Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Georgia lawmaker who supported drug testing for welfare gets second DUI

Georgia state House Rep. Chuck Sims (R-Amrbose) was arrested last week and charged with Driving Under the Influence, his second such arrest in the last three years. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Monday that Sims was arrested and taken into custody shortly before midnight on April 2.

An officer in Coffee County reportedly observed a motorist driving erratically who then accelerated, plowing their vehicle into into the highway shoulder. Sims was arrested and booked into the Coffee County Jail in Douglas, Georgia, then released on $1,487 bond.

In a statement, Sims said, “Just as I do not intend to seek any special treatment, I hope that I am not unfairly pre-judged based on rumor and speculation. I am confident that as facts of this situation are revealed, the interests of justice will be served.”

Sims was arrested for DUI in 2010 by Atlanta police. He is among the state lawmakers who voted in favor of House Bill 861, which mandated drug testing for all Georgians seeking public assistance funding.

by Anonymousreply 15908/24/2014

[quote[I hope that I am not unfairly pre-judged based on rumor and speculation.

You were arrested and jailed. No speculation or rumor there.

by Anonymousreply 104/10/2013

Don't worry R2. It pretty much doesn't happen anyway.

[quote]From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. ...As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780...

Its actually cheaper NOT to test for drugs.

by Anonymousreply 304/10/2013

R2, it certainly makes a difference when they're in a CAR, like this vermin politician.

Just ask the brother-sister duo I went to school with and their father who were all killed by a piece of shit with multiple DUIs.

Oh wait, you can't because they're dead.

by Anonymousreply 404/10/2013

[quote]I don't care if someone does take drugs or gets drunk, but I don't want my money paying for it.

Testing welfare recipients for drugs presumes guilt, which is unconstitutional. It's another way of shaming and blaming the poor. And, according to the figures cited by R3, 98% of the people tested passed the test, which might actually be a better percentage than the population as a whole.

by Anonymousreply 604/10/2013

R2, he is a state politician, so chances are you ARE paying for it you fucking nimrod.

by Anonymousreply 704/10/2013

It's funny that all of the Don't Tread on Me types LOOOOOOVE the idea of the government just randomly testing the citizens' pee. As long as it's a bunch of poors. Some animals are more equal than others, am I right?

by Anonymousreply 804/10/2013

That's generous of you, R2. Are you a Republican?

by Anonymousreply 904/10/2013

Florida's ignorant Gov. tried testing all welfare recipients. It was a huge bust and it was costing the taxpayers an arm and a leg. Republicans? There is no excuse for them.

by Anonymousreply 1004/10/2013

R10 And you know what the best part is? The company that was awarded the contract for doing the tests is owned by....ready for it? Governor Scott's wife. He "sold" it to her for $1 after getting elected.

Republicans LOVE being played the chump.

by Anonymousreply 1204/10/2013

R11 You are freaking out over a nonexistent problem. Then again, you are probably one of those chumps who believed Sadam had WMD.

[quote]Welfare recipients get money for doing nothing.

Wrong. Many people who work also collect welfare because they dont earn enough to support their family.

Please keep digging the hole you got going there. We are finding it all very amusing someone would so publicly display their ignorance.

by Anonymousreply 1304/10/2013

R11 needs to be tested for mental competency!

by Anonymousreply 1404/10/2013

Vacate the board please, R2.

by Anonymousreply 1604/10/2013

R15 Translated: Fuck, these people keep using facts to make me look foolish! Its so unfair and people are so mean. No body likes me and wont let me pull phoney facts out of my ass. My life sucks.

by Anonymousreply 1804/10/2013

And even if they're not working, R13, they are required to attend workshops and classes on job searching and other job-related issues, as well as training classes regularly in order to collect welfare benefits. They are also required to constantly apply for employment and show proof of having done so.

So no, it's NOT a free ride. If you think people are lounging around eating bon bons while collecting their small stipends every month, then you are truly ignorant.

by Anonymousreply 1904/10/2013

Careful what you wish for freepers, because it's a slippery slope....first 'those welfare people', next, 'those old people', next, 'those college kids', next, 'those middle class leeches making under 175,000' , next ?

by Anonymousreply 2004/10/2013

We should test politicians to make sure they don't drink!

by Anonymousreply 2204/10/2013

R19 Please re-read my post at R13. I'm sure its an innocent mistake on your part. Right?

by Anonymousreply 2304/10/2013

R22 - or at least put breathalyzers in their cars.

by Anonymousreply 2404/10/2013

[quote] Its actually cheaper NOT to test for drugs.

This is what the FOX news crowd needs to know! It's very easy to demonize "social programs" and the Democrats who support them but how do you police these programs without incurring a great cost? And is that cost worth it? In order to make sure people who are truly in need are helped sometimes, bums who abuse the system are going to rip off the public. At what cost are we willing to police these people?

by Anonymousreply 2604/10/2013

"There's nothing wrong with working people having a drink or two."

If he was busted for a DUI then I bet he had more than a drink or two...

by Anonymousreply 2704/10/2013

[quote]I haven't stated any facts on this thread. Just my opinion.

At R11 you said the following:

[quote]Welfare recipients get money for doing nothing.

You did not state that as an opinion. You stated that as a fact. A "fact" which has since been proven wrong.

Keep digging, troll keep digging. Just a little deeper and you will soon meet your heroes Ronnie and Maggie.

by Anonymousreply 2804/10/2013

I said:

[quote]Welfare recipients get money for doing nothing.

I would consider this getting money for doing nothing, R28:

[quote]Wrong. Many people who work also collect welfare because they dont earn enough to support their family.

I'm a liberal.

by Anonymousreply 2904/10/2013

[quote] I'm sure its an innocent mistake on your part. Right?

No R13. I wasn't taking you to task, merely expounding upong what you had already said.

by Anonymousreply 3004/10/2013

R29 You're hopeless. You are spinning so fast you are in danger of creating your own gravitational field ten times as strong as the sun's.

by Anonymousreply 3104/10/2013

R29 - if they do not make enough to support their family, but they can afford to buy alcohol, nicotine or drugs, they are scamming the system. No rational person would expect public money to pay for an addiction.

by Anonymousreply 3204/10/2013

[quote] I don't know what's wrong with welfare recipients being drug tested.

Whether it's right or wrong, what are you prepared to do with the results of the test? Deny them further assistance? What if they have kids they are supposed to be taking care of? Who will take care of them? I am R26 and this is the point I was trying to make. It's an extremely complicated situation that will cost money either way, unless you are willing to just administer the death penalty immediately to anyone who has a positive drug test.

by Anonymousreply 3504/10/2013

R33 Are you really this stupid?? Seriously? It has already been shown to you that it cost MORE money to test them than it does to NOT test them. That's what's wrong. Its a waste of money. You are so uptight about a handful of people collecting what amounts to chump change, yet are totally okay with a bunch of rich, corrupt politicians fleecing the public for tens of thousands of dollars. In fact, you want to give the gritter politicians even more money!

If you dont see the idiocy in this then you are beyond hope.

by Anonymousreply 3604/10/2013

R35. Yes I would deny them assistance. There are plenty of other people who need it

by Anonymousreply 3704/10/2013

R37 is a typical republican shitstain.

by Anonymousreply 3804/10/2013

[quote] There are plenty of other people who need it

Yes. Like Exxon. And BP. And GE. And Creationist Theme Park developers.

by Anonymousreply 4004/10/2013

R39 Then you are retarded. No question. A program that has done nothing but line the pockets of greedy crooks who are already millionaires. And you support it. You love it!

If you think its such a good idea, are you willing to reimburse Florida tax payers the $50K they were scammed out of?

by Anonymousreply 4104/10/2013

You are ignorant and ridiculous, R39. In the first place, there have been studies done on Welfare recipients...every study done, shows that these people actually need help and most often they are children. And what if those children have alcoholic parents? Should they be allowed to starve because they have bad parents? The society I want to live in, makes sure the children are cared for. You R39, are a low life Scrooge, who wants your tax money to go to the already obscenely wealthy. I'd like to say, fuck you.

by Anonymousreply 4204/10/2013

No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

MIAMI — Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.

And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases.

“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload,” the document said.

by Anonymousreply 4304/10/2013

Gov. Rick Scott's drug testing policy stirs suspicion

One of the more popular services at Solantic, the urgent care chain co-founded by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, is drug testing, according to Solantic CEO Karen Bowling.

Given Solantic's role in that marketplace, critics are again asking whether Scott's policy initiatives - this time, requiring drug testing of state employees and welfare recipients - are designed to benefit Scott's bottom line.

The Palm Beach Post reported in an exclusive story two weeks ago that while Scott divested his interest in Solantic in January, the controlling shares went to a trust in his wife's name.

===========

The whole thing is a scam, and people like R39 are standing there with a fistful of dollars saying, "please, take more money from me, Mr Millionaire. I love being stupid! Its money well spent."

by Anonymousreply 4404/10/2013

[quote]He does a job, integral to governing a country. Welfare recipients get money for doing nothing.

So they should starve or rob people? Because those are the alternatives. And they ARE going to commit robbery, anyone would when they get desperate enough.

YOU ARE A PIECE OF SHIT.

by Anonymousreply 4504/10/2013

So basically the biggest winners of them all in FL are Gov. Scott and his wife who made approx. $120K from the "project." Well, I guess it's only fair...

by Anonymousreply 4604/10/2013

The problem with people like R2 is that it's all about what they don't like paying for.

Guess what, sweetheart? I don't like paying for natural disasters in red states because not only are they moochers, but they've convinced themselves they're the ones keeping the entire country afloat. Because I'm so sure someone in bumfuck is keeping NYC prosperous. I don't like paying for wars I don't believe in. I don't like paying for farm subsidies or oil subsidies or the failures of corporations.

So if my choices are between paying for some wealthy asshole who believes in socializing their failures and privatizing their profits (which I'm sure this dickhead drunkard believes in doing) or some poor person on drugs who you imagine is really living it up in some rat-infested hellhole, well, I'll take the latter.

by Anonymousreply 4704/10/2013

Exactly R47, we're still not done paying for WWI, I'd like not to donate half my taxes to buying uranium tipped bullets for our latest misadventures in the middle east.

by Anonymousreply 4904/10/2013

I think R2 is just trolling at this point. If he truly wants to live in a society where people get neutered there are probably some out there he can go live in.

[quote] I disagree with people spending welfare money on drugs.

Who doesn't? But what does taking this stance solve?

by Anonymousreply 5004/10/2013

[quote]Not politicians making money for themselves on the side.

And yet, when it was pointed out this was what was happening, you said it was money well spent.

by Anonymousreply 5204/10/2013

[quote]And yet, when it was pointed out this was what was happening, you said it was money well spent.

I do think drug-testing would be money well-spent. But it should be carried out by the government, no one should be making money from it.

by Anonymousreply 5304/10/2013

R53, what do you think politicians do? They are all looking to become lobbyists or get their side businesses fat contracts. It's also none of their damn business what people put into their bodies. If ANYONE should be tested it's lawmakers. You know? Because they make laws? This guy is clearly an alcoholic.

by Anonymousreply 5504/10/2013

R53 Keep back-peddling. It is a FACT, that your response to the news that this program was a scam and a waste of money benefiting politicians, you said it was money well spent. That's what you said. Embrace it.

by Anonymousreply 5604/10/2013

[quote]If ANYONE should be tested it's lawmakers.

When Gov. Scott was asked to take a drug test, he declined.

by Anonymousreply 5704/10/2013

[quote]I do think drug-testing would be money well-spent.

Are you willing to reimburse the states that do this for the money that is lost as a result? If not, then STFU.

by Anonymousreply 5904/10/2013

When the fuck is R2 leaving?

by Anonymousreply 6004/10/2013

[quote]The society I want to live in would have certain people neutered.

Nazi Germany? You'd fit right in.

by Anonymousreply 6104/10/2013

[quote]I can see I'm not well liked here. I'll vacate the thread.

The only intelligent thing you have said, r58, etc, etc, etc, etc

by Anonymousreply 6204/10/2013

[quote]Are you willing to reimburse the states that do this for the money that is lost as a result? If not, then STFU.

Just because money is spent, doesn't mean it's a waste. It also sounds like a good preventative measure.

Should there be no police force, just because they don't make a profit, R59?

by Anonymousreply 6304/10/2013

[quote]I think drug-testing is money well-spent.

Give us a case where it was well spent. If you really think this is true, you should have no trouble finding evidence to back that up.

[quote]Although, I think someone making money from drug-testing, is wrong.

That's not what you said when you were informed that was what is happening. You were all for it. Dude, there is no way you can change what appears in black and white on this thread. You are now changing your tune in light of the facts that you chose to ignore. Sorry, but that's not how the world works.

by Anonymousreply 6404/10/2013

[quote] Just because money is spent, doesn't mean it's a waste. It also sounds like a good preventative measure

Did you miss the part about 98% of welfare recipients testing negative? Over all programs that test?

Doesn't sound like money well spent to me.

by Anonymousreply 6504/10/2013

How is it money well spent when the cost of administering the test too all welfare recipients is far higher than the money saved by cutting off benefits to the tiny percentage that actually fail drug tests?

Please explain.

by Anonymousreply 6704/10/2013

WASTE. Period.

And even worse, unconstitutional.

by Anonymousreply 6804/10/2013

R63 Twice you were asked if you are willing to reimburse the state for the money they lost in this program. Twice you have refused to answer.

A simple yes or no is all thats needed. Why are you so scared to answer?

by Anonymousreply 6904/10/2013

R2, do you also support mandatory drug tests for public officials? They also receive "your" money, and a hell of a lot more of it than some single mom in the ghetto.

by Anonymousreply 7004/10/2013

R66 please see R43

by Anonymousreply 7104/10/2013

It's the ignorant, black and white thinkers. They have no grey, they have no reason, they have no critical thinking capabilities.

MY tax dollars! HA!

by Anonymousreply 7304/10/2013

True R70, every law-maker from Obama to the local dog-catcher needs to be drug-tested on a twice-yearly basis. Those who fail go straight to jail.

by Anonymousreply 7404/10/2013

R2 still won't answer what he proposes to do with people once the drug test is failed. Just saying "drug testing welfare applicants is money well spent" is kind of an abstract concept. What does this lead to?

by Anonymousreply 7504/10/2013

[quote]Give us a case where it was well spent. If you really think this is true, you should have no trouble finding evidence to back that up.

Like I said above, I don't think it has to turn a profit to be money well-spent.

[quote]That's not what you said when you were informed that was what is happening. You were all for it. Dude, there is no way you can change what appears in black and white on this thread. You are now changing your tune in light of the facts that you chose to ignore. Sorry, but that's not how the world works.

I never said that. I think it's awful that someone's making money from drug-testing.

Perhaps, you could provide a quote.

[quote]Twice you were asked if you are willing to reimburse the state for the money they lost in this program. Twice you have refused to answer.

No.

Could someone explain to me why does it have to make money?

by Anonymousreply 7604/10/2013

Thank you, r70. Many of our elected public servants have become the biggest welfare parasites ever. Our tax dollars are being wasted much more on them than welfare.

by Anonymousreply 7704/10/2013

[quote]still won't answer what he proposes to do with people once the drug test is failed. Just saying "drug testing welfare applicants is money well spent" is kind of an abstract concept. What does this lead to?

Cutting their benefits and jail. Removing their children if their drug-use makes them unfit parents.

by Anonymousreply 7804/10/2013

So he should pay for what he did. I am disgusted by people who drink/drug and drive. That has nothing to do with the other issue, however. I'm not saying I'm for or against it but him doing something f*cked up, doesn't make the case against it.

by Anonymousreply 7904/10/2013

I feel like I've died and ended up in freeper HELL!

Obviously, this thread has been hijacked by one or two freaks!

by Anonymousreply 8004/10/2013

R75. Drug, alcohol, and nicotine test the parents. If the parents fail, they are irresponsible. Take the children, in accordance with nanny state philosophy, and place them somewhere better. If you are on public assistance you have no excuse for failing any of those three tests.

by Anonymousreply 8104/10/2013

But if they know that they're getting drug tested, isn't that an automatic deterrent? I don't think that it's a bad requirement. I want to see people who need help, get help. I also wouldn't be against a work component to welfare. If you're on welfare, then you have to do general work. Even if it's just picking up leaves or cleaning a restroom.

by Anonymousreply 8204/10/2013

R72 Please meet Helvering_v._Davis.

by Anonymousreply 8304/10/2013

[quote]Thank you, [R70]. Many of our elected public servants have become the biggest welfare parasites ever.

Agreed, drug-test all public servants.

by Anonymousreply 8404/10/2013

[quote]Drug, alcohol, and nicotine test the parents. If the parents fail, they are irresponsible. Take the children, in accordance with nanny state philosophy, and place them somewhere better. If you are on public assistance you have no excuse for failing any of those three tests.

Agreed, people on welfare shouldn't spend money on drugs.

by Anonymousreply 8504/10/2013

[quote]But if they know that they're getting drug tested, isn't that an automatic deterrent? I don't think that it's a bad requirement. I want to see people who need help, get help. I also wouldn't be against a work component to welfare. If you're on welfare, then you have to do general work. Even if it's just picking up leaves or cleaning a restroom.

Agreed.

by Anonymousreply 8604/10/2013

[quote]How is it money well spent when the cost of administering the test too all welfare recipients is far higher than the money saved by cutting off benefits to the tiny percentage that actually fail drug tests?

Still waiting for your answer. You keep saying its money well spent, but why? How is it money well spent?

If the only result of mandatory drug testing of all welfare recipients is cutting benefits to the 2% who fail the drug test, and that savings is far, far less than the money spent to administer the tests, in what possible way is that "money well spent"?

And don't use your "profit" strawman, either. Explain what benefit tax payers derive from funding an expensive program that only serves to punish an extremely tiny minority of welfare recipients.

How is it "money well spent" to spend exponentally MORE taxpayer money just to prevent a handful of poor addicts from receiving meager welfare benefits, when the sum of that savings is so much smaller than the expense of calculating it?

by Anonymousreply 8704/10/2013

So R76 You admit you have no evidence this is money well spent. Yet you defend it. Okay. Some people still defend the notion the earth is flat despite having no evidence to back that up. You're in excellent company. As far as providing you with a quote of what you yourself wrote? I dont know what is more insane, that you are so lazy you wont look yourself, or you are so stupid you cant remember what you wrote.

So, you think its money well spent, but you are not willing to pay for it yourself? Wow. How come we are not surprised.

[quote]Could someone explain to me why does it have to make money?

No one said it had to make money. But Gov Scott and the Republicans in Florida said it would save money. It didn't.

by Anonymousreply 8804/10/2013

Should an airport not have security, because it causes money and there aren't enough terrorists to justify it, R87?

by Anonymousreply 8904/10/2013

[quote] Take the children, in accordance with nanny state philosophy, and place them somewhere better.

Sounds good. So where is "better", and who pays for this? And who keeps an eye on these kids to make sure this "better" place stays "better"? And at what point do the kids get returned to the parent who failed the test? And who makes that decision? Who pays for this process?

Now maybe you see why this sounds like a good idea but in reality becomes a whole can of worms no one will want to pay for. It's easier to let those small percentage of drug takers continue getting their checks!

by Anonymousreply 9004/10/2013

I meant "costs".

by Anonymousreply 9104/10/2013

forfucksake, someone smoking pot in their trailer is just as bad as someone blowing up an airplane? Really? That's where you're going with this? Well, of course. Anything that helps you not answer a direct question.

by Anonymousreply 9204/10/2013

[quote]forfucksake, someone smoking pot in their trailer is just as bad as someone blowing up an airplane? Really?

No, but that seems to be R87's line of logic.

by Anonymousreply 9304/10/2013

R93 The only person who sees that logic is the person who refuses to answer the questions asked of them.

by Anonymousreply 9404/10/2013

What questions am I not answering?

by Anonymousreply 9504/10/2013

see R87

by Anonymousreply 9704/10/2013

It's perfectly fine for some people that money is wasted on those tests (which don't deliver any results that would justify the costs) since it humiliates (and is an inconvenvience to) those in need. These people love their 'know your place, you piece of shit' bully fix to feel better about themselves.

by Anonymousreply 9804/10/2013

R2 you're focused narrowly on the drug testing issue, but are ignoring the hypocrisy of this serial drunk driver, who is paid by the same taxpayers that fund welfare, and endanger the life and limb of others whenever he is behind the wheel. You're sidetracking the main point to take the focus off of your Republican cronies and their criminal behaviors and conflict-of-interest issues.

by Anonymousreply 9904/10/2013

[quote]What questions am I not answering?

[bold]HOW IS IT MONEY WELL SPENT?[/bold]

[quote]Could someone explain to me why it has to make money?

Because the whole point of the law was to SAVE money in the first place.

What benefit is there to the taxpayer, to spend exponentially more money to root out the 2% who are drug users, when the money spent to find that 2% is many times more than the money saved by cutting them?

How can a fiscal conservative be so clueless about simple math? Why is blowing hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars on yet another bureaucracy better than unknowingly giving a couple hundred to a tiny handful drug addicts?

by Anonymousreply 10004/10/2013

R2 is an idiot "libertarian" cunt troll, why is anyone responding to it?

by Anonymousreply 10104/10/2013

[quote]How can a fiscal conservative be so clueless about simple math?

There is simple math, and then there is the math that allows conservative politicians to scam the tax payers. Guess which one R2 prefers to use?

by Anonymousreply 10204/10/2013

[quote]HOW IS IT MONEY WELL SPENT?

Because it stops welfare recipients spending welfare on drugs.

I've stated that a million times in this thread.

Just because it costs money doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

by Anonymousreply 10304/10/2013

Exactly, scamming taxpayers with drug tests for welfare is a typical profit driven, tax stealing revenue developed by politicians and cronies to get the people worked into an outrage, blinding them to the fact it serves no purpose other than making a couple people a lot of money.

Obviously somebody here has taken the bait.

by Anonymousreply 10404/10/2013

[quote] Because it stops welfare recipients spending welfare on drugs.

I'm sure the 26 dollars a month some people get in some counties for welfare will go a long way to buy drugs.

by Anonymousreply 10504/10/2013

r2,r103. With your logic in mind I tell you it's wrong to scratch your ass. Stop it, stop it right now. I won't have that kind of trash habit on Datalounge. I so know you scratch your ass right now, you better stop that *shaking fist*.

by Anonymousreply 10604/10/2013

And yet we spend over a million dollars a year to keep that addled coke-head George W. Bush in the chips.

by Anonymousreply 10704/10/2013

[quote]Because it stops welfare recipients spending welfare on drugs.

You just love circular logic, don't you?

How is spending many times more money to prevent a tiny minority of welfare recipients from buying drugs beneficial to the tax-payer?

As a fiscal conservative, are there any other costly, money-losing government programs that you support, besides this one?

by Anonymousreply 10804/10/2013

Why are we not surprised R2 is on another thread defending Ann Coulter?

by Anonymousreply 10904/10/2013

R86. Absolutely

by Anonymousreply 11004/10/2013

R2 The fact that you dont want to spend the money for this makes every point of your argument invalid. You keep saying its money well spent, but only so long YOU are not the one spending it.

by Anonymousreply 11104/10/2013

That's the problem with conservatives. They love spending other people's money (as R2 proves!)

by Anonymousreply 11204/10/2013

R111. He, as a taxpayer, is the one spending it.

by Anonymousreply 11304/10/2013

R112. Conservatives love spending other people's money? Are you implying liberals do not?

by Anonymousreply 11404/10/2013

I am not implying anything, R114, I am telling you that conservatives are equally guilty of pending other people's money. It was a Republican administration that borrowed and spent $2 trillion of US taxpayer money to protect us from Saddam's NON-EXISTENT WMDs!

by Anonymousreply 11504/10/2013

R155. Nothing in your post mentioned spending from the liberals

by Anonymousreply 11604/10/2013

My point, R116, is that Republicans spend other people's money liberally on war and they also spend other people's money liberally on the War on Drugs that has done NOTHING to eradicate drugs.

The fact that the heroin trade has blossomed in Afghanistan throughout our over-a-decade-long presence there is evidence that the USA protects and promotes the global drug trade through back-door channels. We could have easily eradicated the Afghanistan poppy crop for all time if we had any real intention of fighting a legitimate "war on drugs."

by Anonymousreply 11704/10/2013

R155 didn't mention a lot of things.

by Anonymousreply 11804/10/2013

R118 - sorry I meant R115. Of course you knew that.

by Anonymousreply 11904/10/2013

R113 R2 has already made clear they dont want to reimburse the state for the money they lost with this program. They dont think the money was wasted and that it was money well spent. But not well spent enough to compel him to reimburse the people who were ripped off.

by Anonymousreply 12004/10/2013

[quote] It was a Republican administration that borrowed and spent $2 trillion of US taxpayer money to protect us from Saddam's NON-EXISTENT WMDs!

But there hasn't been another 9-11 since 9-11. Therefore this is money well-spent.

by Anonymousreply 12104/10/2013

1. Welfare recipients using monies on drugs obviously isn't a significant problem, as the 2% failed drug test attests.

2. Spending money/resources trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist is ridiculous.

3. Arguing about it is even more ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 12304/10/2013

And by the way, if we have not the power to eliminate something so small and rare as the poppy crop of Afghanistan - which grows out in the open in a rocky terrain with no greenery for cover below airspace that is controlled by the US Military - then why have the Republicans spent other people's money so liberally for the last 80 years fighting a losing war on marijuana, which can be grown easily anywhere in the world that has sunshine, soil, and water?

by Anonymousreply 12404/10/2013

R122- you are also R2 on the "Ann Coulter on the Newtown Tragedy" thread where you inform us that Ann is right about those people "enjoying" the deaths of their children. Don't you know how troll-dar works?

You are despicable.

by Anonymousreply 12504/10/2013

Gurl don't fuck with miss fletcher at r125.

by Anonymousreply 12604/10/2013

[quote]Because it stops welfare recipients spending welfare on drugs.

Publis assistance benefits are presently paid to EBT cards in most or all states. These aren't accepted as payment for tobacco, alcohol, or illegal drugs.

Down in flames you go.

by Anonymousreply 12804/10/2013

R2 has been doing this all day. Says something crazy then plays stupid when called on it.

by Anonymousreply 12904/10/2013

R127. We should expand to drug, alcohol, and nicotine testing. If they fail, they pay for the test and are stripped of benefits. If they pass, we pay for the test as part of the cost of administration.

Drug testing isn't enough. I am sick of seeing people use their EBT card for one transaction in the grocery store and then magically producing cash to pay for alcohol and cigarettes.

by Anonymousreply 13004/10/2013

Elected officials are paid using public money. Why aren't they getting drug tested?

by Anonymousreply 13104/10/2013

[quote]Publis assistance benefits are presently paid to EBT cards in most or all states. These aren't accepted as payment for tobacco, alcohol, or illegal drugs.

I had to Google that, I assumed they were paid in money. But just because they don't buy drugs, doesn't mean that they don't take them.

[quote]Drug testing isn't enough. I am sick of seeing people use their EBT card for one transaction in the grocery store and then magically producing cash to pay for alcohol and cigarettes.

I'm sure this happens, but I rarely go to supermarkets.

[quote][R2] has been doing this all day. Says something crazy then plays stupid when called on it.

I know. I can't believe I spent all day on this thread. But I'm not acting dumb, honestly.

by Anonymousreply 13204/10/2013

People aren't getting cash from an EBT card, unless it's child support money or unemployment benefits. Neither of these are welfare, what they do with that money is their own business. If they're getting money from some other source that gets spent on things that you don't like, that's not your business.

by Anonymousreply 13304/10/2013

Listen R2, it's obvious you're going to remain steadfast in your belief that spending money on a non-existent problem is worthy pursuit. It's weird, but whatever.

by Anonymousreply 13404/10/2013

Why stop there R130? Lets think of some other legal products we dont like people using. I for one think television is an ugly piece of furniture and makes people stupid. So lets deny benefits to people who have a television. Also, I hate Crocs, so anyone who wears them should also not be allowed to collect. Oh, and then there are those people who insist on getting cavities filled. Just let your teeth fall out of your head. It was good enough for George Washington, right?

by Anonymousreply 13504/10/2013

[quote]But just because they don't buy drugs, doesn't mean that they don't take them.

What they do with their lives is their business, not yours. As long as they aren't using welfare to buy things for which it's not appropriate, butt out.

by Anonymousreply 13604/10/2013

[quote] just because they don't buy drugs, doesn't mean that they don't take them.

And there your logic falls apart. If they are not spending money on drugs then you have no reason to complain about them spending money on drugs.

EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Anonymousreply 13704/10/2013

R135, not quite the same, but I'm willing to go there. Living on the dole shouldn't be luxurious now that you mention it. I'm picturing Soviet style flats in my mind. That will get people off their ass!

by Anonymousreply 13804/10/2013

[quote]And there your logic falls apart. If they are not spending money on drugs then you have no reason to complain about them spending money on drugs.

But drugs are illegal, criminals shouldn't be getting paid EBT.

by Anonymousreply 13904/10/2013

R136. If they have money for drugs, their benefits should be reduced accordingly, or better yet, eliminated.

by Anonymousreply 14004/10/2013

[quote]If they have money for drugs, their benefits should be reduced accordingly, or better yet, eliminated.

I don't want my money spent enforcing someone else's morality. As Thomas Jefferson once said, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

by Anonymousreply 14104/10/2013

[quote]I'm not a conservative. I'm very liberal

Yet you haven't voiced one remotely liberal position in this thread. You've spent hours arguing a far-right conservative line on welfare and drugs.

A liberal who favors mandatory drug testing, limiting welfare and rallying 'round "The War On Drugs"? You sound like no liberal I know. I'm 44 and I've never met a liberal in favor of all three of those positions.

How old are you? You don't sound particularly politically aware or knowledgeable. You don't seem to know what point you're arguing; first it was "I don't want poor people spending MY money..", but when it was pointed out that they likely CAN'T convert their benefits to cash for drugs, now you're against "criminals" doing drugs because they're illegal. Which is it?

Less than 1% of your paycheck goes to welfare recipients, BTW. Why exactly are you so obsessed with this?

by Anonymousreply 14304/10/2013

R2 No one said criminals should be able to collect. Again with the straw-man, again with the fail. Besides, the whole point you have been trying to make is you dont want welfare money used to buy drugs. If they are not using that money then you have nothing to say in the matter. And finally, as has been pointed out before, saying you think its money well spent but you dont want to spend that money yourself makes everything you say meaningless.

by Anonymousreply 14404/10/2013

[quote]Living on the dole shouldn't be luxurious now that you mention it.

And who is doing that? Don't go recycling that old BS about welfare queens driving Cadillacs.

by Anonymousreply 14504/10/2013

R2 is the kind of person who supports high prison sentences for crack but slaps on the wrist for cocaine.

by Anonymousreply 14604/10/2013

Lets review how R2 spent his day. He has been here all day after all, what does he have to show for it? Well, he managed to establish he is a liar. Calling yourself a liberal while at the same time parroting back right wing talking points is not what liberals do. Neither is defending Ann Coulter and supporting gun culture. R2 says its wrong for politicians to bilk taxpayers, but supports the scam Gov Scott hatched in Florida. R2 thinks the money spent on testing for drugs is well spent, so long as he doesn't have to pay for it. R2 can provide no evidence these programs are effective. R2 repeatedly avoided answering direct questions. R2 is also really stupid because over and over again they cant remember what they actually have typed on this thread or on other ones. Oh, and last but not least, R2 whips out the victim card when the facts become too overwhelming. "Boo hoo! Nobody likes me here! WHAAA!"

Have they changed anyone's mind? Has anyone's thinking changed because of the argument he has presented? Nope. All anyone is coming away with is you're a tool, a liar and really really stupid. Bravo R2. I'm sure you are real proud of yourself.

by Anonymousreply 14704/10/2013

I assumed welfare recipients got paid in cash. I've now been proven wrong. I'm sorry.

by Anonymousreply 14804/10/2013

[quote]I assumed welfare recipients got paid in cash

Yes, its natural to assume the government sends out envelopes stuffed with cash every month. That's so effective and sensible. What could go wrong?

by Anonymousreply 14904/10/2013

Mandatory drug testing for welfare is a great idea.

Georgia lawmaker who gets second DUI should lose his license and get whatever penalty the law provides.

One has nothing to do with the other

by Anonymousreply 15004/10/2013

[quote]Mandatory drug testing for welfare is a great idea.

Except that it is not effective, is used by crooked politicians to line their pockets and ends up costing more than the savings provided, sure great idea.

BTW I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'm looking to sell. Interested R150?

by Anonymousreply 15104/10/2013

[quote]I never said driving whilst drunk is acceptable, [R4].

Whilst? Nice try, Britbot.

by Anonymousreply 15204/10/2013

Drug-testing = punishing the poor. These are the same people who want those on welfare to have their voting rights revoked. They believe poor people are just lazy.

Those who want drug testing are racist.

by Anonymousreply 15304/10/2013

Everyone F&F r2, and get the rancid piece of shit off here!

by Anonymousreply 15404/10/2013

I think all drug testing should be banned. And I've never done a drug other than alcohol in my life. It's too close to pre-crime conviction or something equally Orwellian.

by Anonymousreply 15504/10/2013

[quote]forfucksake, someone smoking pot in their trailer is just as bad as someone blowing up an airplane? Really?

[quote]No, but that seems to be R87's line of logic

Excuse me? You introduced that "line of logic" at R89. I said nothing about terrorists on planes. In fact, I posted no analogies or "lines of logic at all". My post at R87 is composed entirely of direct questions and requests for more elaboration, quoting a question I asked you earlier.

All of which you avoided.

by Anonymousreply 15604/10/2013

It's so insulting to every worker and the only one who profits are those fucking dirty labs who take your blood.

America used to exist without having to embarrass every potential employee. Who needs a drug test when you are at a desk, typing on your computer?

There was a time when accidents were expected and accepted...now there is always a supposed drug addict behind every mistake that's made.

by Anonymousreply 15704/11/2013

[quote]But drugs are illegal, criminals shouldn't be getting paid EBT

Meanwhile the criminal banking class is looting this nation of hundreds of billions and going free.

We need to drug test everyone from the CEOs on down who works at every bank and brokerage that gets federal bailout money.

by Anonymousreply 15804/11/2013

.

by Anonymousreply 15908/24/2014
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.