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.

[cowgirlintexas]

This was just an e-mail that I received in my inbox, not something I created. However, I do see the persons point about how quite a few of the people on welfare, are on drugs and how our tax $$ contribute to their habit. I sure think it would be interesting to see how many actually had to go to work because the welfare checks/Food stamps were'nt being handed to them quite so easily. I'm sure we can all think of a few that we would like to see this pertain to.

As far as drug-testing in the work place... I never understood that theroy unless it was because of a job safety sorta thing.


Just my 2 cents

[Mortimer]

^^ Had 2 customers last night

[SCUDSBROTHER]

There are 2 issues here: 1)These checks you're talking about,and 2)Drug testing.

I think it's not a great idea for people of any ideology to link the two issues.Even if ya think it's cool for the Gov't to drug test,I really think it's a mistake to link it to financial need.That's unequal treatment(to test one group routinely, because they are poor.)I'm against the gov't drug testing citizens,but if it was done,I think it should be done 2 ways(neither based on financial need.)The 1st would be when people get their drivers license,and the second would be when your actions cause you to get arrested.I'm against either situation,but it's better than just testing poor people.People who are addicted to drugs will point themselves out.You don't have to test all the poor in order to point them out.People are mistaken if they think this amount of money will satisfy an important drug habit.This isn't like somebody laying around eating too many cheeseburgers.They go through money,and they get more money in various illegal ways.Most of these people are costing you money,but not particularly with these checks.They cost you money to keep locking them up.It's a big problem.We haven't tackled it well.If there was an easy solution,we would have done it.Free societies are are always gunna struggle to control supply.I think aggressive capitalist countries are "naturals" for producing drug addicts.Look at our role models.They aren't teachers,priests,ministers,government workers,factory workers,policeman,etc.No,the role models sold to us are examples of excess.Like this guy Romney.He has spent 30 million of his own money to run for a job he may/may not get.The fact one guy even has that much money is excessive,and then his actions (spending it on running for a job he probably isn't gunna get) are excessive.This is an example of what Americans are taught as the ideal role model.The target is excess,and we get there(unfortunately often in artificial ways like taking drugs.)

[fpsoxfan]

I've already seen the E-Mail Cowgirl posted and as she said it is very interesting. E-Mails like this get sent around because the Middle Class is frustrated. We are the forgotten ones and I really don't see that changing.
It's frustrating to see the amount of welfare in my area. For every 100 people who receive public asst. only 80 really need it. In our area it's a Generational Poverty. Welfare Breeds Welfare. When I was growing up I had some friends who were poor and on public assistance, but they worked hard in school, played sports, had jobs and went off to get a college education.
That doesn't happen as much anymore. As a teacher I see a lot of bad parenting. Scum of the Earth who had no business reproducing. These are the people who are costing us a ton of money. And to think the Dems wanted them to get the same tax rebate as the working class?

[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

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

I've already seen the E-Mail Cowgirl posted and as she said it is very interesting. E-Mails like this get sent around because the Middle Class is frustrated. We are the forgotten ones and I really don't see that changing.
It's frustrating to see the amount of welfare in my area. For every 100 people who receive public asst. only 80 really need it. In our area it's a Generational Poverty. Welfare Breeds Welfare. When I was growing up I had some friends who were poor and on public assistance, but they worked hard in school, played sports, had jobs and went off to get a college education.
That doesn't happen as much anymore. As a teacher I see a lot of bad parenting. Scum of the Earth who had no business reproducing. These are the people who are costing us a ton of money. And to think the Dems wanted them to get the same tax rebate as the working class?

I think this is a common mistake made by the middle-class.They are within eyeshot of the poor etc. So,they are more of an observable problem for them.I'm not saying it's not a problem,but it's not the reason the middle-class struggles.Let me ask you something.Do successful singers have a unique ability to share? Are they "special" in production of something of value? Answer=yes.......Do rich sports stars have unique talent that produces something of great value? Can they do something actually unique? In other Woods is Tiger Woods "special" or outstanding compared to the rest of society? Answer:yes............One could make a case why these people have so much versus the average person(the middle-class.)Now,you saw this guy Romney last night,or you've seen him.Do you see anything unique about this individual's talent? He is just a conservative guy,right? What he says is pretty much what any conservative guy would say.He smiles a lot.He dresses well.Seems clean etc.Do you see any special talent here? Aren't there people who talk better when giving speeches or being funny? Yes...Where is the incredible talent that is so unique? Being smart is not uncommon...If you think he is smart,I guarantee you plenty of people could make whatever smart decision he may have made.I am not trying to single him out.There are many,many people like this.My point is that "managers" are not unique in talent.Somehow they are rewarded as if they have unique talent.This is the reason the middle-class struggles.As a society we pay people like this (with no unique talent) hundreds of millions of dollars.Money that could go to people that actually do the work(the middle-class.) These people keep the regular guys wages low,and their own wages incredible.Then they complain they are taxed too much to pay for programs.The same programs that had to be started because they wouldn't pay people,or because they got rid of people's jobs(so they could sell their stock at a higher price.)

[fpsoxfan]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I think this is a common mistake made by the middle-class.They are within eyeshot of the poor etc. So,they are more of an observable problem for them.I'm not saying it's not a problem,but it's not the reason the middle-class struggles.Let me ask you something.Do successful singers have a unique ability to share? Are they "special" in production of something of value? Answer=yes.......Do rich sports stars have unique talent that produces something of great value? Can they do something actually unique? In other Woods is Tiger Woods "special" or outstanding compared to the rest of society? Answer:yes............One could make a case why these people have so much versus the average person(the middle-class.)Now,you saw this guy Romney last night,or you've seen him.Do you see anything unique about this individual's talent? He is just a conservative guy,right? What he says is pretty much what any conservative guy would say.He smiles a lot.He dresses well.Seems clean etc.Do you see any special talent here? Aren't there people who talk better when giving speeches or being funny? Yes...Where is the incredible talent that is so unique? Being smart is not uncommon...If you think he is smart,I guarantee you plenty of people could make whatever smart decision he may have made.I am not trying to single him out.There are many,many people like this.My point is that "managers" are not unique in talent.Somehow they are rewarded as if they have unique talent.This is the reason the middle-class struggles.As a society we pay people like this (with no unique talent) hundreds of millions of dollars.Money that could go to people that actually do the work(the middle-class.) These people keep the regular guys wages low,and their own wages incredible.Then they complain they are taxed too much to pay for programs.The same programs that had to be started because they wouldn't pay people,or because they got rid of people's jobs(so they could sell their stock at a higher price.)

I think I get most of what you are saying. I'm not sure I'm drawing the connection between the rich should be helping the poor thing. As far as Romney or any other politician, I believe they are all full of shiat. How do they sleep at night knowing what they say or don't say hinges completely on the lobby they represent. Do I think they are smart? Nope. I can tell you I'm not smart. How many teachers can you get to admit that. I'm just very good at what I do. Just like an actor, politician or a person who installs windshields for a living.

The fact of the matter is, we all made a CHOICE to be who we are. I don't begrudge an actor for making $1,000,00 a flick or a baseball player for making 30,000 per at bat. I knew being a teacher would not make me a wealthy person. The problem I have is with the lazy slobs who would rather live on HUD housing and take a monthly check on my dime instead of having the iniative to go find a job and make a living. It's not my fault that they are too lazy to get off their ass and get a job; especially when there are jobs available. Then they have the audacity to go spend that chr=eck at OTB instead of paying for their kids field trip or getting the kid a notebook that they need. Do I hate welfare recipients? Nope. Many are working to get off welfare. Or some have some sort of a disability. That's obviously understandable. The rest of them should be ashamed of themselves.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

I think I get most of what you are saying. I'm not sure I'm drawing the connection between the rich should be helping the poor thing. As far as Romney or any other politician, I believe they are all full of shiat. How do they sleep at night knowing what they say or don't say hinges completely on the lobby they represent. Do I think they are smart? Nope. I can tell you I'm not smart. How many teachers can you get to admit that. I'm just very good at what I do. Just like an actor, politician or a person who installs windshields for a living.

The fact of the matter is, we all made a CHOICE to be who we are. I don't begrudge an actor for making $1,000,00 a flick or a baseball player for making 30,000 per at bat. I knew being a teacher would not make me a wealthy person. The problem I have is with the lazy slobs who would rather live on HUD housing and take a monthly check on my dime instead of having the iniative to go find a job and make a living. It's not my fault that they are too lazy to get off their ass and get a job; especially when there are jobs available. Then they have the audacity to go spend that chr=eck at OTB instead of paying for their kids field trip or getting the kid a notebook that they need. Do I hate welfare recipients? Nope. Many are working to get off welfare. Or some have some sort of a disability. That's obviously understandable. The rest of them should be ashamed of themselves.

Well,what I'm saying is if they got rid of these programs people don't like,then you wouldn't see the middle-class do much better.They would get a very minor tax break.The reason the middle-class struggles is because people with no particular unique talent are paid as if they are rock stars or virtuoso entertainers.Like I said,this Romney guy has a load of money.Where is the special n' unique talent that made whatever he did so unique? That's where the middle-class' gets taken..By guys like that(not guys with talent....like Tiger Woods,or other gifted people.)

[fpsoxfan]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Well,what I'm saying is if they got rid of these programs people don't like,then you wouldn't see the middle-class do much better.They would get a very minor tax break.The reason the middle-class struggles is because people with no particular unique talent are paid as if they are rock stars or virtuoso entertainers.Like I said,this Romney guy has a load of money.Where is the special n' unique talent that made whatever he did so unique? That's where the middle-class' gets taken..By guys like that(not guys with talent....like Tiger Woods,or other gifted people.)

Gotcha! It's a good argument you make!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

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.

i just don't think you should be tested until there is probable cause. having a cdl isn't probable cause, or being a student athlete. however, probable cause could be argued if you are at work and have an accident--a fork truck driver hitting a pole for example....i just think that if you start chipping a bit at a right, then it makes it easier to chip a bit more, and maybe a bit more. til suddenly, that right no longer exists.

[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.