- posted
11 years ago
Yippy, its started !!!
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
I'm good with it.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
I'd let the smoker pay for a rider on the policy rather than a ban. Still, all these freakin' cigarette breaks are a waste of time on the job.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
I see the purpose, but what is next? too fat, too thin, unhealthy eating, above the recommended max alcohol consumption,not enough exercise, too much exercise, dangerous hobbys, family with heart problems etc.
-Lasse
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Smokes don't *usually* kill people until they're well past working age. there are a lot of unfortunate cases where this isn't true. But aren't smokers like paying three-four bucks a pack in extra taxes anyway? That should about cover it...
Probably not. You should be taking breaks anyway.
-- Les Cargill
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
You must be a smoker.
Smokers are the only ones that bring up that argument.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
...
job.
You must be a Liberal idiot; you completely failed to meet the argument.
Do you drink alcohol or sodas, do you eat fatty foods, etc.? Those are "extra" risky activities that could easily bar *you* from a job.
Oh, wait; do you *have* a job?
Mark L. Fergerson
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
..
ob.
Many years ago, the UK Guardian newspaper published an article that purported to demonstrate that smokers saved the UK government money, because they died shortly after they retired, thus collecting relatively little from the old age pension system, and they died of diseases that weren't expensive to treat, reducing the expenditure of the UK National Health system. They also paid a lot of tax on the cigarettes they bought.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
n_...
e job.
Quite a few people can drink alcohol in moderation, eat fatty foods and drink soda without putting on weight or otherwise damaging their health - getting enough exercise helps.
Smoking is more dangerous, and - because smokers stink of tobacco - rather easier to detect.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Yes, No, Yes, Yes
Most face-to-face interviews use weight as a indicator for fitness for the job. Weight discrimination could be as common as racial bias.
And I take it your a smoker also.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Next, "those people" that eat at McDonalds. But what we really need are genetic tests to find out who will cost more and get them out of the work force first. Then scan all medical records and if you have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes or any heart condition. Don't hire them! How about droopy eyelids? Hairy Ears? Or is this going to far? Maybe!
Now if you would start with those that can't support themselves in America, I might get on board.
I don't know about others but I'm growing weary of of all this political stuff.
Maybe an election can rejuvenate me!
Remember, Republicans vote on Tuesday and Democrats on Wednesday.
And something to think about, if you don't have it together enough to get an ID, maybe you shouldn't vote.
Mikek
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Where in the constitution does it say you need an ID to vote ?
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Is it not stated that you must be a citizen of the US to vote? If so, how do you tell if a person is a citizen? If not, then anyone in the world can vote in our elections.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
OK, how much of a problem is voter fraud ?
The county will send you a letter that says you can vote in their precinct.
So you need to get the county to send you a letter AND you need to prove to a volunteer at the polling station again ?
Or
You just want to dis-enfranchise enough voters to get your side to win ?
What side would that be ?
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
OWS can vote when they finally get jobs, and Libertarians when their drugs wear off.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Where does it say you don't?
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
It says, in the Constitution, that the STATES determine the requirements for voters, NOT the Feds. But the DICTATOR has chosen to ignore whatever laws he wishes, and Congress has not the balls to do anything about it. ...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
Only an idiot leftist would believe that. But, of course, you *are* an idiot lefty.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
^ C
Where in the Constitution does if give anyone the right to vote for President? Idiot.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Huge. Well I suppose it's not a problem for lefties. You're the perps.
Huh? You're brain-dead.
What? YOu show up with your DL, or other state-issued ID.
We all know you're on the side of the idiot lefties.