RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix

RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tweakabelle -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 12:48:48 AM)
ooops! double post people ... sorry

Lucylastic -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 12:52:22 AM)
we have lots in canada we have one in power sad

tweakabelle -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 1:00:30 AM)
That's awful hun! I've heard a few things about your Mr Harper, none of then good I'm sorry to say. We survived a decade of Howard as PM here, who was one of them too. So the good news is it's not terminal. However, if things get too bad, you can always come here - you'd prolly love it! Aussies are pretty laidback people and I've got a spare bedroom! [:D]

Lucylastic -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 1:19:22 AM)
:) aw thankyou:) I have wanted to visit for years, I have quite a bit of family over there too who love it.

DarqueMirror -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 1:48:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle If you read the rest of my post you wouldn't need to ask this. If you still don't get it, check out the word; "scapegoat". While I look up your word, you go ahead and look up "fair treatment" -- ie being treated the same as everyone else. If I have to be tested, so should they. Period. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I've never been drug tested in my life in relation to employment or anything else. It is most certainly not the norm here (Australia). Could it be because you're in another country? I think it could.

TheHeretic -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 1:52:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I've never been drug tested in my life in relation to employment or anything else. It is most certainly not the norm here (Australia). The only area I know where random drug tests are performed here is on serving police. That one area aside, I've never heard of it here. As we seem to get by fine without it, I question the value and efficacy of compulsory drug testing in the first place. It seems like a gross invasion of privacy to me. Given the size of the drug market in the US, I will need some very compelling evidence before agreeing this policy has any discernible, let alone desirable effect. Lovely, for you. We do things differently here. I, and tens of millions of other working Americans, have been peeing in a cup for our employers throughout our working lives. Why would recipients of government handouts be afforded different treatment than the working class they are supposed to be trying to join?

DarqueMirror -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 1:56:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic its an expectation when you are employed, YOU know this going in. Just as it can become an expectation for those on welfare. Drug testing new hires wasn't always done, but now it's the norm. It had to start somewhere/sometime. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic To suddenly force people to be tested AND PAY for the privilege of being subjected to miserly morality? It doesn't have to be sudden. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It can be a gradual change aimed at helping those people get on their feet. Sooner or later those really desiring to be on their feet will no longer need the help. Those who'd rather not work for their living will eventually out themselves. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic WHY are they being suspected of doing criminal activities???? Who said they were? I never felt like a suspect when I was tested. As I said before and will say again -- I've been tested for every job I've had. I never once felt like a criminal. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic If he kills someone one day, no one will care amongst his supporters. this thread is all you need to read to see it That's an awfully strong assumption. I don't even know the guy in the OP, nor do I "support" him. He's not the only one putting forth bills like this, though. That much I know. Using him as an example of the other side in this debate is nothing more than pointing and going "See? See? That one politician did something bad so he and every other one who puts forth this bill is BAAAD!"

Lucylastic -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 2:06:19 AM)
Seems the info coming down the line is saying it may violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. You are aware of drug testing when you accept the job... you dont have to take it to force people already on welfare is wrong To add it to the "application process .. for new recipients.... would be different. So much for personal freedoms, only if you can afford them it seems If you chose to take the job, you likely have a job that requires the responsibility of being sober and not under the influence. Its a safety issue. its FAIR practise to not employ dangerous people for others safety You agree to that. To have it forced on you for just daring to be alive and living while poor on the public purse will always be wrong. Disclaimer, , no poster was indicated, it is a genericyou

DarqueMirror -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 2:15:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Seems the info coming down the line is saying it may violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. You are aware of drug testing when you accept the job... you dont have to take it to force people already on welfare is wrong No it isn't. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic If you chose to take the job, you likely have a job that requires the responsibility of being sober and not under the influence. Its a safety issue. its FAIR practise to not employ dangerous people for others safety You agree to that. Nice dodge attempt, but nearly all my jobs were desk jobs and have absolutely nothing that being high or drunk would inhibit a person from performing the required tasks. Yet they still required the test. I know of very few blue collar jobs (or other types of jobs) that don't require the test. It's got nothing to do with any safety aspects. The employers just want to know they have responsible people working for them. I'd like to know that we have responsible people receiving government "help." If they aren't responsible, how will they ever reach a point where they don't need the help? quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic To have it forced on you for just daring to be alive and living while poor on the public purse will always be wrong. No it isn't. And the test isn't for "daring to be alive," no matter how you think such a dramatization helps your argument. It's for one thing and one thing alone -- to receive money that isn't worked for or earned. A person who takes a handout has no right to object to the conditions under which that handout is given.

Lucylastic -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 2:18:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror That's an awfully strong assumption. I don't even know the guy in the OP, nor do I "support" him. He's not the only one putting forth bills like this, though. That much I know. Using him as an example of the other side in this debate is nothing more than pointing and going "See? See? That one politician did something bad so he and every other one who puts forth this bill is BAAAD!" You are right it is is is also opinion, backed up by numbers of about drunk driving assholes and people who justify their actions. I dint claim YOU were a supporter did I? anywhere? I was talking justification of his DUI s BTW we arent discussing any other bill or any other lying scum bag politician from ANY Party. Drunken assholes kill people every day, that he hasnt is probably down to dumb luck Im sorry you don see that the parallels.

DarqueMirror -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 2:24:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic You are right it is But one has nothing to do with the other. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I was talking justification of his DUI s I have yet to see anyone try to justify his DUIs. What I do see are people pointing to them as a reason why his bill is bad. Again, one has nothing to do with the other. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic BTW we arent discussing any other bill or any other lying scum bag politician from ANY Party. Drunken assholes kill people every day, that he hasnt is probably down to dumb luck Im sorry you don see that the parallels. Because there are none. A DUI has nothing to do with drug testing. There are tons of folks who are tested for employment and there are tons of folks who get DUIs. Neither group has anything to do with the other.

Lucylastic -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 3:00:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Seems the info coming down the line is saying it may violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. You are aware of drug testing when you accept the job... you dont have to take it to force people already on welfare is wrong No it isn't. All my opinions are just that. In my opinion it is wrong, The judge in florida decided it wasnt great either. Your response is just your opinion too, so much for that! Legal sources tell me its being considered to be wrong( to the point of injunctions) constitutionally as well. That carrys more weight than anything you could say quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic If you chose to take the job, you likely have a job that requires the responsibility of being sober and not under the influence. Its a safety issue. its FAIR practise to not employ dangerous people for others safety You agree to that. Nice dodge attempt, but nearly all my jobs were desk jobs and have absolutely nothing that being high or drunk would inhibit a person from performing the required tasks. Yet they still required the test. I know of very few blue collar jobs (or other types of jobs) that don't require the test. It's got nothing to do with any safety aspects. The employers just want to know they have responsible people working for them. I'd like to know that we have responsible people receiving government "help." If they aren't responsible, how will they ever reach a point where they don't need the help? I didnt dodge anything, I was quite prepared to be made aware of your experience... remember I said LIKELY>>> nothing more....also you have no legal, moral RIGHT to demand anything of the type. You dont have the right to force your view of responsible or worth on them. its merely YOUR opinion. The law doesnt agree with you so far. on this either quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic To have it forced on you for just daring to be alive and living while poor on the public purse will always be wrong. No it isn't. And the test isn't for "daring to be alive," no matter how you think such a dramatization helps your argument. It's for one thing and one thing alone -- to receive money that isn't worked for or earned. A person who takes a handout has no right to object to the conditions under which that handout is given. would you care to prove otherwise or is this just opinion ? this goes beyond reprehensible... of course it IS just an opinion Im quite willing to give him the benefit of doubt on his innocence, but if guilty, he should no more be allowed to make laws (forcing other people to respect laws he couldnt keep), than a pedophile should have access to a kindergarten. dramatic? with the drama queens residing here? its required. but you should know that.

Kaliko -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 3:04:41 AM)
FR~ I don't really see the connection, either, between drinking and driving and a requirement to be tested for drugs to receive welfare benefits or hold public office. Yes, he abused alcohol to the point of breaking the law, but there are many things that a person could do with something that's legal that will lead to breaking the law. We can't test away every situation that may come up. I do see a difference between holding public office and holding a job, as far as drug testing goes. It's not one's right to work at any one place or another. If one doesn't want to submit to a drug test, one doesn't work there. It may not either be my right to be allowed the opportunity to represent my peers on a ballot - I believe that's debatable and not quite as clear cut as the right to vote - but in my mind it is a distinction worth giving pause. It's part of the representation process and I'm not so sure I'm okay placing more restrictions on that than there already are. Not that I think it's okay to do drugs and be in office. My concern is more that testing for drugs would only be the first step, and that more restrictions and invasions into privacy would occur. I find drug testing intrusive into my personal privacy. I've never been asked or required to take a drug test as a condition of employment. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about welfare recipients needing to take a drug test. My gut reaction is yes, they should. But it does seem awfully big brother-ish to me. It's the start of determining how they spend their money. What if we don't approve of their choices in the number of DVD's they've rented in a month? Or how about if they buy too much processed food, thereby causing more health problems and a greater strain on tax dollars? I don't know how welfare works now - perhaps there already is some kind of reporting system for things like that. But it does seem like a slippery slope.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 3:20:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Seems the info coming down the line is saying it may violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. You are aware of drug testing when you accept the job. For many years it has been the opinion of *many* people (myself, included) that absent just cause, drug testing is a violation of the 4th Amendment ... sort of. I could be wrong but I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted for failing a drug test at work (a few exceptions might be Air Traffic Controllers or LEOs but, usually those charges have something to do with being drunk or being high making the potential for a dangerous situation increase greatly). I do think it is a sin that we prevent people from being able to earn a living because they choose to get drunk or high when they are not on the job. There are *many* professions that couldn't possibly do damage to other people or put them in harm's way. Writing comes to mind as does IT work and other forms of computer programming. It is sad, really, that the government has become so powerful that this could even be a debate topic. I will say this, though: I think a drug *conviction* while someone is on assistance should be grounds for loss of those benefits. I am not for invading their privacy but, if they get caught, they should be removed from the public teat. For the record: I think drunk driving convictions should incur the same punishment. Alcohol, when used to the point of making one drunk, is a drug. Peace and comfort, Michael

Lucylastic -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 3:51:14 AM)
Im not going to argue with you on that, Michael, I was brought up in the UK for half my life, the rest of it has been spent in Canada, so I have very different "outlook and expectations " than lots of americans. which I think pisses some off more than just my VERY "humanitarian, liberal pinko treehugging nambypamby" political views[8\|] A conviction is something totally different, I have no love for people who destroy others lives for drugs, that includes alchohol. I dont believe marijuana use should be criminal. Im supremely unhappy with the government here for planning on making drug growers sentences longer than those for "rape" "Under the Tories' omnibus crime legislation tabled Tuesday, a person growing 201 pot plants in a rental unit would receive a longer mandatory sentence than someone who rapes a toddler or forces a five-year-old to have sex with an animal. Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Column+Marijuana+growers+face+more+jail+than+child+rapists+under+Harper+omnibus+bill/5442863/story.html#ixzz1jcZOOB3j

thishereboi -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 4:26:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The illegal part was drinking and driving. Does he now get a pass because he was drinking something legally, yet drove afterwards? Who said he was getting a pass? According to your post he is being charged with 3 different things. "Smith was charged with three offenses -- two DUI charges, and the third, failure to obey a traffic control device. He was released on bond. An Atlanta police spokesman said the department would have no comment beyond the police report."

thishereboi -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 4:37:32 AM)
quote: Im quite willing to give him the benefit of doubt on his innocence, but if guilty, he should no more be allowed to make laws (forcing other people to respect laws he couldnt keep), than a pedophile should have access to a kindergarten. dramatic? with the drama queens residing here? its required. but you should know that. Does this mean we can go back and get rid of every politician that has ever been busted for dui? What about other laws they might have broken? Can we kick them out if they have been caught speeding also? I have always thought Washington could use a good house cleaning.

Lucylastic -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 4:45:18 AM)
hey its your country not mine:) LOL I would like to see the same here for sure Having paid society for your crime is one thing, but to be busted and found guilty while in office is another situation altogether

Sanity -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 5:53:16 AM)
If only perfect men could pass laws we would be a world filled with barbarianism quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl So are cabs. Drinking and driving isnt legal. Why should they propose conditions onto the government money that the poor get when they cant hold to the laws while holding out their own hands?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 7:13:05 AM)
That's something we never have to worry about then. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity If only perfect men could pass laws we would be a world filled with barbarianism quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl So are cabs. Drinking and driving isnt legal. Why should they propose conditions onto the government money that the poor get when they cant hold to the laws while holding out their own hands?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625