Maybe when drug use starts affecting grandma, little Ms. Rucker will learn to just say no. Hell yeah, lets punish relatives for other people's crimes. Can't find the local murderer? Let's execute his parents. That'll teach that guy to run from the law! So what that their parents did nothing illegal - punish 'em anyway!
You libs make me laugh. First, one of you insinuates that Bush loves toxic waste, and then you attack a Public Housing policy that was requested by the residents of the Public Housing Communities! Who do you think praised the Supreme Court's decision for a zero tolerance policy in Public Housing?? The resident leaders, that is who! Who benefits from ridding Public Housing of drugs and the related crime and violence? The children of the residents! What the hell has happened to this country? There was a time when parents and guardians were responsible for the actions of their children. Of course, these days, responsibility is no longer politically correct.
Not at all Ms. Lib. Please, go ahead and explain to me how implementing a policy requested by Public Housing residents to help their children escape violence is not compassionate. While you explain yourself, please tie it all to an evil conspiricy involving the Bush family. I need a good laugh. btw, Clinton killed Vince Foster, and you all know it!
Responsibility? Send the girl to prison or to a rehab clinic, don't kickout a grandmother. Liberals may make you laugh, but conservatives like you make me ill.
What part of this don't you get? The residents of the Public Housing projects are sick and tired of gangs, violence, and drugs. Don't these poor people count? Shouldn't their voices be heard? You guilty liberals think your compassion is wanted in this situation, but the poor people demand your logic instead. Stay out of the way, and give these people the right to determine the rules of their neighborhoods.
Was this a unanimous vote? Did every single public housing project vote for this? Did the grandma vote for it?
Of course, the funny thing about this thread is the Lib's kneejerk reaction to a one strike policy started by Bill Clinton, and sanctioned by an 8-0 Supreme Court ruling of a case brought by Oakland Public Housing Residents. This is basically a Democrat initiative, but is blamed on Bush. Of course, Bin Ladin's emergence and corrupt accounting during the last 8 years are also blamed on Bush- so why should this be any different? LOL
I'm a liberal because I like freedom. I'm a conservative because I don't like to waste. I'm a Democrat because I believe in majority rule. I'm a Republican because I believe in a group of people working as equals. There are many things I don't like about Bush and many things I don't like about Clinton. Let's put titles and parties aside and do what's best for our children. QUIT POLLUTING AND TRASHING OUR ENVIRONMENT!!! It's time we all help clean up the mess.
I don't give a **** who started the law or how the Court voted...that's why I said "<B>if</B> Bush started". I still think it's completely unfair to evict someone because of what someone else in their family was doing, especially when it doesn't even happen on the property.
Stay out of the way, and give these people the right to determine the rules of their neighborhoods. I'm sure the disabled Mr. Walker loves the rules that got him kicked out because his caretaker was doing cocaine. I'm sure that's exactly what these residents envisioned when they asked for support in eliminating the drugs.
Since these decisions are made by resident controlled housing boards (in Oakland's case), and ejection is determined on a case by case basis, I guess you are correct. That's exactly what these residents envisioned when the Supreme Court helped them find a plan to eliminate misery in their housing projects. Maybe next, we can answer the pleas of poor parents, and allow school vouchers. It is heart warming to hear that poor people are being respected, instead of watching guilty liberals pat them on the head while micromanaging their lives.
We are all guilty tbagain. Even you my friend. Let's focus on the environment and administrative policies.
Ok, let's concentrate on the environment. Should we steal money from companies with perfect environmental records to clean up these sites, or should we spread the burden to clean up our land over our whole population? Given that the original offenders that created this mess can't be counted on (or they would be paying), I think the ethical and pragmatic thing to do is shift the burden to the taxpayers. Besides, any tax on corporations is passed onto the consumer anyway.
I think corporations who receive any sort of tax benefits should have them taken away if anyone in the company is caught doing drugs. Oh wait, it's only poor people who do drugs.
I love how our country gives breaks to industry to give them the opportunity to pillage the land, and then when it's time for little billy co. to clean up after himself there are umpteen ways for billy co to ignore paying up. but whoa... billy co. employs a whopping 5,000 people little town x! *oops*, now it would be unfair for all taxpayers to offset those costs. Well, everybody make sure your Pur filter has a cyanide rating.... it's much more important for us to address the offchance of a terrorist than the very real terrorism that we do to our own land. Short sighted morons. (I used to work at Kennecott Utah Copper; SmeggySmegg's Rio Tinto bought the place and ****ed w/ the EPA; I was impressed to watch the EPA in turn **** Rio Tinto. if Kennecott had been doing well at the time, the EPA would have had more problems w/ Hatch et. al. so it's not a total success story... btw you West Valleyers, there's a friggin' acid plume beneath your feet. )
