Let me get this straight.

[Divine Wind]

I'm in favor of making anyone who accepts government money subject to random screening. As a member of the military I was subject to this for 21 years and, now, as a transportation employee, I'm also subject to random testing.

All I ask is 1) why aren't our Congressional representatives subject to this testing since, IMHO, some of them certainly look likely to be on drugs, 2) why aren't all welfare recipients, both corporate and individual, also subject to it?

 

[GoneBezerk]

Dumbfuck.....if someone like you doesn't have a job and lives off govt handouts, then if you test positive for drugs then you are using the money we gave you for food on those drugs.

Now, go kill yourself for the sake of mankind.

Uh....if someone is sooooooo poor to need welfare handouts to "live on" then they should not be spending that money on things not required to live....like drugs.

Unless you're going to produce some evidence to suggest that they are in fact spending money on drugs, STOP BREATHING AND SHUT UP.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Not all are, but thanks for the idiotic generalization.

Wait, what? I'm making idiotic generalizations? You're the one saying that these people are drug addicts. YOU HAVE YET TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I'm in favor of making anyone who accepts government money subject to random screening. As a member of the military I was subject to this for 21 years and, now, as a transportation employee, I'm also subject to random testing.

In other words, you're jealous.

 

[Si modo]

I'm in favor of making anyone who accepts government money subject to random screening. As a member of the military I was subject to this for 21 years and, now, as a transportation employee, I'm also subject to random testing.

All I ask is 1) why aren't our Congressional representatives subject to this testing since, IMHO, some of them certainly look likely to be on drugs, 2) why aren't all welfare recipients, both corporate and individual, also subject to it?

And, most organizations who accept government grants must ensure that they promote a drug-free work environment.

That is one of the major reasons so many employers do drug test. Job safety is likely the major reason along with OSHA regs. Oh, look! Government again! (and I agree)

But, don't tell anyone, it would ruin their "corporations are evil" fantasies.

But, I'm still against this for cost reasons. It costs enough already.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Dumbfuck.

Yes, that makes your flawed arguments magically valid.

if someone like you doesn't have a job and lives off govt handouts, then if you test positive for drugs then you are using the money we gave you for food on those drugs.

Someone like me? I don't do drugs, I have a job, don't receive any kind of benefits at all.

Now, as for those who do receive benefits, YOU STILL HAVE YET TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE USING DRUGS.

Now, go kill yourself for the sake of mankind.

Yes, that makes your flawed arguments magically valid.

 

[GoneBezerk]

I bet you debate yourself out loud in public.

I'm in favor of making anyone who accepts government money subject to random screening. As a member of the military I was subject to this for 21 years and, now, as a transportation employee, I'm also subject to random testing.

In other words, you're jealous.

 

[GoneBezerk]

I D I O T.....if you are taking free stuff from the Govt just for breathing, then you need to show you are not using that money for illegal stuff.

If your mommy thinks you are buying drugs with your allowance money, then she can drag your hairy ass down to the clinic to test your blood.

The govt isn't dragging your hairy ass to the clinic they are telling you to do it or don't come back BEGGING for money.

Dumbfuck.

Yes, that makes your flawed arguments magically valid.

if someone like you doesn't have a job and lives off govt handouts, then if you test positive for drugs then you are using the money we gave you for food on those drugs.

Someone like me? I don't do drugs, I have a job, don't receive any kind of benefits at all.

Now, as for those who do receive benefits, YOU STILL HAVE YET TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE USING DRUGS.

Now, go kill yourself for the sake of mankind.

Yes, that makes your flawed arguments magically valid.

 

[Inthemiddle]

if you are taking free stuff from the Govt just for breathing, then you need to show you are not using that money for illegal stuff.

Oh, I see. Guilty until proven innocent. Wait, I don't see. It's still unconstitutional. I DON'T have to show that I'm not using that money for whatever. I have constitutionally protected rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The government has the duty to procure probable cause to search me.

If your mommy thinks you are buying drugs with your allowance money

Classy. My mother's dead.

The govt isn't dragging your hairy ass to the clinic they are telling you to do it or don't come back BEGGING for money.

Listen to yourself. You're so obviously filled with irrational hatred for the poor, and you're so completely unapologetic about it, you seem to think that it is sufficient justification for the government to violate their constitutional rights. Nobody is begging for money. They are applying for government assistance because they are not able to financially provide their basic needs because they are in poverty. You must be a sad, petty, and pathetic person if the only way you can try to feel good about yourself or make yourself look good to others is to hate poor people just because they are poor.

 

[The T]

Shouldn't CEOs be drug tested?

The consequences of their decisions are much worse than some poor welfare participant

UP to thier companies and the Board that gives them the JOB...isn't it? But we are talking PRIVATE industry versus Funds for people on the TAXPAYER Rolls...aren't we. Apples and flux capacitors...

 

[Si modo]

Not all are, but thanks for the idiotic generalization.

Wait, what? I'm making idiotic generalizations? You're the one saying that these people are drug addicts. YOU HAVE YET TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE.

I never said they all were.

I said some are. You don't think so, though.

You need to get out more.

 

[Divine Wind]

But, I'm still against this for cost reasons. It costs enough already.

Not mandatory, just "random". Recipients can play the odds, but the main reason is deterrence not prosecution. Certainly there would be costs associated with it, but if it prevents welfare recipients from using government money on drugs, then isn't that desirable goal?

Let's not forget making this applicable to Congressmen and corporate recipients. Imagine testing the AIG executives for taking the Bush bailout.

 

[GoneBezerk]

You're just a fucking idiot, no more educating you. You are a lost cause, ready for the dumpster.

if you are taking free stuff from the Govt just for breathing, then you need to show you are not using that money for illegal stuff.

Oh, I see. Guilty until proven innocent. Wait, I don't see. It's still unconstitutional. I DON'T have to show that I'm not using that money for whatever. I have constitutionally protected rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The government has the duty to procure probable cause to search me.

If your mommy thinks you are buying drugs with your allowance money

Classy. My mother's dead.

The govt isn't dragging your hairy ass to the clinic they are telling you to do it or don't come back BEGGING for money.

Listen to yourself. You're so obviously filled with irrational hatred for the poor, and you're so completely unapologetic about it, you seem to think that it is sufficient justification for the government to violate their constitutional rights. Nobody is begging for money. They are applying for government assistance because they are not able to financially provide their basic needs because they are in poverty. You must be a sad, petty, and pathetic person if the only way you can try to feel good about yourself or make yourself look good to others is to hate poor people just because they are poor.

 

[The T]

But, I'm still against this for cost reasons. It costs enough already.

Not mandatory, just "random". Recipients can play the odds, but the main reason is deterrence not prosecution. Certainly there would be costs associated with it, but if it prevents welfare recipients from using government money on drugs, then isn't that desirable goal?

Let's not forget making this applicable to Congressmen and corporate recipients. Imagine testing the AIG executives for taking the Bush bailout.

ARE Congresscritters...the POTUS...Judges subject to Operation Goldenflow?

Or is that a violation of thier rights as elected officials also being PAID by the taxpayer?

 

[Si modo]

But, I'm still against this for cost reasons. It costs enough already.

Not mandatory, just "random". Recipients can play the odds, but the main reason is deterrence not prosecution. Certainly there would be costs associated with it, but if it prevents welfare recipients from using government money on drugs, then isn't that desirable goal?

Let's not forget making this applicable to Congressmen and corporate recipients. Imagine testing the AIG executives for taking the Bush bailout.

I see your point, but I guess I'm just callous. Let Darwin take care of them. It might end up being a wash, money-wise.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Not all are, but thanks for the idiotic generalization.

Wait, what? I'm making idiotic generalizations? You're the one saying that these people are drug addicts. YOU HAVE YET TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE.

Because Idiots like you are preventing them from being identified.


And by the way I probably put in more volunteer hours in my community this past year than you have in your entire life.

 

[Divine Wind]

ARE Congresscritters...the POTUS...Judges subject to Operation Goldenflow?

Or is that a violation of thier rights as elected officials also being PAID by the taxpayer?

If it was up to me they would be tested. Government employees should all be subjected to the same rules. Fair is fair, right?

 

[SFC Ollie]

But, I'm still against this for cost reasons. It costs enough already.

Not mandatory, just "random". Recipients can play the odds, but the main reason is deterrence not prosecution. Certainly there would be costs associated with it, but if it prevents welfare recipients from using government money on drugs, then isn't that desirable goal?

Let's not forget making this applicable to Congressmen and corporate recipients. Imagine testing the AIG executives for taking the Bush bailout.

ARE Congresscritters...the POTUS...Judges subject to Operation Goldenflow?

Or is that a violation of thier rights as elected officials also being PAID by the taxpayer?

I say test em, they tested me often enough.

 

[The T]

Not mandatory, just "random". Recipients can play the odds, but the main reason is deterrence not prosecution. Certainly there would be costs associated with it, but if it prevents welfare recipients from using government money on drugs, then isn't that desirable goal?

Let's not forget making this applicable to Congressmen and corporate recipients. Imagine testing the AIG executives for taking the Bush bailout.

ARE Congresscritters...the POTUS...Judges subject to Operation Goldenflow?

Or is that a violation of thier rights as elected officials also being PAID by the taxpayer?

I say test em, they tested me often enough.

Damn straight. Myself too...

 

[Si modo]

But, I'm still against this for cost reasons. It costs enough already.

Not mandatory, just "random". Recipients can play the odds, but the main reason is deterrence not prosecution. Certainly there would be costs associated with it, but if it prevents welfare recipients from using government money on drugs, then isn't that desirable goal?

Let's not forget making this applicable to Congressmen and corporate recipients. Imagine testing the AIG executives for taking the Bush bailout.

ARE Congresscritters...the POTUS...Judges subject to Operation Goldenflow?

Or is that a violation of thier rights as elected officials also being PAID by the taxpayer?

Hell, those bozos don't even have to get a clearance.

BIG problem. BIg, BIG problem.