Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
YOU asked me a question. I ANSWERED it. What's with pulling "that's not what this thread is about" card every time you don't like the answer? Your question implied that the only kinds of people who disregard the law are those lazy, partying, welfare scamming folks you see everywhere.
Those people I know are polticians, bureaucrats, business owners, etc., etc. Do you think that poor people on welfare are the only people in the world who would dare to disregard the law?
? I agreed with you. And yes, it is OT. I never implied anything of the sort, I just failed to mention my opposition to other types of handouts, like corporate welfare, since that is not what this thread is about!
And no, I do not think these are the only people who have no regard for the law, but again, that is not what this thread is about.
Well, show me some evidence, some hard data. With all those "tons of people" agreeing with you, SOMEONE should have been able to find some studies, some data to support their belief that the welfare system is so flawed that we should spend money administering a drug test to recipients in order to "fix it" or in order to save money.
Where are the studies to support your belief? Tons of people believed there were WMD in Iraq, but that did not turn out to be true, did it? Just because a lot of people believe something to be true, does not make it so. Find the data. Find the studies out there to support your position. Otherwise, it just continues to be your opinion/belief and why should MY TAX MONEY be spent to make you feel better by having drug testing for welfare recipients when you don't have the PROOF that it's true or that drug testing would be cost effective?
Wanting to drug test people for welfare is subjective based on what we have seen with our own eyes. The WMD was not and there is no evidence we could have seen for ourselves in this regard and we were relying on intelligence reports. That is a strawman argument.
But I think in theory, nobody wants druggies to be supported by the public dime. I also said I would agree with work programs or something else to fix the system. What alternatives have you offered up?
Wanting to drug test people for welfare is subjective based on what we have seen with our own eyes. The WMD was not and there is no evidence we could have seen for ourselves in this regard and we were relying on intelligence reports. That is a strawman argument.
This is OT, which I happen to like, but we did have information that information regarding WMD was bunk during Bush's state of the union address in 2002. He noted CIA intelligence during that address that was known to be false prior to the address and prior to the military campain. For me, it was the first reg flag. The way I saw it back then was that if you see one roach, you know there are thousands in your walls. It should have given everyone full stop pause.
I take care of myself, thanks, no handouts for me. I also pay my taxes, thanks. I'm pretty sure I'm doing my "duty" to "society."
Churches get the money from tithes and donations and if you have any experience with how churches operate, you would know that there is no discrimination on the part of the church as far as who gets assistance; not saying it doesn't happen but far and away, there is no bias since Jesus said to help people, not to help Christians. You don't even have to be Christian for them to help you, you just have to have a need. All this in regard to individual donations. That does not even begin to cover outreach programs, ministries and special programs like around the holidays or when the community shows a need for something.
I never said you take or need a handout, or that you don't contribute. All I meant to get across was that you owe society more than jack...
I'm afraid that talking about the religious aspect might take the discussion off course, so I'll try to stick to the course here.
I understand that the church does a lot to help people even when they aren't religious, but I have a very hard time lending any more support to any church. Given the skullduggery and corruption of the church, the wars over religion, the witch hunts (both literal and proverbial) which have come from the church and especially the issue of who is to be responsible to encourage people to go to church and how they intend to do it I couldn't reasonably advocate more church involvement in our daily lives. Besides if the churches were properly equipped to do this, we wouldn't need the government to do it. Jesus is credited with saying a great many things, and his followers have spent 2000 years murdering one another over who interpreted his word right - that's not the institution we want to publicly encourage - simply for the reason that religious followers cannot even agree amongst themselves on what the same god expects of us. I mean should we encourage people to attend the Westboro Baptist Church, or the Jehova's Witnesses - Do these have to be especially churches or can we encourage more people to go to Mosques, temples and Synagogues too? Mostly I'm interested in how this attendance is to be encouraged? Who gets to pay for that and especially what the church stands to gain from it. Cause I'd much rather someone buy drugs with my tax dollars than a new golden cross for the new steeple...
Perhaps not. I know where I'm coming from, my tone, and why. You skimmed a post, which is obvious, and then became confused. It's typical on the net. I was answering a charge.
Ok, I'll spell it out for you. From the post I responded to.
"I think what we're seeing here is the hard wired instinct in human beings for Social Darwinism to kick in when we've got too many people competing for too few resources. That would account for the anger towards those who are "taking" from society and unable to give little back."
I responded with specific, real life examples as to how it has nothing to with anger from those taking from society and unable to give a little back. All based on goofy evo-psych. To start, the latter reducing analysis insults my intelligence as a scientist and me as an individual with this social darwintripe. Second, those who are truly in need and unable to give back socially are animals, the disabled, and the dying. You guys would know this if you ever bothered.
Why are you incapable of comprehending a post and a response to said post? Perhaps you should start thinking about laying off the pot?
Perhaps you should consider stopping the personal attacks and the huge generalizations.
I do not smoke pot. Am certainly not smoking pot now. And the fact that you would accuse me of such is clearly revealing your gross generalization that all people who support welfare programs MUST BE DOING DRUGS.
Lady, I'm not even slightly impressed with your claims of being a scientist. All I see is a very rude post with personal attacks. Do you think that "being a scientist" gives you a pass when it comes to insulting people?
Wanting to drug test people for welfare is subjective based on what we have seen with our own eyes. The WMD was not and there is no evidence we could have seen for ourselves in this regard and we were relying on intelligence reports. That is a strawman argument.
But I think in theory, nobody wants druggies to be supported by the public dime. I also said I would agree with work programs or something else to fix the system. What alternatives have you offered up?
"Subjective"......"based on what we have seen with our own eyes"........still is something you want because you just believe you are right based on a few cases of anecdotal evidence.
Well, I don't want to spend my tax money on your little "drug testing experiment" based on your beliefs but no objective studies or data to back you up. Your beliefs could be very, very biased because of your own personal experiences with your family members. Did you ever think that you may just have a very negative BIAS about this subject? No, of course you didn't.
I don't think it's necessary to do anything because I don't believe the system is so flawed that excessive amounts of money is being lost due to drug users who receive welfare benefits. I see no point in SPENDING MORE MONEY, or IMO, wasting money, in order to stop something which we have no hard proof or evidence is going on.
Perhaps you should consider stopping the personal attacks and the huge generalizations.
I do not smoke pot. Am certainly not smoking pot now. And the fact that you would accuse me of such is clearly revealing your gross generalization that all people who support welfare programs MUST BE DOING DRUGS.
Lady, I'm not even slightly impressed with your claims of being a scientist. All I see is a very rude post with personal attacks. Do you think that "being a scientist" gives you a pass when it comes to insulting people?
You are the one involving yourself in posts/responses that you did not bother to read let alone digest to consider the content. You then follow up with a tangent you felt fitting. And I'm supposed placate your rant? That's not going to happen.
Further, your impression of my professional title makes no difference. If you want to assert heritable traits as responsible for opinions opposed to your own then be ready to be taken to task. That is the topic at hand in the conversation I'm involved in.
In the end I will admit that I have interest in following the stink of pontificating posters on this or that issue. I want to know how full of shyte folk actually are. I suspect the offense to posts that address actual movement, that is comprised of moving one's a$$ off the verbal couch, is unnerving. So is life I guess.
Yes, it's anecdotal, but that does not mean it's not valid. It's not my opinion, either, it's a fact. Take a look around at the people in your life, have you never met someone that has been on welfare and abused the privilege?
Nope, I haven't... well maybe I've met someone, but nobody in my core circle of friends & family has ever abused welfare. In fact, I can only think of ONE who's even received government assistance - at the time she was a single mother of four, working full-time (and then some), but was still unable to afford everything needed for her children. She received food stamps for a while, and used them only to feed her kids. Nobody else in my life has received welfare, let alone abused the system. Maybe you need to re-think the company you keep?
That being said, I have associated with many welfare recipients, as I used to teach in a low-income neighborhood... and most, if not all, of the families I worked with were receiving some form of assistance. For the most part they were good & honest folks, and while I don't know for sure, I'd doubt they were abusing the system. They had children to feed, rent to pay, and usually worked on top of accepting help (which is perfectly legal if you earn poverty wages). I don't think they could waste money, even if they wanted to! So once again, I think this is more of a personal issue for you & your family.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
