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 4:28:03 PM)

Eh, no fa niente.  I was drunk,  I create my own paycheck, you see.



thishereboi -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 4:32:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

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?




She said

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?


I asked how he was getting a pass and no she still hasn't answered that. Now according to the thread he has been charged with 3 offenses. How is that getting a pass?




thishereboi -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 4:35:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
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?




And to answer this part.....No, we shouldn't. But I don't think we should drug test welfare recipients either.



tazzygirl -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 4:47:10 PM)

quote:

The illegal part was drinking and driving. Does he now get a pass because he was drinking something legally, yet drove afterwards?


In response to this...

quote:

Again, red herring. The offense you brought up with your story was about alcohol, not drugs. One is legal, one is not. The illegal part of his involvement with alcohol is something for which he is facing consequences, as should those who have illegal involvement with drugs.

Another apples/oranges difference you're forgetting is that he works for his money. Welfare recipients don't.


Taking only part of my post out of context wont do it.

Alcohol is a drug. The only difference is that it is legal IF you are over 21. Mix it with a car, its no longer legal.

Now, some are wanting welfare and unemployment recipients to prove they are not using...on there own dime.

quote:

as should those who have illegal involvement with drugs.


Did the politician have to prove he had no involvement with drugs before taking office? Before getting a car? Before leaving the restaurant? Before cashing his paycheck?

He is innocent until proven guilty. His guilt, when proven, will be the arrest.

If I were to go sign up for benefits, what actions indicate any possible association I may have with drugs? Am I afforded that same pass as a politician... the pass to wait until I am caught red handed?



DarqueMirror -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 10:11:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I didnt dodge anything,


You most certainly did dodge. I specifically stated I've been drug tested for every job I've ever held and stated that if i am, then they should be as well and you replied that my job "likely" made it a safety issue. Which didn't address whatsoever the double standard I put forth where I, a working person all my life, am drug tested multiple times where as they, having no job and getting free money, are not.

Where's my incentive to work? If I can just live off the government and get high, why get a job where I'll be drug tested?

If someone came to me and offered me free money just to pee in a cup and stay off drugs, I'd do a backflip of joy and live a life of ease, not giving two shits about my "privacy rights."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
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


We absolutely do. They're getting FREE money to sit on their asses. I think requiring them to stay clean is a small price to pay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
would you care to prove otherwise or is this just opinion ? this goes beyond reprehensible... of course it IS just an opinion


I don't need to prove anything. It's the truth... as the old saying goes "beggars can't be choosers."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
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?


As someone else has pointed out, if we required perfection of our politicians, no one would ever be able to hold office.



DarqueMirror -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 10:17:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
A welfare recipient has to pay for it out of their own pocket, then get reimbursed.


You do realize that reimbursement means essentially that they aren't paying for anything, right? Your emotional argument might hold water if they weren't reimbursed. As they are, in fact, reimbursed, then there's no weight to your point that it's paid for "out if their own pocket."

I'm going to school using the G.I. Bill. I pay for my classes and books "out of my own pocket," then get reimbursed. So basically I pay nothing. Same concept.



DarqueMirror -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 10:19:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
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.


Well said.



tazzygirl -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 10:26:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
A welfare recipient has to pay for it out of their own pocket, then get reimbursed.


You do realize that reimbursement means essentially that they aren't paying for anything, right? Your emotional argument might hold water if they weren't reimbursed. As they are, in fact, reimbursed, then there's no weight to your point that it's paid for "out if their own pocket."

I'm going to school using the G.I. Bill. I pay for my classes and books "out of my own pocket," then get reimbursed. So basically I pay nothing. Same concept.



Georgia isnt reimbursing. Florida did. And when you are broke, you try and come up with 40 bucks.



Lucylastic -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:00:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I didnt dodge anything,


You most certainly did dodge. I specifically stated I've been drug tested for every job I've ever held and stated that if i am, then they should be as well and you replied that my job "likely" made it a safety issue. Which didn't address whatsoever the double standard I put forth where I, a working person all my life, am drug tested multiple times where as they, having no job and getting free money, are not.

Where's my incentive to work? If I can just live off the government and get high, why get a job where I'll be drug tested?

If someone came to me and offered me free money just to pee in a cup and stay off drugs, I'd do a backflip of joy and live a life of ease, not giving two shits about my "privacy rights."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
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


We absolutely do. They're getting FREE money to sit on their asses. I think requiring them to stay clean is a small price to pay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
would you care to prove otherwise or is this just opinion ? this goes beyond reprehensible... of course it IS just an opinion


I don't need to prove anything. It's the truth... as the old saying goes "beggars can't be choosers."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
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?


As someone else has pointed out, if we required perfection of our politicians, no one would ever be able to hold office.

noope just your opinion, no factual statements Im done feeding your hate, bye bye



tazzygirl -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:03:32 PM)

quote:

As someone else has pointed out, if we required perfection of our politicians, no one would ever be able to hold office.


So our welfare recipients are supposed to be more perfect than our politicians?



DarqueMirror -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:10:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Georgia isnt reimbursing. Florida did. And when you are broke, you try and come up with 40 bucks.


40 bucks? Try $450. That's what my classes cost this semester, not including books. I guess if they want assistance, they'll find a way. And that just gives more incentive to stay clean, considering what's on the line.



DarqueMirror -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:15:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
noope just your opinion, no factual statements Im done feeding your hate, bye bye


LoL...ahh the good ol' "hate" accusation. I was waiting for that. Guess your emotions got the better of you. Well feed this: hate is what prompts you to want them to not be tested, and to not get used to staying clean, which will ensure they never work and continue to require assistance.

At least I want to teach the man to fish, rather than just hand him a fish. That way he can take care of himself. It's sad that you would rather see them perpetually on assistance.



DarqueMirror -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:21:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
So our welfare recipients are supposed to be more perfect than our politicians?


I don't recall anyone saying that. But it would do them well to get used to being tested and staying clean so they could get a job, do you disagree? Or would you, like Lucy, prefer they stay on assistance forever?



Lucylastic -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:21:56 PM)

Do you not understand plain English?
done with your hate
bye bye....



tazzygirl -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:25:08 PM)

quote:

I don't recall anyone saying that. But it would do them well to get used to being tested and staying clean so they could get a job, do you disagree? Or would you, like Lucy, prefer they stay on assistance forever?


I hardly believe its an even small problem considering only 2% tested positive. So, lets rip away their rights because 2% of recipients are testing positive... and the false positive rate can account for some of those.



tazzygirl -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:26:14 PM)

quote:

40 bucks? Try $450. That's what my classes cost this semester, not including books. I guess if they want assistance, they'll find a way. And that just gives more incentive to stay clean, considering what's on the line.


And you make how much a month?



DarqueMirror -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:26:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Do you not understand plain English?
done with your hate
bye bye....


Oh I do, but you apparently don't. You're the one filled with hate. But I understand that you can't form a viable defense in this debate and must therefore say "bye bye." So leave already. Doesn't bother me one way or the other.



DarqueMirror -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:30:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
And you make how much a month?


That's relevant how? I could tell you how much I make, then I could tell you what my rent and other expenses are and how they, plus helping to take care of an unemployed parent puts my monthly expenses at twice what I make. Then I could add that a shift in schedules here at work just slashed my monthly take-home by over $200. Now what do you have to say? Suddenly that $450 is a hell of a lot worse that $40, ain't it?



DarqueMirror -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:33:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
I hardly believe its an even small problem considering only 2% tested positive. So, lets rip away their rights because 2% of recipients are testing positive... and the false positive rate can account for some of those.


That's funny considering your stance on the politician you used as your example. I believe the words you used were "how many times was he not caught," or words to that effect.

So, let's turn that around.. Only 2% tested positive. We all know there are many ways to thwart a test and many drugs that don't even show up. So how many more than that 2% simply "got lucky" and didn't get caught?



tazzygirl -> RE: Glass houses and stones don't mix (1/16/2012 11:34:55 PM)

Nope. You get an income. You can cover expenses until you get that money. People signing up for welfare, for the most part, have no income.

The Supreme Court finally agreed to hear his appeal on January 14, 1996. His argument was based on the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against “unreasonable” searches. Chandler believed there should be some limit to “suspicionless drug testing.” The Supreme Court agreed with him voting 8 to 1 to declare Georgia's law unconstitutional.

http://www.infoplease.com/cig/supreme-court/testing-politicians-for-drugs.html#ixzz1jhNTsUIe

Do you disagree?



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.515625E-02