T1B

Is requiring all that recieve federal support (ie, welfare, medicare/medicade, food/stamps, etc) to submit to random drug tests.

Test positive and you are cut off. Show proof of completion of treatment and you are back in with more random testing. Fail again and you are done for ever.

Good idea. Add viagra to the list. No welfare recipient should be nutting up while on the public dime.

mvscal wrote:Another change? You mean there was one?

Sure. He changed all that "GOP Culture of Corruption" stuff- starting with his Chief of Staff

Rahm Emanuel's profitable stint at mortgage giantShort Freddie Mac stay made him at least $320,000


Rahmbo couldn't be a crook looking like that!

Left Seater wrote:Is requiring all that recieve federal support (ie, welfare, medicare/medicade, food/stamps, etc) to submit to random drug tests.

Test positive and you are cut off. Show proof of completion of treatment and you are back in with more random testing. Fail again and you are done for ever.

You're bitching in one thread about the potential costs of implementing a simple searchable database and here you are in another thread suggesting that the government undertake the cost of collecting the bodily fluids of millions of people and testing said fluids?

Cuda wrote:
Rahmbo couldn't be a crook looking like that!

True, but he does look like he'd have been popular at the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" showings.

BSmack wrote:You're bitching in one thread about the potential costs of implementing a simple searchable database and here you are in another thread suggesting that the government undertake the cost of collecting the bodily fluids of millions of people and testing said fluids?

Hey, mister outside the box thinker. This one is revenue neutral at the worst and likely revenue positive for the government. Each time they get a positive drug test, federal aid is stopped. The money saved by not going to drug users will more than offset the cost of said drug tests. Plus, some will no longer take said handouts if they have to submit to drug testing.

:doh:

Why weren't you promoting this shit during the last eight years? I find it hard to believe the light just turned on in your head.

8, 6, 4, even 18 months ago I wasn't posting in here frequently. Now I am.


When you first read it makes no difference on the validity of the idea.

So...

you support greater control of the populace by the federal government?

Did I really just read that?

Are you a fucking retarded fuck, or what?

Anyone who has that sort of degree of liberalism should be subjected to a mandatory test by the federal government for metal illness.


Maybe not THE stupidest idea I've ever heard, but it's right up there.

Now, if you had said to eliminate welfare and socialism at the federal level altogether, I'd be with you.

But an actual INCREASE in federal power over the populace? I'm thinking I'd like to shoot you in your fucking face for trying to overthrow the country I love.


In light of YOUR FUCKING SIG, you owe me and every other conservative a pretty fucking large apology.

Cuda wrote:

Rahmbo couldn't be a crook looking like that!

"Speak for yourself! He just stole my heart!"

Sincerely, Pickle.

mvscal wrote:Don't like it? Don't take welfare.

I never will.

I can be starving in the street, and if I want something that belongs to you, ie. money or food, I won't demand legal remedies, nor will I steal it...

I'll walk right up to you and ask for your help.

But then again, I'm wired up a little different from most.

Left Seater wrote:Is requiring all that recieve federal support (ie, welfare, medicare/medicade, food/stamps, etc) to submit to random drug tests.

Test positive and you are cut off. Show proof of completion of treatment and you are back in with more random testing. Fail again and you are done for ever.

So how many executives of a company would have to submit to a drug test if they're taking corporate welfare under your plan?

Dinsdale wrote:

mvscal wrote:Don't like it? Don't take welfare.

I never will.

I can be starving in the street, and if I want something that belongs to you, ie. money or food, I won't demand legal remedies, nor will I steal it...

I'll walk right up to you and ask for your help.

But then again, I'm wired up a little different from most.

They have a word for that. It's called panhandling.

mvscal wrote:Beats mooching off of taxpayers.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Just smashed the irony meter.

mvscal wrote:Beats mooching off of taxpayers.

Your posting on message boards during the workday adds how much to our GDP? Your cock sucking is also off the books. Exactly how are you not a waste of shit?

BSmack wrote:
You're bitching in one thread about the potential costs of implementing a simple searchable database and here you are in another thread suggesting that the government undertake the cost of collecting the bodily fluids of millions of people and testing said fluids?

The government would actually save money in the long run. Many would lose their bennies or not show up for the test.

Dinsdale wrote:So...

you support greater control of the populace by the federal government?

Did I really just read that?

Are you a fucking retarded fuck, or what?

Anyone who has that sort of degree of liberalism should be subjected to a mandatory test by the federal government for metal illness.


Maybe not THE stupidest idea I've ever heard, but it's right up there.

Now, if you had said to eliminate welfare and socialism at the federal level altogether, I'd be with you.

But an actual INCREASE in federal power over the populace? I'm thinking I'd like to shoot you in your fucking face for trying to overthrow the country I love.


In light of YOUR FUCKING SIG, you owe me and every other conservative a pretty fucking large apology.

No Dins I don't. Like you I will never extend my hand and expect the Feds to fill it. If you don't want a drug test then you don't have to take the govt monies. If you want the handouts then you have a price to pay for it. That isn't control, it is weeding out drug users from doing it using your money.

The greater point is some will argue that it is ok to put stipulations on how companies can use federal funds, but the same people will argue against stipulations on individuals.

Left Seater wrote: If you don't want a drug test then you don't have to take the govt monies. If you want the handouts then you have a price to pay for it. That isn't control, it is weeding out drug users from doing it using your money.

The greater point is some will argue that it is ok to put stipulations on how companies can use federal funds, but the same people will argue against stipulations on individuals.

Didn't the AIG phony outrage start out the same way? Now Ojigaboo wants the power to regulate everybody's pay- whether their company took bailout money or not. In fact, now Onogga wants to be able to sieze non-financial corporations on the pretext that they pose a potential risk to the economy.

Cuda wrote:...sieze non-financial corporations on the pretext that they pose a potential risk to the economy.

It's not a pretext you dumbfuck.