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

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



Message

mnottertail -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 8:00:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Pfft. Now when my state rep got popped on his DUI, he'd done his drinking in a gay bar, and was still over the limit, taking his "friend," home.



tazzygirl -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 9:24:17 AM)

quote:

My gut reaction is yes, they should.


Why?

2% in Florida tested positive... 98% tested negative.

Why should they be tested?



tazzygirl -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 9:29:14 AM)

I agree. As a nurse, in many places I worked, we were tested for cause. I submitted to random when it was required. Politicians have their hands in many things, even the legal battles, especially at local levels. If he is doing drugs and his source gets popped, whats the bet he will use his influence to get the case to go away?

quote:

I think a drug conviction while someone is on assistance should be grounds for loss of those benefits.


Those are emerging... and I agree with them.



slvemike4u -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 9:34:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

It seems a stretch, Tazzy. Booze is legal.

To be fair,so is hypocrisy [:)]



tazzygirl -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 9:38:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

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."





Whats the pass?

A prospective employee is given a drug test free of charge. Its your choice if you want to work there or not. You can go elsewhere.

A welfare recipient has to pay for it out of their own pocket, then get reimbursed. There is no where else for them to go. No other "welfare". Just one.

As shown in a previous post, GA struck down a law to test politicians because it was "unreasonable search".

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

The politician has that. Yet he doesnt want welfare recipients to have that same right. They have to prove their own innocence, out of their own pocket.

Its not the same as employee drug testing. Employers pay for that test.



Epytropos -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 9:40:34 AM)

Ok I know this isn't strictly on topic, but how exactly do you get charged with two DUIs for the same incident?



tazzygirl -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 9:42:51 AM)

A theory has been posted about that, first page.



mnottertail -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 9:46:01 AM)

Well in minnesota it is a little more than this, but how it seems to work in GA is that subtracting your .08 from the .100 and heading up on the blows, we have one drunk with one left over.

(In minnesota it is like if you are some serious number above the limit, or carrying a child in your car, or get in a car wreck, you get one DUI for the blow and another for the idiocy)

It is a manuever of the law that is a hard crackdown on stupid or flaming drunks.



tazzygirl -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 9:49:28 AM)

In Georgia, you can be charged if you blow too high. You can be charged if you refuse just based on observation and failure to pass field sobriety. Its a distinct possibility they charge on both in case one gets tossed.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 9:51:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

I'm just surprised it wasn't DeKalb county.

Why is that?



TheHeretic -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 10:54:13 AM)

So they are throwing the book at him. Good. Let's get back to how we are equating a call for welfare recipients to be held to a common standard, with being prosecuted for criminal activity. Welfare participants get popped on DUI too, you know. I see the hypocrisy inherent in a lawmaker breaking the law, but not a specific connection to calling for some welfare reform.

If a goal of welfare is to get people working, as our President has stated must be the case, then shouldn't preparation for the realities of the workplace be part of that?

Florida caught 2%. How many were deterred, and how many had to aquire the job skill of not getting caught? I don't know how Florida structured their law, but I would make random drug-testing mandatory for all recipients who are classified as eligible to work. It's just common sense.



mnottertail -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 10:59:14 AM)

But you are violating the constitution in my view.

Now, if you say anyone who gets a government paycheck is subject to this random testing for the purpose of  getting ready for reality, then I am your guy.  Cuz it is a federal issue, since they are all in part recieving federal monies.  Therefore....we gotta look at the equal protections.....or sooner than it is now, this country will come undone.  

Anything short of that doesn't bring home the bacon. 



TheHeretic -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:23:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

But you are violating the constitution in my view.




There is equal protection, and there is how we structure the law to require this. Making it a requirement of the AFDC job training programs smooths the bumps out as well as they are for a military urination formation.



tazzygirl -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:24:17 AM)

2% refused. If they refused because of known drug use, or because of lack of funds, no one is saying specifically.

If welfare wants to test, and pay for it themselves, then I would be more likely to agree. You want a benefit, its conditional. However, under Georgia law, there is no mention of reimbursement.

(h) The costs of the drug testing administered pursuant to this Code section shall be paid
52 by the recipient or deducted from benefits provided to the recipient; provided, however,
53 that a recipient of public benefits shall not be required to pay for more than one drug
54 screening per year."

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20112012/HB/464

The Senate version includes Medicaid.

Another House version includes unemployment.

(g) The costs of the drug test administered pursuant to this Code section shall be deducted
40 from the unemployment benefits provided to the recipient."

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20112012/HB/697

So, the poor, and out of work but eligible for unemployment, would have to pay for drug testing first. 40 Dollars when you are completely broke is not often easy to come up with. The argument cant even be made that reimbursement is forthcoming for those who follow the rules... because, according to the bills, it is not.



tazzygirl -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:26:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

But you are violating the constitution in my view.




There is equal protection, and there is how we structure the law to require this. Making it a requirement of the AFDC job training programs smooths the bumps out as well as they are for a military urination formation.


How so if the money for potential employees is carried by the company, but the money for potential benefit recipients is carried by the recipient?




mnottertail -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:26:50 AM)

Now, I guess on that basis, Rich, if they are in a jobs training program, I would agree with you and an easy case for the legality of it.   Random for welfare, not.  Random for all government hog troughers, back in the territories again.



tazzygirl -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:29:39 AM)

quote:

Random for all government hog troughers, back in the territories again.


Thats my complaint as well. If its required for one, its required for all. All politicians should be willing to agree to the same standards as their constituents.

This notion that for politicians its "unlawful search" but for welfare and unemployment, its "required" is ridiculous.



thishereboi -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 4:01:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

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."





Whats the pass?

A prospective employee is given a drug test free of charge. Its your choice if you want to work there or not. You can go elsewhere.

A welfare recipient has to pay for it out of their own pocket, then get reimbursed. There is no where else for them to go. No other "welfare". Just one.

As shown in a previous post, GA struck down a law to test politicians because it was "unreasonable search".

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

The politician has that. Yet he doesnt want welfare recipients to have that same right. They have to prove their own innocence, out of their own pocket.

Its not the same as employee drug testing. Employers pay for that test.


And none of that has anything to do with drunk driving. So why don't you explain just how this guy is getting a pass instead of trying to change the subject.



mnottertail -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 4:09:58 PM)

I believe she did in post 77.   Shouldnt we piss test, blood test, and blow our government employees to insure that they arent drunks, addicts or other such folks who dont deserve the government paycheck?  Because they are hooting it up on the taxpayers dollar?




tazzygirl -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 4:26:51 PM)

Thank you Master Ron for putting it so well.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875