The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Hypocrisy Of The Right

[Ivanhoe]

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/03/polite-society-update-utah-concealed-carry-holder-kills-carjacker-rescues-driver/

 

Good for him! He probably votes Republican, carries a gun, and supports the Constitution, which makes him anathema to all right-thinking leftists.

9mm Samaritan? What a great name that is

 

However this viglante action raises some concerns. The self-appointed executioner ought to have granted the shooting victim a lawyer, and then shot both.

 

 

If we allowed citizens to shoot lawyers showing up at crime scenes and car accidents, the WWF would have to declare lawyers as an endangered species. U2 would headline a LAWAID concert.

[Mr King]

Why can't you just fuck off Jeb.

 

One of Jeb Bush’s top advisers on Israel: George W. Bush

 

After spending months distancing himself from his family’s political legacy, Jeb Bush surprised a group of Manhattan financiers this week by naming his brother, former president George W. Bush, as his most influential counselor on U.S.-Israel policy.

“If you want to know who I listen to for advice, it’s him,” Bush said Tuesday, speaking to a crowd of high-powered investors at the Metropolitan Club, according to four people present. The Republicans in the room spoke on the condition of anonymity to divulge information about the private meeting.

The remark came as part of an answer to a question about Bush’s political aides and their policy views, and whether he relies on the guidance of former secretary of state James Baker, guests said. Baker’s role in Bush’s orbit has been the source of consternation for some major GOP donors, who were upset that the 85-year-old ex-diplomat spoke to a left- leaning Israeli advocacy group in March.

Jeb Bush said that Baker is not one of his close advisers and that he leans on his brother for insights when it comes to Israel and the Middle East.

Embracing George W. Bush as a foreign-policy confidant is a risky and unexpected move for the former Florida governor as he readies for a likely presidential bid. While the former president’s approval ratings have improved since he left office in 2009, his foreign-policy legacy — particularly the long war in Iraq — remains deeply unpopular. He has also become anathema to some conservative activists for presiding over an increase in the federal debt, among other policies.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/one-of-jeb-bushs-top-advisers-on-israel-george-w-bush/2015/05/07/920fec8e-f4da-11e4-bcc4-e8141e5eb0c9_story.html

[Skywalkre]

Saw this on my FB feed a while back. Google shows it's a story that's been perculating for some months but hasn't really picked up any steam.

 

http://kjzz.org/content/171140/arizonas-policy-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-under-scrutiny

 

 

Arizona's Policy On Drug Testing Welfare Recipients Under Scrutiny

By Phil Latzman

Jul. 28, 2015

Arizona’s policy of drug testing the state’s welfare recipients is coming under increased scrutiny after recent figures suggest only a handful have tested positive.

 

In the six years since the policy was implemented, more than 170,000 residents were screened for drug testing. According to the Arizona Department of Economic Security, which is in charge of the program, only 41 of those screened were referred for testing, and only 20 tests were actually completed. The other 21 referrals failed to show for testing, thereby losing their benefits.

 

The 20 tests yielded only five positive results. Two of those cases were the result of medication legally prescribed by a doctor, leaving only three offenders.

 

Apparently the story isn't much different in every other state that's implemented these policies - they're catching almost no one. That's what critics told them would happen when this all started years ago.

 

Initially when this story broke earlier in the year from the articles I've found the costs to the state were exaggerated. AZ has apparently paid ~$500 to save themselves ~$4k in benefits (you're only tested if you admit you've used drugs in the last 30 days). It's savings, yes, but drastically lower than what was apparently sold to voters when the program started. The concern is other states are trying to drastically expand the number of folks tested but you'd likely end up spending more than you saved (going off the numbers in the article above if every one of those 170k Arizonans who were screened was tested it'd cost the state over $4 million).

 

If you were really concerned with stopping drug offenders from taking government money you'd test all college kids getting loans and grants. The government would lose money if they did that, though, and frankly stopping drug offenders doesn't really seem to be the big concern in all of this...

[Mike Steele]

 

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/03/polite-society-update-utah-concealed-carry-holder-kills-carjacker-rescues-driver/

 

Good for him! He probably votes Republican, carries a gun, and supports the Constitution, which makes him anathema to all right-thinking leftists.

9mm Samaritan? What a great name that is

 

However this viglante action raises some concerns. The self-appointed executioner ought to have granted the shooting victim a lawyer, and then shot both.

 

 

If we allowed citizens to shoot lawyers showing up at crime scenes and car accidents, the WWF would have to declare lawyers as an endangered species. U2 would headline a LAWAID concert.

 

FIFY.

[Panzermann]

...

 

If you were really concerned with stopping drug offenders from taking government money you'd test all college kids getting loans and grants. The government would lose money if they did that, though, and frankly stopping drug offenders doesn't really seem to be the big concern in all of this...

It is all about marking citizens on welfare as scapegoats and giving the mumbling unsatisfied middle class something to hate and envy. Or else they might turn on the government for its incompetencies. Edited September 11, 2015 by Panzermann

[Skywalkre]

 

...

 

If you were really concerned with stopping drug offenders from taking government money you'd test all college kids getting loans and grants. The government would lose money if they did that, though, and frankly stopping drug offenders doesn't really seem to be the big concern in all of this...

It is all about marking citizens on welfare as scapegoats and giving the mumbling unsatisfied middle class something to hate and envy. Or else they might turn on the government for its incompetencies.

 

I don't want to believe that but it's hard to argue when you look at the issue.

 

This is a conservative site and in reading many of the posters you come across stereotypes of the other side that folks from that side would look at and shrug off as inaccurate. Folks on the Left have the same problem. One thing I repeatedly hear from friends on the Left is that Republicans/Conservatives are all about being vindictive and punishing those whom they don't agree with.

 

With the above issue we've now seen that these laws didn't really save any money (given the size of the state budget the savings are effectively nil), didn't really catch anyone, and expanding them would likely result in a net loss. With that being the case what other conclusion can you draw than the folks who want to still enact or expand said laws are simply out to punish a group of folks they look down on?

 

It's unfortunate fiscal and religious Conservatives seem to have so little influence in this country, even in places like where I live where both groups are supposedly a big portion of the Conservative majority, because we wouldn't see the above happening.

[Stargrunt6]

 

 

...

 

If you were really concerned with stopping drug offenders from taking government money you'd test all college kids getting loans and grants. The government would lose money if they did that, though, and frankly stopping drug offenders doesn't really seem to be the big concern in all of this...

It is all about marking citizens on welfare as scapegoats and giving the mumbling unsatisfied middle class something to hate and envy. Or else they might turn on the government for its incompetencies.

 

I don't want to believe that but it's hard to argue when you look at the issue.

 

This is a conservative site and in reading many of the posters you come across stereotypes of the other side that folks from that side would look at and shrug off as inaccurate. Folks on the Left have the same problem. One thing I repeatedly hear from friends on the Left is that Republicans/Conservatives are all about being vindictive and punishing those whom they don't agree with.

 

With the above issue we've now seen that these laws didn't really save any money (given the size of the state budget the savings are effectively nil), didn't really catch anyone, and expanding them would likely result in a net loss. With that being the case what other conclusion can you draw than the folks who want to still enact or expand said laws are simply out to punish a group of folks they look down on?

 

It's unfortunate fiscal and religious Conservatives seem to have so little influence in this country, even in places like where I live where both groups are supposedly a big portion of the Conservative majority, because we wouldn't see the above happening.

 

 

 

My issue with drug testing welfare recipients is differentiation of those who used benefits to purchase drugs from those that laid down for them, traded them for other goods/services or just simply got that one joint for free.

[Panzermann]

 

My issue with drug testing welfare recipients is differentiation of those who used benefits to purchase drugs from those that laid down for them, traded them for other goods/services or just simply got that one joint for free.

Eat something with poppy seeds. A cake or donut or some such. That gives a positive test.

[Stargrunt6]

 

 

My issue with drug testing welfare recipients is differentiation of those who used benefits to purchase drugs from those that laid down for them, traded them for other goods/services or just simply got that one joint for free.

Eat something with poppy seeds. A cake or donut or some such. That gives a positive test.

 

 

And what about liquor????

[Mikel2]

 

 

 

...

 

If you were really concerned with stopping drug offenders from taking government money you'd test all college kids getting loans and grants. The government would lose money if they did that, though, and frankly stopping drug offenders doesn't really seem to be the big concern in all of this...

It is all about marking citizens on welfare as scapegoats and giving the mumbling unsatisfied middle class something to hate and envy. Or else they might turn on the government for its incompetencies.

 

I don't want to believe that but it's hard to argue when you look at the issue.

 

This is a conservative site and in reading many of the posters you come across stereotypes of the other side that folks from that side would look at and shrug off as inaccurate. Folks on the Left have the same problem. One thing I repeatedly hear from friends on the Left is that Republicans/Conservatives are all about being vindictive and punishing those whom they don't agree with.

 

With the above issue we've now seen that these laws didn't really save any money (given the size of the state budget the savings are effectively nil), didn't really catch anyone, and expanding them would likely result in a net loss. With that being the case what other conclusion can you draw than the folks who want to still enact or expand said laws are simply out to punish a group of folks they look down on?

 

It's unfortunate fiscal and religious Conservatives seem to have so little influence in this country, even in places like where I live where both groups are supposedly a big portion of the Conservative majority, because we wouldn't see the above happening.

 

 

 

My issue with drug testing welfare recipients is differentiation of those who used benefits to purchase drugs from those that laid down for them, traded them for other goods/services or just simply got that one joint for free.

 

 

 

If you have money, goods to trade, or can work for drugs, you don't need taxpayers' money.

 

Weekly drug tests for welfare recipients. Food aid should be a package of uncooked vegetables, hamburger meat and some fruit. Enough for one day.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Mikel2

[Mr King]

If you food aid is actual food, then you cant go to Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC......

 

Or sell your EBT card for half its value for cash.

 

 

[Skywalkre]

 

 

 

 

...

 

If you were really concerned with stopping drug offenders from taking government money you'd test all college kids getting loans and grants. The government would lose money if they did that, though, and frankly stopping drug offenders doesn't really seem to be the big concern in all of this...

It is all about marking citizens on welfare as scapegoats and giving the mumbling unsatisfied middle class something to hate and envy. Or else they might turn on the government for its incompetencies.

 

I don't want to believe that but it's hard to argue when you look at the issue.

 

This is a conservative site and in reading many of the posters you come across stereotypes of the other side that folks from that side would look at and shrug off as inaccurate. Folks on the Left have the same problem. One thing I repeatedly hear from friends on the Left is that Republicans/Conservatives are all about being vindictive and punishing those whom they don't agree with.

 

With the above issue we've now seen that these laws didn't really save any money (given the size of the state budget the savings are effectively nil), didn't really catch anyone, and expanding them would likely result in a net loss. With that being the case what other conclusion can you draw than the folks who want to still enact or expand said laws are simply out to punish a group of folks they look down on?

 

It's unfortunate fiscal and religious Conservatives seem to have so little influence in this country, even in places like where I live where both groups are supposedly a big portion of the Conservative majority, because we wouldn't see the above happening.

 

 

 

My issue with drug testing welfare recipients is differentiation of those who used benefits to purchase drugs from those that laid down for them, traded them for other goods/services or just simply got that one joint for free.

 

 

 

If you have money, goods to trade, or can work for drugs, you don't need taxpayers' money.

 

Weekly drug tests for welfare recipients. Food aid should be a package of uncooked vegetables, hamburger meat and some fruit. Enough for one day.

 

Huh? Are you saying that's what should be happening?

[Mikel2]

My wishful thinking.

[Stargrunt6]

 

 

 

 

...

 

If you were really concerned with stopping drug offenders from taking government money you'd test all college kids getting loans and grants. The government would lose money if they did that, though, and frankly stopping drug offenders doesn't really seem to be the big concern in all of this...

It is all about marking citizens on welfare as scapegoats and giving the mumbling unsatisfied middle class something to hate and envy. Or else they might turn on the government for its incompetencies.

 

I don't want to believe that but it's hard to argue when you look at the issue.

 

This is a conservative site and in reading many of the posters you come across stereotypes of the other side that folks from that side would look at and shrug off as inaccurate. Folks on the Left have the same problem. One thing I repeatedly hear from friends on the Left is that Republicans/Conservatives are all about being vindictive and punishing those whom they don't agree with.

 

With the above issue we've now seen that these laws didn't really save any money (given the size of the state budget the savings are effectively nil), didn't really catch anyone, and expanding them would likely result in a net loss. With that being the case what other conclusion can you draw than the folks who want to still enact or expand said laws are simply out to punish a group of folks they look down on?

 

It's unfortunate fiscal and religious Conservatives seem to have so little influence in this country, even in places like where I live where both groups are supposedly a big portion of the Conservative majority, because we wouldn't see the above happening.

 

 

 

My issue with drug testing welfare recipients is differentiation of those who used benefits to purchase drugs from those that laid down for them, traded them for other goods/services or just simply got that one joint for free.

 

 

 

If you have money, goods to trade, or can work for drugs, you don't need taxpayers' money.

 

Weekly drug tests for welfare recipients. Food aid should be a package of uncooked vegetables, hamburger meat and some fruit. Enough for one day.

 

 

prostitution is illegal tho

 

And if a friend offers a welfare recipient a joint or a line at a party, what then?

Edited September 12, 2015 by Stargrunt6

[Skywalkre]

My wishful thinking.

So no real thought into how you'd pay for all of that?

[Simon Tan]

Same place welfare comes from dummy.

[Mr King]

Same place welfare comes from dummy.

 

Ah, China and the middle class.

 

The nice thing is once you test long enough, the cost would drop dramatically as more and more people have disqualified themselves and no longer need tested because they can no longer receive welfare.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Mr King

[Skywalkre]

 

Same place welfare comes from dummy.

 

Ah, China and the middle class.

 

The nice thing is once you test long enough, the cost would drop dramatically as more and more people have disqualified themselves and no longer need tested because they can no longer receive welfare.

 

Except there's no reason to believe that such a high number of folks would eventually disqualify themselves to the point where the state wouldn't be throwing away money in this venture. As already mentioned, if you're for this you're clearly not about trying to save the government money.

[Mr King]

 

 

Same place welfare comes from dummy.

 

Ah, China and the middle class.

 

The nice thing is once you test long enough, the cost would drop dramatically as more and more people have disqualified themselves and no longer need tested because they can no longer receive welfare.

 

Except there's no reason to believe that such a high number of folks would eventually disqualify themselves to the point where the state wouldn't be throwing away money in this venture. As already mentioned, if you're for this you're clearly not about trying to save the government money.

 

 

No reason to believe? Is that because we are winning the "war on drugs"?

[JWB]

 

 

Same place welfare comes from dummy.

 

Ah, China and the middle class.

 

The nice thing is once you test long enough, the cost would drop dramatically as more and more people have disqualified themselves and no longer need tested because they can no longer receive welfare.

 

Except there's no reason to believe that such a high number of folks would eventually disqualify themselves to the point where the state wouldn't be throwing away money in this venture. As already mentioned, if you're for this you're clearly not about trying to save the government money.

 

It is about deterrence. If you are going to be tested then you won't use.

[CT96]

 

 

 

Same place welfare comes from dummy.

 

Ah, China and the middle class.

 

The nice thing is once you test long enough, the cost would drop dramatically as more and more people have disqualified themselves and no longer need tested because they can no longer receive welfare.

 

Except there's no reason to believe that such a high number of folks would eventually disqualify themselves to the point where the state wouldn't be throwing away money in this venture. As already mentioned, if you're for this you're clearly not about trying to save the government money.

 

It is about deterrence. If you are going to be tested then you won't use.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA nice one.

 

If you are going to be tested, then you're going to try to find ways to cheat the test. I saw it time and time and time again on active duty, and again as an EMT in the "Civilian" world. Users are going to use. No amount of governmental deterrence will change that. To change the equation, you have to come at it from elsewhere. "Hearts and minds" as it were. You want to stop or reduce drug use/abuse? Sign up to help with a charitable organization that actually meets people where they are and works to win their hearts and minds. You want to wantonly punish people (often random innocent people) and waste government resources? Pass a law about it.

[JWB]

Time and time and time again I have seen people refuse to use because they knew they were going to be tested. Unless the individual is a total addict. If that is the case then the solution would be detox/rehab.

[Mr King]

Frankly I say let folks have their drugs, and just get draconian on the punishment for everything else.

[Mikel2]

 

My wishful thinking.

 

So no real thought into how you'd pay for all of that?

In the world according to Mikel, most welfare programs would go away, so paying for a few drug tests should be quite easy.

[Skywalkre]

 

 

 

Same place welfare comes from dummy.

 

Ah, China and the middle class.

 

The nice thing is once you test long enough, the cost would drop dramatically as more and more people have disqualified themselves and no longer need tested because they can no longer receive welfare.

 

Except there's no reason to believe that such a high number of folks would eventually disqualify themselves to the point where the state wouldn't be throwing away money in this venture. As already mentioned, if you're for this you're clearly not about trying to save the government money.

 

 

No reason to believe? Is that because we are winning the "war on drugs"?

 

The relevance of this is... what? Or are do you believe that most folks on welfare are drug users? I mean, they're there for a reason, clearly bad people, make every wrong life decision, so clearly they must all be doing drugs... right?