23
   

Should you have to take a drug test to get TANF?

 
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 12:58 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Thay act that way when thay fear your ability to reason.
If thay did not feel intimidated, thay 'd be more polite.


Why are you lying to ND?
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 12:59 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
In that case, you've identified the host and the person who might have an interest in being hospitable.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 01:05 pm
@Ceili,
Quote:
Yup, another ambulance chaser


Ceili one of the main tasks of lawyers in handling his clients funds and other funds and as such lawyers need to have a basic understanding of economic and this gentleman had over and over shown he had no understanding of very basic concepts.

He may be a lawyer or he may not be a lawyer but I would not off hand trust him with overseeing a dime of my funds.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 01:09 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:
Well, Dave that's where you are wrong.
See I could care less if you agree with me or not.
How much less coud u CARE ?


Ceili wrote:
I was not rude to him until he was rude to me and others.
I questioned his reasoning but then, like you, he quickly proved that
if we didn't agree with him I was a crackpot liberal.. Your favourite dirty word.
Well, liberal mean deviated or distorted.
That 's not always good.
Someone who deviates from his contractual duty to u,
in doing so may well CHEAT u; that 's bad.
On the other hand, when Rudolf Hess deviated from nazism
and when Boris Yeltsin deviated from communism, those were GOOD things.



Ceili wrote:
I invite you to reread his posts. I'm sure you'll see that your new friend is not the warmest guy on the board.

What he fails to understand stand is that government coffers don't grow on their own.
If his business gets a tax break, and a thousand people get welfare,
they all take from the same pot.
People have the natural right to keep their own property.
NO ONE has a moral right to welfare.
Its charity; the same as if your dad gives u present for your birthday.
He CAN do it, if he wants to, but he has no duty to do so.
On the other hand, your dad has no right to steal your property.




Ceili wrote:
They all have their hands in the big cookie jar.
The average middle class tax must make up the shortfall.
not if spending is cut
to abide the deficit

Again: the charity cases have NO right to the handouts that thay get.
I have no duty to get ripped off by government for the benefit
of financial losers and the federal government was never granted power
to rip off the rich or middle classes to aid the poor. That can only be done by USURPATION
with the same authority as a schoolyard bully.




OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 01:14 pm
@ehBeth,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Thay act that way when thay fear your ability to reason.
If thay did not feel intimidated, thay 'd be more polite.
ehBeth wrote:
Why are you lying to ND?
I don 't accept your premise, any more than I have gotten any transfers
from the NYC bus to the subway.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 01:19 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
In that case, you've identified the host and the person
who might have an interest in being hospitable.
I think that its a customary, civilized practice to treat newcomers with a welcoming civility.

I have made that a practice.





David
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 01:19 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
and the federal government was never granted power
to rip off the rich or middle classes to aid the poor


On the contrary; the government is granted exactly that right in it's original charter, the Constitution. What more, our nation's supreme court - the ultimate arbiter of such discussions - has affirmed that this is true many times, as those of your ideological ilk have tried over the years to change the fundamental nature of our society.

So, your position is not one which reflects the reality of our nation at all.

Cycloptichorn
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 01:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
DAVID wrote:
and the federal government was never granted power
to rip off the rich or middle classes to aid the poor
Cycloptichorn wrote:
On the contrary; the government is granted exactly that right in it's original charter, the Constitution.
Your allegation is without merit.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
What more, our nation's supreme court - the ultimate arbiter of such discussions - has affirmed that this is true many times,
as those of your ideological ilk have tried over the years to change the fundamental nature of our society.
Your assertion is false.

It it inconceivable that the Founders woud have voted for
Frank Roosevelt, the Kennedys etc., as u imply.





David
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 01:26 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-eCX8guIVM
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 01:30 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

DAVID wrote:
and the federal government was never granted power
to rip off the rich or middle classes to aid the poor
Cycloptichorn wrote:
On the contrary; the government is granted exactly that right in it's original charter, the Constitution.
Your allegation is without merit.


On the contrary, the language in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, of the Constitution clearly states:

Quote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Courts have consistently found our modern scheme of taxation and our use of tax funds to support the needy to be in line with the Constitution. SO, to put it simply; you're incorrect in your assertions, and have no actual evidence to back them up anyway.

Cycloptichorn
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 01:36 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
dave, if you start following me, you will look really silly before we get done...

is your new friend into e-phonics as well?
Probably not; I don 't know of anyone other than myself who is spelling foneticly.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 01:40 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
If that had been the correct interpretation
of Original Constitutional intendment,
then America woud have become a welfare almost immediately.

American was and is based on Individualism, not collectivism.

This was NOT the philosophy of the Founders.
Thay 'd have found the views of the Kennedys etc. to be anathema.





David
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 02:51 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

If that had been the correct interpretation
of Original Constitutional intendment,
then America woud have become a welfare almost immediately.


An assertion unsupported by fact or logic.

Quote:
American was and is based on Individualism, not collectivism.


Another of the same. In truth, America is - and always has been - a mix of both collectivism AND individualism. Unless you're putting out your own fires, policing your own neighborhood, and inspecting your own food for safety, I'm sure you'll agree with me.

Quote:
This was NOT the philosophy of the Founders.
Thay 'd have found the views of the Kennedys etc. to be anathema.
David


While all are entitled to their opinion, I can rest comfortably knowing that the courts agree with me, and not with you. I suspect you have no explanation for why this is.

Cycloptichorn
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 02:55 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Yup, another ambulance chaser


Ceili one of the main tasks of lawyers in handling his clients funds and other funds and as such lawyers need to have a basic understanding of economic and this gentleman had over and over shown he had no understanding of very basic concepts.

He may be a lawyer or he may not be a lawyer but I would not off hand trust him with overseeing a dime of my funds.


Yes, and you are remissed to grasp the simple concept of there being a difference between keeping more of your own money and receiving someone else's money. I do not trust you to resort to logical reasoning any time soon. So we both have our deficiencies. Your arguments devoid of any logical reasoning, and mine devoid of economics. Fortunately for me, however, the issue is not one of economics but rather whether the different sources of the money makes any difference but unfortunately for you logical reasoning is relevant to the argument and you aren't utilizing it, regardless of your ad hominem diatribe and bloviating above.
NotreDame05
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 02:57 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

Goal, I think, the poster being a from football powerhouse.

<just reading along here, nothing to see>


Unfortunately, we haven't been a football powerhouse in a long time. Of the games I attended, the one year we came close to being a powerhouse was 2002, and we were just decent this year.
0 Replies
 
NotreDame05
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 03:00 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

welcome to a2k, Charlie Weis...


Thanks, althoug I do not have his millions, at least not yet.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 03:09 pm
@NotreDame05,
Quote:
a difference between keeping more of your own money and receiving someone else's money. I do


Lord they, the local government, are taking funds from everyone else and paying your damn business bills so yes you can keep more of your cash flow and that is the same damn thing as handing you the funds directly.

It is only a bookkeeping difference and an eight grader should see that let alone a "lawyer"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 03:13 pm
I had no idea of what this "lawyer" is or is not however no one can be honestly this stupid that can turn on a computer so I am placing him on ignore.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 03:21 pm
Oh by the way it would seems that the courts at least so far are declaring you can not demand that the poor prove they are not drug users when there is zero reason to assume they would be any more then anyone else.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 03:27 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

I had no idea of what this "lawyer" is or is not however no one can be honestly this stupid that can turn on a computer so I am placing him on ignore.


I have no doubt the guy is a lawyer, his posts are peppered with the same sort of legal language I see law students throw around a lot.

But we're not arguing about the law, we're arguing an ethical point, and he is assuming that his argument (money earned personally, and then allowed to be kept via tax deductions, is functionally different than welfare) is a definitive one, built on base principles. However, this is erroneous, and really is more a reflection of right-wing beliefs of superiority over one's fellow man, than it is a proper understanding of the effects of tax deductions in a deficit environment.

Cycloptichorn
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 06:05:30