My money. You play by my rules if you want my money.
You don't want to play by my rules? I'll keep the money.
Florida to drug test Welfare recipiients.
- Thread starter trichrider
- Start date
My money. You play by my rules if you want my money.
You don't want to play by my rules? I'll keep the money.
To "presume" there is no fraud would beget a system with no investigate priorities nor enforcement of fraud. O'l Rick defrauded all of us (if you're paying taxes) more than anybody on the face of the earth. Plead guilty to fraud too and paid 1.7 billion in fines. Do you realize how much 1.7 billion compares Florida's fiscal budget?
The key word in your comment is all. Your pipe dream is a technicolor issue where all you see is black or white.
Your bottom line is no different than your initial, gut reaction.
You're making up your own words and context.
You have no facts or you wouldn't change and re contextualize others' words.Add to it the fact that we have a system that essentially rewards folks ALREADY ON ASSISTANCE for having MORE children (reward = higher government dole), .. To surmise that the system works perfectly and needs no improvement is, .. Optimistic.
I recommend a course in civics and economics 101.
Is your comprehension realistic? You can use nice words to flip context on it's ear. That's all.
Comprehension sir, not the gut will show you the light.
pot/kettle
you create your own arguments and chastise others for doing the same...
you made black and white statements then expect everyone else to operate in spectravision©
ALL does not fit into this equation on either side
only you suggested ALL benefit receivers are defrauding the system.
then used your created argument to argue against.
pot meet kettle
care to demonstrate contextualization, dag?
why don't you try our exchange first? or do you find it easier jump from one sinking premise to another?
I won't suggest I took another side several months later.
why don't you try our exchange first? or do you find it easier jump from one sinking premise to another?
I won't suggest I took another side several months later.
Cojito
Active member
To presume, however, that all welfare recipients are playing "within the rules" (that is, are seeking employment, or are legitimately unABLE - not unWILLING - to work), is a pipe dream.
you're making a serious stretch to infer that every last person on welfare is in fact playing by those rules you mentioned above.
To surmise that the system works perfectly and needs no improvement is, .. Optimistic.
to imply (or flat out state) that the welfare system is hunky dory the way it is, .. Well, just seems a bit unrealistic to me
i don't see anyone here saying that fraudulent behavior shouldn't be investigated. or that the welfare system is perfect. - and certainly not Dicso. so where are these posts located? who are you arguing with exactly?
confrontational? not at all. intellectually dishonest perhaps, for that bullshit straw man you just coughed up
OGXHASHYGUY
Member
i know how to better save money then this welfare deal lets stop the war on drugs im a genius how come no one ever thought of this !.....just kidding debate on !
Cojito
Active member
woks for me. stop the war on drugs and give the money saved to the poor.
Cojito
I thought that it was pretty plain to see to whom I was responding - you know, with the quotes and all. If it helps, you can even see the handle of the user I quoted.
It's worth noting that it's rare that we can have an honest, open, exchange of ideas here. It never takes more than a post or two for folks to start calling names, playing the "you so dumb" game, etc.
That is unfortunate.
Enjoy y'alls discussion!
That is unfortunate.
Enjoy y'alls discussion!
How about the intellectually dishonest part?
I say oversimplified because you're making your argument absolute - You translate that to dumb.
I say oversimplified because you're making your argument absolute - You translate that to dumb.
Disco
I'm making my argument no more absolute than yours - part of which included the statement:
If you've received assistance, you know that you have to follow protocol (look for work and prove it) in order to continue assistance.
Your portrayal is that, "Hey, you HAVE to jump through some hoops to stay on assistance."
We all know that NOTHING is absolute. To think that all welfare folk are jumping through these hoops and playing by THESE rules is naive.
FWIW, I did acknowledge the fact that, yes, there are do-gooders on welfare, just as there are those looking to STAY on the dole:
(This statement: Which is not to presume that ALL welfare recipients are freeloaders.)
Anyway. It's discouraging that there seems to be a serious aversion to ideas that are not one's own around here.
And FWIW, generally speaking (to nobody in particular, but everyone in general) being condescending rarely won converts to an opinion.
Disco, please don't use the word "denier" or the acronym AGW in my thread, it might get me banned.
that was a joke son.
You have a very good grasp of the shitstorm I posted.
Gov sets himself up with a law oppressive and discriminatory (and with broad purview for expansion) to some of the least able to cope with it.
Medical state or not, one of the cheapest and effective drugs happens to be cannabis. That is the reason I use cannabis (well the main reason), because the opiates were as much of a problem as the pain.
To deny benefits earned by working and paying into the system because one chooses a cheap effective drug over an expensive pharmacuetical alternative, while gov enriches himself and his kind at poor peoples expense, befuddles senses and mocks our intelligence.
This was not intended to deride welfare recipients or to debate the merits of the system, but to point out this fucker getting ready to retire from legislating his own welfare scheme.
Thank you to all for raising your hand and giving your best.
There is no solution short of dismantling this fuckers empire. The welfare dabacle will eventually settle itself.
that was a joke son.
You have a very good grasp of the shitstorm I posted.
Gov sets himself up with a law oppressive and discriminatory (and with broad purview for expansion) to some of the least able to cope with it.
Medical state or not, one of the cheapest and effective drugs happens to be cannabis. That is the reason I use cannabis (well the main reason), because the opiates were as much of a problem as the pain.
To deny benefits earned by working and paying into the system because one chooses a cheap effective drug over an expensive pharmacuetical alternative, while gov enriches himself and his kind at poor peoples expense, befuddles senses and mocks our intelligence.
This was not intended to deride welfare recipients or to debate the merits of the system, but to point out this fucker getting ready to retire from legislating his own welfare scheme.
Thank you to all for raising your hand and giving your best.
There is no solution short of dismantling this fuckers empire. The welfare dabacle will eventually settle itself.
Also, re-reading some of these posts (including some of my own), I'm reminded of the old meme, ..
Something about "Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics.. If you win, .. You're still etc."
Something about "Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics.. If you win, .. You're still etc."
Cojito
Active member
sure, you quoted him. but kinda re-imagined his position on welfare. Disco never claimed the system was perfect. and for you to argue that he did is dishonest.
Cojito
Apparently I'm crazy for inferring that this statement was anything but an endorsement for the honest behavior of all folks in the welfare system:
If you've received assistance, you know that you have to follow protocol (look for work and prove it) in order to continue assistance.
Do any of us REALLY believe that all welfare folk are operating within these boundaries?
Do we REALLY think that nobody's learned to work the system by now?
Sorry - I don't mean for my rhetorical questions to be condescending, but at this point, it seems like it needs to be spelled out, ..
Exactly. If you don't you could be charged with a crime and possibly become governor of the state of FL.
Interesting. Is that why you didn't quote what might appear to be a bit less black and white?
I acknowledge that you acquiesce. Quote historical verbatim and I'll go farther than that.
A serious diversion to context as well.
I consider a comprehensive look at a less than perfect system, contextually-changed-to absolute as condescending.
Cojito
Active member
ok, you're crazy then. you read WAY too much into that comment. everyone knows there are problems with the system. no one is suggest that we shouldn't fix these problems.
Perfect! Fixed THAT!
There were two conversations going on. Conversation A was re: drug testing welfare recipients.
B was my observation about the fact that everyone here "debates" like a bunch of 14 year olds.
It IS possible to have both A and B going on, CONCURRENTLY, irrespective of each other.
(Didn't I swear I was done with this 5 posts back?!)
This thread:
