perhaps someday you will actually read and understand the English I am typing,,,


I typed nothing about equality or preferences,,,

first of all, executive order wouldn't apply to something like that, executive orders are issued as they pertain to how GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS Will run

second of all, its a nice way to avoid intelligent debate to just keep whinging about my support of OBama instead of actually addressing the perspective being offered, BUT, I would not defend mandatory drug testing of every American,, that's quite preposterous

only about 1000 times in other threads..... but those don't count I guess because like your fearless leader, that was another day you said that..... so it doesn't count today

nothing I aaid in any other thread is in contradiction with my opinon here,,,,,




consistently I am anti drug testing, I was when it came to welfare recipients, I Am when it comes to politicians

consistently , I am against taking life except in order to prvent life from being taen,,,,,I am when it pertains to abortion, or death penalty, or shoot first mentalities,,,


this opinion also is in no conflict with the equality I support nor indicative of support for preference

BS! You are always yelling about inequality, calling many of us racist, but now you want a certain group of people preferred over another!

MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

Im not always yelling about inequality, many days I am rarely here, and when I am I rarely start threads at all

I respond to other posts with my opinions,, Just as anyone else does, but for some reason, I think I Stand out to you and some others,,, and that's fine

I also have never called anyone spedifically racist, but I do believe racism is rampant, and that's another topic which I avoid because its pointless in this environment



but please share, because I am obviously missing it

what 'group' of people do I Want 'preferred' over another?




keeping in mind, Im not anti preference, some prefernces are common sense and logical

like preferring someone with an actual medical degree to one who happened to read a doctors book,,, when giving medical licenses



preferences that have to do with peoples livelihoods or health which are gender or race or (sometimes) socioeconomic based , on the other hand, I do take issue with

You think employers should drug test for employment, but not the state to receive benefits that are paid for by others who are tested.

If that's not a contradiction of your own opinion I don't know what is.

You think people don't need guns, that only police and military need them, yet police kill more Americans than terrorists.

The list goes on and on......

We don't need any more idiot liberal agendas in the world, we are loaded to capacity with those hypocrites in DC...... the ones this thread is about.... and they should be tested as those of us who suffer under their bad policies are subject to..... whether drugs should be legal or not, at the present they aren't in most places, the DOJ still wants to prosecute offenders, and DC may make the laws, but they are not above them.....neither are welfare recipients!

I DONT THINK EMPLOYERS SHOULD DO DRUG SREENING< unless the job specifically requires focus and stability where reduced focus or physical stability can DIRECTLY CAUSE DEATH,,,,good grief!


I DONT THINK PEOPLE NEED GUNS< unless they are in a high violence environment where there are a lot of OTHERS WITH GUNS

police and military, as part of their JOB< are in high violence environments where there are lots of others with guns

there is no list, because I have been honest and consistent in my views

not every taxpayer is drug tested, so I don't understand the relevance of taxpayers and drug testing those applying for assistance

we dont need any more EXTREMIST propaganda in the world, we need people using logic and seeking BALANCE and common sense, as opposed o pushing extremes based upon fear tactics and verbal bullying,,

to recap

COMMON SENSE AND BALANCE





does EVERYONE need a gun ? NO
should stable and responsible citizens be able to have guns if they choose to ? YES



should DRUG TESTING be mandatory ? NOT across the board, no.
a persons job should be about their job performance, if its not up to par they can be fired,,

UNLESS them not doing THEIR JOB can cause THEM to directly and individually cause death or deaths,,,

in THOSE JOB ROLES, the INDIVDUAL should have an expectation of the best possible focus and physical stability. so the INDIVIDUA doesn't cause deaths,,, in which case , firing them wont fix much for the loved ones of the deceased,,,,








and in which case , testing that they have nothing in their system wich can potentially damage mental focus or physical stability, makes COMMON SENSE< to SAVE LIVES

I seriously doubt that random drug testing of Congress-critters would reveal much.

Random sobriety tests for them, however ...

Ms, do you really think that racism is rampant? By whom?

we agree?... odd...

"I DONT THINK EMPLOYERS SHOULD DO DRUG SREENING< unless the job specifically requires focus and stability where reduced focus or physical stability can DIRECTLY CAUSE DEATH,,,,good grief! "




If lack of focus on the job isn't likely to result in death then the employer shouldn't be concerned about the drug use of the employees?

Got it. Injuries less than death due to drug use are acceptable because it's just.....common sense and balanced.

So it's OK if a waitress goes to work stoned after smoking a bowl and she shouldn't be subjected to testing because there isn't a "high" probability there will be an injury resulting in death?

So drug use isn't a concern if a person operates a machine where they could only lose a finger or hand and not lose their life?

Why was it that the employer shouldn't test for drug use with these type of employees?

Oh wait.. I remember...common sense and balance is why employees shouldn't be drug tested unless there is a high probability that lack of focus and stability can result in death......right?

Oh and drug user can't possible pose a risk to other employees either.

And how many in juries have occurred due to what's in an employees system?

You are correct on the executive order comment and possibly correct on the obozocare comment

I think all drugs should be classed and considered on at least the same level as alcohol.

If you go to work smelling like booze you bet they will test you, or just send you home (or fire you) rather than face a liability, but drugs are much harder to detect on the outward, but they can be tested for and levels can be determined for how long before a schedule.

There will always be fools and idiots in the world.....unless Obozo thinks he can mandate human emotion and character

and how much have work related injuries decreased SINCE Drug testing,,, ?

I don't know of a job where 'injuries' , physical injuries are possible where potential death is not also possible,,

we can nitpick all day to try to find the exceptions, but I think most people with common sense understand jobs that pose physical danger if not done with focus and stability, from jobs which don't,,,




and if a waitress is 'stoned' her employers should be able to tell, having a positive drug read does not mean a person is stoned,, it doesn't even have to mean they have used the drug that day or the day before,,,,,as many stay in the system for a while and cause positive tests,,,

don't know, those would qualify as jobs where there is potential physical harm/death

the jobs where it MAKES SENSE to drug test