Woman to Woman

By Zilbermanzn

November 3, 2007 6:16 PM | Link to this

By Frank

November 4, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Yes, there should be drug testing of everybody from Bush on down,with special attention given to those who make our laws!

By Zilbermanfg

November 4, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

By Zilbermanfg

November 4, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

By Zilbermanfg

November 4, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

By khaled

November 4, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

اهلا بيك في بلدك الام

By khaled

November 4, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

اهلا بيك في بلدك الام

By GOB

November 4, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

Department of Labor data shows that in 2005, nearly 20 million people in America - almost 7 percent of the population — were considered illicit drug users. And three in four had gainful employment at the time!

If anything, this shows what a huge waste of money the War on Drugs is. Obviously there are drugs that should be illegal, but it is also pretty obvious that someone who smokes pot every now and then can still function as a member of society.

By Lily Toad

November 4, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

If an employee is screwing up her work, has a lot of absences, or otherwise leads the employer to think she has a drug or alcohol problem, then maybe her immediate supervisor should talk to her. If a drug or alcohol problem is suspected and the employee doesn’t admit to it or take advantage of offered help (many large corps. have drug treatment as a benefit or covered insurance benefit), then she should be reprimanded for her misbehavior. (Missed deadlines, etc.) I can’t think of any instance when drug testing on a desk worker is justified.

By Jeff

November 5, 2007 8:47 AM | Link to this

I think a minimal policy that tests at say 50% or so - all employees will get screened once every two years - is fine, adequate, and appropriate.

WWE I know now uses a 400% test rate in their Wellness Program. Every employee gets screened 4 times a year. While I would say such a rate is GREAT for Professional Sports (and/ or the Entertainment industry, as well as any others that require good physical condition - military, construction, etc), I don’t think such a rate would be beneficial for a more clerically-oriented company.

I think each company SHOULD have such a policy though, and I think it should be up to the company what the exact test rate is, with some minimum and maximum guidelines. (Such as min 50%, max 1200%.

By Anonymous

November 5, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this

If your work doesn’t measure up, then you can be fired. An employer has NO right to delve into an employee’s private life and off-hours activities. None whatsoever.

By HowsThat

November 5, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this

nearly 20 million people in America - almost 7 percent of the population — were considered illicit drug users. And three in four had gainful employment at the time!

And marvelously, the USA economy did not come to a standstill.

If they are going to be doing drug-testing on the job, I want a month’s notice.

By Lyrazel

November 5, 2007 9:06 AM | Link to this

nearly 20 million people in America - almost 7 percent of the population — were considered illicit drug users. And three in four had gainful employment at the time! So, you want to take away their jobs? I agree with GOB—what a waste WoD is.

My problem with this drug testing is the fact it is not wanted by most small business owners (nor is it cost effective) but tests are required in GA to maintain insurance and drug testing is required to collect workers comp in GA. It is the GA state insurance companies who dictate policy not law (except in transportation industry). Other states do not require drug testing, so if its not country-wide then drug testing it is not law. This is being done so insurance companies do not have to pay expensive rehabilitation costs. One thing workers do not notice is how past claims for medical services make them uninsurable in future job situations. Like cancer & AIDS, rehab is one of those prior claims that make a person uninsurable.

Drug testing speaks that you are guilty and must be proven innocent—a violation of our rights as citizens.

By JokesOn

November 5, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this

If your work doesn’t measure up, then you can be fired. An employer has NO right to delve into an employee’s private life and off-hours activities. None whatsoever.

I agree. I know people who are totally clean yet make more stupid mistakes than the stoners I know. I also know some people that would benefit by smoking a joint.

By lozen

November 5, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this

The mentality of these worshippers of the corporate state just blows me away. Shaunti says, The stakes are bigger than people may realize. Department of Labor data shows that in 2005, nearly 20 million people in America - almost 7 percent of the population — were considered illicit drug users Are we talking about someone who smokes a joint over the weekend? Yeah, that’s definitely an illicit drub user! If someone comes to work on Monday and does their job with no problem, should their privacy be invaded by the corporation they work for? If someone can’t come to work on Monday and do the job, then get rid of them. What is so hard about that? The idea of my employer being able to invade my private life so easily scares me to death. What are you people thinking who want to give the corporate world such power over all of us?

By Orwellian times

November 5, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

Since we know this is largely insurance-company driven, (always looking for ways to refuse coverage and claims), what’s to stop them from using these tests to look for other things: anti-depressants or lithium, ADHD, blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, or cancer medication? And let’s not forget a urine test also detects pregnancy. The potential for discrimination escalates with every invasion of privacy. But yeah, some people worship the corporate state over individual rights and the US Constitution. Is there even any point to discussing the finer points of fascism with these people? Nah. Now get back to work; the Telescreen is watching.

By Lily Toad

November 5, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

Lyrzel, what type of insurance are you talking about? I have health insurance and have never had a drug test.

By Mara

November 5, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel - Drug testing speaks that you are guilty and must be proven innocent

That’s one reason why I find random testing abhorrent. I believe that there should be some kind of reasonable suspicion before they can be allowed to seize your bodily fluids. IMO it’s an invasion of privacy and a violation of my fourth amendment rights. But I need the job so don’t say anything. I pee in the cup and slink back to my desk, embarrassed and uncomfortable with the whole situation. And scared to death that a false-positive will come up. My company doesn’t provide for re-testing, they just fire you on the spot. You can get retested at your own expense, submit the results to HR, and theoretically get reinstated…but I’ve never seen anyone actually get hired back.

Shaunti is all gung-ho about testing the McDonalds employee, the equity analyst, and the poor lowly stock boy. She doesn’t even acknowlege that the ones who aren’t required to submit to this indignity are the ones with the greatest opportunity to harm…the company board and the stockholders. They certainly have a lot more to do with fiscal policy than Dan-the-box-boy-from-Tulsa.

Or how about mandatory random tests for our lawmakers? They have even more power to affect my life than any corporate official. If I have to test, shouldn’t they?

By Peachy

November 5, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with Shaunti…to a point. Corporations that are privately owned have every right to do anything they wish within the letter of the law. Random drug testing - and termination of an employee caught using - are legal. Is it fair? Maybe, maybe not. Does it violate your privacy? Probably. It comes down to this - if you’re using on Sunday and working on Monday, even if it doesn’t affect your work, you’re still breaking the law.

All that being said, drug-testing does provide a window of opportunity for employers to find out other things about you. So how can we make sure our employers test only for illegal substances? And should all drugs be illegal? Those, friends, are other blogs for other days.

By Archie

November 5, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

I don’t do drugs period so I don’t care if I’m tested or not as long as I don’t suffer from a bad testing result. My answer is no to the topic question but then again if an employee is acting out an doing things that could potentially harm himself then yes I think a drug test is warranted, but my bottom line answer to the topic question is no.

By jhpoke

November 5, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Will employers be required to turn in positive drug tests to law enforcment???. I hope not. The republic is becoming a facist state soon enough.

By NetBanker

November 5, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

• honestly don’t think those people have the right to be totally “left alone.” They may not affect another person’s physical life, but they sure can affect their livelihood — and the life of the company.* I’ve been in the corporate world long enough to know that sobriety doesn’t guarantee that the the person down the hall won’t negatively impact another person’s livelihood or life of the company. In more cases than not it’s ethical lapses rather than illicit drug lapses that result in companies ‘tanking.’

Department of Labor data shows that in 2005, nearly 20 million people in America - almost 7 percent of the population — were considered illicit drug users. And three in four had gainful employment at the time! Let’s consider the ROI (Return on Investment) is it worth spending the money to perform these tests to ‘catch’ 7% of the population? Of the 7%, 75% were gainfully employed so this is really the population that we’re talking about with company drug tests so the numbers and ROI are shrinking. If 75% were gainfully employed then we also know that not all 75% had work performance issues…yet another reduction in the ROI of employment drug test. What we really need to know is what percentage of the 75% do have their work affected by their drug use. I think we can safely assume that this number is pretty small…I can personally count on one hand (and without using all 5 fingers) the number of people that I know or have heard of who have lost a job offer or been dismissed from a job due to illegal drug use.

This is just another scare tactic to further erode our right to privacy. I’m not against drug testing as a concept, but it should be applied sparingly and only when an employees work product is obviously suffering for some reason. I also think that if drug testing a current employee and that employee tests positive then the company should do what it can to help that employee with their drug problem.

By Anonymous

November 5, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

I don’t do drugs, and I DO care about whether I’m tested. It’s an invasion of my privacy, and my employer simply doesn’t have that right.

Too many people are willing to accept whatever treatment an employer imposes on them, on the assumption that “free market” means “workers leave their rights behind once they enter the building.” Dirty little secret: Employers have as much power as we PERMIT them to have, no more.

By NetBanker

November 5, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

Drug testing speaks that you are guilty and must be proven innocent—a violation of our rights as citizens. Excellent point, Lyrazel!! Random drug testing is completely contrary to the concept of ‘probable cause.’ The police are not allowed to search someone, their vehicle, or home without probable cause. While I realize that probable cause isn’t applied in the workplace, but if one gives their company no reason to suspect drug use (which is probably occurring off the clock anyway) then they should have no right to test the employee.

Basically Lyrazel really has the driver of drug testing nailed. I know several people in the insurance, drug testing business, and Human Resources who have indicated to me that it’s basically all a big game to earn income for the drug testing companies. By working with insurance companies to start ‘requiring’ even pre-employment drug screening the profits to be earned are HUGE even though the number of positive tests is outrageously low. Yes, the cost of rehab can be high, but even prior to drug screening the number of employees who have needed it is single digits. Most frequently the rehab isn’t drug related, but alcohol related.

By Mara

November 5, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

it’s not just illegal drugs they’re testing for. People are being fired for engaging in legal activities outside the workplace.

Michigan-based Weyco instituted a policy in 2005 that allows employees to be laid off if they smoke, regardless of whether they engage in the habit at work or at home.

The company subsequently fired four employees who refused to be tested for nicotine, press reports said, with other reports saying Weyco staff members were fired after tests showed they had nicotine in their blood.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071101/hl_afp/ushealthobesitytobaccorights

Lyrazel - This is being done so insurance companies do not have to pay expensive rehabilitation costs

If the impetus for all this testing is insurance costs, why not just let those who don’t want to test opt out of the insurance pool?

By Scalia

November 5, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

Anonymous, when you have kids to feed and bills to pay, the drug testing seems like it is insignificant. You feel that you have no choice, and you don’t want to leave a job that you have doing for a while and enjoy. Plus, there is no guarantee that you are going to quit today, and find a good job tomorrow.

By The Other Jack

November 5, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

Insurance companies are the entire reason for any sort of drug testing. It reduces their liability in case of an accident.

Ms. Clinton’s health care plan will make the insurance companies the most powerful industry in the world. Get used to this kind of government. The Democrats in power are now taking more money from the insurance lobby than the Republicans ever took from anyone. While the Republicans were in power, the oil companies called the shots. Now the democrats are laying down for both the oil companies and the insurance companies.

The Lawyer lobby was able to buy off both parties when the idea of tort reform came about. John Edwards was actually bragging on ABC about his adventures as an ambulance chaser.

I have said this before: We are no longer living in a Representative Republic. We are now living in a country that is controlled by the big money in Washington.

The best part is that some industries didn’t pander to the Republicans. But now that the democrats are in charge, everybody is pumping money into congress and people like Hillary are sucking it up as fast as they can write the checks. After all, she has an election to pay for.

Your vote means nothing. All it takes is a pushy lobbiest and a checkbook to get things done.

If you end Congressional Lobbying, we will have our government back. Until then, just get used to this sort of thing. It will not get better, no matter who is in charge.

By chuck

November 5, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

As a rule, I don’t like the idea of random drug testing, but there are a number of exceptions to that rule. I think that anybody who operates machinery that is capable of harming himself or others should be subject to both random and scheduled tests. This would apply to drivers of all kinds…truckers, messengers, etc. as well as heavy equipment operators. I would also extend this to doctors, particularly surgeons, but any doctor whose lack of mental acuity might cause a misdiagnosis. Public safety personnel also come to mind as candidates for testing. I am sure there are others.

By Archie

November 5, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

I like your 1:34 pm answer Chuck. I have major problem with a company testing for nicotine because you could have simply asked the person before you hired him/her if they smoked. Anonymous, you’re right I should care more about being tested for privacy reasons and I will keep that in mind going forward.

By Peachy

November 5, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

I certainly agree with everyone that random and pre-hire drug testing violates our right to privacy, but…

On one hand, if I work for Company X, don’t they get to make the rules for me working there? On the other hand, I feel like as long as we let the corporations make the rules, the workers will always lose. I own some of my company’s stock but as a smaller shareholder, I really have very little say in what my company does.

Grampa always said the only thing in the middle of the road is a dead skunk. I’m usually not of two midns about anything but I can certainly see the argument for either side.

By Terry

November 5, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this

Gee, if my employer ask me to take a drug test, do I get to pick the drug?

By Mara

November 5, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

Peachy - if I work for Company X, don’t they get to make the rules for me working there?

Let me tell you a little story…there once was a political/economic constituency called “the labor movement” that was formed to fight just such abuses. Once upon a time there was a group that was dedicated to the protection and prosperity of actual workers, these were called “unions” and they forced the bosses to agree to certain basic rights for workers. The unions gave us the 40-hour work week, time-and-a-half overtime, sick time, holiday breaks, family leave, and the livable wage. The people were thankful and supported the Unions. But because they became so powerful, union bosses became also corrupt and used their people’s money for themselves. The corporate bosses, seeing the unions weaken began talking against them and closing union shops so they could move elsewhere, to places with high unemployment where a job, any job, would be considered a precious commodity and no one would listen to the unions because of fear. Eventually they and their political puppets were able to empower employers and weaken labor rights to such an extentent that once more they could impose their will on the worker. So now we see “at-will” firing, mandatory overtime, “merit” raises, and random drug tests.

So, yes, Peachy. Your boss CAN decide what activities you can engage in on your own time. They own you now, unless you want to gamble that you can find other comparable employment…

By Anonymous

November 5, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

And it’ll take a new labor movement to restore the balance. Until then, we’re at the mercy of crony capitalism.

By The Other Jack

November 5, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

Peachy,

Interesting point. I hadn’t really thought about it, but the problems seems to be with the testing. I can certainly understand an employer not wanting stoned people at work any more than they would want a drunk at work. But whose business is it what anyone does after work?

Is there a drug test that proves a person is currently under the influence? I wouldn’t really have a problem with that.

By The Other Jack

November 5, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

Anonymous

A new labor movement? We all should have thought about that when all of Washington passed NAFTA and every law afterwards that took away the protection of our workers. The days of the US being a manufacturing giant are over.

But even a labor movement would just mean other hands in other people’s pockets.

Our system worked really well for a very long time. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Let’s just stop the REAL corruption in Washington:” Lobby Money.

By The Other Jack

November 5, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

Mara

Union shops use drug testing just like non-union shops. Interesting history of unions, but that idealistic time just never existed. When the unions were getting a lot of good things done, they were very corrupt. It was the mafia that insured that JFK would get the Union votes in Chicago.

They did a lot of good things, but corruption brought down the unions. There have always been non-union shops and politicians have been in the pockets of the unions through organized crime. There was no drastic change. Their own corruption just started bringing them down.

It takes a sense of morality to control vast wealth and power. Without that morality, the power just goes to the highest bidder.

By JokesOn

November 5, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

Is there a drug test that proves a person is currently under the influence? I wouldn’t really have a problem with that.

Naw. Seems no one wants to put funding into that since it could lead to the legalization. The one main issue with legalizing pot is that there is no way to tell if someone is driving, etc, under the influence.

By The Other Jack

November 5, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this

The one main issue with legalizing pot is that there is no way to tell if someone is driving, etc, under the influence.

I’m not so sure. The cops have tests that give them probable cause to administer a chemical test. They are visual tests, but that proves that there are physical noticeable effects. That must be because of elevated levels of something that could be tested for. The current tests might actually do the job if they were just read for a variance instead of a pass/fail result. I don’t know.

But you are right in that no one seems interested in a solution that would not infringe on our rights.

By Lily Toad

November 5, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this

Other Jack, I have to agree with you that it’s the big money lobbyists who are controlling Washington and that SEN. Clinton is deep in their pockets so that the insurance companies will profit most from her “reform.”

By Mara

November 5, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

The Other Jack - *Union shops use drug testing just like non-union shops…the unions were getting a lot of good things done, they were very corrupt”

agreed. It was a somewhat “tongue-in-cheek” abbreviated history of the labor movement. I was trying to convey the concept that at one time such invasive employment practices would never have been seriously considered because the worker HAD a powerful advocate in the unions (corrupt as they may have been). But even non-union shops tended to adjust their practices to union-shop norms, even if they didn’t quite meet those standards in some areas (like wages). These days the norm is set more by the NON-union companies instead so naturally invasive and abusing practices will become more mainstream. IMO.

Regardless of how one looks at todays dwindling unions or yesterdays Big Labor corruption, there is no doubt that without that labor movement the American middle-class would be much, much smaller.

By JokesOn

November 5, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

They are visual tests, but that proves that there are physical noticeable effects.

I had no idea. Last I heard, those were far too expensive for police departments to have. I would welcome such specific targeting versus the shotgun approach that only indicates IF you used in the last +- 3 weeks.

By Jack

November 5, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

Yes. If you see snipes, you may be baked.

By Is this what you want?

November 5, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this

Her name was Olga Reyes, and now she is dead.

Why? “Religious” extremists took over the government in the name of their holy, women dont matter God.

By Archie

November 5, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

Lily,Hello,first of all and second please note that insurance companies are making big bucks right now. They are giving her money just in case she wins but 47 million people are without health insurance so the status quo cannot continue. It takes money to run for office plain and simple and I still say as liberals sometimes we intellectualize so much and end up doing nothing. Also whether Hillary wins or not insurance companies will continue not paying as many claims as they can and yet taking in as much money as possible. Big business gives money to both sides of the political spectrum so let’s not intellectualize the lobbying portion of politics because it is what is. Conservatives will vote for their candidate and believe in their candidate blindly but liberals will intellectualize and would rather lose than to actually do something.

I will use this analogy the Patriots went out and got Randy Moss and as a result they have enough offensive firepower to beat a team that had beaten them 3 times in a row. They got Moss inspite of his personality and past disposition on other teams. In other words, the Patriots did what they had to do to win, to reach their goal. Solving problems sometimes means you don’t like everyone that can help you and it means you can’t always get the nice guy that doesn’t take any lobby money but gets nothing done. Lobbyists give the money and politicians take the money because both sides have goals and hard as it is to accept it’s time the public changes the way we evaluate politics.

By HowsThat

November 5, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

You might even test positive for marijuana if you were standing next to someone at a party who was smoking.

that will be my excuse, anyway.

By Mara

November 6, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this

Orgone energy…now this is MY kind of “alternative energy” source :^)

excerpt —

Physician-scientist Wilhelm Reich, best known for his claims of a cosmic life force associated with sexual orgasm, died in federal prison, and the government burned tons of his books and other publications and destroyed his equipment.

But half a century later, a small number of scientists and other believers are working to advance the European-born psychiatrist’s work on what he called “orgone energy” - a theory largely forgotten in the scientific mainstream.

His more controversial work came after he veered away from psychotherapy into laboratory experiments in Norway that led to the discovery of what he called “bions” - basic life forms that gave off “orgone energy”. After moving to the U.S. just before the start of World War II, he focused on isolating and collecting that energy and went on to test its effect on cancer.

Reich’s granddaughter, Renata Reich Moise, a nurse-midwife and artist…said she believes there’s merit in the “orgone accumulator blanket”, which her mother used in her medical practice.

Moise has tried it herself to heal burns.

“It’s not crazy. It actually works,” she said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/06/AR2007110600356.html

By John C. Snider

November 6, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

I daresay we lose more productivity due to obesity, lack of sleep, or distraction due to personal relationships, than is ever lost due to all drugs combined (legal or otherwise). Does this mean it’s okay for employers to weigh prospective employees, mandate an afternoon nap, and do an in-home mental health survey?

www.americanfreethought.com

By The Other Jack

November 6, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

Jokes On The test I am talking about is the one they give with a fountain pen. They move it back and forth in front of your eyes and if you follow the pen in jerky motions, that supposedly means you are stoned. That is straight from the TV show COPS. A cop explained what he was doing as he put some kid away for the horrible crime of getting high on something that Old man Kennedy didn’t bootleg.

I talked to a guy last night that used to sell the drug kits. He said that as long as pot is illegal, there are actually laws prohibiting the sell of incremental drug tests, the tests that would only tell the tester if the person was currently under the influence.

Just think: if the drugs were legal and taxed along with raising taxes on fuel and regulating the oil companies, we would have more than enough money for the world’s best state sponsored health coverage.

By Lyrazel

November 6, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

LilyToad, I am in printing where insurance demands testing of employees. Sure people can opt out of getting company insurance but workers comp will require a drug test. Is this state to state or just GA? Do not know. I know most employers do not let some people who do not want insurance not take a test and others to take it. The gall is that by opting out you are assumed guilty. An employee could sue the business owner if a machine operator was found to be on drugs and caused her harm by dropping a box of paper on her foot—or whatever. Preventing litigation is also a grand reason why most companies opt for drug testing.

In case anyone is interested in last weeks topic the school in Maine that allows distribution of BC is being looked at by lawyers of Pat Robertson’s group. Kind of funny because Mainers are very annoyed by this meddling http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=145842&ac=PHnws

By The Other Jack

November 6, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Mara You are right in that Unions did a lot of good for everyone. My Mom worked at a non-Union aerospace plant that also had union shops. Her pay was less than the Union shops, but all the other benefits were there. She is 80 and still has great insurance and is living pretty well off her retirement and the plant she worked for got the hatchet back in 95. She was actually offered a job at a Union shop, but she didn’t want to move to Ohio. (And I am glad)

I was actually a Musician’s Union member for many years, but we got nothing from it other than paying traveling dues every time we played close to NYC. We finally started refusing to pay the dues until they looked into our complaints about the hotel chain we were working for. They never looked into the complaints and we never paid any more dues.

By JokesOn

November 6, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

Jokes On The test I am talking about is the one they give with a fountain pen. They move it back and forth in front of your eyes and if you follow the pen in jerky motions, that supposedly means you are stoned.

I find that kind of sketchy and lacking in any kind of objectiveness.

Just think: if the drugs were legal and taxed along with raising taxes on fuel and regulating the oil companies, we would have more than enough money for the world’s best state sponsored health coverage.

I agree. The History Channel has an incredible 3 part series on the history of drugs, and making them illegal, in the US. The number of addicts/users has not moved more than somthing like 1.5% since the first war on drugs began. It really just created a lot of criminals.

By The Other Jack

November 6, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Archie Conservatives will vote for their candidate and believe in their candidate blindly but liberals will intellectualize and would rather lose than to actually do something.

That’s about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Let me make sure of what you are saying: If a person thinks like you, they must be very intelligent about the way they choose a candidate. But if they don’t think like you, they just blindly vote for whoever the Republicans run… I see.

So please explain your intellectual process of choosing whether to vote for Hillary Clinton, or Hillary Clinton or Hillary Clinton? That’s the only choice you will have, Pal. I’ll have one choice on the other side. This constant need of making yourself smarter than “the other side:” says volumes.

Just try to remember that during the 1930s, the most educated and cultured country in the world was convinced that the leader that would make them a better country was Adolf Hitler.

By The Other Jack

November 6, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

• Jokes On I find that kind of sketchy and lacking in any kind of objectiveness.*

That’s why it only establishes probable cause. But the point I was trying to make is that there are physical pointers so there should be some sort of chemical test for the same thing. But like I said, I found out last night that there are such test, but they are illegal here in the states.

If you can find the book “The Emperor Wears No Clothes” it is a great reference on Pot. Growing Hemp was required by most farmers for use in most of the wars the US fought up until the 1930s. Of course that was for ropes for sailing ships but hemp is one of the world’s great natural fibers. Dupont (makers of rayon and nylon rope) played a huge part in making pot illegal.

Once gain, lobby money screws us all.

By Mara

November 6, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

The Other Jack - well, industrial hemp may be on the rebound. North Dakota has legalized the farming of low THC industrial grade marijuana as have several other states. Ron Paul intoduced a bill to allow commercial farming of the product but it’s gone nowhere, due to opposition from Dubya and his DEA.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-22-hemp-crop_x.htm

not only is hemp a good fiber material, the seeds yeild a high quality oil that is rich in Omega-3 and Omega-6. There is also talk that it could bea viable source of biodiesel.

By The Other Jack

November 6, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

Mara

I, as a Republican clearly disagree with the GOPs sad attempt at staging a drug war. I would vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat. The main thing I like about the guy is his stance on the Constitution. We should never enter another Police Action. It is not in the constitution and it gets a lot of Americans killed and it REALLY screws up the country. Now before you go crazy, remember that the democrats got us into Korea and Viet Nam, plus voted to go to Iraq, all really dumb decisions.

As far as hemp, it’s God’s gift to this planet. Pot can be devastating and even though it is not chemically addictive, it can be very mentally addictive. As I have said, I was a traveling musician during the 70s so there is almost nothing we didn’t do. Pot can slow a person down and totally destroy incentive. And chronic use can cause some health problems.

But on the other hand, when you are watching “COPS”, you just never see the police showing up where somebody was beat almost to death because some husband or boyfriend was too stoned.

It is a strange world we live in, Mara.

By Archie

November 6, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

Other Jack, I did not mean to offend you because you don’t have to think like me. My point is that those of us that are considered liberal sometimes do a lot of talking and complaining whereas conservatives will vote for their guy to win, period. Many liberals have complained about Bush but yet many liberals voted for Nader who had no chance of winning, well, if you check most surveys conservatives are more loyal to their candidates than liberals are to their candidates. If Gore had those Nader votes the first time around we may never have been in this war that most of the public disproves of. There are actually people (see Bishop Long) that supported Bush based on an issue that only affects 5 to 7 percent of the population(gay marriage), well in my book that’s not too bright. You had more liberals crossing over to vote for Bush than you had conservatives crossing over to vote for Kerry. Everyone has the right to vote or not vote but when you complain I think you ought to do something.

By DebbieDoRight

November 6, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

Gore HAD the votes the first time around. Sec. Of State Katherine Harris deliberately chose to NOT count them.

Florida’s new secretary of state, Katherine Harris, moved to accept vote tallies from heavily Republican Seminole County, where local election officials acknowledge they allowed Republican campaign aides to correct errors in thousands of applications for absentee ballots after they had been signed and submitted.

A Democratic lawyer has gone to court to throw out those ballots. And Judge Debra Nelson of Circuit Court has scheduled a hearing on Saturday morning to consider the case.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07E4DF113BF93BA25752C1A9669C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/H/Harris,%20Katherine

By John in Tampa, FLA

November 6, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

What happens when the lab makes a mistake and gives you a positive on your test?

It happened to me and it can happen to you.

It took the lab 3 months to admit they made a mistake by giving me the wrong test.

By The Other Jack

November 6, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

Archie,

Thanks for clearing that up. You are right in that Gore would have won if it weren’t for Nader.

I support many of the things Republicans support. I am also aware of several issues in my own life that were improved dramatically because of bills the Republicans managed to get passed. One was the Health Care Savings Plan which I have had for several years and my insureance is pretty reasonable and the covreage is great.

Nixon ended the Viet Nam war just before my draft number came up (Thank God and Richard Nixon)

I grew up in the Democratic South and saw the hate against people of color, not by Republicans, but by Democrats.

Affirmative Action hurts MY FAMILY. Not white people. Not the rich guy up the street, but my own family in making it almost impossible for me to get some very lucrative government contracts. I usually end up doing the work and making a fraction of what some guy is making because of nothing other than the color of his skin. My family is VERY important to me. Again: It isn’t about hate, or my wanting to hold anyone down, it’s about fairness to me and MY FAMILY.

There are several other very strong reasons why I vote Republican, but they involve my business and we all need to be careful about offering too much personal information. But I will say that in 1994, one of the changes they made opened up a market to me that had only been available to people who owned one of those famous “Grant Mills”. I have benefited tremendously, now that the playing field is level.

That is why I vote for the party. But, of course, I disagree with several of the party platforms. The drug war is stupid. They are the worst politicians in the world. (Actually I like that. Is there ever anyone who is a good politician that is worth a plug nickel?)

We are in Iraq because of the oil. We aren’t stealing it, we are protecting our source, but this “freeing a nation” BS should have never been the reason. (The Oil Industry is the Anti-Christ as far as I am concerned)

The bottom line is that none of us get a very good choice. But we are all left with just two real choices and for anyone who understands what the parties are all about, we all only really have one choice.

I think it stinks.

By The Other Jack

November 6, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight

Oh Jesus. And I could give about 15 instances that would have canceled out that action by actions of the democrats including the airing of the election projections in the panhandle of the state before the polls were closed. There were irregularities all over the country.

The part I love the best is when you guys were crying that DeBold was rigging the voting machines and you did it in every election, right up until the election where you regained control of the House and the Senate. Funny thing: I just didn’t hear much complaining after that election. Why is that?

In the words of one of your biggest propaganda sights: MOVE ON!!!

By NCR_Man

November 6, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

DieBold just screwed up with their programming, a la Man of the Year; don’t think they are not busy right now getting those “bugs” fixed for next time.

By The Other Jack

November 6, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

NCR Man

Yea right. And that little bug just did what? Rewrote a subprogram?

As NCR man, you should know better than that.

Let it go, Man. You won. The propaganda machine that is the mainstream media convinced the world that the democrats were going to fix the gas prices (highest in history since the 2006 elections), end the war in Iraq (what happened to that one? LOL!!) and bring us back together as a nation (300 investigations in 100 days without not even one arrest or conviction.)

yea, you guys now have the football and are standing on the 50 yard line with your thumb up your __. Congratulations.

Oh yea. we did get that minimum wage thing passed. i think it is important that teenagers should have the latest designer labels and be are able to download as much as they want. I’ll remember that the next time I grab a Wendy’s that cost about 25% more.

By Bruce

November 6, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this

“Just think: if the drugs were legal and taxed along with raising taxes on fuel and regulating the oil companies, we would have more than enough money for the world’s best state sponsored health coverage.”

But that’s why they will not legalize it. They cannot TAX something you can grow in your closet or backyard. If it were legal who would need to buy any, just grow your own. If you didn’t sell any no taxes…

By Anonymous

November 6, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

I grew up in the Democratic South and saw the hate against people of color, not by Republicans, but by Democrats.

Then you should also remember what happened when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act… all those southern bigots jumped ship to join the Republican party, where they’ve remained ever since. Hope you’re enjoying the company.

By Jack

November 6, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

The tests they have now only tell if a person has used weed. It cannot tell if said person is under the influence. If they could, they would have busted someone for DUI by now. As of this date, law enforcement has never busted anyone for driving under the influence of pot.

By NetBanker

November 6, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

if the drugs were legal and taxed along with raising taxes on fuel and regulating the oil companies, we would have more than enough money for the world’s best state sponsored health coverage.

The History Channel has an incredible 3 part series on the history of drugs, and making them illegal, in the US. The number of addicts/users has not moved more than somthing like 1.5% since the first war on drugs began. It really just created a lot of criminals.

There was also a recent editorial in the print AJC about how the ‘War on Drugs’ is approached in Europe (just waiting for groaning from conservatives) more from an education and rehab perspective than criminalization. In the U.S. by making drug users criminals we’ve exploded the prison population with people who aren’t a threat to society while not moving the needle on the rate of drug use (as noted above). It costs more to incarcerate than to treat/educate drug users. We could probably fund some health care reforms or maybe save Social Security by legalizing some drugs and taxing them. We’d also save money in law enforcement by taking the criminal element out of the drug trade for those items that are legalized. Look at the period of prohibition for an example of how organized crime got into the liquor business once it was prohibited and turf wars broke out, but then exited the business once prohibition was lifted.

Growing Hemp was required by most farmers for use in most of the wars the US fought up until the 1930s Very true! Growing hemp became illegal when pot was made illegal. As pointed out pot was legal until the 1930’s. What is assinine about make hemp illegal (which was done because hemp is closely related to cannibis and looks like it so it’s easy to ‘hide’ pot plants in a hemp field) is that it is extremely drought, disease, and insect resistant. Paper can be made from hemp fibers with only water rather than the chemicals required to break down the cellulose in wood fibers so it’s far more environmentally friendly, all kinds of cosmetics can be made with the oil from the seeds, and the fibers can be woven into linen like fabrics as well as used to make rope.

By Mara

November 6, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

Bruce - They cannot TAX something you can grow in your closet or backyard. If it were legal who would need to buy any, just grow your own

that same argument could apply to tobacco products too, but it’s just a whole lot more convenient to run down to the Quickie-Mart and pick up a pack of 20. Your quality will be the same every time, they’re “ready to smoke”, and you don’t have to worry about dropping the bag while you’re trying to twist one up. I think the same would apply if pot were legalized.

There’re a LOT of people who are horticulturally challenged and wouldn’t be able to keep a plant alive if their lives depended on it. Not just that, but (from what I hear) you can never be sure the seed you plant today will be a quality plant later on, so being assured that every spliff will be “20 proof THC” (or however they grade it) would certainly be a selling point the way it is for whiskey.

While there are sure to be some “thrifty” smokers ready to grow their own, I think the majority would be quite fine with having a ready supply at the corner store, right next to the Dorito’s and Mountain Dew.

By John in Tampa, FLA

November 6, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

you wouldn’t have to buy weed-you could get it free at a number of places.

Publix would give it away as you enter the store-sales go up 50%

Chili’s would give it to you as you sit down at your table-food sales up 50%

strip joints give it away-tips go up 500%

Get the picture???

By Jack

November 6, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this

Oreo cookies are good after the special stew.

By chuck

November 6, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

Good afternoon,

Just think: if the drugs were legal and taxed along with raising taxes on fuel and regulating the oil companies, we would have more than enough money for the world’s best state sponsored health coverage.

I just don’t believe this would happen toj. Why would people go to all that trouble if pot was legal. They would just grow their own. Even if that was still illegal, there would be no incentive for law enforcement to spend time or money on interdiction of marijuana as a legal substance. It would be a different situation than bootleggers back in the day because ANYBODY could grow pot for personal use in a flower pot. Bootleggers got caught because they transported it and because it was a fairly involved process in producing it. Pot would not require the purchase of large amounts of corn and sugar and there would be no big metal, smoking still to find. It would cost more money for rehabilitation, lost productivity at work, etc. than it would ever produce in taxes. A bad idea all around.

By Bruce

November 6, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

Mara, Not to be disagreeable but tobacco products must be cured, to included adding things and no I do not mean additive chemicals. Chewing tobacco for instance is cured using sugar amoung other ingredients. Unless you are willing to smoke, chew tobacco in its raw, but dry form, you can grow it but using it would be alittle harsh.

Whereas pot can be grown, dried and smoked in the comfort of your basement or bedroom closet.

As a former toker and tobacco user I can safely say there is a BIG difference between the two.

PS I never had any problems rolling one up, even at 70 miles an hour on I75 during rush hour while driving. Its a wonder I’m not dead or in jail.

By Archie

November 6, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

all those southern bigots jumped ship to join the Republican party, where they’ve remained ever since. Hope you’re enjoying the company. Good post Anonymous.

The Other Jack, your response is welcome because although I disagree with you about affirmative action I do know that the law could use some tweaking and you make my point in that you know exactly why you vote republican and you are loyal to it but some of us so-called democrats will pontificate all day long then vote republican or for some other off-the-wall candidate. I don’t live in Georgia but when I see a nationally known preacher make gay marriage the number 1 issue when it’s highly likely that he doesn’t know two gay people it makes me sick. I am looking at an article that says 4.1 percent of the entire population in America identifies as being gay,lesbian, or bisexual. That’s about 9 million people so that’s why I say the preacher may not know 2 gay people. We could probably fund some health care reforms or maybe save Social Security by legalizing some drugs and taxing them. We’d also save money in law enforcement by taking the criminal element out of the drug trade for those items that are legalized. Look at the period of prohibition for an example of how organized crime got into the liquor business once it was prohibited and turf wars broke out, but then exited the business once prohibition was lifted. Netbanker I made the same argument to a religious person and she thought I was radical and guess what, a conservative person heard part of the argument she wondered what was wrong with the religious person so not all conservatives want drugs to remain illegal. Most of the population does not go to college so many Americans only understand what they see on tv or what they are told at church or what they read in a newspaper. I am not saying college-educated people are better than anyone just that they understand how things are complex than they seem.

By NCR_Man

November 6, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

The Other Jack -

That’s cool, I don’t believe that Diebold stuff, I just had to wind you up and it seems it worked.

By NetBanker

November 6, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

It would cost more money for rehabilitation, lost productivity at work, etc. than it would ever produce in taxes. Rehab and lost productivity are mutually exclusive from the taxes…kind of like gas tax revenue is mutually exclusive to lost productivity for time spent in traffic jams. You’re also seem to assume that if legal a lot more people would start smoking pot which we don’t know to be the case and legalization certainly wouldn’t negate company policies regarding coming to work wasted just as legal alcohol consumption doesn’t make it acceptable to companies to come to work drunk.

While there are sure to be some “thrifty” smokers ready to grow their own, I think the majority would be quite fine with having a ready supply at the corner store, right next to the Dorito’s and Mountain Dew. And let’s not forget that unless one chooses to invest in expense and expensive to run grow lamps the season for growing outdoors is limited based on where one lives. The plants mature based on their exposure to sunlight so planting early doesn’t mean an early crop or an ability to grow continuously in a farm operation.

There’re a LOT of people who are horticulturally challenged and wouldn’t be able to keep a plant alive if their lives depended on it. I don’t know why because it is an actual weed which is outrageously hardy. You practically have to try to kill it if planted outdoors where it will receive natural sunlight and rainfall. Believe me when I tell you it’s harder to cultivate roses than cannibis.

By Archie

November 6, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

There’re a LOT of people who are horticulturally challenged and wouldn’t be able to keep a plant alive if their lives depended on it. I am one of those people.

Chuck, I don’t agree with your 2:10 pm post but you present your argument so intelligently whereas the person I talked to just said drugs are illegal with no other thought process. I like discussing things with someone who disagrees with me but said person presents an intelligent argument as you do. You’re right about productivity and whoever said reefer is mentally addictive I think you’re right because some of the folk I know have no career ambitions but they smoke reefer daily and I think after a certain age all vices need to be put in check.

By Mara

November 6, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

chuck - They would just grow their own…ANYBODY could grow pot for personal use in a flower pot

see my 1:44 post.

You can grow your own tobacco and roll your own cigars, but most people don’t. Most people don’t grow their own anything.

Maybe at first people would plant their own, but eventually convenience and quality will outweigh the drudgery of cultivating plants and waiting for them to bud out. It’d just be easier to pop down to the store and pick up what you need. Americans are notorious for liking convenient, user-friendly products. I doubt marijuana would be any different.

By Peachy

November 6, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

Mara I do recall from history class the labor movement at the turn of the 20th century, and that unions were formed to protect alot of the factory and industrial workers from the Big Business owners of the day. Back then, the abuses ranged from poor wages to unsafe conditions, from child labor to residential/commerical compounds where you lived and worked, and only the boss’s printed currency was accepted. Food handling was unsanitary and even fatal to eat, much less process. False advertising was the rule of the day.

I am grateful to have a job, and if it means I am subjected to random drug testing, then I really only have 3 options:

1) Stay and be subjected to drug tests 2) Get the law changed 3) Go into busines for myself

I think I’m going for the path of least resistance on this one.

By NetBanker

November 6, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

some of the folk I know have no career ambitions but they smoke reefer daily and I think after a certain age all vices need to be put in check. I don’t think career ambition and smoking reefer have anything to do with each other. A dear friend who I know smokes daily is 2 steps away from being CEO at Marshalls. All the pot smokers I personally know are professionals who earn $50K or more a year with most earning over $100K. I also know people who don’t smoke who have little career ambition or work ethic.

By chuck

November 6, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

Sorry Bruce, I didn’t read far enough down. I posted essentially the same thing you did.

I never have understood the need to get high Archie. I’m like everybody else in that I get stressed out, have bad days etc., but I never looked at alcohol or drugs as solutions to those problems. I think it stems in part from watching my Dad drink as a younger kid. He quit completely when I was about 15 and our family life was MUCH better.

Additionally, I’ve never met (though I’m sure there are many) a druggie who was successful and stayed that way. I have however, met several whe WERE successful but no longer are. A good friend of my brother’s was bringing down a 7 figure income and it all went up his nose. I just have no use for the stuff and think it would be a disaster if we legalized it.

By Archie

November 6, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, trust me Mara is right that some folk just can’t grow anything. I may be one of those people and I know of at least one person that will go weeks before watering a plant. For some folk convenience trumps even saving money and you can talk to them until you are blue in the face. I think most people would go to the convenience store rather than grow their own reefer plant but those that would grow their plants could make a lot of side money much like the people that sell bootleg cd’s and dvd’s.

By Mara

November 6, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this

Bruce - true story…had a friend who cultivated a large planter of seeds every year. As soon as the weatherman said the danger of frost was over, he was out on the deck full of optimism and plans for the fat sticky buds that autumn would bring. He’d tend the plants carefully, protecting them like his own blood. But for some reason, it never quite worked out the way he thought. Come fall he’d usually be lucky to find two or three scraggly, loose buds forlornly clinging to each of the twiggy little plants. (Dude never did have anything worth smoking)

While your point, and the points made by Net and chuck, are certainly valid…I still think that “simple & guarenteed quality” would trump “cheap & homegrown” for most folk.

Jack - oreo’s are great after almost everything!

By Peachy

November 6, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

and I think I missed where we departed from drug testing and got onto mary jane horticulture…. shrug

By Lyrazel

November 6, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

Jack, Yes cops can bust you for driving under the influence of pot if they find marijuana in the car and lingering smoke.

Like most people realize the pot you can grow in your backyard is a weed. Cultivators spend $$$ to make it a medicinal quality—from lights to pampering—also, pot would never be advertised (cigarettes cannot be so the same legislation would apply in stores like Publix and restaurants dont allow smoking so no light up there) or sold to minors.

The thing is the USA have spent trillions of dollars in education & arming other countries junta to eradicate drugs—as well as pay them not to grow—but USA remains the worlds largest importer/consumer of illegal drugs. Basically the demand in the USA created the need for drug cartels. The US cannot legalize pot because of the outcry our S.A. neighbors will fume—> as for War on Drugs—like all the other Wars on (fill in the blank) they are mostly PR for messy news days, or slow news days, great for COPS tv show segments. The expense of state law enforcement as well as the cost of processing and institutionalizing petty criminals is one in a series of blunders that shame-faced politicians MUST now support these Wars less their constituents realize how much waste was spent yearly.

By Archie

November 6, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this

don’t think career ambition and smoking reefer have anything to do with each other. Netbanker we obviously know different kinds of people because I do know a pot-smoker that earns over $50k but that person had to be protected in order to keep his/her job and the other reefer smokers I know basically don’t have any ambition. Now I don’t have any scientific data just observation and it should be noted that only a few people earn over $100k so those people are rare in the first place.

By Jack

November 6, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

Got me Lyrazel. However they still cannot prove through testing that you are under the influence. If they figure that one out they will make lots of revenue from DWS. (driving while stoned)

By WeedReview

November 6, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

I still think that “simple & guarenteed quality” would trump “cheap & homegrown” for most folk.

Preach, Mara, Preach, and ain’t that the truth.

There’s a LOT to be said for MauiWaui, Panama Red, Michoacan, etc.

or so I saw in a movie once. LOL Speaking of movies, don’t miss American Gangster.

By John in Tampa, FLA

November 6, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

REALITY IS JUST A CRUTCH FOR PEOPLE WHO DON’T DO LIQUOR OR DRUGS.

By NetBanker

November 6, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

I agree with Mara and Archie that most people will go the convenience route rather than grown and as I pointed out the grow season is limited.

those that would grow their plants could make a lot of side money That’s possible, but not too likely because you’d need to grow a LOT of plants in order to harvest enough to sell on the side.

I’ve never met (though I’m sure there are many) a druggie who was successful and stayed that way. I have however, met several whe WERE successful but no longer are. Chuck…this is valid point, but I think it’s the type of drug one does that can really impact one’s life. Cocaine and meth bring down lots of people because the amount needed to achieve the same effect keeps increasing and one effect of both drugs is to keep people awake. Sleep deprivation, drug induced or not, seriously affects one’s mental ability and judgement after a while.

By NetBanker

November 6, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

He’d tend the plants carefully, protecting them like his own blood. But for some reason, it never quite worked out the way he thought. Come fall he’d usually be lucky to find two or three scraggly, loose buds forlornly clinging to each of the twiggy little plants. Well that’s a darn shame, Mara. My guess is that your friend had too many plants in the same planter so they didn’t have room to grow and that he didn’t cull the males. If plans to try again, tell him to use Miracle Grow…worked wonders in my Mrs. Madrigal garden which produced a very high quality crop with little work beyond watering and occassional pruning.

By Archie

November 6, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, my grass didn’t grow well this year and I thought I kept up with fertilizing it pretty well but since we live in the South with drought like conditions I probably needed to water my lawn more than twice per week. Anyway I agree with you that sleep deprivation definitely affects a person’s judgement and I personally feel like a champ when I get enough sleep. Also I don’t want to make the ladies angry but so many of today’s women don’t want to cook they want the convience of eating out and that contributes to many Americans having money problems because we would rather pay for convenience than work at some things. Now let me say that men do cook as I am one of those men but a lot of men still don’t cook so when have a signficant other that doesn’t like to cook either you have people spending for convenience. I do not want to place blame exclusively on the shoulders of women so I hope no one writes that I did that. I agreed with Mara so strongly because I see the convenience-mentality so much when read about the personal financial problems of people. There was this family on Oprah’s debt diet show that never cooked a meal at home.

By eltdarerl

November 7, 2007 3:23 AM | Link to this

letozeldom

By eltdarerl

November 7, 2007 3:24 AM | Link to this

letozeldom

By The Other Jack

November 7, 2007 8:08 AM | Link to this

Anonymous Then you should also remember what happened when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act… all those southern bigots jumped ship to join the Republican party, where they’ve remained ever since. Hope you’re enjoying the company.

It was called the Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act of 1964-65 was originally drafted in 1868 by a Republican and was passed into law but was thrown out by the Supreme court in 1872 for reasons that the bill conflicted with Interstate Commerce laws. It was drafted because the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment was being circumvented by the intimidation tactics of Southern Democrats toward ex-slaves. (Slaves were freed by a Republican: Andrew Johnson when he signed into law those three amendments to the Constitution. The Emancipation Proclamation freed no one.)

Jump forward 100 years of Racist Democrats intimidating Blacks in the North AND South.

After Eisenhower (a Republican) had sent federal troops to protect The Little Rock Nine from the state troops ordered by Orville Faubus (a Democrat), several Republicans including Richard Nixon started reforming the original Voting Rights Act. They corrected the poorly written clauses and resubmitted the Act in 1958, but it was summarily rejected by the Democratically controlled house.

JFK had a compromise act drafted because he feared that the Democrats would never pass the more stringent Republican version. The Republicans rejected the compromise and demanded that the corrected original act be made into law, giving Blacks all the same rights as everyone else.

JFK was shot and LBJ, a noted segregationist and a key to the support of JFK by the racist Democrats in the South, took the White House. His record from Texas before the Voting Rights Act speaks volumes about his racist policies. He was convinced if he offered the Republican version of the act that it would never pass and it could be laid to rest.

Several Democrats including Robert Byrd filibustered against the act, but because of the insistence of the Republican minority (many more Republicans voted for the act than Democrats), the act was made law. LBJ had signed it, but he never supported it.

As far as all those Democrats that became Republicans, please name one single Democratic Senator, Congressman or Governor, that was a segregationist during the civil rights era, other than Jessie Helms that became a Republican. I can save you a lot of time: you won’t find one, and Jessie is dead.

After the Trent Lott deal, the Democrats went into damage control after it was pointed out that Jessie Helms had been a Democrat while he had been a segregationist but became an integrationist when he transferred to the Republican Party. It was during this propaganda storm that the term Dixiecrats was used to try and separate the racist Southern Democrats from the rest of the party.

Of course anyone who knows the actual facts about the civil rights movement knows that it was the Northern Democrats in the city of Boston that staged the most ardent stance against integration in the Boston Busing Riots that lasted well into the 1980s. Many Northern Democratic areas were as racist as their Southern counterparts. New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, all Democratic strongholds had huge race riots during the 60s.

Unfortunately, you have been suckered into buying into the propaganda of the left as they desperately try to rewrite history. It’s nothing to be ashamed of, but it does tend to make you and any other liberal that is just too complacent to look up the facts look rather foolish and ill-educated. I certainly hope you are not a Black Man supporting the very same party that formed the KKK and siced attack dogs on your ancestors.

Sorry to be the one to tell you: but the only racist segregationist that is still in Congress is Robert Byrd and his putrid hate filled smell is all over your party. You might want to check your facts before you mindlessly repost democratic propaganda.

By MB

November 7, 2007 8:10 AM | Link to this

When the company I work for announced expansion of the random drug testing program from employees in saftey sensitive positions to all employees, the HR guy who did the presentation made no bones about it, “This is ramp up in the culture war” were his exact words, followed by, “If you insist on smoking pot, you cannot earn a living here.”

So, having casually smoked pot for almost 35 years this little “ramp up of the culture war” has had the unfortunate side effect of turning a casual mid-night/weekend toker into a full-blown raging alcoholic.

Good job A-holes.

By Anonymous

November 7, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

Look how the Klan votes, TOJ: solidly Republican. And that’s a pretty sad attempt to deny the very existence of the Dixiecrats, when they ran their own candidates for years before the Act was signed. The survivors of the Dixiecrat era, like Zell Miller, pretty blatantly align themselves with Republican views and mask it with the motto of “states’ rights.”

And I notice you completely skipped over Nixon’s justifiably infamous “southern strategy.” To appropriate a handy slogan that Ann Coulter’s been spewing lately: Not all Republicans in the U.S. are racist, but all U.S. racists are certainly Republicans.

By Mara

November 7, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

yawn

I thought we were talking about random drug tests. Of course we could segue into a discussion of racism intersecting with drug laws.

We know that the sentencing guidelines for cocaine are wildly uneven, perhaps because “crack” cocaine was more popular among ethnic communities while the more expensive powder cocaine was the darling of the (usually) white elite.

Even the criminalization of marijuana can be traced to racism regarding its popularity among mexican migrant workers (that, and the mormon church’s outrage that their missionaries south of the border were having more fun than the ones left in Utah).

By Lily Toad

November 7, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Marijuana was also used by Black jazz and blues musicians before it spread to White musicians and beatniks in the ‘40’s and ‘50’s.

By Lily Toad

November 7, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

Also I don’t want to make the ladies angry but so many of today’s women don’t want to cook they want the convience of eating out and that contributes to many Americans having money problems because we would rather pay for convenience than work at some things. Now let me say that men do cook as I am one of those men but a lot of men still don’t cook so when have a signficant other that doesn’t like to cook either you have people spending for convenience. I do not want to place blame exclusively on the shoulders of women so I hope no one writes that I did that.

Archie, instead of going through these gyrations of first blaming women, then including men, then saying you don’t blame women, you could have just said “many women and men don’t want to cook, they want the convenience of going out for dinner.” Bingo, you have placed the blame on both sexes.

By The Other Jack

November 7, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

*By Anonymous

Look how the Klan votes, TOJ: solidly Republican.*

I could be a real jerk and demand how you know how individuals that belong to the Klan vote but you are probably right. I recently was having a discussion on another forum about the Klan and actually visited their website. They actually have a “Klan TV”. It was pretty weird. You might want to check it out. I’m not about to give a link to a klan site but it was easy to find.

Their big push seems to be against illegal immigration, part of the friendlier, gentler Klan I guess. But all of the ignorance and bigotry is still there if you look past the first pages.

Both of our parties have some real wacked people. It isn’t my favorite thought to understand that I have huge problems with Affirmative Action and so does the Klan. But I have listed why I have those problems and it has nothing to do with hate. I have also listed why I vote for Republicans.

My point was that most people do not understand what actually happened during the 60s. The huge anti-war riots were at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, not the Republican National Convention in San Diego. Nixon ended the war, but he is still stuck with the term: Nixon’s War. Democrats were very bad. They were the racist establishment that people like Marvin Gaye and Sly Stone sang about. They ruled the White House and both houses of Congress during the Civil rights movement and the Viet Nam War. Not good.

I have heard about The Southern Strategy but I have found little proof that it was ever really used. Most of the South was solidly Democratic until well after Nixon left office. In fact most of the South was Democratic until the late 90s. Georgia certainly was.

But the days of Jim Crow in the South are pretty much over except in some very poor white trash parts of the South, but those people are uaually on government assistance and no one on welfare is going to vote for a Republican.

As far as the KKK, there are idiots everywhere.

By Lily Toad

November 7, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

All this talk about southern Democrats is leaving out important historical info. Southerners were Democrats because the Republican party was called the Party of Lincoln, and none of the southern politicians wanted to be aligned with northerners and the man who signed the Emancipation Proclamation. When my mother moved to Florida in 1959 she could only register as a Democrat, there was not a Republican option. As northern liberals reformed the Democratic party, in the 1990’s southerners didn’t want to be associated with Dems any more and became Republicans. Good ol’ Sonny Perdue was a Democrat not too long ago.

By Holy Roller

November 7, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

As a long-time values voter, I am confused by the Rev. Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Mayor Guiliani. Are the personal morals of the President important, or are they not? A few years ago we learned that almost nothing is more important than the President’s personal private moral behavior, as explained at length by the prevailing Holy Roller leadership faction. Now this turns that upside down. Please help!

By Mara

November 7, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

TOJ - is it your assertion that those who oppose illegal immigration are ignorant bigots? Or did you mean that the Klan is ignorant and bigoted regardless of whether the issue is race relations or illegal immigration?

By NetBanker

November 7, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

A few years ago we learned that almost nothing is more important than the President’s personal private moral behavior, as explained at length by the prevailing Holy Roller leadership faction. Now this turns that upside down. Please help! Well Holy Roller, you see this is just like Biblical Interpretation. How you understand the same passage over time depends on how the Holy Spirit inspires you during that particular reading. Personal, private, moral behavior WAS important due to the relevance of Bill Clinton’s pecadillos, but NOW they aren’t so important…besides with the exception of Mitt haven’t ALL the Republican candidates been married more than once? And Mitt doesn’t count because he’s a Mormon, not a Christian.

By The Other Jack

November 7, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad

Nah. Just doesn’t fly. Your statement falls into the category of “if they were bigoted, they couldn’t have been democrats”.

They were Democrats because they were Democrats. Racism on the part of Democrats was happening all over the country. As I said, South Boston, John Kerry’s district had the longest and bloodiest race riots in our country. New York, Southside Chicago, all incredibly democratic districts and still are that fought integration.

While many middle class educated Southern Whites have become Republicans, they usually represent the Non-Jim crow South, while the very poor “White Trash” is the heart of the old racist South and they vote for whoever will continue their welfare checks, and that ain’t the Republicans.

By The Other Jack

November 7, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Mara

No. I Just think the KKK is ignorant and bigoted. I was trying to say that their main talking point is much more mainstream now.

I tend to side with Rudy on immigration. I keep wondering who will pick the beans? I don’t want to do it and I certainly don’t want my kids to do it.

If Carlos wants to come here and work, pay him well and send him home with his pockets full of good old American green backs. It is a great thing we can do for people that weren’t fortunate enough to be born here.

But people coming to our country for the sole purpose of stealing or killing should be sent to prison and then far away from our country.

It is a lot like the Pot issue. We have no control over it because it is simply illegal. We need a guest worker program that actually works.

Once again, bureaucracies, lobby money, it’s all the root of our country’s problems.

By The Other Jack

November 7, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

NetBaker

Wow! So you are comparing Bill Clinton’s having a sexual relationship with an underling, an act that according to several N.O.W. published training tapes, should have resulted in the immediate dismissal of the executive, to a husband and wife having a divorce.

is that really what you are saying? I read your post several times and if I am wrong, please correct me.

Or maybe it is just that the standards of behavior for Republicans is really that much higher than the standards of behaviors of Democrats.

Whatever, please clarify what you actually meant.

By The Other Jack

November 7, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

MB

That really stinks. There should be some way you could sue your company. I have sure seen alcohol hurt a lot of people and I personally hate the high. It makes me sleepy and sick.

You may want to start checking some pro-Pot sights and see what your litagation possibilities are.

By The Other Jack

November 7, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

NCR-Man

Yea, I went back and read my little speech. I should have been an evangelist. The problem with that is that I can only preach about things I really believe.

By Lily Toad

November 7, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

I don’t believe that Dems can’t be racists. Never said that or meant to imply that. I’m just giving the history of the Democratic Party in the South.

By Mara

November 7, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

TOJ - I honestly can’t speak coherently to the issue of illegal immigration. I find myself enraged at the sheer contempt illegals have for American sovereignty. Their disrespect for our communities and our property. Not to mention the damage they do to wage and labor protections, the costs of identity theft to the citizen victim, and the bankrupting of our schools and medical infrastructure.

I agree that we need workable programs that will assist those who want to come here temporarily to do so legally, but I don’t see them complying with our laws no matter how we structure it. For one, when they do come, they won’t leave. And second, they don’t believe that we have any right to regulate the influx of foreign nationals. You can’t really work with people that refuse to admit that we have the right to tell them “no”.

By Mara

November 7, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this

new study out…

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/Drugs/story?id=3822220&page=1

assorted excerpts —-

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A study of more than 5,000 youngsters in Switzerland has found those who smoked marijuana do as well or better in some areas as those who don’t, researchers said Monday.

The study did not confirm the hypothesis that those who abstained from marijuana…functioned better overall, the authors said.

In fact, those who used…marijuana were “more socially driven … significantly more likely to practice sports and they have a better relationship with their peers” than abstainers, it said.

“Moreover, even though they are more likely to skip class, they have the same level of good grades; and although they have a worse relationship with their parents, they are not more likely to be depressed” than abstainers, it added.

The study, published in the November issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, was based on a 2002 survey of 5,263 Swiss students age 16 to 20, of whom 455 smoked marijuana only, 1,703 who used both marijuana and tobacco and 3,105 who abstained from both.

By Jack

November 7, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

Where is the ACLU when you need them? Certainly not in this case. God forbid they do something for our individual rights.

By NewsFlash

November 7, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this

hot dang, another Republican in the news; this a former state legislator in South Dakota performing “gyno” exams on underage foster girls: And if we see it’s from Faux, we know its true. Seems he got kicked out over term limits and lost to a Democrat.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308983,00.html

By Jack

November 7, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this

BTW. I hope Auburn crushes the overrated bulldogs 50-0.

By NewsFlash

November 7, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

I guess 16 is not underage in S.D. Wish these states would get it together, establish a nationwide underage age.

That post was actually for Chuck.

By Archie

November 7, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

I have to side with Netbanker in the debate between him and the Other Jack. Rudy G. seems like a life-long playboy as he has been married 3 times and it is known he had an affair and republicans did make an issue out of Clinton’s personal behavior.

By Anonymous

November 8, 2007 8:27 AM | Link to this

Where is the ACLU when you need them? Certainly not in this case. God forbid they do something for our individual rights.

Wrong, Jack. The ACLU has been fighting workplace drug testing for a loooong time, and is still involved in the fight today.

http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/testing/index.html http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp02.htm

By The Other Jack

November 8, 2007 9:14 AM | Link to this

Archie

Playboys don’t get married three times. The whole point of being a playboy is to never get married.

I could see your point about an affair. Although Ridy never pointed his finger at America and flat out lied about it. Clinton’s actions destroyed the long lasting crusade by N.O.W. against workplace affairs between executives and underlings. I had to set through two films produced by N.O.W. in which one claimed that ANY such affair should be considered rape.

N.O.W. claims to have more members than ever, but the reality is that their support of Clinton after this particular affair destroyed their active membership.

And every time you compare a Democrat’s stabbing their mate in the back by screwing around on them to a Republican having a divorce proves the long lasting stance that you just can’t hold the sleezy little liars that are the Democrats up to the same standards of the Republicans.

I personally like that. I like the fact that the people I vote for are held to a higher standard than the other guys.

By The Other Jack

November 8, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this

Mara,

As strange as this seems, I always get very pro-immigration around Halloween. Several folks on my block put together a haunted house for little kids. The people down the street drag out the hockey masks and the chainsaws, but we make something a lot less scary and the young kids love it.

We have literally hundreds of kids, many of them are driven in from poor neighborhoods. Some of the white and some of the black kids all come in store bought, really nice costumes. But many of the poorer kids do not even attempt to have a costume and are usually accompanied by some incredibly slobbish adult who also has a plastic Kroger bag, wanting candy. They are rude and we are constantly having to watch for them taking much more candy then they should and they will come back over and over until we tell them to move on. Of course then, they become really rude.

Not the poor Hispanics. They will show up as a Mom and Dad and a kid or two. The kids are always spotlessly clean and well cared for and most of the children have beautiful hand made costumes. The parents would never dream of taking candy and are usually glowing with pride of their children. The kids are usually interpreting what we are saying for their parents and it just reminds me what this country is all about. We watch them walk back to their total POS car with their absolute pride and joy, their children and their family.

My family was poor, but we were taught that same kind of pride and it has guided me throughout my entire life.

I’m a sucker for anyone who cares for their children like that.

I understand that not all immigrants are like that, but most who come to our haunted house are and that always gets me right in the heart.

Most of them work like dogs, doing jobs we would never do. We just need to fix the system that lumps them all together. We need people who work that hard and care for their children like they do.

By chuck

November 8, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

NetB

Personal, private, moral behavior WAS important due to the relevance of Bill Clinton’s pecadillos, but NOW they aren’t so important…besides with the exception of Mitt haven’t ALL the Republican candidates been married more than once? And Mitt doesn’t count because he’s a Mormon, not a Christian.

Actually, Mike Huckabee married his high school sweetheart and they have been married for about 30 years or so.

Yes, personal, private, MORAL behavior is still important to Republicans…at least the Social Conservatives in the party. It’s NEVER been important to the other side of the party. Personally, I don’t see how you can compare what Clinton did with what Giuliani did because they were 2 very different things. This week Kathleen Willey’s book came out. It is called “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton.” She was a CLINTON SUPPORTER and claimed that not only did he rape her, but she believes He OR SHE, had her husband killed. I don’t know whether or not the second allegation is true, but I sure believe her on the first one. There is NO EXCUSE for what Clinton did with Lewinsky in the White House.

I think you should also look at the difference between Prominent Republicans and Democrats when they get caught with “their pants down”. Livingston and Newt resigned. Clinton CELEBRATED.

That said, I could not possibly vote for Giuliani FOR ANY REASON. If he can’t be trusted to keep sacred vows that he made to his own wife, how can we trust him to keep his vow to protect and defend the Constitution.

My first reaction to Mike Huckabee was, “I can’t vote for a governor from ARKANSAS. That’s just too surreal.” The more that I look at him though, the better I feel about supporting him. I think of all the Republican candidates, he has the cleanest record of conservatism…both fiscal and social. I think he would do a great job as president, though I think he may have to grow into the job a bit.

The only thing that I disagree with him about is his support of the “Fair Tax” plan being pushed by Neal Boortz. I can get over that though because I don’t think it ever has a prayer of becoming law. Personally I prefer a flat tax plan of some sort. The main thing to me however is not HOW we pay our taxes but rather HOW MUCH we pay in taxes.

By Scalia

November 8, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

So TOJ, you like hypocrites? You hold them to a higher standard that apparently doesn’t really exist.

At least with the Democrats, they don’t try to pretend like they are these moral, self-righteous individuals that shun and look down on other people for what they do.

It is like finding out your parents, who condemn doing drugs, but does it on the weekends when you go to bed.

By chuck

November 8, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Most of them work like dogs, doing jobs we would never do.

This statement is just not true TOJ. They actually take jobs away from Americans by undercutting prices. My brother is a builder. He has a good friend who was a roofer. He had to gou out of business because a Mexican roofing crew came in and undercut his prices. How could they do this? You can pay your workers a lot less if they don’t have to pay taxes. You can also pay them a lot less when the whole crew lives in the same house.

Illegal immigrants universally drive down wages where they are. It isn’t fair to those who are here legally and especially to our own citizens. I have nothing against Mexicans or hispanics in general. My brother in law is a second generation American whose father came here legally from Mexico. I am against “line jumpers” and people who break our laws, don’t respect our borders and who send all of that money OUT of America to help some other country’s economy.

By chuck

November 8, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

So Scalia, what you are saying is the same thing I’ve been saying for years: Democrats are Immoral.

By Scalia

November 8, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

Chuck, I am saying that I like people being straight up and not putting on a facade. Why pretend that you are one thing when you are something else? Why pretend to be a sheep when you are a wolf?

The honeymoon phase of relationships irritates me. The person you are dating is selling you this false image of who they are, and then down the road you see exactly how that person is.

By chuck

November 8, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

I guess they put that Hillary article up a day early, huh? I thought something was fishy when the article changed in the middle of the day instead of Friday evening.

By The Other Jack

November 8, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

Yes, Mara. Some of them do. But that is why we need to control the guest worker program. And yes, they also do the nasty ag work.

By lozen

November 8, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

I think these people in charge of WtoW should be drug tested!

By The Other Jack

November 8, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

By Scalia

So TOJ, you like hypocrites? You hold them to a higher standard that apparently doesn’t really exist.

I don’t know what post you are referring to. But judging from most of the posts on here, a Democrat can get a Happy Ending from an intern and have the support of his entire party, but if a Republican gets a divorce … not cheat on his wife, but just gets a divorce … they are in the wrong. So it seems that I am not the ones that are putting the Republicans on a higher standard.

By John in Tampa, FLA

November 8, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

May the two ladies running this blog need to be drug tested. what happened to Hillary blog?????

By John in Tampa, FLA

November 8, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

sorry lozen, yours must have been in transit when i posted mine.

By Lily Toad

November 8, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

I was so excited to see a new topic, since the weekend one usually runs out of steam mid-week. D’oh!

By JokesOn

November 8, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

So Scalia, what you are saying is the same thing I’ve been saying for years: Democrats are Immoral.

Like you Scalia, I think viewing reality honestly is MUCH better than being a hypocrite. The hardest part of breaking any habit is getting past denial. Given that fact, if any of our liberal/tolerant ways are determined to be “bad,” we do not have to jump that extremely difficult hurdle (denial).

Look at Sen. Craig or nearly any of the other conservatives. They are painted into a corner that they cannot solve without loosing all credibility.

The difference being made is honest self awareness, so that changes CAN be made when needed, but of course that gets the lable “flip-flopping.”

By The Other Jack

November 8, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

Scalia

Chuck, I am saying that I like people being straight up and not putting on a facade. Why pretend that you are one thing when you are something else? Why pretend to be a sheep when you are a wolf?

Wow. And you support the democratic party? Please start by telling Nancy Pelosi to stop getting plastic surgery on her eyes. They are BIG enough. I’ll bet a million bucks that she can’t close her eyes all the way when she sleeps.

Then you can tell that great Union crusader to stop throwing Union reps off her Northern California Winery.

Then please tell this great person of the people to stop building Golf courses, making promises to allow everyone to play, but then make the courses ultra-exclusive hangouts for her and other limousine liberals.

Then tell this great environmentalists to stop dumping insecticides into the ground water around that golf course.

That was Ms. Pelosy

Would you now like Teddy “Leave em in the ditch”kennedy?

Or how about old Al “Bible Thumping Fundy” Gore, who for some reason started telling his crusading wife to take a powder because Hollywood Money is so much more fun than evangelical, anti-abortion Christian Money.

And these people are “straight up”, huh?

By Chilao

November 8, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this

It is not our two esteemed columnists, it’s those dang druggies in IT. I bet somewhere back there doing some major back-pedaling. look, man, you see that?, I posted the wrong link AGAIN as others say “look, man, you see that, he/she posted it wrong **AGAIN.

LMAO

I walked into the ops center of the bank I worked at, operators asked me “Chilao, man, did you use to do alot of drugs?”(I had been super clean at that point 15 years). I replied, in my best wasted voice “I dunno, man, I doun’t rememba”.

They nearly crapped on the floor in merriment.

By Chilao

November 8, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

and those computer operators at the bank WERE high all the time, especially the second-shifters.

By Scalia

November 8, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this

No, I do not support either party. I am saying, the Republicans are constantly pretending that they live in this perfect house and do no wrong and denounce everybody around them when in reality they are doing the same thing. Basically, don’t talk the talk if you aren’t going to walk the walk.

And thanks JokesOn.

By JokesOn

November 8, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

And these people are “straight up”, huh?

Yes. More-so at the least.

It is the difference between absolute dogma and being a human which can/will err.

They are not on a pedestal, we like them because they (most) present themselves as what they are: fallible humans.

Conservatives present themselves as our judge and jury.

You are a good example of what we do not like: You made a comment a few post ago about reading comprehension that was quite a*******holeish, yet do not see that you pick-apart and a*******ume just as bad. Granted, the act is not desirable, but the ignorance of performing it is gut wrenching.

By lozen

November 8, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this

Yeah. These W to W ppl need to be drug tested!

By Chilao

November 8, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this

I think only the W2W workers who were on Shaunti’s side should be drug-tested. LOL

By hello

November 9, 2007 1:42 AM | Link to this

hello, i’m spamilka

By The Other Jack

November 9, 2007 8:32 AM | Link to this

Jokes On

What nonsense.

So Al Gore was a Fundy Bible pounder until he decided to “Go to the Show” and that’s OK, but conservatives voicing their opinions about whether or not a leader should be honest is a sin never to be forgiven. LOL!!

I See.

You are a fool if you think any politician presents themselves as what they are.

I have made it very clear that I believe the Republicans are the less of two evils. The main reason is the massive hypocrisy of the left. And the sad thing is that a whole bunch of your people would rather condemn the opposing party, not for what they do, but for what they think.

I’m glad I am a Republican when I see how indoctrinated the opposing party is.

By Mara

November 9, 2007 8:40 AM | Link to this

TOJ - apples and oranges, buddy. You’re talking about immigrants. I’m talking about illegal aliens.

You’re talking about those who have behaved with honesty and honor, respectfully asking for permission to come and live among us. Waiting patiently, paying the fees, answering the questions, enduring the aggravation, the redundancies, and the red tape. Decent, admirable and brave people that deserve to be welcomed with open arms.

I’m talking about the foreign-born scofflaws who not only DON’T ask permission, they don’t believe we have the right to keep them out or to tell them to leave after they’ve crashed the party. They’re the ones who shove their way into our country, who whine about how hard it is to get here, and demand that we quit trying to enforce our laws or protect our borders.

Apples and oranges. And that’s all I have to say about that.

By chuck

November 9, 2007 9:04 AM | Link to this

Go Mara…loved the 8:40. I knew there would be SOMETHING we could agree on.

By The Other Jack

November 9, 2007 9:06 AM | Link to this

Mara

I’m not so sure all those beautiful little families had their green cards.

I also understand what this situation is doing to the local government along the borders: it is bankrupting those areas.

I know all that. I’m saying that we need to fix it. Raising minimum wages at this particular time is the very worst thing we could have done. That changed the entire dynamic as far as resolving this mess. It might have been possible to negotiate some sort of agricultural minimum wage for the people picking beans, but not now.

I understand that many good jobs are being taken by illegals. That would be great to fix, but who is going to step up? Run off cousin Carlos who was working as a carpenter and cousin Juan who can vote will vote against YOU. Fixing this problem is going to take a Roosevelt or a Reagan. Neither party can even decide whether to give them drivers permits and Bank of America gives them credit cards. All the Roosevelts and Reagans have died.

The Democrats are in a mess. It was really easy to set back and say that everything was simply the Republican’s fault. Now they need to face all those issues they were Black & White about. We can’t get out of the war, we can’t regulate the oil compnaies, we can’t fix illegal immigration. The democrats are media darlings. If it can’t be fixed with a 20 second sound bite, it isn’t worth dealing with.

By JokesOn

November 9, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this

You are a fool if you think any politician presents themselves as what they are. I said “Yes. More-so at the least.” (reading comprehension?!?!)

I have made it very clear that I believe the Republicans are the less of two evils. And we have made it clear that we believe the inverse - without using statements like “your a fool…”

The main reason is the massive hypocrisy of the left. Oddly, this is our position about the right; yet illustrated with truly massive examples of hypocrisy: like opposing gays rights which is an action not a merely thought (see your statement below) while be actively homosexual yourself ignoring your marital vows in the process. Or the latest republican that lured young foster girls into spreading to check if they can sell their eggs….geeze!

And the sad thing is that a whole bunch of your people would rather condemn the opposing party, not for what they do, but for what they think. See above for “do versus think” remark.

I’m glad I am a Republican when I see how indoctrinated the opposing party is. All I have to say to that is the notion of “Stay the course” was dogma even when needed change had been reported by staff numerous times. Talk about dogma, you resist change (as well as fessing up to your errs) every time not unlike the catholic church.

By The Other Jack

November 9, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

Jokes On

Ah . ..

So if anything is ever said about any Conservatives, it is what we all do … I see.

That would fall under the category of a self righteous zealot presenting himself as a judge and a jury, wouldn’t you say? OOPS!! Isn’t that what you hate about conservatives? Say it ain’t so!!!

I didn’t say that you were a fool. I said you were a fool if you believe that a modern politician presents themselves as what they claim to be. I gave the example of the leader of the House.

Barnie Frank ran a male gay prostitution ring out of his home, but that was OK. Just saying anything about it was bad… right?

I can’t win an argument where the rules of engagement are that anything any democrat does is OK, but Republicans are the most evil people on earth for pointing out what the democrats have done.

You claim that democrats do not put themselves on pedestals. Have you seen Al Gore lately? You know he claims that if a person takes a stand and doesn’t follow blindly behind his dogma, that they are morally wrong for doing so. You know that, right?

So the ex-Bible pounding fundy has now circumvented the entire religious community and declared himself God, making a new list of moral obligations for his flock to follow.

Conservatives may occasionally act like we want to be judge and jury. Liberals do it with every breath they take.

By chuck

November 9, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

UHHHH, Jokeson. Though your post was somewhat lacking in clarity, I think that you have made a common error in assessing political differences between Republicans and democraps.

When Republicans do that kind of crap they are roundly criticized BY OTHER REPUBLICANS (Republicans called on Craig to RESIGN). When dems do this stuff, the party rallies around them. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE!!!

By ChillPill

November 9, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

Chill Pills available, No prescription required.

By JokesOn

November 9, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

When Republicans do that kind of crap they are roundly criticized BY OTHER REPUBLICANS (Republicans called on Craig to RESIGN)

Its been widely reported that the reason the top republicans called him to resign was because of history of being reluctant in past issues. Still, its a fact that many of his peers want him to fight it.

Oddly, his new argument is that interpreting his actions is a violation of free speech. I wonder why he did not care about the people that were arrested before him being violated? It is not a slight double standard, but one that goes against the constitution, his religion, and his absolute moral platform.

The hate is so prevalent in the republican party, but I guess you guys get blinded to it by being around/in it for so long.

By GOB

November 9, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

I’m talking about the foreign-born scofflaws who not only DON’T ask permission, they don’t believe we have the right to keep them out or to tell them to leave after they’ve crashed the party. They’re the ones who shove their way into our country, who whine about how hard it is to get here, and demand that we quit trying to enforce our laws or protect our borders

Do the majority of illegal immigrants even know what our immigration laws and entry requirements even are? It isnt like most of them can just google it to find out. The bulk are dirt poor and often illiterate.

And that is leaving out the fact that they are only “our” laws because “we” took the land from other people by coming in droves from other countries.

By chuck

November 9, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

Newt Gingrich……RESIGNED.

Bob Livingstone……RESIGNED.

I agree that the people who preach morality and then VIOLATE those morals ARE INDEED hypocrites. No doubt about it. The fact is that when Republicans do those things WE CRITICIZE THEM and call on them to resign.

DEMOCRAPS do NOT DO THAT. That is the hypocrisy. Are you being deliberately OBTUSE or are you really that stupid?

By Archie

November 9, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

JokesOn I thought your 9:25 am post was very clear and I agree with it. Let me say this TOJ implied that a playboy is not married well, what would you call Donald Trump or Ted Turner as they are both known to keep a “chick on the side” as reported by their ex-wives?? The ex-mayor of Atlanta was a playboy in that he had that reporter girlfriend and some other girlfriends. I thought JokesOn made his point pretty good because democrats knew Clinton was a “player” all along we were just surprised he allowed something to happen with Monica, who has yet to apologize to Mrs,Mrs,Mrs Clinton.

I don’t want to digress too much but it amazes me how women and some men can have affairs with someone else’s spouse and never acknowledge wrongdoing but yet if the situation were reversed they would have such righteous indignation.

By chuck

November 9, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

GOB, I see why you don’t often post other than to criticize those who do. It’s probably a good idea considering that when you TRY to post an argument, something stupid like that comes out.

First, TYPICAL LIBERAL. You think the poor are stupid and that YOU have to take care of them. OF COURSE THEY KNOW. Why do you think they SNEAK across the border?

Based on the last sentence of your post, if you lve anywhere north of the AIRPORT, I want your house. My people the Cherokee owned that land and you are a squatter. What a Maroon.

By Whateva

November 9, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

DEMOCRAPS do NOT DO THAT. That is the hypocrisy

Democrats don’t need to be apologizing for those actions since they are not running around foaming at the mouth about their family values, etc.

DUH

By Archie

November 9, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

Chuck there’s no need to call anyone stupid because democrats do resign when they caught in their lies. Remember the guy in Connecticutt was a democrat, the who guy was married yet he was a homosexual. Remember him? In my hometown here I could tell you about some democratic guys caught stealing money and they did resign.

By The Other Jack

November 9, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

By Whateva

Roaming around, foaming at the mouth. That’s what we are doing, huh?

<>

I see liberals as very angry, ill informed people. Your post seems to agree with me.

By Let's start naming names!

November 9, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Newt Gingrich……RESIGNED. Bob Livingstone……RESIGNED.

What about Henry Hyde? He just received the Medal of Freedom, right? No doubt for fearlessly leading the charge to protect the American people from the President’s consensual hum job. Thank GOODNESS for Henry Hyde!!

Of course…. The husband of this woman was upset about Mr. Hyde’s five-year affair with his pretty young wife and the mother of his children, which essentially ended their marriage. Was that immoral? Hard to tell by today’s standards, huh?.

Did anyone ask him to resign?

By JokesOn

November 9, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

What a Maroon.

Says the fundie-christain/blogging on-the-clock teacher/who believes dinosaurs lived with humans and traveled on the ark/wished death on muslims because (some) are fundies (like him)/and uses way to many “!!!!!s”.

By Lily Toad

November 9, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

W to W blogger I’d least like to be marooned with — chuck. 2nd place Dog.

By Archie

November 9, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

Gob,I have to agree with Mara’s 8:40 am post. Once again the selfishness principle is at work in the sense that the folk that come here illegally think nothing about the folk that followed all the rules and spent the money to become legal citizens.

By JokesOn

November 9, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

I see liberals as very angry, ill informed people. Your post seems to agree with me.

Liberals are not the ones that denied:

• Global warming.

• Evolution as a scientific theory.

• Sexuality has, so far, been shown to have definitive biological basis

• Our constituational rights that all are created equal and desierve equal rights

• that the very definition democracy IS separation between church/state

• that stem cell research is very different from abortion

By The Other Jack

November 9, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

The hate is so prevalent in the republican party, but I guess you guys get blinded to it by being around/in it for so long.

Have you been out of your room for the last 20 years?

Have you seen how conservatives were treated at Columbia university?

For most of my life, as a conservative, there was nothing but extremely liberal news and entertainment outlets. But I and all other conservatives still loved such rabid liberals as Johnny Carson, Norman Lear, Walter Cronkite and almost every TV and movie personalities that we saw. We loved and watched every netwok, without judging them or the personalities because of their left wing views.

What do you think of FOX News? I’ve heard vile descriptions of anyone that watches FOX on this very site. So don’t give me this crap about hate in the Republican Party. Read this forum. Look at how conservatives are described. Not much love there, Pal.

Zealots are everywhere and involved in BOTH parties.

By The Other Jack

November 9, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

The problem I have with Clinton’s fun with Monica is his choice. JFK knew how to risk his political career. Marilyn Monroe? That would tempt anyone.

But how stupid would any man need to be in order for fat cheeked, mentally unstable Monica to be allowed to touch them. SHE KEPT THE BLUE DRESS, GUYS!! Bill Clinton is supposed to be the world’s greatest player and he didn’t spot that nut-case?

He allowed Paula Jones to get close enough to the Governor of a US state to be able to bring him up on charges. He’s an idiot.

Those idiotic things he did are comical. His decimation of our military and our central intelligence is not. Neither was his allowing the selling of top secret missile and nuclear technology which is now being used against us.

If we survive the effects of Bill Clinton’s administration, I will be amazed.

By chuck

November 9, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

What a revelation:

Sexuality has, so far, been shown to have definitive biological basis

You think?

Sexual ORIENTATION however has NEVER BEEN SHOWN to be genetic!!!!!!!!!!!!! though the act itself probably is biological.

Keep bringing them on DUFUS!!!!!!!

By Are you serious?

November 9, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

You are a fool if you think any politician presents themselves as what they are.

What a Maroon

It’s probably a good idea considering that when you TRY to post an argument, something stupid like that comes out.

These were the Republicans being nice, right?

By AGFNPR

November 9, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Jokes On - I can’t speak for all conservatives, but most fundies I know (myself included) would respond to your post as follows:

Liberals are not the ones that denied:

Global warming. Most believe in global warming - as part of a naturally occuring cycle.

Evolution as a scientific theory. First, you have to define micro versus macro evolution. But, I believe that it IS a valid THEORY that should be taught in school. I just do not accept it as a scientific fact.

Sexuality has, so far, been shown to have definitive biological basis. Yes, and? I can make the same argument that I was born to find women attractive. Does this mean that it is morally right to sleep around on my wife?

Our constituational rights that all are created equal and desierve equal rights. Maybe on the gay marriage issue you have a valid point, but your socialistic views tend to make conservatives believe that you don’t think we were all created equal.

that the very definition democracy IS separation between church/state. WHAT? Really, did you just make that up? OK, if we are a democracy, and we voted to install Christianity as our state religion, would you be happy then? I think not.

that stem cell research is very different from abortion. Yep, lets focus more money on harvesting adult stem cells. It is a win-win situation. We have documented medical treatments right NOW harvesting adult stem cells. We can leave abortion out of the debate.

By chuck

November 9, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

No these are Republicans who are telling the truth…something lefties appear to know little about.

By GOB

November 9, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Chuck - The reason I dont post often is because I actually teach and pay attention what my students are doing.

And are you really arguing that the bulk of illegal immigrants reall do have a good education and that they are just simply too lazy to fill out the paperwork? Really? They’re willing to risk their lives, but not fill out some forms?

I am certainly not advocating just opening up the borders for anyone who wants to come in, but I do think that the government has done just about everything it can to make it next to impossible for anyone who hasnt received at least a decent education to come in to the country legally.

I dont claim to have the solutions, but the demonizing of those people who are doing the same thing that many of our ancestors did (actually many of the things our ancestors did were much worse) seems off to me. The U.S. isnt some country club where we try to keep “those” people out.

By JokesOn

November 9, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

Look at how conservatives are described.

Key word is “described” which is most often accurate.

Awww. The fact that liberals call out republicans for wanting to tie all our hands based on their personal beliefs bothers you?

“You are not our daddy and have no right trying to take on that position” is not really a hatefull postion ya know?

By Pat Robertson

November 9, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

FROM NOW ON, ALL BIBLE REFERENCES TO ‘JOHN 3:16′ WILL BE REPLACED BY … ‘RUDY 9:11′.

By Rudy9:11

November 9, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

For Rudy so capitalized on 9/11, that he gave his only corrupted Police Commissioner, Kerik, so that all who vote for him shall perish and be doomed to eternal damnation h3ll.

By The Other Jack

November 9, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

Liberals are not the ones that denied Global warming.

You are quickly also proving my point. There are varying opinions about the rates and causes of Climate Change. No one is denying constant climatic changes. We believe that debate should continue on that subject. It inspires research and solutions. Why would anyone NOT want debate on any subject. What are you afraid of?

The fact that Al Gore has decided to become God is what bothers most conservatives. When he was living in his racist Daddy’s posh Washington Hotel suite, I and many conservative Boy Scouts was actually taking care of our environment. At 8 years old, I was picking up trash along the Appalachian Trail. And you expect me to bow down to some politician because he has come to the brilliant conclusion that as ice melts, water levels rise.

Evolution as a scientific theory.

Yea, we have some people that believe in creationism. But the last I heard, Democrats are very put out that Republicans claim that Democrats are Godless. So which is it? Are all of you atheist or do some of you actually have strong religious convictions?

Sexuality has, so far, been shown to have definitive biological basis

You seem to be confused. Liberals want to claim that humans are genderless blobs and that our sexist culture teach women to nurture and men to like killing and Football.

Our constituational rights that all are created equal and desierve equal rights

You understand that you are defending the party that started the KKK, don’t you? George Wallace? Orval Faubus? The Little Rock Nine? Selma Alabama? Any of that ring a bell?

that the very definition democracy IS separation between church/state

Really? Well, for one thing, we are a Representative Republic, not a democracy. But the definition of a democracy says nothing about the separation of church and state.

that stem cell research is very different from abortion

I’m not sure that anyone doesn’t know that embryonic stem cell research needs a dead embryo.

Most people do not know about placental stem cell research, or cord stem cell research? Both have been in wide spread use for about five years, now. If you have a child that is born, the placenta is frozen and stored and those stem cells can be used to help, not only the baby, but many of the baby’s family members.

Adult stem cell research is showing much more potential than anyone would have guessed.

I think it is silly that dead embryos can’t be used for something good, but there is a huge area of stem cell research that requires that the baby be born, not killed.

By NetBanker

November 9, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Hey kids! Happy Friday to all. I don’t know what happened yesterday with the switching topics, but I wanted to clarify my post of

Personal, private, moral behavior WAS important due to the relevance of Bill Clinton’s pecadillos, but NOW they aren’t so important…besides with the exception of Mitt haven’t ALL the Republican candidates been married more than once? And Mitt doesn’t count because he’s a Mormon, not a Christian.

I was being completely snarky and sarcastic with this remark. I guess I’ll have to note that in the future. On a different note, my personal belief when it comes to personal, private sex/relationship matters is that they should remain in the realm of personal/private and have no bearing on that person’s ability to be a leader. Now when it comes to personal, private, moral behavior that deals with breaking the law then maybe the voting public should be made aware of those items because they likely do provide some indicator of the behaviors and leadership we could expect from that person.

We now know that many prior Presidents were not monogamous or faithful to their wives, yet we do not judge their performance as President any differently. I would expect most people to lie about a sexual affair if only to protect their privacy and that of their spouse. I do see a distinction in the severity of broken trust between lying under oath about a private, personal relationship matter and non-relationship matters. To give a more concrete example, I would find a President lying under oath about the Iran/Contra affair (for example - and not that I’m claiming Reagan did so easy there Republican bloggers) an impeachable offense, but lying about a sexual liason not to be an impeachable offense. One instance deals with honesty in running the country and the other with spousal honesty.

Now off to catch up on all the posts from yesterday since I actually had to work yesterday.

By Thanks for breaking it down.

November 9, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

The fact that Al Gore has decided to become God is what bothers most conservatives.

Wow, this explains a LOT! I was wondering what specific bug was up your butts. Now we know for sure that it’s something completely delusional! Bless your hearts.

By The Other Jack

November 9, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

Jokes On

Awww. The fact that liberals call out republicans for wanting to tie all our hands based on their personal beliefs bothers you?

Who are these eeeeevil Republicans that are doing that to you? Please be specific. What Republicans are wanting to tie your hands? Do you see these people often? Do they come to you at night? Do you dream about them? Are they whispering in your ear as you read this.

You better run and hide.

No one is trying to be your Daddy. It was hard enough being the Daddy for two smart, logical kids. You would have been just too much of a mountain to climb.

By Mara

November 9, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

GOB - we accept more LEGAL immigrants and more LEGAL resident aliens than any other nation on earth. The issue of keeping “them” out isn’t really germane to this situation because a large percentage of LEGAL immigrants are “them”.
Despite the way the issue has been framed, our policies are not exclusionary. But we can’t just take the poor of our neighbors. Decency obligates us to find a place for people from all nations.

I think that those who’ve been on the immigrations rolls for two, three, five years (or more) and don’t have access to our border would dispute with you the rightiousness of illegals shoving their way into this country.

By Confession time

November 9, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

The Republican wanna be our Daddy types are everywhere. The buttoned-up, moralistic, judgemental types are THE SICKEST perverts of all, BAR NONE!

What Republicans are wanting to tie your hands? There were at least three, actually five if you count libertarians.

Do you see these people often? Not anymore! These guys were sick. Even for me!

Do they come to you at night? Nighttime.. daytime… After church on Sundays.

Do you dream about them? Yes, occasionally I still have nightmares, but the support group has helped.

Are they whispering in your ear as you read this? How could I read this with a blindfold on?

By The Other Jack

November 9, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

Wow, this explains a LOT! I was wondering what specific bug was up your butts. Now we know for sure that it’s something completely delusional! Bless your hearts.

Al Gore declared that his stance is the only moral stance. Deciding what is moral, depending on ancient texts is called religion. Deciding what is moral depending on Academy Award nominations is called liberal. Now there’s also the fact that he was a Fundy Bible Pounder until the DNC called him up from the minors in Tennessee to The Show. They just needed to make sure that Tipper kept her mouth shut.

It worked. While she was that rightous Fundy, she wrote a book called Raising PG kids in an X-Rated Society, practically a Conservative training manual, but her next book was called Picture This, a photo coffee table book about the White House.

Now Democratic men, pay attention because your old buddy Al is going to teach you how to keep that woman of yours (if that’s your choice) under your thumb.

Aren’t you proud that you worship this man!

By The Other Jack

November 9, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this

Confession Time

That’s because you are evil and they are good. They are Al Gore’s angels. They just dress like conservatives to throw you off. You burn light bulbs when they are not needed. You drive a car with an internal combustion engine. YOU ARE EVIL.

But you are just the first.

Father Al hath proclaimed it. It must be done.

Repeat after me:

Only liberals can fly Lear Jets.

Only liberals can have energy sucking houses.

Only liberals can have limos.

Liberals are good … Conservatives are bad.

Again …

Only liberals can fly Lear Jets.

Only liberals can have energy sucking houses.

Only liberals can have limos.

Liberals are good … Conservatives are bad.

Again …

By chuck

November 9, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

the government has done just about everything it can to make it next to impossible for anyone who hasnt received at least a decent education to come in to the country

Except Secure the border that is.

Remember that this was written by the French!!!!!!

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

Why would we not want the limited number of people coming in to be educated? We can only assimilate so many immigrants, and there is no lack of people who WANT to come here. Why shouldn’t we take the cream of the crop?

You must have beeen one of those kids that never got picked for the team.

By JokesOn

November 9, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

No one is denying constant climatic changes.

Talk about ignorant; we have covered that it was your republican pres that altered and omitted much of the climate change report.

But the last I heard, Democrats are very put out that Republicans claim that Democrats are Godless. So which is it? Are all of you atheist or do some of you actually have strong religious convictions?

Duh! It does not have to be an either/or situation, except for binary thinkers like you republicans.

But the definition of a democracy says nothing about the separation of church and state.

Hmmm. If it was not, that would make it a theocracy. Duh number 2.

Liberals want to claim that humans are genderless blobs and that our sexist culture teach women to nurture and men to like killing and Football.

You must have burned to many brain cells out sniffing glue in 7th grade or something. We had a whole day of postings on this very subject where I reference facts that show one is not sexually amorphous and that gender was a different thing from sexual orientation and biological sex. Your lack of retention is too remedial.

I think it is silly that dead embryos can’t be used for something good, but there is a huge area of stem cell research that requires that the baby be born, not killed.

I catch a good bit of he!! because I write off the cuff in less than a straight forward manner most of the time, but this sentence means nothing to me. Your not say that an embryo is the same as a baby that has been birthed, right????

Al Gore declared that his stance is the only moral stance.

Show me where he stated it was the only one?

And your 1:08 post is plain childish. I bet you have your fingers in your ears while screaming those statements. Grow up some.

By Mara

November 9, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

chuck - for me the operative line is “I lift my lamp beside the golden door…”

By Lily Toad

November 9, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

No, chuck, Emma Lazarus, an American (many !!) wrote the words about huddled masses. Check it out. The French donated the statue only.

By chuck

November 9, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this

Mara, are you implying that a door can be closed as easily as it can be opened? Are you saying that if a country has a “door” that people should “knock” and be invited in before entering? What would your liberal friends say?

By NCR_man

November 9, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

Liberals are good … Conservatives are bad.

dang, TOJ, you took the words right out of my mouth. Nice to see you finally coming around and seeing the light. There IS HOPE now for mankind.

By NCR_Man

November 9, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

No, chuck, Emma Lazarus, an American (many !!) wrote the words about huddled masses. Check it out. The French donated the statue only.

come now, let’s not let actual facts get in the way of misinformation, Chuck has a generation to teach, after all.

By Monica

November 9, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

DANG! I thought it would be Joke Friday! I have had a looonnng week and needed a good laugh. Oh well~

By Lily Toad

November 9, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

chuck, what was your point in saying that Ms. Lazarus’ quote was by the French?

By NCR_Man

November 9, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

Repeat after me, now, class:

French bad. French bad. French bad.

By Mara

November 9, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

chuck - most of my liberal friends agree with my conservative friends and my moderate friends that the only proper way to enter this country is through “the golden door”. There are some open-border folks who are liberal, some who are conservative or moderate and some who are fiercly Libertarian. This is definitely one of the most non-ideological issues of the election, well…non-ideological at the grassroots level.

At the “leadership” level, maybe not so much.

By chuck

November 9, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

Nice catch Lily Toad. I apologize for my error.

I like this quote better anyway:

If fences don’t work then take down those around the White House.

By AGFNPR

November 9, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

JokesOn -

*But the definition of a democracy says nothing about the separation of church and state.

Hmmm. If it was not, that would make it a theocracy. Duh number 2.*

To use your own words “It does not have to be an either/or situation, except for binary thinkers like you”.

And if you are going to berate others for acting childish, please refrain from using words like “Duh” in your posts.

By chuck

November 9, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

French bad. French bad. French bad.

Is that what your wife says when you kiss her?

By chuck

November 9, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

Okay Monica, JUST FOR YOU:

A magician was working on a cruise ship in the Caribbean. The audience would be different each week, so the magician allowed himself to do the same tricks over and over again.

There was only one problem: The captain’s parrot saw the shows every week and began to understand what the magician did in every trick. Once he understood that, he started shouting in the middle of the show.

“Look, it’s not the same hat!” “Look, he’s hiding the flowers under the table!” “Hey, why are all the cards the Ace of Spades?”

The magician was furious but couldn’t do anything, it was the captain’s parrot after all.

One day the ship had an accident and sank. The magician found himself on a piece of wood, in the middle of the ocean, and of course the parrot was by his side.

They stared at each other with hate, but did not utter a word. This went on for several days.

After a week the parrot finally said, “Okay, I give up. What’d you do with the boat?”

By Lily Toad

November 9, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

OK, here’s some humor, which goes along with some of the posts today: You Know You’re a Republican/Democrat If…

You know you’re a Republican if you can’t stand your gay uncle, but you invite him to your son’s wedding because he’s rich. You know you’re a Democrat if you can’t stand your rich uncle, but you invite him to your daughter’s graduation because he’s gay.

You know you’re a Republican if you support George Bush’s plan to put a man on Mars. You know you’re a Democrat if you want that man to be George Bush.

You know you’re a Republican if you think Colin Powell might make a good President, if he weren’t black. You know you’re a Democrat if you think Colin Powell might make a good President, if he weren’t conservative.

You know you’re a Republican if you think every Democrat is a closet Communist. You know you’re a Democrat if you think every Republican is closeted.

You know you’re a Republican if you wouldn’t mind if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts seceded from the Union. You know you’re a Democrat if you wish the Republic of Texas had never become a state.

You Know you’re a Republican if you start off on third base and think you’ve hit a triple. You Know you’re a Democrat if you hit a single but believe you deserve a triple because the other team got one.

You Know you’re a Republican if you believe the U.S. Constitution clearly supports strip mining. You Know you’re a Democrat if you believe the U.S. Constitution clearly supports strippers.

You Know you’re a Republican if you can’t fathom that Abraham Lincoln was actually a Republican. You Know you’re a Democrat if you can’t fathom that Abraham Lincoln was actually a Republican.

By JokesOn

November 9, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

And if you are going to berate others for acting childish, please refrain from using words like “Duh” in your posts.

Forgive me if my tolerance is thin after a week of stupid statements like the below and TOJs insistent childish remarks.

I can make the same argument that I was born to find women attractive. Does this mean that it is morally right to sleep around on my wife?

How the heck do you tie infidelity to being homosexual???? What does it say when your republicans, who would love to make homosexuality illegal, do BOTH???

By NetBanker

November 9, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

You are a fool if you think any politician presents themselves as what they are. TRUE THAT!! My partner just loves to rail on Hillary and it really p** him off when I respond to one of his rants with “And that’s different than most any other politician, how?”

WHOA! It’s getting rather hot in here. Damn near everyone needs a time out!!

Those idiotic things he did are comical. His decimation of our military and our central intelligence is not. Neither was his allowing the selling of top secret missile and nuclear technology which is now being used against us.If we survive the effects of Bill Clinton’s administration, I will be amazed.

How exactly did Bill decimate the military with a Republican controlled congress who passes the budget? It couldn’t have been too darn awful if W was able to ship them off to Afghanistan and then Iraq less than a year after taking over as President and for them to kick military a*. What about the selling of weapons to IRAN during Reagan’s term in order to fund the Contras? Now that technology is being used against us in Iraq. See how F’d up it all is in D.C.?

Now before anyone goes off can we all admit that neither party has really has it together nor are they focused at all on addressing the difficult problems facing the country today? The political machinations in Washington have taken on a life of their own and BOTH parties fall under the spell of that monster when in charge.

All y’all ~circular hand motion~ are simply recreating D.C. politics out here in the blogosphere. Hardly anyone is actually offering up suggestions or compromise positions while most everyone is sniping about the other side. The sad thing is that anyone who does offer a suggestion has it beat into the ground. I might as well be on an elementary school playground.

By Jack

November 9, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this

A woman went to the doctor’s office where she was seen by one of

the younger doctors. After about four minutes in the examination room,

she burst out, screaming as she ran down the hall. An older doctor

stopped her and asked what the problem was and she told him her story.

After listening, he had her sit down and relax in another room.

>

The older doctor marched down the hallway to the back where the

young doctor was writing on his clipboard. “What’s the matter with

you?” the older doctor demanded. “Mrs… Reid is 62 years old, has

four grown children and seven grandchildren and you told her she was

pregnant?”

The younger doctor continued writing and without looking

up said, “Does she still have the hiccups?…..

By Jack

November 9, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

A man joins a very exclusive nudist colony. On his first day there he takes off his clothes and starts to wander around. A gorgeous petite blonde walks by, and the man immediately gets an erection. The woman notices his erection, comes over to him and says, “Did you call for me?” The man replies “No; what do you mean?” She says, “You must be new here. Let me explain. It’s a rule here that if you get an erection it implies you called for me.” Smiling, she leads him to the side of the swimming pool, lies down on a towel, eagerly pulls him to her and happily lets him have his way with her. The man continues to explore the colony’s facilities. He enters the sauna and as he sits down, he farts. Within minutes a huge, hairy man lumbers out of the steam room toward him, “Did you call for me?” says the hairy man. “No; what do you mean?” says the newcomer. “You must be new,” says the hairy man, “it’s a rule that if you fart, it implies that you called for me.” The huge man easily spins him around, bends him over a bench and has his way with him. The newcomer staggers back to the office, where he is greeted by the smiling, naked receptionist, “May I help you?” she says. The man yells, “Here’s my membership card. You can have the key back and you can keep the $500 membership fee.” “But sir,” she replies, “you’ve only been here for a few hours. You haven’t had the chance to see all our facilities.” The man replies, “Listen lady, I’m 68 years old; I only get an erection once a month and I fart 15 times a day. I’m outta here!”

By Mara

November 9, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

Net - *I might as well be on an elementary school playground”

and everyone’s playing kick balls…er, I mean…playing kick BALL…kick BALL!!! LOL!

Lily - You know you’re a Republican if you think every Democrat is a closet Communist. You know you’re a Democrat if you think every Republican is closeted.

that one’s my favorite :^) thanks for the giggle

By NetBanker

November 9, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

Thanks Lily! Those were priceless

By Monica

November 9, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the jokes. I can smile now. :)

Can’t remember if I shared this one or not before. It’s very long, but very funny…

HOW TO TELL IF YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN

You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a .40 caliber Glock, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

What do you do?

Democrat’s Answer: Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor! Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

Republican’s Answer: BANG!

Southern Republican’s Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click….. (sounds of reloading). BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click. Daughter: “Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points? Son: Git-r-Dun Pop! Can I shoot the next one! Wife: You ain’t taking that to the Taxidermist!

By I_CanCount

November 9, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

Southern Republican’s Answer:

Only 9 rounds a clip? Must be a youngster Dad, an old-timer would have had 17 rounds.

By AGFNPR

November 9, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

JokesOn - How the heck do you tie infidelity to being homosexual???? What does it say when your republicans, who would love to make homosexuality illegal, do BOTH???

Let me answer the easy question first. As a so-called fundie, I have never sought, nor will I ever seek to make homosexuality illegal. No one that I know of wants this to happen - and I know many more bible thumpers than you do. Even Chuck (who is not one to be afraid to share his opinions) has never said that he wanted to make homosexuality illegal. So please quit with generalizations that simply are not true. And I call republicans who cheat on their spouses both immoral and hypocritical.

To answer your other question, (and forgive me for erroneously assuming you had critical thinking skills) if you believe that sexuality is biological, then you must assume straight men are straight because of biological reasons (not by choice or by environment). If this is so, it means that I as a straight man should desire to have sex with multiple women (which is true). The morality part comes into play when I choose not to have sex with anyone but my wife. My biological desires are overridden by the choices I make.

Our sexuality may (or may not) be biological, but whom we have sex with is still a choice. The only argument is whether or not that choice is moral.

JokesOn - Forgive me if my tolerance is thin after a week of stupid statements like the below and TOJs insistent childish remarks.

My reasoning is sound – your comprehension is not. And to your insistence of TOJ making childish remarks – I am afraid that’s the pot calling the kettle black. Aren’t you the one that challenged Jack to a fight last year? Yep, real mature.

By dota

November 9, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this

http://polski-film-porno-rapidshare-c.wabilu.com >girls drinking cum http://sportsdepot-promo-code.wabilu.com >massachusetts lottery commission http://rapidshare-com-naughty-allie.wabilu.com >teen runaway programs columbus ohio http://gemini-brian-kahanek-mp3.wabilu.com >how to get rid of ladybugs http://bikinini.wabilu.com >frre porn http://www-girlsgames-com.wabilu.com >cold weather and hard nipples female http://www-godofwar-com.wabilu.com >pornography talent agency http://xtremsex.wabilu.com >measuring black cocks http://www-supercook-co-uk-cleaning.wabilu.com >sea worlds orlando hotels for couples http://maximilien-2007-yahoo-co-uk-y.wabilu.com >assumption greek orthodox church and chicago

By Mark A Tarnowski

November 9, 2007 4:41 PM | Link to this

” I know someone whose addiction to painkillers has denied him several jobs because the drugs show up during employment screening. These companies are well within their rights to deny him employment - so why wouldn’t they be within their rights to randomly test someone after employment?”

It’s akin to double jeopardy. If a new hire has proven they are not a drug user, then why should they have to keep proving it over and over again?

Here’s the real story: The entity promoting universal drug testing is the drug testing industry. Gotta grow the business to keep investors happy.

By JokesOn

November 9, 2007 4:45 PM | Link to this

To answer your other question, (and forgive me for erroneously assuming you had critical thinking skills) if you believe that sexuality is biological, then you must assume straight men are straight because of biological reasons (not by choice or by environment). If this is so, it means that I as a straight man should desire to have sex with multiple women (which is true). The morality part comes into play when I choose not to have sex with anyone but my wife. My biological desires are overridden by the choices I make.

No. To keep with your reasoning, to cheat on your gay lover would be just as wrong as cheating on your wife. There is not any proof what-so-ever that the ability to stay monogamous is biological. Talk about lacking in critical thinking…

Our sexuality may (or may not) be biological, but whom we have sex with is still a choice. The only argument is whether or not that choice is moral.

And that question of morality is personal. It has nothing to do with laws. The only moral premise the legal system stands on is the notion “we are born with rights…” Granted, some have made it their agenda to infuse our system with “moral” laws (blue laws mainly), but that is not our legal systems job.

Aren’t you the one that challenged Jack to a fight last year? Yep, real mature. And aren’t you stupid for getting that totally wrong a third time. He challenged me.

By JokesOn

November 9, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this

No one that I know of wants this to happen - and I know many more bible thumpers than you do. Even Chuck (who is not one to be afraid to share his opinions) has never said that he wanted to make homosexuality illegal. So please quit with generalizations that simply are not true.

And those blue laws forbidding sodomy were created for exactly what purpose and by whom???

By Facts

November 9, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this

And those blue laws forbidding sodomy were created for exactly what purpose and by whom

which actually was just turned down(laws against sodomy) within a few short years ago over a Texas case. More correctly, the US Supreme Court ruled there could not be laws against same-sex sexual activity, if those same sexual activities were not illegal for male-female activity.

a REAL RECENT(in the grand scheme of things) ruling that certainly upset a lot of the Fundies.

Good enough example for you?

By Sandra-tc

November 10, 2007 1:40 AM | Link to this

http://mokkels-preteen.cunede.com >how to get cash for your ideas http://nikki-fritz-lesbian-video.cunede.com >pro gram main caps http://lick-asswhole-all.cunede.com >holy cross cemetery ohio http://maturehousewifes-ush1-mail.cunede.com >human duplicators http://mother-daughter-sex-video.cunede.com >fox diversity fellowship http://internet-tab-yes--tatjana-simic.cunede.com >jennier love http://maturesex-videos.cunede.com >minimum gpa for transfer to suny cortland http://internet-tab-yes-blackfuckwhite.cunede.com >star wars actionfigurres http://naked-lesbian-cell-phone-wallpa.cunede.com >alamo http://my-video-adultfree.cunede.com >petuso italiano

By Chilao

November 12, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

Last week, Jack said: BTW. I hope Auburn crushes the overrated bulldogs 50-0.

Why did I think of you, Jack, when I saw this news this weekend? And I don’t even follow football. LOL