freethefly

Just had to dig in to the old vinyl collection and pull out her Simple Dreams album. Blue Bayou... Poor Poor Pitiful Me... damn she rocks "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Your boobs were pretty long before I did my thing with them I thought it was considered kind of rude to tell a woman her boobs were "pretty long". Walt YIKES, forgot that much needed comma. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Your boobs were pretty long before I did my thing with them "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I have proof that the God Tac exist! I was in town earlier today to get some shots of the Lawrence County courthouse when out of nowhere Tac decended upon the old courthouse. Carnage soon was upon the souless lawyers who quickly, with briefcases in hand, scurried like rats from the building as Tac mercilessly and with great accuracy impaled each, like pork on a shish-ka-bob spear, upon his gleaming, razor like claws. He then proceeded to play with them, batting them about the square before eating them and then taking a nap. Afterwards, Tac, hacked up a hairball full of lawyers and then marked his territory by urinating on the courthouse. He then ascended back into the heavens and a delightful purring could be heard across the county. One witness was quoted to saying "I never really cared to much for the damn things and have always considered 'accidently' backing my truck up over the wifes cat. I guess now, I'll have to rethink my whole concept of who really is charge". A local catholic priest has stated that they knew all along, hence, CATholics and that they will now be giving catnip at communion. ALL HAIL TAC! "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Watching the news tonight, someone was saying that the whitehouse hopes that people do not use this money to pay down a bill or use it for food but to buy an item such as a tv, dvd player... and such as by doing that will help to create new jobs. How in the hell will buying crap made in China create jobs in the US. If I get anything back, I'm paying one of the many doctor bills I have piling up. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

All hail God or is that Dog or is that Tac... "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

IF you think that's why Christian charities do that stuff, then you do NOT understand Christianity. No act of charity will "buy" your way into heaven. Any Christian would know that. It was I who said it! If religous groups wish to do charitable work and do not do it to "garner points" or to convert others then, why interject religion in their work? Why not just leave religion out of the work altogether and focus only on providing care? "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Secular charity is everywhere. Secular groups do a great deal of work around the world and even in your own hometown. Unlike religous charities, they do not do the work to garner points from a "God" to someday trade in for admission to some kind of invisible kingdom in the sky but, because it is the right thing to do. They focus soley on the work and not on converting the "heathens". Here are but a few (there are a great number more); http://www.hollows.org/ http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=SHARE http://www.secondharvest.org/ http://www.toysfortots.org/ http://www.habitat.org/ http://www.nature.org/ http://www.plannedparenthood.org/index.htm http://www.cancer.org/docroot/home/index.asp http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page http://www.rethink.org/ http://www.amfar.org/cgi-bin/iowa/index.html http://www.heifer.org/ http://www.mamaskitchen.org/ http://www.foodoutreach.org/home.html [url] "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

http://www.snopes.com/religion/rapture.asp "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Then we do agree on this topic. As I have stated "For the record, I would agree to substance testing but, only for those who show no progress. I would also sugest that a fact finding study be conducted to expose alcohol abuse as alcohol is a major problem in most societies.". I would also think that utility bills should be paid directly from an account setup for such and the same for housing. Food stamps are already paid out in the form of a card that can only be used for food. Why cannot the same be done with welfare dollars? It would greatly end the majority of abuse. With food stamp abuse, I have personally seen it will entering a grocery store and being asked by a person if I would buy their stamps. I declined and I had some words to say about it. I do think, however, that there is a perception that the majority of recipients are freeloaders. The welfare reform of 1996 placed time frames inwhich a person may collect. States do provide training to put people back to work. The programs do work. I would think that most people would prefer to be making more money than welfare provides. Not surprising, when the number of welfare recipients went down the number of food stamp recipients went up as most recipients have families and the pay they now recieved from employment did not provide enough to cover every expense. It would be easy to say 'get a better job' but not knowing every aspect of a certian situation, that would be premature to say. There is a reason why a minority of people stayed on welfare for a long period and it is because welfare paid out more than what minimum wage paid. That took away the incentive for those people to work and to stay on the dole. As I stated, pay out welfare to the utilities, landlord and what have you. Provide more training that will make a person desirable to a prospective employer. I think we agree on at least 99% of this topic. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

The government does provide their own statistics that shows how badly they have managed the business of running the country. As for your proof of "seen it with my own eyes". Many have claimed to have seen Big Foot, also. Where's your proof? Cite, please. I have already stated such and feel no need to reiterate. Canada does appear to have no type of culture of its own and happily bends over backwards for Washington D.C.. Maybe, Canadians should push away from the U.S. and grow a back bone and stop trying to be Americans or, they should just admit that they are Americans and start paying U.S. taxes and start flying the stars and stripes. I wonder, what do you actually do to remedy what is wrong with your country? Do you write letters to your representatives? I do. Have you ever talked, personally to your congressman/woman? I have spoken to Roy Blunt on several occassion and have even had a return phone call from the man. I do not agree with many of his views but, he does listen and that is a start. Do you attend rallies? I do. Do you sign petitions that reflect your views? I always do. Are you even involved at all in the issues that concerns you? The U.S. evolved from grassroot activism and continues to do so. If not for the concerns of the common man, the U.S. would be just another country ruled by an elitist class that cares nothing about the well being of its citizens. Anti-establishment culture? Are you speaking of those who oppose an ever controlling government that is becoming further removed from the people? I believe that a government has no right to listen in on my phone calls, read my mail, test my body, tell me where to go, what to read, what to say, search my personal affects, what to think, what to eat, what to drink, what to smoke, what I can do with my body or my mind. I oppose the making of new laws based on fear mongering. I oppose a government that meddles in the affairs of another country (Canada included). I oppose the waste of the taxpayers money for the whims of big business. I oppose unwarranted drug testing in the hope of catching a few while subjecting the many to suspicion (if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear argument that some often raise is a slippery slope that leads to further restrictions). The land of the free is slowly becoming the land of the controlled and I oppose an ever controlling government. You may not have said it outright but, you imply it by contending a wide sweep. You can push for it in your country but, until you become a citizen in the U.S. you have no right to suggest a wide sweep for U.S. welfare recipients. You asked, I replied. It was not a p.a.. I am assuming that you are an staunch conservative. If you were to tell me to look in the mirror, I would not consider it an attack but to look at what I am really saying and to consider the further implications of wanting something now without considering the far future outcome. What seems like a fine idea one day often grows into a monster that cannot be easily controlled on another day. You suggest wide sweep drug testing but give no suggestion of what to do next. That appears to me to be short-sighted. I suggest that testing be done for those who do not progress in programs designed to ween one from welfare and then provide further help. Merely kicking someone from welfare who may have a drug problem would lead to another problem and then another until thay are locked up in prison only to someday be released to continue on the wrong path. For those who continue to show no improvement, I have no suggestion. On one hand, I am compelled to say "to hell with them". On the other, I am reminded that they are human and that I would not kick a dog that shows no improvement so, I would not be compelled to do so to another human being for an obvious weakness in character. I am not a christian but, I do believe that the teachings of Jesus are something that we all should remind ourselves of (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you). In a time of dispair, would you hope that others would kick you? Or, would you hope that someone will see your dispair and continue to help? For the record, I would agree to substance testing but, only for those who show no progress. I would also sugest that a fact finding study be conducted to expose alcohol abuse as alcohol is a major problem in most societies. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

SSDI requires doctor statements and re-investigation each year. Those commiting fraud (and yes, there are those who fake back injuries and most are caught) are punished harshly. In my case, AIDS often leaves me extremely wore down and sick but, I do work at my homebased embroidery and t-shirt printing business (approved by SSDI). They are also aware that I skydive from time to time. I am also awaiting my paperwork to enter the Ticket to Work program. SSDI is not a form of welfare and should not be confused as such as it is an insurance that each and every worker and employer pays into. A typical problem that many with an illness have is getting work or being able to maintain a schedule after getting a job. Until the Family and Medical Leave Act (http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/) those with a serious illness would be fired for missing a few days of work and ultimately lose their insurance. Something has to pick them up and help to keep them alive when they become too ill or cannot get employment due to their illness and that something is SSDI, that inwhich they paid into. Wrong. What a person recieves on SSDI is related to the amount they paid into based on a percentage of their earnings. A person who made $50,000.00 per year recieves more than a person who made $20,000.00 per year. I am somewhat lucky in that I earned in the $50,000.00 range for a good number of years but, it is still not a pot of gold. Believe me. Oh, and I did not take it as an attack on myself but, wished to distinguished between the two, SSDI and welfare. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Where is your proof! I have cited and linked to the governments own statistics. If you have your own set, please show them. Did I imply that his comment did? I think not. I posted cites that showed a reverse trend from what Clinton did to what happened after Bush took office. But, you being in Canada, what concern is it of yours? It's not your tax dollars. Please explain. You imply that welfare recipients are drug user. Your use of terms such as "stick it to the man" and "freedom, baby" are typically associated with hippies. I merely deduced this to indicated you are speaking of hiipies. Got a mirror? "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Pot of gold? Set for life? Obvious you know nothing of what is like to be ill a vast majority of the time and to be considered unemployable. SSDI is not a gold mine. Why should one be tested to recieve what they paid into. Read the article at AARP and educate yourself before pointing fingers. http://www.aarp.org/research/socialsecurity/ssdi/aresearch-import-364-FS92.html You may also wish to read up on the Ticket to Work program of us on SSDI. http://www.yourtickettowork.com/ I will be happy to get back to work fulltime but, if my illness gets worst, as it most surely will, I'll have no choice but to return to SSDI. SSDI is not welfare. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Exactly, who is this 'entitlement generation' you keep speaking of? Where is your proof? You always spout off "cite, cite". Where is yours to back your claim. I claim that you are ding, ding, ding wrong! http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareincentive.htm http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarelazy.htm http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/facts/welfare.html Truth; There is no such thing as a 'entitlement generation'. That is just a myth that your kind like to spout off with no proof of such. Fact; Clintons programs required time frames for getting people back into the work place and those programs worked. Those programs reduced the amount of dollars spent over time. They were a huge savings for all taxpayers and helped to reduce the defecit that the prior republican administrations produced. The current administration turned that trend by reducing such programs and starting a war that will ultimately place thousands more into welfare. DIND, DING, DING we all lose, now. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Years ago, someone left a Dianetic book on a railcar I was assigned to. I read, maybe, half of it. Odd stuff. My impression was that it was a religion. Shortly after, I started noticing the Dianetic Centers and hearing more about Scientology. Sort of an organized form of insanity is my opinion. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

How about a low full 360 right into the ground. Scientolgy is the the religion of cuckoo cuckoos. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

*ding ding ding* We have a winner, folks - no more calls!! Oh - and don't forget expecting that 50k/year job when they dropped out of high school.... Actually, thanks to Bill Clintons Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act the number of recipients were down until 2002 when they started to rise again. Welfare number were extremely high when Clinton took office and were extremely low when he left. Only after Bush took office did the numbers rise again (there are reports at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators05/index.htm and this chart http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators05/rb.htm To gleefully go ding ding ding we have a winner as if a blanket statement is the answer to covers all questions seems to be akin to turning on a light that long ago burned out and saying WHA - LA!!! WE HAVE LIGHT. The statement from Richard tends to indicate that the vast majority of recipients are dirty hippies. Which is not so. I know a large number of hippy type people and everyone of them work and most do quite well. Those whom I know who are on welfare/food stamps are far from hippy and have been single mothers, mostly. Those whom I have known were not proud of being on welfare but, for the most, had little choice until they were able to get the training to find work that paid and offered more than the government assistance programs. The fact is Clinton did far more to relieve the taxpayer burden than any republican administration has ever done. The need to continue those programs is, without doubt, neccesary as is it is neccesary to continue the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act that officialy ended in 2002 but is still being funded by congress. Programs such as Wefare to Work (see http://www.opm.gov/wtw/index.htm was very succesful but ended in 2004. The need to fund such programs is the only way to turn the tide of rising welfare recipients. And it will continue to rise at a greater rate as more return from Iraq (seemingly)unemployable, divorce rate, homelessness, widows/widowers with children... will only add to the burden that has been on the rise since the Iraq war (read http://www.iraq-war-veteran.com/Iraq-War-Veterans-Info/Iraq-War-Veterans-Infopage-3.htm). There really is no stereotypical recipient as the demographics stretch across a wide spectrum in which no person is immune to the pitfall of "losing everything". So, ding, ding, ding we have no winner. Please try again. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I really should had warned him of the on coming Sperry railcar (or ran over to throw the switch) but, hey a good picture is a good picture and I am not about pass up a great shot! "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Do you shop here http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ideal/ideal.htm often? "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

The mouthwash/breathalyzer is true as when I went through an alcohol program in 95, I was told not to use mouthwash before coming to the center. They gave each person a breath test upon entering class. From what I understand is that a breath test can give a much higher alcohol reading than a blood test (which is more reliable). I blew a positive at Sturgis in 92. I was pulled over after doing a burnout at the Broken Spoke. I honestly only had two beers and only dranked half of the second one (he were riding all day and only just got back to town an hour or so before). (The Sturgis DUI/PI is really a scam as they fine everyone $400.00, no record and banned from town for one year. I know several who were arrested at their camp for public intoxication. Fuck the Sturgis yuppie fest and those who trailer a bike to a run ). Anyways, if you are pulled over and believe that you are not intxicated (you honestly only had a beer or two) demand a blood test as drinking a beer within an hour could lead to a positve breath test (advise from a DUI lawyer). As for mj; http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6821 From the article; Approximately 55 million drug screens are performed annually in the United States. The majority of these are workplace urinalysis tests, which detect the presence of drug metabolites (inert byproducts produced after a substance is metabolized by the body), but not the substance itself. Consequently, the US Department of Justice affirms that a positive drug test result for the presence of a drug metabolite "does not indicate ... recency, frequency, or amount of use; or impairment." This would indicate that roadside testing or any testing would be highly unreliable and would/could result in a person being falsely accussed and punished for such. Given the DoJs statement, one should be able to mount a decent defense against a roadside drug test. True but, if a persons health also comes into play then it somewhat ties in. Heavy smokers tend to be slower and a lot lazier than light to non smokers. As for pot smokers, I honestly do not know any pot smoker who sit around all day or sleeps in till past noon. Those whom I know to be heavy drinkers tend to be more problematic and a far greater danger at work. They tend to be highly unaware and tend to leave their work station to nurse their hangovers or sneak a drink. The pot smokers I've worked with were always more motivated and really into what they were doing as oppose to the heavy drinkers. Contrary to popular belief, pot smokers do tend to be highly creative and motivated people. This is not to say that there are no lazy pot smokers as there are lazy people across the social spectrum. Media seems to protray pot smokers as the "dirty lazy hippy" Surely Cheech and Chong didn't help the image any but, they are smokers themselves and are highly motivated people (note, they abstained from smoking while filming their movies, according to them). A person should be judged upon performance and not by what they ingest. If problems do arise in a person, then yes, a reason should be seeked. Until then, testing is unwarrented and is merely fishing in the hope of snaring. It would be a slippery slope to start testing so many more and would lead to an even greater invasion of a persons life. With 55 million tests already being performed it is, without doubt, big business. How long before each and every person is required to be tested before obtaining a drivers license, gun permit, hunting license, maybe a home loan, car insurance, health insurance, home insurance, school loans, pell grants... Do you see where I am going with this? How long before every aspect of your life is scrutinized before you are allowed to do anything? What may seem like a fine idea one day will someday be seen as the start of big brother controlling every step we take. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Holy cow, what kind of a railroad are they working for that doesn't provide radios! OK, in this scenario, I would throw the switch, providing that the railroad supplied me with a switch key. I am hoping that the one guy on the rail alone is a supervisor as it is obvious that the supervisor didn't care enough to get radios for the road gang and does not have one himself. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Why? If they are not hurting you then what is the problem? My reply: I should clarify that I was a heavy drinker (beer and burbon) for a good number of years. I never missed work, I paid my bills and had nice things but, it did cause problems in my life. I guess "dispise" is harsh and should pull that back. I would hope that a person who drinks heavily on a daily basis will eventually see what it is doing to there body and how it makes them appear to others. Fair. If people have their breath tested for alcohol at roadside checks they should also get drug tested. My reply; I agree but may add that passive intake (such as that at a concert or at a party) may lead to an erroneous arrest. I was on Marinol for a number of years. I took 10mg three times a day. The prescription would had maybe proved my innocence but the implication would had been an arrest, jail, the need to hire a lawyer and time in court. Also, merely the presence of the metabolite could lead to an unneccessary arrest due to passive inhalation. A test would have to show a level of 50 ng/ml or higher to be reliable. Even beathalyzer testing for alcohol have been shown to be faulty. Now you are the one that is generalizing. I know many heavy drinkers who are passive and quiet when they drink. My reply; I agree, I did generalize and retract my statement. Some people whom I know are not bad at all when they drink but, I will add, some are obnoxious and do make complete fools of themselves. Has tobacco use been linked with chronic unemployment or failure to show up for work? My reply; Tobacco has been implicated as a health risk that burdens the healthcare system. It does lead to lost time on the job as well as increase in work provided healthcare premiums. It also is implicated in a number of people who have gone on SSDI due to health related problems that leave them disabled and unemployable. It would be nice and I would support that but let us not forget that such a program would be a priviledge not a right. My reply; I agree "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

This is a short but very good piece concerning religion and business. http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1995archive/122_3/35business.html "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I have no drug of choice as I do not use drugs. I might, on a very rare occassion (once or twice a year and only one shot for the taste as I do not like the feeling that alcohol brings on) have a shot of burbon but, I am not a drinker and dispise people who drink daily. I seldom smoke marijuana and when I do it is on a medicinal level only as it helps me to eat and keep the food down (I really hate vomiting). I am against drug testing in the form of a net over a wide spectrum of people. I note that when people speak of drug testing that they are excluding alcohol when alcohol is an extremely dangerous and powerful drug. If you want to test welfare recipients for drugs then alcohol should also be included. Saying that the reason is because more people use alcohol only shows that alcohol is a far greater problem. Personally, I do not care if you drink or not. I don't care if you drink all night and then gear up in the morning to jump hungover. I could careless if you are killed by doing so. (I might add that I prefer that a person not jump if hungover as I really do not wish for anyone to die. That, and also, I really do care.) I won't jump with a hungover person as it is a danger to me. If I notice that a person is drunk or even smell beer on them, I'll say something. I do care if you drink and get in a car to drive. If I see you driving from a dz while drunk, I'll call the police to arrest you so that no innocent person dies. I personally hate drunks and those who binge drank at a dz. They are obnoxious and make complete idiots of themselves. They are argumentive and can be a danger to others. I might add that a person not jump if hungover as I really do not wish for anyone to die. As for drug deaths (from the CDC); In 2004, a total of 30,711 persons died of drug-induced causes in the United States (Tables 21 and 22). The category ‘‘drug-induced causes’’ includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of drugs (legal and illegal use), but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs. The category excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to drug use. Also excluded are newborn deaths, which are due to mother’s drug use. Alcohol; In 2004, a total of 21,081 persons died of alcohol-induced causes in the United States (Tables 23 and 24). The category ‘‘alcohol-induced causes’’ includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of alcohol, but also accidental poisoning by alcohol. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use as well as deaths due to fetal alcohol syndrome. The PDF is titled Deaths: Final Data for 2004 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm I personally think that "net casting" programs are wrong and do no good overall as they often lead to more problems. I do agree that the minority that abuse the system need to be identified but, also believe that programs should be utilized to provide help for them. That may appear to sound like liberal baby sitting but, consider what may become of those who have no avenues to end their abuse and/or addiction. Merely tossing them into the streets only adds to another problem of homeless, crime and further drug (alcohol included) problems. Pushing them aside (including those you only use marijuana) would lead to further dispair and depression and more deaths by suicide. Suicides out number alcohol and drug deaths http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm although, I would suspect that alcohol and drug addiction would be a contributing factor in a number of those deaths. More so with alcohol. Inconclusion, if a testing program were to be established, it should include the entire gamut of abused substances, including tobacco. Further more, the program should include treatment. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young