And what is being totally overshadowed by the Bruce Jenner/Caitlyn transformation miracle is that the State of Florida passed a bill requiring that all recipients of welfare must pass a drug test to receive benefits. Real news
call him Caitlyn
- Thread starter barkingwater2000
- Start date
Soonersincefitty
Sooner starter
Mmm, that's curious Belldozer.
That should thin the herd by, oh, I don't know, a half?
Of course the ACLU, like a by gawd will try to intervene and manufacture some bullshit, lame ass discrimination defense. It's what they do.
Has anyone seen my country? It's missing...
That should thin the herd by, oh, I don't know, a half?
Of course the ACLU, like a by gawd will try to intervene and manufacture some bullshit, lame ass discrimination defense. It's what they do.
Has anyone seen my country? It's missing...
Roy, so help me God, I had just about the same experience around the same time when a bunch of us young guys were out on the town one night at the I-35 Club in south Oklahoma City. I had forgotten all about that until I read your post. Never went back to that club again. LOL
Hey, that is good news. Now we need to pass laws that outlaw people in California who own surfboards aren't eligible for food stamps as well. Do you have any idea of the percentage of the USDA budget is for food stamps and related programs?
Did it make you feel funny that you had just experienced erotic fantasies about a man dressed up in girls clothing? I felt crushed and it it had happened today I am sure I could have sued for psychological damages and won.
There are young boys and girls all over dealing with gender confusion or who identify as transgender that are more "heroic" than the media whore in the link.
That this is the story that has captured our nations attention speaks volumes about its population.
In the words of the great Professor Farnsworth...I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
That this is the story that has captured our nations attention speaks volumes about its population.
In the words of the great Professor Farnsworth...I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Soonersincefitty
Sooner starter
Yeah, I didn't even like playing 'pin the tail on the donkey' as a kid.
It was just too close to the 'ass'.
It was just too close to the 'ass'.
In July 2011, the state of Florida enacted a law requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening:
Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening.
"It's the right thing for taxpayers," Scott said after signing the measure. "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs."
Under the law, which takes effect on July 1, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.
Enforcement of the Florida law was temporarily halted in October 2011 through a temporary injunction issued by a federal judge after the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on behalf of a Florida resident who was denied benefits when he refused to take a drug test, arguing that mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients without probable cause violated the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures:
A federal judge in Orlando temporarily blocked Florida's controversial law requiring welfare applicants be drug tested in order to receive benefits.
Judge Mary Scriven issued a temporary injunction against the state, writing in a 37-page order that the law could violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on illegal search and seizure.
In her order, Scriven issued a scathing assessment of the state's argument in favor of the drug tests, saying the state failed to prove "special needs" as to why it should conduct such searches without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, as the law requires.
"If invoking an interest in preventing public funds from potentially being used to fund drug use were the only requirement to establish a special need," Scriven wrote, "the state could impose drug testing as an eligibility requirement for every beneficiary of every government program. Such blanket intrusions cannot be countenanced under the Fourth Amendment."
In December 2013, a U.S. District Judge upheld that ruling and struck down the Florida drug testing law:
A U.S. judge has struck down a Florida law requiring drug screening for welfare recipients, saying that it violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches.
The testing fee of $25 to $45 was to be repaid by the state if the test came back negative, but applicants who tested positive would have been barred from receiving benefits for a year.
U.S. District
image: http://usweb.dotomi.com/adinfo/script/prod/public/img/icon-tr.png
image: http://usweb.dotomi.com/adinfo/script/prod/public/img/en-us/icon-tr-full.png
image: http://cdn.fastclick.net/content/adv/cids/359/582359/media1218231.png
Judge Mary Scriven permanently halted enforcement of the law in her ruling. She agreed with an earlier court finding that "there is nothing inherent in the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a concrete danger that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use ..."
During the time the law was in effect, about 2.6 percent of recipients tested positive for illegal drugs, mostly for marijuana, according to the court documents.
The failure rate was well below that of the general population. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found in a 2009 survey that about ,8.7 percent, of the population aged 12 or older had used illicit drugs in the previous month.
Generally, the courts have allowed suspicionless drug testing only when public safety is at risk, such as for armed officers or railroad workers who operate heavy equipment.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/welfare.asp#dCmIXJ7fi3aj3eqj.99
Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening.
"It's the right thing for taxpayers," Scott said after signing the measure. "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs."
Under the law, which takes effect on July 1, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children.
Enforcement of the Florida law was temporarily halted in October 2011 through a temporary injunction issued by a federal judge after the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on behalf of a Florida resident who was denied benefits when he refused to take a drug test, arguing that mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients without probable cause violated the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures:
A federal judge in Orlando temporarily blocked Florida's controversial law requiring welfare applicants be drug tested in order to receive benefits.
Judge Mary Scriven issued a temporary injunction against the state, writing in a 37-page order that the law could violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on illegal search and seizure.
In her order, Scriven issued a scathing assessment of the state's argument in favor of the drug tests, saying the state failed to prove "special needs" as to why it should conduct such searches without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, as the law requires.
"If invoking an interest in preventing public funds from potentially being used to fund drug use were the only requirement to establish a special need," Scriven wrote, "the state could impose drug testing as an eligibility requirement for every beneficiary of every government program. Such blanket intrusions cannot be countenanced under the Fourth Amendment."
In December 2013, a U.S. District Judge upheld that ruling and struck down the Florida drug testing law:
A U.S. judge has struck down a Florida law requiring drug screening for welfare recipients, saying that it violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches.
The testing fee of $25 to $45 was to be repaid by the state if the test came back negative, but applicants who tested positive would have been barred from receiving benefits for a year.
U.S. District
image: http://usweb.dotomi.com/adinfo/script/prod/public/img/icon-tr.png
image: http://usweb.dotomi.com/adinfo/script/prod/public/img/en-us/icon-tr-full.png
image: http://cdn.fastclick.net/content/adv/cids/359/582359/media1218231.png
Judge Mary Scriven permanently halted enforcement of the law in her ruling. She agreed with an earlier court finding that "there is nothing inherent in the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a concrete danger that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use ..." During the time the law was in effect, about 2.6 percent of recipients tested positive for illegal drugs, mostly for marijuana, according to the court documents.
The failure rate was well below that of the general population. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found in a 2009 survey that about ,8.7 percent, of the population aged 12 or older had used illicit drugs in the previous month.
Generally, the courts have allowed suspicionless drug testing only when public safety is at risk, such as for armed officers or railroad workers who operate heavy equipment.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/welfare.asp#dCmIXJ7fi3aj3eqj.99
Wow. BruCaitlin & you both are effed up pretty bad. That's just weird Plaino.
Look I get that is weird, indifferent, strange, odd and whatever. But it's his effing money and his effing body. I don't have time or the inclination to even give a damn.
I agree its his body and he can do whatever he wants. I just hate it when people start calling him a hero and giving him awards for having a sex change.
I've learned to ignore the spew of the same old same old. Most people believe he's crazy as hell. A few fringe folks with the power of organization has learned to get their message heard irregardless. In my books, he's not a 'hero' and hise 'courage' is self inflicted, all the while, he'll make bank for awhile. It is what it is.
Soonersincefitty
Sooner starter
Yeah, I was watching a stand up comic a long time ago.
He was musing about the thought process that one must have to make such a radical decision.
'Can you imagine a 250 lb. Texan. You're playing your weekly poker game and he just pipes in..."Yep, think I'm gonna cut my dick off and paint the old F-150 mauve"
(well, you had to be there...)
He was musing about the thought process that one must have to make such a radical decision.
'Can you imagine a 250 lb. Texan. You're playing your weekly poker game and he just pipes in..."Yep, think I'm gonna cut my dick off and paint the old F-150 mauve"
(well, you had to be there...)
Soonersincefitty
Sooner starter
But for now, if I'm understanding this correctly, you think he "looks great"?
About time you started posting again. Now all we need is Lay the Woody and Tulsa Red........
Oh God no. But if I told you what I really think, the PC crowd would start a petition to ban me from the board. And since I need about ten more posts to get to 20K, I'd like to stay around for at least another week.
Given ESPN's priorities. that would seem about par for the course.
Without googling the answer, who won the last three ESPYs?
My pint is no one cares. The ESPY is an over rated, self-creating ESPN award show to gather additional ratings, and something tells me, they this year's winner has so far worked out great for that purpose.
My pint is no one cares. The ESPY is an over rated, self-creating ESPN award show to gather additional ratings, and something tells me, they this year's winner has so far worked out great for that purpose.
There are several dozen ESPY categories given every year. Kevin Durant won two, one for best NBA player and one for best male athlete. Peyton Manning got the NFL player award. There was more than one award given the Alabama-Auburn game. The rest of the individual stuff I didn't pay much attention to. Just out of curiosity, I looked up last year's courage award winner and found that there is a consistent them here.
In keeping with this year's theme: drum roll: Michael Sam, the very overrated Mizzou pass rusher who couldn't get an NFL job after running like 4.9. Well at least they're consistent. I sort of remembered that after seeing it, but my brain is still recovering from anesthesia.
In keeping with this year's theme: drum roll: Michael Sam, the very overrated Mizzou pass rusher who couldn't get an NFL job after running like 4.9. Well at least they're consistent. I sort of remembered that after seeing it, but my brain is still recovering from anesthesia.
Well no matter how you look at it or feel about it, there's no denying that you have to have a pair of balls to do what he did. 
And just think, he doesn't feel like he should have balls. Yet he had to have a pair to do what he did. No wonder he is f***ed up. What's a girl to do?
What's a girl to do?Similar threads
