D.T.W.A.

[Phatscotty]

The answer is to get clean. This economy can no longer tolerate blatant waste like this, and we need far fewer people sucking off the economy and maybe even more contributing to it.

What this economy cannot tolerate is the continuous wasting of resources on this silly war on drugs. Continuous prosecuting of non-violent criminals whose only crime is that they disagree with the government on what substance they want to get high on. Continuous flow of money to organized crime who is the #1 profiteer of the war on drugs.

People can spend their money wherever they want, and hopefully legalized drugs will be a choice someday soon.

People can not spend other peoples money wherever they want. When you get other people's money they need to be accountable, including gov't.

There is no room for someone who says they can't work or support themselves and then turns around and takes public assistance and blows it on drugs that make them even more unable to work or support themselves.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAnmHqPHFo

[Symmetry]

Four posts in a row?

A more cynical man than myself might think you were trying to dodge a page of criticism by filling up the remaining posts on it. Of course, I've never had any doubts about your manipulation of threads. Just take care- some people might think that you were attempting to bury a page that wasn't going your way with a bunch of posts that could have been made into a single post.

[Nola_Lifer]

The answer is to get clean. This economy can no longer tolerate blatant waste like this, and we need far fewer people sucking off the economy and maybe even more contributing to it.

What this economy cannot tolerate is the continuous wasting of resources on this silly war on drugs. Continuous prosecuting of non-violent criminals whose only crime is that they disagree with the government on what substance they want to get high on. Continuous flow of money to organized crime who is the #1 profiteer of the war on drugs.

People can spend their money wherever they want, and hopefully legalized drugs will be a choice someday soon.

People can not spend other peoples money wherever they want. When you get other people's money they need to be accountable, including gov't.

There is no room for someone who says they can't work or support themselves and then turns around and takes public assistance and blows it on drugs that make them even more unable to work or support themselves.

Seems like your discriminating here a bit. The way you argue you are saying that all people on welfare are doing drugs. Do you have any evidence to support this or are you just being prejudice against the poor?

[Phatscotty]

many times I have said that is not the case. We are only talking about the ones who are addicted to drugs. ranges from 3-10% in FL, depending on who you ask.

people who do not use public dollars for drugs have nothing to worry about, obviously.

[Nola_Lifer]

many times I have said that is not the case. We are only talking about the ones who are addicted to drugs. ranges from 3-10% in FL, depending on who you ask.

people who do not use public dollars for drugs have nothing to worry about, obviously.

Only 3-10% of people do drugs in FL or 3-10% of people on welfare do drugs? Where is your proof for these stats? Welfare is such a small part of the budget and you worry about such an even smaller percentage of a small percentage. Get your priorities straight.

Edit: Just because you say you aren't discriminating doesn't make it true. You still haven't proved that you aren't discriminating against the poor just saying you aren't.

[Phatscotty]

many times I have said that is not the case. We are only talking about the ones who are addicted to drugs. ranges from 3-10% in FL, depending on who you ask.

people who do not use public dollars for drugs have nothing to worry about, obviously.

Only 3-10% of people do drugs in FL or 3-10% of people on welfare do drugs? Where is your proof for these stats? Welfare is such a small part of the budget and you worry about such an even smaller percentage of a small percentage. Get your priorities straight.

people on welfare who abuse drugs. Player has sited links to 3-6%, I sourced closer to 10% earlier.

Social Welfare is over 37% of Minnesotas expenditures. That is bigger than anything else. I did sourcing on FL #''s as well but I can't remember enough to quote it here. They are in the thread somewhere, and it was a large part of FL's budget and there are millions who get welfare and statistically you can fill over 4 football fields with drug abusing welfare abusing people. It's gotten to be a probelem.

What are your sources for welfare being such a small part of a budget? The facts need to be straight before the priorities can be straight.

[Iliad]

I am going to take your whining huff earlier as a sign that you accept defeat. True you far too stubborn to do that, but at the very least you shuldn't just get to dodge and drop arguments like they never existed.

many times I have said that is not the case. We are only talking about the ones who are addicted to drugs. ranges from 3-10% in FL, depending on who you ask.

people who do not use public dollars for drugs have nothing to worry about, obviously.

So you do agree that this law, if passed should also then done for the bankers, automotive industry, agriculture industry, any company that was bailed out.

The government spends a lot of money through subsidies to drive down the price of corn, if you're consuming abnormally low corn prices because of the government and also drugs should you also be tested?

Phatscotty what you are proposing is going to increase the people's dependence on the government, as government can now decree that set protocols that can exclude those that don't comply.

You said some bullshit about how your independent perspective does not apply to people on welfare, but that's outright bullshit. The reason your independent perspective doesn't apply is because you do not give a shit about people on welfare and thus you don't need to try and rationalise your perspective. This bill is solely meant to press on the buttons of people like you, and make you feel superior by randomly punishing the poor.

[Phatscotty]

I am going to take your whining huff earlier as a sign that you accept defeat. True you far too stubborn to do that, but at the very least you shuldn't just get to dodge and drop arguments like they never existed.

many times I have said that is not the case. We are only talking about the ones who are addicted to drugs. ranges from 3-10% in FL, depending on who you ask.

people who do not use public dollars for drugs have nothing to worry about, obviously.

So you do agree that this law, if passed should also then done for the bankers, automotive industry, agriculture industry, any company that was bailed out.

It's not a law for the private sector. The private sector already does this without a law needing to be passed, simply because it's smart and efficient. Which is all I am trying to say. People can get fired on the spot for being under the influence while at work, and I have to get a physical every year for my union job, which includes peeing in a cup. I have had to pee in cups for other jobs as well.

Your comparison is invalid anyways. You can't compare independent people who earn what they get to dependent people who have to live of others. It's similar to gov't officials. They can't take public money and go on vacation with it, and if they do they get in trouble. Because it's public dollars and not private dollars. Jails and prisons operate under the same pre-tense. They are taken care of while in the system by the taxpayer with public dollars, and that's why they earn 12 cents an hour.

They have to live by the rules society puts on them because they are living off society, not the other way around. The makers have the say, not the takers.

[Woodruff]

I am going to take your whining huff earlier as a sign that you accept defeat. True you far too stubborn to do that, but at the very least you shuldn't just get to dodge and drop arguments like they never existed.

many times I have said that is not the case. We are only talking about the ones who are addicted to drugs. ranges from 3-10% in FL, depending on who you ask.
people who do not use public dollars for drugs have nothing to worry about, obviously.

So you do agree that this law, if passed should also then done for the bankers, automotive industry, agriculture industry, any company that was bailed out.

It's not a law for the private sector. The private sector already does this without a law needing to be passed, simply because it's smart and efficient. Which is all I am trying to say. People can get fired on the spot for being under the influence while at work, and I have to get a physical every year for my union job, which includes peeing in a cup. I have had to pee in cups for other jobs as well.

You never have been any good with analogies. The reason people can get fired on the spot for being under the influence while at work is due to SAFETY ISSUES. The reason you have to get a physical every year for your union job (which includes peeing in a cup) is for SAFETY ISSUES.

Your comparison is invalid anyways. You can't compare independent people who earn what they get to dependent people who have to live of others.

His comparison IS valid. He ISN'T comparing "independent people who earn what they get" because if that were true, they wouldn't be receiving government subsidies. It's perfectly valid.

It's similar to gov't officials. They can't take public money and go on vacation with it, and if they do they get in trouble.

Government officials take public money, but they are also not drug tested. I find it informative that you don't mention that, but you instead try to derail by talking about "going on vacation with it".

Because it's public dollars and not private dollars.

Everything we've talked about is public dollars and not private dollars. But you keep trying to dodge that fact.

Jails and prisons operate under the same pre-tense. They are taken care of while in the system by the taxpayer with public dollars, and that's why they earn 12 cents an hour.

What exactly does this tap-dancing have to do with drug-testing welfare applicants?

They have to live by the rules society puts on them because they are living off society, not the other way around. The makers have the say, not the takers.

Everyone is "living off society", you idiot.

[Phatscotty]

independent vs. dependent

simple as that. Can't compare

[spurgistan]

Phatscotty, you are dependent on society. There are like, 20 dudes in the Yukon who are independent of society.

[Woodruff]

independent vs. dependent

simple as that. Can't compare

I like discussing things with you, Phatscotty. You know why? You make me feel like a better person.

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, you are dependent on society. There are like, 20 dudes in the Yukon who are independent of society.

So, is it just dumb of me to celebrate Independence Day?

[Woodruff]

Phatscotty, you are dependent on society. There are like, 20 dudes in the Yukon who are independent of society.

So, is it just dumb of me to celebrate Independence Day?

You say that like it's the only thing.

[Phatscotty]

independent vs. dependent

simple as that. Can't compare

I like discussing things with you, Phatscotty. You know why? You make me feel like a better person.

it's public dollars. I know you understand.

[Woodruff]

independent vs. dependent

simple as that. Can't compare

I like discussing things with you, Phatscotty. You know why? You make me feel like a better person.

it's public dollars. I know you understand.

I only wish you did.

[Phatscotty]

Scoreboard

[spurgistan]

Phatscotty, you are dependent on society. There are like, 20 dudes in the Yukon who are independent of society.

So, is it just dumb of me to celebrate Independence Day?

So, because we declared independence from the British Empire 235 years ago, Phatscotty is a self-sustaining entity unto himself, possibly living off lichens in the Arctic tundra. Umm, gotta say I don't get the logic there.

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, you are dependent on society. There are like, 20 dudes in the Yukon who are independent of society.

So, is it just dumb of me to celebrate Independence Day?

So, because we declared independence from the British Empire 235 years ago, Phatscotty is a self-sustaining entity unto himself, possibly living off lichens in the Arctic tundra. Umm, gotta say I don't get the logic there.

Get better logic

[natty dread]

This is just sad now.

Phatscotty, why don't you just quit while you have any shreds of dignity left.

[Phatscotty]

This is just sad now.

Phatscotty, why don't you just quit while you have any shreds of dignity left.

I am not dependent on public dollars. I work hard and pay my own bills and pay a shit load of taxes.

Why is that sad?

[Woodruff]

This is just sad now.

Phatscotty, why don't you just quit while you have any shreds of dignity left.

That ship has sailed long ago.

[radiojake]

This is just sad now.

Phatscotty, why don't you just quit while you have any shreds of dignity left.

I am not dependent on public dollars. I work hard and pay my own bills and pay a shit load of taxes.

Why is that sad?

You are still dependant on an employer to employ you - I already brought up this bought at about page 25 (approx) but you convieniently ignored it. There is no such thing as 'independant' people in this society short of living on your own land and growing your own food and somehow supplying your own energy. While you are living in a city, on a wage job, paying bills, you are still utterly dependant on other entities. Whether it be government or private companies is hardly worth differentiating (except you do to be able to fulfil the economic capitalist imperative and for you to feel superior over those who fall in a disadvantaged position of the economic order)

[Phatscotty]

This is just sad now.

Phatscotty, why don't you just quit while you have any shreds of dignity left.

I am not dependent on public dollars. I work hard and pay my own bills and pay a shit load of taxes.

Why is that sad?

You are still dependant on an employer to employ you - I already brought up this bought at about page 25 (approx) but you convieniently ignored it. There is no such thing as 'independant' people in this society short of living on your own land and growing your own food and somehow supplying your own energy. While you are living in a city, on a wage job, paying bills, you are still utterly dependant on other entities. Whether it be government or private companies is hardly worth differentiating (except you do to be able to fulfil the economic capitalist imperative and for you to feel superior over those who fall in a disadvantaged position of the economic order)

There is a difference between earning a wage with your work and labor, and getting an unearned check from taxpayers.