Flordia's drug testing of welfare recipiants showing progress.

HE founded the company in 2001, and then transferred his ownership interests in the company he founded to his wife?


No... no conflict of interest there.
 
You act as if owning stock is a new thing. I could have sworn that people owned stock in the "Great Stock Market Crash" of the 1930s, so it has been happening since the 1930. Heck, maybe even further.

Apparently Florida is such a new addition to the Union that the possibility of a politician owning stock has never happened before, right? And this is the first time that a politician hasn't been a homeless bum, right?

Florida is so new to this whole "stock" thing that they don't have any laws about this, right?

PLEASE! Spare me the fake outrage.


Did you bitch when Governor Buddy MacKay, who's family owned a shitload of citrus farms in Flordia passed laws in Florida that might effect his family?

Same with Governor Wayne Mixson, who was also from farming.

Is your outrage only limited to Republicans?

Maybe you should buy a house in Florida and show some of your outrage to the State Legislature and have them change the laws that he followed so this new concept of politicians owning stock or 401k's while in office ... or better yet, just make it so the only politicians are bums off the street ... never happens again. It is obvious that this "new" thing called "stock" has caused problems.
 
You asked, I answered. Saving the babies is the biggest reason why welfare exists, isn't it?

I don't approve of the welfare programs at all. I think the truly needy should glean from fielRAB and get help from secular and religious charities; not from a nameless faceless taxpayer. There's no guilt there. There's no reason to break the cycle of welfare. There's too much overhead and beaurocracy.

I am curious, though, how my statement is evidence of some kind of bigotry? Are you just throwing the word out there for effect, or do you actually know what it means?

I do loathe government interference. Is the government FORCING people to be on welfare? Or are they just making the drug test a stipulation of getting it, just like an employer may make drug testing a stipulation of employment?
 
Your entire problem with this relies on the fallacy that the government is the only source of charity. You've also grossly overstated the cost of the drug test.
 
No. If you're a dopey and you want my (taxpayer) money, then...
See how that works? Toke and smoke and shoot up and snort. I don't care. BUT if you're living on the taxpayer dime, the taxpayer has a vested interest in making sure that money is going where it's supposed to go.


Wait, what? "Who beats his kid?" You're way off on a tangent, here, obviously introducing child abuse to pull emotion into your argument.

The whole rest of what you said is just blah blah blah, because your premise is wrong. We're talking about dopeys on government money. You want to be a dopey on your dime, I don't care.
 
This is the best way to do it. Never let the cash grant hit the poor person's hanRAB. Then you know they won't be buying x-box games or dope or an iPod. They'll actually be getting what they NEED so they can survive long enough to get themselves into a position to use their own money (from, you know, a JOB) to get what they WANT.


True fact. I was on vacation a few years ago, and we stopped in Memphis, TN to visit Graceland and see some other sites. We went to the strip. There was a beggar working each end. One of them told my wife and me that he needed some money to buy a bottle of water. I told him I was low on cash, but would be happy to buy him some. He kindly accepted. We went into a local shop, grabbed a bottle of water, and came right back out. Guess what? He was nowhere to be found! He didn't want the water. He wanted booze or dope.
 
Back
Top