Kansas Crimson

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:03 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:33 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:32 am piss tests can easily be be passed with fake urine (unless you’re actually being watched)

we gonna pay out the ass for hair tests?

So we shouldnt try? Just give money to anyone who wants it? Vote bernie then. I won't.

This particular part of the thread is high-larious.

I'm not really concerned about welfare recipients being tested. But Trad's response that results can be faked, so why bother is perfect.

Especially from Trad.

do tell...

and try not to put words in my mouth

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:19 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:47 am Most jobs, career type jobs, require a pre employment drug test. If a company wont trust you enough to hire you why should the government trust you with our tax payer dollars?

I cant believe there is this much support for supplying drug users with welfare money.

what proportion of “welfare” recipients fail drug tests?

what proportion are alcoholics?

i don’t necessarily disagree with you, but why stop at drugs/alcohol? why not restrict these people from eating fast food? or drinking soda? or smoking cigarettes?

Those things don't generally keep people from being employable. So they will have a better chance of getting odf of welfare and into the workforce. More generally i guess, those things dont typically (aside from secondhand smoke) impact other people the way that people on drugs and alcohol tend to have the tendency to.

imho cigarette smokers are among the most unemployable fucks around.

ohhh, you feel entitled to regular breaks from your job not afforded to other folks just cuz you smoke? Boo fucking hoo.

I applaud employers who e.g. offer additional PTO to employees who don't smoke.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:19 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:47 am Most jobs, career type jobs, require a pre employment drug test. If a company wont trust you enough to hire you why should the government trust you with our tax payer dollars?

I cant believe there is this much support for supplying drug users with welfare money.

what proportion of “welfare” recipients fail drug tests?

what proportion are alcoholics?

i don’t necessarily disagree with you, but why stop at drugs/alcohol? why not restrict these people from eating fast food? or drinking soda? or smoking cigarettes?

this is a POTD candidate, or would be if chikn's tranny post didn't run off with it aleady.

I think an argument could be made that fast food and soda and tobacco have contributed to a public health crisis greater than anything that might show up in a piss test.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:49 pm imho cigarette smokers are among the most unemployable fucks around.

ohhh, you feel entitled to regular breaks from your job not afforded to other folks just cuz you smoke? Boo fucking hoo.

I applaud employers who e.g. offer additional PTO to employees who don't smoke.

This is hilarious coming from you. No i dont smoke. I despise the habit.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:52 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:19 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:47 am Most jobs, career type jobs, require a pre employment drug test. If a company wont trust you enough to hire you why should the government trust you with our tax payer dollars?

I cant believe there is this much support for supplying drug users with welfare money.

what proportion of “welfare” recipients fail drug tests?

what proportion are alcoholics?

i don’t necessarily disagree with you, but why stop at drugs/alcohol? why not restrict these people from eating fast food? or drinking soda? or smoking cigarettes?

this is a POTD candidate, or would be if chikn's tranny post didn't run off with it aleady.

I think an argument could be made that fast food and soda and tobacco have contributed to a public health crisis greater than anything that might show up in a piss test.

This wasnt about the health crisis. Its about welfare.

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:55 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:49 pm imho cigarette smokers are among the most unemployable fucks around.

ohhh, you feel entitled to regular breaks from your job not afforded to other folks just cuz you smoke? Boo fucking hoo.

I applaud employers who e.g. offer additional PTO to employees who don't smoke.

This is hilarious coming from you. No i dont smoke. I despise the habit.

why is it hilarious coming from me?

Because you might be the most entitled employee ive never met.

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:57 pm Because you might be the most entitled employee ive never met.

potd

I'm bummed that you guys apparently have such a poor opinion of me.

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:55 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:52 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:19 pm
what proportion of “welfare” recipients fail drug tests?

what proportion are alcoholics?

i don’t necessarily disagree with you, but why stop at drugs/alcohol? why not restrict these people from eating fast food? or drinking soda? or smoking cigarettes?

this is a POTD candidate, or would be if chikn's tranny post didn't run off with it aleady.

I think an argument could be made that fast food and soda and tobacco have contributed to a public health crisis greater than anything that might show up in a piss test.

This wasnt about the health crisis. Its about welfare.

so, you have a problem with subsidizing some drugs but not others?

where are you drawing the line?

or are you just using nixon’s and reagan’s lines?

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:23 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:03 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:33 am

So we shouldnt try? Just give money to anyone who wants it? Vote bernie then. I won't.

This particular part of the thread is high-larious.

I'm not really concerned about welfare recipients being tested. But Trad's response that results can be faked, so why bother is perfect.

Especially from Trad.

do tell...

and try not to put words in my mouth

DC: Trad, are you prepared to nuke China and India to prevent the construction of new coal-fired plants? Cuz...well...

Trad: nevAr! But reducing American emissions by another .0000008% is absolutely, positively, something that needs to be done right this fucking SECOND!

DC: But...we're already nearly meeting our Paris goals and we're not really the emissions problem now...or going forward.

Trad: But trUMp is the making the world hotter wif his breath! And I hate him! And vagina hat parades rool! And Japhy is funny -- LOOKING! and SHiT likE thAt!

DC: But I, the calmest, most rational poster here, am just saying -- calmly and rationally -- that your iudea of burning all cars that don't get 400 mpg is counterproductive and unnecessary.

Trad: OH, right! So yer saying we should just shouldn't try? You're literally HITLER!



Those are exact quotes, no words put in anyone's mouth.

you’re quite the piece of work

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:28 pm you’re quite the piece of work

If that's a response to me, then you should know I was just having fun -- you know, joking around.

But since it appears not to have struck you as such, i'll clarify.

You and I have had this discussion many times. I say that the United States is not the emissions (or the plastics, or the deforestation, or...whatever) problem. If we want to address the problem we have to address the issues in China and India.

You reply that yes, you know all of that, but we still have to try.

I say that the current climate change regime is more political than environmental and thus is counterproductive in many ways.

And you reply that, in spite of its inefficiencies, we still have to try.

It's usually a civil discussion.

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:39 am

seahawk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:19 am

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:11 am Welfare reduction, and incuding mandatory drug testing for recipients seems like a good idea. It also seems like the opposite directions most democrats are heading. Havent seen this idea promoted by anyone. Had it been?

Why exactly would you want drug testing of welfare recipients?

Because i am all for my tax dosrs going to someone truly in need. I do not want my tax dollars going to support a habit. And yes i know not all welfsre recipients are drug users, i never said that they were. Some are, i know of some that are. I dont think that staying clean is too stringent of a requirement for recieving state provided income.

So to punish women and make you feel better than them, you want to spend bunches of tax dollars? Because it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to do drug testing. That money would be far better spent on reasonable treatment. Or renting space for those 12 step meetings.

The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states , however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent.

https://thinkprogress.org/what-7-states ... 6e0b4305d/

Welfare recipients are less prone to drug use than the general population and so there should be no testing.

Likewise, in Texas and Florida, concealed carry permit holders are more law abiding than the general population AND more law abiding than LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. Therefore....

Did you sleep with Maria Butina, too?

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:47 am Most jobs, career type jobs, require a pre employment drug test. If a company wont trust you enough to hire you why should the government trust you with our tax payer dollars?

I cant believe there is this much support for supplying drug users with welfare money.

Should they drug test everyone who buys a gun?

seahawk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:42 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:39 am

seahawk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:19 am

Why exactly would you want drug testing of welfare recipients?

Because i am all for my tax dosrs going to someone truly in need. I do not want my tax dollars going to support a habit. And yes i know not all welfsre recipients are drug users, i never said that they were. Some are, i know of some that are. I dont think that staying clean is too stringent of a requirement for recieving state provided income.

So to punish women and make you feel better than them, you want to spend bunches of tax dollars? Because it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to do drug testing. That money would be far better spent on reasonable treatment. Or renting space for those 12 step meetings.

The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states , however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent.

https://thinkprogress.org/what-7-states ... 6e0b4305d/

How do you manage to make everything about race and gender?

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:04 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:47 am Most jobs, career type jobs, require a pre employment drug test. If a company wont trust you enough to hire you why should the government trust you with our tax payer dollars?

I cant believe there is this much support for supplying drug users with welfare money.

Should they drug test everyone who buys a gun?

Totally irrelevant since the discussion is about state provided income.