Riley is an "internet blogger." He has written for such internet websites as True/Slant and the terrible Brangelina gossip emporium "The Huffington Post." Riley lives in northeast DC, near H Street. Maybe you do too and want to hang out?
Hey there, Wonkeputians! Shypixel here with a few helpful links to ease your transition to Disqus - Claiming Old Accounts - Claiming Your ID Comments - Turning off Disqus Notifications. And, as always, remember our Commenting Rules For Radicals, Enjoy!
From the Wapo: Iraq’s overall homicide rate is now lower than in most American cities.
Ha! Losers. USA! USA! USA!
You know those stupid surveys that people post on the facebook? There was one floating around not too long ago that asked, "Do you think people on welfare should be drug tested?" I can not tell you, to my horror, how many people voted "yes". Am I wrong in thinking that it's a bad idea?
You're only wrong in thinking that's a bad idea if you are not pure evil and believe the poor should be subject to constant humiliation, like the Republican base.
The worst part is when slobs like my brother, who could probably benefit from some benefits, support this kind of crap. I'm starting to think the Right is so gay for guns because they want to shoot themselves in the foot.
For a brief period of time as a newly single parent, I received public assistance (food stamps and medicaid for the kids). At the time, the same idea was being floated; drug testing of people on public assistance. I remember thinking how degrading that would be. I had never even tried pot (still haven't) or had a traffic ticket. I was a complete goody two shoes.
But because I had fallen on hard economic times, I was more than likely a criminal, a drug addict, irresponsible? The taxpayers (government) had good reason to assume that I would misuse money?
To which I say, probable cause? I mean actual probable cause, i.e., my personal history. And I don't mean poor = probably criminal. Assholes.
No one suggested that the alcoholic ex not paying court-ordered child support should be tested or considered a drag on society.
I totally agree with you. A lot of my friends in grad school are on food assistance, and myself will be filing for unemployment and medicaid in about a month. The way things are right now, many people who are on state aid do not fit the stereotype these politicians tend to focus on.
The way things are right now, many people who are on state aid do not fit the stereotype these politicians tend to focus on.
But, but… GOP godhead Ronald Reagan said everyone on public assistance is a scum-sucking scam artist so it must be true!
On UC and food stamps, who the fuck can afford drugs?
And even if you did fit the stereotype – you should be starved and humiliated because, um, because you probably deserve it.
I understand what you are saying, and as I was doing dishes, I started to realize what I wrote was from educated white privilege perpective. Now that I see my comment from another angle, I kinda feel like an asshole.
Just like the only Good WIll clothes for orphans law, this is going to make things shittier for people who already get the shit end of the stick.
I sent a reply about 40 minutes ago and it hasn't shown up, so this might end up being a repost. What I said was:
You're no asshole. Assholes are those who are incapable of trying on another idea or having the tiniest shred of empathy. I appreciate that you thought about my comment. Years ago (I am an old) I read a book which really shifted my paradigms from Us versus Them to just Us: "Woman on the Edge of Time" by Marge Piercy.
Okay, snark back on now.
Thank you, and I definitely going to look up that book!
Ordered online yesterday.
[Damn you, Amazon! How am I supposed to not spend money when you have books for a PENNY??]
You're no asshole. Assholes are those who are incapable of trying on another idea or having the tiniest shred of empathy. I appreciate that you thought about my comment. Years ago (I am an old) I read a book which really shifted my paradigms from Us versus Them to just Us: “Woman on the Edge of Time” by Marge Piercy. Okay, snark back on now.
Wait, are you black? Because that is all they care about. Humiliating the colored folks. It's the American way.
We should drug-test the boards of any corporation receiving a tax break or credit or any other kind of government assistance, such as defense contracts.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
The perfect touch would be to add to this law the stipulation that welfare money cannot be used to pay for drug tests.
You must of missed the memo, that stated only poor people do drugs and they choose to be poor. Probably so they can do more drugs. Where I work, they frown on shooting up heroin in the office restrooms.
They're the same people who thought making victims pay for rape kits made sense.
"Some asshole agrees with Sarah Palin, on Twitter! He’s probably a racist."
The link seems to be to Riley's diatribe of last night. Did Palin say the same thing in 140 characters or fewer? What's racist about Riley's hating all Americans, regardless of race, creed or lack of proper sexual orientation?
Oh. Read it. Good stuff!!
Riley has gone Chuck!
Todd? Norris? Taylor?
OTOH the jobs numbers are at a 5 year high, much like Governor Whatsisname from NM, so there's that.
In Soviet Russia, drugs test YOU.
Is it now illegal to use drugs? I never knew that. Possession, yes. Sale, OK. Driving under the influence of, right. But use? Who the fuck does this bald-headed asshole think he is? My mother?
He should be tested for drugs that make your hair fall out.
I know a quite few people on those drugs (my day job is basically the desk-jockey equivalent of a courier for that type of "drug dealer"), and I am pretty sure that a few of those people are also on another drug which is legally prescribed both for its antineoplastic properties and also its antiemetic properties, and which almost definitely shows up in drug tests.
Sure sucks to be a cancer patient on welfare in florida, is what I'm getting at.
"who does he think he is? My mother?" …Half right!
Florida gets what it deserves and asked for again.
Wasn't Rick Scott a NASCAR driver?
Wasn't Rick Scott a NASCAR driver?
Ricky Bobby, maybe? Anyhow, I do know that one of the more popular services offered by the Scott family business, Solantic, is (wait for it….) drug testing! Just how fucking big of a coinky-dink is that?!
RICO his corrupt ass…
But he gave his share in the business to his wife, who will get all the profits now instead of him, so it's totally on the up-and-up.
No, but he can talk to snakes, which is hella' cool.
That's "flying death robots," bub!
Those killed in Pakistan were farmers who were growing terrorists–they pop right out of the soil over there, you know, already hating Amerikkka for our freedumbs.
…they pop right out of the soil over there
That sounds like the hallucination of someone with a billion-dollar a day kill-brown-people habit. Addicts are all alike…
the freedumbs to pay for our own state mandated drug tests.
Dragon's teeth. How the fuck do they work?
As an added bonus guess who owns the largest chain of medical clinics at which you can purchase your drug test?
If you guessed Mrs. Voldemert you're right.
Urge to kill rising.
Let's start with mandatory drug testing for all governors and see how that goes over.
How about STD testing?
I'm sorry Governor… You tested positive for Insufferable Asshole. I'm afraid you'll have to resign.
The fact that you gave your urine sample by simply tilting your head and letting the piss flow right out of your ear was a telltale sign.
In some cultures this is considered an IQ test.
The whole Ureasia uses this method…
Incidentally, Florida politicians are fucking stupid across the board:
Heres' an idea: since Florida State Legislators are also paid by taxpayers why don't we force them to undergo mandatory weekly drug tests?
You're asking for trouble with this idea. If the standard is taxes, you can start with elected officials and the armed forces but then you'd have to test the entire banking industry, the educational system, the healthcare sector, etc. Universal drug testing would be the ultimate outcome. Not a pretty sight.
With drug testing that prevelant we would soon be faced with automatic ten dollar bill operated kiosks on every corner into which we would step, pee and get the results sent to either our home or the local Gendarmiere Nationale, just like in my home town Paris.
I live in the Sunshine State and an earlier proposal called for drug testing of all state workers and also college students who receive Bright Futures college scholarships. And it is true that Gov. Sick Rott owns Solantic clinics which profits from drug testing. The gov won by a very slim margin and acts like he has a mandate. Florida has no process to recall governor, but people are working on it.
They wouldn't even pass a multiple choice one.
We need more flying death robots so they can be used to kill people on welfare. This has at least two advantages. Fewer people on welfare, and more delicious Ameros for the manufactures of flying death robots.
Cinco de mayo… an excuse to come into work on the sixth all hung over and smelling like Keith Moon.
(this comment is 100% snark free)
Keff's been dead a goodish while. You must fucking reek…
Is that Keith before or after death?
Look and smell after…..Thank God Baconz got to meet a client that likes to have lunch time drinkies.
If you can play the drums like an angel/demon, all is forgiven.
Cinco de Mayo… an obscure, foreign holiday, that has become an excuse for drunk assholes to ruin my good time at my favorite local bodega.
Also snark free.
Sorry for being a dick at your bodega.
Oh baconz, I forgive you! I don't see you being the same type of belligerent drunk these douche nozzles were anyway.
Oh believe you me Head that wouldn't die I've had my moments in the past. Not belligerent frat boy type moments though. More of standing on tables and screaming the Spam Song…..Spam, Spam, Spam,…
You see though, that's the kind of drunken ridiculous that I can appreciate.
In Scott's defense, Snowbilly Grifter did make women in Wasilla pay for their rape kits.
Well it's not like they weren't asking for it, . . . err them.
(Don't think, just say shit, isn't that how it's done?)
Not to condone that whole mess or even Sarah Palin for that matter, but wasn't that pay-fer-yer-own-kit thing on the books before she came into office?
Wait, that wasn't funny… uh… Old-but-kinda-relavant Get Your War On video!
Drat, once again lied to by the lying LIEbruls in the LIEbrul lie-machine media. Lie. Also.
I'd support drug testing of welfare recipients if we also had daily drug testing of state legislators and governors.
Pastors/Priests (Teddy Haggard?)
Fireman (Smokin' weed helps you tolerate the steroids)
Cops (asshole pills)
Traffic Controllers (FOR caffeine)
but never, ever photonics engineers in the OC
"If you disagree with my policy," said Scott, "maybe you need to be tested, too."
In case it hasn't been said before, What an Asshole.
"Maybe you are all homosexuals" — Rainier Wolfcastle
What amazes me is that Scott can be such an insane prick without taking drugs. (Although maybe we should check his blood alcohol level…)
Sandor Kepiro, 97, has denied killing Jews and Serbs during a raid in Novi Sad, Serbia, in 1942.
If bin Laden had lived to 97, he would have gotten a trial.
Rick Scott: Love the drugs, hate the user.
That is an obvious shout-out to Rush.
I was going to read the link for yesterday but me's head too achy-breaky from mariachi music and tecate/tequila boilermakers to read that much.
Don't read it, I agree with Vulpe that it destroys our public sphere of snark, if I may be so Halberstamian.
Isn't this the same Rick Scott responsible for the largest Medicare fraud case in U.S. history, totaling $1.7 billion? A wealthy, duplicitous scumbag who now sees only the poors as the problem….
Sarah Palin. Shut the fuck up!
I wonder how many children's meals could be purchased with the money being spent on drug testing.
Republican answer: Screw 'em. If their parents are high let the little bastards starve. It's not like they're fetuses or white.
My Brother in law sent me some stupid thing claiming $700,000 was wasted on school breakfasts and lunches (in a major school district) because of what kids throw out. Was the solution to improve the breakfasts or somethinng like that? No, of course, not -cut out breakfast and lunch . Mind you,this is Obama's fault according to the email.(the waste? feeding poor kids? I think being black)
If the parents weren't buying drugs, they could to afford to feed their own damn children!
SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL HEAD SHOP – Drug test welfare recipients.
This might not be a popular opinion around these parts, but I don't want people on welfare using drugs. I'm ok with them (and public employees and elected officials) getting tested. Look at it this way: if everyone on welfare has to undergo drug tests, morons like Rick Scott will no longer be able to try to cut welfare on the grounds that everyone on welfare is on drugs.
I seem to be pleading for the freedom to get high in this thread. Should musicians be tested just so assholes couldn't say that their music is drug-influenced? If you had to go on welfare, would it not be a good enough reason to get stoned? Free drugs for the poor might be a more sensible idea.
These assholes will find any reason to cut welfare. As to the drug issue I think it's rather complicated. There is a big difference between smoking an occasional joint while still being okay in the rest of your daily responsiblilities and getting strung out on crack or whatever while your children are neglected. Same deal for alcohol which is, of course, legal. So, they won't be testing for that, yet.
To the extent that *anybody* ought to be tested for drugs, I would hope that people driving two-ton cars, as well as people who are responsible for the well-being of children, are not doing so while impaired.
That having been said, unemployed losers like myself have had to accept drug testing, background checks (including credit checks), and signing releases for all liabilities (that's *all* liabilities; if I get selected out because my last employer lies and says I was fired for robbing the cash register, tough shit for me) before we even get a chance at an interview, let alone a job offer, as a given for several years now. I think all drugs ought to be decriminalized, but I don't indulge, because job hunting is degrading enough without also flunking the pee test.
However, this has nothing to do with protecting the well-being of poor children, even for long enough to them to grow up into slave labor/cannon fodder; as usual, it's about punishing poor people and minorities.
So you also think poor people deserve to be routinely humiliated just for being poor? Nice.
No..I get drug tested all the time and I don't feel humiliated.
Ya that's the ticket, if only the poors weren't stoners Welfare would be safe, as safe as reproductive rights and the right to organize and vote and all that shit.
What part of 'it is war' don't you understand?
Pursuit of Happiness is in the Declaration of Independence. For all, even those down on their luck, living a life of dependence and misery.
I give change and an occasional buck to guys begging on the street. People say they will use it for alcohol,drugs or cigarettes. Well, if i was down enough to beg on the street- I guess I would need those things too.
Dr. Rep. Ron Paul and myself both believe that personal chemical use is kinda' ok, even for the poors. So i must respectfully disagree with you dear sir/madam.
And with that, have a happy Seis de Mayo!
The problem I have with it is that it bolsters the fiction that people on welfare are somehow there by choice and therefore we can do with them as we please as a society. That they can just choose to starve to death if they don't like it.
The government (as opposed to private employers) is supposed to only drug test when there is a justified legal basis for doing so, not as blanket policy. Either there has to be some measure of individual suspicion related to a criminal investigation or a bona fide job related issue. Neither exists when you just say test all the poor people.
I know private employers have taken to making almost all jobs contingent on drug screening (interestingly not practicing law in most places) but there you really do have a measure of choice welfare recipients don't (and it is a private entity). And they don't make you pay for the test.
Young bucks eating steak and welfare queens driving cadillacs. I notice no one seems to want to switch places.
"I know private employers have taken to making almost all jobs contingent on drug screening … but there you really do have a measure of choice"
Until it gets to the point where it is now, i.e., all employers test, so you can't just choose to avoid those potential employers who do (see my other comment for extended rant).
I'm an employer who doesn't do drug testing as a condition of employment. I just fire them when I catch them smoking dope at work. (This has actually happened twice.)
My fatherly advice to the outgoing stoners: "I've done drugs before. Drugs can be fun. But they get less fun if you're basing your whole life on them."
I get so few chances to pontificate, I like to make the most of them.
As opposed to my wife, who had 2 employees fight over whether one stole the other's crack, and all she could do was refer them for discipline (AFSCME took the position it wasn't work related, but eventually the instigator was let go).
I guess I must be lucky to be working in law then, since I've never had to take a drug test and found a lot of the talk here bizarre.
I don't want people on welfare using drugs either. Drug test people with a drug history. I strongly disagree with the assumption that being in financial straits = good reason to assume potential drug use. See my comment above.
Poor? So, for that reason, we're going to have to drug test you because your profile (poor) means it's likely that you can't be trusted to use whatever assistance you receive in a responsible manner.
Need public assistance and have a drug history? Test away.
"I don't want people on welfare using drugs either."
I feel that this might benefit from some clarification.
First of all, I think there's a big difference between "uses drugs, ever" and "abuses drugs"; just as I don't think anyone who *ever* drinks is an alcoholic, or even has a drinking problem.
Secondly, prohibition laws don't work, and again using alcohol as a metaphor, the one time we tried such a law, it did more harm than good.
If addiction and abuse (including alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, etc. etc.) are public health problems, then they need to be treated as such…
But then, look at crazy me, trying to apply logic to a policy solely intended to punish and shame poor people, as per St. Ronnie's story about how Those People use their food stamps to buy booze. Go figure, huh?
Tessie, I hope you got my reply which my email says was sent, but hasn't turned up here. Anyway, you make excellent points and I agree with them. My last sentence was hasty.
1. I didn't get a reply.
2. I wasn't criticizing you or your choice of words, more trying to say that it's a complicated issue:
2-a. I don't want people on welfare (or for that matter, not on welfare) to abuse drugs, either, because it's really unhealthy.
2-b. Given that we've seen that prohibition laws make matters worse, what to do?
2-c. It annoys me that the Rs use "drugs" as this big boogeyman to bully people into line when really, they could care less if poor people shoot up and die (in fact, they'd probably enjoy it).
3. Since you're Chessie and I'm Tessie, we're probably related.
Here is my original reply to you: “Every point you make is valid. I wasn't real happy with my last sentence but posted anyway. Another issue is crossing use vs. abuse with legal vs. illegal. Drugs can be legal but abused. Every drink my ex took was legal, but the consequences to our family were horrible. Pot may be illegal, but an occasional smoke in your home? I'm pretty sure that would be far less harmful than someone drinking alcohol to excess on a daily basis.”You are absolutely correct that it is a complicated issue.I am detecting with recent proposed laws a real strong whiff of that good ol' time religion. If you are materially unfortunate, that is evidence that you are not among the elect, and will be going straight to hell on your demise as an unredeemed sinner. Therefore, it is right and proper that those of us who so obviously enjoy God's favor, should impress upon you how worthless you are in God's eyes. 1) You can't carry cash (you'll misuse it).2) You must be drug tested (if you are poor, it is because you are a sinner, and weak, and thus will succumb to all manner of vices and addictions).3) You may only wear garments cast off by your betters. And you should be grateful for their bounty towards you, a sinner. 4) Unemployment compensation is not necessary for those humble enough to accept whatever job is put before them. If you are unemployed, it is due to your own sinful pride and laziness.Did I miss anything?
May I add:
5) You must be punished for fucking, especially if you are a woman. No abortion, no birth control, no HPV vaccine, no prenatal care. If you have sex, you should have a baby a year until you drop dead or everyone starves, and/or get AIDS and die.
Every point you make is valid. I wasn't real happy with my last sentence but posted anyway. Another issue is crossing use vs. abuse with legal vs. illegal. Drugs can be legal but abused. Every drink my ex took was legal, but the consequences to our family were horrible. Pot may be illegal, but an occasional smoke in your home? I'm pretty sure that would be far less harmful than someone drinking alcohol to excess on a daily basis.
One other thing. There's a huge cultural bias implicit in all drug testing. I can drink until my liver scales over – no problem. I can pop antidepressants like they are candy – as long as my doctor says OK. Similarly, if I have a decent MRI in Florida I can doc shop and get massive amounts of legal oxycontin and other pain killers – again, no problem. That last one is so bad people in West Virginia look down on Florida.
But if I smoke weed, I'm a criminal scumbag not entitled to any benefits? That's pretty fucked up, if you ask me.
"There's a huge cultural bias implicit in all drug testing."
There's another huge cultural bias, and it's less obvious than legal vs. illegal. Drugs don't count as drugs when right wingers use them.
Think I'm kidding or exaggerating? Imagine if Michael Moore had anywhere near the drug history Rush does.
When I worked in academia, the jocks used steroids to bulk up, abused diet pills, laxatives, and diuretics to lose weight, and nobody (besides me, apparently) considered that "drugs". Hippies smoking pot — now THAT was considered "drugs".
I would bet good money that as I'm writing this, there's at least one whitetrash guy sitting in his trailer/meth lab complaining about how "drugs" (i.e. urban black people) are causing society to go to hell in a handbasket.
It's a lot like the way no right-wing women are ugly, no matter what they actually look like, but Democratic women like Hillary Clinton are considered "ugly" (i.e., have ever read a book that isn't the Bible and have opinions of their own) no matter what they actually look like.
It might be defensible, except for the fact that Rick Scott's wife owns a chain of drug testing labs, and this bill guarantees them 100000 new customers.
Good thing I was sitting down when I read this, otherwise I might have fainted from surprise.
So, if they test positive, then what? Cut 'em off? Yeah, that'll straighten them out for sure…
Exactly. What good does a drug test do for someone who can't afford or get into a subsidized drug rehab program?
If you're on heroin you can't just say "Today I am drug free!" and skip away into the sunset of your clean new life to make healthy raw veggie snacks for your kids.
Testing without also providing the means to get off the drugs (and, you know, back on the food) is stigmatizing, not helpful or responsible. It's just straight-up fucking cruel.
"There's probably a lot of welfare recipients on drugs. Ergo, we should punish all welfare recipients."
For added fun, replace the phrase "welfare recipients" with any of the following (or add your own suggestions):
Talk radio hosts
I waiting for the next inevitable step, which is forcing women on welfare to not engage in any sexual activity whatsover because these welfare women just keep pooping out babbys so they can get more more welfare munnies.
Hoo-hah Monitors. Or Trans-Vaginal Nets that snap shut by remote.
Why don't we start sterilizing them again? If we TELL them we're doing it, it's not illegal!
I believe there was a private foundation which offered poor women a cash incentive if they'd install an implantable contraceptive. And of course, people are always talking about sterilization.
The issue I have with this and drug testing as a term of employment, is they use a positive test as an excuse to throw you to the curb. How about rehabilitation?
The issue I have with this and drug testing as a term of employment is, how is it fucking relevant? Yes, if I'm high at work and do a lousy job, I should be fired. Because I'm doing a lousy job. Alternatively, I could spend my off hours getting bombed, but as long as I show up on time and do a good job, that has fuck all to do with anything. And, frankly, what people do with their welfare money is their own damn business. It's not like anybody's living well on it, regardless of how they spend it.
I think you're missing several points, Badonk. First, even post-welfare reform, the program still has the history and mission of being an entitlement for poor children. This is about providing a minimal level of support to our most vulnerable citizens, *not* their parents.
Second, it's fairly settled opinion that children are better off with their parents–even somewhat shitty parents–than being wards of the state, absent abuse and neglect. Now, if you can make a case that drug use, per se, is abusive, then the state should be in the business of drug-testing all parents. Otherwise we have to accept that parents are going to do the best for their children they can, and a lot of kids' lives aren't going to look like the Cosby show.
Finally, the money paid out is inconsequential compared to the benefits to the moneyed class. Since nobody can survive for long on welfare, the average family bounces in and out of low paid jobs, resorting to government help when they're fired for staying home with a sick kid or missing work when the car breaks down. For a few hundred dollars per month per family, a subservient workforce of nurses aides and motel housekeepers is kept in line: what a deal!
It seems that I – a person who has never been beyond the borders of the US – now wake up in a different country every morning.
You have got to try the Canada.
I have plans in place. I don't want to give up on the old home just yet.
Is this a great country of what?
You don't even have to move to feel like your in a strange place you've never seen before.
Are you gainfully employed? If so, come on over to CA. As long as you aren't a poor or a public employee, you'll probably do fine.
WTF you seem to be using lackey and sycophant in the pejorative.
Flying death robots are the most persecuted minority in the world.
I have a better idea for those hypodermic needles. How about if we just make sure that the poors get their flu shots and a pneumonia vaccine, if they are in the risk category.
Let's take it a step further and drug test our legislators. And anyone testing negative will be sent to the Wasilla Detention Center for extraordinary rendition.
needs mor buttsex and sweater puppies on a horse (to quote myself in a prior post which is a lot eaiser then thinking up new stuff, thanks Chuck.)
We should really just come up with three good comments, then copy/paste over and over. That would be fun.
You just described treesandthings.com.
Crap, wasn't that an offshoot of Plastic.com?
Plastic was my first big HTML time sink. Before that I spent countless hours online debating right-wing lunatics on newsgroups… ah, how I miss the halcyon days of my alt.politics and talk.origins youth.
Yes to the offshoot of Plastic. TnT came into existence during the Great Plastic Blackout. It is now a libertarian paradise…sort of the Somalia of discussion sites.
How sad. I know the people who started it were well meaning.
The graet Plastic blackout was pretty much what drove me to Wonkette. The site was never the same after it came back up. A lot of peopel left, a lot were demoralized. I'd managed to rack up #2 or #3 in Karma, too, by that time.
What is this Plastic and trees thing? Never heard of either of them.
Wiki has a good description of Plastic. It won an award, even. Short answer it was a discussion site where the users submitted stories and their posting was subject to a vote.
My very first Plastic story submission that was accepted was on Truck Nutz, believe it or not. Though I believe the particular brand I wrote about were simply called "bull's balls."
When did you first sign up?
To Plastic? Probably 8-10 years ago or so.
If you're interested, here's the archive:
I got onto to the internet election night 2000, by 3am I had found FlameMe. Plastic was a little dull after that.
We should really just come up with three good comments, then copy/paste over and over. That would be fun.
If I came up with just two good comments, then copy/pasted them over and over…. would that be fun to? Also?
YOu're right, we * should* really just come up with three good comments, then copy/paste over and over. That would be fun!
I see what you did there!
I hesitate to dip my toe into this august gathering of wordsmiths.
I have no skill ….. so…. finding one good post to copy/paste over and over again would give me more courage to participate…
I vote YES!
The movie or the geological one?
I seem to recall a number of banks receiving rather large sums of tax payer money. I'm sure the law mandating drug testing for their CEOs will come up any day now…
Wall street- those guys party on every kind of drug- you know it.
Or Food Stamps for Clean Urine…think about that, huh?
Drug test Ron Paul, because apparently he admitted he's a heroin user last night? I didn't quite get what he meant with his impression. Maybe a very bad attempt to tap into the Trump/Busey/Sheen demo?
I'm yearning for the day some small amount of value returns to my house, so I can sell it and get the fuck outta here.
Hope you ain't in a hurry!
The issue has been for a while my litmus test to separate glibertarians from people genuinely concerned with civil liberties and general freedom-type issues. You ask the typical "libertarian" tea-partying fucks if they support drug-testing for welfare recipients, and they're all "FUCK YEAH." So then you can ask, "Who's the nanny-stater, now, asshole."
But the drug testing applies to welfare recipients, a lot of whom (all of whom, in the Libertarian mind) are, you know, very urban, and therefore don't deserve freedoms; many of them also lack penises, and therefore likewise don't deserve freedom in the Objectivist mindset because someone without a penis isn't really a person.
libertarianism is born out of the abject horror that somewhere, some how, a well-off white man is being told "no."
One million upfists for you, Pato.
I love you for this.
Just to be clear: the only reason for the drug testing is to humiliate poor people. This comes from the right-wing view that the poor are somehow at fault for their own poverty, and deserve to be punished for it, not any concern about curbing drug use. The evil fucks who support this are the same people who complained about food stamps being replaced by a card that looks just like a credit/debit card, so the recipients are not immediately identified and they can't lord over them. This is just more of the attempt to bring us back to the neo-feudalism of ~1890-1932.
Other things people on the dole ought to be penalized for, then, would include smoking, buying soft drinks or spending money on anything else they might enjoy. I don't know about your neo-feudalistic period, but this sounds even worse that social neglect.
See only used clothing for the poors bill.
Also Paladino's plan of just locking up the poor in debtors prisons
Are there no prisons? Are there no poorhouses? These people think A Christmas Carol is a tragedy which features the heroic Scrooge being corrupted to the socialism of caring about people by evil ghosts.
To heighten the douchebaggery, Rick Scott's wife owns a chain of drug testing labs, and this bill guarantees them 100000 new customers.
Oh, I know; dude is corrupt as fuck as well as hating everybody. How he isn't in jail yet escapes me.
Not only that, but (I no little about testing) how hard could it be to jigger the test so that they get a high failure rate? The missus pockets the $35 and the state kicks a person of welfare?
You would think that would be too obvious, but I've got a fiver that says that's exactly what will come out in the trial.
And the Scotts will be revered as political prisoners and Martyrs For The Cause.
The card is stigmatizing too, at least in Illinois. It's dark blue and has a giant LINK on it, so no way is it an AmEx. In certain establishments, I've had cashiers assume I'm going into my wallet for a Link card, just because I'm afflicted with The Colored.
Wow. Just wow. People suck.
Why don't we drug test CEOs if they receive government help? But then you might "but they don't go around doing lines and lines of coke…" hahaha, of course not.
Rich people do all kinds of fucking drugs. I cleaned their houses and mansions for ages. Those fucks and their lucky fuck kids are partiers of the Caligula class. It brings a tear to my proletarian eye.
Stage II: transfer those who fail said drug tests to a "rehabilitation" camp where they will kick their drug habits while working on the United Defense Industries production line.
Stage III: it involves ovens…
Stage IV: ?
Stage V: Profit!
Stage IV: Soylent Green is oven-baked people!
But how can the wingtards get the poors to the ovens if they keep voting against high speed rail? A modern GOP conundrum it is.
I know it's hyperbole, but the policy sure has that vibe to it.
You should all be grateful that they're only testing the poors for the drugs. In other countries the poors get killed. That's why USA is number one! "Their poor we kill; our poor we annoy – in a starvey sort of way." But when your tuckin' into them hobo beans thank Christ you ain't tucking into a naan in Wasiristan 'cause then you'd be doing face time with a drone.
We also give our poor people the opportunity to join the military to kill their poor people and then come back to the U.S. suffering from post-trauma stress. Works all around!
But their fealty to the Constitution (to say nothing of the teachings of the New Testament regarding the poor) is second to none.
One governor that won't need to be drug tested is Rick Snyder. A neighbor and I were talking about his latest deal to send emergency financial Gauleiters to run everything. She said "he is tripping like a motherfucker", which I consider to be the definitive word on the governor's drug use.
I use that description for the 70's.
And guess who's company will be doing the drug testing? Yep… the gov himself… well not exactly. I believe he "sold" the company to his wife.
That old Medicare fraudster is looking out for business!
Let's pee test the board of directors of companies (like the oil companies) that get billions in government welfare.
Invest in drug-testing companies. Republicans still have momentum. At least get reimbursed for their assholish behavior.
And just by "coincidence," Rick Scott's wife owns a string of drug-testing clinics! http://saintpetersblog.com/2011/03/rick-scott%E2%…
Damn–when the Democrats (like Daley in Chicago) helped enrich relatives and friends they did it by sending public business their way not gouging the poor.
no conflict there. move along. the human penis bids you to move along.
I like the reporter saying he is going question whether Solantic(his wife's company) will be prevented from bidding on the contracts- because wouldn't that be a huge COI(or is conflict of interest unknown by scummy GOP politicians)
When you say it like that, "drug testing welfare recipients," it doesn't sound quite right, maybe a bit unfair, intrusive, sure. But you have to understand, in republicanspeak, "welfare recipient" means "nigger." And who can possibly object to testing them?
What we should be doing with the legislators and the governors is polygraphing them. Open forum question and answer sessions, with them hooked to polygraph machines.
Not only will the governor's health care conglomerates profit from the sale of drug tests, the other lead story today (besides him requiring women to be shown ultrasounds before getting abortions) is that Scott is blocking legislation to regulate pill mills. (Florida leads the nation in overprescription of controlled substances…)
In other words, keep the pills flowin' and the drug tests flyin' off the shelves: win-win! Pass the hobo beans!
When will Rick Scott and his staff be taking their tests, since they are on the public dime, too? Piss tests for paychecks, you assholes.
Just wait 'til whites from the swamps test positive for meth & lose their food-stamps.
Scott will have never known so much fury as a Teabagger scorned.
Well, I was away the last few days in Arizona, I witnessed an ABC local news "investigation" of "Welfare recipients using their debit cards at liquor stores, casinos, and strip clubs". Turn out that less than 1% of recipients were using ATMs at these locations, and some brave, intrepid reporter (read: slimy piece of dog shit) was doing an "investigation" and making a huge deal about this, trying to insinuate that "the system is broken".
We can't win. In a country that just got mugged by wealthy bankers, each day sees lobbyists flood the system with millions of dollars, in a state where so many people lost so much because of bank shenanigans, America gets idiotic grandstanding about the behavior of a tiny fraction of a group of people of which 99% are just trying to eat. And we eat up their public shaming.
Fuck these corporate kingpins and their fat white upper middle class tea party fascist toadies.
The Fiesta Bowl Organizing Committee likes this.
Remember that, 'Zona? Where's the expose? Where's the continuing coverage?
Or the "Alternate Fuels Vehicles", that unadvertised boondoggle wherein thousands of people close to the lawmakers were able to get tens of thousands of dollars of subsidies for their SUV provided they put (often unworking) propane tanks or biodeisel tanks in their trucks? Passed into law and expired before anyone (people who actually would have used it for alternative fuels) could access it?
Oh, but now 1% of hungry people are the problem. Right. Good job boy reporter!
Fuck you Arizona.
So, here's some fun math: there are roughly 100,000 welfare recipients in Florida. The commonly accepted conservative estimate of false positive rates on drug tests is 5%. That means 5,000 welfare recipients in any given year will be see their benefits -benefits which permit them a minimal, subsistance income- randomy cut for that year. I am sure this won't result in an uptick in black market activities!
Oh, but wait, there's more: When Florida piloted this program, they found 335 positives out of a 8797 sampled, or a positive rate of 3.8%. Which a mathy way of saying that any actual drug cases were completely subsumed by the testing error and this whole thing is just a way of dropping people off welfare randomly and dressing it up with an acceptable "moral" rationalization. Oh, and also to enrich Rick Scott at the same time.
Well, if that downfist doesn' prove that despicably racist idiot water-carriers for the super-elite class warriors don't absolutely despise facts, even in their rawest form.
Also, they probably smell like poop.
He's been working overtime today; he must be taking a break from making his claims on Breitbart that everyone should stop blaming white people for slavery because it's really the fault of black people and Muslims. Here is our downfister making what has got to be one of the most racist comments I have ever seen:
I assume you don't go over there often, then, because those sort of comments are basically a weekly occurence. And usually manage to be even further afield from the putative topic of conversation.
Incidentally, I just love the juxtaposition of the "racially charged comments" that were apparently newsworthy enough to get a morning breittard article (because they were positive with regard to black people!) and the overt, stormfront-esque racism from the comment section. Or, hell, take the one about that teacher who said Bin Ladin was a kid's uncle, in front of a classroom. Charming, charming commentary, all around.
No, I don't go there too often; it makes me too angry. It is hard to find non-racist comments over there, but this one was really over the top.
Is that what they consider having "a mature discussion about race"?
It's Florida; the only thing about this that surprises me is that they bothered to make up an excuse.
I have an idea: Let's just come up with three good comments, then copy/paste over and over. That would be fun!
I don't know…maybe we all ought to have to piss in a cup every morning when we walk out the door – regardless – after all Rick Scott needs something to brew his morning coffee in.
So a drug test is necessary to receive benefits in Florida? So does that mean that you need to submit a piss test every time you file for a tax credit for your home? Energy efficient windows? Pee in the cup! What about when a parent enrolls their kid in public schools? Pee in the cup!
Thanks for making Texas look classy, Florida!
I spoke too soon:
That's Governor Rick "Medicare Fraud" Scott to you, bucko.
How often do Florida politicians have to get tested?
Not often enough.
Well, you should be tested, for sure, but not at the level that a very urban person might need to be.
Parents who test positive must designate another adult to receive benefits on behalf of their children.”
Oh, yeah. That's fraud-proof.
They tested 8000 poors and came up with 4% testing positive for drugs. Contrast that with the general American population, of whom 7% report using illicit drugs in the past 30 days. Seems like the solution to our drug problem is to put everyone on welfare.
Oh wait, most of us are?
"…God-given husband! "
Did god give you a refund or did you have to take a gift card of equal value?
Actually I had to pay him.Well worth it even without 2 cents to rub together. Fifteen years later, my life is my life, and where I am now is my own choice.
I'm assuming that Rick Scott is hoping that any welfare recipients that test positive and get their benefits taken away, will just pack up and leave Florida to get on some other state's welfare rolls.
But how many of them will just say "Fuck it" and commit a crime that gets them three squares and a cot as a guest of the Florida Department of Corrections?
I'm thinking that he hasn't put a lot of thought into the costs associated with incarceration as opposed to welfare.
Exactly fucking right. He's not thinking past "It's the principle of the thing: tax dollars shouldn't be used for drugs." He's trying to sell it as a solution to a moral problem with absolutely no regard for the practical consequences.
The Repugs hate poor people, old people, young people, sick people and female people. Why should anyone who falls into one or more categories support these b*stards?
The American Political Scene is highly populated by dickish types, I mean those who do dickish things. A few of them actually look like dicks. Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present Rick Scott.
Fun! Let's splinter into the Sunny Commenters and the Shite Commenters!
Reformed Sunny or Sunny Reformed? Gobshite or Twelver Shite? So many sects to choose from!
Butt sects or GTFO
Who would know better about ripping off the Federal government than Rick Scott? Takes a thief and all that, wot.
What they ought to be doing is drug-testing the insane motherfuckers who voted for this motherfucker, that's what they ought to be doing, I can tell you that.
I can assure all and sundry that drug-testing strips taste great !!
So now only rich people are allowed to get high?
The new Child Labor!
Three good comments ago, I imagine.
I found itburied in a set of replies earlier in the thread. I just copied and pasted. I thought it would be fun.—
I think Detroit has Iraq beat in the functional illiteracy department…
I agree that making people pay for their own tests is both cruel and r[redacted]ed. But I don't see a Fourth Amendment issue. There is no fundamental right to welfare so states can put whatever conditions they want on it. It's like driving – most, and according to wikipedia, all, states have implied consent laws. If you drive or are licensed in the state, you have consented to a breathylizer or field sobriety test. Implied consent laws have been found to be constitutional.
Also, buttsechs (sorry, but this is geting way to serious for a snark blog. I think someone may be singling me out for [redacted]fisting).
I wonder if implied consent would hold if regular breathalyzer testing were made a condition for keeping your license.