ManagingPrime

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    956

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by ManagingPrime

  1. Quote

    So you do support an unconstitutional and warrantless search of one's person, so long as it's for the right reasons.

    I believe that is precisely why we have and need constitutional rights.



    No. I agree with the courts decision. However, in my mind at least, it highlights the issue of abuse in these programs. Personally, I think more should be done for those with legitimate needs, but first real efforts need to be made, that do not violate peoples rights, to improve the efficency of these programs.

    Through my work history I've seen a relatively great deal of abuse in regards to government assistance. In my mind those abuses harm everyone, including the recepients who are abusing the programs.

    Either way, you won't find me arguing against constitutional protections...unless of course it's to just annoy someone...which is not the case here.:D

  2. Quote

    Quote



    Care to take a guess as to how many people in that 4, 000 actually did have "hot" urine? ;)



    Imma go with 108, because that's what the article said, and I wasn't overseeing each and every one of those 4,086 drug tests. :D

    But you go on believing there's a huge problem that, so far, hasn't been shown by the publicly-available evidence. Or show me some actual numbers to back up your side. I'm all ears (or eyes, I guess, this being a forum).


    Well shit. Maybe getting on public assistance is the way to cure drug use. Based on those numbers welfare applicants in florida use less drugs than the general population.

    I don't think playing the numbers game will result in anything meaningful. These programs, I would like to think, came about from a higher ideal than just "the numbers". However, these programs are being threatened by the numbers. There are a number of issues that need to addressed in order to try and ensure thier viability. Why not start with the issue of diversion of funds to drugs?

    If there is a reasonable wager involved I could be persuaded to find supporting evidence that over $100 million dollars a year are diverted from public welfare programs to illegal drug purchases. :D

  3. Quote

    Quote


    I'm not anti-welfare. But, I'm also not blind to the fact that a lot of people are abusing the system amd those kind of abuses threaten the availability of services for those who are in real need.



    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html

    108 of 4,086 is "a lot"? That's 2.6% by my math. I'll grant you that 2.6% is "a lot" in certain circumstances (manufacturing error tolerance, for example) but in this case, seems pretty darned low.

    Quote

    The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

    The state’s net loss? $45,780.



    But it's a good thing the good taxpayers of Florida aren't subsidizing those drug users anymore. :ph34r::|



    Care to take a guess as to how many people in that 4, 000 actually did have "hot" urine? ;)

    I get the influence that labs have on drug policies.

    I'm not advocating for Florida's system or any other for that matter. But, presuming the actual intent is to give people a little dose of "tough love" and save tax payer dollars, I'm all about that general idea.

  4. Quote

    So since you voluntarily accept the use of public roads, should you voluntarily allow them to search your home?

    Car?

    Desk?

    Pockets?

    Person?

    Cavity search?



    I agree to the fact that I can't drive on public roads drunk, or at an unsafe speed, or on drugs, etc. If I do, there are consequences, the least of which is usually the loss of the ability to drive on public roads for some time.

    I'm in the finance industry. Not to long ago, I went longer than two weeks without a job for the first time in my adult working life. It was depressing and at times it was terrifying. I took advantage of unemployment benefits. They allowed me the breathing room to find another job in my industry as opposed to taking the first thing that came along so that I would not starve to death, which probably would have hurt my prospects in my industry. I fully understand the benefit of that and other social safety nets and I would like to see them stick around for future generations.

    However, there's ample evidence that there is a lot of "fraud, waste and abuse" in these systems. If these social programs are something we really value then we will look at all ways of preserving them, to include making sure the funds are not used in ways not intended. I don't think looking at ways to stop the diversion to drug use is a bad start.

    It would seem that florida and the other states tried to address the issue without giving any thought to the constitution. I think the same stated desired outcome can be reached while still giving consideration to the constitution.... it might actually end up costing us more in the short term.

    I'm going to leave it at that before I get labeled a "liberal".

  5. Quote

    Quote

    Quote



    Any ideas on how to drug test welfare applicants while not infringing upon their constitutional rights? :)



    OK, so an indigent person tests positive for drugs. Now what would you do with them?


    Stop giving them cash.

    Provide treatment options.
    Make sure they have access to food, shelter and work...and more.

    But, I would most assuradly start looking at ways to not enable them.

    I'm not anti-welfare. But, I'm also not blind to the fact that a lot of people are abusing the system amd those kind of abuses threaten the availability of services for those who are in real need.

    What if a friend came to you asking for financial help, lets say rent and being a good friend you help. Later you find out they've got a nasty drug problem and spent all the money you gave them on drugs. Soon after that another friend comes to you for help and you don't have the means to help them.

    Would you be inclined to blindly help that first friend again?

  7. Quote

    Read this.

    http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201115258.pdf



    Thanks!

    So, it's an issue of special needs. Got it.

    The WT article did not go into any detail, other than the 4th amendment, as to why the court ruled this as unconstitutional.

    While I agree with the idea of drug testing, I can see how the program, as setup, is unconstitutional.

    Any ideas on how to drug test welfare applicants while not infringing upon their constitutional rights? :)

  8. ...wrapping my head around this one.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/26/court-nix-fla-law-drug-testing-welfare-applicants/

    Private employers can require drug tests.
    LEO departments can require drug tests.
    Military can require drug tests.

    ...But the state cannot require drug tests for welfare applicants or state employees on the basis of "...constitutional protection from unreasonable searches that all other citizens enjoy,”

    This argument does not make sense.

  9. Quote

    Whats the difference between these guys and a AQ and a terrorist training camp when they train to go to war against the US Government?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Rz7L2Lr34

    Case in point, fruitlooping Walts

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63QSm2MWdPs

    LMAO!!!:D:D:D
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-_hsouK4j4



    Once they go to war there is absolutely no real difference with the small exception that millions of Americans will be rooting for them. ;)

    Actually, I think that is the Michigan/Ohio group that got raided...sooooo. :D

    Additionally, per a recent homeland security memo groups like them are to be considered potential domestic terrorists...and as such the recent NDAA they could be killed on executive order.

    Interesting times indeed.

  12. Not directed at you, but you did mention "law abiding".

    I'm concerned about gun registration. Not for the abstract reason of protection from government tyranny, which to a degree is a vaild concern. My concern is much more personal and it has to do with due process.

    I could classify myself as an average citizen. I go to work. I pay a good chunk of taxes. I'm consciencous of laws.

    The state of arizona saw fit to grant me a medical marijuana card due to chronic pain from various breaks throughout the years.

    The ATF issuee a memo labeling people like myself drug addicts who are prohibited from owning firearms. Just having the state issued card makes me a criminal regardless of if I use it or not. Where is the due process?

    There are a number of cases going through the courts and I feel for what those individuals are going through. The threat of a ten year prison sentence, however remote, is scary.

    Sadly, the left that champions medical marijuana is silent. Sadly, the right who champions second ammendment rights is silent.

    It's the vast majority of americans who are moderates who stand to lose the most when the partisans on either side try to chip away at the other sides rights. It's incremental, it's pervasive and if the line in not drawn somewhere we will all be labled as criminals with the threat of government prosecution being held over our heads and that my friends is when I stop paying taxes, renounce my citizenship and tell this government to fuck off as I move to some other banana republic with better weather.

  15. Quote

    . The "Pushing the suspect back into the house bit was too much as well, what's that about?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    I was wondering the same thing?? Is that standard procedure? I would think getting the perp out of the house is the goal.



    I understood that to mean that there was a firefight at the rear of the home when he tried to escape out of the back and he was "pushed back" with returning fire.

  16. Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    "Lets burn this motherfucker." Interesting way to proverbialy fight fire with fire. Extrajudicial much?



    Even if that's what happened at the cabin - and again, we don't know if Dorner or the cops started the fire, I'd point out, again, that the line had been crossed to use deadly force without further notice or attempts to apprehend the suspect. At that point, it's just a matter of method. That being the case, I have no problem with the method being one to minimize the further risk to LEOs by destroying the building in order to kill the suspect inside, as opposed to incurring the risk of an assault by personnel. This was "combat" rules of engagement. Had they had military-grade explosive munitions on hand, I'd have been fine with them using those, too.



    Only problem with "combat" rules of engagement is that LEO are not military and citizens, are not enemy combatants. We are a nation of laws. Laws like due process. We also have the 4th amendment. Burning the building down around this particular suspect was not the last course of action. If the suspect is attempting to flee, then there is definitely rational for using deadly force. No one will deny that.... Burn the guy out...does not really pass the sniff test.



    To be reasonable, what would you have proposed? Waiting him out? What if he escaped? It was a cabin out there in the woods. What if he tunneled out? What if it was a pre-planned, pre-prepared escape cabin that he had previously fitted-out with a tunnel? What if he'd pre-prepared the area around the cabin with mines or IEDs?

    Lots of "what ifs", to be sure; but at some point the LEO commanders have to be able to make the decision "we need to end this now".



    Plus, it was getting close to sunset and they did not want to risk Dorner sneaking away in darkness.



    I can make all kinds of excuses for killing someone in the name of expediency. However, I won't get away with it. If I'm not killed by responding police, I'll have my day in court. This does not apply so much to police as it does citizens.

    THAT is the whole point of all of this. Equal justice under the law....

    We can ignore it, sure. We can continue to make excuses for behavior that is not reflective of our long held values of justice, equality, etc.... but at some point there will be a catalyst for riots. Look at the comments section of most news sites... A lot of people are of the opinion that there are a number of LEO operating above and beyond the law. While they don't condone Doners actions....they understand where he is coming from and are similarly frustrated by how engrained the corruption is.

    Chickens coming home to roost and what not.

  17. Quote


    To be reasonable, what would you have proposed?



    One option:
    The attacks will stop when the department states the truth about my innocence, PUBLICLY!!! I will not accept any type of currency/goods in exchange for the attacks to stop, nor do i want it. I want my name back, period.

  19. Quote

    Quote

    "Lets burn this motherfucker." Interesting way to proverbialy fight fire with fire. Extrajudicial much?



    Even if that's what happened at the cabin - and again, we don't know if Dorner or the cops started the fire, I'd point out, again, that the line had been crossed to use deadly force without further notice or attempts to apprehend the suspect. At that point, it's just a matter of method. That being the case, I have no problem with the method being one to minimize the further risk to LEOs by destroying the building in order to kill the suspect inside, as opposed to incurring the risk of an assault by personnel. This was "combat" rules of engagement. Had they had military-grade explosive munitions on hand, I'd have been fine with them using those, too.



    Only problem with "combat" rules of engagement is that LEO are not military and citizens, are not enemy combatants. We are a nation of laws. Laws like due process. We also have the 4th amendment. Burning the building down around this particular suspect was not the last course of action. If the suspect is attempting to flee, then there is definitely rational for using deadly force. No one will deny that.... Burn the guy out...does not really pass the sniff test.

  21. Quote

    >Paul - skydivers meet the common definition of insane.

    No it doesn't - and people who use it in that context are engaging in hyperbole. It's like claiming that democrats are communists, or republicans are fascists.



    Actually. The most common definition i've heard is, "repeating the same mistake, over and over again, expecting a different result". I hear that from my mother regarding skydiving every chance she gets. The idea is that my "body is a temple" and by engaging in unnecessary risk (mistake), over and over again, I'm insane. That's one of the fundamental arguments.

    It's very difficult to change that perception. I'm to the point where I don't try. It's ok that someone I care about has a fundamentally different outlook than me.

  22. The first firearm I owned was an SKS (during the last AWB).

    I don't know much about pre/post AWB models. However, besides having to use feeder clips it was a fun gun. Like others said, it did not seem as accurate at longer distances as an AK...I'm not really sure why.

    Prices are a little funky right now. So, if an AK is not in the budget you may want to give some consideration to the Mosin–Nagant. The rate of fire is slower than the SKS, but it's cheaper, packs more punch and is more accurate. Additionally, the 7.62X39 ammo (SKS, AK) is more expensive than the 7.62X54r ammo.

    It's all preference really. As your addiction builds, it will :ph34r:, you will find yourself shooting all these different types of weapons and then you will find the "perfect" trifecta is almost impossible. You will like one rifle for one particular scenario and another rifle for another scenario, one shotgun for "this" and another for "that". Fortunately, if you don't overpay when you buy, firearms hold their value quite well, so it's pretty easy to buy-sell-trade until you find one you really like.

    Have fun. Just try and avoid getting into "the best" ballistics arguments with people. :D:D

  23. Quote

    Ah, so you believe he's not able to use the "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense. Yes, I believe you're correct. He's still not sane.



    The legal definition is really all there is to stand on. Sane vs Insane is simply to subjective out of the legal context. How many times have you been told you are insane for jumping out of planes? To some people, it's not just a saying, they think you actually have a disturbed mind for jumping out of planes.

    I don't think he's going to be able to use any defense in court....he's a dead man walking, it's just a matter of when and how many more people he kills before he is "terminated".

  24. Quote

    Quote

    (4) The guy is not insane;



    How do you figure? Do sane people go on murder revenge killing sprees?


    If murder revenge killing sprees are the qualifier for insanity then we may need to take a closer look at some state violence.[:/]

    To the point. Legally, I don't think he would be deemed insane, which generally is viewed as "a mental illness where a person cannot distinguish reality from fantasy, cannot manage their own affairs and is subject to uncontrollable or impulsive behavior."

    It seems he is using reason and rationality and that his behavior is calculated not impulsive.