The Dream Team - DPChallenge Forums

08/15/2012 05:59:57 PM · #101

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Cory:
Make a trip to Miami sometime... I'll be glad to show you around.

Deal. Come up to Eugene and I'll give you a tour of the Women and Children's wing of the Mission. We can compare notes.

FWIW, I've volunteered my time plenty, both for W&C and homeless shelters, among other causes. Don't make the mistake of thinking atheists aren't charitable. :)

08/15/2012 06:01:11 PM · #102

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
PS I'm sitting in Miami right now.

There ya go, guys! Go find each other and have a REAL debate!

Heh... Might I ask what you're doing in Miami? Just passing through, or here long enough to bother? I'd totally recommend seeing Wynwood at the least, and possibly popping over here to South Beach.... Of course, I'd be happy to facilitate despite our disagreements on certain aspects of social policy. ;)

08/15/2012 06:06:04 PM · #103

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
PS I'm sitting in Miami right now.

There ya go, guys! Go find each other and have a REAL debate!

Heh... Might I ask what you're doing in Miami? Just passing through, or here long enough to bother? I'd totally recommend seeing Wynwood at the least, and possibly popping over here to South Beach.... Of course, I'd be happy to facilitate despite our disagreements on certain aspects of social policy. ;)

Well I was born here actually and grew up partly here and partly in Orlando. So, visiting family.

08/15/2012 06:08:25 PM · #104

Originally posted by escapetooz:

...

You are making the mistake of using anecdote as fact. It doesn't change the fact that it costs more money than it saves and there ARE drug users among the entire economic spectrum. Why test people that need help and not people that are running the country? Seems it should be the other way around, if I believed in drug testing. Which I don't. I think it's ineffective and an invasion if privacy. You can't get much more improper than taking a person's piss. Heck why not just search their house for drugs while we're at it?

Also, you have no idea what circumstances I grew up in and it's none of your business so perhaps you should keep your accusations to yourself.

Look, if you're living in daddy's house, should he have the right to nose in on your life? I feel the same about welfare recipients.

Secondarily, wth are you getting so defensive about? I didn't accuse you of anything, except potential lack of experience, and that's not out of bounds, I'm surprised at your reaction.

And if you did grow up on welfare, then good for you for making it out - I'm certainly not saying that JK Rowlings don't exist, it's just that they are a darn small portion of the overall group.

.......

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/15/2012 06:10:27 PM · #105

Just as a point of clarification.. I like the IDEA of welfare and other social programs..

I hate the implementation and abusers.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

08/15/2012 06:20:52 PM · #106

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Cory:
Make a trip to Miami sometime... I'll be glad to show you around.

Deal. Come up to Eugene and I'll give you a tour of the Women and Children's wing of the Mission. We can compare notes.

FWIW, I've volunteered my time plenty, both for W&C and homeless shelters, among other causes. Don't make the mistake of thinking atheists aren't charitable. :)

That was out of left field. I just don't want you to make the mistake of not knowing welfare is a lifesaver for many people every day.

08/15/2012 06:28:10 PM · #107

My issue is not with those who truly need help.

Message edited by author 2012-08-15 18:31:31.

08/15/2012 06:28:45 PM · #108

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
...

You are making the mistake of using anecdote as fact. It doesn't change the fact that it costs more money than it saves and there ARE drug users among the entire economic spectrum. Why test people that need help and not people that are running the country? Seems it should be the other way around, if I believed in drug testing. Which I don't. I think it's ineffective and an invasion if privacy. You can't get much more improper than taking a person's piss. Heck why not just search their house for drugs while we're at it?

Also, you have no idea what circumstances I grew up in and it's none of your business so perhaps you should keep your accusations to yourself.

Look, if you're living in daddy's house, should he have the right to nose in on your life? I feel the same about welfare recipients.

Secondarily, wth are you getting so defensive about? I didn't accuse you of anything, except potential lack of experience, and that's not out of bounds, I'm surprised at your reaction.

And if you did grow up on welfare, then good for you for making it out - I'm certainly not saying that JK Rowlings don't exist, it's just that they are a darn small portion of the overall group.

.......

What a creepy comparison. And again, why do we realize welfare recipients are living in "daddy's house" but not the military or the legislators? Again and again you miss the point. No. I DON'T think giving someone money entitles you to nose around. 4th amendment disappears somehow when money changes hands? No. I disagree completely.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

08/15/2012 06:34:41 PM · #109

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
...

You are making the mistake of using anecdote as fact. It doesn't change the fact that it costs more money than it saves and there ARE drug users among the entire economic spectrum. Why test people that need help and not people that are running the country? Seems it should be the other way around, if I believed in drug testing. Which I don't. I think it's ineffective and an invasion if privacy. You can't get much more improper than taking a person's piss. Heck why not just search their house for drugs while we're at it?

Also, you have no idea what circumstances I grew up in and it's none of your business so perhaps you should keep your accusations to yourself.

Look, if you're living in daddy's house, should he have the right to nose in on your life? I feel the same about welfare recipients.

Secondarily, wth are you getting so defensive about? I didn't accuse you of anything, except potential lack of experience, and that's not out of bounds, I'm surprised at your reaction.

And if you did grow up on welfare, then good for you for making it out - I'm certainly not saying that JK Rowlings don't exist, it's just that they are a darn small portion of the overall group.

.......

What a creepy comparison. And again, why do we realize welfare recipients are living in "daddy's house" but not the military or the legislators? Again and again you miss the point. No. I DON'T think giving someone money entitles you to nose around. 4th amendment disappears somehow when money changes hands? No. I disagree completely.

I'd be all for drug testing legislators as well..

As for your comparison of the members of the armed services to welfare recipients, well that's possibly the most insulting thing you've managed thus far.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/15/2012 06:36:37 PM · #110

Originally posted by Cory:

Just like I'm totally in favor of drug testing for welfare, and legalization of pot, common sense doesn't have to blindly follow principles.

Assuming pot was legalized, does that mean that welfare recipients COULD lose their allowance for engaging in something that is LEGAL.

I have no problem with the legalization of marijuana, but would gladly support a process where all employees, regardless of their occupation, be compelled to undergo random drug test, including the use of alcohol and medicinal drugs.

Ray

08/15/2012 06:36:57 PM · #111

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
...

You are making the mistake of using anecdote as fact. It doesn't change the fact that it costs more money than it saves and there ARE drug users among the entire economic spectrum. Why test people that need help and not people that are running the country? Seems it should be the other way around, if I believed in drug testing. Which I don't. I think it's ineffective and an invasion if privacy. You can't get much more improper than taking a person's piss. Heck why not just search their house for drugs while we're at it?

Also, you have no idea what circumstances I grew up in and it's none of your business so perhaps you should keep your accusations to yourself.

Look, if you're living in daddy's house, should he have the right to nose in on your life? I feel the same about welfare recipients.

Secondarily, wth are you getting so defensive about? I didn't accuse you of anything, except potential lack of experience, and that's not out of bounds, I'm surprised at your reaction.

And if you did grow up on welfare, then good for you for making it out - I'm certainly not saying that JK Rowlings don't exist, it's just that they are a darn small portion of the overall group.

.......

What a creepy comparison. And again, why do we realize welfare recipients are living in "daddy's house" but not the military or the legislators? Again and again you miss the point. No. I DON'T think giving someone money entitles you to nose around. 4th amendment disappears somehow when money changes hands? No. I disagree completely.

I'd be all for drug testing legislators as well..

As for your comparison of the members of the armed services to welfare recipients, well that's possibly the most insulting thing you've managed thus far.

Because...?

ETA: Why is testing welfare recipients ok, legislators ok, armed men and women "The most insulting thing I've managed thus far".

Again. I'm against drug testing. Period. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Message edited by author 2012-08-15 18:38:33.

08/15/2012 06:40:12 PM · #112

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:

Just like I'm totally in favor of drug testing for welfare, and legalization of pot, common sense doesn't have to blindly follow principles.

Assuming pot was legalized, does that mean that welfare recipients COULD lose their allowance for engaging in something that is LEGAL.

I have no problem with the legalization of marijuana, but would gladly support a process where all employees, regardless of their occupation, be compelled to undergo random drug test, including the use of alcohol and medicinal drugs.

Ray

Again, a huge waste of time and money. Why shoot in the dark? If someone seems to have a problem, has poor performance, or is otherwise strongly suspected of of using drugs, by all means test. Otherwise I don't think it's anyone's business what someone does in their own homes.

08/15/2012 06:42:23 PM · #113

Originally posted by RayEthier:

If you are in a position where you are so desperate for help, I do not approve of buying drugs, alcohol, hookers or expensive steaks, how can you argue that such purchases are OK if you're using social support funds?

Actually, I might be far more in favor of drug testing the people asking for a handout than those who work for a living, since at least those who are working are paying for their habits.

Additionally, it's a fact that pot kills ambition, if you are in dire straights, a lack of ambition doesn't really make me want to help you..... Of course, I don't know for sure, but it's STRONGLY my guess that many people are unable to find gainful employment because of a drug problem.... Why shouldn't they be forced to address their substance abuse problems in order to receive public assistance?

08/15/2012 06:43:39 PM · #114

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
...

You are making the mistake of using anecdote as fact. It doesn't change the fact that it costs more money than it saves and there ARE drug users among the entire economic spectrum. Why test people that need help and not people that are running the country? Seems it should be the other way around, if I believed in drug testing. Which I don't. I think it's ineffective and an invasion if privacy. You can't get much more improper than taking a person's piss. Heck why not just search their house for drugs while we're at it?

Also, you have no idea what circumstances I grew up in and it's none of your business so perhaps you should keep your accusations to yourself.

Look, if you're living in daddy's house, should he have the right to nose in on your life? I feel the same about welfare recipients.

Secondarily, wth are you getting so defensive about? I didn't accuse you of anything, except potential lack of experience, and that's not out of bounds, I'm surprised at your reaction.

And if you did grow up on welfare, then good for you for making it out - I'm certainly not saying that JK Rowlings don't exist, it's just that they are a darn small portion of the overall group.

.......

What a creepy comparison. And again, why do we realize welfare recipients are living in "daddy's house" but not the military or the legislators? Again and again you miss the point. No. I DON'T think giving someone money entitles you to nose around. 4th amendment disappears somehow when money changes hands? No. I disagree completely.

I'd be all for drug testing legislators as well..

As for your comparison of the members of the armed services to welfare recipients, well that's possibly the most insulting thing you've managed thus far.

Because...?

ETA: Why is testing welfare recipients ok, legislators ok, armed men and women "The most insulting thing I've managed thus far".

Again. I'm against drug testing. Period. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

They're already tested, and it's not the suggestion to test that that was offensive, it was the implication that they are equal to those who are asking for a handout. The members of the military really do deserve more respect than that, and I find your comparison very distasteful.

08/15/2012 06:45:55 PM · #115

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Now you're just making this too easy.

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Again. I'm against drug testing. Period. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Besides, when the public is paying for the house, it's hardly "their own homes"...

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

08/15/2012 06:54:06 PM · #116

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:

Just like I'm totally in favor of drug testing for welfare, and legalization of pot, common sense doesn't have to blindly follow principles.

Assuming pot was legalized, does that mean that welfare recipients COULD lose their allowance for engaging in something that is LEGAL.

I have no problem with the legalization of marijuana, but would gladly support a process where all employees, regardless of their occupation, be compelled to undergo random drug test, including the use of alcohol and medicinal drugs.

Ray

Again, a huge waste of time and money. Why shoot in the dark? If someone seems to have a problem, has poor performance, or is otherwise strongly suspected of of using drugs, by all means test. Otherwise I don't think it's anyone's business what someone does in their own homes.

Now you're just making this too easy.

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Again. I'm against drug testing. Period. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Besides, when the public is paying for the house, it's hardly "their own homes"...

This was my point with the military. The public is paying for their homes too. This shows the distinction then isn't the MONEY, it's value judgement of whether you think they EARNED it or not.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/15/2012 06:54:41 PM · #117

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:

Just like I'm totally in favor of drug testing for welfare, and legalization of pot, common sense doesn't have to blindly follow principles.

Assuming pot was legalized, does that mean that welfare recipients COULD lose their allowance for engaging in something that is LEGAL.

I have no problem with the legalization of marijuana, but would gladly support a process where all employees, regardless of their occupation, be compelled to undergo random drug test, including the use of alcohol and medicinal drugs.

Ray

If you are in a position where you are so desperate for help, I do not approve of buying drugs, alcohol, hookers or expensive steaks, how can you argue that such purchases are OK if you're using social support funds?

Actually, I might be far more in favor of drug testing the people asking for a handout than those who work for a living, since at least those who are working are paying for their habits.

Additionally, it's a fact that pot kills ambition, if you are in dire straights, a lack of ambition doesn't really make me want to help you..... Of course, I don't know for sure, but it's STRONGLY my guess that many people are unable to find gainful employment because of a drug problem.... Why shouldn't they be forced to address their substance abuse problems in order to receive public assistance?

You didn't the first part of my comment which was "Assuming pot was legalized, does that mean that welfare recipients COULD lose their allowance for engaging in something that is LEGAL."

How would you go about condemning someone for engaging in something that is legal.

Ray

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

08/15/2012 07:01:26 PM · #118

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Just like I'm totally in favor of drug testing for welfare, and legalization of pot, common sense doesn't have to blindly follow principles.

Assuming pot was legalized, does that mean that welfare recipients COULD lose their allowance for engaging in something that is LEGAL.

I have no problem with the legalization of marijuana, but would gladly support a process where all employees, regardless of their occupation, be compelled to undergo random drug test, including the use of alcohol and medicinal drugs.

Ray

Originally posted by escapetooz:

I don't know about anyone else, but I would have no problems having random drug tests done on me, psychological tests or any other test they deem necessary.

I most certainly do NOT think they are a waste of time and money but view them rather as preventive measures.

Ray

08/15/2012 07:02:36 PM · #119

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:

Just like I'm totally in favor of drug testing for welfare, and legalization of pot, common sense doesn't have to blindly follow principles.

Assuming pot was legalized, does that mean that welfare recipients COULD lose their allowance for engaging in something that is LEGAL.

I have no problem with the legalization of marijuana, but would gladly support a process where all employees, regardless of their occupation, be compelled to undergo random drug test, including the use of alcohol and medicinal drugs.

Ray

If you are in a position where you are so desperate for help, I do not approve of buying drugs, alcohol, hookers or expensive steaks, how can you argue that such purchases are OK if you're using social support funds?

Actually, I might be far more in favor of drug testing the people asking for a handout than those who work for a living, since at least those who are working are paying for their habits.

Additionally, it's a fact that pot kills ambition, if you are in dire straights, a lack of ambition doesn't really make me want to help you..... Of course, I don't know for sure, but it's STRONGLY my guess that many people are unable to find gainful employment because of a drug problem.... Why shouldn't they be forced to address their substance abuse problems in order to receive public assistance?

You didn't the first part of my comment which was "Assuming pot was legalized, does that mean that welfare recipients COULD lose their allowance for engaging in something that is LEGAL."

How would you go about condemning someone for engaging in something that is legal.

Ray

No I didn't miss it, nor is it a problem. I'm glad to condemn people who cause problems because of their use of a legal substance... DWI and smoking in hospitals comes to mind, but there are probably better examples. If you have a drug problem that causes you to not be able to work, and then ask me for money to buy more drugs with, I have a serious issue with that.

08/15/2012 07:06:41 PM · #120

Originally posted by escapetooz:

This was my point with the military. The public is paying for their homes too. This shows the distinction then isn't the MONEY, it's value judgement of whether you think they EARNED it or not.

Yep, you fail to see reason. I'll try once more.

The members of the armed services EARN their living. The public is no more paying for their homes than they are paying for my whiskey, since I do government work as well at times.

I cannot see how the heck you could even THINK of implying that the members of the armed services are sucking at the teat of public assistance.

As to your final point, HELL yes it's a value judgement of whether they DID earn it or not, it's not my opinion, this is a fact.

08/15/2012 07:09:39 PM · #121

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Just like I'm totally in favor of drug testing for welfare, and legalization of pot, common sense doesn't have to blindly follow principles.

Assuming pot was legalized, does that mean that welfare recipients COULD lose their allowance for engaging in something that is LEGAL.

I have no problem with the legalization of marijuana, but would gladly support a process where all employees, regardless of their occupation, be compelled to undergo random drug test, including the use of alcohol and medicinal drugs.

Ray

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Again, a huge waste of time and money. Why shoot in the dark? If someone seems to have a problem, has poor performance, or is otherwise strongly suspected of of using drugs, by all means test. Otherwise I don't think it's anyone's business what someone does in their own homes.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would have no problems having random drug tests done on me, psychological tests or any other test they deem necessary.

I most certainly do NOT think they are a waste of time and money but view them rather as preventive measures.

Ray

It quite literally is a waste of time and money though. I saw figures around $20,000 in drug testing to catch one offender. It's not cheap. Preventative for what?

I've always had a problem with drug testing. It's degrading and insulting. It's coming at a person from the angle guilty until proven innocent. It's against the 4th amendment. It's wrong.

It's like when a cop asked to search your house or your vehicle. The mindset is that if you have nothing to hide, you will have no problem with it. But I do have a problem with all of it. It's unconstitutional. Even if I have not a thing to hide, it's my right to say no. Period.

08/15/2012 07:16:03 PM · #122

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Just like I'm totally in favor of drug testing for welfare, and legalization of pot, common sense doesn't have to blindly follow principles.

Assuming pot was legalized, does that mean that welfare recipients COULD lose their allowance for engaging in something that is LEGAL.

I have no problem with the legalization of marijuana, but would gladly support a process where all employees, regardless of their occupation, be compelled to undergo random drug test, including the use of alcohol and medicinal drugs.

Ray

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Again, a huge waste of time and money. Why shoot in the dark? If someone seems to have a problem, has poor performance, or is otherwise strongly suspected of of using drugs, by all means test. Otherwise I don't think it's anyone's business what someone does in their own homes.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would have no problems having random drug tests done on me, psychological tests or any other test they deem necessary.

I most certainly do NOT think they are a waste of time and money but view them rather as preventive measures.

Ray

It quite literally is a waste of time and money though. I saw figures around $20,000 in drug testing to catch one offender. It's not cheap. Preventative for what?

I've always had a problem with drug testing. It's degrading and insulting. It's coming at a person from the angle guilty until proven innocent. It's against the 4th amendment. It's wrong.

It's like when a cop asked to search your house or your vehicle. The mindset is that if you have nothing to hide, you will have no problem with it. But I do have a problem with all of it. It's unconstitutional. Even if I have not a thing to hide, it's my right to say no. Period.

You are mixing things up...

I didn't say we should go around busting into people's homes and making them pee in cups. I said that when they come asking for help, that would be a reasonable barrier.

The two scenarios are VERY VERY VERY different... In one case you're being subjected to something without cause, in the other you are asking for something, and being asked to give something in return. Hell, I've sold parts of my body (ok, only plasma, but still) to make ends meet, and that required drug testing too... Why should those who earn their living be subject to these tests, but not those who take a handout?

Complain all you want, but I don't hear you producing viable alternatives, just hear you attacking what could be a rather effective tool that would increase good-will towards the deserving recipients of welfare...

Hell, welfare recipients who are deserving should be ALL FOR THIS idea, since there would be more for them, and they would gain respect in terms of public perception.

Strangely, I see very few of them advocating for this, which makes me suspect that many of them are a part of the problem, and those who are not are simply afraid of being ostracized for supporting the reform ideas.

Message edited by author 2012-08-15 19:18:03.

08/15/2012 07:17:20 PM · #123

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

This was my point with the military. The public is paying for their homes too. This shows the distinction then isn't the MONEY, it's value judgement of whether you think they EARNED it or not.

Yep, you fail to see reason. I'll try once more.

The members of the armed services EARN their living. The public is no more paying for their homes than they are paying for my whiskey, since I do government work as well at times.

I cannot see how the heck you could even THINK of implying that the members of the armed services are sucking at the teat of public assistance.

As to your final point, HELL yes it's a value judgement of whether they DID earn it or not, it's not my opinion, this is a fact.

Right that's what I said. That's your judgement call. Again, it's not about the money and where it came from, it's about whether you think it's deserved or not. Did I say sucking at the teat? Yeesh. People get so touchy about the military.

But sure... let me go down that road with a hypothetical.

A woman's husband dies. He's got no life insurance and leaves next to nothing. She spent her life supporting the family and now has no "job skills" to speak of. Reluctantly she goes on welfare.

Now... military guys I saw in Korea. Heck I'll use a guy I really met there. 18 years old, gets stationed in South Korea where he basically just runs drills all the time. Every chance he gets he goes out and gets wasted drunk and hits on anything that moves. I physically had to grab a glass bottle from his hand because he had just thrown and broken about 5 in the road before I stopped him.

Who is sucking at the teat? You can't generalize. It's no more insulting to drug test a military member than a welfare recipient. To say otherwise is discrimination. Being on welfare doesn't automatically make one a loser. Being in the military doesn't automatically make one noble. To think otherwise is the real offense.

08/15/2012 07:20:07 PM · #124

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Just like I'm totally in favor of drug testing for welfare, and legalization of pot, common sense doesn't have to blindly follow principles.

Assuming pot was legalized, does that mean that welfare recipients COULD lose their allowance for engaging in something that is LEGAL.

I have no problem with the legalization of marijuana, but would gladly support a process where all employees, regardless of their occupation, be compelled to undergo random drug test, including the use of alcohol and medicinal drugs.

Ray

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Again, a huge waste of time and money. Why shoot in the dark? If someone seems to have a problem, has poor performance, or is otherwise strongly suspected of of using drugs, by all means test. Otherwise I don't think it's anyone's business what someone does in their own homes.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would have no problems having random drug tests done on me, psychological tests or any other test they deem necessary.

I most certainly do NOT think they are a waste of time and money but view them rather as preventive measures.

Ray

It quite literally is a waste of time and money though. I saw figures around $20,000 in drug testing to catch one offender. It's not cheap. Preventative for what?

I've always had a problem with drug testing. It's degrading and insulting. It's coming at a person from the angle guilty until proven innocent. It's against the 4th amendment. It's wrong.

It's like when a cop asked to search your house or your vehicle. The mindset is that if you have nothing to hide, you will have no problem with it. But I do have a problem with all of it. It's unconstitutional. Even if I have not a thing to hide, it's my right to say no. Period.

You are mixing things up...

I didn't say we should go around busting into people's homes and making them pee in cups. I said that when they come asking for help, that would be a reasonable barrier.

Complain all you want, but I don't hear you producing viable alternatives, just hear you attacking what could be a rather effective tool that would increase good-will towards the deserving recipients of welfare...

Hell, welfare recipients who are deserving should be ALL FOR THIS idea, since there would be more for them, and they would gain respect in terms of public perception.

Strangely, I see very few of them advocating for this, which makes me suspect that many of them are a part of the problem, and those who are not are simply afraid of being ostracized for supporting the reform ideas.

Again last time the debate came up I spent a lot of time and energy researching the topic and posting articles that clearly stated just why it was a LITERAL waste of time and money. So I won't bother because people don't want to read the level-headed arguments I make. They want to cherry-pick the few little things they can get offended about. In all honesty my very best points and arguments fall on completely deaf ears. Why do I keep trying?

This mindset again, is guilty until proven innocent. Wrong is wrong. It's like the patriot act. People don't want to disagree with it because "hey, I've got nothing to worry about". Our rights are there for a reason. We can't just go throwing them out because we think they don't affect us.

This isn't complaining. It doesn't affect ME one way or another. I've never been on welfare. I just think it's wrong.

Message edited by author 2012-08-15 19:21:04.