House Rep Trey Radel arrested for cocaine
 

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.

All Florida politicians are on drugs.

its a hard knock life

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

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

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.




.:2 cents:

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.







.

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

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.




.

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.

what a hypocrate, fucking politicians :mad:

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!

Libertarian Logic: We should make drugs legal, and also test people to make sure they are not taking any...um, legal drugs. :upsidedow :1orglaugh

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...76054847_n.jpg

http://static.squarespace.com/static...5/?format=500w

:stoned

ADG

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

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?"

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

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....



http://i.imgur.com/P3H7Z.jpg




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





.:2 cents:

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.

.... 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...




.

Him and Rob Ford should hang out.

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?

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

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

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5A37JLfGtu...w-of-hands.jpg

http://deadwildroses.files.wordpress...rian-bs-01.jpg



:stoned

ADG

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.

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.

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

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake....1248545555.jpg

:stoned

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.

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.

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.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

http://banter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.co...1.47.02-AM.png

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.







:stoned

ADG

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?

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

yeppers you got some points there.

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.




.:2 cents:

More Jen Sorensen cartoons for you to dissect:

http://jensorensen.com/wp-content/up...wed-nologo.png

http://jensorensen.com/wp-content/up...und-checks.png

http://jensorensen.com/wp-content/up...falseequiv.jpg

Happy Friday! :)

:stoned

ADG

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.



.