“I luv Canton”

Since: Sep 13

The 57th state

#22500 Nov 30, 2013
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
What's really funny is I just got done saying "Quick, put up a link from oil billionaires" followed by you doing exactly that. FAIL.
enjoy my NASA link, CAUSE THEY ARE PRO OIL CAPITALISTS.....and it's 2013.......

You know, when we would not have snow anymore according to AL (Let me sell you some carbon offset options) Gore

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-holli...

Of course the record growth of the arctic ice cap measured by NASA means nothing right?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-an...

AND THEN THIS.......

http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/01/ice-caps-and-...

ENJOY..........
Pops

Newport, KY

#22501 Nov 30, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that the Supreme Court has found that RANDOM drug testing violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
"The Court noted that while the Fourth Amendment generally prohibits officials from conducting search and seizures without individualized suspicion, there does exist a "closely guarded" category of permissible suspicionless searches and seizures.
However, the Court held that the statute's drug-testing requirement did not fit within this category.
The Court emphasized that the proffered special need for drug testing must be substantial--important enough to override the individual's acknowledged privacy interest, sufficiently vital to suppress the Fourth Amendment's normal requirement of individualized suspicion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_v._Mill...
I don't know any of the specific arguments which would be important to know, but one the surface they were wrong.
IF a person does NOT want to be drug tested, they have an option/choice to NOT submit to a test. They are NOT unwittingly subjected to testing at any time. Please explain how drug testing can be legal in many private sector jobs & NOT welfare?
I have been tested 5-6 times (& always passed) & NOT for security, secret, or other jobs.
I have even been polygraphed to be a COOK in food service. I would consider polygraphs to be less dependable than drug tests. It seems that the courts do too since drug tests are admissable in court & polygraphs are not.
Fjdkvk

United States

#22502 Nov 30, 2013
I can't remember

“I luv Canton”

Since: Sep 13

The 57th state

#22503 Nov 30, 2013
Fjdkvk wrote:
I can't remember
LMFAO....

Apparently Al (let me sell you some carbon offset options) Gore can't remember his predictions either..........
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#22504 Nov 30, 2013
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know any of the specific arguments which would be important to know, but one the surface they were wrong.
IF a person does NOT want to be drug tested, they have an option/choice to NOT submit to a test. They are NOT unwittingly subjected to testing at any time. Please explain how drug testing can be legal in many private sector jobs & NOT welfare?
I have been tested 5-6 times (& always passed) & NOT for security, secret, or other jobs.
I have even been polygraphed to be a COOK in food service. I would consider polygraphs to be less dependable than drug tests. It seems that the courts do too since drug tests are admissable in court & polygraphs are not.
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.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#22505 Nov 30, 2013
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
What's really funny is I just got done saying "Quick, put up a link from oil billionaires" followed by you doing exactly that. FAIL.
Why is that failure? Because it goes against your religion?

See, that's the difference between how somebody on the right discusses issues and how you leftists discuss issues. When you make a claim that I disagree with, I provide proof of my charge. When somebody does it to you, you guys jump up and down screaming Rush, Hannity, Fox, Koch!

I've wrote it repeatedly here: just because you guys don't like the source doesn't mean it's incorrect. I posted another source that said the exact same thing. I even posted a link to a book somebody wrote about this farce of 97% of scientists. I posted a link to the names of UN scientists that said the same thing about climate change.

None of it matters to you because you have the palms of your hands to your ears and are singing aloud. I watch Fox news, but I'm not so brainwashed that I refuse to believe Fox is the only outlet I can listen to and that every other outlet beyond conservatism is a lie.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
The Boxer
Simon and Garfunkel.
Canton

Canton, OH

#22506 Nov 30, 2013
what_me_worry_ wrote:
<quoted text>
enjoy my NASA link, CAUSE THEY ARE PRO OIL CAPITALISTS.....and it's 2013.......
You know, when we would not have snow anymore according to AL (Let me sell you some carbon offset options) Gore
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-holli...
Of course the record growth of the arctic ice cap measured by NASA means nothing right?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-an...
AND THEN THIS.......
http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/01/ice-caps-and-...
ENJOY..........
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?"
Canton

Canton, OH

#22507 Nov 30, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is that failure? Because it goes against your religion?
See, that's the difference between how somebody on the right discusses issues and how you leftists discuss issues. When you make a claim that I disagree with, I provide proof of my charge. When somebody does it to you, you guys jump up and down screaming Rush, Hannity, Fox, Koch!
I've wrote it repeatedly here: just because you guys don't like the source doesn't mean it's incorrect. I posted another source that said the exact same thing. I even posted a link to a book somebody wrote about this farce of 97% of scientists. I posted a link to the names of UN scientists that said the same thing about climate change.
None of it matters to you because you have the palms of your hands to your ears and are singing aloud. I watch Fox news, but I'm not so brainwashed that I refuse to believe Fox is the only outlet I can listen to and that every other outlet beyond conservatism is a lie.
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
The Boxer
Simon and Garfunkel.
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?
Canton

Canton, OH

#22508 Nov 30, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is that failure? Because it goes against your religion?
See, that's the difference between how somebody on the right discusses issues and how you leftists discuss issues. When you make a claim that I disagree with, I provide proof of my charge. When somebody does it to you, you guys jump up and down screaming Rush, Hannity, Fox, Koch!
I've wrote it repeatedly here: just because you guys don't like the source doesn't mean it's incorrect. I posted another source that said the exact same thing. I even posted a link to a book somebody wrote about this farce of 97% of scientists. I posted a link to the names of UN scientists that said the same thing about climate change.
None of it matters to you because you have the palms of your hands to your ears and are singing aloud. I watch Fox news, but I'm not so brainwashed that I refuse to believe Fox is the only outlet I can listen to and that every other outlet beyond conservatism is a lie.
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
The Boxer
Simon and Garfunkel.
You posted a link to a book written by a guy who is paid by oil billionaires. Meanwhile, in the real scientific world...
Republican 101

Van Wert, OH

#22509 Nov 30, 2013
Okay, so secondhand smoke is a lie, rape is just an ugly word for "God's will", and winter weather PROVES that global warming is a lie, too.
These corporate cheerleaders really will believe anything.
ROFLMAO
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#22510 Nov 30, 2013
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Please explain how drug testing can be legal in many private sector jobs & NOT welfare?
Because the job seeker consents to that "search." That's the difference.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#22511 Nov 30, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
...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?
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...
Pops

Newport, KY

#22512 Nov 30, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the job seeker consents to that "search." That's the difference.
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. Income for income. It is still a choice. IF I couldn't pass a drug test, I wouldn't apply for welfare or apply to work at Boeing or to be a Rent-A-Cop or a Meter Maid or whatever IF I would test dirty.
NO ONE is promised a check, but IF there are hurdles to get that check, one needs to clear those hurdles, NOT run around the hurdles.
Passing a drug test is absolutely NO different than any other qualification for a job/pay check.
Because I am color blind should I still be a pilot? Because I have lost an arm, should I still be a wall paper hanger? Because I am illiterate should I still be a Driving Instructor?
Please get real!!
This is a combonation of Consent & Qualification. Fill the Bill or move on.
Republican 101

Van Wert, OH

#22513 Nov 30, 2013
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the job seeker consents to that "search." That's the difference.
Oh cool, are we blaming random drug tests on liberals now, too?
The real question is, why should anyone actually listen to us paranoid rightwingers anymore? We've been PROVEN wrong, time and time again, but we keep making the same failed predictions, the same mistakes, and still, we keep falling for the same corporate sob story.
Oh yeah, and secondhand smoke is less dangerous than popcorn...
Republican 101

Van Wert, OH

#22514 Nov 30, 2013
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

#22515 Nov 30, 2013
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

Portsmouth, OH

#22516 Nov 30, 2013
John K. is a good choice and would make a great president.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#22517 Nov 30, 2013
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?

“I luv Canton”

Since: Sep 13

The 57th state

#22518 Nov 30, 2013
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

Cleveland, OH

#22519 Nov 30, 2013
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?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Springboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 14 hr Chuck 19,852
Brian Perry Sun margaret 1
tony dozier (Jan '10) Sun smiles 24
strip clubs (Nov '11) Sat anonymous 11
News Former Channel 7 anchor hired by Channel 2 (Nov '12) Apr 24 Leroy 17
theodore franks missing since 1986 Apr 23 wyatt 1
News Ambulance, fire levy sparks debate in Ohio (Feb '13) Apr 23 Throatme 2,047
More from around the web

Springboro People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]