No.

 

I am shocked at the number of conservatives on here who vote "yes." Bloated government spending does not justify ulterior government intrusion. You guys should know that. And I don't want to hear the "if you've got nothing to hide" routine, that is fatuous and all of you know it.

 

If you receive farm aid, should that justify warrantless searches of your real estate. After all, you might be growing pot on your land.

 

If you receive a small business loan, should that justify warrantless seizure of your entire business to be run by the government until they get around to auditing you. After all, your loan might be used to fund illegal activity.

 

Since your vehicle is licensed by the government, we should probably permit warrantless seizures and searches of your vehicle. Better yet, since you hold a government-issued license to possess firearms, we should probably require random alcohol testing prior to each use, just to make sure you're dnot drunk and shooting at things.

 

C'mon.

I can't speak for everyone but I say that because drugs are illegal. Drinking and getting fat aren't.

 

It doesn't matter to me. The purpose of UI is to have a source of income while you're looking for a job. We put no real qualifiers on it. Let the police worry about the unemployed guy smoking weed. Why does it matter to you unless you think it inhibits him/her from looking for a job. Again, its not up to us to say how they spend their money. So now the guy that fails the drug test for smoking weed has no income. Next step is what? Correct. Welfare. But you then say "No welfare if he fails a drug test." Then what? We as a country do not let people starve as a rule. One way or the other we'll end up giving that guy money.

 

What if the guy gets a DUI? No UI?

So then what should the policy be on government contractor drug testing?

No.

 

I am shocked at the number of conservatives on here who vote "yes." Bloated government spending does not justify ulterior government intrusion. You guys should know that. And I don't want to hear the "if you've got nothing to hide" routine, that is fatuous and all of you know it.

 

If you receive farm aid, should that justify warrantless searches of your real estate. After all, you might be growing pot on your land.

 

If you receive a small business loan, should that justify warrantless seizure of your entire business to be run by the government until they get around to auditing you. After all, your loan might be used to fund illegal activity.

 

Since your vehicle is licensed by the government, we should probably permit warrantless seizures and searches of your vehicle. Better yet, since you hold a government-issued license to possess firearms, we should probably require random alcohol testing prior to each use, just to make sure you're dnot drunk and shooting at things.

 

C'mon.

I think all of your comparisons aren't apples to apples except maybe the farm aid one.

 

Unemployment isn't a loan. If you had to pay back unemployment I would probably feel differently. You pay for a vehicle license so not sure how that applies. Same for firearms licence.

It doesn't matter to me. The purpose of UI is to have a source of income while you're looking for a job. We put no real qualifiers on it. Let the police worry about the unemployed guy smoking weed. Why does it matter to you unless you think it inhibits him/her from looking for a job. Again, its not up to us to say how they spend their money. So now the guy that fails the drug test for smoking weed has no income. Next step is what? Correct. Welfare. But you then say "No welfare if he fails a drug test." Then what? We as a country do not let people starve as a rule. One way or the other we'll end up giving that guy money.

 

What if the guy gets a DUI? No UI?

That's where your wrong. Right now the next step is the government extends unemployment for another 6 months. Then another, then another, and so on. And yes, after that no welfare if you can't stay clean. If you starve so what. I have NO NONE ZERO sympath for anyone too stupid to take their head out rear end and clean up their act. I promise you if it came down to sink or swim more and more would choose swim. As it is now why swim when Uncle Sam will give you water wings in the kiddie pool.

Personally I think idealism and pacifism should be taxed.

 

 

But...we all know there's no money in either, so what's the point?

No.

 

I am shocked at the number of conservatives on here who vote "yes." Bloated government spending does not justify ulterior government intrusion. You guys should know that. And I don't want to hear the "if you've got nothing to hide" routine, that is fatuous and all of you know it.

 

If you receive farm aid, should that justify warrantless searches of your real estate. After all, you might be growing pot on your land.

 

If you receive a small business loan, should that justify warrantless seizure of your entire business to be run by the government until they get around to auditing you. After all, your loan might be used to fund illegal activity.

 

Since your vehicle is licensed by the government, we should probably permit warrantless seizures and searches of your vehicle. Better yet, since you hold a government-issued license to possess firearms, we should probably require random alcohol testing prior to each use, just to make sure you're dnot drunk and shooting at things.

 

C'mon.

 

Dang it! I'm scared!

 

Today Henry and I have agreed, I agreed with Bluegrasscard, and now I agree with you! :scared:

I was thinking the poll might look like this. It was several so called conservatives who brought this up to me. They couldn't understand why I was against this.

That's where your wrong. Right now the next step is the government extends unemployment for another 6 months. Then another, then another, and so on. And yes, after that no welfare if you can't stay clean. If you starve so what. I have NO NONE ZERO sympath for anyone too stupid to take their head out rear end and clean up their act. I promise you if it came down to sink or swim more and more would choose swim. As it is now why swim when Uncle Sam will give you water wings in the kiddie pool.

 

We're making different assumptions. I'm assuming that if I can't afford to eat because I have no income I'll get welfare. That's the way it is today, correct?

 

Your logic will never come to pass. We'll never let people starve.

We're making different assumptions. I'm assuming that if I can't afford to eat because I have no income I'll get welfare. That's the way it is today, correct?

 

Your logic will never come to pass. We'll never let people starve.

Yes, your first assumption is correct.

 

I never said it would come to pass but neither will the subject of this thread. So if we are only allowed to dicuss what will actually happen then a mod needs to lock this one down.

 

I also agree that we'll never let people starve and we shouldn't let them starve. However it's not the feds job to feed them. Like Hearsay said in another thread that's where churches and such step up.

Dang it! I'm scared!

 

Today Henry and I have agreed, I agreed with Bluegrasscard, and now I agree with you! :scared:

Have no fear, there's always me.

No.

 

I am shocked at the number of conservatives on here who vote "yes." Bloated government spending does not justify ulterior government intrusion. You guys should know that. And I don't want to hear the "if you've got nothing to hide" routine, that is fatuous and all of you know it.

 

If you receive farm aid, should that justify warrantless searches of your real estate. After all, you might be growing pot on your land.

 

If you receive a small business loan, should that justify warrantless seizure of your entire business to be run by the government until they get around to auditing you. After all, your loan might be used to fund illegal activity.

 

Since your vehicle is licensed by the government, we should probably permit warrantless seizures and searches of your vehicle. Better yet, since you hold a government-issued license to possess firearms, we should probably require random alcohol testing prior to each use, just to make sure you're dnot drunk and shooting at things.

 

C'mon.

 

So, based on this analogy: Ace, Rockmom, and several others should be 100% in favor of drug testing?

So, based on this analogy: Ace, Rockmom, and several others should be 100% in favor of drug testing?

 

 

Huh???

Huh???

 

Hearsay said that conservatives should be against drug testing, so conversely, nonconservatives should be in favor of drug testing.

 

No insult RM, just trying to say that his analogy doesn't hold water.

No.

 

I am shocked at the number of conservatives on here who vote "yes." Bloated government spending does not justify ulterior government intrusion. You guys should know that. And I don't want to hear the "if you've got nothing to hide" routine, that is fatuous and all of you know it.

 

If you receive farm aid, should that justify warrantless searches of your real estate. After all, you might be growing pot on your land.

 

If you receive a small business loan, should that justify warrantless seizure of your entire business to be run by the government until they get around to auditing you. After all, your loan might be used to fund illegal activity.

 

Since your vehicle is licensed by the government, we should probably permit warrantless seizures and searches of your vehicle. Better yet, since you hold a government-issued license to possess firearms, we should probably require random alcohol testing prior to each use, just to make sure you're dnot drunk and shooting at things.

 

C'mon.

 

And how much would the testing cost?

 

We may not agree often, but we certainly do this time.