Trump May Not Survive Impeachment Proceedings
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
03 Sep 2017, 3:00 pm
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Shakespeare preceded Benjamin Franklin and his Poor Richard's Almanac by centuries.
It originates from Sophocles and Euripides around 400-30 BC. It was was used in Aesop's Fables and by Franklin, but not by Shakespeare.
Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as that quote from Thessalonians is concerned, Paul was writing about those Christians who figured they could just lollygag all day, even if they had a means of working. That single line has been misused and abused by conservatives to justify turning a hard heart toward the poor, nullifying everything else Christ and Paul had ever said about caring for the least among us.
How does one differentiate between those who are lollygagging and mooching and those who are not?
I am big enough to admit when I'm wrong. I called my go-to-guy where it comes to the Bard, and he told me that you are in fact correct on that count (I must have been having a false memory, like Trump seeing thousands of Muslim Americans celebrating 9/11). That said, on the initial point of the discussion: you're still wrong. Again, this is an attitude conservatives both religious and secular take to justify not helping those in need.
There is definitely a huge difference between people who joined the ancient church so they could get free food when they weren't impoverished to begin with, and the legitimately impoverished. Paul made the distinction, because he realized caring for those without was the same for caring for Christ (when you did this for the least of your brothers, you did it for me). And yet conservatives, making no such distinction, chose to let this one misapplied line nulify all the rest of Christ's call to care for the least of us.
I wasn't trying to make a point, I was actually wondering about that. Differentiating between needy and moochers. Don't most churches help the needy and also fund missionaries who help the needy? There's a lot of tweakers where I live who are always asking for money. Then there's the videos of people with cardboard signs being followed when they close shop and they get into a nice car and drive to a nice house.
Yes, there are plenty of churches who help the needy. But sadly, it's not enough. Decades ago, when Ronnie Raygun had gotten the idea from frauds like Jerry Falwell that church run charities could take over from the government in caring for the needy, real religious institutions, such as Lutheran and Catholic charities, told him that was not at all possible.
As for drug addicts begging for money - those unfortunate souls are possessed by their own chemical demons that have dug their claws into said addicts. If anyone needs help - from food and shelter, to treatment for their addiction - it is they.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
03 Sep 2017, 9:17 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Shakespeare preceded Benjamin Franklin and his Poor Richard's Almanac by centuries.
It originates from Sophocles and Euripides around 400-30 BC. It was was used in Aesop's Fables and by Franklin, but not by Shakespeare.
Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as that quote from Thessalonians is concerned, Paul was writing about those Christians who figured they could just lollygag all day, even if they had a means of working. That single line has been misused and abused by conservatives to justify turning a hard heart toward the poor, nullifying everything else Christ and Paul had ever said about caring for the least among us.
How does one differentiate between those who are lollygagging and mooching and those who are not?
I am big enough to admit when I'm wrong. I called my go-to-guy where it comes to the Bard, and he told me that you are in fact correct on that count (I must have been having a false memory, like Trump seeing thousands of Muslim Americans celebrating 9/11). That said, on the initial point of the discussion: you're still wrong. Again, this is an attitude conservatives both religious and secular take to justify not helping those in need.
There is definitely a huge difference between people who joined the ancient church so they could get free food when they weren't impoverished to begin with, and the legitimately impoverished. Paul made the distinction, because he realized caring for those without was the same for caring for Christ (when you did this for the least of your brothers, you did it for me). And yet conservatives, making no such distinction, chose to let this one misapplied line nulify all the rest of Christ's call to care for the least of us.
I wasn't trying to make a point, I was actually wondering about that. Differentiating between needy and moochers. Don't most churches help the needy and also fund missionaries who help the needy? There's a lot of tweakers where I live who are always asking for money. Then there's the videos of people with cardboard signs being followed when they close shop and they get into a nice car and drive to a nice house.
Yes, there are plenty of churches who help the needy. But sadly, it's not enough. Decades ago, when Ronnie Raygun had gotten the idea from frauds like Jerry Falwell that church run charities could take over from the government in caring for the needy, real religious institutions, such as Lutheran and Catholic charities, told him that was not at all possible.
As for drug addicts begging for money - those unfortunate souls are possessed by their own chemical demons that have dug their claws into said addicts. If anyone needs help - from food and shelter, to treatment for their addiction - it is they.
And what happens to those poor souls after their brief stint on earth? Any mercy shown to them on judgement day for making wrong decisions? Funny how the IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT rule suddenly applies.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
04 Sep 2017, 1:21 am
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Shakespeare preceded Benjamin Franklin and his Poor Richard's Almanac by centuries.
It originates from Sophocles and Euripides around 400-30 BC. It was was used in Aesop's Fables and by Franklin, but not by Shakespeare.
Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as that quote from Thessalonians is concerned, Paul was writing about those Christians who figured they could just lollygag all day, even if they had a means of working. That single line has been misused and abused by conservatives to justify turning a hard heart toward the poor, nullifying everything else Christ and Paul had ever said about caring for the least among us.
How does one differentiate between those who are lollygagging and mooching and those who are not?
I am big enough to admit when I'm wrong. I called my go-to-guy where it comes to the Bard, and he told me that you are in fact correct on that count (I must have been having a false memory, like Trump seeing thousands of Muslim Americans celebrating 9/11). That said, on the initial point of the discussion: you're still wrong. Again, this is an attitude conservatives both religious and secular take to justify not helping those in need.
There is definitely a huge difference between people who joined the ancient church so they could get free food when they weren't impoverished to begin with, and the legitimately impoverished. Paul made the distinction, because he realized caring for those without was the same for caring for Christ (when you did this for the least of your brothers, you did it for me). And yet conservatives, making no such distinction, chose to let this one misapplied line nulify all the rest of Christ's call to care for the least of us.
I wasn't trying to make a point, I was actually wondering about that. Differentiating between needy and moochers. Don't most churches help the needy and also fund missionaries who help the needy? There's a lot of tweakers where I live who are always asking for money. Then there's the videos of people with cardboard signs being followed when they close shop and they get into a nice car and drive to a nice house.
Yes, there are plenty of churches who help the needy. But sadly, it's not enough. Decades ago, when Ronnie Raygun had gotten the idea from frauds like Jerry Falwell that church run charities could take over from the government in caring for the needy, real religious institutions, such as Lutheran and Catholic charities, told him that was not at all possible.
As for drug addicts begging for money - those unfortunate souls are possessed by their own chemical demons that have dug their claws into said addicts. If anyone needs help - from food and shelter, to treatment for their addiction - it is they.
And what happens to those poor souls after their brief stint on earth? Any mercy shown to them on judgement day for making wrong decisions? Funny how the IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT rule suddenly applies.
As a Lutheran, I believe our salvation ultimately rests with God's grace, which is freely given. Still, on judgement day our works will be judged only as a way of measuring how we had reciprocated God's love and grace by loving our neighbor, which is how our faith is actually to be judged. Our neighbor includes those who have made terrible mistakes. And those terrible mistakes are between them and God, who is infinitely merciful.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
04 Sep 2017, 1:28 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Shakespeare preceded Benjamin Franklin and his Poor Richard's Almanac by centuries.
It originates from Sophocles and Euripides around 400-30 BC. It was was used in Aesop's Fables and by Franklin, but not by Shakespeare.
Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as that quote from Thessalonians is concerned, Paul was writing about those Christians who figured they could just lollygag all day, even if they had a means of working. That single line has been misused and abused by conservatives to justify turning a hard heart toward the poor, nullifying everything else Christ and Paul had ever said about caring for the least among us.
How does one differentiate between those who are lollygagging and mooching and those who are not?
I am big enough to admit when I'm wrong. I called my go-to-guy where it comes to the Bard, and he told me that you are in fact correct on that count (I must have been having a false memory, like Trump seeing thousands of Muslim Americans celebrating 9/11). That said, on the initial point of the discussion: you're still wrong. Again, this is an attitude conservatives both religious and secular take to justify not helping those in need.
There is definitely a huge difference between people who joined the ancient church so they could get free food when they weren't impoverished to begin with, and the legitimately impoverished. Paul made the distinction, because he realized caring for those without was the same for caring for Christ (when you did this for the least of your brothers, you did it for me). And yet conservatives, making no such distinction, chose to let this one misapplied line nulify all the rest of Christ's call to care for the least of us.
I wasn't trying to make a point, I was actually wondering about that. Differentiating between needy and moochers. Don't most churches help the needy and also fund missionaries who help the needy? There's a lot of tweakers where I live who are always asking for money. Then there's the videos of people with cardboard signs being followed when they close shop and they get into a nice car and drive to a nice house.
Yes, there are plenty of churches who help the needy. But sadly, it's not enough. Decades ago, when Ronnie Raygun had gotten the idea from frauds like Jerry Falwell that church run charities could take over from the government in caring for the needy, real religious institutions, such as Lutheran and Catholic charities, told him that was not at all possible.
As for drug addicts begging for money - those unfortunate souls are possessed by their own chemical demons that have dug their claws into said addicts. If anyone needs help - from food and shelter, to treatment for their addiction - it is they.
And what happens to those poor souls after their brief stint on earth? Any mercy shown to them on judgement day for making wrong decisions? Funny how the IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT rule suddenly applies.
As a Lutheran, I believe our salvation ultimately rests with God's grace, which is freely given. Still, on judgement day our works will be judged only as a way of measuring how we had reciprocated God's love and grace by loving our neighbor, which is how our faith is actually to be judged. Our neighbor includes those who have made terrible mistakes. And those terrible mistakes are between them and God, who is infinitely merciful.
Anyone whose name is not found written in the book of life is thrown into the lake of fire where they are tormented forever.
Last edited by EzraS on 04 Sep 2017, 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
04 Sep 2017, 1:37 am
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Shakespeare preceded Benjamin Franklin and his Poor Richard's Almanac by centuries.
It originates from Sophocles and Euripides around 400-30 BC. It was was used in Aesop's Fables and by Franklin, but not by Shakespeare.
Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as that quote from Thessalonians is concerned, Paul was writing about those Christians who figured they could just lollygag all day, even if they had a means of working. That single line has been misused and abused by conservatives to justify turning a hard heart toward the poor, nullifying everything else Christ and Paul had ever said about caring for the least among us.
How does one differentiate between those who are lollygagging and mooching and those who are not?
I am big enough to admit when I'm wrong. I called my go-to-guy where it comes to the Bard, and he told me that you are in fact correct on that count (I must have been having a false memory, like Trump seeing thousands of Muslim Americans celebrating 9/11). That said, on the initial point of the discussion: you're still wrong. Again, this is an attitude conservatives both religious and secular take to justify not helping those in need.
There is definitely a huge difference between people who joined the ancient church so they could get free food when they weren't impoverished to begin with, and the legitimately impoverished. Paul made the distinction, because he realized caring for those without was the same for caring for Christ (when you did this for the least of your brothers, you did it for me). And yet conservatives, making no such distinction, chose to let this one misapplied line nulify all the rest of Christ's call to care for the least of us.
I wasn't trying to make a point, I was actually wondering about that. Differentiating between needy and moochers. Don't most churches help the needy and also fund missionaries who help the needy? There's a lot of tweakers where I live who are always asking for money. Then there's the videos of people with cardboard signs being followed when they close shop and they get into a nice car and drive to a nice house.
Yes, there are plenty of churches who help the needy. But sadly, it's not enough. Decades ago, when Ronnie Raygun had gotten the idea from frauds like Jerry Falwell that church run charities could take over from the government in caring for the needy, real religious institutions, such as Lutheran and Catholic charities, told him that was not at all possible.
As for drug addicts begging for money - those unfortunate souls are possessed by their own chemical demons that have dug their claws into said addicts. If anyone needs help - from food and shelter, to treatment for their addiction - it is they.
And what happens to those poor souls after their brief stint on earth? Any mercy shown to them on judgement day for making wrong decisions? Funny how the IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT rule suddenly applies.
As a Lutheran, I believe our salvation ultimately rests with God's grace, which is freely given. Still, on judgement day our works will be judged only as a way of measuring how we had reciprocated God's love and grace by loving our neighbor, which is how our faith is actually to be judged. Our neighbor includes those who have made terrible mistakes. And those terrible mistakes are between them and God, who is infinitely merciful.
Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
How do you know any of those addicts don't have their names written in the Book of Life?
And I have to think, those whose names are in that said book live their faith by indiscriminately loving their neighbor.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
04 Sep 2017, 2:14 am
The elect whose names are in the Lamb's Book of Life, are the ones whose works are judged to ascertain what their reward will be.
The only way to get their name in the book of life is to be born again and be in total submission to Jesus Christ making him their lord and having the holy spirit dwelling and working in them. They do not practice in sin (the way a doctor practices in medicine) but rather practice in righteousness.
Those whose name is not in the book are thrown onto eternal hell, regardless of their good works. People as how can a loving god send people to hell? And the usual answer is the sent themselves to hell. It was their choice and entirely their own fault. They only have themselves to blame.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
04 Sep 2017, 3:04 am
EzraS wrote:
The elect whose names are in the Lamb's Book of Life, are the ones whose works are judged to ascertain what their reward will be.
The only way to get their name in the book of life is to be born again and be in total submission to Jesus Christ making him their lord and having the holy spirit dwelling and working in them. They do not practice in sin (the way a doctor practices in medicine) but rather practice in righteousness.
Those whose name is not in the book are thrown onto eternal hell, regardless of their good works. People as how can a loving god send people to hell? And the usual answer is the sent themselves to hell. It was their choice and entirely their own fault. They only have themselves to blame.
The only way to get their name in the book of life is to be born again and be in total submission to Jesus Christ making him their lord and having the holy spirit dwelling and working in them. They do not practice in sin (the way a doctor practices in medicine) but rather practice in righteousness.
Those whose name is not in the book are thrown onto eternal hell, regardless of their good works. People as how can a loving god send people to hell? And the usual answer is the sent themselves to hell. It was their choice and entirely their own fault. They only have themselves to blame.
Lutherans - and mainline Protestants in general - aren't big on born again experiences. The only born again experience I've ever had was when I was baptised as an infant.
Sure, we should live the best lives we can, but perfectionism is a lie, as our righteousness are as rags before God. A repentant heart is more important to God than trying to live perfectly by the law, and that's a thing any sinner - even a drug addict - can have.
Incidentally, I never said good works save us, just that our faith can be judged by our works. Salvation, from a Lutheran perspective, is entirely through God's freely given grace, earned by Christ, without any contribution to attaining said grace by our cooperation.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
04 Sep 2017, 3:38 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The elect whose names are in the Lamb's Book of Life, are the ones whose works are judged to ascertain what their reward will be.
The only way to get their name in the book of life is to be born again and be in total submission to Jesus Christ making him their lord and having the holy spirit dwelling and working in them. They do not practice in sin (the way a doctor practices in medicine) but rather practice in righteousness.
Those whose name is not in the book are thrown onto eternal hell, regardless of their good works. People as how can a loving god send people to hell? And the usual answer is the sent themselves to hell. It was their choice and entirely their own fault. They only have themselves to blame.
The only way to get their name in the book of life is to be born again and be in total submission to Jesus Christ making him their lord and having the holy spirit dwelling and working in them. They do not practice in sin (the way a doctor practices in medicine) but rather practice in righteousness.
Those whose name is not in the book are thrown onto eternal hell, regardless of their good works. People as how can a loving god send people to hell? And the usual answer is the sent themselves to hell. It was their choice and entirely their own fault. They only have themselves to blame.
Lutherans - and mainline Protestants in general - aren't big on born again experiences. The only born again experience I've ever had was when I was baptised as an infant.
Sure, we should live the best lives we can, but perfectionism is a lie, as our righteousness are as rags before God. A repentant heart is more important to God than trying to live perfectly by the law, and that's a thing any sinner - even a drug addict - can have.
Incidentally, I never said good works save us, just that our faith can be judged by our works. Salvation, from a Lutheran perspective, is entirely through God's freely given grace, earned by Christ, without any contribution to attaining said grace by our cooperation.
But still my point is, for those who are condemned, it is perceived as being entirely their own fault. Correct?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
04 Sep 2017, 5:00 am
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The elect whose names are in the Lamb's Book of Life, are the ones whose works are judged to ascertain what their reward will be.
The only way to get their name in the book of life is to be born again and be in total submission to Jesus Christ making him their lord and having the holy spirit dwelling and working in them. They do not practice in sin (the way a doctor practices in medicine) but rather practice in righteousness.
Those whose name is not in the book are thrown onto eternal hell, regardless of their good works. People as how can a loving god send people to hell? And the usual answer is the sent themselves to hell. It was their choice and entirely their own fault. They only have themselves to blame.
The only way to get their name in the book of life is to be born again and be in total submission to Jesus Christ making him their lord and having the holy spirit dwelling and working in them. They do not practice in sin (the way a doctor practices in medicine) but rather practice in righteousness.
Those whose name is not in the book are thrown onto eternal hell, regardless of their good works. People as how can a loving god send people to hell? And the usual answer is the sent themselves to hell. It was their choice and entirely their own fault. They only have themselves to blame.
Lutherans - and mainline Protestants in general - aren't big on born again experiences. The only born again experience I've ever had was when I was baptised as an infant.
Sure, we should live the best lives we can, but perfectionism is a lie, as our righteousness are as rags before God. A repentant heart is more important to God than trying to live perfectly by the law, and that's a thing any sinner - even a drug addict - can have.
Incidentally, I never said good works save us, just that our faith can be judged by our works. Salvation, from a Lutheran perspective, is entirely through God's freely given grace, earned by Christ, without any contribution to attaining said grace by our cooperation.
But still my point is, for those who are condemned, it is perceived as being entirely their own fault. Correct?
Yes. But again, we can not claim any credit for being among the elect.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
04 Sep 2017, 6:55 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The elect whose names are in the Lamb's Book of Life, are the ones whose works are judged to ascertain what their reward will be.
The only way to get their name in the book of life is to be born again and be in total submission to Jesus Christ making him their lord and having the holy spirit dwelling and working in them. They do not practice in sin (the way a doctor practices in medicine) but rather practice in righteousness.
Those whose name is not in the book are thrown onto eternal hell, regardless of their good works. People as how can a loving god send people to hell? And the usual answer is the sent themselves to hell. It was their choice and entirely their own fault. They only have themselves to blame.
The only way to get their name in the book of life is to be born again and be in total submission to Jesus Christ making him their lord and having the holy spirit dwelling and working in them. They do not practice in sin (the way a doctor practices in medicine) but rather practice in righteousness.
Those whose name is not in the book are thrown onto eternal hell, regardless of their good works. People as how can a loving god send people to hell? And the usual answer is the sent themselves to hell. It was their choice and entirely their own fault. They only have themselves to blame.
Lutherans - and mainline Protestants in general - aren't big on born again experiences. The only born again experience I've ever had was when I was baptised as an infant.
Sure, we should live the best lives we can, but perfectionism is a lie, as our righteousness are as rags before God. A repentant heart is more important to God than trying to live perfectly by the law, and that's a thing any sinner - even a drug addict - can have.
Incidentally, I never said good works save us, just that our faith can be judged by our works. Salvation, from a Lutheran perspective, is entirely through God's freely given grace, earned by Christ, without any contribution to attaining said grace by our cooperation.
But still my point is, for those who are condemned, it is perceived as being entirely their own fault. Correct?
Yes. But again, we can not claim any credit for being among the elect.
What I was originally getting at is that LoveNotHate's posting the "It's your own fault" meme, in the long run is a biblical concept. If you make the wrong choice, the consequences you suffer are of your own making.
With that established then has to be considered with whether one is helping or enabling. Sure one can give a tweaker some cash, but is it really the right thing to do, to supply someone with drug money?
Perhaps if everyone said no, they would be forced to undergo treatment at the county drug clinic to be weaned off the stuff.
04 Sep 2017, 7:49 am
kraftiekortie wrote:
Once somebody becomes a drug addict, the treatment usually becomes very difficult. It's frequently too simplistic to suppose that drug addiction goes away via one detox.
My advice: stay far away from all that crap.
My advice: stay far away from all that crap.
I know a guy about your age who did just that. Aspie with learning disabilities, raised in poverty in a bad neghborhood, high school drop out (because of his learning disabilities) forced on his own as a teenager. He said all he had to do was stay away from drugs and just go to work everyday. Low paying job and little studio apt. But no drugs and no comitting crimes. He's kept that going for like 40 years and doesn't have much sympathy for most of the people hitting him up for cash.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
04 Sep 2017, 1:00 pm
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The elect whose names are in the Lamb's Book of Life, are the ones whose works are judged to ascertain what their reward will be.
The only way to get their name in the book of life is to be born again and be in total submission to Jesus Christ making him their lord and having the holy spirit dwelling and working in them. They do not practice in sin (the way a doctor practices in medicine) but rather practice in righteousness.
Those whose name is not in the book are thrown onto eternal hell, regardless of their good works. People as how can a loving god send people to hell? And the usual answer is the sent themselves to hell. It was their choice and entirely their own fault. They only have themselves to blame.
The only way to get their name in the book of life is to be born again and be in total submission to Jesus Christ making him their lord and having the holy spirit dwelling and working in them. They do not practice in sin (the way a doctor practices in medicine) but rather practice in righteousness.
Those whose name is not in the book are thrown onto eternal hell, regardless of their good works. People as how can a loving god send people to hell? And the usual answer is the sent themselves to hell. It was their choice and entirely their own fault. They only have themselves to blame.
Lutherans - and mainline Protestants in general - aren't big on born again experiences. The only born again experience I've ever had was when I was baptised as an infant.
Sure, we should live the best lives we can, but perfectionism is a lie, as our righteousness are as rags before God. A repentant heart is more important to God than trying to live perfectly by the law, and that's a thing any sinner - even a drug addict - can have.
Incidentally, I never said good works save us, just that our faith can be judged by our works. Salvation, from a Lutheran perspective, is entirely through God's freely given grace, earned by Christ, without any contribution to attaining said grace by our cooperation.
But still my point is, for those who are condemned, it is perceived as being entirely their own fault. Correct?
Yes. But again, we can not claim any credit for being among the elect.
What I was originally getting at is that LoveNotHate's posting the "It's your own fault" meme, in the long run is a biblical concept. If you make the wrong choice, the consequences you suffer are of your own making.
With that established then has to be considered with whether one is helping or enabling. Sure one can give a tweaker some cash, but is it really the right thing to do, to supply someone with drug money?
Perhaps if everyone said no, they would be forced to undergo treatment at the county drug clinic to be weaned off the stuff.
I didn't necessarily say give them some money, but as a society provide treatment, food, and shelter.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
