On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:23:00 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 12, 6:00 am, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:48:45 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Dec 11, 12:39 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:03:03 -0800 (PST), Millwright Ron

wrote:
Like a lot of folks in this country... 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 butt and using drugs.
Could you imagine how much money the state
would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a
public assistance check?

Millwright Ron

And when they don't pass a **** test, then what?

The kids starve, so the State takes em away. Then what?
The kids get farmed out to foster families? There are only so many
available. So the kids have to be stockpiled in a government
institution, of which there are limited numbers...so we have to build
new ones, staff and maintain them.

Its cheaper to simply send them a check, put them up in Title 8
housing and let em live or die.

Id rather see mandatory contraceptive implants in any woman receiving
welfare.

Gunner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you have the right to bear arms, doesn't she have the right to bear
children?

TMT

Oh..she indeed has the right to bear as many kids as she can poop out.
However, nothing in the Constitution indicates we have the requirement
to pay for them, or for her to do so.

Just as the Constition doesnt place a limit on the number of weapons I
can own, nor does it force you to pay for my new weapons.

Gunner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But weren't you the one just a few posts ago advocating mandated birth
control?

TMT

Yes, for those seeking welfare. Something else btw, not allowed for in
the Constitution. The bogus claim welfare is covered under the
"promote the general welfare" statement is exactly that.bogus.

So if a mom wants to enroll herself and her kid(s) on welfare rolls,
it would not be unwarranted that she must be given a Norplant before
receiving her second welfare check.

This is not of course, any restriction on her Rights, as she is
pefectly free to refuse the Norplant, get a job and not go on welfare.
There are LOADS of free governmental programs for education, training
and so forth.

If someone is unemployed because of lack of job skills..the government
has pretty good programs (also not allowed in the Constituiton) to
correct that.

The "welfare reform" that Clinton refused to sign 2x, and signed the
3rd time because to not sign, would cost him an election, seems to
have worked quite admirably so far.

The same welfare reform that the Libtards claimed would kill millions
of children btw.

But like the Libtards stance on Bilingual education..it turned out to
be dead wrong as well.

The Libtards seem to get things dead wrong, so consistantly, that its
scary that they still can pull strings.

Gunner