PDA

View Full Version : Anti-Drug Republican Busted for Coke



Chip-skiff
04-28-2015, 12:44 PM
Another Republican wowser bites the dust.

Trey Radel, Busted On Cocaine Charge, Voted For Drug Testing Food Stamp Recipients

Most of the state legislation was authored by Republicans. Oftentimes, state Democrats responded by suggesting lawmakers should be subject to tests as well (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/07/unemployment_n_1189989.html). If the government's going to make sure recipients of taxpayer-funded benefits are clean, the argument went, then why not also make sure the recipients of taxpayer salaries are clean, too?

In June, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) made that very suggestion when he questioned why recipients of crop insurance and other government benefits weren't also targeted for drug tests like people on food stamps.

"Why don't we drug test all the members of Congress here," McGovern said shortly before the drug-testing measure passed. "Force everybody to go urinate in a cup or see whether or not anybody is on drugs? Maybe that will explain why some of these amendments are coming up or why some of the votes are turning out the way they are."

The fate of the food stamp drug testing provision is in the hands of a House-Senate conference committee hashing out differences between food stamp and farm legislation that passed the two chambers. It's got a chance. Last year, Congress passed a law to let states drug-test some unemployment insurance recipients.

Radel apologized Tuesday for his cocaine bust and said he'd seek treatment.

"I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/trey-radel-drug-testing_n_4305348.html

Paul Pless
04-28-2015, 12:46 PM
oops

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-28-2015, 12:49 PM
Kaaaah-ching!

CWSmith
04-28-2015, 12:49 PM
I do believe that addiction is a disease and I do believe in getting help.

I also believe in treating others as we would want to be treated. I suppose this is where I and Mr. Radel diverge in our thinking.

Chip-skiff
04-28-2015, 12:57 PM
I do believe that addiction is a disease and I do believe in getting help.

I also believe in treating others as we would want to be treated. I suppose this is where I and Mr. Radel diverge in our thinking.

Where you diverge is that you think and he does not.

CWSmith
04-28-2015, 01:03 PM
Where you diverge is that you think and he does not.

Oh, he thinks. He thinks that welfare families are systematically abusing the system. He thinks that poor people don't want to break their cycle of addiction. He thinks that the poor are lazy. But then, I'm just thinking what I think he thinks.

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-28-2015, 01:09 PM
He 's not worried. All he has to do is play the "I found Jesus" card if his congressional seat is in danger.

Sky Blue
04-28-2015, 01:34 PM
Sheesh, the poor gentleman obviously has substance abuse problems which will probably cost him his career. It is so good to see the humanity and compassion demonstrated by the "good progressives" here.

Nice of them to throw a schadenfreude party in his honor. Very impressive indeed.

JimD
04-28-2015, 01:37 PM
Sheesh, the poor gentleman obviously has substance abuse problems which will probably cost him his career...
Haha, good one.

S.V. Airlie
04-28-2015, 01:39 PM
Too bad when he wanted those getting food stamps (gov. money ) by voting yes, he couldn't and didn't pass the test he wanted the poor to pass.. Poor GENTLEMAN my ass! Glad the snake bit him. I guess he knows finally, he ain't above the law!

ishmael
04-28-2015, 01:42 PM
Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Rum_Pirate
04-28-2015, 01:43 PM
If found guilty, imprison him to the full extent of the law.

Sky Blue
04-28-2015, 01:46 PM
Perhaps it is lost on you Jamie that to celebrate the circumstances the gentleman finds himself in is to become precisely the hypocritical individual that he was in his testing approach to the poor.

What makes it worse, here, is that the progressives are the ones always holding themselves out as having a heart, being forgiving and magnanimous, etc.

Of course, those who follow this forum know that the converse is true, that is, instead showing the vaunted compassion, they show themselves truly for who they are in that they are perfectly happy to celebrate his misfortune.

Got hypocrisy?

Norman Bernstein
04-28-2015, 01:51 PM
To no one, in particular:

When an individual falls afoul of drugs, and it has seriously negative effects on his life, he is deserving of some sympathy: 'there, but for the grace of God, go I'.

When an individual uses his political platform to preach harsh, and even vindictive, treatment of people who have fallen afoul of drugs... and is then discovered to be an addict himself, he deserves scorn...

NOT for his drug habit, because that could happen to anyone.

He deserves the scorn for his hypocrisy.

George Jung
04-28-2015, 01:51 PM
It's not schadenfreude, but more likely karma, a life lesson for someone who truly needs it. It's a blessing, really.

I'm surprised you don't recognize this.

Garret
04-28-2015, 01:53 PM
Perhaps it is lost on you Jamie that to celebrate the circumstances the gentleman finds himself in is to become precisely the hypocritical individual that he was in his testing approach to the poor.

What makes it worse, here, is that the progressives are the ones always holding themselves out as having a heart, being forgiving and magnanimous, etc.

Of course, those who follow this forum know that the converse is true, that is, instead showing the vaunted compassion, they show themselves truly for who they are in that they are perfectly happy to celebrate his misfortune.

Got hypocrisy?

You can't really be that blind, can you? The difference is that we are not the ones trying to pass legislation forcing others to take the tests. If the man had a shred of decency, he, knowing he was a user, would have voted against the requirement or, if he felt compelled to vote for it, to turn himself in to the police immediately after the vote.

Sorry - but Mr. Radel is the hypocrite.

JimD
04-28-2015, 01:54 PM
So as it turns out someone does got hypocrisy.

Sky Blue
04-28-2015, 02:01 PM
It's not schadenfreude, but more likely karma, a life lesson



Well, of course, George. But do you deny that some in this thread aren't pleased, aren't almost giddy with this turn of events and that the gentlemen is now "getting his?"

It is classic schadenfreude, George, you know it, it looks bad, and I'm surprised to see you defending it, quite frankly. You used to be one of the truly reasonable people here, one of the wise old sages.

The intent of the OP was to show us "the blessing" the man has received? Really? Stop digging, George.

George Jung
04-28-2015, 02:07 PM
You first, SB. And despite that smoke you're blowing up my 'skirt', I've never confused you for a fan, or even an honest participant, only a shameless provocateur.

Not schadenfreude; this 'gentleman' got caught out in a trap of his own making. He needs help; this should do it.

RonW
04-28-2015, 02:07 PM
Good.........get rid of all the bad apples..there does seem to be a endless supply, and I have noticed most of the bad repubs are state reps, it seem like bad dems get higher up the ladder before they get busted......

---Oh and I agree with the dems 100% it is absurd to drug test for food stamps, even convicted criminals get food, water and a blanket..........

I didn't know george was scottish, do you play the bag pipes george ?

Donn
04-28-2015, 02:15 PM
If found guilty, imprison him to the full extent of the law.

He was found guilty of misdemeanor coke possession in the fall of 2013, and sentenced to a year's probation.

He resigned from the legislature in January of 2014.

He satisfied the terms of his probation last fall, and his record was expunged.

RonW
04-28-2015, 02:18 PM
He was found guilty of misdemeanor coke possession in the fall of 2013, and sentenced to a year's probation.

He resigned from the legislature in January of 2014.

He satisfied the terms of his probation last fall, and his record was expunged.

Sounds like he has a good chance of getting elected mayor of Washington D.C. or most cities in canada.....

Sky Blue
04-28-2015, 02:23 PM
George, I think you will feel better about all of this when you apologize, either privately or publicly, for your misdeed directed to me, which was completely out of character for you and which I believe troubles you still. I think you're doing a slow stalk here mostly because you are angry at yourself, not me, and are simply too stubborn to admit it.

This is affecting your credibility by causing you to come in an defend stuff like this when those who OP'd it and joined in the schadenfreude at least have the dignity not to do so.

Please stop digging, George, if not for me, then at least for yourself.

George Jung
04-28-2015, 02:35 PM
You're so FOS. Somebody has too much time on their hands, needs a job. Good luck passing the background check.

Sky Blue
04-28-2015, 02:42 PM
Unfortunately, I am compelled to put you on ignore at this point, George. Peace to you.

ccmanuals
04-28-2015, 02:45 PM
Perhaps it is lost on you Jamie that to celebrate the circumstances the gentleman finds himself in is to become precisely the hypocritical individual that he was in his testing approach to the poor.

What makes it worse, here, is that the progressives are the ones always holding themselves out as having a heart, being forgiving and magnanimous, etc.

Of course, those who follow this forum know that the converse is true, that is, instead showing the vaunted compassion, they show themselves truly for who they are in that they are perfectly happy to celebrate his misfortune.

Got hypocrisy?

Says the guy who exhibited virtually no compassion for the food service guy in the capital.

Sky Blue
04-28-2015, 02:48 PM
Says the guy who exhibited virtually no compassion for the food service guy in the capital.

Right. I agree. But that is just the point. Recall my treatment in that thread? And my position was an honest one, if unpopular, but I wasn't celebrating the misfortune in any way.

But of course that is what we have here in this thread. And so I say: got hypocrisy?

Captain Intrepid
04-28-2015, 02:49 PM
I've all the compassion in the world to those who succumb to addiction, but nothing but contempt for those who succumb and expect compassion while actively decrying compassion for others.

Canoeyawl
04-28-2015, 03:33 PM
It's not schadenfreude, but more likely karma, a life lesson for someone who truly needs it. It's a blessing, really.

.

It didn't do much for Limbaugh...

skuthorp
04-28-2015, 03:47 PM
The indonesians just shot 8 people this morning for drug offences.

Garret
04-28-2015, 03:59 PM
I've all the compassion in the world to those who succumb to addiction, but nothing but contempt for those who succumb and expect compassion while actively decrying compassion for others.

Well said.

skuthorp
04-28-2015, 04:02 PM
There was a state politician here a while ago who was in the lead in the anti-porn campaign. Turns out that after he died there was a large collection of it found. It was always rumoured in press circles but under our defamation laws they couldn't publish.
The shriller the protests, the more I am suspicious.

S.V. Airlie
04-28-2015, 04:11 PM
Perhaps it is lost on you Jamie that to celebrate the circumstances the gentleman finds himself in is to become precisely the hypocritical individual that he was in his testing approach to the poor.

What makes it worse, here, is that the progressives are the ones always holding themselves out as having a heart, being forgiving and magnanimous, etc.

Of course, those who follow this forum know that the converse is true, that is, instead showing the vaunted compassion, they show themselves truly for who they are in that they are perfectly happy to celebrate his misfortune.

Got hypocrisy?It wasn't in the slightest lost on me! I basically called him a hypocrite without actually using the term. It was obvious he was.

bobbys
04-28-2015, 04:30 PM
You can't really be that blind, can you? The difference is that we are not the ones trying to pass legislation forcing others to take the tests. If the man had a shred of decency, he, knowing he was a user, would have voted against the requirement or, if he felt compelled to vote for it, to turn himself in to the police immediately after the vote.

Sorry - but Mr. Radel is the hypocrite..

The man is a hypocrite and violated his own standards. However if one has NO standards and judges is that not more hypocritical?.

You would have nothing to be hypocritical about , Right?

delecta
04-28-2015, 04:36 PM
I think that he knows the pitfalls of being a drug addict and perhaps is best suited at suggesting something that might make a difference. He will now be subjected to basically what he wanted to prescribe for others.

I doubt that most will understand that, if he was a dem we would never have heard about it, which is sort of sad but not surprising.

Captain Intrepid
04-28-2015, 04:43 PM
I think that he knows the pitfalls of being a drug addict and perhaps is best suited at suggesting something that might make a difference. He will now be subjected to basically what he wanted to prescribe for others.

I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason he was such a hard hearted ***hole is he was trying to distract from his own life. It's kind of like how some gay politicians become raging homophobic bigots out of a misplaced sense of shame.



I doubt that most will understand that, if he was a dem we would never have heard about it, which is sort of sad but not surprising.

I highly doubt that. The main difference is the right would be lambasting him for his addiction, not for his lack of basic human decency.

Phillip Allen
04-28-2015, 04:49 PM
To no one, in particular:

When an individual falls afoul of drugs, and it has seriously negative effects on his life, he is deserving of some sympathy: 'there, but for the grace of God, go I'.

When an individual uses his political platform to preach harsh, and even vindictive, treatment of people who have fallen afoul of drugs... and is then discovered to be an addict himself, he deserves scorn...

NOT for his drug habit, because that could happen to anyone.

He deserves the scorn for his hypocrisy.

okay... I'll buy that

Phillip Allen
04-28-2015, 04:53 PM
You're so FOS. Somebody has too much time on their hands, needs a job. Good luck passing the background check.

HOO-RAY for George... that's exactly the way I would have defended myself! :)

Phillip Allen
04-28-2015, 04:54 PM
The indonesians just shot 8 people this morning for drug offences.

really? I forgot to check...

Sky Blue
04-28-2015, 04:55 PM
I guess it boils down to the issue of to whom one is going to surrender one's humanity to, and why.

Do we laugh and kick up our heels at the unfortunate circumstance of someone who has acted hypocritically, simply because we disagree with that person's political opinions? Have people really allowed their hatred for their political opponents to essentially dictate the circumstances under which they will be compassionate to others?

The other day some dullard in here was unhappy with some remarks I'd made and wrote in substance that if he saw me walking in a rainstorm, he would swerve the puddle and make sure I got even wetter.

When you allow your feelings toward others to control your own conduct and choices, you've essentially lost control of yourself and have surrendered your autonomy and humanity over to them. Think about it.

Phillip Allen
04-28-2015, 04:57 PM
I am reminded of the many page defense of/by our drug users here in the bilge... it all depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?

Phillip Allen
04-28-2015, 04:58 PM
I guess it boils down to the issue of to whom one is going to surrender one's humanity to, and why.

Do we laugh and kick up our heels at the unfortunate circumstance of someone who has acted hypocritically, simply because we disagree with that person's political opinions? Have people really allowed their hatred for their political opponents to essentially dictate the circumstances under which they will be compassionate to others?

The other day some dullard in here was unhappy with some remarks I'd made and wrote in substance that if he saw me walking in a rainstorm, he would swerve the puddle and make sure I got even wetter.

When you allow your feelings toward others to control your own conduct and choices, you've essentially lost control of yourself and have surrendered your autonomy and humanity over to them. Think about it.

pearls before swine... :(

Gerarddm
04-28-2015, 05:00 PM
Norm's #14 hits the nail on the head.

All you bleaters about progressive glee go away.

PeterSibley
04-28-2015, 05:07 PM
Perhaps it is lost on you Jamie that to celebrate the circumstances the gentleman finds himself in is to become precisely the hypocritical individual that he was in his testing approach to the poor.

What makes it worse, here, is that the progressives are the ones always holding themselves out as having a heart, being forgiving and magnanimous, etc.

Of course, those who follow this forum know that the converse is true, that is, instead showing the vaunted compassion, they show themselves truly for who they are in that they are perfectly happy to celebrate his misfortune.

Got hypocrisy?


To no one, in particular:

When an individual falls afoul of drugs, and it has seriously negative effects on his life, he is deserving of some sympathy: 'there, but for the grace of God, go I'.

When an individual uses his political platform to preach harsh, and even vindictive, treatment of people who have fallen afoul of drugs... and is then discovered to be an addict himself, he deserves scorn...

NOT for his drug habit, because that could happen to anyone.

He deserves the scorn for his hypocrisy.

Precisely.

Sky Blue
04-28-2015, 05:11 PM
Thank you, Phillip. There's an old story. I am reasonably generous by nature, I think, with my things and my money, for friends and family, and people generally in need. Obviously there are reasonable limits.

Many years ago, my brother-in-law, who had always been unkind, insensitive and ungenerous to me, left his wife and moved into an apartment. He needed furniture, dishes, a bed, etc. We had an abundance of these things in our garage, and he asked my wife for them.

Every instinct I had was to say no, in view of how he had treated me, but to do so would have been to allow this man's behavior towards me to control how I would choose to respond to the universe, to a person's reasonable need (even if it was him). As difficult as it was, I allowed my wife to provide to her brother whatever and as much as he needed from our things. After it was done, I felt very good about it.

From that day, he has been nothing but generous and kind to me and I believe that by not surrendering my humanity to him he learned a much greater lesson than if I had returned, in a punitive manner, the same conduct and treatment that he had shown me.

Sky Blue
04-28-2015, 05:20 PM
he deserves scorn

I try and stay away from deciding what others "deserve," especially if those desserts have absolute nothing to do with me personally and might tend to cause me to behave harshly in manner or attitude toward someone, or if I've not walked the proverbial "mile in their shoes," no matter how odious I might consider them to be.

Obviously at times I fall short of this, but it is what I strive for. I think it has brought me more peace and satisfaction than heaping someone up with a bunch of scorn would have done.

But each to his own.

Garret
04-28-2015, 05:25 PM
.

The man is a hypocrite and violated his own standards. However if one has NO standards and judges is that not more hypocritical?.

You would have nothing to be hypocritical about , Right?

Well - I have standards - however I do hang out with the likes of you in the Bilge - so maybe they're suspect? :p

I try not to be hypocritical. I know I have been, but either I (or someone else on a few occasions) has caught it.

In his shoes, I woulda simply kept my mouth shut.

hokiefan
04-28-2015, 05:39 PM
I guess it boils down to the issue of to whom one is going to surrender one's humanity to, and why.

Do we laugh and kick up our heels at the unfortunate circumstance of someone who has acted hypocritically, simply because we disagree with that person's political opinions? Have people really allowed their hatred for their political opponents to essentially dictate the circumstances under which they will be compassionate to others?

The other day some dullard in here was unhappy with some remarks I'd made and wrote in substance that if he saw me walking in a rainstorm, he would swerve the puddle and make sure I got even wetter.

When you allow your feelings toward others to control your own conduct and choices, you've essentially lost control of yourself and have surrendered your autonomy and humanity over to them. Think about it.

Says the man who can't control his urge to publicly call someone stupid. Carry on...

Sky Blue
04-28-2015, 05:49 PM
says the man who can't control his urge

It becomes an issue, I think, when you name names. Some people do act stupidly, we all do at times, and there is nothing wrong with observing that.

There is a qualitative difference, obviously, when done right to someone's face, or doing so in naming names, essentially calling people out. It is what it is.

Flying Orca
04-28-2015, 06:03 PM
Sheesh, the poor gentleman obviously has substance abuse problems which will probably cost him his career. It is so good to see the humanity and compassion demonstrated by the "good progressives" here.

Nice of them to throw a schadenfreude party in his honor. Very impressive indeed.

The schadenfreude is less about his addiction problems and more about the fact that he's a hypocritical nozzle. They seem to be overrepresented amongst conservative politicians.

Flying Orca
04-28-2015, 06:11 PM
Do we laugh and kick up our heels at the unfortunate circumstance of someone who has acted hypocritically, simply because we disagree with that person's political opinions?

Nah... disagreeing with their political opinions just makes it sweeter.

If the hypocrisy and their political actions are related, however, it really becomes sweet. That's why this kind of thing is so satisfying.


Have people really allowed their hatred for their political opponents to essentially dictate the circumstances under which they will be compassionate to others?

Buddy gave up his claim to compassion when he tried to punish others for something he does himself.

Sky Blue
04-28-2015, 06:18 PM
The schadenfreude is less about his addiction problems and more about the fact that he's a hypocritical nozzle.

That doesn't make any sense. Without his addiction problem, there is no reason to suppose that he is a hypocrite.

If there is to be a celebration as to this man being shown as a hypocrite, the schadenfreude must necessarily be associated with why that might be the case.

Boater14
04-28-2015, 06:21 PM
sky, you've topped yourself. the guys a junkie who wanted people on welfare to be drug tested. the poor gentlemen. he's neither. i'd forgotten how your pomposity can muddle your message. you need to edit. I like to use JFK's message on the coconut as a guide. "eleven alive need small boat native knows position he can pilot. Kennedy". also, just compose the message and don't try to show how really smart you are. just a few tips.

Sky Blue
04-28-2015, 06:23 PM
Boater and FO have missed the point entirely. It isn't about him. Its about you. :)

Captain Intrepid
04-28-2015, 06:25 PM
That doesn't make any sense. Without his addiction problem, there is no reason to suppose that he is a hypocrite.

The reason he's a hypocrite isn't his addiction, the reason he's a hypocrite is that he systematically opposes compassion for those who are. He was despicable before, now he's despicable AND hypocritical.

Sky Blue
04-28-2015, 06:36 PM
I agree he's a hypocrite, so there's really no use arguing why that is the case.

However, it isn't clear that he opposes compassion for other addicts. Rather, his position would seem to be that public benefits ought not to be given to those addicted to illegal narcotics.

There is a strong public policy argument in favor of this view, that is, society benefits when persons are not addicted to illegal narcotics, and to the extent that public benefits could be leveraged in a way that could reduce the number of persons addicted to illegal narcotics, that may well be a good thing. Indeed, this form of "tough love" is arguably more compassionate than simply leaving persons dependent on government and addicted to illegal narcotics, mired in poverty and misery.

This is true (or arguably so) irrespective of the gentleman's own problems with illegal narcotics.

S.V. Airlie
04-28-2015, 06:39 PM
By his vote, he appears he does. If he had put in the bill something to lessen the drug addiction to offset the problem which hasn't been found to be a problem by those tested.

Kevin T
04-28-2015, 06:42 PM
Boater and FO have missed the point entirely. It isn't about him. Its about you. :)

How is it not about him, but when it's a guy working 70 hours a week then it's all about that guy and the choices he has made. Then you have the audacity to say that Boater and Orca have missed the point and Dr Jung has no credibility.

It appears you have missed a tremendous number of points and clearly are losing credibility on a daily basis. Good luck regaining your own credibility. ;-)

Captain Intrepid
04-28-2015, 06:48 PM
There is a strong public policy argument in favor of this view, that is, society benefits when persons are not addicted to illegal narcotics, and to the extent that public benefits could be leveraged in a way that could reduce the number of persons addicted to illegal narcotics, that may well be a good thing. Indeed, this form of "tough love" is arguably more compassionate than simply leaving persons dependent on government and addicted to illegal narcotics, mired in poverty and misery.

Time and time again it's shown that it's far more effective to treat drug addiction with medical and social help rather than with criminal or social persecution.

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-28-2015, 06:51 PM
I agree he's a hypocrite, so there's really no use arguing why that is the case.

However, it isn't clear that he opposes compassion for other addicts. Rather, his position would seem to be that public benefits ought not to be given to those addicted to illegal narcotics.

There is a strong public policy argument in favor of this view, that is, society benefits when persons are not addicted to illegal narcotics, and to the extent that public benefits could be leveraged in a way that could reduce the number of persons addicted to illegal narcotics, that may well be a good thing. Indeed, this form of "tough love" is arguably more compassionate than simply leaving persons dependent on government and addicted to illegal narcotics, mired in poverty and misery.

This is true (or arguably so) irrespective of the gentleman's own problems with illegal narcotics.

What about his congressional salary? It comes out of the same pot as money for the indigent.

Sky Blue
04-28-2015, 06:52 PM
Kevin T, respectfully, the discussion would appear to be a bit over your head at this juncture as the ideas are complex and not necessarily intuitive. I think if you thoughtfully consider these matters for a bit, you will understand them perhaps a bit better and recognize the argument at least, even if you decide not to agree with it.

My credibility is fine. Credibility here (in a discussion forum) is based on content, first, and the ability to obey the forum rules, second. That is my view of it, anyway.

There is a good number here who try to make it about political opinion, or who is in the clique, but in the end that doesn't work because if it is called out, then the analysis goes back to what the content is.

Boater and FO did miss the point, and Dr. Jung lost his credibility (with me at least) a little more than a week ago. If he maintains his credibility with you, hey, that's great.

Sky Blue
04-28-2015, 06:53 PM
What about his congressional salary

Well, I would think he will probably lose that, right? For using illegal narcotics?

Donn
04-28-2015, 06:57 PM
What about his congressional salary? It comes out of the same pot as money for the indigent.


Well, I would think he will probably lose that, right? For using illegal narcotics?

Doesn't anyone read? He resigned over a year ago. He has no Congressional salary.

This is old news.

hokiefan
04-28-2015, 06:58 PM
It becomes an issue, I think, when you name names. Some people do act stupidly, we all do at times, and there is nothing wrong with observing that.

There is a qualitative difference, obviously, when done right to someone's face, or doing so in naming names, essentially calling people out. It is what it is.

Since you're talking about me, I consider it right to my face. Therefore a wee bit rude. Your mileage may vary.

Sky Blue
04-28-2015, 07:10 PM
Well, I don't consider it that way. So my mileage does vary. You said what you said. I personally didn't think what you proposed was terribly intelligent, and so YMMV. If you want to stand by your comment, as I would expect, that's fine with me. But rude? Hardly. Rude was what you said back in that other thread, completely out of the blue, with your not otherwise having participated in the discussion in any manner. You just came personal, and came hard. That was rude.

At any rate, your commentary in that thread was a perfect exemplar for the point I made in this one, and so I referred to it, without naming names.

Norman is currently upset with me, yet we have participated on the same threads and he has referred to things that I have taken as referring to me in complaining about those things but he did so without naming names so I am free to disregard that (as I would be in any event) without feeling like he is calling me directly out on something or trying to specifically engage me. I get it. I appreciate it.

That is a bit different that what you are doing here. Again, it is your mileage that may vary, however.

Flying Orca
04-28-2015, 07:18 PM
That doesn't make any sense. Without his addiction problem, there is no reason to suppose that he is a hypocrite.

So? Without air, you wouldn't be a troll. Doesn't mean one can't focus on the trolling rather than the air.

bobbys
04-28-2015, 07:20 PM
Doesn't anyone read? He resigned over a year ago. He has no Congressional salary.

This is old news.
.

it's never old news when a liberal wants to point out a republican gone bad. maybe I could bring up jessie Jackson Jr. to stay relevant. O that's right Norm told me to knock it off so I did.

Flying Orca
04-28-2015, 07:21 PM
There is a strong public policy argument in favor of this view, that is, society benefits when persons are not addicted to illegal narcotics, and to the extent that public benefits could be leveraged in a way that could reduce the number of persons addicted to illegal narcotics, that may well be a good thing.

Let me know when you have robust data demonstrating that leveraging public benefits in such a way actually reduces the number of addicts. I don't think it exists.


Indeed, this form of "tough love" is arguably more compassionate than simply leaving persons dependent on government and addicted to illegal narcotics, mired in poverty and misery.

Oooh, a false dichotomy! You rarely disappoint.

Flying Orca
04-28-2015, 07:23 PM
My credibility is fine.

Oh, where is Joe when you need him?!

bobbys
04-28-2015, 07:29 PM
Since you're talking about me, I consider it right to my face. Therefore a wee bit rude. Your mileage may vary.
.

15to18 in my jeep, I try and go easy on it.

Kevin T
04-28-2015, 07:41 PM
Kevin T, respectfully, the discussion would appear to be a bit over your head at this juncture as the ideas are complex and not necessarily intuitive. I think if you thoughtfully consider these matters for a bit, you will understand them perhaps a bit better and recognize the argument at least, even if you decide not to agree with it. My credibility is fine. Credibility here (in a discussion forum) is based on content, first, and the ability to obey the forum rules, second. That is my view of it, anyway. There is a good number here who try to make it about political opinion, or who is in the clique, but in the end that doesn't work because if it is called out, then the analysis goes back to what the content is. Boater and FO did miss the point, and Dr. Jung lost his credibility (with me at least) a little more than a week ago. If he maintains his credibility with you, hey, that's great. Ladies and Gents we now have a second arbiter of the truth and a director relative to the correct form of debate as I've been told the discussion is over my head, but remember it is all us progressives that are haters and insulters. All good to know.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-28-2015, 08:45 PM
Actually, Dummy Dust doesn't really have any prejudice about whose mind it screws up on the way through. Interesting that this fellow mentioned he was an alcoholic. Cocaine is really wonderful for drunks..... you can drink until your liver swells and your kidneys ache if you do coke. It's just a wonderful additive to be able to drink more. The hypocrisy he engaged in isn't particularly telling. Alcoholic addicts live their whole existence in hypocrisy and denial. It isn't specific.

Boater14
04-28-2015, 09:19 PM
I think using SCHADENFREUDE on this forum takes the cake. I only know what it means for a minute after I look it up because it really is so pretentious. also remember you don't have to take up for every republican. we dems laughed and cut Weiner loose without a thought. now absurd is a word i'm comfortable with. defending a junkie who wants welfare mothers drug tested is absurd and defending it is just trolling.

Chip-skiff
04-28-2015, 09:33 PM
I think using SCHADENFREUDE on this forum takes the cake. I only know what it means for a minute after I look it up because it really is so pretentious.

Obviously, he likes to argue (while demonstrating his towering intellect).

I'm just happy he quit using meme all the time. On my list of annoying words, that ranks close to awesome.

John of Phoenix
04-28-2015, 10:41 PM
Why do you otherwise intelligent guys give these red turkeys the time of day?

Canoeyawl
04-28-2015, 11:05 PM
.

15to18 in my jeep, I try and go easy on it.

The Jeep that was made in China?

Kevin T
04-29-2015, 06:27 AM
Why do you otherwise intelligent guys give these red turkeys the time of day?

JoP nails the essence of this thread in 14 words while providing solid advice.

Jim Mahan
04-29-2015, 08:09 AM
Indeed, this form of "tough love" is arguably more compassionate than simply leaving persons dependent on government and addicted to illegal narcotics, mired in poverty and misery.

This is a true statement. To this extent only: it is arguably more compassionate, etc. It may be arguable, but it isn't actually more compassionate. The implication that compassion, taking away resources insuring further and harsher poverty and misery, comes from one side, the conservatives, while the rest of it, leaving them twisting in the wind of poverty and misery, comes from the other side, the liberals. When in fact, in actual practice in the world, that place where voting on issues occurs and for which there is a record, it is the conservatives who will do either. In fact, conservatives specialize in working to leave all sorts of segments of the populace mired in poverty and misery, by ideology, policy. People with these values are not compassionate. Compassionate people don't share these values. Conservatives are not compassionate. But they just need to get their message out to a more diverse voting public, to be more inclusive. Too bad they can't figure out how to just harvest poor people and minorities and run them through a machine that strips their vote and stuffs it right into a ballot box, leaving the otherwise intact voter to rejoin the herd. Then they wouldn't have to spend all that Koch money. See? Compassionate.

ishmael
04-29-2015, 08:31 AM
As a fellow addict(alcohol) I've been trying to understand it for years. Reading, counselling, AA etc.. I don't understand it any better now. I know it's dangerous for me, but that's about it.

An addict, active or not, can have some things come out sideways or unintended. It's no excuse, but it is true.

One can point to hypocrisy, clear cut here, and not feel that the hypocrite is somehow evil. Confused, but not necessarily evil. I hope this fellow finds some success in getting help and then get's some clarity in his thought and speech. Getting sober after a years long struggle can be transformative.

Maybe I missed it, but does anyone know what he is up to now?

Michael D. Storey
04-29-2015, 10:11 AM
Sheesh, the poor gentleman obviously has substance abuse problems which will probably cost him his career. It is so good to see the humanity and compassion demonstrated by the "good progressives" here.

Nice of them to throw a schadenfreude party in his honor. Very impressive indeed.

Your sentiments are good. I hope that we all remember to take a lesson here. We all vote, every day, with our actions and our mouths. I doubt that finding trash on another's shoe automatically wipes our own clean.

George Jung
04-29-2015, 10:23 AM
didn't read the entire thread, eh, Michael?

'Missed it.... by this much!'

John Smith
04-29-2015, 10:29 AM
Sheesh, the poor gentleman obviously has substance abuse problems which will probably cost him his career. It is so good to see the humanity and compassion demonstrated by the "good progressives" here.

Nice of them to throw a schadenfreude party in his honor. Very impressive indeed.

Why does he deserve compassion when he shows none for others?

John Smith
04-29-2015, 10:31 AM
Perhaps it is lost on you Jamie that to celebrate the circumstances the gentleman finds himself in is to become precisely the hypocritical individual that he was in his testing approach to the poor.

What makes it worse, here, is that the progressives are the ones always holding themselves out as having a heart, being forgiving and magnanimous, etc.

Of course, those who follow this forum know that the converse is true, that is, instead showing the vaunted compassion, they show themselves truly for who they are in that they are perfectly happy to celebrate his misfortune.

Got hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy was Newt Gingrich complaining about Clinton's infidelity. This is the same thing.

CK 17
04-29-2015, 10:34 AM
The Good congressman should get this same sentence. He should sit in the same cell. He should eat the same food as this guy.

"NEW ORLEANS—The Drug Policy Alliance filed an amicus brief (http://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/brief-amici-curiae-support-petition-bernard-noble) today urging the Louisiana Supreme Court to review the egregious prison sentence of Bernard Noble, a 48-year old man who was sentenced to 13.3 years of hard labor in prison without the opportunity for parole for possessing the equivalent of two marijuana cigarettes. "


http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2014/04/louisianan-given-13-year-prison-sentence-possession-two-marijuana-cigarettes

John Smith
04-29-2015, 10:36 AM
.

The man is a hypocrite and violated his own standards. However if one has NO standards and judges is that not more hypocritical?.

You would have nothing to be hypocritical about , Right?

You lost me. I guess I'm one you think has no standards. I'd disagree. This is a case, IMO, of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

It's also a case of people who make the laws not thinking they are required to obey those laws.

John Smith
04-29-2015, 10:38 AM
I guess it boils down to the issue of to whom one is going to surrender one's humanity to, and why.

Do we laugh and kick up our heels at the unfortunate circumstance of someone who has acted hypocritically, simply because we disagree with that person's political opinions? Have people really allowed their hatred for their political opponents to essentially dictate the circumstances under which they will be compassionate to others?

The other day some dullard in here was unhappy with some remarks I'd made and wrote in substance that if he saw me walking in a rainstorm, he would swerve the puddle and make sure I got even wetter.

When you allow your feelings toward others to control your own conduct and choices, you've essentially lost control of yourself and have surrendered your autonomy and humanity over to them. Think about it.

Where do you get this. Over the years it has been those who preach 'family values' but fail to live by them who look evil. Others may not live by those values, but they are not preaching them.

There's a distinct difference.

John Smith
04-29-2015, 10:42 AM
I agree he's a hypocrite, so there's really no use arguing why that is the case.

However, it isn't clear that he opposes compassion for other addicts. Rather, his position would seem to be that public benefits ought not to be given to those addicted to illegal narcotics.

There is a strong public policy argument in favor of this view, that is, society benefits when persons are not addicted to illegal narcotics, and to the extent that public benefits could be leveraged in a way that could reduce the number of persons addicted to illegal narcotics, that may well be a good thing. Indeed, this form of "tough love" is arguably more compassionate than simply leaving persons dependent on government and addicted to illegal narcotics, mired in poverty and misery.

This is true (or arguably so) irrespective of the gentleman's own problems with illegal narcotics.

The problem with this is several states have drug tested people on welfare or other benefits. Costs the state a good deal of money to do all that testing, and the results have shown very few people on public assistance are on drugs. And there is a net cost to the state for doing this.

This is in the same area as using voter fraud, that doesn't exist, as a reason to prevent some legitimate voters from voting.

Sky Blue
04-29-2015, 10:46 AM
John, I am not arguing for the testing, believing that I do that most of it as conceived is unconstitutional. However, I understand the argument and the policy underlying it, and am generally supportive of policies that would tend to incentivize persons to stop using illegal narcotics, especially the poor and vulnerable.

Flying Orca
04-29-2015, 10:56 AM
I (...) am generally supportive of policies that would tend to incentivize persons to stop using illegal narcotics, especially the poor and vulnerable.

Do you have any evidence that the proposed policy does so?

Canoeyawl
04-29-2015, 11:23 AM
It reminds me of congressional homophobes with a "wide stance"

Chip-skiff
04-29-2015, 11:38 AM
What 7 States Discovered After Spending More Than $1 Million Drug Testing Welfare Recipients (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/)

by Bryce Covert (http://thinkprogress.org/?person=bcovert)http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/plugins/cap-byline/bird_blue_16.png (https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=brycecovert) & Josh Israel (http://thinkprogress.org/?person=jisrael)http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/plugins/cap-byline/bird_blue_16.png (https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=jeisrael) Posted on February 26, 2015 at 8:36 am

As state legislatures convene across the country, proposals keep cropping up to drug test applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, or welfare. Bills have been introduced so far in Montana (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MT_XGR_WELFARE_DRUG_TESTING_MTOL-?SITE=MTKAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=ap_template.html), Texas (https://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/05/drug-testing-welfare-benefits-back-table/), and West Virginia (http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/briefs/x1290090899/West-Virginia-GOP-starts-push-for-drug-testing-welfare-recipients), with a handful of others (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/welfare-drug-testing_n_6655712.html) also considering such a move. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has gone further (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/11/10/3590908/walker-drug-test-welfare/), proposing to drug test applicants for food stamps and unemployment benefits. They follow recent bills put into action in Maine (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/01/14/3611476/maine-drug-test-welfare/), Michigan (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/12/28/3607089/michigan-drug-testing-welfare-recipients/), and Mississippi (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/17/3411581/mississippi-drug-test-welfare/).

Proponents of these bills claim (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/01/2011-06-01_florida_gov_rick_scott_signs_law_requiring_welf are_recipients_to_take_drug_test_.html) they will save money by getting drug users off the dole and thus reduce spending on benefits. But states that are looking at bills of their own may want to consider the fact that the drug testing programs that are already up and running haven’t seen such results.

According to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent (http://www.drugabuse.gov/national-survey-drug-use-health). In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent*. Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.

Does Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Work?

Lawmakers who push these bills claim that they will cut down on costs by rooting out drug abusers while also helping to refer those users to treatment. But in reality, they come with few, if any, benefits.
“The main impact of it is first…to spend TANF money that could go into other things,” said Elizabeth Lower-Basch (http://www.clasp.org/experts/elizabeth-lower-basch), policy coordinator and director of income and work supports at CLASP, a non-profit focused on policy for low-income individuals. While many states told ThinkProgress that the funds don’t necessarily come out of the pot that would go to TANF benefits, it’s still money that could go elsewhere. “The money could certainly be spent on other things if it wasn’t going to drug testing,” she said. “Even if it’s a state where it can’t go to into childcare or cash assistance, it probably comes out of their administration pot, so that’s caseworkers and things like that.”

The other impact is increasing stigma around both welfare and drug use. It can increase the shame people feel around applying for welfare benefits in the first place, which could drive them away from getting assistance they may need to get by. At the same time, it may make drug users less willing to disclose and therefore keep them from connecting with treatment, according to Lower-Basch. “If people are afraid they’ll lose their benefits if they admit to using drugs, it makes it hard for them to say, ‘Hey, actually I have this issue,'” she explained. A study of Florida’s program (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14620735), which has since been struck down by the courts, found that it didn’t produce any reliable estimates of drug use among welfare recipients.

Even if the policies did unearth drug users in need of help, however, that doesn’t mean states are going to get it to them. Many “don’t guarantee your slot [in treatment facilities] or in some cases pay for it,” she noted. Centers often have long waiting lists, so someone who gets referred may not even be able to get in. Some states used to use TANF money to expand access to drug treatment, but as the money allocated to the program has dropped in real value (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/10/22/2814711/welfare-benefits-decline/), those efforts have dried up.

There is one way Lower-Basch thinks drug testing welfare recipients used to be helpful: not to determine eligibility for benefits, but to help them get work. “It was part of the work assessment,” she explained, “what are your barriers to work, what do you need in order to get a job.” If it was a barrier to employment, states could try to help them get what they needed to overcome it.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/


*I'll bet a drug test of the U.S. House of Representatives would net a bigger percentage than that. :D

Sky Blue
04-29-2015, 12:01 PM
Do you have any evidence that the proposed policy does so?

No, but as I noted, the issue is moot as I believe such laws are unconstitutional, which is the current state of the law on the subject (iirc). Nearly every state has such a proposal, has implemented one or is litigating one. This thread is not about such policies anyway, is it?

Michael D. Storey
04-29-2015, 02:21 PM
didn't read the entire thread, eh, Michael?

'Missed it.... by this much!'
In truth, I rarely do. Since I was three, my biggest challenge has been the length of my attention span. I reckon that in the scheme of things, that is not the hugest of challenges. It annoys women and traffic cops, however, not that I am lumping those two categories. What do you think that I missed here, anyway?