 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / February 2008{OT} my sentiments exactly
Saw this somewhere else. I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of the statement. I could add more to it but the message would remain the same. ------------------------------------------------ Like a lot of folks in Texas, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their a.s, doing drugs, while I work. Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? -Gary D. Potter  Signature"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw > Saw this somewhere else. I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of > the statement. I could add more to it but the message would remain the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -Gary D. Potter What's to argue with? This should have been law long ago. > Saw this somewhere else. I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of > the statement. I could add more to it but the message would remain the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to > pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? Think about how much they would save if they collected your urine and passed IT out ... On Feb 18, 10:26 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > Saw this somewhere else. I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of > the statement. I could add more to it but the message would remain the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the > support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw I'd support that - urine testing for evryone on public assistance. Maybe include those on SS disability. In article <bd303f9e-6f67-4814-8d4e-467b251ad54e@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > On Feb 18, 10:26 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I'd support that - urine testing for evryone on public assistance. > Maybe include those on SS disability. I support urine testing for all democrats and breath test before they vote. Signature"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton > In article > <bd303f9e-6f67-4814-8d4e-467b251ad...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - And test repugnantcans for penis and semen breath, especially those calling for anti-gay constitutional amendments. > I support urine testing for all democrats And you'll do the testing personally. > Saw this somewhere else. I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of > the statement. I could add more to it but the message would remain the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > -Gary D. Potter I see nothing wrong with this. The urine testing will pay for itself and reduct the tax burden for the rest of us. Works for me! -Dave >> Saw this somewhere else. I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of >> the statement. I could add more to it but the message would remain the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > -Dave And expect crime to increase, since they aren't getting their drugs, they'll steal and rob to get the money... >>> Saw this somewhere else. I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of >>> the statement. I could add more to it but the message would remain the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > And expect crime to increase, since they aren't getting their drugs, > they'll steal and rob to get the money... True, and the $$ saved will go to more police, public defenders, jails... > Saw this somewhere else. I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of the > statement. I could add more to it but the message would remain the same. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > -Gary D. Potter But, that would be discriminatory. The employer has the right to require you to be drug free for their good and for your safety, but if the State were to require drug tests, then, that would be discriminatory... Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B, 2/18/2008,9:35:53 PM, wrote: > > Saw this somewhere else. I whole-heartedly agree with the premise > > of the statement. I could add more to it but the message would [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > if the State were to require drug tests, then, that would be > discriminatory... If the state had the interest of the tax-paying citizen in mind rather than free-loafing, Escalade-driving, $100 ripped-baggy-pant-wearing, drug-dealer in mind much of society's woes would be an afterthought. Signature"The moral rot of political correctness runs deep today in both national parties." ~ Patrick J. Buchanan > If the state had the interest of the tax-paying citizen in mind rather > than free-loafing, Escalade-driving, $100 ripped-baggy-pant-wearing, > drug-dealer in mind much of society's woes would be an afterthought. And your .sig file says it all, as it applies to this nugget of truth you've posted. The two-party system has degraded to the point where there's not a tinker's damn bit of difference. I got a call from the RNC the other night, looking for more money since I contributed to both of Bush's elections. I gave him a nose full of discontent, particularly about the lack of border control. I also told him I was considering re-registering in another party, thanks to Bush. Today I did it. Hint: I ain't a Dem. > I got a call from the RNC the other night, looking for more money > since I contributed to both of Bush's elections. I gave him a nose [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Today I did it. Hint: I ain't a Dem. It is not because of President Bush that I am disgusted with the Republican Party today. It has more to do with the Congressional leadership and how they have allowed the erosion of all conservative principles in government today. Despite what you may say about any president they are not king, it is Congress which must approve spending and creation of laws. Certainly President Bush has had his faults. He is no fiscal conservative although I will give him the benefit of the doubt since we are at war with radical Islam. But it is precisely because of his backbone in this matter that I admire him the most. My biggest dissapointment with any of his policies was the defeated immigration bill -- you know, the one with McCain's name all over it. I also didn't like the port authority thing either. It's no coincidence both efforts were thwarted by the general public's outcry. But in the larger picture I'd have to say he's done a decent job overall. Now if we can just get the treasury under control... Signature"Being happy doesn't mean everything's perfect; it just means you've decided to see beyond the imperfections." ~ Unknown >> I got a call from the RNC the other night, looking for more money >> since I contributed to both of Bush's elections. I gave him a nose [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It is not because of President Bush that I am disgusted with the > Republican Party today. I'll say it isn't SOLELY because of Bush. But he had the chance to do something about the borders and didn't/hasn't. Another thing that continues to royally piss me off is the incarcerated Border Patrol agents. > It has more to do with the Congressional > leadership and how they have allowed the erosion of all conservative > principles in government today. Despite what you may say about any > president they are not king, it is Congress which must approve spending > and creation of laws. Gutless bunch, one and nearly all. > Certainly President Bush has had his faults. He is no fiscal > conservative although I will give him the benefit of the doubt since we > are at war with radical Islam. We are. We're just fighting it the wrong way. Billions each day, with porous borders across which had already been smuggled God knows what. > But it is precisely because of his backbone in this matter that I > admire him the most. The most I can say about this is that he sticks to what he wants to do. But to do so in the face of reality isn't admirable. > My biggest dissapointment with any of his policies was the defeated immigration > bill -- you know, the one with McCain's name all over it. I also > didn't like the port authority thing either. It's no coincidence both > efforts were thwarted by the general public's outcry. But in the > larger picture I'd have to say he's done a decent job overall. Now if > we can just get the treasury under control... IMO, his best legacy is SCOTUS. Anything else just ain't makin' it. BTW, be careful. You'll be labelled a liberal. ;-) >> I got a call from the RNC the other night, looking for more money >> since I contributed to both of Bush's elections. I gave him a nose [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >larger picture I'd have to say he's done a decent job overall. Now if >we can just get the treasury under control... I have to agree with ya. No money to the RNC until they return to conservative values. SignatureScott in Florida >> If the state had the interest of the tax-paying citizen in mind rather >> than free-loafing, Escalade-driving, $100 ripped-baggy-pant-wearing, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Today I did it. Hint: I ain't a Dem. ROFLMAO....... You are a liberal.... We know.... You and your circle jerker partner Joey.... SignatureScott in Florida |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.