Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

People spend a lot of time criticising Obama and Clinton for getting us involved in Libya and now they are to be criticised for not getting us involved in Syria.

Which is right?

I'm a few thoughts on this...

1) US don't want another war... and Obama/Clinton really buys into that.

2) Having said that, it's a cop-out. The leadership need to make those hard decisions and make the case to the public.

3) Right now, there is no case (either way), which is frustrating.

4) To be fair: I don't want to engage Assad unilaterally. If we can't go big and curbstomp him... don't bother.

Slow your roll there Whembly. If we went over there and curbstomped Assad into oblivion, what happens to Syria? Who takes over being in charge? Does it become a theocracy? Does it become more or less friendly to the US? Russia has a lot of ties to Syria, what we chose to do about Syria is going to have a direct impact with our relationship with Russia. I'm not a fan of Assad in any way but before we take him out we really need to have a plan for what comes next.

I should've clarified...*if* we do engage our military, there must be clear objective and plans. If we can't do that... don't bother.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Slow your roll there Whembly. If we went over there and curbstomped Assad into oblivion, what happens to Syria? Who takes over being in charge? Does it become a theocracy? Does it become more or less friendly to the US? Russia has a lot of ties to Syria, what we chose to do about Syria is going to have a direct impact with our relationship with Russia. I'm not a fan of Assad in any way but before we take him out we really need to have a plan for what comes next.

In a just world, we'd deploy a large peacekeeping force there, weed out their corrupt local government and hold free and fair elections, rebuild their crumbling infrastructure, put the people to work, and win the hearts and minds of the population.

Then, when we're done with Detroit, we should stay the feth out of Syria.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Slow your roll there Whembly. If we went over there and curbstomped Assad into oblivion, what happens to Syria? Who takes over being in charge? Does it become a theocracy? Does it become more or less friendly to the US? Russia has a lot of ties to Syria, what we chose to do about Syria is going to have a direct impact with our relationship with Russia. I'm not a fan of Assad in any way but before we take him out we really need to have a plan for what comes next.

In a just world, we'd deploy a large peacekeeping force there, weed out their corrupt local government and hold free and fair elections, rebuild their crumbling infrastructure, put the people to work, and win the hearts and minds of the population.

Then, when we're done with Detroit, we should stay the feth out of Syria.

Ah, good one. I was well on board and then you dropped Detroit out of left field.

The fact that Europe and Japan are stable, functioning democracies after being bombed to rubble can be directly credited to the Marshall Plan.

Is there a Marshall Plan for Iraq and Libya and Syria and Afganistan?

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Slow your roll there Whembly. If we went over there and curbstomped Assad into oblivion, what happens to Syria? Who takes over being in charge? Does it become a theocracy? Does it become more or less friendly to the US? Russia has a lot of ties to Syria, what we chose to do about Syria is going to have a direct impact with our relationship with Russia. I'm not a fan of Assad in any way but before we take him out we really need to have a plan for what comes next.

In a just world, we'd deploy a large peacekeeping force there, weed out their corrupt local government and hold free and fair elections, rebuild their crumbling infrastructure, put the people to work, and win the hearts and minds of the population.

Then, when we're done with Detroit, we should stay the feth out of Syria.

I'm not sure if you pulled that strategy from the Emeror's own notes or described the Modus operand of Banks' Culture but it works so well for both of them, it just might work for us

I doubt Biden will have time to run when he already has a good job lined up.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Apparently in response to the laws being passed to drug test lower income people, a congresswoman has introduced a bill to drug test anyone with over $150k in itemized deductions.

Nobody is required to be drug tested just because they are poor. Do you think the government should act to prevent people who receive government assistance from spending some of the money on recreational drug use? I personally take a Libertarian stance on the issue and feel that the govt should either give people money with no strings or not give people money but giving people money just to justify interferring with people's personal lives isn't the role govt should be playing.

I'd disagree if you are getting assistance it is the right of the government to set requirements on said assistance, since they don't have to help you, but if you want their help then yeah you get drug screened, its like a job, you want the job you get drug tested.

as to drug testing anyone who gets over $150K in itemized deductions, go for it, only ones I see that hurting is the Kardashians and well no loss there.

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Apparently in response to the laws being passed to drug test lower income people, a congresswoman has introduced a bill to drug test anyone with over $150k in itemized deductions.

Nobody is required to be drug tested just because they are poor. Do you think the government should act to prevent people who receive government assistance from spending some of the money on recreational drug use? I personally take a Libertarian stance on the issue and feel that the govt should either give people money with no strings or not give people money but giving people money just to justify interferring with people's personal lives isn't the role govt should be playing.

I'd disagree if you are getting assistance it is the right of the government to set requirements on said assistance, since they don't have to help you, but if you want their help then yeah you get drug screened, its like a job, you want the job you get drug tested.

Why? What business of the employer is it what you do on your own time?

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Apparently in response to the laws being passed to drug test lower income people, a congresswoman has introduced a bill to drug test anyone with over $150k in itemized deductions.

Nobody is required to be drug tested just because they are poor. Do you think the government should act to prevent people who receive government assistance from spending some of the money on recreational drug use? I personally take a Libertarian stance on the issue and feel that the govt should either give people money with no strings or not give people money but giving people money just to justify interferring with people's personal lives isn't the role govt should be playing.

I'd disagree if you are getting assistance it is the right of the government to set requirements on said assistance, since they don't have to help you, but if you want their help then yeah you get drug screened, its like a job, you want the job you get drug tested.

Why? What business of the employer is it what you do on your own time?

and yet it is permitted. a business does not have to hire or employ someone who does drugs (unless prescription and weed still isn't a prescription drug even though used medically in some states).

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Apparently in response to the laws being passed to drug test lower income people, a congresswoman has introduced a bill to drug test anyone with over $150k in itemized deductions.

Nobody is required to be drug tested just because they are poor. Do you think the government should act to prevent people who receive government assistance from spending some of the money on recreational drug use? I personally take a Libertarian stance on the issue and feel that the govt should either give people money with no strings or not give people money but giving people money just to justify interferring with people's personal lives isn't the role govt should be playing.

I'd disagree if you are getting assistance it is the right of the government to set requirements on said assistance, since they don't have to help you, but if you want their help then yeah you get drug screened, its like a job, you want the job you get drug tested.

Why? What business of the employer is it what you do on your own time?

and yet it is permitted. a business does not have to hire or employ someone who does drugs (unless prescription and weed still isn't a prescription drug even though used medically in some states).

Sounds like those businesses hate freedom and therefore hate America.

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Apparently in response to the laws being passed to drug test lower income people, a congresswoman has introduced a bill to drug test anyone with over $150k in itemized deductions.

Nobody is required to be drug tested just because they are poor. Do you think the government should act to prevent people who receive government assistance from spending some of the money on recreational drug use? I personally take a Libertarian stance on the issue and feel that the govt should either give people money with no strings or not give people money but giving people money just to justify interferring with people's personal lives isn't the role govt should be playing.

I'd disagree if you are getting assistance it is the right of the government to set requirements on said assistance, since they don't have to help you, but if you want their help then yeah you get drug screened, its like a job, you want the job you get drug tested.

Why? What business of the employer is it what you do on your own time?

and yet it is permitted. a business does not have to hire or employ someone who does drugs (unless prescription and weed still isn't a prescription drug even though used medically in some states).

Sounds like those businesses hate freedom and therefore hate America.

no they are employing their freedom of choice and thereby embracing America.

Policing your employee's private lives violates their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those evil America hating corporate bastards.

 feeder wrote:
Policing your employee's private lives violates their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those evil America hating corporate bastards.

no they are not policing anyone, they are saying if you want a job with them, you have to be drug free, or do you want to take away their rights to run their own company? you want to be a dictator and tell them how they have to run their company? it is their right, hell even the Government and police agencies and such have the same laws of drug testing, so get off your hobby horse and wake up, this is not about taking away "drug" users rights since doing drugs is illegal, it is about companies exercising their rights. or would you want a surgeon who just got done doing a line of crack before coming into work to operate on you? or even a surgeon who is drunk?

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Policing your employee's private lives violates their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those evil America hating corporate bastards.

no they are not policing anyone, they are saying if you want a job with them, you have to be drug free, or do you want to take away their rights to run their own company? you want to be a dictator and tell them how they have to run their company? it is their right, hell even the Government and police agencies and such have the same laws of drug testing, so get off your hobby horse and wake up, this is not about taking away "drug" users rights since doing drugs is illegal, it is about companies exercising their rights. or would you want a surgeon who just got done doing a line of crack before coming into work to operate on you? or even a surgeon who is drunk?

If the person is not using drugs when at work, or impaired by their drug use whilst at work, then what business is it of the company whether they use drugs at home?

What right? BoR says nothing about it.

You are saying that companies have the "right" to control what their employees do on their own time? Chairman Mao would approve.

The problem with drug testing welfare recipients is that there is zero proof that welfare recipients waste their welfare money on drugs.

Every atate that has implemented mandatory welfare drug testing has ended up spending more on welfare and drug tests than they did on just welfare.

It's a waste of money, increases the size of government, increases the erosion of privacy, and is pretty much everything that the GOP opposes on paper. But it does reinforce the stereotype about the poor, so it gets support.

I think at least some of the states funneled the drug testing money to companies owned by relatives of politicians.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Policing your employee's private lives violates their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those evil America hating corporate bastards.

no they are not policing anyone, they are saying if you want a job with them, you have to be drug free, or do you want to take away their rights to run their own company? you want to be a dictator and tell them how they have to run their company? it is their right, hell even the Government and police agencies and such have the same laws of drug testing, so get off your hobby horse and wake up, this is not about taking away "drug" users rights since doing drugs is illegal, it is about companies exercising their rights. or would you want a surgeon who just got done doing a line of crack before coming into work to operate on you? or even a surgeon who is drunk?

If the person is not using drugs when at work, or impaired by their drug use whilst at work, then what business is it of the company whether they use drugs at home?

and yet if the employee is tested and they test positive then the drugs are still in their system, lets face it the government even says employers have the right, especially since the government practices such testing.

 feeder wrote:
What right? BoR says nothing about it.

You are saying that companies have the "right" to control what their employees do on their own time? Chairman Mao would approve.

and what right says that employers have to hire them?

 d-usa wrote:

I think at least some of the states funneled the drug testing money to companies owned by relatives of politicians.

wouldn't doubt it, when it comes to criminals I think politicians are the biggest ones.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Policing your employee's private lives violates their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those evil America hating corporate bastards.

no they are not policing anyone, they are saying if you want a job with them, you have to be drug free, or do you want to take away their rights to run their own company? you want to be a dictator and tell them how they have to run their company? it is their right, hell even the Government and police agencies and such have the same laws of drug testing, so get off your hobby horse and wake up, this is not about taking away "drug" users rights since doing drugs is illegal, it is about companies exercising their rights. or would you want a surgeon who just got done doing a line of crack before coming into work to operate on you? or even a surgeon who is drunk?

If the person is not using drugs when at work, or impaired by their drug use whilst at work, then what business is it of the company whether they use drugs at home?

The problem is that it's hard to prove that people are not currently impaired if they test positive. Alcohol clears out pretty quickly, but other drugs stick around since they are more complex and they are testing for the components that result from the breaking down of the drugs. So if you test positive for the wacky weed, it's hard to prove if you are just a little high right now, or really high last night.

 d-usa wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Policing your employee's private lives violates their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those evil America hating corporate bastards.

no they are not policing anyone, they are saying if you want a job with them, you have to be drug free, or do you want to take away their rights to run their own company? you want to be a dictator and tell them how they have to run their company? it is their right, hell even the Government and police agencies and such have the same laws of drug testing, so get off your hobby horse and wake up, this is not about taking away "drug" users rights since doing drugs is illegal, it is about companies exercising their rights. or would you want a surgeon who just got done doing a line of crack before coming into work to operate on you? or even a surgeon who is drunk?

If the person is not using drugs when at work, or impaired by their drug use whilst at work, then what business is it of the company whether they use drugs at home?

The problem is that it's hard to prove that people are not currently impaired if they test positive. Alcohol clears out pretty quickly, but other drugs stick around since they are more complex and they are testing for the components that result from the breaking down of the drugs. So if you test positive for the wacky weed, it's hard to prove if you are just a little high right now, or really high last night.

Yeah... i oppose any mandatory drug testing for public assistance. I'd rather that culturally, it's a stigma to be on public assistance if you're able to work.

As for employers testing for drugs... it's probably their legal team (or liability insurance) that's driving Employers to test for those drugs, moreso than those "evil corporations who wants to control their employees private lives".

Asterios wrote:


and what right says that employers have to hire them?

Someone who has not been hired is not an employee.

It strikes me as distinctly un-American to say what you can and cannot do on your own time in the privacy of your own home.

Asterios wrote:
and yet if the employee is tested and they test positive then the drugs are still in their system, lets face it the government even says employers have the right, especially since the government practices such testing.

I don't think you understand how drug tests work. The tests identify trace amounts of the drug, well below the amount that would have any effect on your body. And in some cases those trace amounts can be identified weeks or more after the person used the drug. So a positive test does NOT mean that the person was under the influence of drugs at work.

Now, you can correctly argue that it is legal for an employer to impose drug tests and fire employees if they fail, but let's not pretend that this is something that has anything to do with their job performance. It's a case of an employer deciding that running your private life they way they want is a condition of employment, and I think it's entirely reasonable for people to object to that level of control.

 whembly wrote:

Yeah... i oppose any mandatory drug testing for public assistance. I'd rather that culturally, it's a stigma to be on public assistance if you're able to work.

I'm not a huge fan of either of those things, honestly. If you need to be on assistance, something's probably gone seriously wrong with your life, you don't need strangers crapping on you in the grocery checkout line.

If you're genuinely a shiftless lazy jerk, then the people who know you and know that for certain can judge you for it, of course.

Mandatory drug testing for benefits is a useless money sink. Employer drug testing is easier than doing actual performance evaluations, so that's what they do. And stupid, pointless 1-5 ratings.

 Peregrine wrote:

Now, you can correctly argue that it is legal for an employer to impose drug tests and fire employees if they fail, but let's not pretend that this is something that has anything to do with their job performance. It's a case of an employer deciding that running your private life they way they want is a condition of employment, and I think it's entirely reasonable for people to object to that level of control.

I disagree.

I work 90% of the time in a cubicle for a large healthcare organization.

The other 10% I'm in the hopsital inpatient/retail pharmacy handling drugs in every manner.

If I tested positive for recreational drug... my ass would be fired with cause. (unless I'm on some valid pain management/treatment regimen)

That's why I'm not partaking any wacky weed stuff when I'm in Denver next week.

Likewise, any heavy operators would fall in that category because it's a safety/liability concerns.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
and yet if the employee is tested and they test positive then the drugs are still in their system, lets face it the government even says employers have the right, especially since the government practices such testing.

I don't think you understand how drug tests work. The tests identify trace amounts of the drug, well below the amount that would have any effect on your body. And in some cases those trace amounts can be identified weeks or more after the person used the drug. So a positive test does NOT mean that the person was under the influence of drugs at work.

Now, you can correctly argue that it is legal for an employer to impose drug tests and fire employees if they fail, but let's not pretend that this is something that has anything to do with their job performance. It's a case of an employer deciding that running your private life they way they want is a condition of employment, and I think it's entirely reasonable for people to object to that level of control.

the problem is the test also does not prove if they are not on drugs while at work either, the company does not control a persons life, the person has other choices on where to work, but if you want to work at that company you have to be drug free, saying a company has control over a persons life is saying that person cannot work anywhere because one company will not hire them, that is not the case, that person made a choice to do drugs, no one forced them to do drugs, no one pointed a gun at their head and said do these drugs, they were done by choice nothing else, just like a company has the choice on whether to hire them or not, the person doing drugs are not protected by law, this isn't racism, or discrimination because of sex or religion or disability, it is based on requirements of the company, one that is controllable by the person seeking the job.

Either you're on the side of freedom, personal choice and America, or you're on the side of oppressive government and corporate control, slavery and Communists.

Which side are you on?

 feeder wrote:
Either you're on the side of freedom, personal choice and America, or you're on the side of oppressive government and corporate control, slavery and Communists.

Which side are you on?

so your saying the company has no freedom? or personal choice? is that what you are saying? sounds very unamerican to me, since said company is not stopping the drug user from doing drugs, nor are they preventing them from working, if someone entered your house, and you did not know them would you let them stay? or kick them out? since it is their freedom to enter your house.

your argument is utter fail.

Why should the company have freedom? It's only there as the servant of people.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why should the company have freedom? It's only there as the servant of people.

lol.

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Either you're on the side of freedom, personal choice and America, or you're on the side of oppressive government and corporate control, slavery and Communists.

Which side are you on?

so your saying the company has no freedom? or personal choice? is that what you are saying? sounds very unamerican to me, since said company is not stopping the drug user from doing drugs, nor are they preventing them from working, if someone entered your house, and you did not know them would you let them stay? or kick them out? since it is their freedom to enter your house.

your argument is utter fail.

I'm saying the company has no right to your personal time. You are saying the company can control your private life. You are COBRA. I'm GI Joe.

Corporations are good people and would never ever take advantage of telling what their employees can do, where they can shop and live.