• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

otterpop said:
Does Newt think he has a snowball's chance in Hell of getting the Republican nod? Ethics investigation, maritial infidelities and three divorces. He cheated on his second wife with his current third wife for six years (fitting First Lady, or is it Third Lady, material?) Would they have to change the title - she hasn't exactly acted like a lady?

The both of them are skanks.
Click to expand...

He does have a chance at winning the nomination though. And his past is pointless. He said God has forgiven him. Problem solved.
 
Can someone smarter than I explain Mr. Paul's position on libertarianism?

From this article....

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/20/war.powers/index.html?hpt=T1

"You could say, 'Well, we have a good president, he'll do the right thing.' Well, someday you may have a president who does the wrong thing, and that's why you have rules, because you can never count on people being good people," Paul told CNN."
Click to expand...

Now isn't he one of the people who is trying to get rid of these onerous "rules" that keep the free market from working, and keep government from functioning properly?

Isn't his quote a perfect reflection on why regulation is SO important? I just found this quite interesting since he is constantly against rule making bodies and laws that provide a baseline for our country.
 
Mitch Daniels

Today was the day that this Bear was going to post on this thread a prediction that Mitch Daniels will be the 2012 R candidate for prez. Last night he said "no".

That said, just read this week that Mitch was arrested for possessing a showbox filled with evil weed mary jane. Years ago. And he got off easy.....

Years later, as Indiana's gov, no problem with Mitch pushing through severe penalties and jail time for possessing much less than he did. Hypocrite.

:-@

Bear
 
^^
I lost patience with the Drug War™ decades ago.

Anyways, as an analogy to today's situation, what was the status Ronald Reagan and his campaign in late May, 1979 (the same point in the election timeline as today)?

Mike
 
mgk920 said:
^^
I lost patience with the Drug War™ decades ago.

Anyways, as an analogy to today's situation, what was the status Ronald Reagan and his campaign in late May, 1979 (the same point in the election timeline as today)?

Mike
Click to expand...

You can't possibly compare the 2. It is like the internet on dial up versus broadband. We live in a 24 hour media society in 2011. Not the turn into the nightly news and read it in the paper society of 1979. A serious candidate needs to begin the money machine in order to buy "air-time" staff campaigns, etc. If someone's name isn't in the running by the middle of the summer, good luck with winning a nomination.
 
Lithgow does a dramatic reading of Gingrich's recent press release. A definite must see.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJlL2vfXnJg
 
Bear Up North said:
Today was the day that this Bear was going to post on this thread a prediction that Mitch Daniels will be the 2012 R candidate for prez. Last night he said "no".
Click to expand...

I am disappointed. He was a candidate that I was interested in learning more about. It seems to me that any candidate worth learning about has backed out, using reasoning akin to saying they can't win.

Pawlenty can't win. Romney can't win. So where do we stand?
 
I know I'm guilty of this myself. Can we stop nationalizing local elections? It only contributes to that my team vs your team zero sum politics that dominates our politics.:-{:-@:r::not: What happened yesterday in NYS don't signal anything.:r:
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
I know I'm guilty of this myself. Can we stop nationalizing local elections? It only contributes to that my team vs your team zero sum politics that dominates our politics.:-{:-@:r::not: What happened yesterday in NYS don't signal anything.:r:
Click to expand...

Well, maybe. You can claim that the fact that the Republican candidate vigorously defended the Republican Medicare proposal and that the Democratic candidate hammered away at that issue didn't matter, but I think that's a tough sell. Medicare was the major issue in a district which has a huge Republican enrollment advantage over the Democrats. Keep in mind that the Tea Party candidate was an ex-Democrat running as an "independent", so you can't even say that Corwin lost because of a split conservative vote.
 
Linda_D said:
Well, maybe. You can claim that the fact that the Republican candidate vigorously defended the Republican Medicare proposal and that the Democratic candidate hammered away at that issue didn't matter, but I think that's a tough sell. Medicare was the major issue in a district which has a huge Republican enrollment advantage over the Democrats. Keep in mind that the Tea Party candidate was an ex-Democrat running as an "independent", so you can't even say that Corwin lost because of a split conservative vote.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that national issues didn't play a part, specifically the Ryan budget. However, I just got tired of all the crap that overanalyzed the results. That by loosing this seat, the R's are doomed and 2012 they will lose the House. I don't think this to be the case. Plus, we don't know what will happen between now and then.
 
ugh. I've just had another conversation with a tea party type republican. All I can say is that I once considered republicans to be decent, intelligent, upstanding people. I know its not PC to say this- but most republicans I have conversed with lately are the absolute bottom of the barrel of human intelligence and decency. What the heck happened?
 
imaplanner said:
Is he a decent bassist?

Like I always say- never trust a bass player. :not:
Click to expand...

He could hold his own. No need to "shadow play" him with our regular bassist just off stage. He listened to our entire set sitting on a folding chair. I don't want to like the guy, but I do.
 
imaplanner said:
ugh. I've just had another conversation with a tea party type republican. All I can say is that I once considered republicans to be decent, intelligent, upstanding people. I know its not PC to say this- but most republicans I have conversed with lately are the absolute bottom of the barrel of human intelligence and decency. What the heck happened?
Click to expand...

Fools rush in - that's what happened. Reasonable people - conservative or progressive - don't yell loud enough to garner much attention. Especially in our carnival-news world. The election of Obama happened and the Republican Party took a breather to regroup and more angry, extremist voices filled the void.

The extreme elements of the Tea Party contingency (which I am hesitant to say is most of them, even though that has been my personal experience) have largely hijacked the Republican dialog, IMO. Its a winner take-all attitude that does not rely on the great American tradition of discussion and compromise. Its their way or no way - even their "messages" to Republicans have this tone. "You will not cave on the budget or we will vote you out of office!" Its antagonistic and increases the threat level within the party significantly. Reasonable people who dare to have their own opinions on issues that don't subscribe to their stringent litmus tests (I'm thinking of Scott Brown, among others) face the threat of being ostracized. Personally, I think this whole extremist Tea Party business is going to calm down as we head into the election. They maybe loud, but I really don't think they represent the majority of conservative voices. But candidates are running scared, scrambling hard to position themselves enough to the right to garner the support of the Tea Party, while being centrist enough (which I think means being willing to work together with the dems on select issues) to garner a more populist vote. Unfortunately, money is also a big factor - corporate support is hard to turn down for many but it may also mean supporting stances that, at this juncture in the Great Recession, will be hard for many voters to accept. The issue with health care, for example, is as much about making sure those corporations keep getting our business (and the Medicare voucher deal is great for them because not only will they get the individual's contribution to the coverage, but some of our tax dollars as well) than it is about some general fear of "socialism."

This election's gonna be a doozy - the tension is overwhelming...
 
imaplanner said:
ugh. I've just had another conversation with a tea party type republican. All I can say is that I once considered republicans to be decent, intelligent, upstanding people. I know its not PC to say this- but most republicans I have conversed with lately are the absolute bottom of the barrel of human intelligence and decency. What the heck happened?
Click to expand...

I think that Fox News made CNN, Msnbc, etc. become more partisan, and it has hurt the national dialog. When you have people spew absolute ignorance on tv - too many to name on Fox News or Msnbc - it just makes sense that some people will take it for fact. I am one of the few on earth that support the Fairness Doctrine, or at least something that requires you to validate your vitriol more so than saying it is true.

Until we get talking heads and other dividers out of the mainstream, it is only going to get worse. Maybe we will just all get along next year....:not:
 
^^
If you think that news media discourse is nasty now, just spend some time going through newspapers from a century and more ago. Some of the stuff from the time of the American Revolution makes today's stuff look like everyone singing Kumbaya in a campfire circle.

Mike
 
wahday said:
Fools rush in - that's what happened. Reasonable people - conservative or progressive - don't yell loud enough to garner much attention. Especially in our carnival-news world. The election of Obama happened and the Republican Party took a breather to regroup and more angry, extremist voices filled the void.
...
Click to expand...

I think you are right. I know my parents are lifelong republicans but they are hesitant to admit it the last year and a half or so. Reasonable people seem to be laying low. But its scary what is going on. I've certainly never seen anything like it. The most recent discussion I had with a vociferous republican tea party type was downright scary.
 
Hink_Planner said:
I think that Fox News made CNN, Msnbc, etc. become more partisan, and it has hurt the national dialog. When you have people spew absolute ignorance on tv - too many to name on Fox News or Msnbc - it just makes sense that some people will take it for fact. I am one of the few on earth that support the Fairness Doctrine, or at least something that requires you to validate your vitriol more so than saying it is true.

Until we get talking heads and other dividers out of the mainstream, it is only going to get worse. Maybe we will just all get along next year....:not:
Click to expand...

I miss Keith Olbermann. He seemed to be the only guy who recognized how much of a game political leaning news reports are and had some fun with it. Lately MSNBC has been just as awful to watch as Fox News.
 
HomerJ9139 said:
I miss Keith Olbermann. He seemed to be the only guy who recognized how much of a game political leaning news reports are and had some fun with it. Lately MSNBC has been just as awful to watch as Fox News.
Click to expand...

I couldn't stand Olberman. I agreed with him on most things, but I just can't stand that type of "news opinion" or whatever you call it. I agree he just decided to copy the format and rhetoric of Fox News, but still.
 
mgk920 said:
^^
If you think that news media discourse is nasty now, just spend some time going through newspapers from a century and more ago. Some of the stuff from the time of the American Revolution makes today's stuff look like everyone singing Kumbaya in a campfire circle.

Mike
Click to expand...

It's not about the LEVEL of nastiness. It's the amount of nastiness and the easy access to that nastiness.

We also don't elect our national politicians like we did even at the turn of the 20th century. We're actually a more direct democracy today in that regards.

Combine that with the easy acess to the nastiness, and it gets ugly.
 
btrage said:
It's not about the LEVEL of nastiness. It's the amount of nastiness and the easy access to that nastiness.

We also don't elect our national politicians like we did even at the turn of the 20th century. We're actually a more direct democracy today in that regards.

Combine that with the easy access to the nastiness, and it gets ugly.
Click to expand...

This is my argument. I would imagine that not many people in the US saw the "nastiness". If you bought a paper or could read even, you did, but even that was a MUCH lower number than who have access today.

The ability for lies, hate speech, etc. to be disseminated now is like no other time. You can be nasty - I support that. It is all the lies and bigotry that is prevalent every night on stations like Fox News and Msnbc.

Instead of creating a dialog, or informing people - they strive for ratings and the creation of stories.

Explain to me one positive thing that people like Hannity or Ed Schulz have done for the national dialog. Don't get me started on people like Rush or Glenn Beck.

It was one thing when people like Ann Coulter or Al Franken were writing books. Not many people care enough to buy and read a book anymore. The ease of the television lies is what I have a problem with.
 
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/01/cnn-poll-majority-gives-thumbs-down-to-ryan-plan/

Interesting - yet so obvious. People don't like cutting medicare or Paul Ryan. The polls strongly show that.

Half of those we questioned say that the country would be worse off under the GOP Medicare proposals and 56 percent think that GOP plan would be bad for the elderly
Click to expand...

The real interesting part of the CNN poll though is that,

Overall, a plurality still says that GOP control of the House is good for the country, but the margin on that question has narrowed from a 52 to 39 percent margin in November to just a 48 to 44 percent margin now
Click to expand...

Yikes! It seems that people get testy when it comes to medicare. It is funny because I personally think it is a good thing to have a split house and senate but I can understand why the elderly probably don't care about that balance.

I think the GOP is going to have some work to do in terms of defining a message that isn't - the democrats do it wrong or cut until this all works itself out. The debt ceiling is going to be yet another issue the GOP is going to lose at in the public arena.

Or are these polls just the liberal media spinning things again? :r:
 
mgk920 said:
Who was it who just cut mind-boggling amounts of funding from it, such that it will all simply be going away within 8-10 years at current rates? At least Ryan is trying to *preserve* the program for future generations.

Sheesh!

:r:

Mike
Click to expand...

My personal opinion isn't exactly reflective of the national polls. I think Ryan's plan would be acceptable if he included more tax increases in conjunction with some modified cuts.

I think the public opinion is negative on Obama for what he has done with cuts as well.

Sheesh... ;)
 
Did I miss a discussion about Florida requiring welfare recipients to pass a drug screening test before becoming eligible for aid?

I'm not sure why so many people are up in arms about this. Someone who thinks this is unconstitutional, please explain to me on what basis this determination is made? Seriously though. I am curious.
I am drug tested every 4 months or so to keep my job. Welfare recipients in Florida would only be required to pass one initial test to qualify for aid. I don't even think the measure will solve the problem. It is more of a token item or perhaps a motion to set up precedent for future testing that will be more in-depth. I'd love to hear what other Cyburbians think about this.
 
:-@
TerraSapient said:
Did I miss a discussion about Florida requiring welfare recipients to pass a drug screening test before becoming eligible for aid?

I'm not sure why so many people are up in arms about this. Someone who thinks this is unconstitutional, please explain to me on what basis this determination is made? Seriously though. I am curious.
I am drug tested every 4 months or so to keep my job. Welfare recipients in Florida would only be required to pass one initial test to qualify for aid. I don't even think the measure will solve the problem. It is more of a token item or perhaps a motion to set up precedent for future testing that will be more in-depth. I'd love to hear what other Cyburbians think about this.
Click to expand...

I am against all drug testing as a fundamental personal liberty issue. But my biggest issue with Florida is that Governor Rick Scott who pushed this through, owns a drug testing firm that will be doing most of the drug testing. He will be making millions. Way to enrich yourself at the taxpayers expense Mr. Scott. :-@
 
imaplanner said:
I am against all drug testing as a fundamental personal liberty issue. But my biggest issue with Florida is that Governor Rick Scott who pushed this through, owns a drug testing firm that will be doing most of the drug testing. He will be making millions. Way to enrich yourself at the taxpayers expense Mr. Scott. :-@
Click to expand...

Really? That is a pretty big conflict of interest. Surprise surprise. I agree with you that it is a violation of privacy. If whatever people do outside of work doesn't interfere with their jobs and they remain functioning members of society, then I say live and let live. However, the issue is of the constitutionality of the policy. Is it unconstitutional to require a welfare applicant (or any other worker) to pass a drug test before they are eligible for aid (or employment)?
 
TerraSapient said:
Is it unconstitutional to require a welfare applicant (or any other worker) to pass a drug test before they are eligible for aid (or employment)?
Click to expand...

I'd say it's just as constitutional as it is to ask an applicant for any prior convictions etc. If someone tests positive for taking a drug that is illegal, well... I personally am on the fence as far as a moral stance. But I'd say it's well within an organization's rights.
 
imaplanner said:
I am against all drug testing as a fundamental personal liberty issue.
Click to expand...

It isn't like they are drug testing random people. I don't think it is wrong to ask someone who is getting aide to meet certain criteria. Now if they said anyone who wants to eat at this shelter must pass a drug test - I would be up in arms.

If you don't want to take a drug test no one is forcing you to. If you want to get welfare you pass the test. I would like to see it as a yearly or bi-yearly requirement. I don't think that infringes on anyone's liberty unless they need something. I don't like that I take a pee test every year, but I do it because I like my job and it is a requirement for me to work here.

No one is forcing this on people. If you want to use the service, you follow the rules. At least that is how I look at it.
 
It seems like the basic premises are that if you use drugs:

1. Drugs are why you're unemployed/under-employed, and/or
2. You'll spend your assistance on more drugs.

Both of those may be true, but is the same test being applied to alcohol, gambling, or other addictive behaviors?

FYI, I support drug testing in the workplace.
 
Alcohol would be included in the initial screening I believe. Though, this measure would only be as effective ay detecting alcohol abuse as it is at detecting drug abuse. One test basically doesn't do squat. I have no idea how one would test for gambling addiction.
 
TerraSapient said:
Alcohol would be included in the initial screening I believe. Though, this measure would only be as effective ay detecting alcohol abuse as it is at detecting drug abuse. One test basically doesn't do squat. I have no idea how one would test for gambling addiction.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really asking if the others were included in the Florida legislation, just trying to make a point that blaming the recipients for needing welfare could be done on several levels.

As far as testing for gambling addiction, I suppose they could hold a qualification lottery and reject everyone who enters due to their compulsive gambling habit.
 
TerraSapient said:
Did I miss a discussion about Florida requiring welfare recipients to pass a drug screening test before becoming eligible for aid?

I'm not sure why so many people are up in arms about this. Someone who thinks this is unconstitutional, please explain to me on what basis this determination is made? Seriously though. I am curious.
I am drug tested every 4 months or so to keep my job. Welfare recipients in Florida would only be required to pass one initial test to qualify for aid. I don't even think the measure will solve the problem. It is more of a token item or perhaps a motion to set up precedent for future testing that will be more in-depth. I'd love to hear what other Cyburbians think about this.
Click to expand...

Can it be required legally? Yes, I think so. People often receive assistance to care for children living below the poverty level. Should the government want to take steps to be more certain the money is going for the children's care? Oh yeah. Parents who abuse drugs are not good parents.

Is it a dick move? Definitely.
 
TerraSapient said:
Really?
Click to expand...

Yes. Really


ofos said:
FYI, I support drug testing in the workplace.
Click to expand...

I support it only for positions that have legitimate safety concerns. Heavy equipment operators, police, etc.

What people do on their own time should be nobody's business provided it doesn't affect workplace productivity, judgement or liability. If an employee is having drug problems in the workplace or affecting their work, fire them. If an employee is ocassionally sharing a joint while on a camping trip with college buddies, it's none of your business IMO.
 
Last edited:
ofos said:
It seems like the basic premises are that if you use drugs:

1. Drugs are why you're unemployed/under-employed, and/or
2. You'll spend your assistance on more drugs.

Both of those may be true, but is the same test being applied to alcohol, gambling, or other addictive behaviors?

FYI, I support drug testing in the workplace.
Click to expand...

I think that drug tests for employment/welfare are legal NOT because drugs are addictive (as some, like marijuana, are not) but because they are testing for illegal drugs. Employers/prospective employers cannot test for legal drugs, including alcohol, without justification. It's an invasion of medical privacy, for example, for your employer to test for drugs that might be associated with the treatment of a disease. They can give you a physical and take a BP reading to make sure that you are healthy, but I don't believe they can require a test to determine if you controlling your BP with a drug.
 
ofos said:
It seems like the basic premises are that if you use drugs:

1. Drugs are why you're unemployed/under-employed, and/or
2. You'll spend your assistance on more drugs.

Both of those may be true, but is the same test being applied to alcohol, gambling, or other addictive behaviors?

FYI, I support drug testing in the workplace.
Click to expand...

Linda_D said:
I think that drug tests for employment/welfare are legal NOT because drugs are addictive (as some, like marijuana, are not) but because they are testing for illegal drugs. Employers/prospective employers cannot test for legal drugs, including alcohol, without justification. It's an invasion of medical privacy, for example, for your employer to test for drugs that might be associated with the treatment of a disease. They can give you a physical and take a BP reading to make sure that you are healthy, but I don't believe they can require a test to determine if you controlling your BP with a drug.
Click to expand...

What she said ^^.

The difference between these addictive behaviors is that these drugs are illegal.
 
TexanOkie said:
What she said ^^.

The difference between these addictive behaviors is that these drugs are illegal.
Click to expand...

So what you're telling me is that the State of Florida legislators are, with the purest of intentions, only interested in making sure that the potential welfare recipients of that state are not engaging in illegal activities? Are they going to prosecute them as well as deny them benefits? By the way, most forms of gambling are illegal too. I think I just saw a whole flock of pigs doing a fly-by.
 
ofos said:
So what you're telling me is that the State of Florida legislators are, with the purest of intentions, only interested in making sure that the potential welfare recipients of that state are not engaging in illegal activities? Are they going to prosecute them as well as deny them benefits? By the way, most forms of gambling are illegal too. I think I just saw a whole flock of pigs doing a fly-by.
Click to expand...


I think what Linda and Texan are saying (and I agree) is that regardless of the organization's motives they are well within their legal right to make sure their applicants are not breaking the law. As far as the gambling, maybe that's just something too difficult screen for.

This is why morally I am on the fence, but as far as legality I think it's well within the organization's rights.
 
Outside of the moral and legal issues, I've heard that it is actually cost-prohibitive to drug-test welfare recipients.

Michigan actually tried to drug-test welfare recipients back in the late 90s. After a lengthy court battle, it was, IIRC, ruled unconstitutional. I'm too lazy right now to look up a link.

I'm hot. I want a beer.
 
^^ In the FL version the applicant pays for the drug test themselves or it is deducted from their aid dispersement, or something like that.
 
Originally posted by TerraSapient
^^ In the FL version the applicant pays for the drug test themselves or it is deducted from their aid dispersement, or something like that.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that was how it worked. So instead of enriching himself with taxpayer dollars Gov. Scott is enriching himself by taking directly from the poorest people in his state? :-@
 
TerraSapient said:
^^ In the FL version the applicant pays for the drug test themselves or it is deducted from their aid dispersement, or something like that.
Click to expand...

I won't get into potential Constitutional issues, mainly because it gets into the whole right to privacy issue that is always touchy. I don't like it, but it doesn't bother me.

Drug testing for illegal drugs doesn't bother me, as many employers these days have that requirement and the use of illegal drugs would be an impediment to the client successfully getting a job and hopefully getting off welfare. But what makes this bad public policy is the potential cost of drug testing every single welfare recipient, especially compared to any potential savings that might be realized through benefit denials. I think they might be surprised to learn drug use in welfare recipients is not as prevalent as generally thought. I liken this to the policy in Texas requiring performance-enhancing drug testing for high school athletes after 1-2 incidences being reported: to my knowledge this testing policy only tagged 7 postives out of 19,000 tests. I find it morally reprehensible that Florida would require the person applying to pay for the drug screening--it should be a cost borne by the welfare agency if it is going to be required. You don't kick someone while they are down.

And I 100% believe that this issue in Florida was pushed through because of the governor's relationship to his drug testing business (and his friends in the business). Sure, he says he is selling his stake in the company... after this law is passed. In passing the law, it increased the potential value of his business, thus resulting in a higher sale price.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I won't get into potential Constitutional issues, mainly because it gets into the whole right to privacy issue that is always touchy.

And I 100% believe that this issue in Florida was pushed through because of the governor's relationship to his drug testing business .
Click to expand...

You're not required by law to apply for welfare benefits so there is no invasion of privacy. If you sign up for something knowing the process you can hardly claim invasion of privacy if it's spelled out from the beginning.

Just because he owned a related business doesn't mean it's not a good policy.
 
stroskey said:
Just because he owned a related business doesn't mean it's not a good policy.
Click to expand...

he still owns the business (that it was transferred into his wife's name makes no difference). But more importantly, noone in Florida was pushing for this. My understanding is all the dems and much of the GOP was not supportive of it. AND we have to remember that Governor Rick Scott's former health care company was found guilty of HUGE medicare fraud. Governor Scott pleaded the fifth over a hundred times in response to questions such as "Did you know aout this", "Did you authorize the fraud" etc.

He is a crook. It makes me extremely angry
 
stroskey said:
Just because he owned a related business doesn't mean it's not a good policy.
Click to expand...

I was speaking to his motivation. You can have bad motives and still create a good policy.

It just so happens that he has bad motives and it has resulted in a bad policy. He is creating a policy in which more will be spent on drug testing people than will be gained in forfeited welfare benefits. And making the individual applying for welfare pay for it is just messed up (like they have money to spend on a drug test--THEY ARE APPLYING FOR WELFARE).

Drug use for welfare recipients in actual legit studies I've seen is around 3 percent. FlaGov said 9.7%, we'll say 10% to make it easy. Let's say the average welfare check is about $200, and the average cost for a drug test is really low at $25. The Florida law says they will reimburse recipients that pass the drug test. Florida would require a monthly drug test for a welfare-based drug testing policy to be effective. Let's say there are 100,000 receiving welfare, which would mean 10,000 of them are on welfare.

Cost of all negative drug tests (reimbursed): $27,000,000
(90,000 x ($25 x 12 monthly tests))

Annual savings from forfeited welfare payments: $24,000,000
(10,000 x ($200 x 12 months))

It would cost $3,000,000 more than it would save. Florida did a pilot program of this in 2001 and found it was not cost-effective. Other states have had the same findings during their debates of similar programs.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top