House Rep Trey Radel arrested for cocaine

[PornDiscounts-V]

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?pageType=politics&url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57613041/rep-trey-radel-arrested-on-cocaine-charge/&catid=57613041


First. The guys name is Trey. I mean... come on?

Second. Life imitating art. House of Cards. Next I guess he'll be running for governor.

[L-Pink]

All Florida politicians are on drugs.

[~Ray]

its a hard knock life

[MaDalton]

a republican that ask for prayers cause he's a coke junkie and alcoholic that prefers Colombia for vacations - how ironic

[anexsia]

He's arrested for cocaine but then apologizes and says he has an alcohol problem? what

[BFT3K]

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

I think that if people are going to be able to force other's to pay for them via tax dollars, then they should not be allowed to use drugs..... and that includes congressmen as well as people living on handouts. He should be removed from office.




.

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I think that if people are going to be able to force other's to pay for them via tax dollars, then they should not be allowed to use drugs..... and that includes congressmen as well as people living on handouts. He should be removed from office.

I thought "Libertarians" have no issues with drugs?

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

I thought "Libertarians" have no issues with drugs?

I have no issue with what people do with their own bodies. Drugs should all be legal. However, if I am going to be forced to give them my money via threat of violence by the government, then I should have a say in how they spend that money.







.

[RebelR]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I have no issue with what people do with their own bodies. Drugs should all be legal. However, if I am going to be forced to give them my money via threat of violence by the government, then I should have a say in how they spend that money.







.

Technically since he's a Gov't employee, you are being forced to pay his salary through your taxes.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by RebelR

Technically since he's a Gov't employee, you are being forced to pay his salary through your taxes.

Exactly correct. See my first post:


Originally Posted by sperbonzo View Post
I think that if people are going to be able to force other's to pay for them via tax dollars, then they should not be allowed to use drugs..... and that includes congressmen as well as people living on handouts. He should be removed from office.




.

[PornDiscounts-V]

In our bleeding heart society he will probably get a book deal and somebody will open a Paypal account for donations that will attract $500,000 in a week.

[JFK]

what a hypocrate, fucking politicians

[Coup]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I have no issue with what people do with their own bodies. Drugs should all be legal. However, if I am going to be forced to give them my money via threat of violence by the government, then I should have a say in how they spend that money.







.

And now they are giving your money not only to welfare recipients but drug testing firms as well. Only to find out the vast majority of recipients don't do drugs.

Way to keep government small!

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I have no issue with what people do with their own bodies. Drugs should all be legal. However, if I am going to be forced to give them my money via threat of violence by the government, then I should have a say in how they spend that money.

Libertarian Logic: We should make drugs legal, and also test people to make sure they are not taking any...um, legal drugs.

The idea is that by requiring drug testing for welfare applicants that people would be deterred from applying and therefore would save costs to the taxpayer. Yet this idea comes from a stereotype that those on welfare are on drugs and that they only use welfare to pay for drugs.

Studies from the Journal of Policy Practice and Journal of Health and Social Policy show that drug use doesn?t create reliance on welfare. Also, they found that welfare recipients who do use drugs are still able to complete for jobs just like middle and upper-class drug users. Which tackles another myth: all drug users are lazy and that all those lazy drug users are on welfare.

ADG

[JockoHomo]

What a 2 faced cocksucker this piece of shit is!

Asking for forgiveness indeed you lying corrupt souless fuckwad.

Typical of that sort of psychopathic turd. FUCK YOU

[Robbie]

Typical politician. Supports throwing people in jail for partying on drugs.
Then of course...he parties on drugs.

Complete hypocrite for sure.

And the media is just as fucking bad. They are reporting this with somber faces and acting shocked.
They KNOW that most people with money do drugs of some sort. As well as drink and have a good time.

But they act like it's some kind of incredible new thing that just can't be fathomed.

Our whole society is going backwards.

If this was the 1970's....instead of all this "shock" and "indignation", people would just go: "So what?"

[baddog]

Getting paid to make laws and getting paid to obey laws are not the same thing.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Libertarian Logic: We should make drugs legal, and also test people to make sure they are not taking any...um, legal drugs.




ADG

No. You missed the point. The logic is that if we are going to have a system where a group of people can use the government to make other people to give them money by threat of violence, then there should at least be severe restrictions on what can be bought with that money. It should be restricted to only those things needed for survival. This would NOT include alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, candy, soda, movies, cable TV, etc.... Anything that does not include food, clothes, housing, health and education. Sound too onerous? I find it onerous that if people around you decide that they want to give money, they can use the force of government to take yours also. As Penn Jilette said....








...and just for the record, I give both my time and my money to several charitable causes.





.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I have no issue with what people do with their own bodies. Drugs should all be legal. However, if I am going to be forced to give them my money via threat of violence by the government, then I should have a say in how they spend that money.







.

God you are so being played. In your state wanna know how many tested positive for drugs.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/...-shows/1225721

Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed, most often testing positive for marijuana.

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state's net loss? $45,780.
and your gov owns a large share of testing service
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/bu...uspicio/nLq8f/
Given Solantic's role in that marketplace, critics are again asking whether Scott's policy initiatives - this time, requiring drug testing of state employees and welfare recipients - are designed to benefit Scott's bottom line.
The Palm Beach Post reported in an exclusive story two weeks ago that while Scott divested his interest in Solantic in January, the controlling shares went to a trust in his wife's name.


And as Thomm Hartmann says a libertarian is just a republican who wants to smoke pot and get laid.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by tony286

And as Thomm Hartmann says a libertarian is just a republican who wants to smoke pot and get laid.

.... and your forgot libertarians also wants to gut the military, use it only for defence, stop wars and foreign intervention, legalize gambling, legalize prostitution, legalize all drugs, abolish the minimum wage and regulations on business, keep government out of marriage altogether, (including gay, plural, whatever any group of 2 or more consenting adults want to do together), have open immigration, no tariffs or barriers on trade, etc, etc, etc....


The Republican party HATES libertarians. My Republican friends are constantly pissed off at me.

You seriously don't get it at all...




.

[Bryan G]

Him and Rob Ford should hang out.

[Vendzilla]

Coke and meth only stay in the system for a piss test for 3 days.

Could you imagine what would happen if they did hair follical tests for all the house and senate members?

[arock10]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

No. You missed the point. The logic is that if we are going to have a system where a group of people can use the government to make other people to give them money by threat of violence, then there should at least be severe restrictions on what can be bought with that money. It should be restricted to only those things needed for survival. This would NOT include alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, candy, soda, movies, cable TV, etc.... Anything that does not include food, clothes, housing, health and education. Sound too onerous? I find it onerous that if people around you decide that they want to give money, they can use the force of government to take yours also. As Penn Jilette said....








...and just for the record, I give both my time and my money to several charitable causes.





.

Sounds like EPA should get a big boost from libertarians since when I think basic survival I think air and water...

[arock10]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Coke and meth only stay in the system for a piss test for 3 days.

Could you imagine what would happen if they did hair follical tests for all the house and senate members?

Piss tests for drugs just mean you can't smoke weed. You can go on a sweet LSD and cocaine binge though

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

No. You missed the point. The logic is that if we are going to have a system where a group of people can use the government to make other people to give them money by threat of violence, then there should at least be severe restrictions on what can be bought with that money. It should be restricted to only those things needed for survival. This would NOT include alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, candy, soda, movies, cable TV, etc.... Anything that does not include food, clothes, housing, health and education. Sound too onerous? I find it onerous that if people around you decide that they want to give money, they can use the force of government to take yours also.

...and just for the record, I give both my time and my money to several charitable causes.

.

The idea of routinely drug testing applicants for unemployment insurance is mean-spirited and misguided. Unemployment insurance is a program explicitly grounded in individuals' work history, involuntary job loss, and willingness to work?individuals' "work" underwrites the "insurance" that provides income replacement during unemployment.

In normal times, unemployment spells are typically only a few months, but everyone knows these are not normal times. Extreme unemployment, though, is no reason to impose extreme conditions on law-abiding Americans seeking the unemployment insurance assistance they've earned.

People who lose their jobs because of drug use or failed drug tests are ineligible for unemployment insurance in 20 states already. In the remaining 30 states, a drug-related discharge would likely be treated as disqualifying misconduct.

Drug testing al welfare recipients perpetuates myths and scapegoats the unemployed.

Drug-testing proposals stem from false assumptions that the unemployed are lazy drug users who prefer unemployment checks to paychecks. Aside from being wrong, this assumption completely misunderstands what unemployment insurance does: It assists workers who've lost their jobs involuntarily, generally for economic reasons.

Economic reasons also explain why so many of today's unemployed workers haven't found new jobs: There simply aren't enough to replace those we've lost. For nearly three years now, unemployed workers have outnumbered job openings by more than 4 to 1.

Proposals to drug test the unemployed are insensitive to the realities of today's economy, ignorant of the implications of such policies, and insulting to millions of law-abiding Americans who already bear the heaviest burdens of a weak economy.

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

ADG

[Robbie]

It doesn't matter how many times you tell hypnotized Republicans or Democrats that their parties are corrupt.

They will just continue to support their "team".

Pathetic.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

I thought "Libertarians" have no issues with drugs?

This guy actually voted to force anyone on welfare to be forced to take drug tests.. The best part is they passed it, cost the state a shit load of money for the tests and they found pretty much no one as positive. Ironically there was a counter movement that was trying to force state govt officials to be forced to also have drug tests.. Obviously that never got passed.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by Robbie

It doesn't matter how many times you tell hypnotized Republicans or Democrats that their parties are corrupt.

They will just continue to support their "team".

Pathetic.

Pathetic is a political party that can only muster 1% of the vote after 40 years.

Here are a bunch of people who truly, honestly believe in their worldview - a worldview that shares some key elements with my own - discovering for the first time that they are in fact merely a proxy army for people who don't take them or their worldview seriously at all.

To those of us outside the movement, the fact that libertarians are a proxy army has always been painfully obvious. The key piece of evidence was always the set of issues that libertarians chose to emphasize.

Most Americans share the belief that civil liberties are good, war is to be avoided, and high taxes are bad. But the fact that our country's libertarian movement spent so much time fighting high taxes and so little time fighting the encroaching authoritarianism of conservative presidential administrations was a clear sign that some priorities were seriously out of place.

Should we really be more afraid of turning into Sweden than turning into Singapore? The contrast between libertarians' continual jeremiads against taxes and their muted, intermittent criticism of things like warrantless wiretaps, executive detention, and torture was a huge tip-off that the movement was really just some kind of intellectual front for America's right wing.

The thing is, the soldiers in this proxy army don't seem to realize that they are a proxy army. They appeared, and appear, to truly believe in their synthetic ideology; they seemed deeply convinced of the Rand/Nozick idea that taxes and environmental regulation represented a more dire threat to human freedom than the authoritarianism that had been the bane of earlier freedom advocates since Enlightenment.

50 Reasons Libertarians Are Crazy

"the following are the positions of some prominent and not so prominent libertarians going back to the 1970's and before ... oh yes virginia, they are batshit crazy"

? legalize blackmail... nice picture of you and jack's wife

? legalize heroin, meth, & glue sniffing... let anyone sell this crap as long as there is a buyer

? sell off the national parks... fuck the commons let's set up the mc donalds's

? abolish laws against dog & cock fighting... just animate property killing each other

? privatize the air you breath, the ground you walk on, the air you breath... and you better pay your monthly bill on time

? abolish all licensing: ie if you want to be a doctor or lawyer run over to kinko's and have some business cards made up --- laissez faire suckers

? allow for privatized segregation & discrimination (no jews, n*ggers, catholics, sp*cs, women, people over 50, gays, children allowed)

? legalize insider trading... great way to establish confidence in the financial sector

? abolish animal cruelty laws... ditto animal fighting

? patent the dna of all life forms including humans... we own you baby

? legalize child labor... if it can walk & talk it can work

? declare smoking a celebration of capitalism... just ask ayn rand

? abolish the americans with disabilities act... it's not my fucking fault you can't walk or talk

? legalize child selling... isn't a rich baby always better off than a poor one ?

? privatize and sell off the arctic & antarctic... brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, and set up the mc donald's

? abolish unions... collective bargaining, huh

? replace state & federal prison guards with walmart like security... can you spell T-R-A-Y-V-O-N

? legalize voluntary slavery... it's already called you boss

? abolish animal cruelty laws... rich women in stilleto's stepping on little mice for the hell of it, now that's cool

? believe FDR & EISENHOWER were communists... yep

? declare selfishness the ultimate virtue... and start a lucrative movement doing so

? re-introduce debtors prisons... waterboards anyone ?

? allow individuals to own nuclear weapons or whatever armaments they want... kaboooooooooom

? abolish the anti-trust laws... now that really increases competition

? sell off the rivers, lakes, & oceans of the world

? make the poor, sick, & disabled depend on charity instead of the resources of the state... DIE BABY DIE

? clone slaves out of your own dna... it beats working

? replace the federal reserve with a pc and a chair... brilliant

? let the insurance companies take over the judicial system... my mistake they already have

? privatize outer space... let's all play space zombie

? denounce the idea of a "social contract"... hurray for me and FUCK YOU !!!

? establish exchanges for the buying & selling of human body parts (by paying living people & the families of the dead)

? incentives for voluntary euthanasia of the old & poor --- (let granny sign her life away so the insurance company won't have to pay as much for medical or long term care)

? abolish mandatory emergency room care... socialist ronald reagan signed this into law 1986

? legalize extortion... well if you're going to legalize blackmail you might as well do this too

? abolish/limit medical malpractice suits... you take your chances it could have been worse

? consider the non-payment of bills as cause for arrest and the use of lethal force... god damn right

? abolish public schools... yeah they produce stupid people like bill gates & warren buffett

? establish private armies in place of the US armed forces... ain't blackwater groovy

? re-introduce 18th century style workhouses... we should have killed off all the poor two centuries ago

? abolish usury laws... and voting while we're at it

? claim that societies and even families don't exist --- only individuals... a hard sell at christmas time

? end compulsary education... stuck on stupid it's the libertarian way

? pre-emptive killing of as much as 40% of islamic peoples... and make the rest objectivists

? allow the disemination of snuff movies & kiddie porn... you don't have to watch it you dirty statist

? let companies sue & imprison whistle blowers... how libertarian of you

? legalize prostitution & decriminalize pimping... step right up and get your own little cuppie doll

? abolish social security & medicare... let grandma die, boy was she a bitch

? take the remaining native american lands and sell them off for pennies on the dollar... it's not our fault they didn't understand the intricacies of markets

* send mercenaries to seize nationalized businesses... profit before non-interventionism

* advocate government and private torture in the right situation... that'll teach 'em

* scream bloody murder when governments collect data yet defend corporations that collect, hold, and sell more data than any government has ever collected... WELCOME TO LIBERTARIAN HELL

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by crockett

This guy actually voted to force anyone on welfare to be forced to take drug tests.. The best part is they passed it, cost the state a shit load of money for the tests and they found pretty much no one as positive. Ironically there was a counter movement that was trying to force state govt officials to be forced to also have drug tests.. Obviously that never got passed.

Typical politician.

It doesn't matter if they are Republican or Democrat. They NEVER do the right thing overall.

If the Republicans could "fix" things...it would have been done a long time ago when the first Republicans came into power.

If the Democrats could "fix" things..it would have been done a long time ago when the first Democrats came into power.

Instead they all keep fucking the country up and getting themselves and their buddies rich. And every campaign they all claim that "Washington is broke"
Even the ones who have been there for 30 fucking years!

The amazing thing is that people just keep on falling for it over and over and over again.

[Robbie]

ADG you are a clueless fool.

I'll say it ONE MORE TIME because you are so dense:
The 2 ruling parties have set up elections and debates so that no other parties can get in. (unless you are a billionaire.

Why do you keep saying the same lies over and over and ignoring those facts? Did you see any third party candidates in the national debates?
Did you even stop to wonder why?

Why don't you educate yourself and stop looking like a fool.

[PornDiscounts-V]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Libertarian Logic: We should make drugs legal, and also test people to make sure they are not taking any...um, legal drugs.









ADG

Drug testing companies have no incentive to fail someone on a test. It limits the pool next month of who they can charge for testing.

[sandman!]

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by Robbie

ADG you are a clueless fool.

I'll say it ONE MORE TIME because you are so dense:
The 2 ruling parties have set up elections and debates so that no other parties can get in. (unless you are a billionaire.

Why do you keep saying the same lies over and over and ignoring those facts? Did you see any third party candidates in the national debates?
Did you even stop to wonder why?

Why don't you educate yourself and stop looking like a fool.

Let's see, I agree that the RepubliCrats have conspired to set-up a quasi 2-party system that makes it incredibly difficult for any but the two major party candidates to be elected (and if any of the current smaller parties were to win the Presidency, they would meet similar or even greater resistance from Congress).

The difference is that I seek solutions instead of just bitching and moaning all the time (which many Libertarians seem to prefer to actual change).

When I proposed to you a potential solution (Proportional Representation) to the dilemma of the two-party monopoly, you rejected it out of hand, without explaining how such a change to the system of electing representatives would adversely impact the Libertarian party (in fact, the Libertarian Party, as much as I disagree with them, would actually benefit tremendously from proportional representation).

After 40+ years, the Libertarian Party is still about 49% short of the 50+1% of the votes needed to get elected to create change, so please explain to everyone how the Libertarian party expects to realistically close that gap (I won't even start with how utterly ridiculous the Libertarian party is once you get past their "Freedom Good, Government Bad" slogans, and realize that Libertarianism is not a very viable form of government).

I know that the 1% that vote Libertarian like to arrogantly call everyone else fools, but to many of us that did look deeper into Libertarianism and reject it, it honestly appears that you are just carrying water for the capitalist oligarchy personified by the Koch brothers.









ADG

[PornDiscounts-V]

What I find interesting about the .01% funding American politics is that they have been removing everything Teddy Roosevelt, and others, fought to put into place to try and protect Americans from corporate greed.

Another sad thing for America is that many ultra rich think it is cool to spend a few billion helping out people in other nations while our's goes into the toilet.

Yo, Canada! Do you need another citizen?

[tony286]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

.... and your forgot libertarians also wants to gut the military, use it only for defence, stop wars and foreign intervention, legalize gambling, legalize prostitution, legalize all drugs, abolish the minimum wage and regulations on business, keep government out of marriage altogether, (including gay, plural, whatever any group of 2 or more consenting adults want to do together), have open immigration, no tariffs or barriers on trade, etc, etc, etc....


The Republican party HATES libertarians. My Republican friends are constantly pissed off at me.

You seriously don't get it at all...




.

I love how you skipped the whole part I was right. lol Like your gov is playing you.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Let's see, I agree that the RepubliCrats have conspired to set-up a quasi 2-party system that makes it incredibly difficult for any but the two major party candidates to be elected (and if any of the current smaller parties were to win the Presidency, they would meet similar or even greater resistance from Congress).

The difference is that I seek solutions instead of just bitching and moaning all the time (which many Libertarians seem to prefer to actual change).

When I proposed to you a potential solution (Proportional Representation) to the dilemma of the two-party monopoly, you rejected it out of hand, without explaining how such a change to the system of electing representatives would adversely impact the Libertarian party (in fact, the Libertarian Party, as much as I disagree with them, would actually benefit tremendously from proportional representation).

After 40+ years, the Libertarian Party is still about 49% short of the 50+1% of the votes needed to get elected to create change, so please explain to everyone how the Libertarian party expects to realistically close that gap (I won't even start with how utterly ridiculous the Libertarian party is once you get past their "Freedom Good, Government Bad" slogans, and realize that Libertarianism is not a very viable form of government).

I know that the 1% that vote Libertarian like to arrogantly call everyone else fools, but to many of us that did look deeper into Libertarianism and reject it, it honestly appears that you are just carrying water for the capitalist oligarchy personified by the Koch brothers.









ADG

yeppers you got some points there.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

ADG

The person that wrote this cartoon is either an idiot or a pure propagandist....

These are not freedoms, these are powers. You may as well write, "Do I have the freedom to go into your house and take things?"

In the first example, someone wants the power to force you to do business with them. If you have your own business, then you should not be forced to have a transaction with anyone that you don't wish to. You should not be forced to do business with me if you don't want to. If your choices offend other people, then they are free to boycott you and protest you and persuade others not to do business with you.

In the second example, someone wants the power to force you to build your building the way that they want it built. So if someone decides that the doors in your house must be 10 feet tall, then the government forces you to do that, this is not a freedom, this is power over you. If your choices as to how you decide to design your building make it more difficult for people to get in to it, the the market will reflect that, and you will lose business.

In the third example, someone wants the power to force you to pay them what they decide that they should be paid, not what you want to pay them. This is something that should be freely negotiated between people acting voluntarily, not dictated by a government under threat of force. If someone feels underpaid, they can leave and take their skills and value elsewhere. (p.s. if you look at how the figures are calculated, you will see that those "statistics" about what men and women earn are totally erroneous, but that's a different debate).

In the fourth example, the man has a valid argument, and this is where the power of the government can come into play, by providing a civil court in which the injured party can take action against the party which has hurt them and their property. That is far different then the government itself taking the action, however.




.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

More Jen Sorensen cartoons for you to dissect:







Happy Friday!



ADG

[sperbonzo]

In thinking further about this issue, I realized that obviously the drug testing cannot be condoned, since drugs should be legal for anyone. Rather than force drug testing for those that get benefits, the thing that needs to change in the present system is to make government benefits only applicable to essential food, housing and health related items, rather than allowing it to be spent however people wish. If you want to be able to make your neighbors take care of you by force, then it is only fair that you don't get to choose what you buy with those funds. This drug testing thing has been bugging me since this thread was posted, because it fundamentally clashed with my basic views, and I just wanted to say this, and retract my earlier statement.



.