Exusiai's comment history

Exusiai said...

There is a difference between the 90 year old lady on Social Security and a person applying for Food stamps and government cheese (I really miss Government cheese that stuff was awesome).

The Food Stamp / Welfare program is funded by tax payer dollars. Social Security is something you pay into and get back when you retire in payments.

If I were an employer I'd require drug testing. And in theory I as a taxpayer am employing those on welfare to sit on their rear end and do nothing. I Want them drug tested.

I've known people who got food stamps and sold them so they could have drug money. How does that feed their children?

Sorry no this law needs to be implemented nationwide.

May 9, 2012 at 3:52 p.m.
Exusiai said...

To those of you quoting the Bill of Rights you may want to actually look at the wording there

Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Persons, Houses, Papers and effects. this does not cover Government buildings.

JustOneWoman said... "You have a choice whether you work for company A, company B, or not at all. What choice do these people have? "

They have a choice to apply for welfare and take a drug test OR to get a job OR to move in with family or friends OR to go to a community kitchen... I could go on with the list, but as you can see they have several options as I just listed four.

And while I'm on the subject, How is it illegal to grow your own food? Where on God's green earth did you get that crack head conspiracy theory statement?

What is every farmer in America breaking the law?

If you as a private citizen walk into a building and apply for Government Assistance, and it is a requirement to pass a drug test to get said assistance, then it is not a violation of your rights to ask you to pee in a cup. Since you knew walking in the door what would be required, by signing the paper you are agreeing to submit to that test.

Anyone that thinks this policy is in violation of the 2nd amendment needs to actually take and study a civics course, or in some cases retake it.

Let me tell you why. It does not affect the subject's "Persons, houses, papers, or effects" it is collecting and testing a sample of their waste, and Waste is in effect public domain. It is theoretically possible for them to just sit in the sewer outside your house and collect the sample, and its legal.

It is not an unreasonable search or seizure. It is perfectly reasonable to ask an applicant to submit to a drug test. If it was illegal my employer and thousands of employers across the country would be in violation of this law. Most people today expect to be drug tested when applying for a job, and if it is an expectation it is not unreasonable.

There is no warrant involved.

So in closing, arguments that it is in violation of the 2nd amendment is an invalid argument.

Thank you for shopping though, Have a nice day.

May 9, 2012 at 3:15 p.m.
Exusiai said...

Having read HB 368, what may I ask is wrong with it?

April 25, 2012 at 3:31 p.m.
Exusiai said...

I'm sorry, you can not blame the President, who is one man, for the mistakes of several administrations before him, and the entire government now.

April 19, 2012 at 2:59 p.m.
Exusiai said...

Oh man, I just wasted a post like a Week back on this.!

April 11, 2012 at 11:55 a.m.
Exusiai said...

You didn't mention "Biology and Evolution" you said

"These arguments DO demonstrate your ignorance of the science, and I hope you ARE willing to learn."

"And there you would be wrong about what science is"

"You clearly have no idea what science is, Exusiai."

However now that you have mentioned a specific branch of science. It's simple. The Syllogism Method of Logic states if Statement A is true, and Statement B is True, then Statement C must also be true.

Statement A: Evolution is a Scientific Theory Statement B: Scientific Theories Can be proven flawed. Statement C (Conclusion): Evolution is Flawed.

You can throw all the "Theory" at me you want, it will not change my belief that I did not evolve from a monkey. Again, this doesn't make me ignorant, it doesn't make me stupid. It makes me a believer in something higher than myself.

April 11, 2012 at 11:52 a.m.
Exusiai said...

For the record I am not "Ignorant" of Science, it was in fact one of my favorite subjects, particularly physics and theoretical physics.

You have yet to address one of my earlier points. So I'll repeat it.

Newton's First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force. This we know is a "Scientific Fact"

There is no friction in space. This we also know is a "scientific" fact

The Big Crunch is one theory in which the metric expansion of space eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately ending as a black hole singularity.

The Big Crunch is a scientific theory that contradicts the First Law of Motion.

Per the first law of motion, an object moving in space would move forever, unless acted upon by an outside force. Therefore it could not possibly stop expanding unless you acknowledge the existence of an outside force. Since the first law of motion says the only thing that could stop the expansion of the universe is an Outside force.

Now I know what your going to say. "It's the density of the universe itself that is causing it to collapse" Well then that would invalidate the First Law of motion, since that is an Internal, not an external force. And if one LAW of physics is bendable and or invalid, that brings into question all of the laws of physics.

April 10, 2012 at 3:16 p.m.
Exusiai said...

Once again you resort to calling me ignorant because I do not share your beliefs.

If you are incapable of holding an intelligent discussion, without resorting to insults. This concludes our conversation.

April 10, 2012 at 11:45 a.m.
Exusiai said...

Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

The Theory of Evolution is just that a theory. And there are gaps and flaws with it as follows:

There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind. [Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988. p. 19]

Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures. [Pg 19-20]

Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" [Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991. p.50]

It does have weaknesses, even Darwin himself said so. So as you can see there is evidence to disprove the theory. I choose to believe in divine creation. It's my choice. It doesn't make me ignorant. It doesn't make me uneducated. It doesn't make me unwilling to learn.

It means I choose to believe that live comes from some higher power than a fish flopping up out of the ocean and learning to walk.

April 9, 2012 at 4:36 p.m.
Exusiai said...

Mainly because inflection does not travel through the written word. However I do appreciate you calling me ignorant, simply because I don't agree with your viewpoint. I love how "intelligent" people resort to name calling or bashing of others when their views are challenged.

Here is my Overall point is this:

The majority of people who claim that Christianity is hokum, are the same number of people who accept Science based only on a book they read. Meaning that they accept, by faith alone, that the written text they read is in deed fact.

Personally I do believe in science. The Laws of Physics are one of those things you can't deny. However as a Christian, I also believe that those Laws were set into place by someone higher than us. Because lets face it, there is no way that all of this universe, live in all it's various forms, could have "evolved" without some form of outside influence.

The Laws of Physics state that. An object at rest, tends to stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force.

What outside force caused the big bang? the universe is expanding, but in space an object stays in motion forever, and yet the expansion of the universe is slowing down, this in and of itself defies the laws of physics. Meaning some outside force has had to act upon the expanding universe to slow down its expansion.

I can look at science, and see that there has to be a higher power. Something (and I choose to believe God) put everything into motion.

So I accept by faith that the Bible is, while edited and written by man, based on a overall truth that There is a God, he made us, and he Loved us enough to sacrifice his son for us.

Just as all the science is the same. Anyone who reads a science book accepts the content as fact by faith.

And if Faith is the basis of a religion, then that makes Science a Religion.

April 6, 2012 at 12:29 p.m.

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.