Conquer Club

Woodruff wrote:

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".

Agreed. I didn't expect a different answer from you. Unless it would be something sarcastic with a wink. I also know the question wasn't for me, but I couldn't resist.

This topic has come up before and you and I disagreed. I didn't read all of the pages of this thread. Are you still against testing or are you just looking for consistency?

kentington wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

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".

Agreed. I didn't expect a different answer from you. Unless it would be something sarcastic with a wink. I also know the question wasn't for me, but I couldn't resist.

This topic has come up before and you and I disagreed. I didn't read all of the pages of this thread. Are you still against testing or are you just looking for consistency?

you are aware I answered it, right?

kentington wrote:

Woodruff wrote: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".

Agreed. I didn't expect a different answer from you. Unless it would be something sarcastic with a wink.

Why HOW DARE YOU! I believe I sit here insulted! I am figuratively stewing in my insultation!

kentington wrote:This topic has come up before and you and I disagreed. I didn't read all of the pages of this thread. Are you still against testing or are you just looking for consistency?

I don't actually care about the drug testing itself one way or the other, to be honest. I could take it or leave it. In this particular instance, I have two problems:

1. This willingness by some to allow politicians to be openly corrupt (in Florida's Rick Scott's case) just because the politician "is on their side".
2. The unwillingness by some to hold all recipients of government money to the same standard, simply because those people have money. I find it laughable that the idea that they don't need the government money as much as the welfare recipients do to be the reason why they shouldn't be tested...it seems patently backwards-thinking.

Phatscotty wrote:

kentington wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

kentington wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: 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".

Agreed. I didn't expect a different answer from you. Unless it would be something sarcastic with a wink. I also know the question wasn't for me, but I couldn't resist.

This topic has come up before and you and I disagreed. I didn't read all of the pages of this thread. Are you still against testing or are you just looking for consistency?

you are aware I answered it, right?

Most of the time, it's hard to tell, to be honest.

Woodruff wrote:

kentington wrote:

Woodruff wrote: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".

Agreed. I didn't expect a different answer from you. Unless it would be something sarcastic with a wink.

Why HOW DARE YOU! I believe I sit here insulted! I am figuratively stewing in my insultation!

kentington wrote:This topic has come up before and you and I disagreed. I didn't read all of the pages of this thread. Are you still against testing or are you just looking for consistency?

I don't actually care about the drug testing itself one way or the other, to be honest. I could take it or leave it. In this particular instance, I have two problems:

1. This willingness by some to allow politicians to be openly corrupt (in Florida's Rick Scott's case) just because the politician "is on their side".
2. The unwillingness by some to hold all recipients of government money to the same standard, simply because those people have money. I find it laughable that the idea that they don't need the government money as much as the welfare recipients do to be the reason why they shouldn't be tested...it seems patently backwards-thinking.

Ok. I don't disagree with you. Maybe I misunderstood before, which is why I like to clarify before jumping to a conclusion.

I think all government officials should be drug tested on their dollar. After all it is our money. There shouldn't be anyone we pay making decisions under the influence. Also, I believe that government employees should be held to at least the standard they hold us to, if not higher. Just like there shouldn't be someone in a position to decide on what taxes should be approved when they don't pay their own taxes.

Phatscotty wrote:

kentington wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

kentington wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
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".

Agreed. I didn't expect a different answer from you. Unless it would be something sarcastic with a wink. I also know the question wasn't for me, but I couldn't resist.

This topic has come up before and you and I disagreed. I didn't read all of the pages of this thread. Are you still against testing or are you just looking for consistency?

you are aware I answered it, right?

Nope. There are way too many posts on this thread to keep up with. I usually post in these long threads replying to someone and then just scroll for a return reply.

I think you are against the bailouts anyway. I also don't think you have a problem with sticking to the man and making him get a drug test too.

The reason I made the consistency remark was because a lot of people read Woodruff's replies and believe he is making a personal statement. I think a lot of the time he is clarifying positions in a snarky way. Or he doesn't believe what you, as in the person he replies to, are saying and he is trapping, mocking, or arguing the validity of the argument the poster made. This is how I read his replies, honestly.

Understood LOL.

My answer was the same as yours. The way I put it roughly was "I would go WAY beyond making the banks and auto companies drop piss in a cup, I would take away every single dollar that was about to be given to them!"

But they wouldn't care about the money. The main thing is that they did not have to face up to any standards,

Phatscotty wrote:Understood LOL.

My answer was the same as yours. The way I put it roughly was "I would go WAY beyond making the banks and auto companies drop piss in a cup, I would take away every single dollar that was about to be given to them!"

But they wouldn't care about the money. The main thing is that they did not have to face up to any standards,

Actually, now I do remember reading that. Sorry. Like I said a lot of posts in this thread.

and, according to the Tampa Tribune.....


http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/ ... ar-252458/

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.

Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

and that is from the p.o.v. that is opposed to accountability and standards

kentington wrote:The reason I made the consistency remark was because a lot of people read Woodruff's replies and believe he is making a personal statement. I think a lot of the time he is clarifying positions in a snarky way.

My good man, I will ask you to refrain from such irresponsible and uncountenanceable reporting!

kentington wrote:Or he doesn't believe what you, as in the person he replies to, are saying and he is trapping, mocking, or arguing the validity of the argument the poster made.

Mocking? Trapping? Why, how dare you!

kentington wrote:This is how I read his replies, honestly.

You're rather observant.

Woodruff wrote:

kentington wrote:The reason I made the consistency remark was because a lot of people read Woodruff's replies and believe he is making a personal statement. I think a lot of the time he is clarifying positions in a snarky way.

My good man, I will ask you to refrain from such irresponsible and uncountenanceable reporting!

kentington wrote:Or he doesn't believe what you, as in the person he replies to, are saying and he is trapping, mocking, or arguing the validity of the argument the poster made.

Mocking? Trapping? Why, how dare you!

kentington wrote:This is how I read his replies, honestly.

You're rather observant.

Sorry. If it makes you feel any better, I feel bad for giving it away. But I have been told I am a knight in shining armor so I had to defend you. Not that you need any defense, I just saw a lot of people assuming your beliefs.

Observant or I share an evil sense of humor like you?

kentington wrote:Observant or I share an evil sense of humor like you?

Indeed, I do believe that you do.

kentington wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

kentington wrote:The reason I made the consistency remark was because a lot of people read Woodruff's replies and believe he is making a personal statement. I think a lot of the time he is clarifying positions in a snarky way.

My good man, I will ask you to refrain from such irresponsible and uncountenanceable reporting!

kentington wrote:Or he doesn't believe what you, as in the person he replies to, are saying and he is trapping, mocking, or arguing the validity of the argument the poster made.

Mocking? Trapping? Why, how dare you!

kentington wrote:This is how I read his replies, honestly.

You're rather observant.

Sorry. If it makes you feel any better, I feel bad for giving it away. But I have been told I am a knight in shining armor so I had to defend you. Not that you need any defense, I just saw a lot of people assuming your beliefs.

Observant or I share an evil sense of humor like you?

otherwise known as trolling

Phatscotty wrote:

kentington wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

kentington wrote:The reason I made the consistency remark was because a lot of people read Woodruff's replies and believe he is making a personal statement. I think a lot of the time he is clarifying positions in a snarky way.

My good man, I will ask you to refrain from such irresponsible and uncountenanceable reporting!

kentington wrote:Or he doesn't believe what you, as in the person he replies to, are saying and he is trapping, mocking, or arguing the validity of the argument the poster made.

Mocking? Trapping? Why, how dare you!

kentington wrote:This is how I read his replies, honestly.

You're rather observant.

Sorry. If it makes you feel any better, I feel bad for giving it away. But I have been told I am a knight in shining armor so I had to defend you. Not that you need any defense, I just saw a lot of people assuming your beliefs.

Observant or I share an evil sense of humor like you?

otherwise known as trolling

Pointing out your hypocricy does not equate to trolling. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I'm trolling.

if someone offers to give you something for free, provided that you meet a certain condition, how the f*ck are they infringing on your liberties?

i just don't understand how people think that the poor are owed unconditional money from the government, and any attempt to put conditions on this charity, conditions that are ALREADY IN PLACE FOR EVERYONE, is seen as an infringement on their right to free money. jesus f*ck some people's minds are so twisted.

if you're going to be against DTWA, then you should be against it for a good reason, like how the nature of drug addiction makes poverty a dangerous self-perpetuating cycle. enough of this entitled bullshit please.

john9blue wrote:if someone offers to give you something for free, provided that you meet a certain condition, how the f*ck are they infringing on your liberties?

i just don't understand how people think that the poor are owed unconditional money from the government, and any attempt to put conditions on this charity, conditions that are ALREADY IN PLACE FOR EVERYONE, is seen as an infringement on their right to free money. jesus f*ck some people's minds are so twisted.

if you're going to be against DTWA, then you should be against it for a good reason, like how the nature of drug addiction makes poverty a dangerous self-perpetuating cycle. enough of this entitled bullshit please.

You seem to have overlooked my position on this, so I'll put it here for you again:
"I don't actually care about the drug testing itself one way or the other, to be honest. I could take it or leave it. In this particular instance, I have two problems:
1. This willingness by some to allow politicians to be openly corrupt (in Florida's Rick Scott's case) just because the politician "is on their side".
2. The unwillingness by some to hold all recipients of government money to the same standard, simply because those people have money. I find it laughable that the idea that they don't need the government money as much as the welfare recipients do to be the reason why they shouldn't be tested...it seems patently backwards-thinking."

See, I'm not all that hell-bent on your entitlement scenario. I do take great exception to hypocricy however, and that's what I'm seeing a lot of here.

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:if someone offers to give you something for free, provided that you meet a certain condition, how the f*ck are they infringing on your liberties?

i just don't understand how people think that the poor are owed unconditional money from the government, and any attempt to put conditions on this charity, conditions that are ALREADY IN PLACE FOR EVERYONE, is seen as an infringement on their right to free money. jesus f*ck some people's minds are so twisted.

if you're going to be against DTWA, then you should be against it for a good reason, like how the nature of drug addiction makes poverty a dangerous self-perpetuating cycle. enough of this entitled bullshit please.

You seem to have overlooked my position on this, so I'll put it here for you again:
"I don't actually care about the drug testing itself one way or the other, to be honest. I could take it or leave it. In this particular instance, I have two problems:
1. This willingness by some to allow politicians to be openly corrupt (in Florida's Rick Scott's case) just because the politician "is on their side".
2. The unwillingness by some to hold all recipients of government money to the same standard, simply because those people have money. I find it laughable that the idea that they don't need the government money as much as the welfare recipients do to be the reason why they shouldn't be tested...it seems patently backwards-thinking."

See, I'm not all that hell-bent on your entitlement scenario. I do take great exception to hypocricy however, and that's what I'm seeing a lot of here.

well then we don't disagree on this but there are others in this thread who seem to think that DTWA is a serious offense on basic human dignity

Is it not?
It makes the presumption that the majority of the poor are drug addicts while other people on the dole such as people on disability are not. It's a legal form of discrimination.

Don't they already have it rough enough without being made to pay for and submit to a drug test?

Juan_Bottom wrote:Is it not?
It makes the presumption that the majority of the poor are drug addicts while other people on the dole such as people on disability are not. It's a legal form of discrimination.

Don't they already have it rough enough without being made to pay for and submit to a drug test?

Movie tickets for the elderly are sold at lower prices than the student and adult tickets. This is a legal form of discrimination.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Is it not? It makes the presumption that the majority of the poor are drug addicts while other people on the dole such as people on disability are not. It's a legal form of discrimination.

no, it is not.

The main point is not what people think, or what might be presumed, or how it might seem to some. Those are not things that dictate how a policy is incorporated. They should be considered, but you seem to make that your end all be all.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Is it not?
It makes the presumption that the majority of the poor are drug addicts while other people on the dole such as people on disability are not. It's a legal form of discrimination.
Don't they already have it rough enough without being made to pay for and submit to a drug test?

That is primarily what I'm saying in my point #2.

Phatscotty wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Is it not? It makes the presumption that the majority of the poor are drug addicts while other people on the dole such as people on disability are not. It's a legal form of discrimination.

no, it is not.

It's NOT? You sure you don't want to re-think that statement?

Woodruff wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Is it not?
It makes the presumption that the majority of the poor are drug addicts while other people on the dole such as people on disability are not. It's a legal form of discrimination.
Don't they already have it rough enough without being made to pay for and submit to a drug test?

That is primarily what I'm saying in my point #2.

I have these issues, but the biggest one is that its just not a practical measure for any purpose. It does not do much to stop drug abuse because the percentage of those using is small. Yet, the cost is very high.

For a group claiming they want responsibility and or money savings this is just a poor decision.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Is it not?
It makes the presumption that the majority of the poor are drug addicts while other people on the dole such as people on disability are not. It's a legal form of discrimination.

Don't they already have it rough enough without being made to pay for and submit to a drug test?

I thought the majority of the poor were drug addicts. I also thought the same of the rich.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Is it not? It makes the presumption that the majority of the poor are drug addicts while other people on the dole such as people on disability are not. It's a legal form of discrimination.

no, it is not.

It's NOT? You sure you don't want to re-think that statement?

Of course it isn't. The primary concern of welfare is to help people. Worrying about a presumption or how something might look is much, MUCH further down on the list.