Conquer Club

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm**

GBU56 wrote:

Let's test those who want to test others for drug and alcohol in their systems.

if druggie limbaugh was on welfare......you would have a point.
if those who wanted to test needed to be reliant on others.....you would have a point.

If I lost my job and got breast cancer, you wouldn't see me whining and crying and making lazy excuses. I would whip Thor out and sprinkle everyone in the room.

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:40 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:
notyou2 wrote:It's an infringement on civil liberties. Once again....America, land of the free.

This will open the floodgates to any user of any government money or government services of any kind being tested. Scotty, you claim you are for freedom but you say the exact opposite.

that's complete bullshit

the very definition of "dependent" is the exact opposite of "independent".

Laying claim to freedom or liberty in the name of dependency and at the expense of other people's liberty and freedom is thee most perverse fucking thing I have ever heard.

So you are espousing infringement of civil liberties. Your true colours are showing scotty.

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:44 pm**

notyou2 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
notyou2 wrote:It's an infringement on civil liberties. Once again....America, land of the free.

This will open the floodgates to any user of any government money or government services of any kind being tested. Scotty, you claim you are for freedom but you say the exact opposite.

that's complete bullshit

the very definition of "dependent" is the exact opposite of "independent".

Laying claim to freedom or liberty in the name of dependency and at the expense of other people's liberty and freedom is thee most perverse fucking thing I have ever heard.

So you are espousing infringement of civil liberties. Your true colours are showing scotty.

So long as you espouse infringing on people's life, liberties, property, their and their earnings in the name of helping the poor, you may continue to yell at the top of your lungs about the infringement of peeing in a cup in order to qualify for a government handout.

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:47 pm**

Good dodge.

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:20 pm**

notyou2 wrote:Good dodge.

what part of dependency do you not understand? It's almost like you are yelling at us about how the people who provide the welfare have no say in the matter, and the people who are getting the welfare and defend the welfare make all the rules.

I'm just glad that states still have the right to choose if they are going to test or not, that is, the right to handle their own problems their own way. Like, freedom, and stuff...

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:35 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:I'm just glad that states still have the right to choose if they are going to test or not, that is, the right to handle their own problems their own way. Like, freedom, and stuff...

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:36 pm**

If I were yelling it would be in caps, possibly bolded, and possibly enlarged. The yelling is in your head.

I am simply stating calmly and concisely 2 things:

1. Where does it stop?

2. This is an infringement of civil liberties.

I await the next explosion in your head.

Does your blood pressure also rise when you read stuff that people post that does not agree with your point of view?

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:37 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:I'm just glad that states still have the right to choose if they are going to test or not, that is, the right to handle their own problems their own way. Like, freedom, and stuff...

A constructive talking point of a paranoid race obsessed left using race to make a point.

Fascinating

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:41 pm**

notyou2 wrote:If I were yelling it would be in caps, possibly bolded, and possibly enlarged. The yelling is in your head.

I am simply stating calmly and concisely 2 things:

1. Where does it stop?

2. This is an infringement of civil liberties.

I await the next explosion in your head.

Does your blood pressure also rise when you read stuff that people post that does not agree with your point of view?

Do personal attacks ever get old? Because try as you may, they do not score you any points on the discussion. I know it's a habit so I will try to respect that, but I don't know where it stops. I suppose if it really is an infringement of civil liberties, then it will wind up in the state supreme court. Or the people who passed the law can repeal it, I suppose the possibilities are many.

Maybe it won't stop, and maybe it will just be a reality that you cannot receive welfare and have a drug habit. I should think we all could agree that is not something we want to enable.

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:47 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:
A constructive talking point of a paranoid race obsessed left using race to make a point.

Fascinating

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07 ... latestnews
They did not detain or question his white driver.
They did not check and see if his driver or car set off the sensors.

The left isn't making race laws. The right is. You spoke of states handling their own problems, and Arizona is taking away civil rights. It's just as easy to argue that Florida is doing the same by picking on innocent poor people with your support. You can say we're race obsessed but I'd prefer that you said that we are obsessed with civil liberties.

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:29 pm**

notyou2 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
notyou2 wrote:It's an infringement on civil liberties. Once again....America, land of the free.

This will open the floodgates to any user of any government money or government services of any kind being tested. Scotty, you claim you are for freedom but you say the exact opposite.

that's complete bullshit

the very definition of "dependent" is the exact opposite of "independent".

Laying claim to freedom or liberty in the name of dependency and at the expense of other people's liberty and freedom is thee most perverse fucking thing I have ever heard.

So you are espousing infringement of civil liberties. Your true colours are showing scotty.

To force a particular group for drug testing is wrong. Test everyone and we can start a random test on ALL elected officials in government, then all police agencies, court employees [yes Judges and Prosecutors], the military and anyone in government.

After that I want all Republicans tested for homosexuality and if tested positive, thrown out of the GOP! Yea...and then all Americans who are tainted with Communist views, should be thrown in re-education camps! Yea and anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ should be stoned!

Heck, we can clean this country up with a little old fashion justice, yea.

God bless America!

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:42 pm**

So Scotty, why do you oppose the drug testing of the executives of large banks and auto companies? They received government aid as well.

Trust me, the capture rate would be much higher than 2%. Closer to 98% than 2%, I can say with confidence.

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:48 pm**

GreecePwns wrote:So Scotty, why do you oppose the drug testing of the executives of large banks and auto companies? They received government aid as well.

Trust me, the capture rate would be much higher than 2%. Closer to 98% than 2%, I can say with confidence.

Ah, so any entity that takes at least 1 government dollar is now directly under all control of the government and bound to all it's rules.

It's a little harder to call someone who has a job "dependent" than someone who is....dependent. However, just to swallow your example whole and give you an answer, I would go much further than that. I would snatch every single dollar of government aid from those large banks and auto companies. So put that in your pipe!

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:48 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:I might have missed it earlier in this thread, but has Phatscotty answered the question of whether or not to drug test executives of banks receiving bailout money?

Well played (his answer will be yes, by the way).

In fact, his answer is NOT yes. They're apparently not poor enough to warrant his ire.

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:53 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:OK let me get things straight here for just 1 post

1) The law is basically a failure because only 2% of people test positive, and it leaves the state responsible to pay for all of the kits.
2) Rick Scott's wife owns the company that is selling the kits to Florida?
3) It's ok & legal for government to be prejudiced against the poorest of the poor by assuming that they are drug addicts? <-Has a lawsuit been filed yet?

#1 -yes, and that 2% of abusers freed up roughly as much as the program cost. It was overall a break even, with the end result less abuse and more efficiency. There are other unknowns as well, such as how many people did not attempt to apply for welfare because they knew they wouldn't pass a drug test.
#2 if that is the case then that should be investigated and prosecuted.
#3 I dont know where "assumption" comes from. Why would the government assume that? Do you similarly assume that every private sector job that makes you pee in a cup also "assumes you are a drug addict"? I would bet you don't.

What kind of lawsuit are you asking about?

Referring to #1, I find it interesting that here you believe adding levels of government beauracracy creates "less abuse and more efficiency", particularly given your consistent rants against such beauracracy when it has to do with things you don't like. Rather hypocritical.
Referring to #2, there is no question - it is documented fact. Rick Scott owned the company and passed ownership of it to his wife when he became Governor of the state of Florida.
Referring to #3, it certainly assumes the potential, yes. And again, you (Phatscotty) only care about harassing the poor people with this sort of policy, rather than those who are taking FAR MORE government money. There's a word for that. Several really, but I have one in particular in mind.

Phatscotty wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:notyou gets it.
I just don't see why it's acceptable for Republicans to be prejudiced against the poor. As I say they aren't testing anyone else on the dole. Not our veterans and not the disabled.
Usually I'd take a "meh, let Florida take care of Florida" stance. But it's not right that they are being openly prejudiced against the meek. Don't they have it bad enough already?

Maybe you are just too biased to accept some of the truths involved.

It's against abusers

No it isn't. If it were, a hell of a lot more than 2% would be found "guilty".

Phatscotty wrote:
notyou2 wrote:It's an infringement on civil liberties. Once again....America, land of the free.

This will open the floodgates to any user of any government money or government services of any kind being tested. Scotty, you claim you are for freedom but you say the exact opposite.

that's complete bullshit

the very definition of "dependent" is the exact opposite of "independent".

Laying claim to freedom or liberty in the name of dependency and at the expense of other people's liberty and freedom is thee most perverse fucking thing I have ever heard.

Then you're starting to catch on to what observant people think of your claims about freedom and liberty.

Phatscotty wrote:
notyou2 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
notyou2 wrote:It's an infringement on civil liberties. Once again....America, land of the free.

This will open the floodgates to any user of any government money or government services of any kind being tested. Scotty, you claim you are for freedom but you say the exact opposite.

that's complete bullshit

the very definition of "dependent" is the exact opposite of "independent".

Laying claim to freedom or liberty in the name of dependency and at the expense of other people's liberty and freedom is thee most perverse fucking thing I have ever heard.

So you are espousing infringement of civil liberties. Your true colours are showing scotty.

So long as you espouse infringing on people's life, liberties, property, their and their earnings in the name of helping the poor, you may continue to yell at the top of your lungs about the infringement of peeing in a cup in order to qualify for a government handout.

Unless they're rich, apparently.

Phatscotty wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:So Scotty, why do you oppose the drug testing of the executives of large banks and auto companies? They received government aid as well.

Trust me, the capture rate would be much higher than 2%. Closer to 98% than 2%, I can say with confidence.

Ah, so any entity that takes at least 1 government dollar is now directly under all control of the government and bound to all it's rules.

You're the one that wants to drug test everyone who takes government money. Or so you claim.

Phatscotty wrote:It's a little harder to call someone who has a job "dependent" than someone who is....dependent.

What does dependency on the money have to do with it? Does it actually clear your conscience if a drug user is getting government money BUT DOESN'T NEED IT?

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:22 am**

GBU56 wrote:Yea and anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ should be stoned!

I agree, and I'm already on it.

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:26 am**

Timminz wrote:
GBU56 wrote:Yea and anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ should be stoned!

I agree, and I'm already on it.

Are you using all those rocks, or can you spare some?

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:28 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:I might have missed it earlier in this thread, but has Phatscotty answered the question of whether or not to drug test executives of banks receiving bailout money?

Well played (his answer will be yes, by the way).

In fact, his answer is NOT yes. They're apparently not poor enough to warrant his ire.

Can we just take this further and say that banks shouldn't get bailout money in the first place?

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:36 pm**

kentington wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:I might have missed it earlier in this thread, but has Phatscotty answered the question of whether or not to drug test executives of banks receiving bailout money?

Well played (his answer will be yes, by the way).

In fact, his answer is NOT yes. They're apparently not poor enough to warrant his ire.

Can we just take this further and say that banks shouldn't get bailout money in the first place?

I have no problem with that at all. I am absolutely a believer that there is no business that is "too big to be allowed to fail".

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:30 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:I'm just glad that states still have the right to choose if they are going to test or not, that is, the right to handle their own problems their own way. Like, freedom, and stuff...

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:47 pm**

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-r ... ng-welfare
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no ... tests.html

Did some research. Seems this program cost the state a nice chunk of change, and there was no difference in the states caseload. So it didn't scare druggies away from welfare.

Another win for Liberals over Conservatives, at least when it's repealed.

"Studies show that people that are on welfare are higher users of drugs than people not on welfare," Scott said. He started to continue his thought -- but was cut off by host T.J. Holmes. (You can watch the entire exchange by clicking here.)

Studies huh? Well simple observation shows that you're stupid.

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:01 pm**

Lol drug testing.

Just dont smoke pot and you will never fail.

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:28 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-r ... ng-welfare
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no ... tests.html

Did some research. Seems this program cost the state a nice chunk of change, and there was no difference in the states caseload. So it didn't scare druggies away from welfare.

Another win for Liberals over Conservatives, at least when it's repealed.

"Studies show that people that are on welfare are higher users of drugs than people not on welfare," Scott said. He started to continue his thought -- but was cut off by host T.J. Holmes. (You can watch the entire exchange by clicking here.)

Studies huh? Well simple observation shows that you're stupid.

I really wish they would post the caseload numbers prior to the test and during the test. They say they didn't see dampening but I like to look at the numbers myself.
I am not saying I disagree with the results, I just like to see all the numbers.

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:30 pm**

That's all I wanted to see too. I will equally support Florida if they choose to repeal the law.

The numbers I saw last year showed that the program broke even.

And Juan I have a problem with your NYT source. If the conclusion is that it did not change the caseload, then doesn't that have to mean that every single applicant passed the test????

It says roughly 150 people who would have gotten welfare are not getting welfare. If we assume the average welfare check, at minumum, is 300$, then how did that not save the tax payers 45,000 PER MONTH? That article is full of shit man! It's just a hit piece to sway public opinion

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:48 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:higher users of drugs

Does that mean they have better drugs, or what?

Conquer Club

D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.

Re: D.T.W.A.