now, the 1970's.  Let's see.  I was born then, started kindergarten.  Had the 1st of two moves to England.  Lived in Idaho, too.  Yep.  That's about all I remember.  I guess Peanutsdad was right when he said if you lived in the 70's, ya can't remember 'em...lolololol
Title: The CARS????????
Post by: Kitty C. on Jan 09, 2004, 11:42:40 AM
No way!  Only decade to produce more muscle cars that any other!  In fact, Pontiac is bringing the Goat back, wooohoooo!!!!!!

The Hemi's, the 442's, the Tang's, the Super Bee's, the 4 barrel carbs, the dual exhausts with 'glass packs'.....I may have been jr. high and HS at the time, but I had an older brother I idolized who's first car was a baby blue and white '56 Chevy, back in 1970.  Was his first passenger, as a matter of fact!  My heroes were my dad and Richard Petty!  Even when I was in HS, my 'dream car' (at the time) was a 1972 candy apple red Chevelle.

Nuthin' like the rumble of a great exhaust and the rev of a finely tuned engine........wrap it up to 5 grand, side-step the clutch, and light the tires!!!!!!!!!

;-)
Title: Yup! What about Monty Python??????
Post by: Kitty C. on Jan 09, 2004, 11:56:50 AM
DH still watches it on BBCA!  Probably only thing from the 70's I can still tolerate to watch, LOL!

Oh boy, Cheech and Chong!  I went to YCC (Youth Conservation Corps) for 6 weeks after graduation, and had a roommate who was just as into them as I was.  Both had 'Up in Smoke' on cassette and MEMORIZED!  Worked at a national wildlife refuge where the ditch weed grew to over 6 feet, back in the bone yard.  Smoked my share (not at YCC!) but had to give it up eventually because of the paranoia.....didn't like doing it anymore when it stopped being fun!

I agree on the polyester and 'Quiana', SPG!  Rank stuff, hot and sweaty in the summer and freezing in the winter!  I had a friend in CA that couldn't get away from bell bottoms, got pretty difficult finding jeans by the mid 80's for him, but I told him if the good Lord had meant him to wear bell bottoms, He'd have flaired his ankles!

And yes, you did spell Lynyrd Skynyrd right!  You got taste, Girl!
Title: RE: I meant 1776, ya big galoot!
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Jan 09, 2004, 06:38:13 PM
My kids have a Native American grandmother on their father's maternal side.  My youngest is tawny skinned with almond shaped blue eyes.  I like to call her my little Indian Princess :-)  All the girls have unusual looking blue eyes.  My mother in law said the name of the tribe, but I can't spell it.  It was a small tribe in Illinois state.  My ex brother in law swears it's Iroquois.  That would explain their tempers...

I had a hard time trying to come up with good memories from the '70's, even though I know I had fun.  Lol....
Title: Monty Python!
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Jan 09, 2004, 06:55:51 PM
I love Monty Python!  Remember Benny Hill?  Hahaha, I wish I had that stuff on video.  Yeah, I know they sell it, but I'm cheap.

My ex had that Cheech and Chong album called "The Big Bambu", complete with rolling paper!  Dave's not here!  Did you ever hear the one they did called "Santa's Old Lady"?  It was a parody of "The Night Before Christmas", all I can remember is "On Chuey!, On Tavo!..."  Lol, it was hysterical!!!  My ex had all of their albums, plus Red Foxx, and Richard Pryor.

I hate polyester to this day.  I laughed so hard when bellbottoms came back into style, and my girls started wearing them.  Oh well at least the fashionistas haven't reintroduced the bustle :P Frankly, guys wearing bellbottoms these days is kind of ridiculous.  As is watching my son shuffle off to school wearing Dickies 3 sizes too big for him....with the mandatory gap of plaid boxer shorts showing...

Lynyrd Skynyrd rocks!  Tuesday's gone with the wiiiiiind!  Hey do you remember the Outlaws?  Green Grass and High Tides Forever?
Title: RE: Unemployment statistics!
Post by: john5739 on Jan 17, 2004, 12:33:02 AM
Are you the same person who posted to the mother who was worried about her children being sexually molested?  I'm not quoting you verbatim, but didn't you say something along the lines of once a drug user always a drug user?  If your previous postings here are in reference to drug use ( I'm a little too young to know what Columbian gold and strawberry paper is, but I think they are euphemisms for cocaine and acid?)  If I'm right aren't you a little hypocrytical?  
Title: RE: Unemployment statistics! Slightly off-topic to thread - sorry.
Post by: MKx2 on Jan 17, 2004, 07:00:14 AM
I don't recall the poster actually stating personal USE of drugs ... or did I miss that?  I think this thread was on memories not personal use of drugs.

Since you're "too young" to know with certainty all the jargon of the 60's and 70's, and I'm quite old enough to know most of it, and remember wearing Fairchild moccassins, Haight-Ashbury, The Stone Ponys, and Woodstock, etc.  The majority of those folks were marijuana users, most of whom I believe have gone on to be rather responsible adults and leaders (LOL didn't Clinton say he "never inhaled"?).  I suggest that if they were all hard-core users of cocaine and acid then perhaps we would have a 100% "checked out" society in the age group of 40 - 60 ... don't think that's the case.

Long term hard core drug use is tough to kick ... rather like an alcoholic.  You can go to rehab and be clean for YEARS, but ONE single hit or drink drags you right back to the pit of Hell.

I am very sorry for your personal experiences, truly.  Not all children in foster care have the same ones, though in reality not a single ONE should ever have it ... just as nto a single child should have to live with a long term drug abusing parent.

Perhaps your post would be a bit better received if the question of knowledge was from personal use, rather than the assumption of it - I know the terms, but never used cocaine, nor did I drop acid.  Knowledge does not equate with use.
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: Indigo Mom on Jan 17, 2004, 07:47:42 AM
Back up that brightly painted VW bus with the orange peace sign and furry seats right up!!!!!!!

-----Statisitcally crack/crank/meth users go back to using time and again. -----

I believe that's what he said in the other thread.  In fact, those are his exact words.  He works in an ER, treating trauma patients, so I do believe dude knows what he's talking about here.  He didn't say "once a drug addict, always a drug addict".

-----If your previous postings here are in reference to drug use ( I'm a little too young to know what Columbian gold and strawberry paper is, but I think they are euphemisms for cocaine and acid?) -----

I was born in the 70's so I don't know what those are...but I'm assuming Columbian gold is pot and strawberry papers are the rolling papers dipped in strawberry oil...or something like that.  

-----If I'm right aren't you a little hypocrytical? -----

Yes, peanutsdad WOULD be a lot hypocritical if he did indeed say "once a drug addict, always a drug addict"...but he didn't.  




Title: RE: Unemployment statistics!
Post by: Peanutsdad on Jan 17, 2004, 11:41:53 AM

Tell ya what john, you take in the addicts, I'll keep my tax dollars. Here are my posts from the thread to which you refer:

Who said anything about pointing fingers?

Statisitcally crack/crank/meth users go back to using time and again. Dont think I know what Im talking about? 'fraid I do,, I see more addicts come thru my ER than I care to count. Personally, I get tired of seeing MY tax dollars spent to treat addicts. Now you want folks to advocate this mother getting the kids. Right,, sure thing,, lets take the kids from one addict, and give em to another,, sounds great to me.

If either of these two parents truly cared about these children, they would turn them over to the state and start the long process of getting well for themselves, and give those children a chance of salvaging their childhood.

>My mother was an alcoholic and a drug abuser, so I do know
>what their life style will be like with a drug addict. I
>would have chosen my mother any day over being molested.

Bully for you. I would prefer children be safe any day, and whether its a child molester, or a drug addict, they aint safe.



Have
>you ever talked to people who have been through the foster
>care system? Many foster families have just as many, if not
>worse problems than the bio-parents.

I've spoken to many foster parents, in fact, I KNOW many. Where are you getting your information concerning foster families? The local fiction bookstore? As a matter of fact, I testified for a foster couple to obtain custody of 2 children they adopted from crack addict families. Were these contested? yup,, the state removed the children for their own safety.
>
>This mother is in a viscious cycle. If she could get into a
>program and get some help she may be able to get her children
>back and that in and of itself might help her stay sober
>rather than resort to drugs due to hopelessness.

This is the kind of simpering pandering BS that has placed children back into unsafe homes time and again. Tell you what, why dont YOU take this mother into YOUR home and help rehab her. After you've had everything of value stolen and pawned, come back and tell us how humanitarian you feel.


Any further questions?
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: Peanutsdad on Jan 17, 2004, 11:55:10 AM
Actually Indi,

That is true, once an addict, always an addict. Drug or alcohol, its always one hit, toke, drink or injection away from goin from recovering addict to active addict.

The difference that John doesnt get, is the casual user from the 70's or the casual drinker of the current day,, is not the problem. Its the addict that wrecks lives, drives drunk, neglects or abuses children.
Title: RE: Unemployment statistics! Slightly off-topic to thread - sorry.
Post by: john5739 on Jan 17, 2004, 12:57:49 PM
I just think it's hypocritical to have ever done illegal drugs, of which marijuana is one, and then state that another person who did or does drugs is a hopeless case.  The post was making light of the attitudes of the 1970's and I understand that, but because you did what was "acceptable" at the time doesn't make it right or legal.  I don't know if the person who posted ever truly did drugs, but the post sure read like he had, or at least didn't think it was wrong.  To me, it doesn't matter how "hard" the drug is; using is using.

I stated that I was unsure of what strawberry paper and Columbian gold were.
Since you remember the '70,s, maybe you could answer my question about Columbian gold?  What is it?

I never said anyone was a hard core user.  What I thought was hypocritical about the post was that in a previous post it was said that a drug user will not change, but you proved that not to be true since, as you pointed out, many of the drug users of the 1970's are now responsible, law abiding people.

Just because at one point in your life your doing something wrong does not mean you will never overcome and change.  That was the point of my message.  I'm sorry I took you all away from your reminiscing.  I just hate to see someone discouraged from getting help.
Title: RE: Unemployment statistics! Slightly off-topic to thread - sorry.
Post by: Peanutsdad on Jan 17, 2004, 01:11:36 PM
No one said for them not to get help John. Both the father and the mother need to get help. Why dont you go help them?

What WAS said, is BOTH are ADMITTED addicts. So, with that being the case, you advocate keeping the children with either parent? These two parents arent just " doing something wrong once".. they are repeat offenders, and show currently a track record of using, getting clean, then going back to using. The quitessential definition of an addict. Thes two people are not high school kids with no responsibilities and partying. They are parents that are neglectful and abusive.


Just for your "historical trivia knowledge", Columbian gold was a popular strain of pot in the 70's. Strwberry papers where a flavored paper used to roll a joint.

Am I a user? No. Did I drink as an underage teen? yes. Am I an alcoholic or a drug addict? No.  Now, any other questions John?
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: john5739 on Jan 17, 2004, 01:14:54 PM
Your right, I don't believe in the casual use of any illegal substance.  If you've done illegal substances you do not have a right to pass judgement on someone else who has.  I don't think you can justify people's use of drugs in the '70's by saying that it was casual and therefore okay just because it makes those who did it feel better about it.

Just for the record, I don't know that you ever did use an illegal substance and I'm sorry for implying that.  It was your overall message as I wrote above that seemed hypocritical to me.  

There have been recoveries even from hard-core drug use and that is all I'm saying.  It can't be said on one side, "These people did drugs, but they only did a little of the right kind and at a different time, so they're alright, and then on the other side "these people do the bad drugs at a bad time so they're hopeless."
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: Peanutsdad on Jan 17, 2004, 01:28:24 PM
I dont recall saying anything of the sort John. What I DID say, is these PARENTS who are SUPPOSED to be responsible for their children,, are addicts,,, admittedly.

Yes there are recoveries from hard core drugs. Care to know the statistics of STAYING clean if you are a cocaine or crack user, or meth? The patient that is able to stay clean is the EXCEPTION to the rule, not the standard.

 So, go right ahead, YOU pay for all the nice rehab programs. I would choose not to. I can think of better things to spend my tax dollars on.

You are absolutely correct on one thing, we arent going to agree on this issue. My personal feeling is if you want to help the addicts,, go do so. Mtself, I prefer to help the kids.
Title: RE: The issues on this are FAR deeper ...
Post by: kiddosmom on Jan 17, 2004, 01:31:19 PM
Well the early part of the 70's I was more interested in dirting my diaper then caring about anything! LOL
Later part of the 70's I was more worried about my barbie doll fashions then my own :)
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: kiddosmom on Jan 17, 2004, 01:35:05 PM
John,, do you have a family member that has done hard core drugs????
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: john5739 on Jan 17, 2004, 02:04:16 PM
Since when has it not been helping kids to help their parents?  I can tell you first hand how much I would have benefitted by some tax dollars used to help my mother.  Believe me, none of your tax dollars were used to help her.

By the way I think I might have mistaken something in your post on the other board for something demeaning when it wasn't.  Does BTW mean "by the way" or is it derogatory?  I am a novice to online acronyms.  You would laugh at what I thought it meant.  I'm sorry for getting angry.  I shouldn't have gotten so personal.

Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: john5739 on Jan 17, 2004, 02:09:47 PM
Yes, a few and some have recovered and some have not.  I have some knowledge about substance abuse from knowing hard core addicts, from courses, reading and my own therapy due to my mother.  I'm not completely ignorant on the subject, but I don't pretend to be an "expert" in any way.

I'm always open to learning more and I hope other people keep an open mind too.
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: kiddosmom on Jan 17, 2004, 02:20:56 PM
I also have very close experience with this issue.
People on drugs do not care about others, they care about where the next fix is coming from.
I do have an open mind, and the few people who are able to kick taking drugs good for them, it is a habit they have to fight to stay away from the rest of their lives.
but you know what? During the process of kicking that habit, they are just as dangerous to children as when they were taking the drugs, sometimes worse because they become obsessed.
NO child should be around that untill the person is COMPLETELY past that.
These people have suggested putting the children in foster care, yes they may have to find a decent one, and get well.
They are not saying abandon the children to the system.
They are saying take them from the drug abusers, and child molester, get straight and get the kids back.
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: Peanutsdad on Jan 17, 2004, 02:21:23 PM
ummm, it means by the way....lol, I probably dont want to know what you thought it meant.

As far as our positions on the current issue, you have one position, I have another. Both are fueled by personal experience and are both probably quite valid. I simply chose to not place the parents needs above the childs.  You believe that the childs needs are served by treating the parent. I dont,, shrug, its simple as that. My position is get the kids safe FIRST,, then IF the parents can clean up their act,, have a go at reuniting them. If the parents cant,, leave the kids safe and let the dimwit addicts go to their inevitable end.
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: john5739 on Jan 17, 2004, 02:32:32 PM
At least you think the parents should get the chance of reuniting.  If you read my original post too, I think you'll find that I said the kids should be with a third party until she cleans up.  I don't believe that children should indescriminately be left with currently using parents.  So, I think we do agree on few things, do you believe it?(lol)


I'm glad that BTW doesn't mean "Bite the Wien.."   I should think before getting mad and writing.  Again, I'm sorry.
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: kiddosmom on Jan 17, 2004, 02:38:14 PM
----If you read my original post too, I think you'll find that I said the kids should be with a third party until she cleans up.----

Well, you just agreed with everyone else also. That is what everyone suggested, in their own words.

Noone mentioned other family members, and without those the system is all that is left.

OH! and yes BTW means "by the way" if you need to know any shorthand just ask lol, we will let you know :)
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: john5739 on Jan 17, 2004, 02:40:51 PM
If you read my original post, I never advocated for her to be using and maintaining custody.  I wanted her to try and find a responsible relative, or anyone with some healthy connection with these children, to take them in until she recovered.  

I do not think she should have custody while using over another more healthy environment for the children, but I do believe that almost anything is better than being sexually abused which is the case right now.

I also believe that sometimes when a mother who could be helped loses custody she may then give in to the addiction even more out of hopelessness and never recover.  I know that if my mom had recovered, I would have benefitted so much from it.  I do realize that only she can do this though.
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: john5739 on Jan 17, 2004, 02:46:39 PM
From now on I will ask about the shorthand before I reply!  Now it's making me laugh, I just wish I wouldn't have attacked so harshly.  These are such emotional issues, I tend to come across hard edged at first, but hang in there with me, I do admit it when I'm wrong (usually).
Title: RE: Unemployment statistics! Slightly off-topic to thread - sorry.
Post by: john5739 on Jan 17, 2004, 02:54:47 PM
No and thank you for answering those questions, especially about the drug terminology.  I can't remember, did I ask you if you were a drug addict?  I'm sorry if I did because it's none of my business.



Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: Peanutsdad on Jan 17, 2004, 02:55:24 PM
John

If a parent is going to give in to the temptation due to "losing" custody,, then they dont need custody to begin with. If its not that reason, it will be another, and another and another. Dont you see that? The child/ren cannot be a reason here, it has to come from the addict themselves.

With or without the kids, an addict can only get clean for themselves, and sTAY clean for themselves. Otherwise we simply reinforce a cycle of abuse, get straight, codependance, and get hooked again.

Until that parent can show a court they are clean and have stayed that way,, kids stay in foster care. Problem is,, most addicts cant stay straight. We court order people into treatment all the time,, how long do they stay straight? Til release. I would prefer to spend all that wasted money on the foster care system and improve the lives of the kids.
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: kiddosmom on Jan 17, 2004, 03:03:54 PM
We are all emotional about these issues, we have all experienced them in one form or another :)
You have to look at a posters responce from several point of views, most are saying the same things, they just find different words to respond with.

We all also believe the saying:

 "I may not agree with what you say, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it"

 I go that off the movie 'The American President'
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: john5739 on Jan 17, 2004, 03:16:39 PM
Good movie, great quote.  Thanks for helpful response.

 I guess I guard the fragile little bit of hope that I still have that this whole issue of divorce and custody and the messed up court system will somehow resolve itself with some humanity and justice.  I realize it's a fantasy, but it's what I cling to.

I feel sorry for people who are messed up in substance abuse, with mental illness and other problems.  Sometimes I believe the system actually causes these problems to become worse.  I'm not making excuses for the poor choices people make, I just think the courts and children's services are messed up.  I do believe that helping parents even when they have problems can benefit the children.
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: kiddosmom on Jan 17, 2004, 03:36:51 PM
We all have hope, otherwise none of us would be here :)

I myself am not completely sorry (note i said not completely) for the people who are messed up in substance abuse. BECAUSE I also believe these people need to make better choices, yes those choices are hard to make, but any person can use the excuse that i did it for this reason or that. There is no reason for doing anything, it is a choice, to do or not to do.

---I just think the courts and children's services are messed up---
You are right here, they are messed up, and I frankly would rather put money into making it better and safer for children then paying for their parents poor choices, children do not have choices.
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: john5739 on Jan 17, 2004, 04:01:12 PM
Don't you believe to some extent that if you throw away the parent you throw away a part of the child too?  From my personal experience I know that no matter how much my mom abused me I would have given anything for her to have received help.

My mom did some pretty horrible things.  Many people get mad at me for having anything to do with her now, but no matter how much I've tried to get away from it, she will always be my mother and I am a part of her.  I don't take her abuse anymore, but I'm also not going to punish her for what she can't even realize that she's doing.  She is mentally ill as are a large number of substance abusers, so where will it get me to deny her my presence in her life.

I've decided that I'm a stronger and better person for having to make it through with her as a mother.  Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see anyone go through the hell she created, but no matter what a child's mother will always be a part of them and helping them (if they want it) is always a good thing in my opinion.
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: kiddosmom on Jan 17, 2004, 05:50:15 PM
i am going to reply to this one, but i need to sit for awhile and decide how to do so :)
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: Peanutsdad on Jan 17, 2004, 06:53:06 PM
>Don't you believe to some extent that if you throw away the
>parent you throw away a part of the child too?  From my
>personal experience I know that no matter how much my mom
>abused me I would have given anything for her to have received
>help.

Thats one of the reasons children dont have the right to decide for themselves. They are developmentally unable to make an informed decision on these kind of issues.
>
>My mom did some pretty horrible things.  Many people get mad
>at me for having anything to do with her now, but no matter
>how much I've tried to get away from it, she will always be my
>mother and I am a part of her.  I don't take her abuse
>anymore, but I'm also not going to punish her for what she
>can't even realize that she's doing.  She is mentally ill as
>are a large number of substance abusers, so where will it get
>me to deny her my presence in her life.

Where it would get you is healthy. What it would have gotten you growing up, is a chance at a childhood free of abuse. Whats frightening, is the codependance I'm seeing here. How on earth can the abuse be excused if the abuser is sick?? Umm, are'nt most abusers sick?
>
>I've decided that I'm a stronger and better person for having
>to make it through with her as a mother.  Don't get me wrong,
>I don't want to see anyone go through the hell she created,
>but no matter what a child's mother will always be a part of
>them and helping them (if they want it) is always a good thing
>in my opinion.

Ok, I'm a finer human being for having been wounded in combat,, sure dont want any others to use my particular path to enlightenment, nor was your path to being a better person anything to emulate for any child. There is a distinct difference between helping, and enabling.  No one is saying a child should or can stop loving a parent, BUT children deserve to be protected against abusive or addict parents. Children didnt choose to be here, the parents made that choice for them. Children dont deserve to be put thru hell because their parent makes poor choices, they deserve to be happy, well, and free of abuse.
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: MKx2 on Jan 17, 2004, 07:25:08 PM
"There is a distinct difference between helping, and enabling."

******

And in dealing with ANY addict, that distinct difference, if you're emotionally involed with said addict, is a very fine line to walk.  I'm just learning how to keep my balance with it, with DH.  He's an alcoholic. Just this past week I realized that I have finally "gotten there" in terms of not enabling.  I realize that I will lose my way from time to time, but the more I "practice" the better I will get, and the better MY life will be for it.
Title: ROTLLMGDAO!!!!!
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Jan 17, 2004, 10:48:15 PM
Sweetheart?  Are you listening?  Good!  Columbian Gold was what enterprising dope dealers called exceptionally good Mexican pot.  Strawberry rolling papers were used to form what we called "joints", or marijuana cigarettes.  I don't know what the hell they're calling them these days.  Wait, let me go ask my son.  Cocaine wasn't heard of when I was doing stuff.  Acid?  Hahaha, purple microdot, orange sunshine, blotter?  John, just shut up.

Disclaimer:  I've thrown out more paraphrenalia, than what got Tommy Chong a prison sentence.
Title: RE: ROTLLMGDAO!!!!!
Post by: john5739 on Jan 17, 2004, 10:53:30 PM
Okay I'll shut up.  I'm more than glad that I know nothing about drugs and I'm even more glad that I can't ask my son because he knows as little as I do.
Title: Lol, Troll alert!
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Jan 17, 2004, 10:55:16 PM
Remember this one?

Panama Red,
Panama Red,
It'll steal your woman, then it'll rob your head....

)(
Title: RE: ROTLLMGDAO!!!!!
Post by: StPaulieGirl on Jan 17, 2004, 10:58:51 PM
Hopefully your son is in diapers.  Trust me, after the nice officers from your local law enforcement agency gets through with them, all kids know the difference between a crack pipe, pot pipe, and a bong.  It's called the "Dare Program".  It does for drug abuse what sex ed does to prevent teen pregnancy.

Any questions, son?
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: john5739 on Jan 19, 2004, 01:07:53 PM
Peanutsdad,

I understand and agree with everything you said.  The only problem is that the foster system in some states is so bad that it's worse than the birth parents.  In MN there are some people who use the money they recieve from being foster parents for their own drug money.

I agree that resources should first be put toward the children, but I think children will benefit whenever their birth parents are helped if they're willing to accept the help and be responsible for their actions.  I acknowledge that there are several hopeless cases out there where the parents rights should be terminated.


p.s. If I ever get to the warm state of Texas and need medical attention I hope it's in your city.  
Title: RE: Whoa!
Post by: Peanutsdad on Jan 19, 2004, 10:19:19 PM
Actually,

The traffic jams might slow ya up LOL.

I just cant help but think that getting the kids safe first, THEN focus on the parents is a better route. At least then the primary problem can be focused on,, and whether or not they can stay clean.

In this particular case, we have on one side, a effed up grandparent who likes kids too much, a dad who likes his booze and drugs too much, and on the other side, a mother who likes her drugs too much, has failed on staying clean before. Hence, I cant see anyone involved as a suitable parent figure, hell or even an acceptable parent figure. It sux for the kids.

Ireally wish them the best of luck,, with their parents,, they are going to need it.