TALKCalgary - Forums Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
TALKCalgary - Forums > Calgary Stuff > General Talk > Pee Here Please.......

You are viewing in limited guest access mode only. For full access please login or register

Pee Here Please.......
 Moderated by: Admin
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 01:13 pm
  PMQuoteReply
1st Post
BadGRRRL



Joined TALKCalgary: Mon May 1st, 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 127
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
So I came across this in my email and thought it was interesting.  Thoughts?   In addition to this, I think that nicotine patches and other smoking cessation tools should be handed out......$10 bucks a pack for smokes can  buy a fair amount on food when you don't have any.   If you can afford to drink, party, pierce your face, get tattoos, dye your hair and wear makeup, you don't need welfare.

 

Sent by a hardworking guy
I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay cheque, as I work on a rig site on a Fort Mac construction project, 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 cheque 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 sit on their
butt drinking beer & smoking dope during the day when I'm busting my butt to pay my bills and support their habits as well.

Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance cheque?

Please join our group if you agree, or if you have an opinion that could explain why the gov should test welfare recipients. If not **BLEEP** off.

Something has to change in this country, and soon!!!!

Back To Top


 Posted: Fri Dec 21st, 2007 02:44 pm
  PMQuoteReply
2nd Post
trailmix



Joined TALKCalgary: Sun Aug 20th, 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 208
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
What his work requirements have to do with anything - I don't know.  He is obviously bitter and this implies that many people who receive benefits are drug users - he has nothing to back it up - just someone spouting off.

Last edited on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 02:46 pm by trailmix

Back To Top


 Posted: Fri Dec 21st, 2007 05:04 pm
  PMQuoteReply
3rd Post
Cutter



Joined TALKCalgary: Wed Apr 26th, 2006
Location: Alberta Canada
Posts: 145
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I feel he has a point. Why is it a bad idea to impose mandatory drug testing for people who wish to receive handouts? I for one would be very annoyed to learn that a drug user was receiving any kind of benefit from my tax dollars. 

I don’t think he was implying that a large number of the people who receive benefits are drug users. However the fact is that some are and if drug testing can prevent them from receiving help than would this not be a good thing?

Back To Top


 Posted: Fri Dec 21st, 2007 05:55 pm
  PMQuoteReply
4th Post
trailmix



Joined TALKCalgary: Sun Aug 20th, 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 208
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
What if they are just lazy, is there a test for that?  What if they are under-achievers - should we give them a personality test?

What if they have poor taste in people and have married an abuser 3 times.

There are plenty of reasons why people need financial assistance, I support universal assistance.

I also support people being given a little respect.

If we are going to pick and choose who we help, where will it end?  I disagree with you, some would agree with you, do we take everyones likes and dislike in to account?  Well in reality we do to some extent - you get to voice your opinion at election time.  If he feels so strongly about this he should start a petition and submit it to his member of parliament, I think the support for such a petition would be - poor.

I also do think he was implying that a large number of benefit receipients are drug users - with this line "Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance cheque"?



 



Last edited on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 06:01 pm by trailmix

Back To Top


 Posted: Fri Dec 21st, 2007 06:53 pm
  PMQuoteReply
5th Post
Cutter



Joined TALKCalgary: Wed Apr 26th, 2006
Location: Alberta Canada
Posts: 145
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Like you I feel people need to be given respect. The only people who deserve nothing are people who decide to turn to drugs. Anyone can make mistakes. However using drugs is not a mistake. Let’s face it people know what drugs do; they know the cost associated with using drugs and they know the dangers, yet they make a conscious decision to take them. Such people deserve nothing but to end up dead in the gutter where they belong. 

Saying that the guy who takes drugs has simply made a mistake is like saying the guy who rapes a child simply made a mistake. These are NOT mistakes they are crimes plain and simple.

Back To Top


 Posted: Fri Dec 21st, 2007 08:26 pm
  PMQuoteReply
6th Post
trailmix



Joined TALKCalgary: Sun Aug 20th, 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 208
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
What about teens who get involved with drugs, or young adults.  Let's say an 18 year old.

Their judgement is not the best at that age and there are all kinds of pressures - leave them in the gutter?

 

Back To Top


 Posted: Fri Dec 21st, 2007 11:11 pm
  PMQuoteReply
7th Post
Cutter



Joined TALKCalgary: Wed Apr 26th, 2006
Location: Alberta Canada
Posts: 145
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Absolutely leave them in the gutter. Are you trying to tell me that teenagers don’t understand that taking drugs is not only going to mess them up for life but also constitutes a federal offence? This is fundamental stuff we are talking about here i.e. knowing right from wrong. It isn’t rocket science. 

No one living in today’s world can hide behind the “bad decision banner” claiming that they only tried drugs due to “peer pressure” or “social pressure” or any other kind of bull **BLEEP** pressure. Only a halfwit would not know that using drugs would affect their lives.

No I’m sorry Trail, like many of my friends, together with a lot of cops I know who work the streets dealing with this kind of low-life scum, I have absolutely no compassion for drug users at all. Although I do have compassion for halfwits.

Back To Top


 Posted: Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 03:20 pm
  PMQuoteReply
8th Post
trailmix



Joined TALKCalgary: Sun Aug 20th, 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 208
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Cutter wrote: No I’m sorry Trail, like many of my friends, together with a lot of cops I know who work the streets dealing with this kind of low-life scum, I have absolutely no compassion for drug users at all. Although I do have compassion for halfwits.

Well blah.  I think police offers need to have more compassion than the average person, to do their jobs correctly.

However I don't have blinders on, perhaps it is this kind of attitude that contributed to those two police officers beating a homeless man in a stairwell the other day?

Back To Top


 Posted: Sun Dec 23rd, 2007 06:23 pm
  PMQuoteReply
9th Post
Gaiaguerrilla

 

Joined TALKCalgary: Sun Dec 23rd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 6
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I know a lot about the streets. I promise you, you do them no favour by handing out money. Their GST checques don't generally do them a favour either.

 

There's one thing we need more of and one thing we need less of.

 

What we need more of is privatized low-cost living arrangements. Some people are genuine hard-working citizens that like to have free time. They don't want an apartment or a shared accomodation or a car. They're happy to sleep on a mat and shower/locker arrangements as simple as it gets. They're happy to pay for it if it's much cheaper than common rent. They also want strong enforcement so that no one will bother them. But rather than cater to this desire, homeless shelters pander for people's pity and refuse to consider that a simple life can be a good life, and selling that simple life can also turn a reasonable and fair profit instead of taking charity money that could go to better use.

 

What we need less of is homeless shelters in the downtown core. Putting one in the foothills industrial area was a smarter idea. "Here you are in the center of easy to get jobs, and away from all the drug dealers. Now get out there and get a job." An even smarter idea would be to put one far away from cities and that has some sort of corporate interest in hiring labourers. Like a detox center, but one you can find a job at as well. The very worst thing you can do is put a homeless shelter right in the region that's saturated with hookers and drug dealers. Like we have today.

Last edited on Sun Dec 23rd, 2007 06:25 pm by Gaiaguerrilla

Back To Top


 Posted: Sun Dec 23rd, 2007 08:38 pm
  PMQuoteReply
10th Post
trailmix



Joined TALKCalgary: Sun Aug 20th, 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 208
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Both really good points!

Back To Top


 Posted: Wed Jan 2nd, 2008 10:27 pm
  PMQuoteReply
11th Post
BadGRRRL



Joined TALKCalgary: Mon May 1st, 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 127
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I guess what I think this guy's point is, is that he has to "work/piss clean" in order to earn his paycheck, so why shouldn't someone else have to "work/piss clean" to earn their government assistance?

I also think that if you're getting a check and taking advantage of the shelters, you should be required to put in a certain amount of volunteer equity back into the community that's paying your way.

Back To Top


 Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 04:13 am
  PMQuoteReply
12th Post
trailmix



Joined TALKCalgary: Sun Aug 20th, 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 208
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
BadGRRRL wrote: I guess what I think this guy's point is, is that he has to "work/piss clean" in order to earn his paycheck, so why shouldn't someone else have to "work/piss clean" to earn their government assistance?

I also think that if you're getting a check and taking advantage of the shelters, you should be required to put in a certain amount of volunteer equity back into the community that's paying your way.


Yeah - but, as I replied to cutter:

"What if they are just lazy, is there a test for that?  What if they are under-achievers - should we give them a personality test?

What if they have poor taste in people and have married an abuser 3 times".

Apparently the guy is not fond of drug users, fair enough.  What if the next person or group doesn't like fat people - maybe their health care should be cut off.

What if a person does marry 4 times, each time to an abuser, and she therefore needs assistance, should there be a cut off - say you get help after the first 2 but after that we are cutting you off?

It annoys the 'heck' out of me when people think that society should step in line with their particular pet peeve.  There is a much bigger picture out there.

 


 

 

 

Back To Top


 Posted: Sun Jan 6th, 2008 03:26 am
  PMQuoteReply
13th Post
ragincajun

 

Joined TALKCalgary: Mon Aug 6th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 36
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Amen to that. Life, and society isn't so black and white, but many shades of grey.

Back To Top


 Posted: Sun Jan 6th, 2008 09:10 pm
  PMQuoteReply
14th Post
Cutter



Joined TALKCalgary: Wed Apr 26th, 2006
Location: Alberta Canada
Posts: 145
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Trail, I think you are missing the point. We are not talking about the lazy, the retarded, wife abusers or fat slobs. The point is should people be tested for drug use?  I say Yes!

As for the rest of the parasitic groups you mention they too should be precluded from living off our tax dollars.

The problem is that our society is too concerned with helping the weak. In nature only the strong survive there is no place for the lame. Those who choose to do drugs, refuse to work, become obese, abuse alcohol, or hit woman or children are the weakest of the weak and should be purged from society.     

Back To Top


 Posted: Tue Jan 8th, 2008 01:14 am
  PMQuoteReply
15th Post
Sue-B

 

Joined TALKCalgary: Sun Aug 5th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 4
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
You know I a lot of Germans saw things as you do Cutter during WWII. Perhaps you should start you own eugenics movement? It might give you something to do with all your spare time. Now I remember why I stopped posting on this forum.

Back To Top


 Posted: Tue Jan 8th, 2008 02:18 am
  PMQuoteReply
16th Post
Cutter



Joined TALKCalgary: Wed Apr 26th, 2006
Location: Alberta Canada
Posts: 145
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Who was said that for mankind to flourish ways must be found to curb the fertility of the unfit, the poor and those of feeble mind? Now let me think… Oh yes, I remember, it was General William Booth founder of the Salvation Army. Well I guess if the Salvation Army is/are/were already connected with the eugenics movement there’s little point in little old me becoming involved.  

Oh and another thing, perhaps you should learn to think before you write Sue. For example, by making a post to tell everyone that you don’t post anymore could result in you becoming a victim of the eugenics thugs. ;)

Back To Top


 Posted: Wed Jan 9th, 2008 01:23 am
  PMQuoteReply
17th Post
trailmix



Joined TALKCalgary: Sun Aug 20th, 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 208
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Cutter wrote: Trail, I think you are missing the point. We are not talking about the lazy, the retarded, wife abusers or fat slobs. The point is should people be tested for drug use?  I say Yes!

As for the rest of the parasitic groups you mention they too should be precluded from living off our tax dollars.

The problem is that our society is too concerned with helping the weak. In nature only the strong survive there is no place for the lame. Those who choose to do drugs, refuse to work, become obese, abuse alcohol, or hit woman or children are the weakest of the weak and should be purged from society.     

 

No, I'm quite clear on his point.  What I am saying is that you can't take his one point without looking at the bigger picture - that is part of what I find annoying and why I made the reference to peoples pet peeves.

It is tunnel vision.

That whole 'in nature only the strong survive' statement is lame.  Humans are part of nature, those who are not the strongest do survive.

Sue-B I hope you don't stop posting. 

Last edited on Wed Jan 9th, 2008 01:25 am by trailmix

Back To Top


 Posted: Wed Jan 9th, 2008 11:39 am
  PMQuoteReply
18th Post
BadGRRRL



Joined TALKCalgary: Mon May 1st, 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 127
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Yeah Trail, I read your earlier post.    I think you're completely missing the point of this.  The point is not that people don't deserve any help, it's that if you're going to take advantage of the help that's out there, you shouldn't be putting that money towards ILLEGAL activities.   If you need welfare and you're clean, there should be no problem.  As well, if you're clean and just need the temporary help, then you shouldn't have a problem taking a urine test to prove it.  Laziness isn't illegal, smoking dope is....there is a difference

Back To Top


 Posted: Wed Jan 9th, 2008 04:49 pm
  PMQuoteReply
19th Post
trailmix



Joined TALKCalgary: Sun Aug 20th, 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 208
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
BadGRRRL wrote: Yeah Trail, I read your earlier post.    I think you're completely missing the point of this.  The point is not that people don't deserve any help, it's that if you're going to take advantage of the help that's out there, you shouldn't be putting that money towards ILLEGAL activities.   If you need welfare and you're clean, there should be no problem.  As well, if you're clean and just need the temporary help, then you shouldn't have a problem taking a urine test to prove it.  Laziness isn't illegal, smoking dope is....there is a difference




Hey I don't want people spending my tax dollars wastefully, I value money too. 

I am just saying, again, that you cannot look at this one issue without looking further.  Yes, drugs are illegal, that is a good point - however, what if the person is an alcoholic - would the original poster be willing to support an alcoholic - I don't think so?

It's a legal drug.

I think you missed at least some of his point.

"I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt drinking beer & smoking dope during the day when I'm busting my butt to pay my bills and support their habits as well".

I think you have to take it a step further - this is one guy with one bias - he is not the ONLY tax payer in our fair country - why should he get special consideration for his bias?

What I am saying is if this was implemented, how much further would it go?  What would be the next group to start whining that they are tired of supporting people who seem to be lazy etc etc

It would snowball.

Anyway, he is just venting - not to be taken seriously, I doubt his has written to his MP or MLA about it.
 



Last edited on Wed Jan 9th, 2008 04:58 pm by trailmix

Back To Top


 Posted: Thu Jan 10th, 2008 12:35 pm
  PMQuoteReply
20th Post
BadGRRRL



Joined TALKCalgary: Mon May 1st, 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 127
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Beer and smokes are a  luxury item... as in you don't NEED them to survive.  You recieve a cheque for essentials, essentials meaning food, water, shelter......stuff you need to survive.

  If you are an alcoholic, there are treatment programs out there, supported by the taxpaying public, that you can take advantage of.  Detoxing is very difficult, but it can be done.  Then, when you get a job of your own, you can afford to spend your money on whatever the hell you want...beer and smokes included. 

Back To Top


Current time is 12:53 pm

TALKCalgary - Forums > Calgary Stuff > General Talk > Pee Here Please.......
Top



UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1978 seconds (12% database + 88% PHP). 32 queries executed.