Florida drug tests for welfare law is struck down

[.blank cd]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/florida-law-on-drug-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/document.pdf


Judge Scriven writes:

"There is nothing inherent to the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a ‘concrete danger’ that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use or that should drug use occur, that the lives of TANF recipients are ‘fraught with such risks of injury to others that even a momentary lapse of attention can have disastrous consequences’,”

[Sinfix_15]

There's no data supporting the idea that working class people are prone to drug use either, but my employer tests me as a condition of my employment. I dont see an issue with drug testing being a condition of collecting welfare. If you dont want to be drug tested.... start your own business and do not collect welfare.

Is welfare a civil right?

A condition of welfare should be that you're actively seeking and prepared to accept unemployment. If you cant pass a drug test, you're not meeting that criteria.



I saw this article the other day, i was fairly disappointed in the outcome. I've come to expect nothing but disappointment from government.



Simple yes or no answer....

Should a person on illegal drugs be able to collect welfare?

[.blank cd]

There's no data supporting the idea that working class people are prone to drug use either, but my employer tests me as a condition of my employment.Your employer is not required to test you, and you're not required to work for him.
I dont see an issue with drug testing being a condition of collecting welfare. If you dont want to be drug tested.... start your own business and do not collect welfare.Youre changing the conditions to fit your argument

Suppose your employer pays you twice a month. After you've done whatever it is you do for him, he tells you the only way you can receive your paycheck is if you pass a drug test.

Now lets say you smoked one joint last week, another employee does meth, another is an alcoholic, and another smokes cigarettes, and every other employee passes the drug test but you. Why should everyone else receive a check but you?


Simple yes or no answer....

Should a person on illegal drugs be able to collect welfare?
Yes. Especially if a person on legal drugs can collect welfare.

[Sinfix_15]

Your employer is not required to test you, and you're not required to work for him. Youre changing the conditions to fit your argument I missed the part where anyone was required to be on welfare.


Suppose your employer pays you twice a month. After you've done whatever it is you do for him, he tells you the only way you can receive your paycheck is if you pass a drug test. against the law. they can fire me, but have to pay me for time served. I fail to see any connection to welfare.


Now lets say you smoked one joint last week, another employee does meth, another is an alcoholic, and another smokes cigarettes, and every other employee passes the drug test but you. Why should everyone else receive a check but you?
If i get fired because of drug use, i will accept responsibility for my actions. I make life choices and accept the risks of those choices. Its not your job to pay for my mistakes and its not my job to pay for your mistakes.

I think you're guilty of connecting this debate to the debate on what should and shouldnt be legal. Should weed be illegal? No it shouldnt. Currently i can be fired for smoking it.... if that's a condition of me earning my money, then i expect the same condition for those who are getting money for free.




Yes. Especially if a person on legal drugs can collect welfare.
If one employee had sex with his wife, one had sex with his girlfriend, another had sex with a girl he picked up at a bar and another employee raped his neighbor, why should the one who raped his neighbor get fired?? They all had sex, who cares if it was illegal or legal, right?

[WhiteAccord]

No, anyone using an illegal drug should not be able to collect welfare.

Plain and Simple

[Sinfix_15]

The things you decide to stand up for baffles me Blank....

We live in a time where our government is truly criminal in their actions, where our constitutional rights are be violated on a national scale. We have a president, who by the letter of the law, should be in prison right now... the president that you support unconditionally...

and one of the things youre passionate about is making sure freeloaders can keep smoking weed. Wheres your thread about veterans losing their benefits?

[.blank cd]

I missed the part where anyone was required to be on welfare.There is no requirement to be on welfare, what does that have to do with anything?


against the law. they can fire me, but have to pay me for time served. I fail to see any connection to welfare.you just made it.


I think you're guilty of connecting this debate to the debate on what should and shouldnt be legal.You did that. I was just addressing your analogy. The debate is if there is any evidence that poor people are more prone to using drugs. The answer was no.


If one employee had sex with his wife, one had sex with his girlfriend, another had sex with a girl he picked up at a bar and another employee raped his neighbor, why should the one who raped his neighbor get fired?? They all had sex, who cares if it was illegal or legal, right?What does rape have to do with this? Let's stay on topic.

[.blank cd]

No, anyone using an illegal drug should not be able to collect welfare.

Plain and Simple

These judges seem to disagree with you.

[.blank cd]

GA was apparently waiting on the outcome of this case to implement a simar program.

[WhiteAccord]

These judges seem to disagree with you.

His decision was based on the fact of "concrete danger" and its follow up of drug use. He is coming in direction of future use. He doesnt consider that people who are impoverished that they are currently on the system and is currently using.

I am ok with helping others in need but not individuals who want taxpayer money to subsidize illegal behavior.


GA was apparently waiting on the outcome of this case to implement a simar program.

Not sure where your getting your info, but Georgia already has a law that requires drug testing for certain welfare recipients

[Vteckidd]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/florida-law-on-drug-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/document.pdf


Judge Scriven writes:

FWIW i agree with this. I do not think we should drug test people on welfare. There are far better ways to be more efficient in keeping people OFF the system.

I dont want to have the govt deciding how to spend your money. Alcohol isnt allowed? Drug testing isnt 100% accurate, and where do you draw the line? Cell phones are a luxury, no cable TV , etc. Slippery slope

The far EASIER way is to limit welfare checks to a time period, if person cannot find work, employ them, if they deny the employment, then no more benefits. Of course case by case examples can be examined such as elderly or physically disabled people.

But getting people OFF welfare into JOBS is the focus, not policing people on welfare

[Vteckidd]

A condition of welfare should be that you're actively seeking and prepared to accept unemployment. If you cant pass a drug test, you're not meeting that criteria.



I saw this article the other day, i was fairly disappointed in the outcome. I've come to expect nothing but disappointment from government.



Simple yes or no answer....

Should a person on illegal drugs be able to collect welfare?

Simple solution that doesnt waste more Tax payer money, if you apply for a job and get denied due to failed drug test, you lose welfare benefits for 3 months.

problem solved.

[.blank cd]

His decision was based on the fact of "concrete danger" and its follow up of drug use. He is coming in direction of future use. He doesnt consider that people who are impoverished that they are currently on the system and is currently using.Why does that matter?


I am ok with helping others in need but not individuals who want taxpayer money to subsidize illegal behavior.So, throw tons more taxpayer money at a problem that virtually doesn't exist?




Not sure where your getting your info, but Georgia already has a law that requires drug testing for certain welfare recipients

"Florida passed the measure in 2011, and the case was being closely watched by several other states, including Georgia, which passed similar legislation in 2013 but found it dogged by legal challenges."

"In Georgia, the law’s rollout was delayed pending the outcome of the Florida legal challenge."

This was taken directly from the article that was posted.

[Vteckidd]

So, throw tons more taxpayer money at a problem that virtually doesn't exist?



who said it DOESNT exist? I think thats being just as disingenuous as the people claiming all welfare recipients are drug addicted losers.

I will bet you any amount of money there are people on welfare that use it as a means to support their lifestyle. Its free money to them.

[.blank cd]

who said it DOESNT exist?

Florida. Also pulled from the article...

"State data in Florida also showed that the measure produced few results. Only 108 out of 4,086 people tested — 2.6 percent — were found to have been using narcotics. State records showed that the requirement cost more money to carry out than it saved."

Of that 2.6 percent, how many of those do you think had a chronic habit, and not just recreational users?

[Vteckidd]

Florida. Also pulled from the article...

"State data in Florida also showed that the measure produced few results. Only 108 out of 4,086 people tested — 2.6 percent — were found to have been using narcotics. State records showed that the requirement cost more money to carry out than it saved."

Of that 2.6 percent, how many of those do you think had a chronic habit, and not just recreational users?

Testing methods? What drugs were used? hair samples? I mean, results are skewed either way you try to figure this out. Theres no real way to do it which is why I dont support it at all, that and the intrusion by the govt to dictate how you spend your money.

I heard some of the DATA was robocalls asking people "DO YOU USE DRUGS" :thinking:

Im sure its higher than the test, but not as high as others make it seem. Saying it virtually doesnt exist, I think is a stretch. 2.6% is a lot more than i would have thought. 5% is more likely, 10% is not without question. Im sure the real number is between that.

EDIT:

They have to notify you before they administer the test. Which is about as fool proof as a piss test before you get employed. They sell stuff over the counter to pass.

now that doesnt mean people are accused of widespread gaming the system, but to say it "vurtually doesnt exist" is a mis-nomer.

[Vteckidd]

Georgia passed HB 861 requiring drug tests for all individuals applying for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. Applicants must be notified of the drug testing requirement at the time of application, and are required to pay for the test. If an applicant tests positive the person is ineligible for benefits for one month and until he or she tests negative. A parent's positive test result does not affect the child's eligibility for benefits; however, any benefits received must be disbursed through a protective payee who must also pass a drug test. Governor Deal signed the bill on April 16, 2012 and goes into effect July 1, 2012.
GA was apparently waiting on the outcome of this case to implement a simar program.

[geoff]

Georgia passed HB 861 requiring drug tests for all individuals applying for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. Applicants must be notified of the drug testing requirement at the time of application, and are required to pay for the test. If an applicant tests positive the person is ineligible for benefits for one month and until he or she tests negative. A parent's positive test result does not affect the child's eligibility for benefits; however, any benefits received must be disbursed through a protective payee who must also pass a drug test. Governor Deal signed the bill on April 16, 2012 and goes into effect July 1, 2012.

Blank wont accept that as evidence that Ga requires drug testing for welfare benefits...after all...it was not in the article he posted

[Vteckidd]

Blank wont accept that as evidence that Ga requires drug testing for welfare benefits...after all...it was not in the article he posted

Im not sure if that law was struck down, it could have been. This is all i found

Drug Testing of Welfare Applicants May be Over Before it Begins in Georgia | Georgia Budget and Policy Institute (http://gbpi.org/drug-testing-of-welfare-applicants-may-be-over-before-it-begins-in-georgia)

What he probably MEANT to say was that Georgia was waiting on the outcome of this case before it decided to challenge this on its own.

Florida had won, Georgia would have had precedent to challenge the Feds on the constitutionality of this law

[.blank cd]

Blank wont accept that as evidence that Ga requires drug testing for welfare benefits...after all...it was not in the article he posted

It hasn't been struck down yet. I never claimed it was. It's rollout has been delayed and it will be legally challenged, like it has in about every other state it's been tried in.

Fate of Georgia's welfare drug testing law unknown - CBS Atlanta News (http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/21427935/fate-of-georgias-welfare-drug-testing-law-unknown)

Now that it's been struck down in FL, it will be a matter of time before it happens here.

Solid effort though, Geoff. Maybe you'll get me next time.

[Sinfix_15]

Simple solution that doesnt waste more Tax payer money, if you apply for a job and get denied due to failed drug test, you lose welfare benefits forEVER.

problem solved.

I support that idea.

[Sinfix_15]

There is no requirement to be on welfare, what does that have to do with anything?
Welfare is not a civil right. If you dont want to take drug tests, dont accept welfare benefits. The condition of welfare should be.... read this clearly............ You should be actively seeking and prepared to accept employment. If you lose your job or are denied a job because of a failed drug test, you're not prepared to accept employment and should be disqualified from welfare.


You did that. I was just addressing your analogy. The debate is if there is any evidence that poor people are more prone to using drugs. The answer was no. Its not about whether theyre more or less likely to be on drugs.... that has absolutely nothing to do with anything........... drug testing is a condition of employment in X% of America. If you're on drugs, i view that as you declining 347589175894712358972348957 Jobs and i shouldnt have to pay for your stupid ass to sit at home and not work.


What does rape have to do with this? Let's stay on topic.
Your comment about legal drugs was on topic?

[.blank cd]

Its not about whether theyre more or less likely to be on drugs.... that has absolutely nothing to do with anything..........Well the judge seems to disagree with you.



Your comment about legal drugs was on topic?

I don't think any reasonable, rational person could compare rape to personal recreational drug use. But not everyone is reasonable or rational.

[Vteckidd]

Well the judge seems to disagree with you.




I guess judges have never been wrong...........

[Vteckidd]

I also want to point out the lengths Blank will go through to troll people.

I clearly said I agree with this article he has posted and he has successfully turned it into an argument

[.blank cd]

I guess judges have never been wrong...........

So this judge was wrong and there is evidence that shows poor people are more prone to use drugs than non-poor people?

Could you show this peer reviewed evidence?

[Vteckidd]

So this judge was wrong and there is evidence that shows poor people are more prone to use drugs than non-poor people?

Could you show this peer reviewed evidence?


OH I DONT KNOW, maybe this

249049

in4excuses

[.blank cd]

Wow. Too bad that judge didnt see that context-less bar graph. This changes everything! Lulz

Edit: I'm assuming you're seriously not using that as evidence and just joking right?

[WhiteAccord]

Im sorry but having a discussion with people like Blank is impossible, very contradicting, and only cares about facts that he seems to care about. Its like talking to someone who is extremely narrow minded.

[Vteckidd]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

not peer reviewed doe

What context do you need? its a study that shows that between the years of 2002-2004 the people they surveyed by income level, admitted drug use was higher in poorer people. thats all you need

[Vteckidd]

Wow. Too bad that judge didnt see that context-less bar graph. This changes everything! Lulz

Edit: I'm assuming you're seriously not using that as evidence and just joking right?

Worker Substance Use and Workplace Policies and Programs, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies (http://www.samhsa.gov/data/work2k7/work.htm)

I was wiating for you to say it wasnt acceptable before i posted the link.

you should now admit you were wrong that "no such evidence exists"

[Sinfix_15]

Well the judge seems to disagree with you.




I don't think any reasonable, rational person could compare rape to personal recreational drug use. But not everyone is reasonable or rational.


I love how liberal democrats love to say "ITS THE LAW ITS THE LAW ITS THE LAW".............. anytime anything goes their way..................










then when it comes to the constitution................................. King Obama knows better than the law.

[.blank cd]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

not peer reviewed doe

What context do you need? its a study that shows that between the years of 2002-2004 the people they surveyed by income level, admitted drug use was higher in poorer people. thats all you need

Thank you for being honest

[.blank cd]

Worker Substance Use and Workplace Policies and Programs, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies (http://www.samhsa.gov/data/work2k7/work.htm)

I was wiating for you to say it wasnt acceptable before i posted the link.

you should now admit you were wrong that "no such evidence exists"

I'm glad you posted this.

So I could be 100% sure when I said that the evidence still doesn't exist.

Why you post charts and studies you don't read is beyond me. LULZ

[Sinfix_15]

When i turn on the TV and see a college kid whos balancing playing sports with getting his degree and on his way to landing potentially a million dollar career and see them get suspended or busted for using recreational drugs.... it annoys me. If you can balance school, work and are taking care of yourself, i could give two fucks less about you using recreational drugs, but when you're a freeloader, living off the system and your drug use is preventing you from being independent and taking care of yourself, your free ride needs to be removed from you.


If i was in charge of the government............

I'd abolish the IRS and DHS tomorrow.......... then i'd use those resources towards a new investigation system. Employers would have a database of welfare recipients to contact and offer employment. If you denied employment, the employer would report it to the system, and you would receive a strike for declining employment. Once you received 3 strikes, you would be removed from the welfare system for 1 year. If your employment was terminated or declined because of a failed drug test or any other criminal activity such as stealing, fighting ect... you receive 3 strikes and are removed from the welfare system for a year. After 3 1 year bans from the welfare system, you are banned from collecting welfare for life.

[Vteckidd]

I'm glad you posted this.

So I could be 100% sure when I said that the evidence still doesn't exist.

Why you post charts and studies you don't read is beyond me. LULZ

how does that chart not show you are wrong?


The prevalence of past month illicit drug use was lower among workers with higher family incomes than among workers with lower family incomes. An estimated 13.2 percent of workers who reported family income that was less than $20,000 had used illicit drugs during the past month. In contrast, 6.0 percent of workers who reported income in the highest category––$75,000 or more––had used illicit drugs during the past month.

I didnt read the whole thing because it took me .000001 seconds to google. im sure there is some info in there that supports your view, but it took me no time to find data that suggests my point is also correct.

You insinuate tht the judge is correct and and we are all wrong, that NO SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTS that low income poor people do MORE drugs than higher income.

That is FALSE.

I just showed 1 study out of 1000s that suggest the opposite.

Again, im against drug testing welfare people, but not because i turn a blind eye and say they dont do it, but because I dont think that is the problem.

Where is your studies with peer review? Post links please. What did this judge base his opinion on?

[.blank cd]

how does that chart not show you are wrong?



I didnt read the whole thing because That's why.

[Vteckidd]

That's why.

LOL

so in the face of pure facts, based upon a study that had to be peer reviewed, now youre saying its insufficient because I didnt read the whole thing? LOL I didnt have to, i only needed to read this part.


The prevalence of past month illicit drug use was lower among workers with higher family incomes than among workers with lower family incomes. An estimated 13.2 percent of workers who reported family income that was less than $20,000 had used illicit drugs during the past month. In contrast, 6.0 percent of workers who reported income in the highest category––$75,000 or more––had used illicit drugs during the past month.

to refute this:


there is evidence that shows poor people are more prone to use drugs than non-poor people?

Could you show this peer reviewed evidence?

/THREAD, mike wins again

[Sinfix_15]

That's why.

Yeah, ive got to side with you on this one. Vteckidd's evidence wasnt nearly as concrete as your telephone survey asking inner city african americans if they used drugs or not and who they thought was the main problem, in which they replied "white people".

Telephone surveys asking people if theyre on drugs is profound scientific evidence.

[.blank cd]

LOL

so in the face of pure facts, based upon a study that had to be peer reviewed, now youre saying its insufficient because I didnt read the whole thing?

You're very right. It is pure fact. I won't dispute that. And maybe if we were talking about workplace drug use programs and their effectiveness, which the study suggests, then you might be onto something. But since you only feel you should read the part that you believe is relevant, you fail. Again. And if you keep only reading the part that you believe is relevant, then I suspect that will be a continuing trend.

Good try though.

[.blank cd]

Yeah, ive got to side with you on this one. Vteckidd's evidence wasnt nearly as concrete as your telephone survey asking inner city african americans if they used drugs or not and who they thought was the main problem, in which they replied "white people".

Telephone surveys asking people if theyre on drugs is profound scientific evidence.
Facepalm

[D3UC3S]

Why do you guys argue politics with Blank....you know you are just gonna get frustrated and he is just gonna stick to his one sided views. You guys get into cussing wars and wanna poke your eyes out at his unrelenting word games. Why bother, every arguements is the same. It's frustrating to me just to watch y'all's arguements pan out. Very stressful.

How funny would it be if he posted 100 threads with ZERO replies to them all. Just like shitty TV shows, if you stop paying attention to them, eventually they will go away.

[.blank cd]

Why do you guys argue politics with Blank....you know you are just gonna get frustrated and he is just gonna stick to his one sided views. You guys get into cussing wars and wanna poke your eyes out at his unrelenting word games. Why bother, every arguements is the same. It's frustrating to me just to watch y'all's arguements pan out. Very stressful.

How funny would it be if he posted 100 threads with ZERO replies to them all. Just like shitty TV shows, if you stop paying attention to them, eventually they will go away.

Doubt it. I provide the balance that this section sorely needs from its over repetitive anti-Obama, anti-government, staunch pseudo free-market, individualist, movement conservative bend. One-sided is lulz, considering I don't divulge my views very much at all.

[Sinfix_15]

Why do you guys argue politics with Blank....you know you are just gonna get frustrated and he is just gonna stick to his one sided views. You guys get into cussing wars and wanna poke your eyes out at his unrelenting word games. Why bother, every arguements is the same. It's frustrating to me just to watch y'all's arguements pan out. Very stressful.

How funny would it be if he posted 100 threads with ZERO replies to them all. Just like shitty TV shows, if you stop paying attention to them, eventually they will go away.

I want to believe that there's hope. I want to believe that the liberal disease can be cured. That is why we continue. If a radical left wing liberal like Blank can be reintroduced to reality, then there's hope for all who suffer from the liberal disease.

[Sinfix_15]

Facepalm

What bro? i'm agreeing with yo bro. We should call welfare recipients and ask them if theyre drug addicts, then we will know the truth. Telephone surveys are sound scientific evidence.

[.blank cd]

I want to believe that there's hope. I want to believe that the liberal disease can be cured. That is why we continue. If a radical left wing liberal like Blank can be reintroduced to reality, then there's hope for all who suffer from the liberal disease.my point exactly.


Telephone surveys are sound scientific evidence.Truest thing you've said in this thread so far.

[Sinfix_15]

Truest thing you've said in this thread so far.

I know bro, humans are incapable of being dishonest to complete strangers who are giving a survey. All you need to do to find out the truth is just pick up a telephone and call someone.

[.blank cd]

I know bro, humans are incapable of being dishonest to complete strangers who are giving a survey. All you need to do to find out the truth is just pick up a telephone and call someone.

Maybe you think your making a point about data propagation and collection, but by being a moron, you're only hurting yourself.

But please, continue with your multi-faceted views.

[D3UC3S]

He is obviously trolling. Or incredibly stupid to actually think and believe a phone survey asking if you do drugs is accurate. It's mind numbing how crazy that is to think that way.

I smell a troll post. No one is that ridiculous. Let's be adults in the political forum Blank.

[.blank cd]

He is obviously trolling. Or incredibly stupid to actually think and believe a phone survey asking if you do drugs is accurate. It's mind numbing how crazy that is to think that way.

I smell a troll post. No one is that ridiculous.

The whole scientific community is that ridiculous I guess. Telephone surveys are a perfectly acceptable method of survey data collection

[Sinfix_15]

He is obviously trolling. Or incredibly stupid to actually think and believe a phone survey asking if you do drugs is accurate. It's mind numbing how crazy that is to think that way.

I smell a troll post. No one is that ridiculous. Let's be adults in the political forum Blank.

Seriously..... not joking.....

Blank does believe that a telephone survey asking people if they are on drugs is accurate. That's why i'm bringing it up...... mockingly...

Blank discredits everyone's sources, but he truly believes a telephone survey is scientific evidence.

Now is my sarcasm more understandable?

[Sinfix_15]

^^^^^ see...... he even jumped to beat me to it....


You dont have to put words in blank's mouth to make him look like a fool..... he supplies everything needed with his own comments.

[.blank cd]

There's even been papers written on this very specific topic.

302 Found (http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1998-04885-007)

You guys don't have to believe telephone surveys are accurate if you don't want to. That's your prerogative. But the rest of the scientific community does, so...

[.blank cd]

Seriously..... not joking.....

Blank does believe that a telephone survey asking people if they are on drugs is accurate. That's why i'm bringing it up...... mockingly...

Blank discredits everyone's sources, but he truly believes a telephone survey is scientific evidence.

Now is my sarcasm more understandable?

You go to pretty far lengths to try to make me look stupid, even making yourself look like a moron in the process

How does it feel to fail so hard every time?

[Sinfix_15]

There's even been papers written on this very specific topic.

302 Found (http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1998-04885-007)

You guys don't have to believe telephone surveys are accurate if you don't want to. That's your prerogative. But the rest of the scientific community does, so...

SEE!!!......

This is what people are talking about in the "manufactured intelligence" thread. That's blank............. you couldnt find a more suitable test subject than IA's very own BlankCD

[.blank cd]

Maybe you should do yourselves a favor and learn about data collection, surveys, methodology, margin of error, etc.

[Sinfix_15]

You go to pretty far lengths to try to make me look stupid, even making yourself look like a moron in the process

How does it feel to fail so hard every time?

It's so ridiculous that you start to tell yourself that he's trolling..... but no.... this is the real blankcd ladies and gentlemen.....

[Sinfix_15]

Maybe you should do yourselves a favor and learn about data collection, surveys, methodology, margin of error, etc.

White people are the cause of the drug problem in inner cities.*





*source - a telephone survey given to inner city African Americans.

[.blank cd]

SEE!!!......

This is what people are talking about in the "manufactured intelligence" thread. That's blank............. you couldnt find a more suitable test subject than IA's very own BlankCD

And all you'd have to do is show me the margin of error between a telephone survey and every other data collection method, and you can't even do that. LOL. All you'll do is make little quips about it because you've never had to collect any amount of data yourself.

Tell me more about manufactured intelligence, Sinfix. LOL.

[D3UC3S]

Hahahaha. So instead of going with common sense.....ah fuck it, I'm not about to get sucked into this turd tossing contest.


Lol, continue with your festival of shit.

[Sinfix_15]

Telephone surveys.......... Infallible scientific evidence. Tell me more.

One in four Americans think Obama may be the antichrist, survey says | World news | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/02/americans-obama-anti-christ-conspiracy-theories)

[.blank cd]

"I don't believe in data collection methods, yet I have no formal scientific training at all."

-Sinfix

[.blank cd]

Hahahaha. So instead of going with common sense.....ah fuck it, I'm not about to get sucked into this turd tossing contest.


Lol, continue with your festival of shit.

Ahh. If only everyone knew common sense was relative. LOL

[.blank cd]

"We should run the government budget like a household checkbook. It's just common sense!"

[.blank cd]

If I had a dollar for everyone who used the phrase "it's just common sense" and had no idea what they were talking about, I'd start a government.

[Sinfix_15]

The liberal disease wont be cured tonight folks.... tomorrow is another day.

[D3UC3S]

Government surveys say it's ok to touch a hot stove..... I'm gonna touch it because common sense is dumb and has no place in our lives.

See, we can both play that game.

[.blank cd]

LMAO

[.blank cd]

I don't know why you guys are trying to convince me. I already know. I've been there and done that. You're only convincing yourselves.

[.blank cd]

Im so capable and multifaceted.

The liberal disease wont be cured tonight folks.... tomorrow is another day. HURR DURR

There you have it. The intellectual prowess of Sinfix ladies and gentlemen.

[.blank cd]

All this blabberin about "common sense" and all you have to do is show me the differences in margin of error between data collection methods to get me to shut up

You guys are smart and have common sense, I know you can do it!

[Sinfix_15]

Telephone survey..... facts are facts, confirmed by scientific evidence.

More Americans View Blacks As Racist Than Whites, Hispanics - Rasmussen Reports™ (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2013/more_americans_view_blacks_as_racist_than_whites_h ispanics)

[.blank cd]

No margin of error data in that link.

Keep trying. You can do it.

[Sinfix_15]

you convinced me blank.... i now accept surveys as scientific evidence.

[.blank cd]

Oh sorry didnt see that at the bottom

"3 percentage points MoE and 95% Level of Confidence"

[Sinfix_15]

I'm with you Blank..... i accept telephone surveys as scientific evidence, if you call a bunch of people and they all say the same thing, then it must be true.

[.blank cd]

All Rasmussen Reports' survey questions are digitally recorded and fed to a calling program that determines question order, branching options, and other factors. Calls are placed to randomly-selected phone numbers through a process that insures appropriate geographic representation. Typically, calls are placed from 5 pm to 9 pm local time during the week. Saturday calls are made from 11 am to 6 pm local time and Sunday calls from 1 pm to 9 pm local time.

To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel.

Telephone polling isn't legit. Common sense dough

[Sinfix_15]

Telephone polling isn't legit. Common sense dough

I agree with you man. I agree with what you told me because you told me that another smart person told you it was true, you're smart and you told me and i'm hoping to be told i'm smart if i agree with you. Nothing manufactured about that.

Telephone surveys are infallible scientific evidence. There's absolutely no way that a phone survey asking people a question could produce an answer that was not accurate. I accept this as fact, because i want to be smart like you.

[Sinfix_15]

501 Not Implemented (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/9409818/What-women-really-really-want)
Comedians must be rolling in the pussy. A sense of humor is the #1 answer given by women.

[Sinfix_15]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQalLMGulmMWEueeVbk5U51hed8htiWK UKpfICj_7AcZ62s-LV0jQ

[.blank cd]

I agree with you man. I agree with what you told me because you learned about scientific data collection, margin of error, level of confidence. you're smart and you told me and i'm hoping to be told i'm smart if i agree with you. Nothing manufactured about that.Now you're gettin it.

[Browning151]

I lirl at this thread. Blank deserves the troll of the month award, no way you can possibly believe all the nonsensical bull you say.

[D3UC3S]

He really does and it blows my mind as well...

[.blank cd]

LMAO

If survey data collection is nonsensical bull, then prove me wrong and quit making little dumbass quips about it. LOL

Phone surveys are a research industry approved method of collecting data. There's no debate about it. Either prove me wrong and all these other research firms wrong, or shut up and stop trying to bump your post counts up

HURR DURR TELEPHONE BLAH BLAH BLAH SURVEYS OBAMA

[D3UC3S]

Lol post count...5k in 11 years vs. 12k in 7 years.

We are not debating the fact that SOME phone surveys can be legit. We are debating that you can get a factual number of illegal drug users among people receiving welfare. No one is gonna tell on themselves to plug the flow of free money to their freeloading pockets. THAT is common sense.

No need to resort to name calling because we are showing the flaws in your logic.

[.blank cd]

Finally a half assed attempt
Lol post count...5k in 11 years vs. 12k in 7 years.

We are not debating the fact that SOME phone surveys can be legit.Hmm. We went from blanks a moron to "some". Interesting.


We are debating that you can get a factual number of illegal drug users among people receiving welfare. No one is gonna tell on themselves to plug the flow of free money to their freeloading pockets. THAT is common sense.

No need to resort to name calling because we are showing the flaws in your logic.we're not talking about a small amount of welfare recipients, who until recently we'rent in jeopardy by revealing that information. We're talking about a survey of the general population that showed there was no correlation between drug use and income.

You can try to point out the flaws in my logic, but no ones even tried yet. Just a bunch of "YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT? SHOCKING HURR DURR COMMON SENSE"

Just show me the margin of error and level of confidence between various methods of data collection. That's ALL YOU GOTTA DO.

[D3UC3S]

SMH....what's so interesting about something we weren't debating....


When I say we, I mean me and you. I speak for myself, not the group.

[.blank cd]

Dunno, y'all tell me. Y'all are the ones that are so perplexed about it. Not me. Lol

[Vteckidd]

Maybe you should do yourselves a favor and learn about data collection, surveys, methodology, margin of error, etc.
ahh the patented "Im smarter than everyone else" excuse.

No wonder hes an Obama slave, he thinks just like Obama.

[Echonova]

I shit smarter things than everyone in this thread. Take a phone survey and find out it's true for yourselves.

[D3UC3S]

You must be a real smart ass......hehe


Get it....cuz your shit is...no....*crickets*

[Echonova]

http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j402/Echonova2/001gs6t3_zps831fef0d.gif

[.blank cd]

ahh the patented "Im smarter than everyone else" excuse.

No wonder hes an Obama slave, he thinks just like Obama.

Or don't. Makes no difference to me.

[Echonova]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odJxJRAxdFU

[.blank cd]

Particles can't float. That's just common sense

[Vteckidd]

Says he needs peer reviewed evidence to suggest that Poor people are more prone to drug use

receives it

Claims its not as credible as a phone survey

Scumbag Blank

[.blank cd]

Just show that little chart of yours to that judge, maybe he'll reverse his decision. I'm sure he'd love to see this study on workplace drug programs and their effectiveness.


LULZ

[Sinfix_15]

Lets pretend this forum is a conference call.

Everyone on the line thinks you're a moron.

[.blank cd]

Lets pretend this forum is a conference call.

Everyone on the line thinks you're a moron.

I don't doubt that for a minute.

That just reveals a lot more about everyone else on the line. LOL

[.blank cd]

"We don't like data that goes against our beliefs. So we'll present a totally unrelated study to imply what we believe"

[Vteckidd]

"We don't like data that goes against our beliefs. So we'll present a totally unrelated study to imply what we believe"

So, a study that shows different income levels and who is prone to drug use , has no correlation to people who are on welfare looking for a job who ............are poor...........and may use drugs...............

Your degree must be in Shitforbrains 101

Seriously, you made a broad statement, that the Judge thinks there is no correlation to income and drug use, a Government study shows that is FALSE. There is a correlation between ADMITTED drug users and how much money they make.

One would be able to deduce with a brilliant mind such as yourself, that people on welfare make less than 20k a year and therefore, could be more at risk. But I Digress, that takes critical thinking, something you are not capable of.

[.blank cd]

"Blank Heres peer reviewed government evidence that suggests poor people buy more drugs than rich people"

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6_Nfzgbnm_Y/T7UtYmC59XI/AAAAAAAAAC8/t6BHHY4QuBs/s1600/funny-graphs-zombie-objects.jpg

"What, you don't accept it? You're a moron."

[Vteckidd]

"We don't like data that goes against our beliefs. So we'll present a totally unrelated study to imply what we believe"

Substance Use Among Persons in Families Receiving Government Assistance (http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k2/GovAid/GovAid.htm)


Prevalence of past month heavy alcohol use was lower in assisted families than in unassisted families among persons aged 18 to 25, but higher among persons aged 35 to 49

Past month illicit drug use was higher in assisted families than in unassisted families among persons aged 12 to 64

Want more?

[.blank cd]

Substance Use Among Persons in Families Receiving Government Assistance (http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k2/GovAid/GovAid.htm)



Want more?
You're getting a little warmer. Not quite there yet though...

[Vteckidd]

"Blank Heres peer reviewed government evidence that suggests poor people buy more drugs than rich people"


Lack of critical thinking. I never talked about PURCHASING drugs, I talked about using drugs.

That study, and another, both show there is evidence that poorer people use drugs MORE than anyone else. I mean, its results, its not even debatable. Its a survey, whose findings are just as relevant as your phone survey.

So your blanket statement was FALSE.

[Vteckidd]

You're getting a little warmer. Not quite there yet though...

Blank "Im smarter than you post #10934983989"

[Vteckidd]

BLank= 249054

[.blank cd]

Blank "Im smarter than you post #10934983989"

And you're the one who keeps posting relatively unrelated conclusions as causation.

Keep going. You'll get there eventually.

[.blank cd]

How bout this one. This is close..

249055

[.blank cd]

Oh, I forgot, you can't use survey data collected by telephone, or anything with a similar margin of error and level of confidence. Everyone knows that. It's common sense.

[Vteckidd]

What studies will you accept. Anything that you find?

At this point its not even arguing, its passing time to me.

I know your MO, you disqualify anything that anyone posts that proves you wrong, and question everyones intent and motives to make yourself feel like you are right. Its what people with low self esteem do :P

[.blank cd]

I'll accept anything that meets those criterion. The same criterion which you so generously laid out for me. The same method of evidence you'd use in any university, just no phone, mail, or online surveys.

You said there is evidence that directly disputes what the judge said. All you gotta do is find it. You haven't shown it yet. I'm sure it's out there since you said it is.

[Vteckidd]

The same method of evidence you'd use in any university, just no phone, mail, or online surveys.

You said there is evidence that directly disputes what the judge said. All you gotta do is find it. You haven't shown it yet. I'm sure it's out there since you said it is.


I combatted your phone survey with my own scientific phone survey, from not 1, but 2 sources.


You guys don't have to believe telephone surveys are accurate if you don't want to. That's your prerogative. But the rest of the scientific community does, so...


How is that not acceptable? I think you are confused, are telephone surveys acceptable, or not?

If they are, then I provided you 2 studies that prove there is a link and the judge is wrong.

If you do no accept them, then the data presented in your OG link is false and not relevant.

Either way, you lose. Its called boxing your opposition into a corner, i do it all the time. You should recognize it more

[.blank cd]

All that effort and still didn't find anything?

[Vteckidd]

All that effort and still didn't find anything?

your phone survey is accepted, but mine is not.

got it

So i guess Polls arent accepted, etc etc

I think you also lost focus on the argument, you used a phone survey to be infallible and no one could question it. We said that phone surveys are not exactly 100% gods honest truth, can be skewed and misleading.

You said not possible, and its accepted by the scientific community. So, I posted the same surveys with contradicting data. You now say its not acceptable.

try to keep up

[Sinfix_15]

I don't doubt that for a minute.

That just reveals a lot more about everyone else on the line. LOL

I did a telephone survey. You cant dispute the scientific evidence of people answering over the phone.

[Vteckidd]

I did a telephone survey. You cant dispute the scientific evidence of people answering over the phone.

unless he does the survey, then is infallible

[Sinfix_15]

I don't doubt that for a minute.

That just reveals a lot more about everyone else on the line. LOL

So when inner city african americans were polled about drug use in their towns and they said white people were the problem, did that reveal a lot more about everyone on the line? Did it reveal a culture of excuse making and racism? A culture that is bitter towards other races and condition to pass blame and never take responsibility?

[Sinfix_15]

Blankcd ladies and gentleman............. a man who believes white privilege is actually a thing and that phone surveys are scientific evidence.



It's ok blank.... i honestly feel that under your bizarre and radical political views that there is a good person that will one day rejoin reality with the rest of us.

[.blank cd]

Man. If y'all put this much energy into finding the information y'all are looking for, we could make some progress.

[Sinfix_15]

Man. If y'all put this much energy into finding the information y'all are looking for, we could make some progress.

I'm gonna take a day off work and conduct a telephone survey.

[Browning151]

your phone survey is accepted, but mine is not.

got it

So i guess Polls arent accepted, etc etc

I think you also lost focus on the argument, you used a phone survey to be infallible and no one could question it. We said that phone surveys are not exactly 100% gods honest truth, can be skewed and misleading.

You said not possible, and its accepted by the scientific community. So, I posted the same surveys with contradicting data. You now say its not acceptable.

try to keep up

You didn't use any of Blanks words of the week like pseudo-conservative, empirical research or cognitive dissonance anywhere in your replies so it doesn't compute for him.

[nelson9995]

I got a headache reading the nonsense that blank types

[.blank cd]

If you didn't want your house to be searched. You shouldn't have bought a house. HURR DURR.

[ISAtlanta300]

But it is legal to buy a house. Fail.

[Sinfix_15]

If you didn't want your house to be searched. You shouldn't have bought a house. HURR DURR.

This is honestly something a brain dead liberal would say, so it doesnt surprise me to see you say it.


My home is my private property. I can maintain it any way i desire. If my livelihood is dependent on the charity of others, i may be subject to their conditions. I need money from my employer, so when my employer asks me to take a drug test, i comply. If you need welfare to survive, then you should be willing to comply with whatever is asked to receive it.

If you're accepting other people's money to survive, it should be a temporary condition and you should have to prove that you're taking steps to get off of assistance. The first step of that is being able to accept employment. Whether you agree with it or not, not using illegal drugs is a condition of employment in most of the US. If you're not in compliance with that standard then you're basically refusing 95% of the jobs in America. If you value your pride or social life over obtaining a job, that is perfectly fine and you're free to do that, but you can do it under a bridge and without a welfare check. When your survival is dependent on someone else taking care of you, a condition the majority of liberals suffer from, then you dont get to have all of your demands met, you do what you have to do to survive. If i was jobless and had a family to take care of, i would be ECSTATIC! to do anything i could to have someone help me. I wouldnt have too much pride to piss in a cup.

This is a moot point, because you already accept the fact that a large portion of unemployed welfare recipients are on drugs and you believe they should be able to have someone take care of them anyway. Welfare is something you feel entitled to. You dont think their should be any regulations regarding it. Most people would call someone with your beliefs an idiot... oh wait, they pretty much do that already.

[Sinfix_15]

If you didn't want your house to be searched. You shouldn't have received a section 8 house that someone else is paying for. HURR DURR.

Now you're getting it.

[.blank cd]

But it is legal to buy a house. Fail.

And it's legal to get welfare. You fail again. LOL. Good try though

[.blank cd]

This is honestly something a brain dead liberal would say, so it doesnt surprise me to see you say it.

And the attorneys and judges connected to the case.

Funny how we're all about the constitution until it's something we don't believe in. Weird how that works.

[BanginJimmy]

And the attorneys and judges connected to the case.

Funny how we're all about the constitution until it's something we don't believe in. Weird how that works.

If you truely believe this then I think you should consider the 4th Amendment violation of finacial records being required to receive welfare.

You should also be against a background check for purchasing a gun.

[Sinfix_15]

And the attorneys and judges connected to the case.

Funny how we're all about the constitution until it's something we don't believe in. Weird how that works.

I am all about the constitution. Welfare is not a civil right. It is completely voluntary. Nobody is forcing you to accept welfare and you're free to decline services based on any reason you see fit.

Is my employer asking me to take a drug test a violation of my constitutional rights? why/why not?



Also, i missed the part where a judge said "If you didn't want your house to be searched. You shouldn't have bought a house. HURR DURR."

Was this said in real life or in your fantasy world?

[Sinfix_15]

Ive said this 4-5 times and it doesnt seem to sink in..... not sure how i can word it any more clearly than i already am... but i will try one more time.


The ONLYcondition of welfare should be the acknowledgement that welfare is a TEMPORARY SERVICE and while receiving welfare you must..............

be
actively
looking
for
employment
and
prepared
to
accept
employment
immediately.

Whether you agree with current drug laws or not and whether you agree with workplace drug testing policies or not.... they are what they are and if you are not able to pass a drug test, you are ineligible for 90% of the jobs in America. If you're on welfare and unemployed, you do not have the LUXURY of turning town employment for personal or recreational reasons. If you are on drugs...

YOU ARE NOT

actively
looking
for
employment
and
prepared
to
accept
employment
immediately.


I am not suggesting that the government be able to come in your home or force you to take a drug test. I would put all welfare recipients into a database where theyre available to be selected for employment. This job seeking service would work the same as any other temporary employment service. If you're not seeking employment or prepared to accept employment, no welfare. That simple....




How do you think welfare should work? stick a check in the mailbox until the person informs you they no longer need it?

[.blank cd]

If you truely believe this then I think you should consider the 4th Amendment violation of finacial records being required to receive welfare.

You should also be against a background check for purchasing a gun.

I'm for both, and they're both very constitutional, but I'm curious why you think I should be against them?

[BanginJimmy]

I'm for both, and they're both very constitutional, but I'm curious why you think I should be against them?


Both constitute the same same warrantless search as a drug test does.

[.blank cd]

Both constitute the same same warrantless search as a drug test does.

Explain?

[BanginJimmy]

Explain?

Financial records are private and confidential property and a warrant is needed to compel their disclosure to the government.

Background check is the same. A check into your background without probable cause.



Before you go anywhere with this though, let me tell you I am all for both of these. I am even for closing this imaginary gun show loophole and require a background check on private sales as well as commercial sales done at a gun show.


As far as drug testing goes, I understand its not cost effective so I am not a huge fan of it. At the same time, if you are on welfare you should be ready to take a job at any time as a condition of the handout you are receiving. If you arent able to pass a drug test then you are purposefully removing yourself from the job market and therefore shouldnt be eligible for handouts.

[Sinfix_15]

Financial records are private and confidential property and a warrant is needed to compel their disclosure to the government.

Background check is the same. A check into your background without probable cause.



Before you go anywhere with this though, let me tell you I am all for both of these. I am even for closing this imaginary gun show loophole and require a background check on private sales as well as commercial sales done at a gun show.


As far as drug testing goes, I understand its not cost effective so I am not a huge fan of it. At the same time, if you are on welfare you should be ready to take a job at any time as a condition of the handout you are receiving. If you arent able to pass a drug test then you are purposefully removing yourself from the job market and therefore shouldnt be eligible for handouts.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130422044208/glee/images/f/f2/Leo-Toast.gif

[.blank cd]

Financial records are private and confidential property and a warrant is needed to compel their disclosure to the government.Not quite. Means testing is legal under US bankruptcy law

Chapter 7, Title 11, United States Code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_7,_Title_11,_United_States_Code)


Background check is the same. A check into your background without probable cause.Arrest records are public. No warrant needed.



If you arent able to pass a drug test then you are purposefully removing yourself from the job market and therefore shouldnt be eligible for handouts.

And it's not up to the state to make that assumption.

[BanginJimmy]

Not quite. Means testing is legal under US bankruptcy law

Chapter 7, Title 11, United States Code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_7,_Title_11,_United_States_Code)

Never said it was illegal. Only that it was no less of an invasion of privacy as drug testing.




Arrest records are public. No warrant needed.

Background check encompasses a lot more than just arrest records.





And it's not up to the state to make that assumption.

According to the courts you are correct.

Common sense says if you do something you know will disqualify you from gaining employment, you arent actually looking for employment.

[.blank cd]

Background check encompasses a lot more than just arrest records.National Instant Criminal Background Check System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System)



Common sense says if you do something you know will disqualify you from gaining employment, you arent actually looking for employment.
Drug use doesn't legally disqualify you from employment. X

[Sinfix_15]

According to the courts you are correct.

Common sense says if you do something you know will disqualify you from gaining employment, you arent actually looking for employment.

All we have to do is telephone survey employers....

" are you willing to hire someone using illegal drugs? "

problem solved with scientific evidence. No "assumptions" needed.

[BanginJimmy]

National Instant Criminal Background Check System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System)

I'm sure you posted this for a reason, I'm just not sure what it is.




Drug use doesn't legally disqualify you from employment. X

https://www.drugfree.org/join-together/healthcare/84-percent-of-employers
According to this, 84% tested as part of the hiring process in 2006. There are sources that put that number much lower though.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm sure you posted this for a reason, I'm just not sure what it is.






According to this, 84% tested as part of the hiring process in 2006. There are sources that put that number much lower though.

No biggie, if you're on welfare and being taken care of by taxpayers, you can afford the luxury of declining 84% of the jobs, right?

[.blank cd]

All we have to do is telephone survey employers....

" are you willing to hire someone using illegal drugs? "

problem solved with scientific evidence. No "assumptions" needed.

You're really hung up about the telephone thing huh?

[.blank cd]

Welfare is not a civil right.

Don't be so sure bout that...

Goldberg v. Kelly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldberg_v._Kelly)

[BanginJimmy]

Don't be so sure bout that...

Goldberg v. Kelly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldberg_v._Kelly)

All that case said was that an evidentiary hearing is require to cut off welfare. In no way does that make it a civil right.

[D3UC3S]

Lol

[.blank cd]

All that case said was that an evidentiary hearing is require to cut off welfare. In no way does that make it a civil right.

I know how things can get lost in conservative interpretation around here, but what I meant was it isn't as cut and dry as it seems.

[BanginJimmy]

I know how things can get lost in conservative interpretation around here, but what I meant was it isn't as cut and dry as it seems.

Of course it isnt. I completely agree with a hearing being required to cut off welfare.

[Vteckidd]

Don't be so sure bout that...

Goldberg v. Kelly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldberg_v._Kelly)
Wikipedia, the Blank.CD historical library.


Nice try but that case has fuck all to do with welfare being a civil right. Just claims that a person deserves a hearing before they can have benefits taken away.

[.blank cd]

It is literally an echo chamber in here.

It doesn't "claim". That's not how law works.

And "requires" /= "deserves".

[BanginJimmy]

It is literally an echo chamber in here.

Gets pretty quiet when someone asks a pointed question or handily debunks someones remarks.

[ISAtlanta300]

It is literally an echo chamber in here.

It doesn't "claim". That's not how law works.

And "requires" /= "deserves".

Tacit Implication Doe. Hurr Durr.

[Vteckidd]

Cognitive Dissonance HERP DERP

[.blank cd]

Gets pretty quiet when someone asks a pointed question or handily debunks someones remarks.No....


Tacit Implication Doe. Hurr Durr.


Cognitive Dissonance HERP DERP

That's what happens when stuff gets debunked around here. Lol

[Vteckidd]

No....





That's what happens when stuff gets debunked around here. Lol

If your idea of "debunked" is you are the lone person in thinking you have said anything remotely credible, then yes, yes thats what it is.

BRB going to conduct 1 sided telephone survey to back up my previous statements , to which I will not accept any other phone survey as it may conflict with my attempt to appear intelligent and well versed on said matters

[Vteckidd]

Don't be so sure bout that...

Goldberg v. Kelly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldberg_v._Kelly)

What , in this case , proves WELFARE is a CIVIL RIGHT.

FYI , you dont APPLY for civil rights. Theres no criteria for CIVIL RIGHTS to qualify. Dont confuse the right to be treated fairly without discrimination to race/sex/creed/religion with equating that Welfare is a civil rights issue.

[.blank cd]

Must be getting hard to read in here


What , in this case , proves WELFARE is a CIVIL RIGHT.

FYI , you dont APPLY for civil rights. Theres no criteria for CIVIL RIGHTS to qualify. Dont confuse the right to be treated fairly without discrimination to race/sex/creed/religion with equating that Welfare is a civil rights issue.


I know how things can get lost in conservative interpretation around here.....

[Vteckidd]

AS usual, you have nothing to add. Go start another thread where we can do this dance again all over

[BanginJimmy]

Don't be so sure bout that...

Goldberg v. Kelly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldberg_v._Kelly)


This would suggest that you believe, and implied that the SCOTUS believes, that welfare is a civil right.

[Echonova]

Cognitive Dissonance HERP DERPThe implication of those words means there is meaningful thought behind the response. Rather than what I imagine is more like Blank's response which is mindlessly regurgitating "WWOD"?


Because Blank pretends to be smart like the dumb-asses in Washington pretend, and pretending to be smart they'll think he's one of them.


No.


No they won't.


He is what they call a useful idiot.

[.blank cd]

Seems like we all have fundamentally different ideas on what "smart" means

[Sinfix_15]

Seems like we all have fundamentally different ideas on what "smart" means

It means alignment with the democrat agenda to you. It doesn't matter how radical the democratic party becomes, you slaves won't leave the plantation.

[Vteckidd]

Seems like we all have fundamentally different ideas on what "smart" means

I respect people who have views different than mine, and can have honest debate about ideas.

We cant have that with you, because you stick your head in the sand and argue that Blue isnt Blue because Yellow is racist. YOu have no substance, and when you attempt to provide substance, you refuse to argue the merits of that substance (or lack of substance) and play the "im smarter than you so I guess youll never get it" card.

You rarely enter any thread with a discussion. Its all about how you are trying to prove you are smarter than everyone else.

That usually means you have self esteem issues.

[Echonova]

I was so full of bourbon last night I don't even remember typing that.


Spelling was still on point.
http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa358/black_vector23/Memes/Fuck_Yea.png (http://media.photobucket.com/user/black_vector23/media/Memes/Fuck_Yea.png.html)

[Sinfix_15]

I was so full of bourbon last night I don't even remember typing that.


Spelling was still on point.
http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa358/black_vector23/Memes/Fuck_Yea.png (http://media.photobucket.com/user/black_vector23/media/Memes/Fuck_Yea.png.html)


and a money making idea...... WWOD wristbands....... Obama worshipers like Blank would line up to buy one! Just make them edible so it's covered by EBT....

[Echonova]

You know the old saying... There's an Obama voter born every minute.
























































Wait... Maybe that's not right.









































































No, it is. Carry on.