D.T.W.A.

[Woodruff]

Wow, he called you greedy? Perhaps he didn't realize the topic matter of "people who abuse public assistance and refuse to take even a drug test to qualify for tax-payer money. Straight up GIMME GIMME". "Why should I have to be sober?"

Your own quotes are quite symbolic of personal greed, as well. I think this is where you demand those quotes, and then ignore them.

You know all the shootings and broad daylight drug deals that happen in inner cities around the clock? That where a lot of abuse is, as well as many other places. The abuse of the welfare system is destroying families and neighborhoods.

You clearly don't know much about the inner city.

There is nothing greedy about a taxpayer getting angry over blatant abuse of their hard-earned money. It's called accountability.

If it were about accountability, you'd be demanding the same of the corporations that receive taxpayer money. That's the proof that this ISN'T about accountability at all. It's about YOU pushing YOUR PERSONAL MORALS on others. That's ALL it's about. That's what The New Tea Party is counting on.

Wow, he called you greedy? Perhaps he didn't realize the topic matter of "people who abuse public assistance and refuse to take even a drug test to qualify for tax-payer money. Straight up GIMME GIMME". "Why should I have to be sober?"

It's already greedy enough to waste all your time and talent in our short time on this earth being permanently high or searching for a high.

You know all the shootings and broad daylight drug deals that happen in inner cities around the clock? That where a lot of abuse is, as well as many other places. The abuse of the welfare system is destroying families and neighborhoods.

If there is one thing drug dealers do NOT need, its welfare. They make a good deal more money in their business already.

There is nothing greedy about a taxpayer getting angry over blatant abuse of their hard-earned money. It's called accountability.

Exactly why this testing regime is a stupid idea.. it is a complete waste of money.

A negative test for 14$ saves thousands of potential abused dollars. This is how they are dealing with the waste. 14$. Get over it

The test doesn't cost $14. The test costs $55. Payable to the governor. And pretending that each $14 (nay, $55) saves "thousands of abused dollars" is very dishonest...no, it's not dishonest, it's an outright and fully intended deception on your part. You don't want the government out...you don't want your tax money saved...you want to spend MORE tax money in INCREASING government intervention. For all your cries about freedom and liberty, what you really want is YOUR OWN PERSONAL freedom and liberty and to hell with everyone else.

That's how you deal with waste?

[Phatscotty]

it will save enough.

This is not creating a program. this is the tool to cut down on waste.

None of this even touches the harm and damage drugs can cause people who are addicted and ruin their lives not to mention family and children, which is just as much a point as how a 14$ test can potentially save $3,600/year. 1 out of 10, that 140$ to 3600$. It aint rocket science pal. None of this further mentions the savings from people who will not bother to apply simply because they know they will fail a drug test. There are multiple levels of help working here.

[Woodruff]

it will save enough.

It is demonstrably not going to save a damn thing. It is demonstrably going to COST MONEY.

This is not creating a program.

What? Do you even think before you type stupid statements? It is absolutely creating a brand new, very expensive program.

this is the tool to cut down on waste.

It's not cutting down on waste when it's creating it.

None of this even touches the harm and damage drugs can cause people who are addicted and ruin their lives not to mention family and children, which is just as much a point as how a 14$ test can potentially save $3,600/year.

First of all, you need to stop lying. The test costs FAR MORE than $14. So stop with the lies. And please stop with the intended implication that each $55 test is going to save $3600/year, because that's just as intentionally deceptive. You're losing all credibility with your dishonesty here, Phatscotty. It's like you're trying to make a mockery of yourself.

1 out of 10, that 140$ to 3600$. It aint rocket science pal.

One out of ten? Your willingness to engage in outright lies is disgusting.

None of this further mentions the savings from people who will not bother to apply simply because they know they will fail a drug test. There are multiple levels of help working here.

There are multiple levels of Phatscotty bullshit working here. And it's not working very well either. You clearly have no interest in helping people, so please drop that lie as well. Your only interest is in punishing people. You're not against government intervention. You WANT government intervention. You're not interested in saving money. You WANT to spend more money ON GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Hello, the New Tea Republican Party.

[Phatscotty]

It's going to work in Florida right now. We will have to wait and see.

I have to say, I just got back from NY, and I got to see how they do it, and it's working quite well.

[Night Strike]

So the new line is that people who want the government to be fiscally responsible are too greedy?

[john9blue]

So the new line is that people who want the government to be fiscally responsible are too greedy?

no, people who want the government to be fiscally responsible are evil and take pleasure in harming poor people. get it right!

[Woodruff]

So the new line is that people who want the government to be fiscally responsible are too greedy?

No, not at all. In fact, just the opposite. However, that doesn't seem to apply to you, based on this thread. Nice try at the dodge, but you've failed.

So the new line is that people who want the government to be fiscally responsible are too greedy?

no, people who want the government to be fiscally responsible are evil and take pleasure in harming poor people. get it right!

No, that's certainly not true at all either. Though I'm not sure why we're talking about people who want the government to be fiscally responsible, given that it's Night Strike and Phatscotty involved. They're just New Tea Republican Partiers.

[john9blue]

New Tea Republican Partiers.

what does this even mean lol

[Woodruff]

New Tea Republican Partiers.

what does this even mean lol

The New Tea Republican Party is my reference to the group of individuals such as Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, John Boehner, Phatscotty and Night Strike who have co-opted the Tea Party and appear to be trying to absorb it back into the Republican Party.

[Night Strike]

New Tea Republican Partiers.

what does this even mean lol

The New Tea Republican Party is my reference to the group of individuals such as Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, John Boehner, Phatscotty and Night Strike who have co-opted the Tea Party and appear to be trying to absorb it back into the Republican Party.

People in the Tea Party knew the only way to affect change in Washington was to first change one of the dominant political parties because no third party will ever find their way into prominence. And they sure as hell knew it wouldn't be the Democratic party that could be changed, so of course they're working to change the Republican party. Which is why I'm currently planning to vote for either Cain or Bachmann in the primary.

[Woodruff]

New Tea Republican Partiers.

what does this even mean lol

The New Tea Republican Party is my reference to the group of individuals such as Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, John Boehner, Phatscotty and Night Strike who have co-opted the Tea Party and appear to be trying to absorb it back into the Republican Party.

People in the Tea Party knew the only way to affect change in Washington was to first change one of the dominant political parties because no third party will ever find their way into prominence.

The Republican Party hasn't changed in the slightest. Not a hair. Not a tiny protuberance. Nada.

And they sure as hell knew it wouldn't be the Democratic party that could be changed, so of course they're working to change the Republican party. Which is why I'm currently planning to vote for either Cain or Bachmann in the primary.

You do realize that neither McCain nor Bachmann is at all interested in the ideals of the Tea Party, right? I am completely serious.

[Night Strike]

I never said McCain, and Bachmann probably does prefer the Tea Party over big government.

[Woodruff]

I never said McCain

Ah, you're right...I read into that. I was surprised that you'd bring his name up, given his age alone. I'm not familiar with Cain, actually...I'll have to do some research.

and Bachmann probably does prefer the Tea Party over big government.

Not based on her voting record or her previous actions, such as directly benefiting from government farm subsidies to the tune of $260,000 between 2006 and 2009. That is according to her own financial disclosure forms. That doesn't seem like the sort of thing someone with the ideals of a Tea Partier would do. Does it to you?

[john9blue]

oh, that's what you mean. well i don't think night strike is part of the original tea party, but scotty might be.

[BigBallinStalin]

oh, that's what you mean. well i don't think night strike is part of the original tea party, but scotty might be.

In word, sure, but it really depends on which Tea Party's principles Phatscotty would like to conveniently jump to.


Since you want to be ruled by your preconceived notions, my political view can be described as partly "right-wing Libertarian," partly "anarcho-capitalist" and partly "stalinist for the shits and giggles."

I'm very much against state intervention, and as for the provision of certain goods like welfare, water, social security, and what not, I'll have more informed opinions 4 years from now, but this is why I'm not some adamant proponent of either side. This is why I enjoy asking people questions in order for them to expose their own weaknesses in their arguments to themselves. It becomes unproductive when they don't read, or when they just dig in their heels and say, "whatever, I'm right times infinity" while ignoring pertinent points.

Issues like the one in this thread are complex, so it's hilarious when guys like Night Strike or Phatscotty take their narrow interpretation of reality, stomp their feet down, and then apply it to the actual world. At times, PLAYER does this, Symmetry does this, Iliad does, and so do I. So, my main goal is to broaden my own understanding of concepts and issues by being open-minded to other people's related points--unlike Phatscotty and Night Strike.


Tangent aside, when you start labeling people under a certain political orientation, your actual view of their position becomes more distorted because you allow your preconceived notions (i.e. your bias) to play with your mind. This is why I don't declare that I'm a this-and-that, and this is why it's counter-productive to use such overgeneralizing terms to describe actual individuals and their points of view.

[radiojake]

Once again BigBallinStalin brings some sanity to an otherwise insane thread...

I don't know how people keep arguing the same thing over and over and over 40+ pages - Can we end this thread yet?

By the way, drug addiction is a (mental) health problem - The appropriate way to tackle it is through heath services; it should not be dealt with through punitive laws.

The irony of a health issue being confused with with law and order, especially considering the current public health debate in the US, is not lost on me - However, I fear that it may have been lost on a few others.

[natty dread]

By the way, drug addiction is a (mental) health problem - The appropriate way to tackle it is through heath services; it should not be dealt with through punitive laws.

Exactly

[john9blue]

oh, that's what you mean. well i don't think night strike is part of the original tea party, but scotty might be.

In word, sure, but it really depends on which Tea Party's principles Phatscotty would like to conveniently jump to.


Since you want to be ruled by your preconceived notions, my political view can be described as partly "right-wing Libertarian," partly "anarcho-capitalist" and partly "stalinist for the shits and giggles."

I'm very much against state intervention, and as for the provision of certain goods like welfare, water, social security, and what not, I'll have more informed opinions 4 years from now, but this is why I'm not some adamant proponent of either side. This is why I enjoy asking people questions in order for them to expose their own weaknesses in their arguments to themselves. It becomes unproductive when they don't read, or when they just dig in their heels and say, "whatever, I'm right times infinity" while ignoring pertinent points.

Issues like the one in this thread are complex, so it's hilarious when guys like Night Strike or Phatscotty take their narrow interpretation of reality, stomp their feet down, and then apply it to the actual world. At times, PLAYER does this, Symmetry does this, Iliad does, and so do I. So, my main goal is to broaden my own understanding of concepts and issues by being open-minded to other people's related points--unlike Phatscotty and Night Strike.


Tangent aside, when you start labeling people under a certain political orientation, your actual view of their position becomes more distorted because you allow your preconceived notions (i.e. your bias) to play with your mind. This is why I don't declare that I'm a this-and-that, and this is why it's counter-productive to use such overgeneralizing terms to describe actual individuals and their points of view.

funny how you accuse me of that, yet my political views are mis-represented more than almost anyone on this forum. labels are there for convenience; i wouldn't place anyone in a box and accuse them of believing something that i have no reason to think they believe.

[BigBallinStalin]

oh, that's what you mean. well i don't think night strike is part of the original tea party, but scotty might be.

In word, sure, but it really depends on which Tea Party's principles Phatscotty would like to conveniently jump to.


Since you want to be ruled by your preconceived notions, my political view can be described as partly "right-wing Libertarian," partly "anarcho-capitalist" and partly "stalinist for the shits and giggles."

I'm very much against state intervention, and as for the provision of certain goods like welfare, water, social security, and what not, I'll have more informed opinions 4 years from now, but this is why I'm not some adamant proponent of either side. This is why I enjoy asking people questions in order for them to expose their own weaknesses in their arguments to themselves. It becomes unproductive when they don't read, or when they just dig in their heels and say, "whatever, I'm right times infinity" while ignoring pertinent points.

Issues like the one in this thread are complex, so it's hilarious when guys like Night Strike or Phatscotty take their narrow interpretation of reality, stomp their feet down, and then apply it to the actual world. At times, PLAYER does this, Symmetry does this, Iliad does, and so do I. So, my main goal is to broaden my own understanding of concepts and issues by being open-minded to other people's related points--unlike Phatscotty and Night Strike.


Tangent aside, when you start labeling people under a certain political orientation, your actual view of their position becomes more distorted because you allow your preconceived notions (i.e. your bias) to play with your mind. This is why I don't declare that I'm a this-and-that, and this is why it's counter-productive to use such overgeneralizing terms to describe actual individuals and their points of view.

funny how you accuse me of that, yet my political views are mis-represented more than almost anyone on this forum. labels are there for convenience; i wouldn't place anyone in a box and accuse them of believing something that i have no reason to think they believe.

When you say:

Just because I don't think like you doesn't mean I automatically don't think.

yes it does.

liberals are all smart, and all smart people agree with each other on every aspect of politics, so if you are conservative you are dumb. qed

(http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779&hilit=political&start=495#p3229316)


In response to NS' response to me, then you misrepresent my view on the matter, and are acting exactly as I've described.

If it's a joke, then I am so sorry, and I recommend watching an episode of that ponies show, so you can recover your lost warm and fuzzies.

[john9blue]

maybe if the majority of this forum's left wingers didn't have a superiority complex, i wouldn't say that... and i was being facetious.

i've already seen every episode, but i'm glad it had a positive effect on you

[Woodruff]

maybe if the majority of this forum's left wingers didn't have a superiority complex, i wouldn't say that... and i was being facetious.

I hope you're still being fascetious. Or perhaps sarcastic. Ironic maybe?

[Phatscotty]

oh, that's what you mean. well i don't think night strike is part of the original tea party, but scotty might be.

Winning. IDK about stirke either, but before the Tea Party I used the think I was Libertarian and I have a lot in common with them but I settled for fiscally conservative Independent. I was the one talking all the shit about Republicans and Bush and how much he was borrowing and spending (he signed it).

When I learned the debt was going to double from 7 trillion to a projected 14 trillion in under 2 years, bailouts of the banks and "too big to fail" the Tea Party were the people trying to say and do something about it. It's a tragedy that the only thing some people know about the Tea Party are lies. A tragedy for the national debt.

There is nothing worse than your country not being able to pay it's own bills and still being asked to and nobody is borrowing you money any more.

I was there man

[john9blue]

fascetious.

i'm not a fascist!

see, people don't know my political views at all.

and you spelled fascist wrong.

[Phatscotty]

We simply ask that in order to receive public assistance that you be sober when you apply.

It's a good thing that people who are having difficult times feeding and sheltering themselves can get assistance. It's a bad thing that drug addicts who abuse welfare give the rest of the people who need help a bad rep.

And an analogy if I may. There are far more % of people on welfare who spend their "shelter and food money" on drugs than there are % of racists in the Tea Party.

However, you will never see me once saying that people on welfare are druggies, but the same people who are defending drug use for welfare recipients and will blow a gasket if I did say such a thing about people on welfare have no problem labeling the Tea Party as racist.

[Symmetry]

There are far more % of people on welfare who spend their "shelter and food money" on drugs than there are % of racists in the Tea Party.

[Citation Needed]