Ever hear the line...Give em an inch and they will take a mile?
Well, in the case of government, it's ALWAYS... Give em an inch and they will take a thousand miles !!
Where do YOU draw the line?
Posted on 10/31/2002 4:57:12 AM PST by Wolfie
What I would do is not relevant to this.
I am afraid that it does have every relevance to the topic at hand. You appear unwilling to test your own kids, unless you hold suspicions, but you want the state to test my kid just to enter school, play sports, or get a driver's license. Further evidence of your disingenuousness in the discussion of this topic.
Why don't you currently test your kids for drugs? Why don't you make their participation in fun things outside the home like sleepovers or going to the movies (or even inside the home like wathching their favorite TV show) dependent upon their passing a drug test? If you say they are too young at this point - well wouldn't that be the best time to start testing them, so they get used to it before they are really able to protest? Why don't you test your own kids? You must have some reasons, let's hear them.
Ever hear the line...Give em an inch and they will take a mile?
Well, in the case of government, it's ALWAYS... Give em an inch and they will take a thousand miles !!
Where do YOU draw the line?
Come back to this universe, citizenK. I don't believe my kids endanger anyone - but I know that other kids endanger mine. I'm willing to have them ALL tested to prevent such danger - including my own. That's perfectly consistent. And actually, I'd be happy to have my kids have to be tested - then I can know they're drug free without having to confront or question them.
She's 66 years-old, she's bound to be loose in a few places atleast. Now, Bob Dole, that's different. I'm sure he's pretty much loose all over...
*Grin*
So, what happens when every parent says what you just posted? "Its not MY kids, its those OTHER kids".
Its always "the other kids".
The fallacy is in assuming that if the kids had passed a drug test before they got their license, none of these events would have occured.
Tell me, did you hook driver's ed today so you could post that comment?
Yep, just like with her seatbelt law. First, not mandatory, then it is. First, they say people will never be stopped for just a seatbelt, now there are all sorts of initiatives to stop drivers.
You honestly don't think this wouldn't be mandatory, with expulsions from school and criminal pealties, in a few short years, do you?
And may God have mercy on us, for we know not what we do....
It's not "hyperbole", it's a fact of life. The greens with the help Clinton administration turned a subdivision in my county into a ghost town. First they said they only wanted 7,500 acres and only from "willing sellers". Now they have 70,000 acres and are in the process of condemning all remaining "willing sellers".
Just to the north of there is another sub division where they're using the exact same business model. Not only are we being completely ignored by our useless scumbag RINOs (I've gotten used to that), but they are actively promoting this abomination of justice so they can continue to bed the super rich watermelon land barons.
Why do you think the Klamath/Darby convoy drove 5,000 miles at their own expense to come here? To participate in my "hyperbole"?
When I say every single GOP politician in my chain of representation (from county commissioners all the way up) is taking part in the total destruction of my community, I am not overstating it. Every single solitary one is, there is not a single one that's not.
Sorry AP, I don't do "hyperbole".
LOL Not sure if I agree with you wholeheartedly or not(though I think I do), that has GOT to be the funniest phrasing that I've seen in a long time!
You just switched from private companies with requirements for employment to "public law" placing a stipulation on the the natural right to travel. A private business has every right to make rules which people who volunarily work for them must follow. The key word is voluntarily. I don't have a right to have a specific job; likewsie, I can start my own company and make my own rules.
Because "drugs" are illegal and there are "laws" covering a driver's license, there is a presumption of guilt if one is required to prove they are not engaging in some activity that is "illegal" to acquire the license. A private business is not the State(government) and has no police power.
The difference is huge.
You don't get it do you?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?
You have not answered a key question either - how would your drug testing your kids (yourself) impact your relationship with them?
They wouldn't like it would they? They would resent you for it too, wouldn't they (especially if they passed)? What sort of message does it send your kids if you force them to be drug tested? Don't you think there are issues of trust at play here? Don't you think they would wonder why you don't trust them?
Do you not think the same psychology plays into the society as a whole, with respect to the relationship between the government and our coming of age citizens?
You are hiding behind the government and asking them to do for you what you are unwilling to do yourself where it comes to raising your kids. It's no wonder you don't think our government is socialist, you are a socialist yourself. (BTW, only take that as an insult if you want to, it's just an observation.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.