And, I can stop shopping at that store, anytime I please. Just like I can stop voting for dumbass politicos who want to dump truckloads of money into the pockets of worthless reprabates.
Cotton, fruit, livestock, car parts, textiles, etc. Not to mention the stuff that is imported. It's called, "trade", and trade makes money
It's called, "trade", and trade makes money
And again, your catch 22. It's dumb. It's against the point of having this stupid system. Welfare exists, it's their money once they recieve it. You no longer have a say in the matter. I'm not going to go after a handful of poor folk "milking" the system (I'm not sure what the numbers are, but I think most people on welfare would rather not be on welfare) because some people have a stick up their ass about some poor jerks doing drugs. We give away money to other people like candy and don't require any of this. But the poor folk, well we can do whatever the hell we want to them because they're poor. Unbelieveable. If we're going to have welfare as a system designed to help the less fortunate in times of need; then that's it. That's how it needs to work. The government still does not have rightful power to search these people nor deny them assistance on the results of that illegal search.
Kinda minor when compared to the amount of oil coming out of the middle east.
Then the oil companies can pay for it themselves.
Along with all the other shippers. Yes? You act as if oil tankers are the only commercial ships on the sea. Why the hard on for the oil and gas industry?
Or we could be intelligent about this. Not eveyone on welfare is there because they aren't looking for a job; particularly now with high unemployment and an unresponsive government. So the reason they're on welfare is they have a job and more times than not can't find one. So submit, or get tossed onto the street where it will now become even harder to get a job than before. Your Catch 22 is pretty unreasonable. The choice you want people to have is to live on the streets or accept unreasonable government force against them. As I said, not much of a choice. Pretty stupid when you think about it.
And again, your catch 22. It's dumb. It's against the point of having this stupid system. Welfare exists, it's their money once they recieve it. You no longer have a say in the matter. I'm not going to go after a handful of poor folk "milking" the system (I'm not sure what the numbers are, but I think most people on welfare would rather not be on welfare) because some people have a stick up their ass about some poor jerks doing drugs. We give away money to other people like candy and don't require any of this. But the poor folk, well we can do whatever the hell we want to them because they're poor. Unbelieveable. If we're going to have welfare as a system designed to help the less fortunate in times of need; then that's it. That's how it needs to work. The government still does not have rightful power to search these people nor deny them assistance on the results of that illegal search.
But, it's my money before they receive it and I say that some of them shouldn't be getting it.
Of course, if you had a derelict adult sibling, who could not hold a job, much less find a new one, because they were a substance abuser, and they came to you for money, you would have no basis upon which to say "no". In fact, not having any extra money yourself would not be an adequate excuse. You would be obligated to give, to expect no minimal performance standards, and to take on the debt.
Let's add an additional wrinkle. You have a second sibling, down and out, but not on drugs, and very much legitimately enduring hardship through no fault of their own. You have been helping them. Now you have to reduce that, so as to be able to help the bum. Forever. Regardless.
OPM (Other people's money) sure does switch things up at times
Wow ! Just Wow !! Submitting to, and then passing, a drug test, so as to suck at the government teat, is now "unreasonable government force". Forget that it is a process that seeks to be sure dependents of those on government aid actually may benefit where a drug-using recipient had been a part of the process.
Of course, having to submit to a drug test so as to get a job at any one of a thousand places must "be unreasonable non-government force". :roll:
You can say that all you want. But the government took it and the government deals it out and the government is limited in the manners which it can act in against our rights and liberties.
It is an unreasonable search, the individual has right to secure their person against unreasonable search. So yes, it is unreasonable government force. Just accepting a welfare check does not abdicate any of our freedoms.
Was there any reason to asume it was a different test ? Assume the same basic test.It could be, depending on how invasive the test is. Of course, there is less restriction on non-government (private) force than government force.
I thought Conservatives were against bigger government, against government spending, and against government intrusion? Why is it they are now championing this measure which increases government, increases spending, and increases government intrusion?And what is your basis for this ? Applying for welfare, instead of relying on a family member for help (my example about you) is a voluntary action. Just as is attempting to gain a job that requires drug testing, background checks, etc. So please provide some credible basis. Or is it just some feel-good opinion ? :roll:
Was there any reason to asume it was a different test ? Assume the same basic test.
I thought Conservatives were against bigger government, against government spending, and against government intrusion? Why is it they are now championing this measure which increases government, increases spending, and increases government intrusion?
But for the ones in Florida who get it, they will now be subjected to government intrusion. I thought Conservatives were against that? Why are they now championing it?Government intrusion? Nobody is making you get welfare
Drug testing is not infringing on anyones rights or liberties. Drugs are at this time illegal.
If the SCOTUS says mandatory drug testing in middle and high school is OK, what does that tell you about this situation?
And what is your basis for this ? Applying for welfare, instead of relying on a family member for help (my example about you) is a voluntary action. Just as is attempting to gain a job that requires drug testing, background checks, etc. So please provide some credible basis. Or is it just some feel-good opinion ? :roll:
I thought Conservatives were against bigger government, against government spending, and against government intrusion? Why is it they are now championing this measure which increases government, increases spending, and increases government intrusion?
Government intrusion? Nobody is making you get welfare
No, it's built from a very obvious difference between government and the individual. The government is restricted in how it can act and what force it can emply against the individual. The individual does not have as many restrictions.
But for the ones in Florida who get it, they will now be subjected to government intrusion. I thought Conservatives were against that? Why are they now championing it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?