Saw this somewhere else. I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of
the statement. I could add more to it but the message would remain the
same.

------------------------------------------------


Like a lot of folks in Texas, 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 ass, 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?

-Gary D. Potter

--
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw

On 2008-02-18 07:26:07 -0800, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> said:

> Saw this somewhere else. I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of
> the statement. I could add more to it but the message would remain the
> same.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to
> pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
>
> -Gary D. Potter

What's to argue with? This should have been law long ago.

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0fmkwg32x3giu000@news.east.cox.net...
> Saw this somewhere else. I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of
> the statement. I could add more to it but the message would remain the
> same.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Like a lot of folks in Texas, 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 ass, 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?
>


Think about how much they would save if they collected your urine and passed
IT out ...

On Feb 18, 10:26*am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Saw this somewhere else. *I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of
> the statement. *I could add more to it but the message would remain the
> same.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Like a lot of folks in Texas, 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 ass, 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?
>
> *-Gary D. Potter
>
> --
> "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
> support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw

I'd support that - urine testing for evryone on public assistance.
Maybe include those on SS disability.

In article
<bd303f9e-6f67-4814-8d4e-467b251ad54e@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"edspyhill01@yahoo.com" <edspyhill01@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Feb 18, 10:26*am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Saw this somewhere else. *I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of
> > the statement. *I could add more to it but the message would remain the
> > same.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Like a lot of folks in Texas, 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 ass, 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?
> >
> > *-Gary D. Potter
> >
> > --
> > "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
> > support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw
>
> I'd support that - urine testing for evryone on public assistance.
> Maybe include those on SS disability.

I support urine testing for all democrats and breath test before they
vote.
--


"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Hillary Clinton

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0fmkwg32x3giu000@news.east.cox.net...
> Saw this somewhere else. I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of
> the statement. I could add more to it but the message would remain the
> same.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Like a lot of folks in Texas, 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 ass, 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?
>
> -Gary D. Potter
>
> --
> "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
> support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw

I see nothing wrong with this. The urine testing will pay for itself and
reduct the tax burden for the rest of us. Works for me!

-Dave

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:26:07 -0500, badgolferman wrote:

> Saw this somewhere else. I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of the
> statement. I could add more to it but the message would remain the same.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Like a lot of folks in Texas, 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 ass, 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?
>
> -Gary D. Potter


But, that would be discriminatory. The employer has the right to require
you to be drug free for their good and for your safety, but if the State
were to require drug tests, then, that would be discriminatory...

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:53:13 -0500, Dave L wrote:

>
> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xn0fmkwg32x3giu000@news.east.cox.net...
>> Saw this somewhere else. I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of
>> the statement. I could add more to it but the message would remain the
>> same.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Like a lot of folks in Texas, 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 ass, 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?
>>
>> -Gary D. Potter
>>
>> --
>> "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
>> support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw
>
> I see nothing wrong with this. The urine testing will pay for itself and
> reduct the tax burden for the rest of us. Works for me!
>
> -Dave


And expect crime to increase, since they aren't getting their drugs,
they'll steal and rob to get the money...

Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B, 2/18/2008,9:35:53 PM, wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:26:07 -0500, badgolferman wrote:
>
> > Saw this somewhere else. I whole-heartedly agree with the premise
> > of the statement. I could add more to it but the message would
> > remain the same.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Like a lot of folks in Texas, 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 ass, 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?
> >
> > -Gary D. Potter
>
>
> But, that would be discriminatory. The employer has the right to
> require you to be drug free for their good and for your safety, but
> if the State were to require drug tests, then, that would be
> discriminatory...

If the state had the interest of the tax-paying citizen in mind rather
than free-loafing, Escalade-driving, $100 ripped-baggy-pant-wearing,
drug-dealer in mind much of society's woes would be an afterthought.

--
"The moral rot of political correctness runs deep today in both
national parties." ~ Patrick J. Buchanan

On Feb 18, 1:30*pm, dbu <nos...@nospam.moc> wrote:
> In article
> <bd303f9e-6f67-4814-8d4e-467b251ad...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> *"edspyhil...@yahoo.com" <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 10:26*am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Saw this somewhere else. *I whole-heartedly agree with the premise of
> > > the statement. *I could add more to it but the message would remain the
> > > same.
>
> > > ------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Like a lot of folks in Texas, 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 ass, 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?
>
> > > *-Gary D. Potter
>
> > > --
> > > "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
> > > support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw
>
> > I'd support that - urine testing for evryone on public assistance.
> > Maybe include those on SS disability.
>
> I support urine testing for all democrats and breath test before they
> vote.
> --
>
> "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
>
> Hillary Clinton- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And test repugnantcans for penis and semen breath, especially those
calling for anti-gay constitutional amendments.