Jump to content

Thank You Florida, Kentucky, And Missouri...


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Frankly I don't think employers should be able to drug test you either unless you have a job with high life or death stakes to it (Pilot, Police, NFL Quarterback ph34r.png) If your on drugs and it gets to the point your work suffers it'll come out in your workplace performance. If your getting your job done and not getting caught lighting up in the bathroom at work or something it shouldn't be any of their business. We're letting our bosses way to much into our private and personal sh^t these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly I don't think employers should be able to drug test you either unless you have a job with high life or death stakes to it (Pilot, Police, NFL Quarterback ph34r.png) If your on drugs and it gets to the point your work suffers it'll come out in your workplace performance. If your getting your job done and not getting caught lighting up in the bathroom at work or something it shouldn't be any of their business. We're letting our bosses way to much into our private and personal sh^t these days.

I'd prefer if they were gonna drug test, that they test for all drugs. Not sure why some dude who occasionally smokes pot in the privacy of his own home is a problem, but a dude who comes into the office hung over isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My racist uncle literally just shared this on Facebook.

My Uber Christian friends have shared this plenty.

I dont really get it. Helping out the needy is kind of a fundamental principle of your religion. Yet welfare is bad? Sure some people misuse it but I'm pretty sure it's your job to help people and God's job to judge... Why all these Christians think they need to worry about how people take advantage of good works is beyond me. Just help people and shut up with your political views. Goodness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand it. If you can buy drugs you can buy food principle. I see the need for welfare at the same time just need a limit in time to be on it. There comes a point where if you refuse to work it's not on me to help you past that point. Weed shouldn't be on that list though to be checked. It's as much or more medicinal as it is recreational.

Can you imagine the crime if we turned lazy drug addicts, into homeless drug addicts with absolutely nothing? There would be a massive amount of homeless, potentially homeless criminals, in every town in America. Just imagine if 10% of all welfare recipients in America became homeless. This country would be a disaster.

I'm not sure ANYONE would want that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently there are 110 million people in America on some type of welfare. Imagine if all were drug tested and 1% failed. Thats 1.1 million people that already couldn't support themselves, and are now even worse off.

A million new homeless people? That's kinda ******.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Uber Christian friends have shared this plenty.

I dont really get it. Helping out the needy is kind of a fundamental principle of your religion. Yet welfare is bad? Sure some people misuse it but I'm pretty sure it's your job to help people and God's job to judge... Why all these Christians think they need to worry about how people take advantage of good works is beyond me. Just help people and shut up with your political views. Goodness.

I am a Christian and yes, helping others is a fundamental principle. That is why Christians participate in food drives through their church, contribute to local charities, and volunteer to help people in need (homeless shelter, soup kitchen, etc...). I am less interested in giving more money to a bloated government that is inefficient and not helping anyone except the politicians and lobbyists that are getting rich on their government charity campaign.

I can't speak for all Christians, but it's not the job of the government to support the people. I agree with having services available for tough times, as a protective service, like Welfare and Medicaid. That's not what we have. We have politicians lining their pockets preaching about helping people with their followers cheerleading the campaign because the government doing the charity takes the burden off of their shoulders to reach out and help their fellow man. Meanwhile, if a middle class American with 2 kids loses their job, unemployment won't even cover their mortgage. Yet they pay 90% of the funding for it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of drug testing people on welfare exceeds the potential gains from cutting the sub-5% of those on welfare doing illegal drugs. This policy comes from the idea that there's an exorbitant number of people on welfare, and most of them are black, abusing drugs, and/or actually have luxury commodities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a Christian and yes, helping others is a fundamental principle. That is why Christians participate in food drives through their church, contribute to local charities, and volunteer to help people in need (homeless shelter, soup kitchen, etc...). I am less interested in giving more money to a bloated government that is inefficient and not helping anyone except the politicians and lobbyists that are getting rich on their government charity campaign.

I can't speak for all Christians, but it's not the job of the government to support the people. I agree with having services available for tough times, as a protective service, like Welfare and Medicaid. That's not what we have. We have politicians lining their pockets preaching about helping people with their followers cheerleading the campaign because the government doing the charity takes the burden off of their shoulders to reach out and help their fellow man. Meanwhile, if a middle class American with 2 kids loses their job, unemployment won't even cover their mortgage. Yet they pay 90% of the funding for it...

This^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a Christian and yes, helping others is a fundamental principle. That is why Christians participate in food drives through their church, contribute to local charities, and volunteer to help people in need (homeless shelter, soup kitchen, etc...). I am less interested in giving more money to a bloated government that is inefficient and not helping anyone except the politicians and lobbyists that are getting rich on their government charity campaign.

I can't speak for all Christians, but it's not the job of the government to support the people. I agree with having services available for tough times, as a protective service, like Welfare and Medicaid. That's not what we have. We have politicians lining their pockets preaching about helping people with their followers cheerleading the campaign because the government doing the charity takes the burden off of their shoulders to reach out and help their fellow man. Meanwhile, if a middle class American with 2 kids loses their job, unemployment won't even cover their mortgage. Yet they pay 90% of the funding for it...

Fair enough perspective but why punish those that need the welfare instead of improving government function? If anything this move makes government more inefficient since this move has proven to be more costly then it saves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd prefer if they were gonna drug test, that they test for all drugs. Not sure why some dude who occasionally smokes pot in the privacy of his own home is a problem, but a dude who comes into the office hung over isn't.

The problem is that unlike alcohol, there isn't a test that can determine if a person is acutely under the influence of marijuana at the time or has merely smoked recently. Developing a test to determine who's high at the moment and who just smokes on weekends will go a long way in facilitating legalization across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of drug testing people on welfare exceeds the potential gains from cutting the sub-5% of those on welfare doing illegal drugs. This policy comes from the idea that there's an exorbitant number of people on welfare, and most of them are black, abusing drugs, and/or actually have luxury commodities.

Most poors have a fridge. That means they're living comfortable, luxurious lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough perspective but why punish those that need the welfare instead of improving government function? If anything this move makes government more inefficient since this move has proven to be more costly then it saves.

Not everything government does should be weighed by cost. If voters decide they don't like the idea of people taking public assistance while spending money to buy drugs, then even if it doesnt make sense financially, it's something the government should do.

As such, welfare programs in general don't make financial sense. Most people that are on them don't ever find a way to get off of them. So from a pure cost perspective, the cheapest option is to just have them killed. Clearly cost shouldn't be the only factor here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...