rhaig

local talk radio guy had the commend that he would love for trump to run... it would make for good radio. he wouldn't get elected, but it would make for good radio. -- Rob

Stars are always forward, as if the soldier is marching with a flagpole. what he said. you may also notice some commercial aircraft that have a US flag on the side have the flag oriented in the same manner. Same reasoning. -- Rob

So to put it bluntly, the government is paying blackmail money so that a bunch of potential criminals won't commit crimes? no good can come of that. -- Rob

welfare is a complex problem. some people do need the helping hand, others abuse it, and others might be in a better position if they weren't reliant on it. I don't have the solution to that problem. I'd just like there to be more incentive to get off of welfare. -- Rob

Show me how people are using welfare money to buy drugs? In the past welfare was doled out in the form of a check. That system was widely abused. The State debit card addressed this issue of abuse. The debit card allows for only certain items to be purchased. Hence, no tobacco, alcohol (the most widely abused drug in the U.S.), or non-nutritional food items. It does allow for hygiene products, but no DVD rentals or any other type of entertainment items. Also, who is to say that the marijuana (or other drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, or crack) was purchased with a welfare debit card? As far as I know, drug dealers do not accept this type of payment. Also, one most produce identification to use the cards. This is "feel good, I'm tough on crime" knee jerk legislation that has been kicked around for more than 20 years. I say, let's drug test politicians on a daily basis. Not only for drugs, but for alcohol, tobacco products, as well as for unhealthy, fattening food. A fair number of them in MO. have been busted over the years. They receive tax dollars, they need to be held to a higher standard if they wish to test the rest of us and stay in their cushioned jobs. they also suck off the government teat. test 'em. I'm all for it. alcohol? tobacco? not illegal, but make them pay more for the insurance my tax dollars cover. At some level everyone benefits from government spending which is ultimately paid for by taxpayers, yourself included. yes, and I am currently paying more into the system than I extract from it. -- Rob

Let the person who has never benefited from ANYTHING supported by taxpayer $$$ be exempted then. All others get tested. Went to state school or university - get tested. Travel on public roads, get tested. Travel on public transport - get tested. Fly out of a publicly funded airport - get tested. Live in a town with a police and/or fire department - get tested. File a lawsuit - get tested... do any of the above without paying taxes currently? get tested. paying taxes is paying for all the above services. welfare is free money to help people get out of a bad situation. I'd figured you'd have thought through your kneejerk response a little more. Very subtle attempt to change the parameters of your previous poorly thought out position hoping, I'm sure, that no-one would notice the shift. you say shift the parameters, I say better define my position. get benefit without paying for it? piss in the cup. You pay for it? well, then it's not really free is it. -- Rob

True. It will just cost more for the crimes they now will commit to get money for drugs if they get denied welfare. Wasting more money and time with police, the courts, jails, ect. Let them do drugs. Why produce more crime with more legislation. did you just propose paying criminals to not commit crimes? -- Rob

easy substitution - other money that would have been spent on rent and food can now be spent on drugs. nonetheless, this point is still 100% true. Testing welfare recipients is sound bite legislation. It won't accomplish savings, will in fact cost more money overall. It won't stop drug use. I would hope it might encourage getting folks off of welfare. I could care less about their drug use. -- Rob

Show me how people are using welfare money to buy drugs? In the past welfare was doled out in the form of a check. That system was widely abused. The State debit card addressed this issue of abuse. The debit card allows for only certain items to be purchased. Hence, no tobacco, alcohol (the most widely abused drug in the U.S.), or non-nutritional food items. It does allow for hygiene products, but no DVD rentals or any other type of entertainment items. Also, who is to say that the marijuana (or other drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, or crack) was purchased with a welfare debit card? As far as I know, drug dealers do not accept this type of payment. Also, one most produce identification to use the cards. This is "feel good, I'm tough on crime" knee jerk legislation that has been kicked around for more than 20 years. I say, let's drug test politicians on a daily basis. Not only for drugs, but for alcohol, tobacco products, as well as for unhealthy, fattening food. A fair number of them in MO. have been busted over the years. They receive tax dollars, they need to be held to a higher standard if they wish to test the rest of us and stay in their cushioned jobs. they also suck off the government teat. test 'em. I'm all for it. alcohol? tobacco? not illegal, but make them pay more for the insurance my tax dollars cover. You're on the right track. Suck on the government teat? get tested. works for me. -- Rob

I see you have a time machine. Or flawed logic that you can't explain (thus the absence of explanation). I don't doubt the possibility of a lack of long term savings. Note the word "possibly" in my post. I'm sure you know what it means, or have the means to discover that information. Even if it costs extra, but discourages drug use by those on the government teat, perhaps encouraging some to get off of welfare, wouldn't that be worth it? Or are you content to see people with no ambition to improve themselves beyond apathetically living off of others??? -- Rob

people using welfare money to buy drugs perhaps shouldn't be on welfare if they have so much extra money that they can afford to buy drugs. immediate savings? no. the testing and administrative costs are an immediate outflow. Long term savings? possibly, after discouraging drug users from abusing the system. Political win for someone? likely. -- Rob

Let the person who has never benefited from ANYTHING supported by taxpayer $$$ be exempted then. All others get tested. Went to state school or university - get tested. Travel on public roads, get tested. Travel on public transport - get tested. Fly out of a publicly funded airport - get tested. Live in a town with a police and/or fire department - get tested. File a lawsuit - get tested... do any of the above without paying taxes currently? get tested. paying taxes is paying for all the above services. welfare is free money to help people get out of a bad situation. I'd figured you'd have thought through your kneejerk response a little more. -- Rob

employers can already drug test their employees as a condition of employment. For several of the positions you list, there are already laws in place preventing them from being intoxicated while performing their duties. If their employers are ok with letting them have their personal time all to themselves and spending their salary on drugs, that's between them and their employees. The point being made here is that welfare recipients are being paid by the tax payers. Their job is to get themselves back on their feet, and find another job so that they may exit the welfare system. Those that don't do that are stealing from their employer just as you would be if you went to work, collected a paycheck, and did nothing but troll on dz.com all day from the company network. Some welfare recipients have other issues going on that keep them from being employed. Not everyone on welfare is abusing the system. But some are, and it is a very easy system to abuse. Would I support random drug tests for those on welfare? Put a time limit on it and randomize it. I don't know what the average time on welfare is, but I'd say halfway through whatever time period that is, randomly test 5% of the recipients who haven't been tested in the past 60 days. and yes, if my employer wanted to put the same policy on me (5% of employees would be tested at most every 60 days) I'd either piss in the cup, or find a different employer. -- Rob

more likely to be a case of "if anyone remembers seeing it happen". -- Rob

yes, but you don't. so currently it doesn't even take that to get to your data. -- Rob

I work with Jesus too. He's good at what he does, not quite "walk on water" good but good nonetheless. -- Rob

youse guys? referring to me? well, as I've said before, I don't belong to a political party, and if I did it would be the Libertarian party. you're either wrong, making assumptions, or trolling. oh shit. I just ruined it for you didn't I? uh yeah... party of NO!!!!111!!1 move along... nothing to see here. -- Rob

Ever notice how certain people in certain groups are good with using things we are all paying for to live in a civilized country and yet bitch incessantly when they actually have to pay for that use?? The get something for nothing crowd....why does it always seem to come from those who are supposed to be all about "fiscal responsibility" In discussions I've read on this, I'm seeing more privacy concerns and "why create a new tax" concerns. Most responses I've seen lean towards "just bump the gas tax instead". but you can pick the posts you respond to for the maximum troll value. I get that. Don't have a problem with it either. Tends to be entertaining. Ok so you are good with living here in the USA free of charge.. no taxes.. no responsibilities... so much for WE THE PEOPLE in order...... hey look! now you're putting words in my mouth. or making assumptions. oh nope... you're just trying to troll me. uh, how does this go again... oh yeah... NO I DON"T THINK THAT!!!!1!11elevnty!! show me one post where I said that.... (did I get that right kallend? rush? just checking...) back to your regularly programmed troll-fest... -- Rob

the hell you say!?!?! and keep your government hands out of my medicare!!! -- Rob

but what about all the people who reap the benefits of having the roads without actually driving on them? we need to tax them too!! Good point! Maybe we could tax people based on a percentage of what they earn. We could call this new tax an "income tax". oohh... sounds like a slippery slope to me. next thing you know the gubbmint is going to want money for every gallon of gas we buy. -- Rob

but what about all the people who reap the benefits of having the roads without actually driving on them? we need to tax them too!! -- Rob

Ever notice how certain people in certain groups are good with using things we are all paying for to live in a civilized country and yet bitch incessantly when they actually have to pay for that use?? The get something for nothing crowd....why does it always seem to come from those who are supposed to be all about "fiscal responsibility" In discussions I've read on this, I'm seeing more privacy concerns and "why create a new tax" concerns. Most responses I've seen lean towards "just bump the gas tax instead". but you can pick the posts you respond to for the maximum troll value. I get that. Don't have a problem with it either. Tends to be entertaining. -- Rob

will probably say same thing some of my friends have told me after their return. There is some good being done by our presence. But we're not getting enough benefit to offset the damage and casualties. The intel we're getting could be had through other channels if certain unnamed government agencies had a bit more operational leeway (including budget). -- Rob

is anybody anywhere surprised at this? the NOPD is racist and corrupt? really? -- Rob

It's been that way for many years. They're a reactive force. They don't maintain order, they detain. They don't protect and serve, they show up and react. And if he hadn't reacted violently to the 5 officers trying to detain him, that might have actually happened. But it did not. -- Rob