Piss Test

[cowgirlintexas]

Got this in my inbox today. Thought it was pretty damn true and had to share it with ya'll


THE JOB - URINE TEST
( I sure would like to know who wrote this one! They deserve a HUGE pat on the back!)

I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB... SO I AGREE 100%
Like a lot of folks, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay
my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.
In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test
with which I have no problem.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who
don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to
get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their
feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on
their ASS, doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money
the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't.

*tokes*

Yeah man I agree.

[cowgirlintexas]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

*tokes*

Yeah man I agree.

"Here.. Here"..lol

Originally Posted by cowgirlintexas

Got this in my inbox today. Thought it was pretty damn true and had to share it with ya'll


THE JOB - URINE TEST
Can you imagine how much money
the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't.

I can imagine the hard working Custodian
cleaning up that public bathroom because
the state had implemented a urine test.
Illegal bladder loading and such...

All public school teachers will be fingerprinted
in Texas. I suggested the same be done in
Catholic seminaries. semenaries...

[onebadbeast]

Right On! You Go C-girl! Dont Make Me Pass One Cause All My Drugs Are Legal.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

So,you're saying that Government should have a drug test just because you have a conservative employer(that does require a drug screen.) Well,that's TEXAS for ya.I prefer more privacy than that.It seems like a good idea,but all incursions on privacy of individuals seems well meant in the beginning.Once you start,it's tempting to keep going down that road.What if the Government does get a positive test? You gunna prosecute them for doing drugs? Then you've just treated the poor different from others(who don't use Gov't aid.)Rich kids in the burbs never get tested,and never go to jail.They steal from parents to buy drugs.I'd rather people get caught for drugs when they do something to get someone's attention.You cause trouble.You have drugs on you...o.k.,then charge them for drugs.It's one thing for private companies to do it,but not crazy about Gov't testing people who haven't caused trouble yet.

[Danzig]

the gov already tests people. military, anyone with a cdl-when you sign the papers to get that particular type of drivers license, you also are signing a statement acknowledging you can be tested at any time. apparently getting a cdl is now 'probable cause'. and kids get tested at many schools. i don't agree with any of it. some employers require it as a pre-employment screen, others have a test if you suffer an injury/have an accident at work.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the gov already tests people. military, anyone with a cdl-when you sign the papers to get that particular type of drivers license, you also are signing a statement acknowledging you can be tested at any time. apparently getting a cdl is now 'probable cause'. and kids get tested at many schools. i don't agree with any of it. some employers require it as a pre-employment screen, others have a test if you suffer an injury/have an accident at work.

Well,I just don't know where you stop with this.You can make a case to support any invasion of privacy.Like I've said many times,we can be like Turkey,and have emails be checked.Have regular postal mail be checked by whatever Gov't officers deem it important to do so.I am not nearly as concerned with the private companies doing it,but the GOV'T should have some probable cause to test.Otherwise,there is no end to this,because you can always make a case we're better off if we just check everybody's email,or whatever.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by cowgirlintexas

Got this in my inbox today. Thought it was pretty damn true and had to share it with ya'll


THE JOB - URINE TEST
( I sure would like to know who wrote this one! They deserve a HUGE pat on the back!)

I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB... SO I AGREE 100%
Like a lot of folks, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay
my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.
In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test
with which I have no problem.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who
don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to
get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their
feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on
their ASS, doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money
the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't.

You don't seem to object to the piss test as much as you do to welfare.

Otherwise, why stop with people who get welfare checks?

Why not require Social Security recipients to piss once a month? They're soaking up your tax dollars also.

And if people do not have kids, why shouldn't they want teachers who are paid with their taxes to do the same?

You can also toss in the families with a lot of children who use the park far more often than you.

Really, why shouldn't you expect every social program you don't (currently) draw benefit from to be subject to any requirement you want to put on it?

If you don't like welfare, that's fine. Just don't dress up your disdain with arbitrary justification.

[fpsoxfan]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

You don't seem to object to the piss test as much as you do to welfare.

Otherwise, why stop with people who get welfare checks?

Why not require Social Security recipients to piss once a month? They're soaking up your tax dollars also.

And if people do not have kids, why shouldn't they want teachers who are paid with their taxes to do the same?

You can also toss in the families with a lot of children who use the park far more often than you.

Really, why shouldn't you expect every social program you don't (currently) draw benefit from to be subject to any requirement you want to put on it?

If you don't like welfare, that's fine. Just don't dress up your disdain with arbitrary justification.

Different BallGame and a different stadium Stud. I don't know cowgirl that well, but she was just sharing an E-Mail that she got. Chill

[cowgirlintexas]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

Different BallGame and a different stadium Stud. I don't know cowgirl that well, but she was just sharing an E-Mail that she got. Chill

Thank you. Thats what I was trying to say earlier...lol.. I was just posting an e-mail that I had gotten, not one I wrote.

[Mortimer]

^^^ Fell off merry-go-round horsey.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

You don't seem to object to the piss test as much as you do to welfare.

Otherwise, why stop with people who get welfare checks?

Why not require Social Security recipients to piss once a month? They're soaking up your tax dollars also.

And if people do not have kids, why shouldn't they want teachers who are paid with their taxes to do the same?

You can also toss in the families with a lot of children who use the park far more often than you.

Really, why shouldn't you expect every social program you don't (currently) draw benefit from to be subject to any requirement you want to put on it?

If you don't like welfare, that's fine. Just don't dress up your disdain with arbitrary justification.

that's true...there are plenty of programs we pay for, that probably suffer more fraud, waste and abuse then we would care to find....
for example-look at all the vacation and sick days a teacher gets-they already only work half the year (kids here go 178 days-not even six months worth, with a block schedule, which means teachers only have students 4 1/2 hours a day) and get summer, two weeks at christmas, a week at thanksgiving, a week for spring break, countless other holidays--yet they have high absentee rates, and subs have to get paid to fill in for these missing teachers. the average is that for a child who goes k-12, loses an entire school years worth of 'teacher time' over that 13 year period.

then there's medicare.....oh boy. poster child for fraud.