I'm gonna take a day off work and conduct a telephone survey.Originally Posted by .blank cd
I'm gonna take a day off work and conduct a telephone survey.
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.
I got a headache reading the nonsense that blank types
If you didn't want your house to be searched. You shouldn't have bought a house. HURR DURR.
But it is legal to buy a house. Fail.
I got free clear tails with my ride.....
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.
Now you're getting it.
And it's legal to get welfare. You fail again. LOL. Good try though
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Not quite. Means testing is legal under US bankruptcy law
Chapter 7, Title 11, United States Code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arrest records are public. No warrant needed.Background check is the same. A check into your background without probable cause.
And it's not up to the state to make that assumption.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.
Never said it was illegal. Only that it was no less of an invasion of privacy as drug testing.
Background check encompasses a lot more than just arrest records.
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.
National Instant Criminal Background Check System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Drug use doesn't legally disqualify you from employment. XCommon 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.
I'm sure you posted this for a reason, I'm just not sure what it is.
https://www.drugfree.org/join-togeth...t-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.
Last edited by BanginJimmy; 01-05-2014 at 01:46 PM.
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?
You're really hung up about the telephone thing huh?
Don't be so sure bout that...
Goldberg v. Kelly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Lol
'82 TE72 SR5 Sport Coupe
3tc
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.
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.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
It is literally an echo chamber in here.
It doesn't "claim". That's not how law works.
And "requires" /= "deserves".
Gets pretty quiet when someone asks a pointed question or handily debunks someones remarks.
Tacit Implication Doe. Hurr Durr.
I got free clear tails with my ride.....
Cognitive Dissonance HERP DERP
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
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
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
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.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Must be getting hard to read in here
AS usual, you have nothing to add. Go start another thread where we can do this dance again all over
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
This would suggest that you believe, and implied that the SCOTUS believes, that welfare is a civil right.
Reply With Quote
