Can Trump And Democrats In Congress Work Together For The Country?

[candycorn]

I'd like to see the Republicans STOP trying to defund Planned Parenthood. (80% of its patients receive birth control services. That PREVENTS abortion, right?)
It is not even right to defund them for performing a legal procedure, particularly because women pay for that procedure, cash on the barrel head, and it ain't cheap, so it's not being "subsidized" through the backdoor. Not a leg to stand on, in reality. I don't know a single woman who supports defunding Planned Parenthood. It would be in the Repub's best interests to agree to this one. Just check with their base.

Well, lets be clear about a few things.

First of all, there is no bill that funds planned parenthood.

View attachment 106544

The patient may also go to a public health clinic, a participating physician, etc.. PPH is just another vendor in the healthcare chain.

So when you’re taking about funding or not funding, what is really at stake is Title X and Medicare. Will the GOP increase funding for these programs that are primarily used by the poor? I am doubtful. But hey…lets see what happens.

It is the only low cost all are welcome place around here for a woman to go regardless of her income or insurance status. Also treats teens that would prefer not to get pregnant but don't wish to tell their parents. I don't know about Title X and Medicare. But my local paper has been keeping tabs and tells me that the current bill or WHATEVER IT IS that the senate passed to repeal ObamaCare also includes defunding of Planned Parenthood. Not a smart idea in my book.

In part.

I’m not disagreeing with you; as someone who used to work with PPH and my HCS refers people there all the time. They perform a vital service.

I was just highlighting the funding mechanisms.

Then did the Senate just vote to defund all of Medicaid/Title X? They have apparently done something embedded in the language of the Obamacare repeal. Our Republican Senator (Susan Collins) was not happy about it and said so, so I'm sure it's in there.
I'm not arguing with you, either. I'm just trying to understand.

Some of the funding for the ACA reimbursements (as I recall) came from Medicare. Not sure of the actual language of what the Congress just did but it’s possible. I (thankfully) am no longer in billing so I don’t have to attend these meetings any longer. LOL

 

[The Original Tree]

How about lowering that consensual age for sex? No...that won't do either. The Dems have too many groups and lobbyists promoting that.
.

out of all the crazy shit on your list this one is just stupid... im not even sure which side your on

How about you do a little research and look up all THE DNC lobbyist groups and organizations which promote lowering the age of consensual sex?
Heck, just go look at California's new Law Legalizing and Decriminalizing Prostitution for Children in California.
Maybe you can start there with your research.

Hey man, it's The Dem Party. It's not my fault they are perverse.

I Report!
You Deride!

decriminalizing child prostitution FOR THE CHILD is supported amnesty international.... fuck you people are stupid

Is Amnesty International A Legislative Body that can create American Law?
All a law like that does is make it more likely a child will become a sex toy for a perverse liberal.
There is no deterrent now for a minor to enter a life of prostitution.

But that's what the law was actually designed to do. Show me one case anywhere in the world where Decriminalizing, Legalizing, and Legitimizing Prostitution led to LESS PROSTITUTION..........

so your saying if a dad pimps out his daughter, the daughter should go to prison? what the fuck is wrong with you? do you think women should be stoned if they are raped too?

If something is illegal, people are less likely to try it or participate in it. You don't raise a child by making everything they may decide to do ok, and legitimate.

So my question is to you, what the fuck is wrong with you, and your philosophy of permissiveness?
Exactly how is legitimizing prostitution, and decriminalizing it, going to reduce the amount of prostitution going on? Especially Child Prostitution?

Lefty Dad to Daughter: "It's ok honey, it is legal for you to be a child prostitute and you can make a lot of money." "It's a legitimate profession, now!"

Gives a whole new meaning to "Working Girl" Literally!

SERIOUSLY? Are you brain dead?

And I am still waiting for my report on the scarcity of Prostitutes in Las Vegas and Amsterdam.
Are you done writing that yet?

 

[easyt65]

Can Trump And Democrats In Congress Work Together For The Country?

Work together?

Libs 'can come along but they have to get in the back of the bus', remember?!

Trump doesn't HAVE to work with snowflakes - he can adhere to the precedence set by Barry, by-passing Congress, Using Executive Orders, using his phone and pen...

The un-official Constitutional re-wrire Barry made is 'If Congress does not act fast enough and/or give the President what he wants, the President can take action on his own'.

 

[OldLady]

great! i love your optimism lets start by listing what those things might be and go from there

I know what Dems and Republicans can agree on. Let me start.


How about lowering that consensual age for sex? No...that won't do either. The Dems have too many groups and lobbyists promoting that.
How about giving The Unborn some rights, any rights at all? Nope Dems will burn down entire towns to fight that.
How about decriminalizing prostitution for minors in California? No...I don't think Conservatives will agree to that either.
How about stopping the flow of Heroin coming across the Southern Border. Opioid Addiction now kills more people than car accidents and gun deaths.
No, the Dems won't go for that either.
How about enforcing the Law with regards to Sanctuary Cities? No, Dems won't go along with that.
Oh, how about making our Nation safer by restricting immigration from Terrorist States, and vetting so called refugees more stringently? No, the Dems won't like that either.
Oh, I know, how about giving local communities more control over Education? No, the Dems won't do that either.
How about reducing our regulatory overhead, and restrictions on businesses and individuals so they can be relieved of costly over regulation and thrive again? No Dems won't go for that because they believe in the fairy tale of global warming.
How about promoting FAIR TRADE? Nope, Not Gonna Do It!
How about making Health Care Competitive and Affordable? Nope Dems won't go for that.

Anyways there is my list of just a few things we can work together with The Dem Party.
It's a good start, don't you think?

How about stopping the flow of Heroin coming across the Southern Border. Opioid Addiction now kills more people than car accidents and gun deaths.
No, the Dems won't go for that either.
Oh, but they would. But don't focus just on the mules carrying it across.

Exactly then how do your propose to stop it? Wait until it crosses the border and gets distributed 100,000 ways to a 10,000 different cities?

If that's the best one can do, of course you don't wave them across, but there could be a lot more heat on the countries supplying this shit to us. Of course, the government should be waging another Nancy-Reagan-type Just Say No / This is your brain--this is your brain on drugs campaign, targeting kids watching their Saturday cartoons and playing their video games online. It can be cool to stay clean. You just gotta convince them.

You live in fairy tale land. Heroin is everywhere. Some stupid commercial on TV is not going to stop the Cravings for Heroin when you are addicted.
The only way to stop it, is from making it unavailable. Stop it cold at the border.

Just say NO? An Addict can't say NO. That is the point of getting someone to try Heroin. It only takes one time to be addicted. The more it is available the more chance your kids have of being offered it.

Do I want a shooting War on Drugs? No, but we are going to have to take more aggressive action than telling a junkie to put down The Needle while it is already in his vein.

Shut it down cold at the border, and stamp out the supply everywhere else if necessary.

Your suggestion is part of the solution, of course. I am not talking about reaching the addicts; I've dealt with plenty and I know what that's like. I'm talking about reaching 8 and 9 year olds, before they start getting offered oxies at their parties. There is a total dearth of propaganda against drugs. It is so easy to sell kids toys, vids, electronics....what is wrong with us that we aren't even trying? It's not that hard. Or even that expensive (a lot less than a wall).
There is no such thing as putting opium products or its sister heroin back in the box. It will only stop being manufactured and getting to addicts when people stop buying it. It is not the whole solution, but it is part of it that I felt you left out of your suggestion.

 

[Dschrute3]

I know we get caught up in all the negative stuff with politics. But it's healthy to go positive sometimes. How can Trump work with Democrats in Congress on issues like Health Care, Immigration, Taxes, Current Wars, and so on? What kind of deals would you like to see on those issues? You can offer specifics on them if you want. Thanks.

He can't. Nor can he compromise with Establishment Republicans. If he does, he will lose the support of the people who actually elected him.

Sounds pretty hopeless. I'm more optimistic.

 

[jknowgood]

I don't remember Trump mentioning it.

nice dodge…wearing your ballet shoes a little tight this morning are you?

In 10 days, Trump will have troops in Iraq
Your question junior is this: Given what you just said about Obama illegally having troops in combat rolls (roles is the proper spelling), will you regard Donald Trump of taking part in this illegal activity as well?

Wow way to spin it. I'm sure Trump will take it on while he erases Obama's failed legacy. You should take notes maybe next time you can nominate a winner.

Keep on dancing.

This is why you guys get called racists.

The policy is this. WE have troops in Iraq. Congress didn’t declare war. Obama moved them there himself…So You say he did it illegally.

In 10 days, President Trump will have troops in Iraq. Congress will still have not declared war. They will be there on orders from the President.

I ask you if you’re willing to say that Trump has them there illegally.

And you won’t answer.

It’s not the policies, the decisions, or anything else with you guys; it’s personal. And I don’t seem to recall a big hue and cry from the right when Bush put them there to start with….

So Bush did it far beyond the 2003 authorization and well after Sadamm was captured. No comment.
Obama did it…you dub it “illegal”
Trump will be in charge of it….no comment.

What is the difference in the 3?

Racist? Where do you get that from?

It’s all that’s left. When you are happy with the policy before Obama, not during Obama, and seem to be happy about it after Obama…you don’t have a policy disagreement with Obama.

True, I didn’t know you during the Bush years but if you were like most Conservatives; you were all for the war at the time.
Now we’ve had 8 years of Obama continuing the policies, more or less—as you point out; we’re still there and you have called it “illegal”.
The question is will you say Trump is doing something illegal when he leaves them there? And you’re too much of a pussy to answer.

Okay going with your logic. Liberals say that the Iraq war was illegal, even calling Bush a war criminal. So is Obama a war criminal also since he continued the war?

Great…now is Trump a war criminal for not bringing the troops home the first moment he can? If not…why not?

You the one that brought up Trump coming into office with troops in Iraq.
Yes Obama's policies of him transforming America I didn't like from the beginning. Obama Care is a failure.
Him ignoring the generals when they wanted more troops in Afghanistan for months. While more soldiers died there under Obama than Bush. Heck he cannot say anything good about America. Apologized for us when he went over seas. Drew a red line then backed down right afterwards. Making us a laughing stock. First down grade of our credit rating.
Outspent all presidents combined. Made a deal with Iran that will give them a nuclear bomb. Worse GDP growth not over 3%. Converted full-time jobs into part time jobs. Divided America. Just to name a few things I don't like about obama, and that makes me a racist?

 

[jknowgood]

Not all of them, South Carolina is beautiful. View attachment 106540

south Carolina has the 9th highest poverty rate

Yes, we have a lot of minorities.

I dont how sick demented neo nazis like you can claim to love america yet hate the majority of Americans purely based on their skin color.... do you sick fucks consider the irish to be people yet?

Also it's not my party that keeps minorities uneducated and on welfare all for a vote. That in itself is evil.

Your party is responsible for education in 30+ states. Do the GOP governors do anything except take credit for whatever works and blame the democrats for anything that doesn’t?

Even liberals run education here. It's getting better since there are more charter schools popping up. Are you against those or school vouchers?

 

[OldLady]

Good thread, newbie.

 

[candycorn]

nice dodge…wearing your ballet shoes a little tight this morning are you?

In 10 days, Trump will have troops in Iraq
Your question junior is this: Given what you just said about Obama illegally having troops in combat rolls (roles is the proper spelling), will you regard Donald Trump of taking part in this illegal activity as well?

Wow way to spin it. I'm sure Trump will take it on while he erases Obama's failed legacy. You should take notes maybe next time you can nominate a winner.

Keep on dancing.

This is why you guys get called racists.

The policy is this. WE have troops in Iraq. Congress didn’t declare war. Obama moved them there himself…So You say he did it illegally.

In 10 days, President Trump will have troops in Iraq. Congress will still have not declared war. They will be there on orders from the President.

I ask you if you’re willing to say that Trump has them there illegally.

And you won’t answer.

It’s not the policies, the decisions, or anything else with you guys; it’s personal. And I don’t seem to recall a big hue and cry from the right when Bush put them there to start with….

So Bush did it far beyond the 2003 authorization and well after Sadamm was captured. No comment.
Obama did it…you dub it “illegal”
Trump will be in charge of it….no comment.

What is the difference in the 3?

Racist? Where do you get that from?

It’s all that’s left. When you are happy with the policy before Obama, not during Obama, and seem to be happy about it after Obama…you don’t have a policy disagreement with Obama.

True, I didn’t know you during the Bush years but if you were like most Conservatives; you were all for the war at the time.
Now we’ve had 8 years of Obama continuing the policies, more or less—as you point out; we’re still there and you have called it “illegal”.
The question is will you say Trump is doing something illegal when he leaves them there? And you’re too much of a pussy to answer.

Okay going with your logic. Liberals say that the Iraq war was illegal, even calling Bush a war criminal. So is Obama a war criminal also since he continued the war?

Great…now is Trump a war criminal for not bringing the troops home the first moment he can? If not…why not?

You the one that brought up Trump coming into office with troops in Iraq.
Yes Obama's policies of him transforming America I didn't like from the beginning. Obama Care is a failure.
Him ignoring the generals when they wanted more troops in Afghanistan for months. While more soldiers died there under Obama than Bush. Heck he cannot say anything good about America. Apologized for us when he went over seas. Drew a red line then backed down right afterwards. Making us a laughing stock. First down grade of our credit rating.
Outspent all presidents combined. Made a deal with Iran that will give them a nuclear bomb. Worse GDP growth not over 3%. Converted full-time jobs into part time jobs. Divided America. Just to name a few things I don't like about obama, and that makes me a racist?

Nice window dressing.

You mentioned 40 things that we’re not talking about. Those are policy differences—some totally valid— and you’ve obviously swallowed an ocean’s worth of Kool-aid if you believe most of that.

The question is about Trump. Is it possible for you to answer the question?

If what Obama did is illegal, wouldn’t Trump be doing something illegal if he keeps the troops there too?

PS: Did you hear that Mattis is in favor of the deal?

 

[martybegan]

When you have one side that wants more government at higher levels, and less freedom for individuals and States, and the other wanting less government at higher levels, and more freedom for individuals and States, then you have a rock/hard place situation.

Certain things there can be no compromise.

Not sure which “side” wants smaller federal government.

The last President to leave the federal government smaller than when he started was….whom?

I'm not saying those sides relate to the Presidency, just general trending. Republicans are more likely to support smaller federal government with more local control of things than Democrats, who mostly prefer federal solutions to what they consider problems.

 

[candycorn]

south Carolina has the 9th highest poverty rate

Yes, we have a lot of minorities.

I dont how sick demented neo nazis like you can claim to love america yet hate the majority of Americans purely based on their skin color.... do you sick fucks consider the irish to be people yet?

Also it's not my party that keeps minorities uneducated and on welfare all for a vote. That in itself is evil.

Your party is responsible for education in 30+ states. Do the GOP governors do anything except take credit for whatever works and blame the democrats for anything that doesn’t?

Even liberals run education here.

Of course the liberals do. Somehow, they don’t hold a single state-wide office but seem to run every school in the state.

 

[candycorn]

When you have one side that wants more government at higher levels, and less freedom for individuals and States, and the other wanting less government at higher levels, and more freedom for individuals and States, then you have a rock/hard place situation.

Certain things there can be no compromise.

Not sure which “side” wants smaller federal government.

The last President to leave the federal government smaller than when he started was….whom?

I'm not saying those sides relate to the Presidency, just general trending. Republicans are more likely to support smaller federal government with more local control of things than Democrats, who mostly prefer federal solutions to what they consider problems.

Okay…true or false. If the States were to decide on gay marriage, we would have a patchwork quilt to where a couple would be married in some states and not considered married in others?

 

[BlindBoo]

great! i love your optimism lets start by listing what those things might be and go from there

I know what Dems and Republicans can agree on. Let me start.


How about lowering that consensual age for sex? No...that won't do either. The Dems have too many groups and lobbyists promoting that.
How about giving The Unborn some rights, any rights at all? Nope Dems will burn down entire towns to fight that.
How about decriminalizing prostitution for minors in California? No...I don't think Conservatives will agree to that either.
How about stopping the flow of Heroin coming across the Southern Border. Opioid Addiction now kills more people than car accidents and gun deaths.
No, the Dems won't go for that either.
How about enforcing the Law with regards to Sanctuary Cities? No, Dems won't go along with that.
Oh, how about making our Nation safer by restricting immigration from Terrorist States, and vetting so called refugees more stringently? No, the Dems won't like that either.
Oh, I know, how about giving local communities more control over Education? No, the Dems won't do that either.
How about reducing our regulatory overhead, and restrictions on businesses and individuals so they can be relieved of costly over regulation and thrive again? No Dems won't go for that because they believe in the fairy tale of global warming.
How about promoting FAIR TRADE? Nope, Not Gonna Do It!
How about making Health Care Competitive and Affordable? Nope Dems won't go for that.

Anyways there is my list of just a few things we can work together with The Dem Party.
It's a good start, don't you think?

How about stopping the flow of Heroin coming across the Southern Border. Opioid Addiction now kills more people than car accidents and gun deaths.
No, the Dems won't go for that either.
Oh, but they would. But don't focus just on the mules carrying it across.

Exactly then how do your propose to stop it? Wait until it crosses the border and gets distributed 100,000 ways to a 10,000 different cities?

If that's the best one can do, of course you don't wave them across, but there could be a lot more heat on the countries supplying this shit to us. Of course, the government should be waging another Nancy-Reagan-type Just Say No / This is your brain--this is your brain on drugs campaign, targeting kids watching their Saturday cartoons and playing their video games online. It can be cool to stay clean. You just gotta convince them.

You live in fairy tale land. Heroin is everywhere. Some stupid commercial on TV is not going to stop the Cravings for Heroin when you are addicted.
The only way to stop it, is from making it unavailable. Stop it cold at the border.

Just say NO? An Addict can't say NO. That is the point of getting someone to try Heroin. It only takes one time to be addicted. The more it is available the more chance your kids have of being offered it.

Do I want a shooting War on Drugs? No, but we are going to have to take more aggressive action than telling a junkie to put down The Needle while it is already in his vein.

Shut it down cold at the border, and stamp out the supply everywhere else if necessary.

The enemy is us.

It is estimated that more than 100 million people suffer from chronic pain in this country,[11] and for some of them, opioid therapy may be appropriate. The bulk of American patients who need relief from persistent, moderate-to-severe non-cancer pain have back pain conditions (approximately 38 million) or osteoarthritis (approximately 17 million).[12] Even if a small percentage of this group develops substance use disorders (a subset of those already vulnerable to developing tolerance and/or clinically manageable physical dependence[13]), a large number of people could be affected. Scientists debate the appropriateness of chronic opioid use for these conditions in light of the fact that long-term studies demonstrating that the benefits outweigh the risks have not been conducted.

America’s Addiction to Opioids: Heroin and Prescription Drug Abuse

 

[jknowgood]

Wow way to spin it. I'm sure Trump will take it on while he erases Obama's failed legacy. You should take notes maybe next time you can nominate a winner.

Keep on dancing.

This is why you guys get called racists.

The policy is this. WE have troops in Iraq. Congress didn’t declare war. Obama moved them there himself…So You say he did it illegally.

In 10 days, President Trump will have troops in Iraq. Congress will still have not declared war. They will be there on orders from the President.

I ask you if you’re willing to say that Trump has them there illegally.

And you won’t answer.

It’s not the policies, the decisions, or anything else with you guys; it’s personal. And I don’t seem to recall a big hue and cry from the right when Bush put them there to start with….

So Bush did it far beyond the 2003 authorization and well after Sadamm was captured. No comment.
Obama did it…you dub it “illegal”
Trump will be in charge of it….no comment.

What is the difference in the 3?

Racist? Where do you get that from?

It’s all that’s left. When you are happy with the policy before Obama, not during Obama, and seem to be happy about it after Obama…you don’t have a policy disagreement with Obama.

True, I didn’t know you during the Bush years but if you were like most Conservatives; you were all for the war at the time.
Now we’ve had 8 years of Obama continuing the policies, more or less—as you point out; we’re still there and you have called it “illegal”.
The question is will you say Trump is doing something illegal when he leaves them there? And you’re too much of a pussy to answer.

Okay going with your logic. Liberals say that the Iraq war was illegal, even calling Bush a war criminal. So is Obama a war criminal also since he continued the war?

Great…now is Trump a war criminal for not bringing the troops home the first moment he can? If not…why not?

You the one that brought up Trump coming into office with troops in Iraq.
Yes Obama's policies of him transforming America I didn't like from the beginning. Obama Care is a failure.
Him ignoring the generals when they wanted more troops in Afghanistan for months. While more soldiers died there under Obama than Bush. Heck he cannot say anything good about America. Apologized for us when he went over seas. Drew a red line then backed down right afterwards. Making us a laughing stock. First down grade of our credit rating.
Outspent all presidents combined. Made a deal with Iran that will give them a nuclear bomb. Worse GDP growth not over 3%. Converted full-time jobs into part time jobs. Divided America. Just to name a few things I don't like about obama, and that makes me a racist?

Nice window dressing.

You mentioned 40 things that we’re not talking about. Those are policy differences—some totally valid— and you’ve obviously swallowed an ocean’s worth of Kool-aid if you believe most of that.

The question is about Trump. Is it possible for you to answer the question?

If what Obama did is illegal, wouldn’t Trump be doing something illegal if he keeps the troops there too?

PS: Did you hear that Mattis is in favor of the deal?

You called me racist so I just wanted to give you the reasons I dislike Obama as president. Now, no Trump is inheriting troops in Iraq from Obama. He will deal with it. Just like nobody pinned Iraq on Obama. Until he said he successfully ended the Iraq war. Then sending troops back in Iraq. I hope that helps.

 

[jknowgood]

When you have one side that wants more government at higher levels, and less freedom for individuals and States, and the other wanting less government at higher levels, and more freedom for individuals and States, then you have a rock/hard place situation.

Certain things there can be no compromise.

Not sure which “side” wants smaller federal government.

The last President to leave the federal government smaller than when he started was….whom?

I'm not saying those sides relate to the Presidency, just general trending. Republicans are more likely to support smaller federal government with more local control of things than Democrats, who mostly prefer federal solutions to what they consider problems.

Okay…true or false. If the States were to decide on gay marriage, we would have a patchwork quilt to where a couple would be married in some states and not considered married in others?

You do realize California in the beginning voted against gay marrige, before government stepped in?

 

[jknowgood]

Yes, we have a lot of minorities.

I dont how sick demented neo nazis like you can claim to love america yet hate the majority of Americans purely based on their skin color.... do you sick fucks consider the irish to be people yet?

Also it's not my party that keeps minorities uneducated and on welfare all for a vote. That in itself is evil.

Your party is responsible for education in 30+ states. Do the GOP governors do anything except take credit for whatever works and blame the democrats for anything that doesn’t?

Even liberals run education here.

Of course the liberals do. Somehow, they don’t hold a single state-wide office but seem to run every school in the state.

So are you for vouchers?

 

[Anathema]

Sounds pretty hopeless. I'm more optimistic.

I've pretty much given up on ANY political solution to America's problems.

 

[OldLady]

I know what Dems and Republicans can agree on. Let me start.


How about lowering that consensual age for sex? No...that won't do either. The Dems have too many groups and lobbyists promoting that.
How about giving The Unborn some rights, any rights at all? Nope Dems will burn down entire towns to fight that.
How about decriminalizing prostitution for minors in California? No...I don't think Conservatives will agree to that either.
How about stopping the flow of Heroin coming across the Southern Border. Opioid Addiction now kills more people than car accidents and gun deaths.
No, the Dems won't go for that either.
How about enforcing the Law with regards to Sanctuary Cities? No, Dems won't go along with that.
Oh, how about making our Nation safer by restricting immigration from Terrorist States, and vetting so called refugees more stringently? No, the Dems won't like that either.
Oh, I know, how about giving local communities more control over Education? No, the Dems won't do that either.
How about reducing our regulatory overhead, and restrictions on businesses and individuals so they can be relieved of costly over regulation and thrive again? No Dems won't go for that because they believe in the fairy tale of global warming.
How about promoting FAIR TRADE? Nope, Not Gonna Do It!
How about making Health Care Competitive and Affordable? Nope Dems won't go for that.

Anyways there is my list of just a few things we can work together with The Dem Party.
It's a good start, don't you think?

How about stopping the flow of Heroin coming across the Southern Border. Opioid Addiction now kills more people than car accidents and gun deaths.
No, the Dems won't go for that either.
Oh, but they would. But don't focus just on the mules carrying it across.

Exactly then how do your propose to stop it? Wait until it crosses the border and gets distributed 100,000 ways to a 10,000 different cities?

If that's the best one can do, of course you don't wave them across, but there could be a lot more heat on the countries supplying this shit to us. Of course, the government should be waging another Nancy-Reagan-type Just Say No / This is your brain--this is your brain on drugs campaign, targeting kids watching their Saturday cartoons and playing their video games online. It can be cool to stay clean. You just gotta convince them.

You live in fairy tale land. Heroin is everywhere. Some stupid commercial on TV is not going to stop the Cravings for Heroin when you are addicted.
The only way to stop it, is from making it unavailable. Stop it cold at the border.

Just say NO? An Addict can't say NO. That is the point of getting someone to try Heroin. It only takes one time to be addicted. The more it is available the more chance your kids have of being offered it.

Do I want a shooting War on Drugs? No, but we are going to have to take more aggressive action than telling a junkie to put down The Needle while it is already in his vein.

Shut it down cold at the border, and stamp out the supply everywhere else if necessary.

The enemy is us.

It is estimated that more than 100 million people suffer from chronic pain in this country,[11] and for some of them, opioid therapy may be appropriate. The bulk of American patients who need relief from persistent, moderate-to-severe non-cancer pain have back pain conditions (approximately 38 million) or osteoarthritis (approximately 17 million).[12] Even if a small percentage of this group develops substance use disorders (a subset of those already vulnerable to developing tolerance and/or clinically manageable physical dependence[13]), a large number of people could be affected. Scientists debate the appropriateness of chronic opioid use for these conditions in light of the fact that long-term studies demonstrating that the benefits outweigh the risks have not been conducted.

America’s Addiction to Opioids: Heroin and Prescription Drug Abuse

An uncle of mine got decades of relief and averted back surgery by using acupuncture for a pretty serious back problem. There are sometimes alternatives that we haven't given much credence.

 

[The Original Tree]

When you have one side that wants more government at higher levels, and less freedom for individuals and States, and the other wanting less government at higher levels, and more freedom for individuals and States, then you have a rock/hard place situation.

Certain things there can be no compromise.

Not sure which “side” wants smaller federal government.

The last President to leave the federal government smaller than when he started was….whom?

I'm not saying those sides relate to the Presidency, just general trending. Republicans are more likely to support smaller federal government with more local control of things than Democrats, who mostly prefer federal solutions to what they consider problems.

Okay…true or false. If the States were to decide on gay marriage, we would have a patchwork quilt to where a couple would be married in some states and not considered married in others?

I've always said the solution to this is simple, but The Democratic Party did not want simple. They wanted to infringe on The Jurisdiction of The Church.

Marriage is an Institutional Instrument of The Church to bind a man and woman together.
This is why it is called "Holy Matrimony."
It is also called "The Sacrament of Marriage"
Marriage is an Institution. It belongs in The Realm Of The Church, and Church alone.

So here is the solution that should have been implemented, but was not, because Democrats wanted to set precedent with The Church, instead of providing the people with a solution. It's the equivalent of forcing a Christian owned bakery to bake a cake for a Satanic Cult, or a Gay Couple.

Let The States, and Local Governments Issue Civil Union Licenses. Regardless if you have a Civil Union which is a state joining of two partners, or a Marriage which is a religious ceremony joining two partners, your rights are identical.

Liberals did not want this AT ALL, which tells me they weren't interested in GAY RIGHTS at all. They wanted to impose their morality on The Church, and at some point force Churches to perform Gay Marriages if they haven't already tried to do this.

Let The Church conduct Marriages and The Government conduct Civil Unions.
It is really that simple.

There was no reason for Liberal Nazis to force a change in The Definition of Marriage upon The Church, and Society.

 

[martybegan]

When you have one side that wants more government at higher levels, and less freedom for individuals and States, and the other wanting less government at higher levels, and more freedom for individuals and States, then you have a rock/hard place situation.

Certain things there can be no compromise.

Not sure which “side” wants smaller federal government.

The last President to leave the federal government smaller than when he started was….whom?

I'm not saying those sides relate to the Presidency, just general trending. Republicans are more likely to support smaller federal government with more local control of things than Democrats, who mostly prefer federal solutions to what they consider problems.

Okay…true or false. If the States were to decide on gay marriage, we would have a patchwork quilt to where a couple would be married in some states and not considered married in others?

No, because the issue would only be if the State issues a Same Sex Marriage license or not. Under full faith and credit all States would all have to honor marriage licenses issued by other States without question, even SSM ones.

This is already the case in States with differences in age of marriage/consent and cousin marriage degree differences.

My view would be the same about poly marriage as well, as long as the marriage law was changed via legislative action, not judicial fiat.