Pass legislation to mandate drug testing for welfare recipients

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Well that means quit being stones......

What a stupid response. Sorry you missed the point and sorry I wasted my time.

It wasn't stupid...I'll explain

You stated, "You can't squeeze blood from a stone", in reference to asking people to be productive.

So essentially you meant, "They are not productive and we shouldn't ask or expect them to be."

But if they want to live a comfortable life, fill their refrigerators, and have a beautiful house, then they should be motivated to get to that level. They should seek education and employment so they.....

won't be a stone

Originally posted by ButterCookie


What a stupid response. Sorry you missed the point and sorry I wasted my time.
It wasn't stupid...I'll explain

You stated, "You can't squeeze blood from a stone", in reference to asking people to be productive.

So essentially you meant, "They are not productive and we shouldn't ask or expect them to be."

But if they want to live a comfortable life, fill their refrigerators, and have a beautiful house, then they should be motivated to get to that level. They should seek education and employment so they.....

won't be a stone

Did you not read the freakin link?

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by ButterCookie


What a stupid response. Sorry you missed the point and sorry I wasted my time.
It wasn't stupid...I'll explain

You stated, "You can't squeeze blood from a stone", in reference to asking people to be productive.

So essentially you meant, "They are not productive and we shouldn't ask or expect them to be."

But if they want to live a comfortable life, fill their refrigerators, and have a beautiful house, then they should be motivated to get to that level. They should seek education and employment so they.....

won't be a stone

in link?

edit on 22-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)

Nope. I was quickly taken aback by your statement that "you can't squeeze blood from a stone"

and felt the need to respond

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

It's probably more important that most people on welfare did not receive a high school diploma, regardless their particular hue.

That's what they mean when they say 'you think education is expensive, try ignorance.'

I was in poverty as a teen. Had to quit school to work and do crime to keep a roof over my head and the heat turned on. I finally pulled myself out of the abyss, got an unprecedented near perfect score on my GED, and when on to be a Dean's List A student at college. I have served in uniform, I have owned businesses, I have controlled multi-million dollar real-estate development projects, I have mopped out toilets, I have dug ditches, I have been a foster parent, indeed I have done many things in my life, only to once again wind up homeless and collecting foodstamps. And at my age, pulling myself out of the abyss just isn't in the cards.

reply to post by ButterCookie


I feel as though the majority of them are lost and will never be found. Unfortunately, they are indoctrinating their children into the same unproductive lifestyle. Therefor we will have generations of this type.

I don't know of a solution! What ever it is, I'm almost certain some "social engineering" will be involved. It HAS to be. I would love to say education, but I'm not so sure their DNA would allow it,,,if you know what I'm sayin'.

But the accountability shouldn't simply rest on "entitlement" programs.

PS. I meant no disrespect.Now that I think about it,,,perhaps YOU can help change some of the thinking in them with your story,,,,,you would be a helluva a prototype

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Nope. I was quickly taken aback by your statement that "you can't squeeze blood from a stone"

and felt the need to respond

edit on 22-6-2011 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)

So you were being willfully ignorant. That is stupidity my friend. So my statement stands.

EDIT to add: Knee-jerk responses without thought or the benefit of factual basis, which is exactly what the drug-testing program is about. Soliciting the support of the sort of people with the same thought process you have displayed.

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

It's probably more important that most people on welfare did not receive a high school diploma, regardless their particular hue.

That's what they mean when they say 'you think education is expensive, try ignorance.'

I was in poverty as a teen. Had to quit school to work and do crime to keep a roof over my head and the heat turned on. I finally pulled myself out of the abyss, got an unprecedented near perfect score on my GED, and when on to be a Dean's List A student at college. I have served in uniform, I have owned businesses, I have controlled multi-million dollar real-estate development projects, I have mopped out toilets, I have dug ditches, I have been a foster parent, indeed I have done many things in my life, only to once again wind up homeless and collecting foodstamps. And at my age, pulling myself out of the abyss just isn't in the cards.

edit on 22-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)

I hear you. We have no idea what the cards may hold for us. Good luck CC. But givin your history,,,you can do it

reply to post by consigliere


Thanks. I'm too old to worry about it, and too overwhelmed by the stupidity around me to care. But I keep my eye out for opportunity just the same.

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by jimnuggits

 

Another myth too, that most people on welfare are inner-city blacks "drinkin 40's." The fact is that most people on welfare are white.

Here is an interesting statistic about welfare, proving your claim, but just barely:

Race --------------
White 38.8%
Black 37.2
Hispanic 17.8
Asian 2.8
Other 3.4

Also relevant for discussion:

Number of children -------------------
One 43.2%
Two 30.7
Three 15.8
Four or more 10.3

www.huppi.com...

reply to post by consigliere


The solution is to end the paradigm of the international finance cartel.

Originally posted by Tennysonbass
reply to post by vkey08

 

to play devils advocate, if you are on welfare you are already in poverty, don't blame a tylenol pill for the lot you made in life.

I would think that certain drug use would be able to be seen as such , and a black and white line would not have to be drawn here.

I didn't say that a pill caused my need for assistance at the time it happened, where did you ever get that from? What I am saying is that there are people who are legitimately on medication that would be exempted from receiving any help because of that fact, nothing more.

I love how people don't read the entire post.

My situation was nothing of the sort, in fact the government stepped in and helped because they were partially negligent in their duties, yeah my recovery period was only 2 months (to get a new home and furniture etc) but the help was there when needed, used , paid BACK to them in full, and there again if god forbid it's ever needed again.

Originally posted by SpookyFox
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

Nobody "chooses" to live life addicted to meth or crack you ignorent right wing nazi, get an idea about the real world and realise you're talking about the most abused members of society before you preach your hate speach on my internet.

A better place to start to address the problem is to HELP these people by giving them more money and better housing instead of forcing them into urban deprivation, then punishing them for being a product of their environment,

edit on 22-6-2011 by SpookyFox because: (no reason given)

Absolutely well said my friend. Starred.

reply to post by Maslo


Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. The myth is busted.

Stats also show that only about 3% of people on welfare use drugs.

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by Maslo

 

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. The myth is busted.

Stats also show that only about 3% of people on welfare use drugs.

Not quite.....

Who do you think composes this 3%? The welfare recipients that have been checked into a rehab.

What person is going to receive gov't benefits and openly state they are using drugs????

Face it; the number is MUCH higher. Many won't take a urinalysis jut like they will refuse when there is a job offer.

Do you see the correlation?

Originally posted by Maslo


Reductio ad Hitlerum logical fallacy. Or slippery slope logical fallacy. You assume that if I support reversible sterilisation of welfare recipients (assuming there will be a safe and cost effective way to do it, NOT with current medical technology - it was only a theoretical discussion), that I must support involuntary euthanasia, or god knows what else. I assure you that this is not true.

edit on 22/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

The "theoretical discussion",that you are a part of,is just that. But you have stated that you would be all right with it,if you could only get passed the logistics. Its is definitely the same thing those in Adolf Hitlers inner circle talked about,when they decided that sterilization would be a good thing. Their "theoretical discussions" became reality.

Compulsory sterilization (or sterilisation) also known as forced sterilization programs are government policies which attempt to force people to undergo surgical sterilization. In the first half of the twentieth century, many such programs were instituted in countries around the world, usually as part of eugenics programs intended to prevent the reproduction and multiplication of members of the population considered to be carriers of defective genetic traits. Forced sterilization has been recognized as crime against humanity if the action is part of a widespread or systematic practice by the Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum, which defines the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Compulsory sterilization

Regardless if its surgical,or in some other form,Its obvious that the world frowns upon it.

Eugenics is the "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population," usually referring to human populations. Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century. but by the late 20th century it had fallen into disfavor, having become associated with Nazi Germany. Both the public and some elements of the scientific community have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced "racial hygiene", human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups.

Negative eugenics is aimed at lowering fertility among the genetically disadvantaged. This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.Both positive and negative eugenics can be coercive. Abortion by fit women was illegal in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin's reign.

Eugenics


Its name is a pun on reductio ad absurdum, and was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card. by analogy to playing the race card.

The tactic is often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.

Reductio ad Hitlerum


Nowhere was I playing the Nazi Card,or a race card. Nowhere was I trying to derail your argument,or anger you.
I stated a FACT,with a huge hint of sarcasm. Sterilization is NEGATIVE Eugenics. And yes,its a slippery slope,especially when WAR MONGERS run the world.

Peace..........

reply to post by sonnny1


Very interesting points about population control, in which I openly support.

Check this out:

Paul Ehrlich, a U.S. Biologist and Environmentalist, published, "The Population Bomb" in 1968. This was his central argument on population control.......

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies - often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion if only the symptoms are treated. We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparent brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense. But the disease is so far advanced that only with radical surgery does the patient have a chance to survive

Here it is again, easier on the eyes...

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies - often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion if only the symptoms are treated. We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparent brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense. But the disease is so far advanced that only with radical surgery does the patient have a chance to survive.

Originally posted by ButterCookie


You, like some others, have decided to use red herrings(smoke screens) to debate this topic.

At what point was the topic discussing to euthanize disabled people??

We are having a theoretical discussion on a subject,that encompasses a wide range of programs that could lead into Sterilization,and outright murder. As the title states,"Pass legislation to mandate drug testing for welfare recipients",Like it is a MANDATORY requirement,and it better be. Why cant we discuss euthanizing people? Why cant we discuss Eugenics? Why must we think inside YOUR box,and think that its the ONLY MANDATORY solution ? I brought out FACTS that have happened in the past. From discussions to reality . You do know it was cost,that drove the NAZIS from actually sterilizing,to outright murder of disabled people ? On your subject alone,what would be the lasting effects of those drug tested? Are all those who are drug tested going to be labeled failures,like felons getting out of prison ? Have they not suffered enough? Less desirable people,who are leaches on society, is in fact the same line of thinking with those who supported Negative Eugenics. And to say this couldn't happen again. All it takes is one law to pass,and another,and another. Bottom line,Its really an invasion of privacy. Its punishing the less fortunate. Its lumping in EVERYONE that is in need. Imagine all the bureaucrat red tape for false positives. Proving your not a drug user. Its already been stated HOW much drugs are in our water supply. Drink coffee? Whos to say someone doesn't consider THAT a drug,or slips THAT part into the legislation. How bout this. PASS legislation ON BUREAUCRATS that cant fix our country. MANDITORY 5 years in jail,for not fixing the economy. LIFE in prison,for those BUREAUCRATS who failed us in the "DRUG WAR".


Rant off.............

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by Maslo

 

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. The myth is busted.

Stats also show that only about 3% of people on welfare use drugs.

Not quite.....

Who do you think composes this 3%? The welfare recipients that have been checked into a rehab.

What person is going to receive gov't benefits and openly state they are using drugs????

Face it; the number is MUCH higher. Many won't take a urinalysis jut like they will refuse when there is a job offer.

Do you see the correlation?

WRONG. The 3% figure comes from the state of Michigan where they also implemented this law before it was shut down by SCOTUS. 3% is the effective figure.

reply to post by sonnny1

Sterilization is NEGATIVE Eugenics.

Not necessarily. Eugenics is the science aimed to improve the genetic composition of a population. Sterilization can be practiced as a form of population control, without any genetic aims. Then it is not eugenics.

reply to post by ButterCookie


Just a quick question, slightly off topic but needs to be asked. I see you have George Orwells 1984 as your Avatar. I take it you have read the book. What was the most over ridding theme in that book for you?