[QUOTE=BAD POSTING;30781028]Because it is? The assumption that poor instantly equals drug addict is wrong and we shouldn't create legislation based on that.
I'm a liberal, but what I like to differentiate between is conservatism and the current right wing nutjob-y sort of stuff that's a very, very vocal minority. There's rational conservatism and there's irrational conservatism. The same thing exists within liberalism, but not to the destructive extreme of irrational conservatism.[/QUOTE]
I never said poor = druggie.
But welfare is tax payer money, so if you're using my money to buy drugs with then I think you should lose that privilege and more worthy people can get it.
[QUOTE=Bryanrocks0;30781387]I never said poor = druggie.
But welfare is tax payer money, so if you're using my money to buy drugs with then I think you should lose that privilege and more worthy people can get it.[/QUOTE]
But that law is based on that specific assumption. Should all state employees be required to take drug tests when receiving their paychecks? What about soldiers recieving their pay?
[QUOTE=BAD POSTING;30781501]But that law is based on that specific assumption. Should all state employees be required to take drug tests when receiving their paychecks? What about soldiers recieving their pay?[/QUOTE]
Not to receive their paychecks, but they already have to take piss tests to get the job. Which is the same thing this welfare law was trying to do, have people take a piss test to get free money. Seems easy enough for me.
[QUOTE=Bryanrocks0;30781560]Not to receive their paychecks, but they already have to take piss tests to get the job. Which is the same thing this welfare law was trying to do, have people take a piss test to get free money. Seems easy enough for me.[/QUOTE]
But isn't the huge flaw with that rule that somebody could start using after being approved for welfare? The only way to do that and actually have it be effective is to do it on a month by month basis.
Plus, it's still based on the previously stated assumption and if you fail to see how it's an invasion of privacy to require a drug test for this, then I don't really know what to tell you.
It's not the difficulty of the actual action as much as it is the principle of the matter.
awwh had a really nice day with my best friend. we went for a walk with her dogs and we got chased by cows and then she got surrounded by them so I scared them off by roaring like a mighty lion (I'm not lying). It was heroic. It was actually quite scary for a minute. and I did a bit of manual labour for 30 mins with her dad and now I'm helping him set up this big festival (big in terms of where I live) at the end of july so I'm actually going to get paid for doing work! :dance:
quite excited.
[editline]29th June 2011[/editline]
why don't people with drug addictions deserve as much opportunity to buy them and their families food as anyone else?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;30781771]awwh had a really nice day with my best friend. we went for a walk with her dogs and we got chased by cows and then she got surrounded by them so I scared them off by roaring like a mighty lion (I'm not lying). It was heroic. It was actually quite scary for a minute. and I did a bit of manual labour for 30 mins with her dad and now I'm helping him set up this big festival (big in terms of where I live) at the end of july so I'm actually going to get paid for doing work! :dance:
quite excited.[/QUOTE]
I pictured you being like this guy
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZEbBZ2IrXE[/media]
I have yet to hear a conservative policy that I actually agree with, honestly. I think morally speaking, they're hugely, hugely flawed.
[editline]29th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Turnips5;30781790]I pictured you being like this guy
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZEbBZ2IrXE[/media][/QUOTE]
IT WAS EXACTLY LIKE THAT! that's so awesome.
lol my dog was just jumping around playing with me and she bumped into my printer and it scared the shit out of her
for some reason she's scared of a ton of inanimate objects
[QUOTE=Robbobin;30781812]I have yet to hear a conservative policy that I actually agree with, honestly. I think morally speaking, they're hugely, hugely flawed.
IT WAS EXACTLY LIKE THAT! that's so awesome.[/QUOTE]
That's so metal. :v:
wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeey! just got £200/£250 of my rent deposit :dance:
well pleased with that; I was only expecting half.
[editline]29th June 2011[/editline]
also in regards to the cow situation earlier, it's worth noting that there was about 20 of these cows. not only single pitiful moose. they would have devoured alex alive had it not been for me.
cows are pretty cool, it's the bulls that are dicks
sounds like some of you from page 50 need some inspiration.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSYtQy9EqTA[/media]
[QUOTE=BAD POSTING;30781644]But isn't the huge flaw with that rule that somebody could start using after being approved for welfare? The only way to do that and actually have it be effective is to do it on a month by month basis.
Plus, it's still based on the previously stated assumption and if you fail to see how it's an invasion of privacy to require a drug test for this, then I don't really know what to tell you.
It's not the difficulty of the actual action as much as it is the principle of the matter.[/QUOTE]
who are you
We should just abolish all welfare and burn poor people to help fuel the growth of multi-national mega-corporations.
[QUOTE=TAU!;30776559]Laurence hasn't been posting any por- butts in here lately. Something's up, I can feel it.[/QUOTE]
[quote][img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20058149/Porn/tumblr_lg8vbdI1kK1qgojbgo1_1280.jpg[/img][/quote]
Why did it take me such an ungodly amount of time to watch The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly? New favorite movie right there.
The "Brutally murder the above user" thread is quite entertaining but I wish the posters were a little more creative other than "I take this object and ram it down your throat" or "I make you die of hemorrhaging"
[QUOTE=Zorlok;30783530]who are you[/QUOTE]
james carville
[QUOTE=Robbobin;30781812]I have yet to hear a conservative policy that I actually agree with, honestly. I think morally speaking, they're hugely, hugely flawed.[/QUOTE]
Let's break it down.
Conservative. What does it mean? It means you think it's fine just the way it is (or was) before liberalization, before it [i]changed[/i]. You want to [i]conserve[/i] the old way of thinking.
A conservative would see the 1950s as an ideal time. You had a mom and a dad, who weren't divorced. A few kids, none of whom were goth/emo/scene/druggie or any of that crazy shit. Everyone went to church. The dad worked. The mom was a mom. It sounds pretty nice to them. There were downsides but they didn't focus on them.
Sometimes, in the effort to keep things like this, they make themselves believe or do silly or dumb things. For example, they see homosexuality as a threat to this. It is kinda clear that it's not [i]entirely[/i] compatible with that scenario. However they incorrectly believe that it's a "choice", when clearly it is not.
They place value on the life of a fetus. This is not extremely unreasonable later on in the pregnancy. However, some go so far as to think even using a [i]morning-after pill[/i] is murder. This is preposterous.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30783987]Let's break it down.
Conservative. What does it mean? It means you think it's fine just the way it is (or was) before liberalization, before it [i]changed[/i]. You want to [i]conserve[/i] the old way of thinking.
A conservative would see the 1950s as an ideal time. You had a mom and a dad, who weren't divorced. A few kids, none of whom were goth/emo/scene/druggie or any of that crazy shit. Everyone went to church. The dad worked. The mom was a mom. It sounds pretty nice to them. There were downsides but they didn't focus on them.
Sometimes, in the effort to keep things like this, they make themselves believe or do silly or dumb things. For example, they see homosexuality as a threat to this. It is kinda clear that it's not [i]entirely[/i] compatible with that scenario. However they incorrectly believe that it's a "choice", when clearly it is not.
They place value on the life of a fetus. This is not extremely unreasonable later on in the pregnancy. However, some go so far as to think even using a [i]morning-after pill[/i] is murder. This is preposterous.[/QUOTE]
Actually if you're talking before liberalization on a large scale you'd be talking pre-FDR. And if you're talking about that, you presumably would be talking about pre-depression.
But generally conservatives won't point to 1900 as ideal. 1950 is more realistic today.
You gotta admit a [i]lot[/i] has changed since then. I find myself agreeing with the idea that generally 1950's ideal family sounds really good.
In fact I find myself leaning toward conservatism somewhat. Especially compared to the liberal I used to be.
I now am much more respectful of both sides of the debate on abortion and gay rights, etc.
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1095945-Creepy-stuff-that-happened-to-you-or-your-friends-Resurrected?p=30746973&viewfull=1#post30746973[/url]
lmao
[b]Edit:[/b]
"I'm a firm believer in Astral Projection and freely practice in my time off."
would totally make that his title if I could
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30784198]I now am much more respectful of both sides of the debate on abortion and gay rights, etc.[/QUOTE]
With regards to gay rights, I absolutely refuse to respect anybody who supports the denial of things like marriage based on sexuality. The real argument there lies in religion and I'm a firm believer in the first amendment of the constitution.
This abortion debate also has quite a lot to do with religion (at what point is a fetus considered life being the big issue here) and I honestly believe that there is no real basis to deny a woman an abortion that she wants. Shit, Ohio's new law that criminalizes doctors that perform abortions after 20 weeks seems a bit far in my opinion.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30784198]I now am much more respectful of both sides of the debate on abortion and gay rights, etc.[/QUOTE]
I'm respectful of both sides, but I'm definitely no giving anti-abortion/gay rights talk any credence [i]at all[/i]. Morally, there is no justification for thinking abortion and gay rights are intrinsically wrong, and anyone who thinks they are are simply mistaken.
The whole notion of conservativism is absolutely bullshit; society shouldn't be static and conserve all of it's bullshit; it should be trying new things and be flexible as shit as long as they're working towards the greater utility of all.
[editline]29th June 2011[/editline]
The whole sanctity of life argument is ultimately indefensible and appeals to nothing but intuition and religious hysteria.
Gonna go tomorrow from Berlin to Denmark in a rental car. Also I want to exclaim how daytime is extremely longer in Berlin than Egypt.
Homo symptoms:
Fail at games
Fail at internet
Fail at life
Buttdoctor verdict: Buttfrustrated.
:frog:
Shit to do:
-Wash
-Clean
-Return Windows
-Figure out these bills
I am not a pet person.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;30784699]The whole sanctity of life argument is ultimately indefensible and appeals to nothing but intuition and religious hysteria.[/QUOTE]
Extended, it can be stupid. I.e., as I said, the people who think morning-after pills are murder.
However I have to ask this question:
I'm sure that you'll agree that it should be completely morally OK to kill (or "abort", call it what you like) a one-day old blastula (early, early embryo). No remorse for the blastula.
However, does the same apply for aborting a 9-month fetus which is otherwise healthy? I'm asking, is it COMPLETELY, 100% scot-free morally? Never mind the woman's rights for a moment. Never mind the implausibility of the situation, how rarely it occurs in real life. I'm asking, does it have WORTH at that age?
You see, at SOME point, we have to draw a line, beyond which it is less consciously acceptable to abort. Different people draw it at different points. Some conservatives take it to the foolish extreme. Some don't.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
