LOL.... this tranny got angry.... actually im leaving turd... goodluck finding babes on the pc... or boys in your case! Farewell knucklehead
Kinda tough being called out for leading the Pissing Parade, eh?
Looking forward to a coming decade that is even better than the first five I've enjoyed here in the USA. I'll leave you and yours to organize the Anti-America marches and websites.
Remember that America will still be here when you're ready to stop moaning and want to join the surge.
Looking forward to a coming decade that is even better than the first five I've enjoyed here in the USA. I'll leave you and yours to organize the Anti-America marches and websites.
Remember that America will still be here when you're ready to stop moaning and want to join the surge.
Degradation?...I don't use it cause I can't & I save money & hassle... I used to smoke a little bit of weed back in the 70s & early 80s so Im not Mr perfect... I don't feel degraded at all...Nobody watches unless they have a hidden camera I don't know about & Im famous on some voyeurism website without knowing about it... Doesnt bother me at all as long as they pay for it.
Different people have different standards of self respect.
Most folks I know would not unzip and urinate on command. It has nothing to do with whether someone is watching. Rather, it has to do with the fact that we consider our bodily fluids private and you can't have any of them just because you're cutting me a paycheck. There's far too many employers who won't waste such time insulting their employees for us to have to whip it out any time the BossMan says, "Unzip and whiz"
But it appears some folks will do so, which remains an endless source of fascination since most of them who pee into cups aren't even users of the drugs being sought.
A smart employer would likely save his budget for only urine testing people who have exhibited behavior indicating they are possibly under the influence of psychoactive drugs. A less smart employer makes the non drug-users pee into cups too. Funny stuff.
Most folks I know would not unzip and urinate on command. It has nothing to do with whether someone is watching. Rather, it has to do with the fact that we consider our bodily fluids private and you can't have any of them just because you're cutting me a paycheck. There's far too many employers who won't waste such time insulting their employees for us to have to whip it out any time the BossMan says, "Unzip and whiz"
But it appears some folks will do so, which remains an endless source of fascination since most of them who pee into cups aren't even users of the drugs being sought.
A smart employer would likely save his budget for only urine testing people who have exhibited behavior indicating they are possibly under the influence of psychoactive drugs. A less smart employer makes the non drug-users pee into cups too. Funny stuff.
An employer who respects their staff would simply ask you, "Do you use illicit drugs while on the job?"
And you would honestly reply, "No I do not"
And they would then say, "Good deal. Thanks for complying with our company policies"
To ask for urine is to tell you, "Thanks, but we believe you are a liar. You must prove your honesty via a urine sample. Unzip now"
Economic times are tough, so maybe if you really, really need the paycheck, such a slap in the face is acceptable for the short term.
BOL on your being able to find an employer who treats you with more respect.
And you would honestly reply, "No I do not"
And they would then say, "Good deal. Thanks for complying with our company policies"
To ask for urine is to tell you, "Thanks, but we believe you are a liar. You must prove your honesty via a urine sample. Unzip now"
Economic times are tough, so maybe if you really, really need the paycheck, such a slap in the face is acceptable for the short term.
BOL on your being able to find an employer who treats you with more respect.
Its a Lottery random test after pre employment,In my job you get in an accident where either Vehicle has to be towed you go get tested also..I like my job more than any drug they can have my piss I was going to get rid of it anyway...I take it youve never been an employer...If you were a employer would you want some crackhead ripping you off? Or some guy comes in from lunch & has an accident & somebody gets hurt whose going to get sued?...Mereley a way for an employer to protect himself... Pay me $50 now for a drug test or pay me thousands later which would you choose?...The employers are being forced into it to cut losses & non productivity.... If new hires dont want to pee in a cup then hit the road jack.
RR pleads: Its a Lottery random test after pre employment
SH: Yep. And you agreed to allow them to unzip your fly any time they wish. Don't apologize. Many people do the darndest things in order to get a paycheck.
RR: They can have my piss
SH: I know, that's my point. I suppose you might let them do all manner of indignancies against you if you're desperate enough for $$
RR:..I take it youve never been an employer
SH: I've been an employer for the past 24 years
RR: ...If you were a employer would you want some crackhead ripping you off? Or some guy comes in from lunch & has an accident & somebody gets hurt whose going to get sued?...
SH: Of course not. But my forcing my workers to show me their urine doesn't reduce chances of employee theft. That's overcome by hiring honest workers.
RR: The employers are being forced into it to cut losses & non productivity
SH: Yet companies which demand urine inspection don't have any higher productivity. Quite the opposite which is why the majority of American companies don't ask for urine without reasonable cause (workplace accidents etc)
The number one reason for workplace accidents is fatigue. Number two is alcohol impairment. Neither are addressed by inspecting employee urine for illegal drug metabolites.
We again wish you the best towards obtaining a profitable employment which does not degrade you by demanding samples of your bodily fluids.
SH: Yep. And you agreed to allow them to unzip your fly any time they wish. Don't apologize. Many people do the darndest things in order to get a paycheck.
RR: They can have my piss
SH: I know, that's my point. I suppose you might let them do all manner of indignancies against you if you're desperate enough for $$
RR:..I take it youve never been an employer
SH: I've been an employer for the past 24 years
RR: ...If you were a employer would you want some crackhead ripping you off? Or some guy comes in from lunch & has an accident & somebody gets hurt whose going to get sued?...
SH: Of course not. But my forcing my workers to show me their urine doesn't reduce chances of employee theft. That's overcome by hiring honest workers.
RR: The employers are being forced into it to cut losses & non productivity
SH: Yet companies which demand urine inspection don't have any higher productivity. Quite the opposite which is why the majority of American companies don't ask for urine without reasonable cause (workplace accidents etc)
The number one reason for workplace accidents is fatigue. Number two is alcohol impairment. Neither are addressed by inspecting employee urine for illegal drug metabolites.
We again wish you the best towards obtaining a profitable employment which does not degrade you by demanding samples of your bodily fluids.
3 states to consider affirmative action ban
By CHRIS KAHN
Associated Press
August 7, 2008
PHOENIX (AP) -- With one brief criticism of affirmative action, John McCain has brought new attention to ballot issues aimed at dismantling preferential treatment programs for women and minorities.
The question is whether McCain's support for one of those initiatives, in Arizona, will make any difference.
Ward Connerly, the former University of California regent who is bankrolling the Arizona initiative and similar measures in Nebraska and Colorado, said he hasn't seen any increase in donations or GOP supporters flocking to his cause since McCain spoke up last month.
"We're of course delighted to have the senator's support," Connerly said. "As to whether it translates to any positive or negative effect on us, I don't think so."
McCain's comments also have drawn critics who pointed to comments he made a decade ago calling similar measures "divisive."
The ballot initiatives in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska call for amending the state constitutions to ban any hiring practices, university scholarships and other public programs that favor one group over others. Arizona and Nebraska officials are still verifying petition signatures while Colorado has the initiative slated for the November ballot.
Connerly's group, the American Civil Rights Initiative, already has been successful with similar initiatives in California, Washington and Michigan. And he plans to continue four years from now in other states.
Ultimately, Connerly said, "the goal is to try to get either the Supreme Court or the Congress to get the policy changed at the national level."
Connerly said his ballot initiatives would attack programs like the Minority and Women-owned Business Enterprise Program in Tucson. It allows minority and women-owned businesses to bid more for city contracts than other groups and requires prime contractors to make a serious effort to hire them for work.
"Those clearly would be outlawed," Connerly said of the Tucson program. "Any standards that are applied to groups based on race. Any jobs where there are different standards for admissions."
Tucson officials said they crafted the program in response to a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down quotas for minority-owned construction companies. Because Tucson has only a small percentage of minority and women-owned businesses, "you have to adopt narrowly tailored measures to help you overcome that disparity," said Mark Neihart, who directs Tucson's procurement department.
McCain weighed in on Connerly's efforts in late July, saying on ABC's "This Week" that he endorsed the Arizona initiative -- although he added that he had not read the details of the proposal.
Critics accused him of another "flip flop," pointing to a 1998 conversation about similar measures in which he told a Hispanic business group: "Rather than engage in divisive ballot initiatives, we must have a dialogue and cooperation and mutual efforts together to provide for every child in America to fulfill their expectations."
His campaign officials did not immediately respond to calls seeking comment Wednesday.
>> Continued -- Page 1 2 http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/august/0807_aa_ban1.shtml
By CHRIS KAHN
Associated Press
August 7, 2008
PHOENIX (AP) -- With one brief criticism of affirmative action, John McCain has brought new attention to ballot issues aimed at dismantling preferential treatment programs for women and minorities.
The question is whether McCain's support for one of those initiatives, in Arizona, will make any difference.
Ward Connerly, the former University of California regent who is bankrolling the Arizona initiative and similar measures in Nebraska and Colorado, said he hasn't seen any increase in donations or GOP supporters flocking to his cause since McCain spoke up last month.
"We're of course delighted to have the senator's support," Connerly said. "As to whether it translates to any positive or negative effect on us, I don't think so."
McCain's comments also have drawn critics who pointed to comments he made a decade ago calling similar measures "divisive."
The ballot initiatives in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska call for amending the state constitutions to ban any hiring practices, university scholarships and other public programs that favor one group over others. Arizona and Nebraska officials are still verifying petition signatures while Colorado has the initiative slated for the November ballot.
Connerly's group, the American Civil Rights Initiative, already has been successful with similar initiatives in California, Washington and Michigan. And he plans to continue four years from now in other states.
Ultimately, Connerly said, "the goal is to try to get either the Supreme Court or the Congress to get the policy changed at the national level."
Connerly said his ballot initiatives would attack programs like the Minority and Women-owned Business Enterprise Program in Tucson. It allows minority and women-owned businesses to bid more for city contracts than other groups and requires prime contractors to make a serious effort to hire them for work.
"Those clearly would be outlawed," Connerly said of the Tucson program. "Any standards that are applied to groups based on race. Any jobs where there are different standards for admissions."
Tucson officials said they crafted the program in response to a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down quotas for minority-owned construction companies. Because Tucson has only a small percentage of minority and women-owned businesses, "you have to adopt narrowly tailored measures to help you overcome that disparity," said Mark Neihart, who directs Tucson's procurement department.
McCain weighed in on Connerly's efforts in late July, saying on ABC's "This Week" that he endorsed the Arizona initiative -- although he added that he had not read the details of the proposal.
Critics accused him of another "flip flop," pointing to a 1998 conversation about similar measures in which he told a Hispanic business group: "Rather than engage in divisive ballot initiatives, we must have a dialogue and cooperation and mutual efforts together to provide for every child in America to fulfill their expectations."
His campaign officials did not immediately respond to calls seeking comment Wednesday.
>> Continued -- Page 1 2 http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/august/0807_aa_ban1.shtml
