Sponsor of drug testing Georgia law for welfare recipients arrested for DUI

Obviously, however a cop would need to believe I was drunk in order for him to administer a BAC test.

I would never drive if I thought I would appear to be drunk because that means you are drunk.

.08 to me is probably different than what it is to you.

We all have different tolerances for substances.

You may get plastered off a beer or two, however I'd be perfectly fine despite having the same BAC.

Let's just say, I like to err on the side of caution.

I am cautious - that's why I don't drive when I feel I cant operate a vehicle (or any object) safely.

The dangerous ones are those who get tanked then don't care and drive...

If those assholes want to go off an kill themselves I could care less, however those fools kill others...

Besides those idiots texting are just as dangerous - especially young inexperienced drivers who text and drive.

I wont even talk on my phone while I'm driving - I pay attention to the road.

Sorry Mr. Nick.... the dangerous ones include the ones who think they can operate a vehicle but shouldn't. That's why it's call "impaired judgement".
 
Which welfare programs can one live off of for life?

With the exception of TANF, all of them.

Didn't the federal government impose a 5-year lifetime limit with the Personal Responsibility Act back in '96?

The majority of welfare funding is through the state.

States without question have the right to self govern, however IMO it's irresponsible and quite frankly a burden on the taxpayers to allow people to live on welfare indefinitely.

Especially when politicians use social welfare as a tool for a election or reelection bid.

Here in Chicago it's "vote for me because I will continue to give you free money and raise taxes and tolls to give you free money."
 
He's not on welfare. Not really seeing why you take joy in the stupid mistakes of others. Just shows your pettiness.

???

Are you aiming this towards me? Just where am I being petty?

If not, use the quote key so we know who you're talking to.
 
Let's just say, I like to err on the side of caution.

I am cautious - that's why I don't drive when I feel I cant operate a vehicle (or any object) safely.

The dangerous ones are those who get tanked then don't care and drive...

If those assholes want to go off an kill themselves I could care less, however those fools kill others...

Besides those idiots texting are just as dangerous - especially young inexperienced drivers who text and drive.

I wont even talk on my phone while I'm driving - I pay attention to the road.

Sorry Mr. Nick.... the dangerous ones include the ones who think they can operate a vehicle but shouldn't. That's why it's call "impaired judgement".

I know when I can operate a vehicle..

If I was impaired I wouldn't drive..

I've never had a problem EVER and I have drove with a few beers in me several hundred times...

I'm not an "I'm invincible" moron.... I know my limit.

People just have to know their limit, and I agree with you that many don't know their limit when it comes to driving, however I do.
 
With the exception of TANF, all of them.

Didn't the federal government impose a 5-year lifetime limit with the Personal Responsibility Act back in '96?

The majority of welfare funding is through the state.

States without question have the right to self govern, however IMO it's irresponsible and quite frankly a burden on the taxpayers to allow people to live on welfare indefinitely.

Especially when politicians use social welfare as a tool for a election or reelection bid.

Here in Chicago it's "vote for me because I will continue to give you free money and raise taxes and tolls to give you free money."

I don't think people should live off welfare indefinitely either but so far, I'm having a hard time figuring out just which programs one CAN live off indefinitely. It isn't unemployment compensation. We KNOW there is a limit to that one. Food stamps? That's a federal program....so 5-year time limit? Section 8? Also federal? That one is based on how many kids under 18 you have? Disability maybe? But in order to qualify for disability, it means you CAN'T work to begin with, so that one doesn't count?

I don't know, I hear conservatives go on about how this lazy poor person or that lazy poor person was able to survive all their lives living off welfare and I just don't see how.
 
I am cautious - that's why I don't drive when I feel I cant operate a vehicle (or any object) safely.

The dangerous ones are those who get tanked then don't care and drive...

If those assholes want to go off an kill themselves I could care less, however those fools kill others...

Besides those idiots texting are just as dangerous - especially young inexperienced drivers who text and drive.

I wont even talk on my phone while I'm driving - I pay attention to the road.

Sorry Mr. Nick.... the dangerous ones include the ones who think they can operate a vehicle but shouldn't. That's why it's call "impaired judgement".

I know when I can operate a vehicle..

If I was impaired I wouldn't drive..

I've never had a problem EVER and I have drove with a few beers in me several hundred times...

I'm not an "I'm invincible" moron.... I know my limit.

People just have to know their limit, and I agree with you that many don't know their limit when it comes to driving, however I do.

You do realize that everyone who's ever gotten a DUI has said the same thing, right?
 
Didn't the federal government impose a 5-year lifetime limit with the Personal Responsibility Act back in '96?

The majority of welfare funding is through the state.

States without question have the right to self govern, however IMO it's irresponsible and quite frankly a burden on the taxpayers to allow people to live on welfare indefinitely.

Especially when politicians use social welfare as a tool for a election or reelection bid.

Here in Chicago it's "vote for me because I will continue to give you free money and raise taxes and tolls to give you free money."

I don't think people should live off welfare indefinitely either but so far, I'm having a hard time figuring out just which programs one CAN live off indefinitely. It isn't unemployment compensation. We KNOW there is a limit to that one. Food stamps? That's a federal program....so 5-year time limit? Section 8? Also federal? That one is based on how many kids under 18 you have? Disability maybe? But in order to qualify for disability, it means you CAN'T work to begin with, so that one doesn't count?

I don't know, I hear conservatives go on about how this lazy poor person or that lazy poor person was able to survive all their lives living off welfare and I just don't see how.

subsidized housing, foodstamps, help with utilities, all that has no time limit.
 
I am cautious - that's why I don't drive when I feel I cant operate a vehicle (or any object) safely.

The dangerous ones are those who get tanked then don't care and drive...

If those assholes want to go off an kill themselves I could care less, however those fools kill others...

Besides those idiots texting are just as dangerous - especially young inexperienced drivers who text and drive.

I wont even talk on my phone while I'm driving - I pay attention to the road.

Sorry Mr. Nick.... the dangerous ones include the ones who think they can operate a vehicle but shouldn't. That's why it's call "impaired judgement".

I know when I can operate a vehicle..

If I was impaired I wouldn't drive..

I've never had a problem EVER and I have drove with a few beers in me several hundred times...

I'm not an "I'm invincible" moron.... I know my limit.

People just have to know their limit, and I agree with you that many don't know their limit when it comes to driving, however I do.

you're delusional

you'll need this eventually

*You CAN Fight Your DUI Case! -->Find a Local DUI Lawyer *Here*
 
Sorry Mr. Nick.... the dangerous ones include the ones who think they can operate a vehicle but shouldn't. That's why it's call "impaired judgement".

I know when I can operate a vehicle..

If I was impaired I wouldn't drive..

I've never had a problem EVER and I have drove with a few beers in me several hundred times...

I'm not an "I'm invincible" moron.... I know my limit.

People just have to know their limit, and I agree with you that many don't know their limit when it comes to driving, however I do.

You do realize that everyone who's ever gotten a DUI has said the same thing, right?

You do realize I'm not "everyone."
 
Sorry Mr. Nick.... the dangerous ones include the ones who think they can operate a vehicle but shouldn't. That's why it's call "impaired judgement".

I know when I can operate a vehicle..

If I was impaired I wouldn't drive..

I've never had a problem EVER and I have drove with a few beers in me several hundred times...

I'm not an "I'm invincible" moron.... I know my limit.

People just have to know their limit, and I agree with you that many don't know their limit when it comes to driving, however I do.

you're delusional

you'll need this eventually

*You CAN Fight Your DUI Case! -->Find a Local DUI Lawyer *Here*

I'm sane...

Maybe you're the brainwashed fool?

I do what I do... You have no fucking right challenging me what pertains to be as a body and individual..
 
I know when I can operate a vehicle..

If I was impaired I wouldn't drive..

I've never had a problem EVER and I have drove with a few beers in me several hundred times...

I'm not an "I'm invincible" moron.... I know my limit.

People just have to know their limit, and I agree with you that many don't know their limit when it comes to driving, however I do.

you're delusional

you'll need this eventually

*You CAN Fight Your DUI Case! -->Find a Local DUI Lawyer *Here*

I'm sane...

Maybe you're the brainwashed fool?

I do what I do... You have no fucking right challenging me what pertains to be as a body and individual..

you're still delusional

dope
 
But he's not on welfare....

He buys his booze with his own money...

Everyone on welfare should be drug tested...

Its OK to drive drunk as long as you aren't on welfare?

WTF?

What do you think is a greater threat to society - someone buying $10 worth of pot while collecting food stamps, or someone buying $20 worth of booze, getting hammer, and driving drunk out of their minds? Which would you rather run into on the road?

But the state didn't buy his booze for him...

Quite frankly people have different tolerances to substances... This guy could have been piss ass drunk or hardly feeling a thing.

The key is to not get behind a wheel when you know you have had too much to drink.

Oh and don't even attempt to portray welfare fucks as innocent pot smokers. Those on welfare that use drugs generally use much harder shit than weed - try crack, meth, heroin.

Your support of drug testing sounds great, except that it ignores reality. What you want to do is kick anyone who uses drugs off of welfare. In most cases, as you say, they are doing harder drugs and are definitely junkies who are addicted to their drug of choice. So after losing their welfare benefits, the next step is for them to begin stealing, or stealing more as they probably were already doing that anyway. In the process, maybe some innocent people get hurt. In either case, there is still a cost. Now let's assume that they are caught for stealing. Maybe the first time, it's a slap on the wrist, but eventually they end up doing time behind bars. Guess who pays? Guess how much it costs?

In the end, the cost goes up. Rather than saving money from denying them their pittance of a welfare check, society pays an even higher price. Now if you would suggest that we drug test them so that we can put any users into drug rehab programs, then maybe that would make economic sense. Your plan makes no economic sense.
 

I'm sane...

Maybe you're the brainwashed fool?

I do what I do... You have no fucking right challenging me what pertains to be as a body and individual..

you're still delusional

dope

I can hardly wait for the thread where Mr. Nick starts one bitching about how he got a DUI, even though he almost passed the road test.

Should make ironic thread of the year.
 
Didn't the federal government impose a 5-year lifetime limit with the Personal Responsibility Act back in '96?

The majority of welfare funding is through the state.

States without question have the right to self govern, however IMO it's irresponsible and quite frankly a burden on the taxpayers to allow people to live on welfare indefinitely.

Especially when politicians use social welfare as a tool for a election or reelection bid.

Here in Chicago it's "vote for me because I will continue to give you free money and raise taxes and tolls to give you free money."

I don't think people should live off welfare indefinitely either but so far, I'm having a hard time figuring out just which programs one CAN live off indefinitely. It isn't unemployment compensation. We KNOW there is a limit to that one. Food stamps? That's a federal program....so 5-year time limit? Section 8? Also federal? That one is based on how many kids under 18 you have? Disability maybe? But in order to qualify for disability, it means you CAN'T work to begin with, so that one doesn't count?

I don't know, I hear conservatives go on about how this lazy poor person or that lazy poor person was able to survive all their lives living off welfare and I just don't see how.

Of course, you believe government is logical when our government is anything but. We may live in different states, however I can assure you our states are similar.

Our government isn't logical and taxpayers fund all programs - not only welfare and those who live off the taxpayers coin indefinitely but other programs as well.

Lets not forget government grants...

Taking advantage of our gratuity is just wrong...

There is no reason why you should be 30 and have 15 kids and be a 3rd generation welfare mother...
 
Its OK to drive drunk as long as you aren't on welfare?

WTF?

What do you think is a greater threat to society - someone buying $10 worth of pot while collecting food stamps, or someone buying $20 worth of booze, getting hammer, and driving drunk out of their minds? Which would you rather run into on the road?

But the state didn't buy his booze for him...

Quite frankly people have different tolerances to substances... This guy could have been piss ass drunk or hardly feeling a thing.

The key is to not get behind a wheel when you know you have had too much to drink.

Oh and don't even attempt to portray welfare fucks as innocent pot smokers. Those on welfare that use drugs generally use much harder shit than weed - try crack, meth, heroin.

Your support of drug testing sounds great, except that it ignores reality. What you want to do is kick anyone who uses drugs off of welfare. In most cases, as you say, they are doing harder drugs and are definitely junkies who are addicted to their drug of choice. So after losing their welfare benefits, the next step is for them to begin stealing, or stealing more as they probably were already doing that anyway. In the process, maybe some innocent people get hurt. In either case, there is still a cost. Now let's assume that they are caught for stealing. Maybe the first time, it's a slap on the wrist, but eventually they end up doing time behind bars. Guess who pays? Guess how much it costs?

In the end, the cost goes up. Rather than saving money from denying them their pittance of a welfare check, society pays an even higher price. Now if you would suggest that we drug test them so that we can put any users into drug rehab programs, then maybe that would make economic sense. Your plan makes no economic sense.

Well I have put a good 10 years of thought into drug testing welfare fucks instead of a whole 30 seconds of thought and a knee-jerk reaction...

It would save money..

Quite frankly I could care less what happens to the drug addicts who are booted off the program - also the notion that anyone else does is a fucking lie.

Progressives don't - they just like to argue.

If Romney died today they would throw a party...
 

Forum List

Back
Top