Comments
20,521 - 20,540 of 29,361 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Republican 101

Van Wert, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22514
Nov 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Because I am illiterate should I still be a Driving Instructor?
This is a combonation of Consent & Qualification. Fill the Bill or move on.
ARE you a driving instructor?
Pops

Newport, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22515
Nov 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Republican 101 wrote:
<quoted text>ARE you a driving instructor?
LOL Of course not. Just an example for the sake of this discussion that I am in about drug testing/job qualifications.
Your question is Funny tho when we think of some of the driving that ALL of us have witnessed.

Since: Nov 13

Lynchburg, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22516
Nov 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

John K. is a good choice and would make a great president.
xxxrayted

Beachwood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22517
Nov 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Not brainwashed, eh? Just because every single time you guys post a link, it ends up being propaganda from the Koch Brothers is all just yet another one of the kookie little coincidences...again. Tell us some more how Al Gore invented the dangers of smoking. With things like FEMA Death camps and desperate birth certificate scandals, why would you expect anyone to take you guys seriously? So what environmental device went wrong on your truck this week?
Everything that disputes your claims is propaganda. That's the problem. In your world, everything you post is legit and everything other than what you post is propaganda, lies or has an ulterior motive. and you don't see a problem with it.

Didn't it ever strike you funny how something with no empirical evidence like MM global warming or climate change can be agreed on by this supposed 97% of scientists? What if I told you that 97% of all scientists believed Jesus Christ is our Lord, wouldn't you question that? Wouldn't it seem a little obvious something was amiss?

You got your information from some left-wing blog somewhere. So should I automatically dismiss it because it didn't come from one of my right-wing sources?

“Keep your policy period. LMAO”

Since: Sep 13

The 57th state

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22518
Nov 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Strange how all of the links you provide are rightwing propaganda sites. Wonder why? Thanks but I'll stick with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community while you continue to get your "news" from the village idiot. Get it right, little corporate fetch boy. Snap snap! Daddy Koch says jump and you ask "How high?"
LMFAO @ you loser...

When did NASA become a right wing tool?????????

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha haha

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20...

read it and weep libitard..........

If you want more data click on THIS dumb ayse...

http://lmgtfy.com/...
xxxrayted

Beachwood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22519
Nov 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you have a job (truck driving) where the public safety aspect has been decided to trump your Fourth Amendment protections. This was decided in "Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association" in 1989. This was a controversial decision at the time.
"At face value, random drug testing appears to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects the right of citizens "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." In addition, the Fourth Amendment states that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." However, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Skinner that random drug testing is permissible for employees in safety sensitive positions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Railw...
What you may or may not realize is drug testing is far from detecting intoxication on the job. Marijuana can stay in your system up to three weeks. So if I decided to smoke some pot on Thanksgiving, and then got drug tested on Monday morning, got positive results when the substance has no impact on my performance or duties, how is that a public safety issue?

To reenforce Pop's point, there is no difference how somebody is financially supported. People on public assistance are living off of taxpayers money, and I would be willing to bet that most taxpayers have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients.

It's not just drug testing either. Do you realize that the DOT can pull me over anytime they desire and search my truck? They look inside of the cab, inside of the trailer, underneath the trailer, underneath the hood, and they don't ask for my consent? They have no warrant or probable cause either.

Okay, so it's all for public safety. Don't you think that a parent using illegal narcotics is a safety issue for their children?
xxxrayted

Beachwood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22520
Nov 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

what_me_worry_ wrote:
<quoted text>
LMFAO @ you loser...
When did NASA become a right wing tool?????????
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha haha
http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20...
read it and weep libitard..........
If you want more data click on THIS dumb ayse...
http://lmgtfy.com/...
Canton didn't know that. He doesn't click the links. He doesn't read them. If he did read the links, he would realize that our "right-wing sources" have hyperlinks in the paragraphs that would take him to the research or sources that the writer of the article got their information from.
Pops

Newport, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22522
Nov 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Canton wrote:
Now, a little more about who wrote the article...James Taylor. He works for the Heartland Institute which is run by the Koch Brother oil billionaires.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/11/01...
So basically, yet another direct link of your beliefs leading right back to guess who? The Koch Brothers. I'll stick with getting my facts from the experts. You guys continue to show us what corporate fetch boys you are by getting your "science" from oil billionaires.
How about this link? www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/... Combined with or compared to what you & others have produced; it still says, "No one knows Chit & NO one has a crystal frickin ball"
One may be right or the other may be right, ONLY time will tell.
BUT what the current evidence says for a fact is that YOU are a PUTZ!!
Pops

Newport, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22523
Nov 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
What you may or may not realize is drug testing is far from detecting intoxication on the job. Marijuana can stay in your system up to three weeks. So if I decided to smoke some pot on Thanksgiving, and then got drug tested on Monday morning, got positive results when the substance has no impact on my performance or duties, how is that a public safety issue?
To reenforce Pop's point, there is no difference how somebody is financially supported. People on public assistance are living off of taxpayers money, and I would be willing to bet that most taxpayers have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients.
It's not just drug testing either. Do you realize that the DOT can pull me over anytime they desire and search my truck? They look inside of the cab, inside of the trailer, underneath the trailer, underneath the hood, and they don't ask for my consent? They have no warrant or probable cause either.
Okay, so it's all for public safety. Don't you think that a parent using illegal narcotics is a safety issue for their children?
I am PROOF that there is a 'sliding scale' of culpability/guilt on some drugs.
I grew up so to speak, in the 60's & 70's & have 'done' everything that did not require a needle. At 1 time I Smoked it, swallowed it, snorted it or whatever. I am NO 'prude' nor am I open to anything.
One time after I learned to be 'moderate' I attended a wedding on a Saturday & took a few 'celebratory tokes' & still passed a Monday afternoon drug test.
It is a FACT that most drugs pass thru a human system in very short order. 24-72 hrs or less. The exception being CHRONIC pot consumption & that still depends on Pot quality, frequency, total indulgence/consumption, body fat, fluid intake etc etc.
If one 'passes' a drug test it doesn't mean that they are an Angel. They can still smoke some dope, consume some Meth,'snort a line', drop some acid, or whatever at the back yard BBQ or the camp out etc
IF one can't wait for 36-72 hrs or so B4 testing, they do not deserve a job or any help other than detox.
Republican 101

Van Wert, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22524
Nov 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pops wrote:
<quoted text>How about this link? www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/... Combined with or compared to what you & others have produced; it still says, "No one knows Chit & NO one has a crystal frickin ball"
One may be right or the other may be right, ONLY time will tell.
BUT what the current evidence says for a fact is that YOU are a PUTZ!!
I think the point was that these braindead frightwingers are dead wrong. Every. Single. Time. Those are the facts.
Secret Muslims? Nope. Uva ring abortion on demand parties? Wrong. Riots in the streets if Romney isn't elected prez? Never happened. Commie death squads taking away people's guns? Not even close. Secondhand smoke is safer than popcorn? Come on now, REALLY?
So why wouldn't a rational, thinking person dismiss their corporate agenda as the meaningless, desperate fear mongering propaganda that it is?
Pops

Newport, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22525
Nov 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Republican 101 wrote:
<quoted text>
So why wouldn't a rational, thinking person dismiss their corporate agenda as the meaningless, desperate fear mongering propaganda that it is?
Good question.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22526
Nov 30, 2013
 
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>So should the welfare seeker! You want a Welfare check, S.N.A.P., Section 8, or a medical card you should do what it takes & PROVE that YOU are NOT a lawbreaker/felon. There is NO difference.
The Supreme Court feels otherwise. I know you think your opinion is superior to theirs, but their opinion has the force of law.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22527
Nov 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
What you may or may not realize is drug testing is far from detecting intoxication on the job. Marijuana can stay in your system up to three weeks. So if I decided to smoke some pot on Thanksgiving, and then got drug tested on Monday morning, got positive results when the substance has no impact on my performance or duties, how is that a public safety issue?
I understand your point. I was explaining the rationale for the Supreme Court decision regarding the prohibition on random drug testing, and the exception made for "public safety" reasons. You can disagree with their decisions if you like. But don't be mistaken and think that it is my opinion. It's not.

You and Pops both seem to have trouble understanding the meaning of "consent." It must be freely given. If a welfare recipient says "I don't want to be tested", they are within their legal rights to do that. Just as you can not be compelled to testify against yourself. It violates Constitutional protections. Do you really not understand this point?
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22529
Dec 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Our drug testing is a requirement of the federal government. Is the federal government wrong too? My employer has no use for drug testing for our company. It costs money to hire a service that pulls our names at random, pay for the clinic services to take the test, and pay us for travel time to and from the clinic plus whatever time it takes for us to muster up enough urine to fill that cup.
Bottom line is I have to submit to drug tests because if I refuse, the federal government pulls my medical card. So if the federal government can force me to take a drug test in order to work, why can't the federal government do the same for welfare recipients?
I've witnessed two of our drivers fail drug tests. One of them tried to use some sort of stuff that was supposed to cover up the pot he was smoking. The government pulled his medical card for six weeks and he was forced to go to some sort of rehab center. The second time they pulled his name, he just walked into the office and told my employer he'd save him some money by just quitting the job. It's a shame because he was a good employee too.
That's some real irony from someone who claims that he gets nothing from the government. You work for a private company, yet you have a 'government medical card.' It was always my understanding that if you got a DUI, failed a pee test or had so many violations in a certain period of time that you lost your CDL. Never knew you got medical coverage through the government and not your employers insurance.
xxxrayted

Beachwood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22530
Dec 1, 2013
 
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>That's some real irony from someone who claims that he gets nothing from the government. You work for a private company, yet you have a 'government medical card.' It was always my understanding that if you got a DUI, failed a pee test or had so many violations in a certain period of time that you lost your CDL. Never knew you got medical coverage through the government and not your employers insurance.
Geeze.

Medical CARD. It's a document that shows you had your DOT physical and passed. You have to carry it at all times while driving and are required to submit (like your drivers license) it to a DOT officer when asked. Suspending your medical card is like suspending your license. If you are ever pulled over and don't have your medical card on your person, you can be put out of service on the spot.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22531
Dec 1, 2013
 
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Geeze.
Medical CARD. It's a document that shows you had your DOT physical and passed. You have to carry it at all times while driving and are required to submit (like your drivers license) it to a DOT officer when asked. Suspending your medical card is like suspending your license. If you are ever pulled over and don't have your medical card on your person, you can be put out of service on the spot.
Okay, that makes a little more sense.
xxxrayted

Beachwood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22532
Dec 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your point. I was explaining the rationale for the Supreme Court decision regarding the prohibition on random drug testing, and the exception made for "public safety" reasons. You can disagree with their decisions if you like. But don't be mistaken and think that it is my opinion. It's not.
You and Pops both seem to have trouble understanding the meaning of "consent." It must be freely given. If a welfare recipient says "I don't want to be tested", they are within their legal rights to do that. Just as you can not be compelled to testify against yourself. It violates Constitutional protections. Do you really not understand this point?
Sure I do. But if we had a requirement that people who accept public assistance have to take drug tests in order to get benefits, we are not forcing them to comply. If you don't want to take the drug tests, fine. Get a job instead.

Pops

Newport, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22533
Dec 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court feels otherwise. I know you think your opinion is superior to theirs, but their opinion has the force of law.
That my opinion is superior is not quite what I said. I mentioned a caveat. That being that I don't know how the case was argued. The lawyers arguments are what their decision is to be based on & as they presented it may legitimize the SCOTUS ruling may be valid based on that.
My personal opinion (without knowing the arguments) is still based on these drug test being a choice of the tested. And that it is not for criminal court prosecution. IF the laws don't allow for the suppression of the test, I would have NO problem with such a law being enacted.
My mindset is to NOT support people that don't work because of their drug consumption. Example being that they won't apply to work somewhere because that company does drug test. That means that they are willfully unemployed.
The specifics of that SCOTUS argument would interest me.
Pops

Newport, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22534
Dec 1, 2013
 
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court feels otherwise. I know you think your opinion is superior to theirs, but their opinion has the force of law.
Besides, IF someone can't clean up their system for a one time test that they know they will have to take, they have made a willful choice & indicate that they do not deserve the aid AND that they do have a significant drug problem.
Basically I find it very sad that entry standards that are lawfully imposed by the private sector for a paycheck would be illegal for another sort of paycheck.
Such a policy condones if not rewards undesirable behavior & choices while consuming funds that would be best utilized elsewhere.
xxxrayted

Beachwood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22535
Dec 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pops wrote:
<quoted text>That my opinion is superior is not quite what I said. I mentioned a caveat. That being that I don't know how the case was argued. The lawyers arguments are what their decision is to be based on & as they presented it may legitimize the SCOTUS ruling may be valid based on that.
My personal opinion (without knowing the arguments) is still based on these drug test being a choice of the tested. And that it is not for criminal court prosecution. IF the laws don't allow for the suppression of the test, I would have NO problem with such a law being enacted.
My mindset is to NOT support people that don't work because of their drug consumption. Example being that they won't apply to work somewhere because that company does drug test. That means that they are willfully unemployed.
The specifics of that SCOTUS argument would interest me.
Exactly. I have two tenants that live together--both working restaurant jobs. They don't make a lot of money and are always late with rent, but they can't get any other kind of work because they smoke pot all the time. Better paying jobs frequently drug test their employees.

I think it's a shame because they are in their early 20's and this is the time of their lives where they make their footprint in life, but nobody can tell them what to do. They will continue being poor, driving around in their rust bucket that breaks down all the time, and will likely always be late with rent.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Findlay Discussions

Search the Findlay Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
OH Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2... (Oct '10) Jul 26 Go Blue Forever 2,218
Cheri Lynn Brooks (Feb '12) Jul 26 Jumpa 5
McComb raid uncovers suspected meth lab (Sep '08) Jul 24 unknown 13
State Patrol opens sub-post in Kenton (Aug '13) Jul 24 Why 9
OH Who do you support for Auditor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) Jul 23 They cannot kill a Spook 231
Peterbilt of Northwest Ohio (Nov '11) Jul 23 insider 6
Diesel Trucks Jul 5 Rosco 1
•••
•••
•••
•••

Findlay Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Findlay People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Findlay News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Findlay
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••