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.

 

Oh...and for the record, I'm a mild-conservative, not a non-conservative.

Oh...and for the record, I'm a mild-conservative, not a non-conservative.

 

I've always considered you a moderate with a lean.

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.

 

I don't agree with your logic. I don't think it's reasonable to assume the dominant ideologies lead to equal and opposite policy stances. Especially when they are already a bit blended in their composition.

I don't agree with your logic. I don't think it's reasonable to assume the dominant ideologies lead to equal and opposite policy stances. Especially when they are already a bit blended in their composition.

 

Actually I think we agree. I made a false analogy on purpose in response to what I considered to be a theory that doesn't hold water.

Actually I think we agree. I made a false analogy on purpose in response to what I considered to be a theory that doesn't hold water.

 

:lol: Now I'm confused. I think I see what you're saying. At any rate, I think Hearsay is right, so far as it goes. I also think it's an equally conservative position in our time to desire the heavy enforcement of drug laws, even if it comes at the expense of governmental intrusion. There is also the conservative opinion on social programs that could generate support for more conditions. It just depends on how you want to define conservative.

I'm not sure what "doesn't hold water" about my opinion. Additionally, I asserted no "theory."

 

I assume that everyone on here is opposed to warrantless and baseless search and seizure, in any arena. You don't want people in your house, you don't want them in your car, you don't want them strip-searching you, you don't want them taking your hair, urine, blood, and DNA samples without a legitimate rational basis for doing so.

 

Here is what the "yes" votes have said:

 

The receipt of unemployment insurance payments from the government (which, incidentally, for you it-has-to-be-paid-for people, is taken out of your check each week in the form of state and in someinstances, local, taxes) IN AND OF ITSELF, without other justification, forms a rational basis for a 4th amendment search and seizure.

 

You say "yes," I say "no," what doesn't "hold water" about my opinion?

Why can't you just drug test the previous offenders who get unemployment...?

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 agree and I voted no.

Oh...and for the record, I'm a mild-conservative, not a non-conservative.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

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.

Sorry, but too many dregs have taken advantage too long. It's time to put a stop to it. I don't want any of the other things you've listed, if there's a better way to keep these losers from collecting I'm listening.

Sorry, but too many dregs have taken advantage too long. It's time to put a stop to it. I don't want any of the other things you've listed, if there's a better way to keep these losers from collecting I'm listening.

Ending unemployment would probably work.

Ending unemployment would probably work.

 

 

:lol: Touche! :thumb:

I'm not sure what "doesn't hold water" about my opinion. Additionally, I asserted no "theory."

 

I assume that everyone on here is opposed to warrantless and baseless search and seizure, in any arena. You don't want people in your house, you don't want them in your car, you don't want them strip-searching you, you don't want them taking your hair, urine, blood, and DNA samples without a legitimate rational basis for doing so.

 

Here is what the "yes" votes have said:

 

The receipt of unemployment insurance payments from the government (which, incidentally, for you it-has-to-be-paid-for people, is taken out of your check each week in the form of state and in someinstances, local, taxes) IN AND OF ITSELF, without other justification, forms a rational basis for a 4th amendment search and seizure.

 

You say "yes," I say "no," what doesn't "hold water" about my opinion?

I respect your opinion but just didn't think some of the examples you used applied.

Ending unemployment would probably work.

Actually that would be my vote. With the exception of layoffs.

I would say no because they may have children who need to eat.