PDA

View Full Version : JOB - URINE TEST


Dave Schwartz
02-28-2009, 04:49 PM
JOB - URINE TEST

(Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)

Joe, the average worker says:

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me.

I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test
with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who
don't have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I
have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their
feet.

I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on
their lazy butts, doing drugs, while I work. . . .

Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a
urine test to get a public assistance check?

Guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.

Overlay
02-28-2009, 05:14 PM
Here's the ACLU's predictable take on the subject:

http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/testing/34822res20080408.html

Tom
02-28-2009, 05:21 PM
Dave, that is a great idea. Too bad our government doesn't use common sense in anything.

Note to ACLU......you say drug testing is expensive.....well SO IS FIGGIN WELFARE YOU MORONS!!!!! Let the anchors pay for it!

skate
02-28-2009, 07:08 PM
Man ,that's funny stuff.

jballscalls
02-28-2009, 07:14 PM
not only is it funny, but it should be made law!

DJofSD
02-28-2009, 09:14 PM
What was the title of that depression era song - Urine the money?

kenwoodallpromos
02-28-2009, 09:14 PM
OK by me, but 1 point-
You are not taking the test because others want you to- it is because some drugs can cause problems with safety etc.at work.
I do not like some people getting govt $$$ BECAUSE they are druggies or alkiies.

Secretariat
03-01-2009, 01:26 AM
JOB - URINE TEST

(Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)

Joe, the average worker says:

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me.

I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test
with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who
don't have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I
have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their
feet.

I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on
their lazy butts, doing drugs, while I work. . . .

Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a
urine test to get a public assistance check?

Guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.

I guess Joe the Plumber forgot about Reagan's Secretary of State George Schultz.

"US president Ronald Reagan insisted that all members of his Cabinet would have to submit to a compulsory urine test. Secretary of State designate (at that stage) George Shultz told Reagan that if he didn’t trust his proposed appointments sufficiently without the support of a negative urine test, then he should not appoint them. So Shultz became Secretary of State without the benefit of a urine test.

In 1989, after leaving office, Shultz told a Stanford Business School alumni gathering:

It seems to me we're not really going to get anywhere until we can take the criminality out of the drug business and the incentives for criminality out of it. Frankly, the only way I can think of to accomplish this is to make it possible for addicts to buy drugs at some regulated place at a price that approximates their cost... We need at least to consider and examine forms of controlled legalization of drugs... No politician wants to say what I have just said, not for a minute."

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20070625-Tough-on-drug-testing-.html

...............................................

So according to Joe, a guy who makes major decisions that affect the welfare of the country can get a pass, but God forbid a guy gets a few food stamps. What a joke. Let Joe pay for the drug tests out of his own pocket.

rastajenk
03-01-2009, 09:53 AM
What does this have to do with Joe the Plumber?

Snag
03-01-2009, 10:00 AM
What does this have to do with Joe the Plumber?

I don't think it has anything to do with Joe. Sec just likes taking backhanded slaps at people even if there is not connection.

I guess the more names you drop of people you don't like, it supports your point.

lsbets
03-01-2009, 11:46 AM
I think it was Chick a while back who summed up Sec pretty well - a mindless robot.

Tom
03-01-2009, 12:42 PM
Sec obviously post pre-scripted replies based on key words. He saw the name "Joe" and automatically posted liberish gargage. He is basically a furbie.

Secretariat
03-01-2009, 05:27 PM
I thought Dave was referring to Joe the Plumber in his note. If I'm mistaken Dave, then my reference is simply to the Joe you're referring to.

"Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I
have to pass one to earn it for them?"

(George Schultz, Reagan's Secretary of State refused drug testing, yet Reagan stood behind him anyway.)

The point being that if it is good enough for what some here consider their Republican Messiah President to accept the refusal of his own Secy. of State regarding drug testing, why shoudl "Joe" insist on a someone who makes such little income he qualifies for welfare to have to undergo a drug test?

Seems a bit hypocritcal doesn't it?

Tom
03-01-2009, 05:30 PM
Not at all Sec, you see, on this side, we are allowed to think for ourselves. We don't have to toe the line like you guys do.:D

jballscalls
03-01-2009, 05:34 PM
Not We don't have to toe the line like you guys do.:D

Yeah thats never happened LOL

Secretariat
03-01-2009, 05:34 PM
Not at all Sec, you see, on this side, we are allowed to think for ourselves. We don't have to toe the line like you guys do.:D

Is that why Rush followers are called dittoheads? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tom
03-01-2009, 05:36 PM
Obviously, you do not what that means.

skate
03-01-2009, 06:26 PM
Schultzy did refuse to take a drug test if it was given, but the testing was never insisted.


The answer Schultzy gave was to a reporter, not to Ronald.

toetoe
03-01-2009, 06:52 PM
I suggest we launch a ceremonial hogdrainer for said test, located in our nation's capital. On a plaque at eye level, just below a mirror, its official name:
Urinal Otto Trubble.

DJofSD
03-01-2009, 06:59 PM
I suggest we launch a ceremonial hogdrainer for said test, located in our nation's capital. On a plaque at eye level, just below a mirror, its official name:
Urinal Otto Trubble.
Very good.

One small suggestion: put the plaque and the mirror on the ground. This will force the viewer to bend over, assuming the correct position for what will surely follow.

toetoe
03-01-2009, 07:20 PM
How convenient that I pee with my pants already down. Oops, I mean ... uh ... :blush: .

Snag
03-01-2009, 09:30 PM
I thought Dave was referring to Joe the Plumber in his note. If I'm mistaken Dave, then my reference is simply to the Joe you're referring to.
"Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I
have to pass one to earn it for them?"
(George Schultz, Reagan's Secretary of State refused drug testing, yet Reagan stood behind him anyway.)
The point being that if it is good enough for what some here consider their Republican Messiah President to accept the refusal of his own Secy. of State regarding drug testing, why shoudl "Joe" insist on a someone who makes such little income he qualifies for welfare to have to undergo a drug test?
Seems a bit hypocritcal doesn't it?

Sec, like they say, if you have to explain it, it's not funny!

PaceAdvantage
03-02-2009, 05:20 AM
Yeah thats never happened LOLI think I like you better when you put on your conservative shtick.