D.T.W.A.

[Metsfanmax]

I disagree. The motive behind how this legislation is being implemented MUST be considered part and parcel of the legislation. It must be considered in conjunction with the legislation itself. There are too many people who will remain ignorant of the situation otherwise (as the supporters of the legislation have made it clear they desire, by their refusal to address the point). I refuse to allow that to happen.

It should be part of the debate about this particular piece of legislation, but not the larger debate of what rights we have to restrict welfare funds to drug abusers.

[Phatscotty]

I disagree. The motive behind how this legislation is being implemented MUST be considered part and parcel of the legislation. It must be considered in conjunction with the legislation itself. There are too many people who will remain ignorant of the situation otherwise (as the supporters of the legislation have made it clear they desire, by their refusal to address the point). I refuse to allow that to happen.

It should be part of the debate about this particular piece of legislation, but not the larger debate of what rights we have to restrict welfare funds to drug abusers.

why does a drug addict have a right to get their habit subsidized by someone else?

Why should someone be able to get aid, and never have it actually aid them? That is not only a complete waste, but actually makes the drug problem worse and destroys lives and people around them further.

[PLAYER57832]

The assumption is that wasting one's money on drugs is somehow worse than wasting it on other stupid crap. Personally, I challenge that assumption. One stupid person wastes his money on drugs, another on fortune tellers, a third on donations to televangelists, another on cosmetics and designer jeans, another on idiotic "must-have" gadgets. Most of the welfare people that I've known keep themselves mired in poverty by the simple (and perfectly legal) expedient of eating take-out food instead of cooking. Will you monitor that too? What difference does it make? All of the above are equally wasteful sinkholes.

Why should you cut someone off welfare for spending all his money on drugs and not if he's spending all his money on phone sex? The fact is, you can't monitor every idiotic thing people waste money on, and singling out one particular item is ridiculous..

The only difference is that drugs are percieved to cause more harm to others. This is not always true, particularly if you weigh things like Marihuana against legal alchohol or cigarettes.

That said, I agree with you. Efforts, time, money are better spent elsewhere.

[PLAYER57832]

I disagree. The motive behind how this legislation is being implemented MUST be considered part and parcel of the legislation. It must be considered in conjunction with the legislation itself. There are too many people who will remain ignorant of the situation otherwise (as the supporters of the legislation have made it clear they desire, by their refusal to address the point). I refuse to allow that to happen.

If the legislation were proven to have a positive benefit, that is it would truly move people off drugs without cuasing more harm, would save us money, etc. then I would not care that this legislator might benefit. Someone benefits from every decision made.

However, since this is definitely NOT beneficial.. it absolutely makes on question the integrity of that guy.

[Phatscotty]

I disagree. The motive behind how this legislation is being implemented MUST be considered part and parcel of the legislation. It must be considered in conjunction with the legislation itself. There are too many people who will remain ignorant of the situation otherwise (as the supporters of the legislation have made it clear they desire, by their refusal to address the point). I refuse to allow that to happen.

If the legislation were proven to have a positive benefit, that is it would truly move people off drugs without cuasing more harm, would save us money, etc. then I would not care that this legislator might benefit. Someone benefits from every decision made.

However, since this is definitely NOT beneficial.. it absolutely makes on question the integrity of that guy.

so we are still waiting for results then

[Woodruff]

The assumption is that wasting one's money on drugs is somehow worse than wasting it on other stupid crap. Personally, I challenge that assumption.

and you may challenge it, so long as you acknowledge this money is not earned by the one who is blowing it. This is public money that has been taken from someone else, in the name of "helping"....
The people who the money is taken from demand accountability.

But not from the banks or the auto makers or...hmmm...

[Woodruff]

The assumption is that wasting one's money on drugs is somehow worse than wasting it on other stupid crap. Personally, I challenge that assumption.

and you may challenge it, so long as you acknowledge this money is not earned by the one who is blowing it. This is public money that has been taken from someone else, in the name of "helping"....

The people who the money is taken from demand accountability.

You're probably the kind of guy who yells at police officers when they pull you over for speeding, "Shove that ticket - I pay your salary!"

The guy who wants to become my son-in-law actually used that line on me once during an argument. Sure...that's a good way to get on my good side.

[Woodruff]

Although I agree with the theory behind your point, the reason why the other activities wouldn't be cut off is because they aren't illegal.

Oh, now it's because it's illegal? I wish you'd make up your mind on your justifications for oppressing the people who are less fortunate than you.

You want to talk about wasting taxpayes' money? How about, persecuting drug users whose only crime is that they like smoking a joint (which is relatively harmless) more than drinking alcohol (which is addictive and destroys your liver). Spending billions of taxpayer money in prosecuting & jailing people whose only crime is using drugs that are less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes.

how about all wasting of taxpayers money is fair game?
or is it still "taxpayer stfu"

So laws like this that cost more than they save...that sounds like a "taxpayer stfu" if I've ever heard one.

[PLAYER57832]

I disagree. The motive behind how this legislation is being implemented MUST be considered part and parcel of the legislation. It must be considered in conjunction with the legislation itself. There are too many people who will remain ignorant of the situation otherwise (as the supporters of the legislation have made it clear they desire, by their refusal to address the point). I refuse to allow that to happen.

If the legislation were proven to have a positive benefit, that is it would truly move people off drugs without cuasing more harm, would save us money, etc. then I would not care that this legislator might benefit. Someone benefits from every decision made.

However, since this is definitely NOT beneficial.. it absolutely makes on question the integrity of that guy.

so we are still waiting for results then

No.

[Woodruff]

I disagree. The motive behind how this legislation is being implemented MUST be considered part and parcel of the legislation. It must be considered in conjunction with the legislation itself. There are too many people who will remain ignorant of the situation otherwise (as the supporters of the legislation have made it clear they desire, by their refusal to address the point). I refuse to allow that to happen.

It should be part of the debate about this particular piece of legislation, but not the larger debate of what rights we have to restrict welfare funds to drug abusers.

Good, I'm glad that you agree that I'm on topic.

[PLAYER57832]

The assumption is that wasting one's money on drugs is somehow worse than wasting it on other stupid crap. Personally, I challenge that assumption.

and you may challenge it, so long as you acknowledge this money is not earned by the one who is blowing it. This is public money that has been taken from someone else, in the name of "helping"....

The people who the money is taken from demand accountability.

You're probably the kind of guy who yells at police officers when they pull you over for speeding, "Shove that ticket - I pay your salary!"

The guy who wants to become my son-in-law actually used that line on me once during an argument. Sure...that's a good way to get on my good side.

LOL...

[Woodruff]

I disagree. The motive behind how this legislation is being implemented MUST be considered part and parcel of the legislation. It must be considered in conjunction with the legislation itself. There are too many people who will remain ignorant of the situation otherwise (as the supporters of the legislation have made it clear they desire, by their refusal to address the point). I refuse to allow that to happen.

It should be part of the debate about this particular piece of legislation, but not the larger debate of what rights we have to restrict welfare funds to drug abusers.

why does a drug addict have a right to get their habit subsidized by someone else?
Why should someone be able to get aid, and never have it actually aid them? That is not only a complete waste, but actually makes the drug problem worse and destroys lives and people around them further.

How does your response apply to what Metsfanmax said?

[Woodruff]

I disagree. The motive behind how this legislation is being implemented MUST be considered part and parcel of the legislation. It must be considered in conjunction with the legislation itself. There are too many people who will remain ignorant of the situation otherwise (as the supporters of the legislation have made it clear they desire, by their refusal to address the point). I refuse to allow that to happen.

If the legislation were proven to have a positive benefit, that is it would truly move people off drugs without cuasing more harm, would save us money, etc. then I would not care that this legislator might benefit. Someone benefits from every decision made.

Really? I'm surprised. There's a reason why we have actual laws against such a thing happening.

[Woodruff]

I disagree. The motive behind how this legislation is being implemented MUST be considered part and parcel of the legislation. It must be considered in conjunction with the legislation itself. There are too many people who will remain ignorant of the situation otherwise (as the supporters of the legislation have made it clear they desire, by their refusal to address the point). I refuse to allow that to happen.

If the legislation were proven to have a positive benefit, that is it would truly move people off drugs without cuasing more harm, would save us money, etc. then I would not care that this legislator might benefit. Someone benefits from every decision made.

However, since this is definitely NOT beneficial.. it absolutely makes on question the integrity of that guy.

so we are still waiting for results then

What part of "definitely NOT beneficial" did you fail to understand?

[BigBallinStalin]

The problem is how welfare is structured. The problem is that programs which truly move people out of welfare cost far more than simply passing out supplemental payments.

We are seeing more and more people sliding into the welfare type ranks with the current economy, but the truth is that those above and those below are not equivalent. Most people on welfare don't have the ready skills to get them jobs. You can label them "lazy" ,and of course a lot are, but that rather sidesteps the fact that even for the lazy individuals, there are real and true barriers that have to be fixed.

Like minimum wage, which is an extra barrier that people with no job skills (or less favorable skills worth less than the minimum wage amount) must jump over in order to be hired for a job.

[Phatscotty]

I disagree. The motive behind how this legislation is being implemented MUST be considered part and parcel of the legislation. It must be considered in conjunction with the legislation itself. There are too many people who will remain ignorant of the situation otherwise (as the supporters of the legislation have made it clear they desire, by their refusal to address the point). I refuse to allow that to happen.

If the legislation were proven to have a positive benefit, that is it would truly move people off drugs without cuasing more harm, would save us money, etc. then I would not care that this legislator might benefit. Someone benefits from every decision made.

However, since this is definitely NOT beneficial.. it absolutely makes on question the integrity of that guy.

so we are still waiting for results then

What part of "definitely NOT beneficial" did you fail to understand?

the part about how the is opinion and speculation and evenly possibly judged through bias?

Nothing can be proven as of yet because technically the governor hasn't signed it yet.

Wait and see?

[BigBallinStalin]

The assumption is that wasting one's money on drugs is somehow worse than wasting it on other stupid crap. Personally, I challenge that assumption.

and you may challenge it, so long as you acknowledge this money is not earned by the one who is blowing it. This is public money that has been taken from someone else, in the name of "helping"....

The people who the money is taken from demand accountability.

Then drug test everyone that receives a government subsidy because, going by your logic, they should be held accountable for acting irresponsibly, and according to you, drug tests are a good way to hold people accountable for their actions...


If you don't drug test all recipients of government subsidies, then you support discriminating against those of a certain socio-economic background.


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779&start=105#p3158968

[BigBallinStalin]

The assumption is that wasting one's money on drugs is somehow worse than wasting it on other stupid crap. Personally, I challenge that assumption. One stupid person wastes his money on drugs, another on fortune tellers, a third on donations to televangelists, another on cosmetics and designer jeans, another on idiotic "must-have" gadgets. Most of the welfare people that I've known keep themselves mired in poverty by the simple (and perfectly legal) expedient of eating take-out food instead of cooking. Will you monitor that too? What difference does it make? All of the above are equally wasteful sinkholes.

Why should you cut someone off welfare for spending all his money on drugs and not if he's spending all his money on phone sex? The fact is, you can't monitor every idiotic thing people waste money on, and singling out one particular item is ridiculous.

Now, the entire idea of welfare might be a bad idea. I won't challenge that, but that's a separate debate entirely. If you accept that you should give people money, at least get out of their way and let them waste it on whatever they want.

Although I agree with the theory behind your point, the reason why the other activities wouldn't be cut off is because they aren't illegal. It's illegal to possess and consume drugs, which is why those who get caught or test positive should lose their handout. I agree that they shouldn't be wasting that money on those other activities/items, but those are legal under normal circumstances. It's also why this action is NOT discriminatory: it's just another way to enforce laws that are already on the books. It not singling out a specific group of people and prohibiting them from exercising the freedoms other people have.

"It's not discriminatory because doing drugs is illegal" is your argument?

It's still discriminatory because it unfairly targets one particular socio-economic group while not targetting others who also use government subsidies and may buy illegal materials with that money. You're just trying to justify your discriminating viewpoint.


In order for this to not be discriminatory, anyone who receives tax credits (i.e. government subsidies) should be drug tested because they could use that money on drugs--just like welfare recipients! There's still that chance, which is pretty big considering that so many Americans use some kind of illegal drug.


If you don't test everyone who is a recipient of a government subsidy, then you're still discriminating against one socio-economic group of people.

[Night Strike]

In order for this to not be discriminatory, anyone who receives tax credits (i.e. government subsidies) should be drug tested because they could use that money on drugs--just like welfare recipients! There's still that chance, which is pretty big considering that so many Americans use some kind of illegal drug.

Tax credits are monies that that the taxpayer does not have to pay to the government. Welfare checks are money paid out by the government to a person. The tax credit money never went to the government, so the government is not handing out money, therefore they are two completely separate systems.

[BigBallinStalin]

In order for this to not be discriminatory, anyone who receives tax credits (i.e. government subsidies) should be drug tested because they could use that money on drugs--just like welfare recipients! There's still that chance, which is pretty big considering that so many Americans use some kind of illegal drug.

Tax credits are monies that that the taxpayer does not have to pay to the government. Welfare checks are money paid out by the government to a person. The tax credit money never went to the government, so the government is not handing out money, therefore they are two completely separate systems.

Yo. The government says, "You owe $5000 in taxes." They have claimed ownership of $5000 of your money. Then, of that $5000 which they own, they say, "Keep $1000 because you did something we wanted you to do." They subsidized the cost of some action which the government wants to encourage.

Thus, your tax credit is a subsidy. (DISCLAIMER: This does not include overpayment of taxes).

[Woodruff]

I disagree. The motive behind how this legislation is being implemented MUST be considered part and parcel of the legislation. It must be considered in conjunction with the legislation itself. There are too many people who will remain ignorant of the situation otherwise (as the supporters of the legislation have made it clear they desire, by their refusal to address the point). I refuse to allow that to happen.

If the legislation were proven to have a positive benefit, that is it would truly move people off drugs without cuasing more harm, would save us money, etc. then I would not care that this legislator might benefit. Someone benefits from every decision made.

However, since this is definitely NOT beneficial.. it absolutely makes on question the integrity of that guy.

so we are still waiting for results then

What part of "definitely NOT beneficial" did you fail to understand?

the part about how the is opinion and speculation and evenly possibly judged through bias?

I think it's pretty clearly her statement. You then responded to that statement by her as if she had not made it. That doesn't make any sense at all.

[Woodruff]

In order for this to not be discriminatory, anyone who receives tax credits (i.e. government subsidies) should be drug tested because they could use that money on drugs--just like welfare recipients! There's still that chance, which is pretty big considering that so many Americans use some kind of illegal drug.

Tax credits are monies that that the taxpayer does not have to pay to the government. Welfare checks are money paid out by the government to a person. The tax credit money never went to the government, so the government is not handing out money, therefore they are two completely separate systems.

That's a pretty serious attempt at twisting the reality of the situation. So much so that I'm surprised you didn't hurt your back doing it.

[BigBallinStalin]

In order for this to not be discriminatory, anyone who receives tax credits (i.e. government subsidies) should be drug tested because they could use that money on drugs--just like welfare recipients! There's still that chance, which is pretty big considering that so many Americans use some kind of illegal drug.

Tax credits are monies that that the taxpayer does not have to pay to the government. Welfare checks are money paid out by the government to a person. The tax credit money never went to the government, so the government is not handing out money, therefore they are two completely separate systems.

That's a pretty serious attempt at twisting the reality of the situation. So much so that I'm surprised you didn't hurt your back doing it.

I have noticed that Night Strike makes extraordinary attempts to justify his discriminatory views on certain groups of people. Currently, it's welfare recipients. Before, it was about Muslims, and I'm sure there's plenty more to be found within the archives.

[radiojake]

BBS won this thread pages ago, so much so that I've already mentioned it

How is this thread still going?

Nightstrike is a dill

[Metsfanmax]

Hey guys, if I say that prisons are discriminatory because they only accept people who have committed illegal acts, will you criticize me for a few pages? kthx