Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Go Vols

(5,902 posts)

31. +1

Reply to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #11)

Thu Jul 26, 2012, 08:25 PM

Jul 2012

Voted down drug testing many times in my local union before retiring.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I am opposed to DHS (TSA, mostly). How can I be in favor of gun control? [View all] Stinky The Clown Jul 2012 OP

At least you're honest about the hypocrisy. - nt badtoworse Jul 2012 #1

I look at that this way. I can only carry so many rounds of 3 oz. bottles snappyturtle Jul 2012 #2

yeah, but it's an absurd restriction... it does notng to actually stop determined terrorists. OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #32

That's just hypocrisy, nothing more. And I understand it. Bluenorthwest Jul 2012 #3

Do you or did you have to piss in a jar to get or keep a job? Fumesucker Jul 2012 #4

That is something you want to encourage and perpetuate? TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #6

There doesn't seem to be any social movement against workplace drug testing.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #7

And that's a damn shame. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #11

+1 Go Vols Jul 2012 #31

I'm pretty fiercely against either invasion but the urine being substituted, diluted, or artificial TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #20

So what? HuckleB Jul 2012 #15

From the OP.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #17

Context. HuckleB Jul 2012 #28

My reply was to the OP, not you.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #29

I'm all for airport security frazzled Jul 2012 #5

That's because you travel and don't own (or want to own) guns. Edweird Jul 2012 #8

What's different is the level of actual public safety concern. HuckleB Jul 2012 #14

>Implying DHS/TSA is anything more than police state theatrics. Edweird Jul 2012 #18

So you can't answer. HuckleB Jul 2012 #27

The TSA has no reason. Gun control does - there are reasonable limits. HopeHoops Jul 2012 #9

I concur. Surprised? Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #12

I still think restrictions on clip sizes would go a long way. Nobody needs 100 rounds. HopeHoops Jul 2012 #16

I don't honestly think it would make much difference. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #21

IMO, the higher the limit the more support you will get. aikoaiko Jul 2012 #37

It is a similar them not me attitude that "small government" types have TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #10

There is nothing inherently at odds here. HuckleB Jul 2012 #13

No, he is at fundamental odds. He'd authorize house to house searches of the general population TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #22

Thanks for posting a whole lot of nothing. HuckleB Jul 2012 #24

Please elaborate. I'm not aware of any logical fallacies presented in the post. TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #30

Seems there was a underwear bomber and a shoe bomber. Remmah2 Jul 2012 #19

Who cares? HuckleB Jul 2012 #25

Cognitive Dissonance Lasher Jul 2012 #23

There's no dissonance. HuckleB Jul 2012 #26

Well, you can either choose to live with the hypocricy, or not. OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #33

Me and the TSA Jeff In Milwaukee Jul 2012 #34

You drive a car. You want the other people on the road to know what they are doing. IdaBriggs Jul 2012 #35

Generally it's easier to agree to strip others of their rights 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #36