florida drug test for welfare recipiants

[Larry]

Joe, we all know you are not for racism, pollution, and unsafe working conditions. We just want you to explain why Libertarian principles will not lead to these outcomes today when they have in the past. The current rules are in place only because of past abuses.

[RobTheDrummer]

I really don't see a correlation between no assistance and crime...explain that to me again?

I simply speculated that if you take away some one's cash, they will turn to crime (steal) to get cash.

So your speculation is that if the government doesn't give people money, they pretty much don't have a choice but to turn to crime?

[Hawk]

I really don't see a correlation between no assistance and crime...explain that to me again?

I simply speculated that if you take away some one's cash, they will turn to crime (steal) to get cash.

So your speculation is that if the government doesn't give people money, they pretty much don't have a choice but to turn to crime?

Those people are on assistance because of a need. Some cheat the system no doubt. Some do not cheat the system. If a disabled person goes to a friend's house and the friend shares some weed, should that person be thrown out on the street ?

Is drug testing an effective way to catch the slackers ?

If you catch a slacker who can work but cheats the system and you take away his assistance, will he become a responsible citizen or turn to crime ? I don't know but I speculated he will turn to crime.

[Hawk]

Joe, we all know you are not for racism, pollution, and unsafe working conditions. We just want you to explain why Libertarian principles will not lead to these outcomes today when they have in the past. The current rules are in place only because of past abuses.

Thanks Larry.

[RobTheDrummer]

I simply speculated that if you take away some one's cash, they will turn to crime (steal) to get cash.

So your speculation is that if the government doesn't give people money, they pretty much don't have a choice but to turn to crime?

Those people are on assistance because of a need. Some cheat the system no doubt. Some do not cheat the system. If a disabled person goes to a friend's house and the friend shares some weed, should that person be thrown out on the street ?

Is drug testing an effective way to catch the slackers ?

If you catch a slacker who can work but cheats the system and you take away his assistance, will he become a responsible citizen or turn to crime ? I don't know but I speculated he will turn to crime.

Bill, when you have needs, do you expect the government to fulfill them?

What exactly is a slacker? I think the system has created "slackers" by giving hand outs. It has created a group of people relying on the government to work for them, and thus "voters" for the party of handouts....it's all politics.

[RobTheDrummer]

Oh, on a side note....If politicians really wanted to help people out, they would bring jobs back to America...

[Hawk]

Oh, on a side note....If politicians really wanted to help people out, they would bring jobs back to America...

Manufacturers left for China for $4.00 a day labor and they anin't commin' back. They left before Obama became president. Now how would you Rob, propose politicians bring them back ?

[Hawk]

So your speculation is that if the government doesn't give people money, they pretty much don't have a choice but to turn to crime?

Those people are on assistance because of a need. Some cheat the system no doubt. Some do not cheat the system. If a disabled person goes to a friend's house and the friend shares some weed, should that person be thrown out on the street ?

Is drug testing an effective way to catch the slackers ?

If you catch a slacker who can work but cheats the system and you take away his assistance, will he become a responsible citizen or turn to crime ? I don't know but I speculated he will turn to crime.

Bill, when you have needs, do you expect the government to fulfill them?

What exactly is a slacker? I think the system has created "slackers" by giving hand outs. It has created a group of people relying on the government to work for them, and thus "voters" for the party of handouts....it's all politics.

Rob, there are people that need assistance. Fortunately I am not one of them.

When people have needs (say you're disabled and can't hold a job) society should take care of them. We do that via the government.

[Banned]

Joe, we all know you are not for racism, pollution, and unsafe working conditions. We just want you to explain why Libertarian principles will not lead to these outcomes today when they have in the past. The current rules are in place only because of past abuses.

Can you name the instances when libertarian principles have led to racism, pollution and unsafe conditions? There has been a very limited time, if at all, that true libertarianism reigned in this country.

[Banned]

Oh, on a side note....If politicians really wanted to help people out, they would bring jobs back to America...

Manufacturers left for China for $4.00 a day labor and they anin't commin' back. They left before Obama became president. Now how would you Rob, propose politicians bring them back ?

There are other jobs than manufacturing. How many people do you know that actually used to work in a factory, making something?

Pennsylvania used to have a lot of jobs at shoe making factories. Those almost all moved to elsewhere. Do you want you kid to get a good education to become a shoemaker in a factory? Most Americans do not.

Let other countries have the shoe-making sweat shops. Lets shoot for better than sweat shop factory jobs.

[Banned]

Bill, my principles are part of me, and really cannot be separated in certain ways. When you make statements like you do, you are basically calling me a racist, a poisoner, a polluter, and mine worker murderer.

How am I supposed to accept that shit?

Okay, do you believe having no regulations for mine safety is right or wrong ? I heard Rand Paul say that there should be NO mine regulations. That's why I picked that topic. Now it is up to you to look in a mirror and see what you stand for ?

Liberterians don't like big government like the EPA. You yourself have posted about regulations against burning coal and you were annoyed about those regulations. But they do pollute the environment, water, fish, air with mercury. One of the EPA restrictions was to be on how much mercury could be released form the coal burning energy plants. So again, look in the mirror and see what you stand for ?

What are the effects of your cause? It seems you have a hard time facing the reality of your version of Liberty and it's consequences.

Please provide his exact quote, and full quote in context, and then I will post what I think.

Don't like burning coal Bill, turn off your computer and electricity, 50% of our electricity comes from coal. When you stop wasting this coal fueled energy, mercury pollution will end.

The EPA shut down a huge oil field in Texas because the found some rare sand lizard. The gov. of Texas said it could eventually lead to a loss of 300,000 jobs in Texas, because of some tiny sand lizard. We need domestic oil to lower the overall costs, and to lessen dependence on the Middle East.

Bet you side with the EPA and some tiny sand lizard than lower oil prices and reduced dependance on the Middle East Oil, and losing 300,000 jobs.

[Hawk]

Bill, my principles are part of me, and really cannot be separated in certain ways. When you make statements like you do, you are basically calling me a racist, a poisoner, a polluter, and mine worker murderer.

How am I supposed to accept that shit?

Okay, do you believe having no regulations for mine safety is right or wrong ? I heard Rand Paul say that there should be NO mine regulations. That's why I picked that topic. Now it is up to you to look in a mirror and see what you stand for ?

Liberterians don't like big government like the EPA. You yourself have posted about regulations against burning coal and you were annoyed about those regulations. But they do pollute the environment, water, fish, air with mercury. One of the EPA restrictions was to be on how much mercury could be released form the coal burning energy plants. So again, look in the mirror and see what you stand for ?

What are the effects of your cause? It seems you have a hard time facing the reality of your version of Liberty and it's consequences.

Please provide his exact quote, and full quote in context, and then I will post what I think.

Don't like burning coal Bill, turn off your computer and electricity, 50% of our electricity comes from coal. When you stop wasting this coal fueled energy, mercury pollution will end.

The EPA shut down a huge oil field in Texas because the found some rare sand lizard. The gov. of Texas said it could eventually lead to a loss of 300,000 jobs in Texas, because of some tiny sand lizard. We need domestic oil to lower the overall costs, and to lessen dependence on the Middle East.

Bet you side with the EPA and some tiny sand lizard than lower oil prices and reduced dependance on the Middle East Oil, and losing 300,000 jobs.

Nice try Joe, but I don't equate the lizard with mercury laden fish that poison ALL OF US ! If you are comfortable with mercury just say so.

The EPA does NOT want to stop coal burning, they do want to restrict some poisons like mercury. If you against said restrictions SAY SO ! Stand up for what you believe instead of beating around the bush. Just say, in the name of my principles, I don't want the EPA to restrict mercury ! Face up Joe... EDIT: recognize what a negative impact your principals have and stand up for that negative impact OR change your principals. It's that easy...

[Hawk]

The Rand Paul quote about Mining ? I can't quote it word for word because I heard him say it, I did not read it. He said there should be NO mining regulations. He said if the mines are unsafe people can choose to not work there, but the government has no business regulating mine safety.

EDIT:

Paul had a similar take on the Obama administration's efforts to rein in mountaintop-removal coal mining, a type of strip mining where the tops are blasted off Appalachian peaks to get at the coal seams within. In the process, the soil, rock and other debris are pushed into adjacent streams, often contaminating drinking water with toxic heavy metals, while kicking up coal dust linked to higher rates of respiratory disease in neighboring communities.

Poison in the name of Freedom ?

[Larry]

Joe, we all know you are not for racism, pollution, and unsafe working conditions. We just want you to explain why Libertarian principles will not lead to these outcomes today when they have in the past. The current rules are in place only because of past abuses.

Can you name the instances when libertarian principles have led to racism, pollution and unsafe conditions? There has been a very limited time, if at all, that true libertarianism reigned in this country.

When private businesses were allowed to exclude blacks, they did. When private businesses were allowed to make their workers work in unsafe conditions, they did. When companies were allowed to pollute, they did. That is why there are rules against all of those things now. Since you're avoiding the question by asking me a question, I will ask again. Why won't this happen now if these "rights" are given back to private owners?

[Hawk]

Joe, we all know you are not for racism, pollution, and unsafe working conditions. We just want you to explain why Libertarian principles will not lead to these outcomes today when they have in the past. The current rules are in place only because of past abuses.

Can you name the instances when libertarian principles have led to racism, pollution and unsafe conditions? There has been a very limited time, if at all, that true libertarianism reigned in this country.

When private businesses were allowed to exclude blacks, they did. When private businesses were allowed to make their workers work in unsafe conditions, they did. When companies were allowed to pollute, they did. That is why there are rules against all of those things now. Since you're avoiding the question by asking me a question, I will ask again. Why won't this happen now if these "rights" are given back to private owners?

An important thing to add is: Privately owned businesses "OPEN TO THE PUBLIC".

[ZappasXWife]

The people that have to take the test pay for their test. If they fail theyre off the program for a year and have to take drug rehab. Pot smokers probably wont be affected considering a bottle of piss cleaner is what, 40 bucks? Its the junkies and meth heads that cause the problem.

I have heard that they only pay for the drug test when they test hot. My guess is that the majority will not test hot (yes, really), so this IS a heavy burden for taxpayers. I would be pissed off if I lived in flordia and had to pay for this. Pot smokers are the very ones who would be affected, everyone knows that is what stays in your system a ridiculously long time. I have always heard that the tests try to stay ahead of the piss cleaners. The junkies and the meth heads and pillpoppers and all of that will only increase in numbers when people do that instead of smoking pot because of these tests (the worse stuff is what flushes out the quickest). Is that a good outcome? That is precisely the reason the Academy of Pediatrics has spoken out in the past against drug testing for children, because of the risk of increase of harder drug use. Drug testing is also a factor in the use of Blizzard, at least initially. I think they are testing for it now. But what 'legal' designer drug that would pass any test is next? Are you ready for that? All of us need to think about the outcomes from this instead of mouthing off about the first short-sighted opinion some of you have about this.

[Banned]

Joe, we all know you are not for racism, pollution, and unsafe working conditions. We just want you to explain why Libertarian principles will not lead to these outcomes today when they have in the past. The current rules are in place only because of past abuses.

Can you name the instances when libertarian principles have led to racism, pollution and unsafe conditions? There has been a very limited time, if at all, that true libertarianism reigned in this country.

When private businesses were allowed to exclude blacks, they did. When private businesses were allowed to make their workers work in unsafe conditions, they did. When companies were allowed to pollute, they did. That is why there are rules against all of those things now. Since you're avoiding the question by asking me a question, I will ask again. Why won't this happen now if these "rights" are given back to private owners?

Libertarians follow laws and believe in a judicial system. All of those people who believe they were injured or somehow singled out, they have the right to sue in a civil court. Once enough suits have been filed and finalized there would be a body of precedents. This all could take place in civil courts, we do not need authoritarian central government to make draconian rules.

Libertarians would rather err on the side of freedom and liberty than on totalitarian rules that infringe on private property rights.

Why won't this happen again? If there was a true libertarian world, you would sue the mine owner or the restaurant owner in court for your grievance. Class action suits would work against larger corporations. In a libertarian world, corporations would not be protected by their government cronies.

[Banned]

The Rand Paul quote about Mining ? I can't quote it word for word because I heard him say it, I did not read it. He said there should be NO mining regulations. He said if the mines are unsafe people can choose to not work there, but the government has no business regulating mine safety.

EDIT:

Paul had a similar take on the Obama administration's efforts to rein in mountaintop-removal coal mining, a type of strip mining where the tops are blasted off Appalachian peaks to get at the coal seams within. In the process, the soil, rock and other debris are pushed into adjacent streams, often contaminating drinking water with toxic heavy metals, while kicking up coal dust linked to higher rates of respiratory disease in neighboring communities.

Poison in the name of Freedom ?

I think I heard him say....does not quite work as a source.

[Banned]

Okay, do you believe having no regulations for mine safety is right or wrong ? I heard Rand Paul say that there should be NO mine regulations. That's why I picked that topic. Now it is up to you to look in a mirror and see what you stand for ?

Liberterians don't like big government like the EPA. You yourself have posted about regulations against burning coal and you were annoyed about those regulations. But they do pollute the environment, water, fish, air with mercury. One of the EPA restrictions was to be on how much mercury could be released form the coal burning energy plants. So again, look in the mirror and see what you stand for ?

What are the effects of your cause? It seems you have a hard time facing the reality of your version of Liberty and it's consequences.

Please provide his exact quote, and full quote in context, and then I will post what I think.

Don't like burning coal Bill, turn off your computer and electricity, 50% of our electricity comes from coal. When you stop wasting this coal fueled energy, mercury pollution will end.

The EPA shut down a huge oil field in Texas because the found some rare sand lizard. The gov. of Texas said it could eventually lead to a loss of 300,000 jobs in Texas, because of some tiny sand lizard. We need domestic oil to lower the overall costs, and to lessen dependence on the Middle East.

Bet you side with the EPA and some tiny sand lizard than lower oil prices and reduced dependance on the Middle East Oil, and losing 300,000 jobs.

Nice try Joe, but I don't equate the lizard with mercury laden fish that poison ALL OF US ! If you are comfortable with mercury just say so.

The EPA does NOT want to stop coal burning, they do want to restrict some poisons like mercury. If you against said restrictions SAY SO ! Stand up for what you believe instead of beating around the bush. Just say, in the name of my principles, I don't want the EPA to restrict mercury ! Face up Joe... EDIT: recognize what a negative impact your principals have and stand up for that negative impact OR change your principals. It's that easy...

Bill, stand up and say why you follow principles that lead to genocide and death camps. Why would you be for a political principle that lead to millions of deaths in the last century?

Admit that liberal, socialistic, totalitarian principles lead to social nationalism, which as we all know was what the Nazis were. That led to fascism, death camps and genocide.

Why would you be for such principles? An oh yeah, the Nazis, who started out as socialists, were also racists. I think the racism of the Nazis was a little bit stronger than the racism you state that libertarians will enable.

Libertarian principles allow people enjoy their private property as they wish, as long as it does not harm to others.

Liberal principles lead to socialistic totalitarianism which enable racism, genocide, death camps and slavery.

How do you like the way I frame your politics? You see nothing but darkness and evil in libertarianism. I can also see MUCH WORSE in liberal socialism.

[shredder138]

I think drug testing (for any reason) sucks. If you're for it, I think you suck. That's all I can add to this thread.

Just for the people that I think suck.

[Banned]

There is no two wrongs here. It is the fact that there are people living off the tax payers money who do nothing but sit around shooting up, smoke dope, or snort lines. Welfare is the most abused system and something has to be to done to get the slackers, and abusers, off of it.

So, if they are going to treat it like a career, then they should be drug tested. There is no unconstitutionality about it. There is no invasion of privacy. Do you call needing a drug to get a job invasion of privacy? If you call needing a drug test to get welfare such, then you have to agree that it is to get a job.

Actually, I do see two wrongs...1st is the welfare state itself. It has done nothing but create a government sanctioned slave state. The so called "War on Poverty", instituted in the early 60's has begat us nothing but greater poverty. Personally, I'd abolish the welfare state and let private charities handle the situation. IMO, they've done a better job.

The 2nd, is,
yes, the invasion of privacy that comes with mandatory drug testing. Keep in mind, this is not coming from a private institution (which I have no problem with), this is coming from the government...is that really how a government should treat it's citizens? I'd also decriminalize drugs. The "War on Drugs" has created nothing more than increased drug usage, more potent drugs, militarized our police, and criminalized an entire segment of our population.

You know, politicians are nothing more than people who are living off the tax payers money...should we require a drug test of them too?

If you get a check from the government you should be piss tested. So just a question... if all drugs were legalized today would it be ok with you if private companies still required piss tests?

How about those with and on SSI disabilities? Should they be piss tested?

"Legalization" of drugs..what does that mean? All those drugs that are restricted and classified for that which you now need a script from a licencesd M.D. should be freelay available without?? Do YOu or anyone here have the expertise to to safley "self-prescribe" this stuff??

[Hawk]

The Rand Paul quote about Mining ? I can't quote it word for word because I heard him say it, I did not read it. He said there should be NO mining regulations. He said if the mines are unsafe people can choose to not work there, but the government has no business regulating mine safety.

EDIT:

Paul had a similar take on the Obama administration's efforts to rein in mountaintop-removal coal mining, a type of strip mining where the tops are blasted off Appalachian peaks to get at the coal seams within. In the process, the soil, rock and other debris are pushed into adjacent streams, often contaminating drinking water with toxic heavy metals, while kicking up coal dust linked to higher rates of respiratory disease in neighboring communities.

Poison in the name of Freedom ?

I think I heard him say....does not quite work as a source.

Damn it Joe. I did not say I "think" I heard him say. I said I heard him say it ! But I did not memorize it word for word.

Are you saying that you disagree with him ?

[Banned]

The Rand Paul quote about Mining ? I can't quote it word for word because I heard him say it, I did not read it. He said there should be NO mining regulations. He said if the mines are unsafe people can choose to not work there, but the government has no business regulating mine safety.

EDIT:

Paul had a similar take on the Obama administration's efforts to rein in mountaintop-removal coal mining, a type of strip mining where the tops are blasted off Appalachian peaks to get at the coal seams within. In the process, the soil, rock and other debris are pushed into adjacent streams, often contaminating drinking water with toxic heavy metals, while kicking up coal dust linked to higher rates of respiratory disease in neighboring communities.

Poison in the name of Freedom ?

I think I heard him say....does not quite work as a source.

Damn it Joe. I did not say I "think" I heard him say. I said I heard him say it ! But I did not memorize it word for word.

Are you saying that you disagree with him ?

I did not hear what he said. So how could I agree or disagree?

[Hawk]

Bill, stand up and say why you follow principles that lead to genocide and death camps. Why would you be for a political principle that lead to millions of deaths in the last century?

Admit that liberal, socialistic, totalitarian principles lead to social nationalism, which as we all know was what the Nazis were. That led to fascism, death camps and genocide.

Why would you be for such principles? An oh yeah, the Nazis, who started out as socialists, were also racists. I think the racism of the Nazis was a little bit stronger than the racism you state that libertarians will enable.

Libertarian principles allow people enjoy their private property as they wish, as long as it does not harm to others.

Liberal principles lead to socialistic totalitarianism which enable racism, genocide, death camps and slavery.

How do you like the way I frame your politics? You see nothing but darkness and evil in libertarianism. I can also see MUCH WORSE in liberal socialism.

Are you on drugs right now ?

As I've tried to teach you many times. Nazis were not socialists. The government was not democratic. Jesus Joe, search and learn something.

Now Joe, I'm for the equal rights amendment, that should show you that liberals are against racism. You on the other hand are against the equal rights amendment. Does the shoe fit you ? Only you know.

Now how do you equate the equal rights amendment with Nazi's and death camps Joe ?

No one wants socialism as I've told you thousands of times. In case you don't know, we are a capitalist society with some necessary social programs. I know you're on drugs because I've said these things so many times and you keep forgetting. Why is that Joe ? Is it hard drugs or do you forget for the sake of convenience ?

BTW, I'm sick of being called a Nazi, so much for any intellectual conversation. The only thing you understand is name calling.

Mercury laden fish, dead streams, dead miners, support of race discrimination are ALL things YOU JOE, indirectly stand for and you cannot deny it, so you start name calling. Damn it Joe, I'm sorry I'm the one who has to point it out to you, but facts are facts.

Notice the word "indirectly" is used because you say you don't want these things, you just stand on principals that indirectly allow these things. Is there a difference Joe ? I don't think so.

[Banned]

Bill, stand up and say why you follow principles that lead to genocide and death camps. Why would you be for a political principle that lead to millions of deaths in the last century?

Admit that liberal, socialistic, totalitarian principles lead to social nationalism, which as we all know was what the Nazis were. That led to fascism, death camps and genocide.

Why would you be for such principles? An oh yeah, the Nazis, who started out as socialists, were also racists. I think the racism of the Nazis was a little bit stronger than the racism you state that libertarians will enable.

Libertarian principles allow people enjoy their private property as they wish, as long as it does not harm to others.

Liberal principles lead to socialistic totalitarianism which enable racism, genocide, death camps and slavery.

How do you like the way I frame your politics? You see nothing but darkness and evil in libertarianism. I can also see MUCH WORSE in liberal socialism.

Are you on drugs right now ?

As I've tried to teach you many times. Nazis were not socialists. The government was not democratic. Jesus Joe, search and learn something.

Now Joe, I'm for the equal rights amendment, that should show you that liberals are against racism. You on the other hand are against the equal rights amendment. Does the shoe fit you ? Only you know.

Now how do you equate the equal rights amendment with Nazi's and death camps Joe ?

No one wants socialism as I've told you thousands of times. In case you don't know, we are a capitalist society with some necessary social programs. I know you're on drugs because I've said these things so many times and you keep forgetting. Why is that Joe ? Is it hard drugs or do you forget for the sake of convenience ?

BTW, I'm sick of being called a Nazi, so much for any intellectual conversation. The only thing you understand is name calling.

Mercury laden fish, dead streams, dead miners, support of race discrimination are ALL things YOU JOE, indirectly stand for and you cannot deny it, so you start name calling. Damn it Joe, I'm sorry I'm the one who has to point it out to you, but facts are facts.

Notice the word "indirectly" is used because you say you don't want these things, you just stand on principals that indirectly allow these things. Is there a difference Joe ? I don't think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

National Socialist Workers Party. Note, they were not libertarians.

Drugs are illegal Bill, there are no drugs, your government has created a drug free utopia, you know that.

Bill likes socialism and strong governmental control (fascism). That led to death camps, slavery and genocide, and a little thing called WWII in the 1930's and 40's. I am not using names, just pointing out that your principles of needing social programs and strong government control, just like the Germans in the 1930's, led to horrible events.

I guess you don't like it when someone points out what your principle beliefs can and have led to