Demsey Posted January 29, 2009 Report Posted January 29, 2009 I apologize Grant, it's the drinking. I stopped. This is the result. Let me be the lesson for all of you.
Nanuq Posted January 29, 2009 Report Posted January 29, 2009 I apologize Grant, it's the drinking. I stopped. This is the result. Let me be the lesson for all of you.
jraines87 Posted January 29, 2009 Report Posted January 29, 2009 I apologize Grant, it's the drinking. I stopped. This is the result. Let me be the lesson for all of you. I think it's the avatar
Demsey Posted January 29, 2009 Report Posted January 29, 2009 I think it's the avatar No Jeff, she's still drinking. Purdy sure it's me. Did you see 'rya' posted the other day? That's always nice, only we won't see him again until 2010. Oh well.
maxman Posted January 29, 2009 Report Posted January 29, 2009 I apologize Grant, it's the drinking. I stopped. This is the result. Let me be the lesson for all of you. I'll dirnk do dat Meike
jraines87 Posted January 29, 2009 Report Posted January 29, 2009 No Jeff, she's still drinking. Purdy sure it's me. Did you see 'rya' posted the other day? That's always nice, only we won't see him again until 2010. Oh well. Na, I didn't see.... It's nice to see he's still around though....
Chicken Manny Posted January 29, 2009 Report Posted January 29, 2009 "Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage." That's it! I'm buying a plot of land down the road from Chez Nanuq and turning it into the sacred land of The People's United Front for Horology and Democracy!
Nanuq Posted January 29, 2009 Report Posted January 29, 2009 Horology and Democracy, in that order! C'mon up there's plenty of room!
trailboss Posted January 29, 2009 Report Posted January 29, 2009 Dems and Hunter S . . . .OMFG! Now THAT would be a night to remember, if you could! rya posted? I missd it, damn That would be the first time in a long time. Col.
TeeJay Posted January 29, 2009 Report Posted January 29, 2009 I'm having a bit of a problem with this part of the statement, does the UK actually believe their entire workforce is drug free? Ken The issue is not a case of if the entire work force is drug free, because the work force would be spending earned wages. The issue, is not letting government benefits be used to finance drug habits, or, to put it another way, if someone wants a smack habit, let them get a job and pay for it themselves, rather than government benefits
RobbieG Posted January 29, 2009 Report Posted January 29, 2009 Brigade of left wing hippies... You made me smile this morning Rxus. What a visual image that invokes... I would love this in the states, but you know Obama and his brigade of left wing hippies would say that random drug testing for those receiving government benefits violates their freedoms or some other silly excuse. Why O why didn't Bill O'Reily run for president
TeeJay Posted January 29, 2009 Report Posted January 29, 2009 In my country you would have to be tested to have the right of having kids... Part of the problem in Britain is lower class children having children, causing generations of useless and lazy scroungers... Harsh i know, but true. Very true. Personally, I'm for chemical contraceptives in the drinking water, and a temporary antidote only beng made available to people who can pass tests which prove they are at a point in their lives where the are ready to have a child, can afford to support their increased family, and more importantly, actually want a child... Sorry if that opinion is unpalatable to some, but that's just how my wife and I both feel about the subject, based on the current state of things in the UK with many unplanned pregnancies simply being the result of personal ignorance and laziness with regard contraception.
FxrAndy Posted January 29, 2009 Author Report Posted January 29, 2009 The issue is not a case of if the entire work force is drug free, because the work force would be spending earned wages. The issue, is not letting government benefits be used to finance drug habits, or, to put it another way, if someone wants a smack habit, let them get a job and pay for it themselves, rather than government benefits Yep Very true. Personally, I'm for chemical contraceptives in the drinking water, and a temporary antidote only beng made available to people who can pass tests which prove they are at a point in their lives where the are ready to have a child, can afford to support their increased family, and more importantly, actually want a child... Sorry if that opinion is unpalatable to some, but that's just how my wife and I both feel about the subject, based on the current state of things in the UK with many unplanned pregnancies simply being the result of personal ignorance and laziness with regard contraception. And if any one thinks that, that is extreem they should hear my wife's ideas on the subject, it will make you shudder!!
TeeJay Posted January 29, 2009 Report Posted January 29, 2009 Yep I don't have a problem with drugs, they used to be legal, and I think legalization and taxation would be a way of funneling much needed funds into the health services, and, that would be fair... The junkies, smokers, drinkers, etc, would be paying extra into the health service, only fair that they get good treatment for it And if any one thinks that, that is extreem they should hear my wife's ideas on the subject, it will make you shudder!! I take it it involves 'nuts' and 'chopping block' Voted yes too, sounds workable also. Very workable. People claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, as far as I know, need to attend fortnightly meetings to review their status and progress... Wouldn't be hard to do a piss test at the same time If they refuse to take the test, their advisor presses the big red 'stop all benefits for a fortnight' button... I don't think they'd get many refusals once word got out that that's what happened
FxrAndy Posted January 29, 2009 Author Report Posted January 29, 2009 I take it it involves 'nuts' and 'chopping block' Nope concrete and a funnel! Here is a good pic, of her first and only 10 rounds of the day last time she was down the range, 10m, very used glock 9mm, just picked it having never fired a glock before, and they have a very light trigger action so that makes them a bit unpredictable first time round! Shae may have been aiming for his nuts though? Either way i think the message got across
Pugwash Posted January 29, 2009 Report Posted January 29, 2009 This would be a dangerous step towards totalitarianism. Freedom means letting the other guy be free as well. If you want to start putting qualifying restrictions on benefits, start with sensible ones that aren't just privacy invasions under a different name.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now