Silly Jesus: You should get what you pay for. If you can't pay for it, you shouldn't reap the rewards.

Money is the only measure of value.

The only admirable traits are those that attract fortunes.

Humans are resources to be harvested.

Spreadsheets feel no pain.

I'm with you, brother.

Silly Jesus: Lenny_da_Hog: Silly Jesus: You should get what you pay for. If you can't pay for it, you shouldn't reap the rewards.

Money is the only measure of value.

The only admirable traits are those that attract fortunes.

Humans are resources to be harvested.

Spreadsheets feel no pain.

I'm with you, brother.

Go down to Taco Bell and let them know you'd like some free tacos. Tell them "that's what society does."

I was unaware that tacos were necessary.

And for your next trick, explain to us how Obama is going to force you to buy an electric car.

Silly Jesus: Go down to Taco Bell and let them know you'd like some free tacos. Tell them "that's what society does."

Society currently makes an effort to feed people who can't currently afford food. You act as though that would be a shocking thing.

Maybe you can't take your food stamp card into Taco Bell, but minimal insurance standards for the poor won't get them into Betty Ford Clinic, either.

In both cases, people will live to find jobs instead of spiraling further out of control under stress and agony.

The thing that gets me is we've been having an argument for the lat year and a half about the constitutionality of the health care law, debating strict vs. loose interpretations of the commerce clause. Along comes an issue, drug testing welfare recipients, that is pretty much an open-shut violation of the 4th, and the same people are ok with it. Suspisionless search. Correct me if I'm wrong, but every time a government entity has enacted a blanket testing policy where there weren't extenuating circumstances (public safety, etc...) it has been ruled unconstitutional..

Granted, TN has enacted 'pre-screenings' to try and avoid that charge, but that isn't what the majority of conservatives seem to be arguing makes it ok...

Not my quote, but if folks spent half as much energy defending the 4th as they do the 2nd, we would all be a lot better off...

Remember, boys and girls:

* X amount of money to feed the poor: zOMG SOOOOOOOOCIALISM!
* Unlimited funds to blow schitt up in Iraq: USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

Silly Jesus: Libtards are 100% of the time absolutely correct about everything and anyone that disagrees with them must be a troll / stupid / living in a bubble. That's a mighty intelligent viewpoint there, Lou.

Not necessarily anyone who disagrees with the "libtards". It's specifically you.

"If everyone's against you, the reason can't *possibly* be that you're a fnckhead. There's obviously a conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire net a favor by exposing it." -- The Usenet flaming rules

Fluorescent Testicle: Type_Hard: Not my quote, but if folks spent half as much energy defending the 4th as they do the 2nd, we would all be a lot better off...

Actually, they're very consistent here. Drug testing hurts the poor (and brown-skinned), so it's good; Obamacare helps the poor (and brown-skinned), so it's bad.

It used to be the law in California that you could openly carry a firearm as long as you displayed it openly and didn't threaten anyone with it. They changed that when the Black Panthers started carrying shotguns at their rallies. The gun-grabbing liberal governor at the time was Ronald Reagan.

randomjsa (favorite: "Holy fnck you're an idiot." - Nina_Hartley's_Ass): f you are in the military, and thus on the tax payers dime, you are subject to drug tests.

If you work at a government job, and thus on the tax payers dime, you are subject to drug tests.

Somehow or another, if you are collecting tax payer supplied benefits, you are above both our military and our public sector employees and shouldn't be subject to the same rules as them.

So let's drug-test the fnckheads who keep ginning up the War on Civil LibertiesDrugs.

TerminalEchoes: Anyone against this law is probably on welfare and on drugs. In that case, please stop breathing at your earliest convenience. There is no logical reason that this law is "fail."

Of course, "logical" and "liberalism" aren't exactly compatible.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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."

Lee Jackson Beauregard: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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."




The "War on Drugs" is the single greatest constitutional violation of my 50+ years on this planet.

These sort of laws suck because they're rooted in the assumption that the need for welfare would be tied to some form of substance abuse on the part of the recipient.

Silly Jesus: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Silly Jesus: Libtards are 100% of the time absolutely correct about everything and anyone that disagrees with them must be a troll / stupid / living in a bubble. That's a mighty intelligent viewpoint there, Lou.

Not necessarily anyone who disagrees with the "libtards". It's specifically you.

"If everyone's against you, the reason can't *possibly* be that you're a fnckhead. There's obviously a conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire net a favor by exposing it." -- The Usenet flaming rules

That's a cute quote...

Fark tends to lean strongly libtard. So, it's not shocking that someone espousing an opinion not in line with libtard talking points is ostracized by the majority. I'm libtard on quite a few issues, but handing money to lazy people isn't one of them.

What empirical evidence do you cite to support your assertion that people requesting food stamps are lazy?

How is trying not to go hungry, regardless of the number of hours one works, somehow voluntary?

Your liberal use of the the derogatory term "libtard" tells me much more about your lack of character than any of the fact free, self centered, false moralizing that permeates every single post you ever made in this thread.

There's a reason you're in the extreme minority here. It's because you got nothing.

Silly Jesus: too lazy and/or worthless to work.


Why not just say that in every post, then?

If that's your whole basis -- that Americans are worthless and should be exploited -- then stick to it. Don't try to cover it up with other concerns.

Elmo Jones: SphericalTime: And he claimed to be a former gay porn star from Europe too.

Whatever happened to that?

LOLwut?

Link. There's a picture of Brandon Manilow, a really cute adult film star in my profile. Silly Jesus claimed to be him. You can find the exchange by searching our user names in the above thread.

Silly Jesus: Lenny_da_Hog: Silly Jesus: too lazy and/or worthless to work.


Why not just say that in every post, then?

If that's your whole basis -- that Americans are worthless and should be exploited -- then stick to it. Don't try to cover it up with other concerns.

Straw man.

Yes. Using the quote function I have created a straw man. I'm goddamned miraculous.

If you don't want them insured because they're worthless and lazy, you don't have to say anything more. Nothing else matters after that. You have your complete justification right there.

Elmo Jones: I'm thinking that your chain is getting jerked, and not in the good way.

Well, perhaps if I believed he was actually Brandon Manilow, it would be. Instead, I just think he was trying to troll my profile. Which is why I asked him for proof of who he was, and then started laughing at him.

I just think it's funnier that he was claiming to be a gay porn star, presumably without realizing that's who the picture was of.