Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 103

Thread: Tamerlan Tsarnaev got Mass. welfare benefits!

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    09-27-16 @ 12:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,189

    Re: Tamerlan Tsarnaev got Mass. welfare benefits!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    So you're suddenly advocating that let's just say for example a family applies for Food Stamps because they need it, the government should be allowed to check their internet history?

    So suddenly a backround check for Welfare will stop terrorism...

    But a back round check for firearms won't stop mass killers...

    Ah **** it.
    It is amazing how the right-wing makes connections sometimes, isn't it?

  2. #52
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,866

    Re: Tamerlan Tsarnaev got Mass. welfare benefits!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocketman
    I think it demonstrates how corrupt that system is and requiring recipients to take drug test for benefits is not over reaching.
    Well, I do agree that it should be fairly easy to exclude those people who do not want to work from those who are just temporarily down on their luck. I think drug testing would be OK provided:

    1) Benefits were raised somewhat.

    2) The applicant didn't have to pay for the drug test the first time, or ever so long as the tests come back clean. Someone who fails a test will pay for their next test, and future tests until they're clean.

    3) There was an exception for light marijuana use.

    That said, I'm not sure I understand the relevance. The bombers are not accused of dealing or using drugs. They're accused of blowing people up and shooting them. Currently, there does not seem to be any indication that drug use led to their crimes. That is, there's no indication that they were sitting around a shabby basement, freebasing some crystal meth, when suddenly one says to the other "Dude! Like, you know what would be so cosmic and awesome? Check it, like, if we blow some **** up and killed some people, that would be, like, sick, man!"

    They appear to have had other concerns.

  3. #53
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: Tamerlan Tsarnaev got Mass. welfare benefits!

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    Well, I do agree that it should be fairly easy to exclude those people who do not want to work from those who are just temporarily down on their luck. I think drug testing would be OK provided:

    1) Benefits were raised somewhat.

    2) The applicant didn't have to pay for the drug test the first time, or ever so long as the tests come back clean. Someone who fails a test will pay for their next test, and future tests until they're clean.

    3) There was an exception for light marijuana use.

    That said, I'm not sure I understand the relevance. The bombers are not accused of dealing or using drugs. They're accused of blowing people up and shooting them. Currently, there does not seem to be any indication that drug use led to their crimes. That is, there's no indication that they were sitting around a shabby basement, freebasing some crystal meth, when suddenly one says to the other "Dude! Like, you know what would be so cosmic and awesome? Check it, like, if we blow some **** up and killed some people, that would be, like, sick, man!"

    They appear to have had other concerns.

    While I think drug testing recipients in moronic, based on the fact it seems a financial sinkhole, why would you make an exception for marijuana?

  4. #54
    Educator
    CaptinSarcastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Last Seen
    07-18-16 @ 03:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,199

    Re: Tamerlan Tsarnaev got Mass. welfare benefits!

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I don't think it should be. If someone is on welfare I think they should have virtually no privacy. The government should be able to monitor their online usage, their communications (text, phone, etc), their life habits (drug use, prostitution, drug screens) and active efforts to better themselves..
    Do you trust government completely?

    If the answer is yes, then fine, this proposal should create no problems at all.

    On the othe hand, if you do not trust government, then ponder this. That tax break you get will now be called a form of government dependency and you will be subjected to the same scrutiny as a foor stamp recipient. Welcome to the world of "they should have virtually no privacy. The government should be able to monitor their online usage, their communications (text, phone, etc), their life habits (drug use, prostitution, drug screens) and active efforts to better themselves".

    People that are willing to give up the rights of others often find they have given up far more. And defending the rights of others, even when a case could be made that maybe they should not get all the rights that good Americans get, will not likely stop there.

    Just as an exercise, consider applying this logic to anyone who ever gets a dime from the government in any way.

    How many people would be left with any rights?
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I do not believe any amount of people committing suicide with firearms justifies requiring firearm sellers to preach to customers about suicide regardless if it would or wouldn't save those who commit suicide.

  5. #55
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,866

    Re: Tamerlan Tsarnaev got Mass. welfare benefits!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles
    While I think drug testing recipients in moronic, based on the fact it seems a financial sinkhole, why would you make an exception for marijuana?
    For multiple reasons. The three most salient would be:

    1) We typically don't test for alcohol consumption, and alcohol is more deranging and degrading to a person's abilities than is marijuana. That said, if we're going to drug test, I think we should be more concerned about heavy alcohol consumption than marijuana use, by a long shot. Heavy alcohol consumption is nearly as bad as cocaine or heroin.

    2) People who are poor are under stress. It's a fact of human psychology that people under stress self-medicate. Provided there's no psychological addiction present, that behavior stops when a way out of the stressful situation presents itself. This is why I say the exception should be for light marijuana use. Someone who smoked a joint last friday night because they needed to have a little fun and some escape from reality shouldn't be penalized in my view. On the other hand, someone who smokes every day should not receive welfare.

    3) I think marijuana ought to be legal.

  6. #56
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: Tamerlan Tsarnaev got Mass. welfare benefits!

    [QUOTE=ashurbanipal;1061737220]For multiple reasons. The three most salient would be:

    1) We typically don't test for alcohol consumption, and alcohol is more deranging and degrading to a person's abilities than is marijuana. That said, if we're going to drug test, I think we should be more concerned about heavy alcohol consumption than marijuana use, by a long shot. Heavy alcohol consumption is nearly as bad as cocaine or heroin.
    I don't care about it's damaging effects. What I care about is someone getting well fair benefits buying illegal drugs

    2) People who are poor are under stress. It's a fact of human psychology that people under stress self-medicate. Provided there's no psychological addiction present, that behavior stops when a way out of the stressful situation presents itself. This is why I say the exception should be for light marijuana use. Someone who smoked a joint last friday night because they needed to have a little fun and some escape from reality shouldn't be penalized in my view. On the other hand, someone who smokes every day should not receive welfare.
    Yeah, they can go for a walk.

    3) I think marijuana ought to be legal.
    right, which is likely why the above comes off as one of those pot evangelist ideas.

  7. #57
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,866

    Re: Tamerlan Tsarnaev got Mass. welfare benefits!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles
    I don't care about it's damaging effects. What I care about is someone getting well fair benefits buying illegal drugs
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't find it acceptable for someone to take their public assistance and buy drugs with it. It's my understanding that drug tests are able to distinguish mild marijuana use from chronic use. If possible, I would like to also distinguish casual use of alcohol from chronic use.

    My point is that someone who takes a couple of puffs occasionally, or who has a couple of beers, isn't doing anything that could reasonably be construed as wrong, if they are also asking for public assistance. I know engineers, lawyers, and doctors who smoke pot on Friday night and it doesn't interfere with their ability to show up on Monday morning with their game face on.

    Someone who does a lot of either alcohol or pot doesn't need to be given public help, at least not in that way. I think for them, we can put them in rehab and under close supervision, bring them to the point where they have a job, and have them pay back the expense of their rehab. I would treat this as a one-and-done deal. If they fall back on hard times, they're forever cut off. They can go sleep under a bridge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles
    right, which is likely why the above comes off as one of those pot evangelist ideas.
    I'm not an evangelist. I'm not sure what you mean.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Tamerlan Tsarnaev got Mass. welfare benefits!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
    Feistein and Obama have said that, I guess it is ok then
    Really? Where did Feinstein or Obama say that those that support guns support terrorism? Or is this just more bs rhetoric since you got called on your bs remark.

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    02-18-14 @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,660

    Re: Tamerlan Tsarnaev got Mass. welfare benefits!

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    Well, I do agree that it should be fairly easy to exclude those people who do not want to work from those who are just temporarily down on their luck. I think drug testing would be OK provided:

    1) Benefits were raised somewhat.

    2) The applicant didn't have to pay for the drug test the first time, or ever so long as the tests come back clean. Someone who fails a test will pay for their next test, and future tests until they're clean.

    3) There was an exception for light marijuana use.

    That said, I'm not sure I understand the relevance. The bombers are not accused of dealing or using drugs. They're accused of blowing people up and shooting them. Currently, there does not seem to be any indication that drug use led to their crimes. That is, there's no indication that they were sitting around a shabby basement, freebasing some crystal meth, when suddenly one says to the other "Dude! Like, you know what would be so cosmic and awesome? Check it, like, if we blow some **** up and killed some people, that would be, like, sick, man!"

    They appear to have had other concerns.
    While I appreciate what you posted I can't agree because I am familiar with two heavy machinery accidents where the operators where high and two people lost their lives.

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    02-18-14 @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,660

    Re: Tamerlan Tsarnaev got Mass. welfare benefits!

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Really? Where did Feinstein or Obama say that those that support guns support terrorism? Or is this just more bs rhetoric since you got called on your bs remark.
    What was the phrase Obama used about the right wing and their guns, it was an asinine statement and Feinstein is clearly trying to ban weapons that she clearly knows nothing about, we get you, shooting from the hip is ok when it is a liberal doing it.

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •