Bill O'Reilly NOT looking out for you--Part II

Coach is Right ^ | 4/16/13 | Ron Reale

[Oldpuppymax]

All full of his normal bombast and bluster, on 4/11/13, Bill O’Reilly once again proved he hadn’t a grasp on the subject at hand, whether or not to legalize marijuana.

His plan is to put responsible adults or children who smoke into the legal system, destroying them and their families. He wants to keep feeding the corrupt legal system that thrives off of these “offenses/freedoms” (depending on your point of view).

He wants these draconian punishments because he feels that pot will destroy anyone trying it, a view responsible for turning more people into...

[OnlyTurkeysHaveLeftWings]

Which makes me wonder why it’s so important to drug test people if the facts show that it’s not worth the time or money or effort.

Although I suppose if it keeps people from doing things you don’t like it’s all worth it.

[JerseyDvl]

He sure does love “loofah”. Cheating scumbag hypocrite.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Not following you there. Your link with the ACLU (notorious Leftists) numbers are bogus. Obviously taking 108 dope fiends off welfare will save tons more money than 46K.

Expecting people to work for their money is controlling them?

[OnlyTurkeysHaveLeftWings]

Your link with the ACLU (notorious Leftists) numbers are bogus.

Sure.
Florida's four-month drug-testing run in 2011 yielded 108 negative drug tests, according to Department of Children and Families data. Only 2.6 percent of applicants who took the test failed, though supporters of the law say that does not account for people who walked away from the application process because they were on drugs.

Continuing on:
Obviously taking 108 dope fiends off welfare will save tons more money than 46K.

You know what? You're right. It wasn't $46k.

It was a lot more than that.
The pass rate was 96.3 percent, leaving the state to pay more than $100,000 to adults who paid for the test and passed. The average time an adult receives TANF is four and a half months, said DCF spokesman Joe Follick.
(Source)

Expecting people to work for their money isn't controlling them. Expecting people to surrender their rights under the 4th Amendment is, especially to safeguard against a threat that doesn't exist.


In the meantime, this whole mess is going through the courts (where it will lose), which will cost me, the taxpayer, even more.

All in the name of... what, exactly? Protecting us from 'dope fiends?'

Because I'll be honest, it's not potheads in the neighborhood I'm worried about. It's meth addicts blowing themselves up next door.

And meth users can skate past urine tests a whole lot easier than potheads can.

But in my experience, meth addicts won't be the ones going on unemployment while they look for new jobs; they'll rob you at knifepoint to get money to pay for their supplies.

So we have a system that is:

• Arguably unconstitutional.
• Gives the government yet another excuse to nose around in people's lives.
• A waste of money.
• A waste of time.
• And it ignores the actual dangerous people in favor of going after the low-hanging fruit.

It's a great system, if you're big on authoritarianism.

[Berlin_Freeper]

So?
46K + 100K is still only 146K. Removing 108 druggies from welfare would still save much more than that.
Unless you are saying drug abusing losers only go on welfare for a month.
And then there is this:

Florida's four-month drug-testing run in 2011 yielded 108 negative drug tests, according to Department of Children and Families data. Only 2.6 percent of applicants who took the test failed, though supporters of the law say that does not account for people who walked away from the application process because they were on drugs.

Constitutionally, drug testing is nothing new. Fifteen years ago when I worked construction in NYC, I was required to be drug tested or I could not work. I had no problem with that.

You can spare me your personal experiences. Your desperation for welfare, drug testing and quoting the sickening Leftist ACLU is not painting you as someone who has interesting insight on the topic, to be quite frank about it.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Oh but I see I really struck a nerve with this.

Welfare drug abusers are obviously terrified about losing what they made into a comfortable lifestyle.

I notice I made you lose your weird maniacal laughter.

[OnlyTurkeysHaveLeftWings]

Blow-by-blow:

DCF’s own stats do indeed say that unemployment (not welfare) is drawn, on average, for a month.

I’m not desperate for welfare. I’ve never been on it.

I’m not desperate for drug testing. I’ve done it, since I still have to make rent; but I oppose it, since it strikes me as invasive and counter-productive and more than a little bit creepy.

I really don’t care what my boss does after he goes home from work. As long as he doesn’t screw up the business and I can count on a steady job, it doesn’t affect me, so I don’t care.

If someone’s showing up drunk or high and they can’t do their job, they’ll lose it.

If someone’s on time and reliable, whether or not they get drunk or high off the clock isn’t really the boss-man’s business.

But if you’re telling me that spending $100,000 in taxpayer money to test clean urine and then give it back is somehow fiscally responsible, I don’t know what to tell you.

[IDFbunny]

If you loved your country you would be outraged at what the drug war has done to your constitution.

Asset forfeitures without due process. A militarized police. No knock raids that outright kill dogs and innocent by standers. For profit prisons. Mandatory minimums that let’s judges go light on the violent but can’t exercise any discretion with non violent drug offenders. The constant lowering of our privacy expectations.

[Berlin_Freeper]

The thing about you pro-drugs pushers, is that you always get so desperate for your drugs you totally ignore all that is inherently evil about them. Here is what you love:

15 Shocking images show the cost of drug addiction

The guy took drugs

Florida homeowners terrorized as naked man climbs onto their roof and acts ‘crazy’

Mother pleads guilty to allowing daughter, 6, to be sexually abused by different men in exchange for drugs and money

When police returned the last time, the couple’s 6-year-old daughter was holding two knives

It used to be that a drug abuser was generally harming only himself. Nowadays, innocent bystanders are vulnerable to robberies, assaults and even murders

The price of going soft on cannabis: Labour's experiment 'pushed up hard drug use and crime'

It is amazing to me how dope fiends will rant about how bad alcohol is while ignoring everything destructive about drugs, or like you do about some policing that makes a headline. How many dogs are shot a year? Maybe 30? But you want crack and heroin sold openly on any street corner in America!

If you loved your country...

There is no question that I love America. I would expect that even a drug addict, could still deep down inside understand that there are people opposed to poisoning society with drugs simply because they love their country.

But you can't see that because drugs are what you love, cherish and worship above America. Drugs are the links that I posted above, but you chose to ignore all of that because you are a slave to drugs.

That's the only reason you could have posted that to me. And you are IDF? No way you are real IDF! You post whining for drugs on a day that America is being Terror attacked!... pro-drugs pushing has made you that pathetic!

I suppose someone existing in a dope cloud will shamelessly call themselves anything.

[IDFbunny]

If it isn’t the drug war pissing on our constitution it’s the war on terror. Better safe than free, right? That’s pathetic that you would sell out our constitution for an illusory safety.

Half the links you posted don’t even refer to marijuana, but something else. For you marijuana is no different than meth but somehow alcohol, by far the most destructive drug of all, is above the fray.

So what I heard is big long rant that the police state you advocate is justified on a pretense to keep us safe from some made up boogeyman that the father of the DEA, Harry P Anslinger conjured up. That’s pathetic and I’m sure the founding fathers would be ashamed.

[IDFbunny]

And stop making straw men because you’re in some little purple fit. Just because I’m a small l libertarian does not mean I want crack sold in stores, or open border immigration, or whatever you think it is nonfascists want. You’re just a fascist pig dressed up like a patriot.

[Berlin_Freeper]

You are just another pathetic doper who measures freedom with drug addiction.

And why are you now squirming away hiding behind marijuana?

You are the one who posted to me about the “war on drugs” and the “constitution”.

Now you want selective war on drugs based on selective constitutional rights - LoL!

But it’s not like I should expect a doper to be smart or anything, right?

[Berlin_Freeper]

Oh look you are all angry!

Searching on the internet for “wod” and imposing your ignorance on others instead of giving your own independent opinion is supposed to work out well for you huh?

You came with a real sour puss and now I am sending you off with a bigger one. All it took was handful of links showing what you choose to ignore... what you need to ignore. Remember that next time you look in the mirror, dear bunny.

[IDFbunny]

I’m not hiding behind marijuana. It should never have been outlawed. It was outlawed because for protectionist reasons. Later Nixon hated “dopers” and made an arbitrary decision to place it on schedule I against all medical advice at the time.

Pat Robertson wants pot “regulated like bevereged alcohol”. Is he hiding behind pot? I doubt he wants anything else legalized. He just realizes the unjust prohibition of cannabis is just very not WJWD. Besides what do you think was in the “new wine”? Do you think Pat Robertson is a “doper” (one who shoots heroin) hiding behind marijuana?

I advocate for the Portuguese drug policy where personal possession of all drugs is decriminalized to a fine and a referral to treatment. Trafficking in these substances is still outlawed. The only difference is that cannabis should be fully legalized.

[IDFbunny]

You post links about meth and ecstasy in a discussion about pot and then call potheads ‘dopers’. You’re all confused and should stay away from the word ‘ignorant’ until you can keep them apart.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Then go to Portugal?

They are only on the verge of economical and social collapse and are kept alive by other countries. Go enjoy their wonderful system!

[IDFbunny]

I guess it’s appropriate that you’re already in Berlin. Been to many skinhead rallies lately?

[Berlin_Freeper]

Portugal was a Slam-Dunk!

Portugal is what I want to prevent America from becoming like.

Thanks and hope you get a clue someday.

Boa Noite!

[IDFbunny]

Likewise!

[JustSayNoToNannies]

It is amazing to me how dope fiends will rant about how bad alcohol is while ignoring everything destructive about drugs

Bet you can't link to a single post that says nobody ever commits crimes while on drugs. The point you missed in bringing up alcohol is that if pro-drug-war zealots believed their rationalizations, they'd be warring with equal vigor against the deadly addictive mind-altering drug alcohol.