Of course not. Applying simple means that you are going to go through the application process, just like applying for a job. There are conditions that you have to meet for both, and you chose to consent if you chose to fully go through the process.Originally Posted by .blank cd
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Bad idea. I could go into details as to why, but it would take too long.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Please do.
This would be like you walking into the welfare office for the first time and the welfare agent telling you "I suspect you might be taking drugs, you don't mind if we search your pee do you?"
Sure you could consent, but the guy in the video could have consented to a search too, you could also consent to a search of your car by a local cop. Doesn't mean you should, doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do either.
There are too many to list, but here is one situation where your plan would not work - the scientist.
Someone making $100K/yr loses their job. If they take a minimum wage job (or much less), they will not get a job that pays as well when they get back to a non-minimum wage job. I've seen it happen. Someone that makes good wages needs to hold out until they can get a higher paying job, or potential employers will know that they can offer much less pay as soon as they see the job application listing "McDonalds" as the current employer.
There are different laws in different states, but in Georgia, after you have received 10 weeks of benefits, you must accept any offer that pays at least two-thirds of what you earned during your recent employment.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Again, one person walks into the welfare office by choice, and applys for benefits by choice, and chooses to give a sample. All choices.
The other person was stopped, and intimidated by a government official who is specifically looking to find something to use against the person in criminal court. Not by choice.
The first situation is not currently happening, and the second situation is happening daily. You don't see a difference or an issue?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
You dont have to list mcdolands as a reference. If you're accustomed to a certain lifestyle, then that lifestyle should afford you the ability to "hold out" of receiving welfare benefits and wait for a job that pays up to your standard of living. If you need welfare, then you're on an even playing field with anyone else who need welfare. There's no classes of welfare recipients, if you want to elevate yourself above others, then be my guest to rejoin the free market and do it on your own time. Welfare is meant to help the needy. If you dont need a job bad enough to work at mcdonalds, you dont need a job.
Do you realize that we are seeing the effect of this belief currently, and how it has negatively impacted our economy? I have seen it quite a bit, due to where I live and the field that I am in.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I dont see it.
If im an engineer making 500k a year and i lose my job, the fact that i made 500k a year should be able to allow me to wait for another high paying job. If i do need to receive welfare then i would join the program. If i got offered a job working at mcdonalds, then i should take it... work there while i proceed to continue my job search. The government is not required to support my elevated lifestyle, it should help the needy. If you're too good to work at mcdonalds, then you're not needy. I dont see anything negative about it.
Welfare should be "my kids need to eat while i try to find a job"
Not "i need to keep my cable tv and continue paying for my corvette while i try to find a job"
So we should change the laws so we can intimidate welfare applicants into giving up a urine sample without probable cause?
"Just pee in this cup and let us search your piss, or you can't feed your family. Do you have something to hide?"
Your only suspicion would be that you think all welfare applicants use drugs, and that's classism.
If we let that happen, what's stops the officers in this video from searching these cars without probable cause or a warrant?
I understand the sentiment, but we know that the population of drug users on welfare is very low and inline with the general population, so welfare users arent more likely to be on drugs than anyone else. Giving up 4th amendment rights is a pretty draconian solution to a problem we don't have. Private employers are taking care of this issue just fine.
You either don't have the mental capacity to understand the difference in the two situations, or you are choosing to ignore it. My intuition tells me it is the second, which means that continuing this discussion will go nowhere, as you simply want to argue for the sake of argument.
As I previously stated, no one is forced to apply for welfare, and no one is being approached by a government official stating that they have to take any test or fill out any application. Anyone needing financial assistance has multiple options where they do not have to give any fluid samples, including assisitance from religious and secular charity organizations, and plenty of jobs that do not require any testing. I though that you wanted all types of issues discussed in the open? Or is it just when it suits your beliefs?
When you are being stopped a DHS checkpoint, the government is detaining you, and they sought you out.
On top of all that, you do realize that welfare is a state issue, not a federal one.
DHS is a federal agency. They are not the same, nor do they have the same regulations.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I understand what you're trying to say, and I keep ignoring that part because we've established that welfare is voluntary. It doesn't matter. Lol. Im trying to keep the discussion on track here. Government services are all very voluntary. You have the choice walk into the welfare office just like you have the choice to drive on the highway too. The condition to driving on the road is that you can be subject to a very constitutionally legal Terry stop, and a very legal state by state licensing and registration program. We also already have a very constitutionally legal condition to applying for welfare: You have to make less than X amount of $$$
If the next condition you're proposing is a suspicionless search without probable cause to recieve welfare benefits, then we have a constitutional issue. Just the same as you can't be subject to a suspicionless search as a condition to use a public highway. You can be asked, and you can say yes if you want, or you can say no. Refusing a suspicionless search does not disqualify you from driving on the highway.
When you're being stopped on the highway by a cop or a DHS officer, you are not automatically detained. It's part of the perfectly legal terry stop process.
And we already understand welfare is federal money given to states. That's why states are trying to implement the program and the program gets stopped in its tracks by the Supreme Court, once it gets challenged.
Are these two scenarios the same?
A: A person knocks on my door, asks me for help, i say let me check you for weapons before i allow you in.
B: i walk up to a person on the street and ask to check them for weapons.
You just don't want to understand reality, it's that simple. An applicant that freely comes and gives a consented sample in order to apply to receive free benefits is not being subjected to "a suspicionless search without probable cause". At no point in time is the person's application or bodily fluid test being taken without their consent. There is no infringment on the person's Fourth Amendment rights. They are free to seek financial assistance from many other sources of charitable help. There is no cause needed if the person gives their consent, and no one is asking them to come and apply for welfare.
If a DHS officer stops a person at a checkpoint, repeately aggressively requests to search your vehicle, repeatedly refuses to answer your questions concerning detainment and the ability to go about your way, then that person attempting intimidation while wearing a federal uniform and respresenting an office in the federal government.
You can walk out of the welfare office without any legal consequences. Try pulling away from a DHS checkpoint without their consent and see what happens.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
No. A. you are on your own private property. You can check if you want, the person could refuse and leave if they want.
B, you're not on private property. You don't have any authority.
Are these two scenarios the same.
A: on public property at a shopping mall, a person walks up to me and asks me for $20, i say sure, but empty your pockets first and show me you have no drugs
B: i walk up to a person at the mall and ask them to empty their pockets and show me they have no drugs.
So if I walk in and don't want to give a sample, I can still apply for and receive benefits, correct?
"In order to" makes it a condition. You either have to give a piss sample to receive benefits, or you don't have to.
Absolutely. But the driver doesn't have to give consent at all if he's not being arrested. Doesn't matter how intimidating he is. Intimidation is relative and subjective, and the only way they can get you to consent to search without arresting you. That's why they're so good at it.If a DHS officer stops a person at a checkpoint, repeately aggressively requests to search your vehicle, repeatedly refuses to answer your questions concerning detainment and the ability to go about your way, then that person attempting intimidation while wearing a federal uniform and respresenting an office in the federal government.
You just saw a video of that happening 50 times. LolYou can walk out of the welfare office without any legal consequences. Try pulling away from a DHS checkpoint without their consent and see what happens.
It was just as easy and making a U turn when you walk into the welfare office too, wasnt it?
A, you're not on public property unless the mall is owned by the state. You're on the malls property. So this is a 3rd party exchange. Has nothing to do with anything. You could ask if you want, he could refuse and not take your money.
B. unless you're a representative of the mall, you still don't have authority. Security could, or the owner could. He could consent, or he could refuse and leave...
I see what you're alluding to, so lets explain further
During said monetary exchanges, you are your own private entity, you have your own terms and conditions to lending your own money. The government has their own terms and conditions already outlined in laws, and protected by its constitution.
Can you show me the law that gives people the right to welfare? Is welfare a human right? an american right? god given right? who gives people the right to be entitled to having someone take care of them financially?
or...
is welfare a program for citizens, most of which are working citizens who fund the program and not receive aid from it. Can those citizens not dictate the terms of this program? Since.... after all, the program is optional. You're free to take care of yourself however you like...
Except that I have a constitutional right that protects me, from being subject to a search by the government. The constitution does not protect me from a similar exchange from a private entity.
And it's still legal for them to stop you! Lol. We've established a million times that its voluntary to drive down the road.
What are you arguing for? Are you wanting the constitutional protection from searches changed so that its legal to get a piss test for welfare?
I want less freeloading drug users on welfare.....
how i would accomplish that is open for debate and would be defined by the perimeters of the constitution. I made my suggestions........ actually enforce the rules already in place for welfare, require people to actively search for work...... every day/week.... enable potential employers to report people who deny work and/or fail drug tests.
Now why cant your side of the fence be that honest????
"i want.... a gun free america....
how i will accomplish this is by any means necessary, if it requires me to cheat lie or steal to make it happen, i will do that, because i know whats better for people better than they do and i must force people to abide by my will"
we've already established that the number is really really low and that you're no more likely use drugs with welfare than without it, so we already know, with numbers, that this isn't a big problem. With these facts known, why do you still think that there are so many drug users on welfare? Are you equally as passionate about anyone and everyone who abuses any kind of government subsidy system? Are you equally as passionate about using any kind of luxury while on welfare? Movies, concert tix, cigarettes, alcohol, video games?
LOL................... now you're making me laugh.
by what means did you "establish" that the number of people on welfare who use drugs is "really really low"
I'm passionate about anything that has a negative effect or could potentially have a negative effect on my livelihood. I'm not out to save the world, save trees, save baby kittens or starving kids in africa. I value a system that allows me to take care of myself and admire anyone who takes on the (should be) optional task of taking care of others.
Its a known fact that drug users are more likely to already be gainfully employed, and that the use of illicit drugs by people below the poverty line is inline with the general population, meaning rich people use drugs just as much as poor people.
An argument for such a system that test only people applying for welfare for illicit drugs is not only a class discrimination, or classism, or a challenge to the rights given by the 4th amendment, but since it lacks the facts to back it up, it's an argument of emotion, and a knee-jerk reaction, something you've accused "left wingers" of being guilty of.
"it's a known fact"............... " that isnt exactly quantifiable is it? "
I love how everything you "know" is a "fact" yet you comb over everything else with a microscope to look for any and every way to discredit it in any magnitude.
It gives me a sense of victory that you have to twist my words to try and make a point when all i have to do is hold you to yours.
It's very quantifiable as a matter of fact. You wanna find the numbers on your own, or you need me to do it for you?
Please do, show me statistics on how many welfare users are and are not drug users and explain how you know who is or isnt and what method you use to validate whatever number you come up with as a fact.
Haven't twisted your words at all really.
Take whatever sense of victory you want that your only arguments you win are built with false dichotomies and straw man arguments. It matters not one bit to me. I don't use those logical fallacies to construct my own opinions, so if that makes me liberal to you, so be it.
http://www.hark.com/clips/dlvxhnstwz...iberal-friends
Noted.
"Legal and illegal use of drugs was most strongly associated with age, sex, and income. Higher income was associated with a greater likelihood of drug use for all drug types examined, which is perhaps not surprising given that drug use requires disposable income. Relationship status was linked to illegal (but not legal) drug use: both cocaine and cannabis use were more likely among persons who had never been married or previously been married."
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/...esentation=PDF
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Drug....051W6q60.dpbs
Game. Set. Match.
pretty big stretch to try and say that is a definitive argument towards how many welfare recipients are drug users. Also, it goes against everything ive heard in rap videos.
But wait there's more!
"Although residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods, neighborhoods with high concentrations of minorities, and neighborhoods with high population densities reported much higher levels of visible drug sales, they reported only slightly higher levels of drug use, along with somewhat higher levels of drug dependency. This finding indicates that conflating drug sales with use, so that poor and minority areas are assumed to be the focus of the problem of drug use, is plainly wrong. The finding is based on the data collected across 41 sites, including city and suburban (but not rural) areas in all regions."
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...JPH.91.12.1987
God damn it hurts being right all the time.
If you accept something like that as conclusive information, then you need to step away from the gun debate because the facts are a lot more damning to your argument.
"Methods.A telephone survey assessed substance use and attitudes across 41 communities in an
evaluation of a national community-based demand reduction program. Three waves of data were collected from more than 42 000 respondents."
So in your opinion, if i had the ability to go down to the local project housing and drug test everyone living there, i would not find an abnormal amount of drug users?
If i got a telephone survey right now asking me if i owned a gun, used any drugs or alcohol, looked at porn or went to church i would respond...
"nope, nope, nope, every sunday"
Hard to argue with this evidence, its clearly infallible
Liberal logic....
Believes telephone survey to be factual.
Disputes documented crime statistics.
well, thats enough for one day.... im gonna go shoot my gun, roll one up, drink a beer, watch some porn and burn a bible.
Question is? What is a probable cause for some one to search your car, home, or belongings?
Facepalm.
You try pretty damn hard making yourself look stupid.
says the guy who just linked a telephone survey and said "game set match"........."God damn it hurts being right all the time.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote