Hahaha, the hypocrisy

Double standards revealed

The hypocrisy is strong in this one. So one one hand he wants to test poor people for drugs because they receive government funds...but when the same rule is at risk of being applied to himself, he's suddenly against it.

BOUGHT, ALL OF THEM!!! They don't work for the people, they don't give a rat's ass about the people. All they care about is GETTING PAID.

Funny enough he's only withdrawing the bill temporarily. I guess it takes time to add yet another loop hole. Like the one that allows them to commit insider trading legally, while you end up in jail if you do it.

PS: I do realize I'm stating the obvious by now. But just figured this was a funny example of sock puppets in action.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Question? Who is he?

reply to post by MrXYZ


From your own source....

The Supreme Court ruled drug testing for political candidates unconstitutional in 1997

He didnt have a choice, he had to withdraw it because of supreme court decision.........

nice job tho trying to paint this guy and demonize him.........

Did you even read the whole article?

Originally posted by redrose123
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Question? Who is he?

This clown: Rep. Jud McMillin (R-Brookville)

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Did you?

Dvorak said McMillin was mistaken to think testing the legislature would be unconstitutional, since the stricken Georgia law targeted candidates and not people already holding office.

The Supreme Court ruled drug testing for political candidates unconstitutional in 1997

The law is for political candidates...not members currently holding office.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Thats not the point, the point is he HAD TO retract it because it was ruled unconstitutional..........

How is it his fault he had to pull the bill because of a supreme court decision thinkking it meant that?

Again, did YOU, he later said THIS

McMillan, for his part, said he's coming back with a new bill on Monday, lawmaker testing included. He said he has no problem submitting to a test himself.

Its obvious hes not trying to pull anything, or he wouldnt come back to adjust it to include sitting lawmakers......

I love how people slant things to fit their political ideas

reply to post by MrXYZ


People who hold public office are NOT above the law!

Any lawmaker who deems otherwise should be run out of office quicker than a Kardashian wedding!

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


He didn't pull the bill because of that.

It's just mentioned in the article.

It would not be relevant anyway, as the ruling of SC was for candidates only.

ETA: I have no political affiliation with the US.

It's just funny he pulled the bill and then gave a reason that makes no sense, considering the information provided.

~Tenth

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Thats not the point, the point is he HAD TO retract it because it was ruled unconstitutional..........

How is it his fault he had to pull the bill because of a supreme court decision thinkking it meant that?

Again, did YOU, he later said THIS

McMillan, for his part, said he's coming back with a new bill on Monday, lawmaker testing included. He said he has no problem submitting to a test himself.

Its obvious hes not trying to pull anything, or he wouldnt come back to adjust it to include sitting lawmakers......

I love how people slant things to fit their political ideas

edit on 28-1-2012 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

I think the bigger queston would be WHY are office holders exempt?

reply to post by tothetenthpower

It's just funny he pulled the bill and then gave a reason that makes no sense, considering the information provided. ~Tenth

This i do agree with and also Beezer below..........

It is odd how there are laws in the first place that make this acceptable.............I wonder how hopped up on a regular basis people running DC usually are lol

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Oh, IMO these are to kill welfare entirely.

When they can't abolish something entirely, the GOP have a history of making it harder to access the service or program that they want destroyed.

~Tenth

Originally posted by redrose123
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Question? Who is he?

My response: exactly, I was thinking the same thing

I never understood the benefit of drug testing, for anybody, for any reason.

I would think the behavior of somebody is a better indicator of a drug issue than urine in a cup.

I used to work for a Homeland Security contractor for immigration, and naturally they required a urine test for every employee. If they had to fire everybody that cheated on that drug test, the whole facility would be nearly empty. The favorite way to cheat was to get a little brother or sister to pee in a ziplock bag, then hold it close to the body to keep the temperature warm. It is pretty easy to open the bag, pour it into the cup, then pocket the bag and bring the cup out. It passes the temperature test, and of course the drug test.

I didn't cheat on the test, but my co-workers later laughed their butts off as they detailed their various means of going around the test. Most of them were hiding marijuana use. It didn't affect their performance on the job one bit.

Ever since V.P. Bush pushed the drug testing, made easy by Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals in the 1980s, a company in which the Bush family was the primary stockholder, this has gotten more expensive, more invasive, and more pointless. Needless to say, the Bushes made millions from this, which to me is a huge conflict of interest, and another example of the cancerous effect of greed and violations of privacy.

As far as drug testing for welfare, I agree with the other poster who stated that they are just trying to make this benefits program harder to obtain. Welfare pays very poorly, most people cannot survive on the cash benefits. As somebody who was been a welfare case worker, it isn't drugs that is the problem, it is the people who have jobs on the side and collect welfare. The drug issue is a red herring....as usual.