No actually.Good point. I think all goverment workers should be tested. From the Prez down to local school boards.Since that's prob not gonna happen IT IS WRONG... PERIOD
Florida to drug test Welfare recipiients.
- Thread starter trichrider
- Start date
You gotta really lol at these guys mentality.
If you work for your own money you're a slave. lol
Poor people can smoke weed all they want I have no problem with that.
If your accepting free money from your fellow citizens. The citizens have every right to set reasonable limitations on that Free money.
OPMOD alert - just kidding, I'm a kidder.
We have a rather diverse, applied approach. But one thing appears to gel with most everybody - reasonable solutions for necessary government regulation.
With all due respect...
Rick Scott won the general election by 49% of the vote.<sup id="cite_ref-48" class="reference">
</sup><table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr class="vcard"></tr><tr class="vcard"><th style="background-color: #FF3333; width: 5px;">
</th> <td class="org" style="width: 130px">Republican</td> <td class="fn">Rick Scott</td> <td style="text-align: right; margin-right: 0.5em">2,619,335</td> <td style="text-align: right; margin-right: 0.5em">48.87%</td> <td style="text-align: right; margin-right: 0.5em">-3.31%</td></tr></tbody></table><sup id="cite_ref-48" class="reference">
</sup>With a population of 18,801,310 (2010 Census)<sup id="cite_ref-census_2-2" class="reference">[3]</sup> , not too may weighed in on Scott's victory. Scott won by a mere 68,000 votes - not exactly a mandate.
But we'll recognize it as a working majority, so long as you have no problem with a slim margin mandating regulation you don't particularly like. We'll just assume that you're fine with this for example sake.
The fellow citizens have every right to vote for governor. You'd need an initiative for voters to get their say with respective laws, otherwise they're affected, not effector.
But let's just assume a working majority of voters want what you want. All's well that ends well. But not necessarily.
There's more than economic efficiency and constitutionality, which this thread has shown in several places yet aren't ascertained or even suspect by the pro-test crowd. Scott didn't analyze savings projections and constitutionality hasn't been challenged yet similar laws were stricken down in two states and DC (federal level.)
But an interesting argument here appears to look away or even ignore these aspects.
Lets go ahead and pretend we're all constitutional and the law sticks. Now we only have the economic efficiency to consider. This program may save money or it may cost the taxpayer more than pre Rickyfied.
How much more money would you be willing to pay to rest-assured that poor assistance recipients are wholesale tested while college level assistance recipients aren't tested?
Now we're getting somewhere...
Because IMO, the "test 'em all" opinion, (where 'em all isn't er... all) appears to care more about value judgements than constitutionality or economic efficiency.
I base that opinion on the following:
With the exception of a single opinion (in your favor) no one has addressed savings to the taxpayer, a major aspect in Scott's reasoning (or at least his excuse, seeing he didn't study the economic effect before he signed his bill into law.)
This one opinion that actually crunched numbers verifies the law is cost-neutral. I guess that means the savings argument is all wet. Yet this particular gentleman is a constitutional stickler and it's surprising to see only the economic argument from the freedom fighter. The guy that says there's no difference in Dems and Pubs. Or, at least they're ALL left of his interests. Can't underestimate the irony.
Let's pretend Rick's law actually adds costs to the budget. How much more would you pay for it as opposed to the alternative, making testing transgression-based?
That particular aspect is one (among others) that hasn't been considered, at least not posted here.
And if you would pay even more state-budget money to keep people making less than $80/wk from drawing for a failed drug test, don't you have at least a small problem with the chickens being herded through the fox's den for private profit? Private profit to a fox that ripped us all off to the tune of a 1.7 billion dollar fine. We don't know how much he stole, we only charged him 1.7b. Not to mention the guy plead guilty after pleading the 5th no less than 75 times in court. Must have been a fast trial.
These issues are complicated, folks. Unless of course anybody's willing to admit their gut reaction to wholesale testing is an exercise in value judgement alone.
Howdaya like me now, trichrider?
Last edited:
statefarmguy
Member
right on!!!
right on!!!
FVCK YEAH! GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASSES AND DO SOMETHING, WE PAY YOUR FVCKIN WAY AND GIVE FREE GROCERIES SO YOU CAN SIT AT HOME AND WATCH AMERICAN IDOL OR SOME STUPID SHIT WTF?? YOU HAVE NO SKILLS?? LEARN ONE FATASS'S
DRUGS ARENT THE PROBLEM... LAZINESS IS
right on!!!
FVCK YEAH! GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASSES AND DO SOMETHING, WE PAY YOUR FVCKIN WAY AND GIVE FREE GROCERIES SO YOU CAN SIT AT HOME AND WATCH AMERICAN IDOL OR SOME STUPID SHIT WTF?? YOU HAVE NO SKILLS?? LEARN ONE FATASS'S
DRUGS ARENT THE PROBLEM... LAZINESS IS
laziness isn't the problem, the dumb ass electorate is alive and well
attention spans no longer than picking toe jam are fucking the whole country up. not to mention bigots who couldn't care less than anything, other than their visceral reactions.
attention spans no longer than picking toe jam are fucking the whole country up. not to mention bigots who couldn't care less than anything, other than their visceral reactions.
Ain't that the truth.
hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwame_Kilpatrick
..and got re-elected.
If you just list a foreign sounding name with no other complaint, you might be a bigot.
That's what bigots do. Keep their asses perpetually dumb and skeered into divisive communication, segregation and unfortunately, actions.
You didn't know I'm a Muslim, did ya, redneck?
That's what bigots do. Keep their asses perpetually dumb and skeered into divisive communication, segregation and unfortunately, actions.
You didn't know I'm a Muslim, did ya, redneck?
Is this in response to my link about Kwame?
If so, your trolling skills are about 2/10.
Ha! No sir. Nothing about the man's ethnicity, religion, or if he's wuhn uh them dang foreigners.
If you read the Wiki entry on him (or most any other press), you'll find that he was as cooked as crooked gets. And that was his reputation before the end of his first term. Ran for re-election, and WON!
That, sir, is the dumb ass electorate.
Walk around my neighborhood, or any of the cities in this part of the state, you'll be hard-pressed to find someone to say a kind word about the guy. Left the city in serious debt, largely because of his own scandals (cost the city $8.4 M in a settlement, for starters, not to mention the murder of two hookers at a party at the governor's mansion..), .. Oh, and if you'll notice on the Wiki page, his current residence:
G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility, Jackson, MI
Muslim, Mormon, Quaker, Catholic, Hindu, or any other flavor.. This is not what makes a good Mayor (From the Wiki):
Kilpatrick is Federal Bureau of Prisons #44678-039. He is also under a new 38-charge felony indictment on additional corruption charges, in what a federal prosecutor called a "pattern of extortion, bribery and fraud" by some of Detroit's most prominent officials.
So, no, it's not a culture thing.
Oh, and if your Muslim comment wasn't in re: the Kwame thing.. Carry on..
Kilpatrick wasn't a crook until after he was elected. Why call the voters dumb asses, because they didn't predict the future?
99 of every 100 knee jerk opinions in here wouldn't click the wiki link. A name like Kwame is all they need to point a finger at something they want to hate.
I followed Kilpatrick from his first blunders until he fell off the cliff.
But I've also spent a bit of time here attempting to influence at least some perspective and a muslim name and link to formulate ones own context (or not at all) was a moment to open your eyes if you happen to be visceral.
My apologies for calling you a redneck. Do you imagine you would have communicated your perspective with a link to a muslim crook or just a muslim w/o a little of your own, sound response?
I don't know ya that well and the honest truth (your context) wasn't actually apparent. All the drive bys are a bit irritating these days and you were apparently on the up n up.
Kilpatrick is about 1 in 100,000 public servants and possibly 1 in 10,000 political criminals. Bad timing or bad reaction? I'll vote for bad reaction on my part.
99 of every 100 knee jerk opinions in here wouldn't click the wiki link. A name like Kwame is all they need to point a finger at something they want to hate.
I followed Kilpatrick from his first blunders until he fell off the cliff.
But I've also spent a bit of time here attempting to influence at least some perspective and a muslim name and link to formulate ones own context (or not at all) was a moment to open your eyes if you happen to be visceral.
My apologies for calling you a redneck. Do you imagine you would have communicated your perspective with a link to a muslim crook or just a muslim w/o a little of your own, sound response?
I don't know ya that well and the honest truth (your context) wasn't actually apparent. All the drive bys are a bit irritating these days and you were apparently on the up n up.
Kilpatrick is about 1 in 100,000 public servants and possibly 1 in 10,000 political criminals. Bad timing or bad reaction? I'll vote for bad reaction on my part.
Man you are searching hard disco lol
I believe Kwame is an Afrikan first name and Kilpatrick is a Christian.
I don't know where you are getting this Muslim stuff from.
I don't know where you are getting this Muslim stuff from.
The name Kilpatrick dates to 1232 and isn't christian any more than it's Irish via Scottish. There are Christians, agnostics, atheists etc. If one's name is Kilpatrick, their religion, or lack of it is what they choose respectively.
Christians are often clannish and may not agree with my interpretation.
As for Kwame, I never insinuated he was Muslim, that's for me because I'm agnostic. I said "foreign sounding name." I was told Kilpatrick worshiped Islam, I was mistaken and man enough to admit it.
As far as searching, I don;t know what you mean. My reasoning of the OP topic seems to generate more drive bys than if I chimed in with final solution cracks, human shields and a host of less than sensitive remarks. You mentioned "slaves" and that might seem a bit insensitive in my circles. Especially slaves with "mentality" aspects.
Words are flying freely here, whether insensitivity is directed along with it or not. I put no intent in your message or your uh... words.
It was actually a comment prior to Silver's that got me out of sorts and I responded harshly to Silver. I apologized and leave it to Silver to accept my apology or not.
Now that I responded the best way I know to you, would you mind entertaining the questions I asked in response to the mentality/slaves comment? It's possibly personal in nature and I wouldn't blame you for keeping it that way. But I at least hope you read it and thought about it yourself. I really would like to know if it's not personal.
EDIT: Oops, I apparently did say "muslim name" in a response to Silver. I stand corrected.
Christians are often clannish and may not agree with my interpretation.
As for Kwame, I never insinuated he was Muslim, that's for me because I'm agnostic. I said "foreign sounding name." I was told Kilpatrick worshiped Islam, I was mistaken and man enough to admit it.
As far as searching, I don;t know what you mean. My reasoning of the OP topic seems to generate more drive bys than if I chimed in with final solution cracks, human shields and a host of less than sensitive remarks. You mentioned "slaves" and that might seem a bit insensitive in my circles. Especially slaves with "mentality" aspects.
Words are flying freely here, whether insensitivity is directed along with it or not. I put no intent in your message or your uh... words.
It was actually a comment prior to Silver's that got me out of sorts and I responded harshly to Silver. I apologized and leave it to Silver to accept my apology or not.
Now that I responded the best way I know to you, would you mind entertaining the questions I asked in response to the mentality/slaves comment? It's possibly personal in nature and I wouldn't blame you for keeping it that way. But I at least hope you read it and thought about it yourself. I really would like to know if it's not personal.
EDIT: Oops, I apparently did say "muslim name" in a response to Silver. I stand corrected.
Just in case green lung doesn't want to humor this question, any others interested? I'm curious, spent a hell of a amount of time here posting, IMO more than visceral reactions.
The nature of the topic has many of my reasonings and requests for reasonings but maybe it's a nunya thing. If I'm wrong, I'm ready to hear somebody address it. ">" for the whole comment.
i liked you more last year...and that was a puny attempt at reconsoling your asshole tendencies towards others.
now i like you less than obamacare, or even the indiscretions gov. rick plead to...are you now to pollute every thread i eventually post so i can play too.
btw...you were the one to send me a pm informing me how frightfully lame you considered my opinions. i never did that...yet.
any personal message sent to you was rep for your astute take on a monumental fuckup in fl., so take it like you like it.
i could use the ignore button, but that would waste so much time in revealing what a pompous position you hold...it really is sport here at ICMag; the thing is, some sadistic intellectual banter is acceptable but your constant character assassinatins still say that you hold a degree in denigration.
why do you think it was pointed out when you decided to bring in topics off other threads?
the ad hominem,plea to emotion,straw men nd red herrings constantly offered by the poster are best ignored and deleted from posts...
it complains lightly but it's hard to try to put lipstick on"you wont play my game!!!"
just keep posting logic and watch the meltdown..
then others can filter out the drivel easier and look to the actual numbers
Kilpatrick as in the person. As in Kilpatrick is not a muslim he is a Christian.
LOL you googled killpatrick. jeez man
Cojito
Active member
so i was right. you really don't respect us (or this issue) enough to quote accurately. just stop it dude. its dishonest to re-phrase my argument. and you know it.
"entirely incorrect"? fair enough. so why are you so quick to drug test and dismiss our constitutional concerns if you are so "worried" about their (the poor) and our (cannabis users) 4th amendment rights?
i did see that post. i agreed with the notion that there are times when must sacrifice some of our rights. and you have yet to make a compelling case that this is one of those times.
and i'm against this.
no. you're not alone. lotta people hate on the poor. but just saying folks agree with you and repeating yourself over and over and over does not a logical argument make.
look, its condescending of you to imply that i (or anyone who disagrees with you) is not arguing as an adult. its not the first time you've said this. and its more than a little absurd given that its you who is dishonestly re-phrasing arguments to make them easier to dismiss. and you have yet to show that logically we must ignore the 4th amendment rights of the poor.
hey man, you're the one twisting words (see 1st post where you admit this), you're the one implying we're children. but i was playing dumb. ya got me there. i confess. i really did think you were guilty of intellectual dishonesty there. i guess i thought you'd realize your mistake and apologize. my bad.
Gentlefolk, all of ye
No need for anyone to get huffy or hostile or harsh or bent out of sort at all. Just an exchange of ideas here. (For me, anyway.)
FWIW, I have no ill will or sour grapes about anyone here or any of the ideas promoted here. If any of you do, then that's a sad fact. I'm hopeful that we're all enjoying an intellectual (and philosophical) conversation. That's all I'm here for.
At this point, I think most of us are bickering for the sake of bickering. I'm all about a discussion with 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 12 sides to it.
No need for anyone to get huffy or hostile or harsh or bent out of sort at all. Just an exchange of ideas here. (For me, anyway.)
FWIW, I have no ill will or sour grapes about anyone here or any of the ideas promoted here. If any of you do, then that's a sad fact. I'm hopeful that we're all enjoying an intellectual (and philosophical) conversation. That's all I'm here for.
At this point, I think most of us are bickering for the sake of bickering. I'm all about a discussion with 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 12 sides to it.
What you like doesn't interest me. Whether you can make an argument to learn something about you makes no difference if it's pulling teeth, dig?
It's not your opinion, it's the no argument behind it. Just trying to understand why you choose what you do. Apparently that pisses you off. Such is life, I'll certainly get over it. You're like another member I know, you play and then you play hurt.
Maybe it's offering your feeling and not your reasoning. You apparently have a strong opinion about this but it's private. Lotta wasted time getting here with your play toy and now it's broke.
Why not try the question before gettin' bunched?
