Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread
- Thread starter Strell
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
There's no doubt that it's shifted from its days as an exquisite gay club drug.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
Good article, but you can't really base a statement that reflects on an entire drug culture on one meth heads thoughts on the subject.
[quote name='UncleBob']lol... two different studies that survey hundreds of companies = crap.[/QUOTE]
AMA doesn't provide sample size and is one of those companies that spams companies with management training workshop flyers.
SHRM sent the survey to 433 random clients and 19% replied. I know you're too lazy to do the math so let's round that up to 83 respondents.
This is why sources matter.
This is why I call bullshit on your stats cred. You might've been able to do the math, but you don't have a clue about the concepts.
edit: Not to mention that the two issues you posted are made by two different people that didn't corroborate each others stances on sources.
AMA doesn't provide sample size and is one of those companies that spams companies with management training workshop flyers.
SHRM sent the survey to 433 random clients and 19% replied. I know you're too lazy to do the math so let's round that up to 83 respondents.
This is why sources matter.
No it doesn't, but you fail to understand the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research studies.
This is why I call bullshit on your stats cred. You might've been able to do the math, but you don't have a clue about the concepts.
edit: Not to mention that the two issues you posted are made by two different people that didn't corroborate each others stances on sources.
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm sorry, did you have the link to the alternative research that supports your claim?[/QUOTE]
Nope. Because I don't believe in posting the first thing that comes up on google or anything that could be construed as a less than creditble source.
Even then, I don't really care what the statistics are because it's so low on the totem pole that it's practically irrelevant when someone that doesn't have an addiction can't get a job to better themselves in any meaningful way to begin with.
But feel free to continue harping on it when you don't even have the ability to examine the veracity of your sources. I'm not the one pissing on someone's leg and telling them it's raining.
Nope. Because I don't believe in posting the first thing that comes up on google or anything that could be construed as a less than creditble source.
Even then, I don't really care what the statistics are because it's so low on the totem pole that it's practically irrelevant when someone that doesn't have an addiction can't get a job to better themselves in any meaningful way to begin with.
But feel free to continue harping on it when you don't even have the ability to examine the veracity of your sources. I'm not the one pissing on someone's leg and telling them it's raining.
So, no source, study or even anecdotal evidence to support your claim then. Okay. That's all you had to say in the first place.
But to your second statement - People can get jobs. Hell, I hired someone a few weeks ago (they're still in training at another store). It IS hard, but it's not impossible - there's no reason to make it harder by using illegal drugs.
But to your second statement - People can get jobs. Hell, I hired someone a few weeks ago (they're still in training at another store). It IS hard, but it's not impossible - there's no reason to make it harder by using illegal drugs.
[quote name='UncleBob']So, no source, study or even anecdotal evidence to support your claim then. Okay. That's all you had to say in the first place.[/QUOTE]
I actually have tons of anecdotal evidence, but unlike you, I actually have some scruples about using them and even if I did have a source, it STILL WOULDN'T change your mind about anything so it would just be a waste of both of our times.
Just to humor you, how's this for an anecdote then: Out of my entire network of friends and family, and it's pretty damn big, only four out of over a hundred people I know have needed to take a drug test. One of them was for the TSA and 3 were for working in pharmaceuticals; I happened to be one of those three and that was over ten years ago.
ing person out of millions that are unemployed when there aren't even enough jobs to cut that 9% down to 8% and when you disaggregate the statistics by education and race, it gets MUCH worse with less education and you better not be black or Latino cause you're looking at around 20% unemployment REPORTED. If people can't even get a goddamned response for an application, DRUG USE DOES NOT MATTER.
I've given 10ing reasons and if you're too dense to figure out why it doesn't matter and how throwing people off welfare with a drug addiction isn't worse, then just get ed like I originally said because it takes a real piece of shit to have those sort of views.
I actually have tons of anecdotal evidence, but unlike you, I actually have some scruples about using them and even if I did have a source, it STILL WOULDN'T change your mind about anything so it would just be a waste of both of our times.
Just to humor you, how's this for an anecdote then: Out of my entire network of friends and family, and it's pretty damn big, only four out of over a hundred people I know have needed to take a drug test. One of them was for the TSA and 3 were for working in pharmaceuticals; I happened to be one of those three and that was over ten years ago.
9% of the workforce is currently receiving unemployment benefits with an estimated additional 10% that isn't even being reported and you hired ONE person. ONE
ing person out of millions that are unemployed when there aren't even enough jobs to cut that 9% down to 8% and when you disaggregate the statistics by education and race, it gets MUCH worse with less education and you better not be black or Latino cause you're looking at around 20% unemployment REPORTED. If people can't even get a goddamned response for an application, DRUG USE DOES NOT MATTER.I've given 10
ing reasons and if you're too dense to figure out why it doesn't matter and how throwing people off welfare with a drug addiction isn't worse, then just get ed like I originally said because it takes a real piece of shit to have those sort of views.Hey, dohdough with name calling. That's new.
Yes, "one" person. That's one job filled. One job that in no way would have been filled by someone who abuses illegal drugs.
Illegal drug use is just one of many things that limit one's ability to find work. Unlike race and the like, however, illegal drug use is something the individual looking for a job can actually do something about.
You can keep crying about how illegal drug use doesn't matter, but as long as there is a single job that doesn't hire someone who tests positive for drugs, that's one less job someone who's employed is going to be qualified for - due to a reason that is 100% on the person using the illegal drugs.
You can't change your race. You can't magically get a degree. You can't do much or anything about a lot of the legitimate problems you cited. You can choose to stop abusing illegal drugs.
Yes, "one" person. That's one job filled. One job that in no way would have been filled by someone who abuses illegal drugs.
Illegal drug use is just one of many things that limit one's ability to find work. Unlike race and the like, however, illegal drug use is something the individual looking for a job can actually do something about.
You can keep crying about how illegal drug use doesn't matter, but as long as there is a single job that doesn't hire someone who tests positive for drugs, that's one less job someone who's employed is going to be qualified for - due to a reason that is 100% on the person using the illegal drugs.
You can't change your race. You can't magically get a degree. You can't do much or anything about a lot of the legitimate problems you cited. You can choose to stop abusing illegal drugs.
[quote name='dohdough']Nope. Because I don't believe in posting the first thing that comes up on google or anything that could be construed as a less than creditble source.
Even then, I don't really care what the statistics are because it's so low on the totem pole that it's practically irrelevant when someone that doesn't have an addiction can't get a job to better themselves in any meaningful way to begin with.
But feel free to continue harping on it when you don't even have the ability to examine the veracity of your sources. I'm not the one pissing on someone's leg and telling them it's raining.[/QUOTE]
The teabagger contingent on this forum practice their own version of lying to the infidel.
Most people here have gotten use to it by now.
Even then, I don't really care what the statistics are because it's so low on the totem pole that it's practically irrelevant when someone that doesn't have an addiction can't get a job to better themselves in any meaningful way to begin with.
But feel free to continue harping on it when you don't even have the ability to examine the veracity of your sources. I'm not the one pissing on someone's leg and telling them it's raining.[/QUOTE]
The teabagger contingent on this forum practice their own version of lying to the infidel.
Most people here have gotten use to it by now.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='perdition(troy']Good article, but you can't really base a statement that reflects on an entire drug culture on one meth heads thoughts on the subject.[/QUOTE]
First off, I said it was partially due to this, not wholly due (there's always going to be a myriad of reasons people turn to it, boredom and ease of manufacture doubtless play a role)
Secondly, it's unfair to say that the book or even the article is based on of one meth head's thoughts on the subject. To start with, to my knowledge the author has never taken meth he just included meth users in the pool of people that he interviewed. And it was hardly one person - the author talked to many knowledgable folks in the town and made an effort to collect as much factual data as he could from local law enforcement.
IMHO this isn't going to be "hard core scientific fact" like evolution or global warming - in this case there is necessarily a subjective evaluation involved. I just thought the guy had a pretty good theory based on the evidence presented, it certainly beats the hell out of any overly simplistic "drugs are bad mkay" bullshit that most of the right parrots (exempting libertarians and moderates of course)
First off, I said it was partially due to this, not wholly due (there's always going to be a myriad of reasons people turn to it, boredom and ease of manufacture doubtless play a role)
Secondly, it's unfair to say that the book or even the article is based on of one meth head's thoughts on the subject. To start with, to my knowledge the author has never taken meth he just included meth users in the pool of people that he interviewed. And it was hardly one person - the author talked to many knowledgable folks in the town and made an effort to collect as much factual data as he could from local law enforcement.
IMHO this isn't going to be "hard core scientific fact" like evolution or global warming - in this case there is necessarily a subjective evaluation involved. I just thought the guy had a pretty good theory based on the evidence presented, it certainly beats the hell out of any overly simplistic "drugs are bad mkay" bullshit that most of the right parrots (exempting libertarians and moderates of course)
[quote name='mykevermin']HAHAHAHA, yes! Yes yes yes! Well, it was until this study came out. you guys wouldn't actually dare admit to being wrong on something, so you're pretending that going further into debt at the state level is pretty all right if you get to teach a handful of poor people who don't know how to cheat a drug test fail a drug test a lesson or two.
[/QUOTE]
The single study on FORTY people does not claim the state is losing money. Its own unique twist on the results say that. Well that and the "well if this happens it will cost more" ad lib you are all attaching to the study. However regardless I will quote for you what I said about such programs:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256476&page=104
[quote name='Knoell']
Here is one though: Decrease dependency on welfare by creating programs that help people get back to work, not paying people to stay home. Require drug tests to provide incentives to get clean.
[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Knoell']
In the long term the poor being less dependent on drugs will benefit society and lower costs, but lets keep thinking inside the box, and give them checks to last them month to month. It is REALLY working, really! It isn't at all making them become complacent, no, not at all. Really.
As for mykevermins simplistic understanding of why drug testing is important, I don't know what to say. If you think it is about someones worth, then you got us. We are all about taking people down a notch, those smug assholes, we don't at all want to help the poor who are in an endless cycle of self destruction. After all, its their decision right? We can't have people smoking E cigarettes, its the governments job to stop that, but it is just a step too far when the government tells people if you want help, you have to clean up right?
[/QUOTE]
So yeah I definately was talking about the short term savings from suckering drug addicts out of welfare money.
And you all call us dishonest.
[/QUOTE]
The single study on FORTY people does not claim the state is losing money. Its own unique twist on the results say that. Well that and the "well if this happens it will cost more" ad lib you are all attaching to the study. However regardless I will quote for you what I said about such programs:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256476&page=104
[quote name='Knoell']
Here is one though: Decrease dependency on welfare by creating programs that help people get back to work, not paying people to stay home. Require drug tests to provide incentives to get clean.
[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Knoell']
In the long term the poor being less dependent on drugs will benefit society and lower costs, but lets keep thinking inside the box, and give them checks to last them month to month. It is REALLY working, really! It isn't at all making them become complacent, no, not at all. Really.
As for mykevermins simplistic understanding of why drug testing is important, I don't know what to say. If you think it is about someones worth, then you got us. We are all about taking people down a notch, those smug assholes, we don't at all want to help the poor who are in an endless cycle of self destruction. After all, its their decision right? We can't have people smoking E cigarettes, its the governments job to stop that, but it is just a step too far when the government tells people if you want help, you have to clean up right?
[/QUOTE]
So yeah I definately was talking about the short term savings from suckering drug addicts out of welfare money.
And you all call us dishonest.How did we get hung up on drug testing? Do the people who want drug testing also want to test for alcohol and tobacco use? I'm just as annoyed by people on welfare spending money on those things as I am them spending it on illegal drugs. Really no difference beyond the legality of the substance they're using/abusing.
If we are worried about people on welfare "wasting" their money wouldn't it be easier to change the system so they don't get cash but just get food stamps, vouchers for clothing etc., housing assistance goes directly to the rental company/landlord etc.?
That said, I don't support that kind of crap either. The fact is there's always going to be people on public assistance who waste money that should be going to necessities. People will cheat drug tests, sell vouchers to others for cash (even if they get less than the vouchers value) etc.
It's just one of those things where society is better off taking care of the extreme lower class than doing nothing, and the system just has to do what it can to minimize extreme abuse and accept that there will always be some who abuse the system regardless of what screening procedures, monitoring etc. is put in place.
If we are worried about people on welfare "wasting" their money wouldn't it be easier to change the system so they don't get cash but just get food stamps, vouchers for clothing etc., housing assistance goes directly to the rental company/landlord etc.?
That said, I don't support that kind of crap either. The fact is there's always going to be people on public assistance who waste money that should be going to necessities. People will cheat drug tests, sell vouchers to others for cash (even if they get less than the vouchers value) etc.
It's just one of those things where society is better off taking care of the extreme lower class than doing nothing, and the system just has to do what it can to minimize extreme abuse and accept that there will always be some who abuse the system regardless of what screening procedures, monitoring etc. is put in place.
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
We should also test for candy bars.
[quote name='UncleBob']Hey, dohdough with name calling. That's new.
Yes, "one" person. That's one job filled. One job that in no way would have been filled by someone who abuses illegal drugs.
Illegal drug use is just one of many things that limit one's ability to find work. Unlike race and the like, however, illegal drug use is something the individual looking for a job can actually do something about.
You can keep crying about how illegal drug use doesn't matter, but as long as there is a single job that doesn't hire someone who tests positive for drugs, that's one less job someone who's employed is going to be qualified for - due to a reason that is 100% on the person using the illegal drugs.
You can't change your race. You can't magically get a degree. You can't do much or anything about a lot of the legitimate problems you cited. You can choose to stop abusing illegal drugs.[/QUOTE]
Look you shit-eating huckster, when people on welfare have drug addictions, how the do you expect them to get treatment when treatment centers are expensive, they still need their regular living expenses paid for, education can be prohivitively expensive, jobs aren't available, jobs with a living wage aren't availible, and no day-care if they have a child, supposed to magically "choose" not to do drugs if there's no goddamn support system to get that drug-free shitty paying job at Walmart to begin with? How are they somehow supposed to get better by throwing them off a program that barely allows subsistance living?
There is noing cheat code to get to the final boss here.
I addressed all of your stupid strawman tangents, so get back to theing point.
Yes, "one" person. That's one job filled. One job that in no way would have been filled by someone who abuses illegal drugs.
Illegal drug use is just one of many things that limit one's ability to find work. Unlike race and the like, however, illegal drug use is something the individual looking for a job can actually do something about.
You can keep crying about how illegal drug use doesn't matter, but as long as there is a single job that doesn't hire someone who tests positive for drugs, that's one less job someone who's employed is going to be qualified for - due to a reason that is 100% on the person using the illegal drugs.
You can't change your race. You can't magically get a degree. You can't do much or anything about a lot of the legitimate problems you cited. You can choose to stop abusing illegal drugs.[/QUOTE]
Look you shit-eating huckster, when people on welfare have drug addictions, how the
do you expect them to get treatment when treatment centers are expensive, they still need their regular living expenses paid for, education can be prohivitively expensive, jobs aren't available, jobs with a living wage aren't availible, and no day-care if they have a child, supposed to magically "choose" not to do drugs if there's no goddamn support system to get that drug-free shitty paying job at Walmart to begin with? How are they somehow supposed to get better by throwing them off a program that barely allows subsistance living?There is no
ing cheat code to get to the final boss here.I addressed all of your stupid strawman tangents, so get back to the
ing point.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']We should also test for candy bars.[/QUOTE]
Why are weing around with tests? We could just surgically implant microcameras and low-grade tasers in the foreheads of welfare-recipients. Whenever they go to eat a twix, splurge on a novelty tee at Target, or stare too long at the iphone display case, we could zap them as a friendly reminder that as wards of the state they are only entitled to the bare necessities of survival.
Why are we
ing around with tests? We could just surgically implant microcameras and low-grade tasers in the foreheads of welfare-recipients. Whenever they go to eat a twix, splurge on a novelty tee at Target, or stare too long at the iphone display case, we could zap them as a friendly reminder that as wards of the state they are only entitled to the bare necessities of survival.[quote name='Msut77']What study showed the testing program saved money?[/QUOTE]
Ignoring that I stated the instant savings are not what people are looking for when you require drug tests will not make you right.
Taking an employer for example who is looking for an employee. Why would that employer require a drug test? To only save the money it would take to train the employee, then fire them for any number of reasons? Or is it to ensure that on top of that benefit (even though the drug test costs something) they will have one less factor influencing the behavior of the employee which is less risk for the company?
Now the government is slightly different but you get the gist. They are looking to better people not yank the rug out from under them. You may say cutting them off is hurting them more, however I do not see how supplying their habits are helping them at all. At the very least put the people who fail the tests on a program that does not use cash.
Ignoring that I stated the instant savings are not what people are looking for when you require drug tests will not make you right.
Taking an employer for example who is looking for an employee. Why would that employer require a drug test? To only save the money it would take to train the employee, then fire them for any number of reasons? Or is it to ensure that on top of that benefit (even though the drug test costs something) they will have one less factor influencing the behavior of the employee which is less risk for the company?
Now the government is slightly different but you get the gist. They are looking to better people not yank the rug out from under them. You may say cutting them off is hurting them more, however I do not see how supplying their habits are helping them at all. At the very least put the people who fail the tests on a program that does not use cash.
[quote name='dohdough']Look you shit-eating huckster, when people on welfare have drug addictions, how the do you expect them to get treatment when treatment centers are expensive, they still need their regular living expenses paid for, education can be prohivitively expensive, jobs aren't available, jobs with a living wage aren't availible, and no day-care if they have a child, supposed to magically "choose" not to do drugs if there's no goddamn support system to get that drug-free shitty paying job at Walmart to begin with? How are they somehow supposed to get better by throwing them off a program that barely allows subsistance living?
There is noing cheat code to get to the final boss here.
I addressed all of your stupid strawman tangents, so get back to theing point.[/QUOTE]
Stop supplying them with cash to reinforce their habit would be a good start. However I thought you were arguing that drugs don't hinder someones life?
do you expect them to get treatment when treatment centers are expensive, they still need their regular living expenses paid for, education can be prohivitively expensive, jobs aren't available, jobs with a living wage aren't availible, and no day-care if they have a child, supposed to magically "choose" not to do drugs if there's no goddamn support system to get that drug-free shitty paying job at Walmart to begin with? How are they somehow supposed to get better by throwing them off a program that barely allows subsistance living?There is no
ing cheat code to get to the final boss here.I addressed all of your stupid strawman tangents, so get back to the
ing point.[/QUOTE]Stop supplying them with cash to reinforce their habit would be a good start. However I thought you were arguing that drugs don't hinder someones life?
Stop supplying them with cash isn't going to end their habit.
Sure it sucks that some people use tax payer money to buy drugs. Take that money away they still have that addiction they have to feed and no money to go buy it.
So what happens then? Best case scenario they start begging for money from friends and family, and felling that beg on the street. From their it's all down hill as they fall into prostitution, stealing things, robbing people etc.
There's far more harm to be done to society by not supporting the extreme lower class and pulling benefits from drug addicts etc. Is just throwing cash at them the best solution? Of course not, they need to be put into treatment programs paid for by the state. But there's not much support for that because it's expensive.
The welfare system isn't there just to help the worst off. It's also to minimize the harm they would cause to society if they were just left to rot.
Sure it sucks that some people use tax payer money to buy drugs. Take that money away they still have that addiction they have to feed and no money to go buy it.
So what happens then? Best case scenario they start begging for money from friends and family, and felling that beg on the street. From their it's all down hill as they fall into prostitution, stealing things, robbing people etc.
There's far more harm to be done to society by not supporting the extreme lower class and pulling benefits from drug addicts etc. Is just throwing cash at them the best solution? Of course not, they need to be put into treatment programs paid for by the state. But there's not much support for that because it's expensive.
The welfare system isn't there just to help the worst off. It's also to minimize the harm they would cause to society if they were just left to rot.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
We should drug test corn farmers, too, and cut off their subsidy if they test positive.
[quote name='Msut77']This isn't necessarily about addicts or hard drug users. People who smoke marijuana moderately are probably getting caught. This isn't necessarily about addicts or hard drug users. People who smoke marijuana moderately are probably getting caught.[/QUOTE]
Sure. And for those, again, what's the difference between them and someone on welfare buying alcohol or tobacco? It's the same other than the legal status of the substance.
This is all much ado about nothing. Giving people public assistance will always mean that some people waste it unless you're doing nothing more than directly giving them food, clothing and shelter rather than cash or vouchers to use on those items.
Society is better off giving this assistance rather than letting people rot. And it's probably a lot cheaper to give cash or vouchers or debit cards for food stamps etc. than paying for a government ran infrastructure to just give out food etc. even if we have to "grin and bear" people who waste their public assistance on junk food or cable or drugs or alcohol etc.
Sure. And for those, again, what's the difference between them and someone on welfare buying alcohol or tobacco? It's the same other than the legal status of the substance.
This is all much ado about nothing. Giving people public assistance will always mean that some people waste it unless you're doing nothing more than directly giving them food, clothing and shelter rather than cash or vouchers to use on those items.
Society is better off giving this assistance rather than letting people rot. And it's probably a lot cheaper to give cash or vouchers or debit cards for food stamps etc. than paying for a government ran infrastructure to just give out food etc. even if we have to "grin and bear" people who waste their public assistance on junk food or cable or drugs or alcohol etc.
http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html
Stay Classy Arrogant Assholes Who Think They Actually Do Any Good Whatsoever
Surprisingly, mcu closer than I thought it would be, however the top ten is dominated by those nice democrats that care about us.
Stay Classy Arrogant Assholes Who Think They Actually Do Any Good Whatsoever
Surprisingly, mcu closer than I thought it would be, however the top ten is dominated by those nice democrats that care about us.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
Well, we all know where Rockefeller and Kerry got their money but some of those guys were surprises.
Some are surprises individually. But it's not surprising to see so many millionaires as the sad reality is that it's hard for anyone who isn't wealthy to win federal office these days. Pretty much impossible for senate or president, and getting more and more difficult even for the house outside of small, rural districts.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
Small rural districts are dominated by Republicans though. The Good Ole Party poured a lot of money into those elections in '10 even though they were pretty much guaranteed to win. From what I heard from friends and relatives in the sticks, most of the money was used as anti-Obama ads that showed the Republicans as small government crusaders. They were setting the table for the '12 Presidential election.
You need to have cash these days no matter where you are.
You need to have cash these days no matter where you are.
Not always. There's some odd places like WV where I think 2 of the 3 congressmen are democrats, the governor is usually a democrat etc., despite the state going republican in recent presidential elections.
There's some rural districts where people are democrat in that they are ardent supporters of welfare, social security, medicare/medicaid etc., but are conservative on social issues.
Though those places are certainly the exception to the rule, and I wonder if they'll survive the tea party movement and stay "blue dog" democratic areas or become republican areas.
There's some rural districts where people are democrat in that they are ardent supporters of welfare, social security, medicare/medicaid etc., but are conservative on social issues.
Though those places are certainly the exception to the rule, and I wonder if they'll survive the tea party movement and stay "blue dog" democratic areas or become republican areas.
number of state representatives who chose not to be paid during the state shutdown now say they want the money after all.
During Minnesota's 20-day state government shutdown, lawmakers could opt out of receiving their normal pay -- though most chose to take it. Fifty Minnesota House lawmakers deferred pay, but state officials said Monday that 18 of them are now asking for it retroactively.
Several of those lawmakers have told Hot Dish that they did not keep the money, but instead donated it to other causes. The total payment is about $1,600.
Ten Democrats and seven Republicans will receive full retroactive pay. Their names are below.
Anderson, Paul
Atkins, Joe
Crawford, Roger
Dittrich, Denise
Drazkowski, Steve
Garofalo, Pat
Grieling, Mindy
Johnson, Sheldon
Kahn, Phyllis
Laine, Carolyn
Loon, Jenifer
Morrow, Terry
Mullery, Joe
Norton, Kim
Scott, Peggy
Slocum, Linda
Swedzinski, Chris
Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley, was initially on the list but said Monday afternoon that he did not turn in some relevant paperwork. He has requested half of his normal pay, noting that state workers received about the same percent in unemployment insurance.
"I'm trying to match as best I can how state employees were treated," Winkler said.
Rep. Peggy Scott, R-Andover, said it was never her intention to take pay for the shutdown period. She thought she had agreed to take pay only for the post-shutdown period of July. "I'll write a check back to the state. I'll write a check to charity. I don't care. But I'm not getting paid for the days that we were shut down," Scott said.
Rep. Jenifer Loon, R-Eden Prairie, said she donated the money back to the state via personal check since it otherwise would stay in a House account.
"It's the only way that I could do this, because otherwise it sits in the House of Representatives slush fund," Loon said.
Rep. Kim Norton, DFL-Rochester, said she donated most of the money to the Rochester Area Math-Science Partnership, a non-profit where she works outside of the Legislature.
“Because of my legislative [work], I was unable to do my other job, which is working for a non-profit. And I felt I had harmed them," Norton said.
Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, said she donated the money to a variety of area groups that she felt were hurt by the shutdown. They include East Side Neighborhood Services, Open Access Communications, Planned Parenthood. Minneapolis Foundation for Parks and The Masonic Cancer Center. She also sent money to the American Refugee Committee to aid the famine Somalia.
Rep. Pat Garofalo, R-Farmington, said the money will all be donated to local charities.
Rep. Chris Swedzinski, R-Ghent, said he is donating it to groups and charities near his district in southwestern Minnesota.
Rep. Paul Anderson, R-Starbuck, said he is giving almost all of the money to area nursing homes. The rest will go to the county 4-H.
Rep. Terry Morrow, DFL-St. Peter, e-mailed to say that he had used some of the money to reimburse his expenses to attend a higher education conference in Washington, D.C. He plans to return the remainder to the state.
House DFL spokeswoman Carrie Lucking said Rep. Mindy Greiling is donating the money to NAMI MN, Tasks Unlimited, People, Inc. and Keystone Community Services. Rep. Joe Mullery and Rep. Denise Dittrich are also donating the pay, she said. Lucking added Rep. Joe Atkins is using it to create a scholarship at Simley High School in Inver Grove Heights.
Lucking added in a later e-mail that Rep. Linda Slocum, DFL-Richfield, is giving the money to the Cornerstone domestic violence prevention center in Bloomington.
Another 32 state respresentatives reduced their pay by the amount they would have earned during the shutdown. Here is who refused payment altogether:
Anzelc, Tom
Benson, John
Bills, Kurt
Byrnaert, Kathy
Carlson, Lyn
Cornish, Tony
Doepke, Connie
Downey, Keith
Erickson, Sondra
Falk, Andrew
Gottwalt, Steve
Hancock, David
Hortman, Melissa
Kiel, Debra
Knuth, Kate
Lenczewski, Ann
Liebling, Tina
Loeffler, Diane
Lohmer, Kathy
Mahoney, Tim
Mazorol, Pat
McElfatrick, Carolyn
McFarlane, Carol
Murphy, Erin
Murphy, Mary
Murray, Richard
Paymar, Michael
Scalze, Bev
Simon, Steve
Thissen, Paul
Ward, John
Wardlow, Doug
Marie Hawthorne with Senate Fiscal Services said that there has been no change from the 14 senators who initially deferred their shutdown pay.
tl;dr
Equal opportunity classy!
My personal favorite "She thought she had agreed to take pay only for the post-shutdown period of July", so you're a legislator but you don't know what you're signing or you're not clever enough to understand legal documents despite CREATING LAWS?!
It just never ends.
During Minnesota's 20-day state government shutdown, lawmakers could opt out of receiving their normal pay -- though most chose to take it. Fifty Minnesota House lawmakers deferred pay, but state officials said Monday that 18 of them are now asking for it retroactively.
Several of those lawmakers have told Hot Dish that they did not keep the money, but instead donated it to other causes. The total payment is about $1,600.
Ten Democrats and seven Republicans will receive full retroactive pay. Their names are below.
Anderson, Paul
Atkins, Joe
Crawford, Roger
Dittrich, Denise
Drazkowski, Steve
Garofalo, Pat
Grieling, Mindy
Johnson, Sheldon
Kahn, Phyllis
Laine, Carolyn
Loon, Jenifer
Morrow, Terry
Mullery, Joe
Norton, Kim
Scott, Peggy
Slocum, Linda
Swedzinski, Chris
Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley, was initially on the list but said Monday afternoon that he did not turn in some relevant paperwork. He has requested half of his normal pay, noting that state workers received about the same percent in unemployment insurance.
"I'm trying to match as best I can how state employees were treated," Winkler said.
Rep. Peggy Scott, R-Andover, said it was never her intention to take pay for the shutdown period. She thought she had agreed to take pay only for the post-shutdown period of July. "I'll write a check back to the state. I'll write a check to charity. I don't care. But I'm not getting paid for the days that we were shut down," Scott said.
Rep. Jenifer Loon, R-Eden Prairie, said she donated the money back to the state via personal check since it otherwise would stay in a House account.
"It's the only way that I could do this, because otherwise it sits in the House of Representatives slush fund," Loon said.
Rep. Kim Norton, DFL-Rochester, said she donated most of the money to the Rochester Area Math-Science Partnership, a non-profit where she works outside of the Legislature.
“Because of my legislative [work], I was unable to do my other job, which is working for a non-profit. And I felt I had harmed them," Norton said.
Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, said she donated the money to a variety of area groups that she felt were hurt by the shutdown. They include East Side Neighborhood Services, Open Access Communications, Planned Parenthood. Minneapolis Foundation for Parks and The Masonic Cancer Center. She also sent money to the American Refugee Committee to aid the famine Somalia.
Rep. Pat Garofalo, R-Farmington, said the money will all be donated to local charities.
Rep. Chris Swedzinski, R-Ghent, said he is donating it to groups and charities near his district in southwestern Minnesota.
Rep. Paul Anderson, R-Starbuck, said he is giving almost all of the money to area nursing homes. The rest will go to the county 4-H.
Rep. Terry Morrow, DFL-St. Peter, e-mailed to say that he had used some of the money to reimburse his expenses to attend a higher education conference in Washington, D.C. He plans to return the remainder to the state.
House DFL spokeswoman Carrie Lucking said Rep. Mindy Greiling is donating the money to NAMI MN, Tasks Unlimited, People, Inc. and Keystone Community Services. Rep. Joe Mullery and Rep. Denise Dittrich are also donating the pay, she said. Lucking added Rep. Joe Atkins is using it to create a scholarship at Simley High School in Inver Grove Heights.
Lucking added in a later e-mail that Rep. Linda Slocum, DFL-Richfield, is giving the money to the Cornerstone domestic violence prevention center in Bloomington.
Another 32 state respresentatives reduced their pay by the amount they would have earned during the shutdown. Here is who refused payment altogether:
Anzelc, Tom
Benson, John
Bills, Kurt
Byrnaert, Kathy
Carlson, Lyn
Cornish, Tony
Doepke, Connie
Downey, Keith
Erickson, Sondra
Falk, Andrew
Gottwalt, Steve
Hancock, David
Hortman, Melissa
Kiel, Debra
Knuth, Kate
Lenczewski, Ann
Liebling, Tina
Loeffler, Diane
Lohmer, Kathy
Mahoney, Tim
Mazorol, Pat
McElfatrick, Carolyn
McFarlane, Carol
Murphy, Erin
Murphy, Mary
Murray, Richard
Paymar, Michael
Scalze, Bev
Simon, Steve
Thissen, Paul
Ward, John
Wardlow, Doug
Marie Hawthorne with Senate Fiscal Services said that there has been no change from the 14 senators who initially deferred their shutdown pay.
tl;dr
Equal opportunity classy!
My personal favorite "She thought she had agreed to take pay only for the post-shutdown period of July", so you're a legislator but you don't know what you're signing or you're not clever enough to understand legal documents despite CREATING LAWS?!
It just never ends.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']Anyway, a similar pilot program was tried in Florida in 99'. It was canceled because it didn't save money. Also just to reiterate a study of forty still trumps a non study of no one.
Since I posted the above in the wrong thread...[/QUOTE]
But but what if the fantasy study of noone "feels right" to ignorant conservatives? Shouldn't the feelings of ignorant conservatives trump everything else in the world, including stuff like the earth revolving around the sun, evolution, and global warming. I mean - I see the sun go around me in the sky, it certainly feels like the sun is going around me instead of the other way around - why isn't that good enough for you?
Since I posted the above in the wrong thread...[/QUOTE]
But but what if the fantasy study of noone "feels right" to ignorant conservatives? Shouldn't the feelings of ignorant conservatives trump everything else in the world, including stuff like the earth revolving around the sun, evolution, and global warming. I mean - I see the sun go around me in the sky, it certainly feels like the sun is going around me instead of the other way around - why isn't that good enough for you?
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
We should be getting rid of the War On Drugs, not expanding it to welfare recipients.
With all this continuing talk about how this "study" of 40 people proves money isn't being saved, has anyone bothered to look up to see how long someone is removed from receiving welfare after a positive drug test?
Additionally, has anyone considered the number of people who may have just not signed up/been tested due to knowing that they have drugs in their system?
Additionally, has anyone considered the number of people who may have just not signed up/been tested due to knowing that they have drugs in their system?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Additionally, has anyone considered the number of people who may have just not signed up/been tested due to knowing that they have drugs in their system?[/QUOTE]
ha.
haha.
hahaha.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
ha.
haha.
hahaha.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
[quote name='camoor']But but what if the fantasy study of noone "feels right" to ignorant conservatives? Shouldn't the feelings of ignorant conservatives trump everything else in the world, including stuff like the earth revolving around the sun, evolution, and global warming. I mean - I see the sun go around me in the sky, it certainly feels like the sun is going around me instead of the other way around - why isn't that good enough for you?[/QUOTE]
So if there was a study of forty people on e cigarrettes, and 38 of them said it helped them quit real cigarettes, would you accept the study as fact and nothing further? No, no you wouldn't. You jump head first into this study that you believe (somehow) proves the ideology of drug testing failed. Yet when I quote multiple studies about e cigarettes, they are bias. Even the lack of scientific evidence in the FDAs own study didn't phase you.
this may be a different situation but before all I heard was "one study isn't enough to prove anything." and here comes along a study of 40 (lol) people not even two months after the program begins, and you are already calling it a failure, without even examining the long term effects, or even more than one month of data.
So if there was a study of forty people on e cigarrettes, and 38 of them said it helped them quit real cigarettes, would you accept the study as fact and nothing further? No, no you wouldn't. You jump head first into this study that you believe (somehow) proves the ideology of drug testing failed. Yet when I quote multiple studies about e cigarettes, they are bias. Even the lack of scientific evidence in the FDAs own study didn't phase you.
this may be a different situation but before all I heard was "one study isn't enough to prove anything." and here comes along a study of 40 (lol) people not even two months after the program begins, and you are already calling it a failure, without even examining the long term effects, or even more than one month of data.
[quote name='camoor']But but what if the fantasy study of noone "feels right" to ignorant conservatives? Shouldn't the feelings of ignorant conservatives trump everything else in the world, including stuff like the earth revolving around the sun, evolution, and global warming. I mean - I see the sun go around me in the sky, it certainly feels like the sun is going around me instead of the other way around - why isn't that good enough for you?[/QUOTE]
We had the con contingent here saying how facts are for $$$s and they just rely on common sense.
I pointed out how every position I have happens to be the common sense position and didn't get much feedback on that.
We had the con contingent here saying how facts are for $$$s and they just rely on common sense.
I pointed out how every position I have happens to be the common sense position and didn't get much feedback on that.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Good science doesn't just ignore the unknowns because they're inconvenient.[/QUOTE]
you ain't good science, friend.
you ain't good science, friend.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']So if there was a study of forty people on e cigarrettes, and 38 of them said it helped them quit real cigarettes, would you accept the study as fact and nothing further?.[/QUOTE]
Let me stop you there. If there was no other research, and the study was conducted in the same manner as the one we are discussing, I would. It would be "king of the mountain" as it were.
Let me stop you there. If there was no other research, and the study was conducted in the same manner as the one we are discussing, I would. It would be "king of the mountain" as it were.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']We had the con contingent here saying how facts are for $$$s and they just rely on common sense.
I pointed out how every position I have happens to be the common sense position and didn't get much feedback on that.[/QUOTE]
I'd feedback alot more on your posts but saying "Right on" and "I agree" all the time doesn't add much. CAG needs a like button.
I pointed out how every position I have happens to be the common sense position and didn't get much feedback on that.[/QUOTE]
I'd feedback alot more on your posts but saying "Right on" and "I agree" all the time doesn't add much. CAG needs a like button.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Good science doesn't just ignore the unknowns because they're inconvenient.[/QUOTE]
In debates I've really backed cons into corners and they just shrug and say "well that's what I believe anyway". In other words your posts are useless.
In debates I've really backed cons into corners and they just shrug and say "well that's what I believe anyway". In other words your posts are useless.
[quote name='camoor']Let me stop you there. If there was no other research, and the study was conducted in the same manner as the one we are discussing, I would. It would be "king of the mountain" as it were.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. But being empirical/scientific also requires being skeptical of science.
If there's only one study. You consider it's results for sure. But only after looking at the study and seeing if the research methods are rigorous and sound, if there are any reasons to think it may not be objective (i.e., in this example was it funded by an e-cigarrete company or done by independent researchers etc.?).
And even then you are cautious about making to much from the results as it's only a single study. For instance, there has to consistent evidence from a large body of high quality studies for new drugs to be approved etc.
Science isn't a process of doing one study and taking it's results as fact. It's about every hypothesis receiving tons of high quality research tests and not making any firm conclusions/decisions about said hypothesis until there is a lot of research finding the same thing as individual studies can be biased, or findings might only emerge in certain types of samples, sometimes findings can be statistical anomalies that aren't reproduced in replications etc.
That's not directed at you camoor, just general observations. While many of us are always saying that opinions should be based on scientific evidence when possible, that also doesn't mean just going and forming a firm opinion based on a single study. That's not how the scientific method works. It's just another way for intellectually lazy people to make bs efforts to support their opinion by linking to a single study that supports their point of view. That's pretty meaningless. Sure it's better than having no evidence, but that kind of thing should be treated cautiously and firm stances taken only when there's a large body of research with consistent findings.
Exactly. But being empirical/scientific also requires being skeptical of science.
If there's only one study. You consider it's results for sure. But only after looking at the study and seeing if the research methods are rigorous and sound, if there are any reasons to think it may not be objective (i.e., in this example was it funded by an e-cigarrete company or done by independent researchers etc.?).
And even then you are cautious about making to much from the results as it's only a single study. For instance, there has to consistent evidence from a large body of high quality studies for new drugs to be approved etc.
Science isn't a process of doing one study and taking it's results as fact. It's about every hypothesis receiving tons of high quality research tests and not making any firm conclusions/decisions about said hypothesis until there is a lot of research finding the same thing as individual studies can be biased, or findings might only emerge in certain types of samples, sometimes findings can be statistical anomalies that aren't reproduced in replications etc.
That's not directed at you camoor, just general observations. While many of us are always saying that opinions should be based on scientific evidence when possible, that also doesn't mean just going and forming a firm opinion based on a single study. That's not how the scientific method works. It's just another way for intellectually lazy people to make bs efforts to support their opinion by linking to a single study that supports their point of view. That's pretty meaningless. Sure it's better than having no evidence, but that kind of thing should be treated cautiously and firm stances taken only when there's a large body of research with consistent findings.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Exactly. But being empirical/scientific also requires being skeptical of science.
If there's only one study. You consider it's results for sure. But only after looking at the study and seeing if the research methods are rigorous and sound, if there are any reasons to think it may not be objective (i.e., in this example was it funded by an e-cigarrete company or done by independent researchers etc.?).
And even then you are cautious about making to much from the results as it's only a single study. For instance, there has to consistent evidence from a large body of high quality studies for new drugs to be approved etc.
Science isn't a process of doing one study and taking it's results as fact. It's about every hypothesis receiving tons of high quality research tests and not making any firm conclusions/decisions about said hypothesis until there is a lot of research finding the same thing as individual studies can be biased, or findings might only emerge in certain types of samples, sometimes findings can be statistical anomalies that aren't reproduced in replications etc.
That's not directed at you camoor, just general observations. While many of us are always saying that opinions should be based on scientific evidence when possible, that also doesn't mean just going and forming a firm opinion based on a single study. That's not how the scientific method works. It's just another way for intellectually lazy people to make bs efforts to support their opinion by linking to a single study that supports their point of view. That's pretty meaningless. Sure it's better than having no evidence, but that kind of thing should be treated cautiously and firm stances taken only when there's a large body of research with consistent findings.[/QUOTE]
I agree, I was just trying to keep my post short. I wanted to give Knoell the opportunity to read a full post before he got distracted by a Palin twit or shiny penny.
If there's only one study. You consider it's results for sure. But only after looking at the study and seeing if the research methods are rigorous and sound, if there are any reasons to think it may not be objective (i.e., in this example was it funded by an e-cigarrete company or done by independent researchers etc.?).
And even then you are cautious about making to much from the results as it's only a single study. For instance, there has to consistent evidence from a large body of high quality studies for new drugs to be approved etc.
Science isn't a process of doing one study and taking it's results as fact. It's about every hypothesis receiving tons of high quality research tests and not making any firm conclusions/decisions about said hypothesis until there is a lot of research finding the same thing as individual studies can be biased, or findings might only emerge in certain types of samples, sometimes findings can be statistical anomalies that aren't reproduced in replications etc.
That's not directed at you camoor, just general observations. While many of us are always saying that opinions should be based on scientific evidence when possible, that also doesn't mean just going and forming a firm opinion based on a single study. That's not how the scientific method works. It's just another way for intellectually lazy people to make bs efforts to support their opinion by linking to a single study that supports their point of view. That's pretty meaningless. Sure it's better than having no evidence, but that kind of thing should be treated cautiously and firm stances taken only when there's a large body of research with consistent findings.[/QUOTE]
I agree, I was just trying to keep my post short. I wanted to give Knoell the opportunity to read a full post before he got distracted by a Palin twit or shiny penny.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Exactly. But being empirical/scientific also requires being skeptical of science.
If there's only one study. You consider it's results for sure. But only after looking at the study and seeing if the research methods are rigorous and sound, if there are any reasons to think it may not be objective (i.e., in this example was it funded by an e-cigarrete company or done by independent researchers etc.?).
And even then you are cautious about making to much from the results as it's only a single study. For instance, there has to consistent evidence from a large body of high quality studies for new drugs to be approved etc.
Science isn't a process of doing one study and taking it's results as fact. It's about every hypothesis receiving tons of high quality research tests and not making any firm conclusions/decisions about said hypothesis until there is a lot of research finding the same thing as individual studies can be biased, or findings might only emerge in certain types of samples, sometimes findings can be statistical anomalies that aren't reproduced in replications etc.
That's not directed at you camoor, just general observations. While many of us are always saying that opinions should be based on scientific evidence when possible, that also doesn't mean just going and forming a firm opinion based on a single study. That's not how the scientific method works. It's just another way for intellectually lazy people to make bs efforts to support their opinion by linking to a single study that supports their point of view. That's pretty meaningless. Sure it's better than having no evidence, but that kind of thing should be treated cautiously and firm stances taken only when there's a large body of research with consistent findings.[/QUOTE]
I agree with your post whole heartedly. Now stepping away from your opinion of drug testing, do results after only one month from purely statistical data really present enough evidence to condemn the program?
Since we left our opinions of drug testing at the door, I do not see how this study presents anything but a shallow interpretation of one month of data and number crunching that shows nothing of long term cost, effect, etc...
If there's only one study. You consider it's results for sure. But only after looking at the study and seeing if the research methods are rigorous and sound, if there are any reasons to think it may not be objective (i.e., in this example was it funded by an e-cigarrete company or done by independent researchers etc.?).
And even then you are cautious about making to much from the results as it's only a single study. For instance, there has to consistent evidence from a large body of high quality studies for new drugs to be approved etc.
Science isn't a process of doing one study and taking it's results as fact. It's about every hypothesis receiving tons of high quality research tests and not making any firm conclusions/decisions about said hypothesis until there is a lot of research finding the same thing as individual studies can be biased, or findings might only emerge in certain types of samples, sometimes findings can be statistical anomalies that aren't reproduced in replications etc.
That's not directed at you camoor, just general observations. While many of us are always saying that opinions should be based on scientific evidence when possible, that also doesn't mean just going and forming a firm opinion based on a single study. That's not how the scientific method works. It's just another way for intellectually lazy people to make bs efforts to support their opinion by linking to a single study that supports their point of view. That's pretty meaningless. Sure it's better than having no evidence, but that kind of thing should be treated cautiously and firm stances taken only when there's a large body of research with consistent findings.[/QUOTE]
I agree with your post whole heartedly. Now stepping away from your opinion of drug testing, do results after only one month from purely statistical data really present enough evidence to condemn the program?
Since we left our opinions of drug testing at the door, I do not see how this study presents anything but a shallow interpretation of one month of data and number crunching that shows nothing of long term cost, effect, etc...
Very true.
For something like drug testing welfare recipients you can't really do things like randomized experimenter, or wait for a ton of research up front etc. as it's something that directly effects people's livelihoods.
So best you can do is pilot programs in some places, and if it seems to have positive benefits, expand it to more places and study it more rigorously and go from there.
So in terms of empirical evidence, I'd say we really don't know enough about the impacts of drug testing to really shape opinions on that way. I don't think we know whether it saves tax payer money or costs more money, what impact it would have on rates of acquisitive crimes like theft/robbery etc.
So I personally don't have a strong opinion on the matter. Just a personal inkling that it probably wouldn't be a good idea. But my mind could be changed if it was piloted and then expanded if it was shown that it saved money with minimal negative social consequences.
The problem is that far too many people--on both sides of the aisle--get rigid opinions based on personal inklings and belief and are not open to changing their minds if empirical evidence comes out that goes against their views.
For something like drug testing welfare recipients you can't really do things like randomized experimenter, or wait for a ton of research up front etc. as it's something that directly effects people's livelihoods.
So best you can do is pilot programs in some places, and if it seems to have positive benefits, expand it to more places and study it more rigorously and go from there.
So in terms of empirical evidence, I'd say we really don't know enough about the impacts of drug testing to really shape opinions on that way. I don't think we know whether it saves tax payer money or costs more money, what impact it would have on rates of acquisitive crimes like theft/robbery etc.
So I personally don't have a strong opinion on the matter. Just a personal inkling that it probably wouldn't be a good idea. But my mind could be changed if it was piloted and then expanded if it was shown that it saved money with minimal negative social consequences.
The problem is that far too many people--on both sides of the aisle--get rigid opinions based on personal inklings and belief and are not open to changing their minds if empirical evidence comes out that goes against their views.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']The problem is that far too many people--on both sides of the aisle--get rigid opinions based on personal inklings and belief and are not open to changing their minds if empirical evidence comes out that goes against their views.[/QUOTE]
I hear this "both sides of the aisle" stuff way too much. Yes there are a few died-in-the-wool lefties. But come on, when it comes to science and reason the conservatives are the ones with the wooden ears.
I hear this "both sides of the aisle" stuff way too much. Yes there are a few died-in-the-wool lefties. But come on, when it comes to science and reason the conservatives are the ones with the wooden ears.
bread's done