about Clay Bennett...
The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...
"Welcome to XYZ Enterprises. Come with me to view my closet of urine taken from our employees. The state workman's comp law mandates our people buy the cleansing stuff so they test clean. What a racket!"
Anyhoo, that is how I imagine it once made sense to force the employment drug tests to be mandatory. Now this; Big brother and Nanny state ala the conservative flavor.
Free at last, free at last,... oops. Not in Tennessee, it seems.
nagadad,
You are just another typical pathetic liberal hypocrite. You say the conservative legislature is taking away your freedom to do drugs by drug testing but you are okay with this pathetic fool you call a president forcing you to buy something. Amazing.
Good morning jonesey, and is'nt it a wonderful day?
This country is losing the war on drugs big time while making the Mexican cartels and other drug dealers super wealthy. Drugs should be made legal with a prescription, they should be regulated and taxed. Drugs today are like prohibition years ago that made mafia members like Al Capone and others becoming wealthy and influential. Drug dealers make billions per year, the cartels have U.S. dollars strapped into bundles and stored on pallets in warehouses. Those dollars made dealing drugs are not taxed as income or when used to buy things.
Those states drug testing welfare recipients have not had a high number fail the test but welfare claims have dropped dramatically.The other possibly related metric may be the crime rates in those states. Those with no objections to supporting drug users or alcoholics should oppose any attempt to test those receiving state assistance.
Q: Do you know who your state senator and representive is. Q: Have you read the bills with the reasons for them and do they know if you oppose or support any legislation they are or will be considering.
harp3339 said.."Drugs today are like prohibition years ago". Agreed. Prescription drug abuse may be a problem but it's nowhere close to the illegal drug gangs network from south of the border to large cities and small towns, USA. Legalize and control all drugs with the taxed proceeds going back into rehab for the abusers.
But, but, but...if you did that, we'd lose the market for firearms legally manufactured and illegally trafficked from this country to Mexico.
I am all for drug testing those people receiving government benefits. How many times have we seen people getting food stamps or housing checks have better cars than the working people. Have also seen them buy a buggy full of groceries with their card then pull out loads of cash to pay for their cigarettes and beer, so no I don't have a problem of them being tested. I have to take random test at my employer to have a job so to keep getting "FREE" money off of us they should be tested as well. I do not agree with testing those drawing unemployment however, most of those will be tested once they go back to work or when they find new employment. They have already shown a willingness to work or would not be drawing the unemployment benefits.
Very seldom. Your supposition is a falsehood, regardless of how frequently the lie has been repeated and regardless how much you wish that the lie were true.
Another toon to divert from......
http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/421
If the cartoonist is proposing that the Tennessee legislature be drug tested I am with him. Those who test positive should then be removed from office. My guess is that far more Demoncrats will be removed than Republicans.
JONESES...YOU MISSED THE WHOLE POINT OF THE "SATIRE"...ARE YOU TOO STUPID TO SEE THE OUT BILLS PASSED BY THE REPUBLICAN CONTROL LEGISLATOR(STUPID BILLS AS DONT SAY "GAY";TEN COMMANDENTS;ANTI-EVOLUTION ECT)......BOY DO I HAVE TO POINT EVERYTHING OUT TO YOU?
THIS IS WHAT TENNESSEE GET FOR VOTING AND PLACING REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IN NASHVILLE......REST OF THE COUNTRY IS LAUGHING AT TENNESSEE AND THE SOUTH.....THANKS TO THESE GOOD OLE SOUTHERN BAPTIST PEOPLE
Chet - it sounds to me like the Tennessee Republicans, who pose as anti-government folks, are proposing all sorts of big government solutions to force their personal values on the rest of society.
Chet: Caps unlock just left of the A.
MTJohn......... The majority of bills that are passed and become law are a "force" of "personal values" on society. It is the political process.
Some people want legalization of all drugs while others see the destructive nature of drugs to the individual and society. The later thankfully have prevailed.
Conservative - I made that comment based on all of the bills in the outbasket.
The outbasket is filled with ridiculous bills. Too bad the legislature isn't focused on jobs, infrastructure and actually governing. Saggy pants, don't say gay, list of M.D.s who perform D&C's, ... good grief. This is ridiculous.
Looking forward to voting the bums out in November.
I'm with you sandyonsignal. more debt, more entitlements, more nanny state...get a grip.
"...more nanny state..." - Thanks to the republican party
conservative said... Some people want legalization of all drugs while others see the destructive nature of drugs to the individual and society. The later thankfully have prevailed.
No doubt drugs are bad unless they come from multi billion dollar pharmaceutical company. Then there gooooood drugs, always love to hear the possible side effects. Let's also not forget how healthy alcohol is for everyone, that prohibition thing worked out great didn't it.
Jack_Dennis said..."more debt, more entitlements, more nanny state...get a grip." I suppose you support Rep. Ryan's latest proposal to gut Medicare while further reducing the wealthy taxes.
rogerdodger,
And what qualifies as “government benefits”? Agribusiness’, the petro-chemical industry, the defense industries, Wall St., big coal etc. etc? Or should drug testing just be aimed at poe folk. Kinda sad that the ordinary worker at Lockheed (and many others) have to take drug tests but the CEO doesn’t, yet receives more in ‘benefits’ than anyone.
I understand your frustration, but corporate welfare costs the taxpayer more by a factor of 1000 than social welfare.
joneses said... You are just another typical pathetic liberal hypocrite.
you forgot disgusting, lmao
conservative said... The majority of bills that are passed and become law are a "force" of "personal values" on society. It is the political process.
It is not the process described in the constitution.
Some people want legalization of all drugs while others see the destructive nature of drugs to the individual and society. The later thankfully have prevailed.
How much proof does it take that you cannot legislate morals. Q: Would you use a drug considered illegal if it became legal. Q: Why do you think other people would. Q: How is allowing the current drugs situation better than knowing who is using them and providing effective treatment with the tax dollars from legal regulated sales for those seeking help.
The same party that claims to be for not infringing on liberties, being for smaller government, lower taxes etc. want to legislate morals and the feel good stuff like carry a gun anywhere you want to, the death penalty, allow environmental abuse for the convenience of voters and investors. At least the other party admits they are going to tax hell out of anything they can, redistribute the wealth plus increase debt and control everything they can, including the weather and environment.
Miriam-Websters Word of the Day:
tub-thumper -TUB-thump-er- noun : a vociferous supporter (as of a cause)
Tub-thumpers are a noisy (and sometimes amusing) lot. The earliest ones were preachers or public speakers with a predisposition for pounding their fists on the pulpit or lectern — perhaps to wake up their listeners! Back in the 17th century, the word "tub" was sometimes used as a synonym of "pulpit"; John Dryden, for example, used the word thus in 1680 when he wrote, "Jack Presbyter shall here erect his throne, Knock out a tub with preaching once a day." "Tub-thumper" has been naming loud, impassioned speakers since at least 1662, when it was used by a writer named Hugh Foulis to describe "a sort of people ... antick in their Devotions...."
Onward, me tubbies!
MTJohn said... harp3339 said...This country is losing the war on drugs big time while making the Mexican cartels and other drug dealers super wealthy. Drugs should be made legal with a prescription, they should be regulated and taxed.
But, but, but...if you did that, we'd lose the market for firearms legally manufactured and illegally trafficked from this country to Mexico.
Good point, they wouldn't have the money to buy the weapons. Did you ever wonder how they get all the ammunition they have and use. News from Mexico, the middle east and several other countries where dictators are in power show most everyone with an assault weapon often firing them in the air to celebrate. They fire them like people applauding. The ammo makers love to see that. Cut off the ammo supply and the weapons are useless other than to hit someone with.
Change that name plate to "Obama White House" and the "Out" contents to...say...Jobs, Crony Payoffs, Illegal Immigration, Massive Debt, Out-of-Control Justice Department, ObamaCare, etc., and voila! A winner!
limric said to... rogerdodger,
And what qualifies as “government benefits”? I understand your frustration, but corporate welfare costs the taxpayer more by a factor of 1000.
Limric that may be among the most ridiculous post ever on the TFP opinions editorial page. I agree all grants, subsidies, incentives and special tax deductions should be abolished. However, most do pay a reasonable tax on profits plus matching social security and medical tax before distributing a dividend to investors which is a form of a stimulus when spent. Not to mention the jobs provided and the taxes workers pay. To suggest comparing them to a non-working or unqualified for a good paying job tax payer supported welfare recipient is ludicrous.
EaTn: No we should just wait til medicare totally implodes. That make more sense?
harp.... We have always legislated morals! Thank GOD! Someone's morals or values are always imposed on others whenever a law is passed.
For example, my side has seen how injurious cocaine is in society, so we have imposed our will on those who haven't or don't care by passing laws against the sale and use of it.
Fallen mankind has never been able to self govern himself and that is why a standard of morals or values have to be codified into laws. Man could and would not survive if someone's morals were not legislated.
Conservative....Apparently we totally disagree which is OK under the present laws anyway. There is a difference in regulating and legislating. Do you think the country is curbing the use of illegal drugs or in any way winning the war on drugs. Prostitution and gambling are also vices that should be legal, regulated and taxed. Is it an accurate assumption you would like to see alcohol and guns banned also.
Just say NO! To mind numbing stuff like jesus. Drugs do less harm than evangelicals.
Look at all the legislation in the out box.
SMALLER GOVERNMENT AT IT'S BEST !
One of the best pieces ever on this issue:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-2-2012/poor-pee-ple
Harp3339,
It is a bit strange that you wish for all grants, subsidies, incentives and special tax deductions to be abolished, but wind up defending them. The unemployed (non-working) also pay taxes on their benefits. They also directly impact the local community by spending 100% of said benefits on food clothing etc. Ergo they wind up helping to pay for the local grocery clerk’s job, dividends to investors and taxes the clerk and manager pay . A vicious circle isn’t it.
Continuing the ludicrous (to borrow a phrase) claim that corporations receiving direct or indirect subsidies provide ‘jobs’ is a tried and true method of corporate welfare recipients to justify their lip lock on the teat of the taxpayer. Corporate welfare is anti-capitalism and in every sense of the word is socialism. The closer you look into it (check out the current Gov. of Florida’s past business dealings) the more infuriated you will become. There are those that milk the system in all income strata’s. Corporate welfare though is on a much grander scale, undermines and corrupts our system of government and drains our treasury…whatever’s left of it.
Onetinsoldier,
re: your 1:36 p.m post That was a great comment. :-D
miraweb said...
One of the best pieces ever on this issue:
Whats good for the goose evidently, isn't good for the gander.
conservative said... geezzze, let me guess your a Santorum fan. People like you scare the hell out of me. Hambonehead you mean like when BoyGeorge was listening to pretty much everybody in America with illegal wire taps kinda small government, is that the one you prefer. The one that is gonna mandate your child having a vaginal probe to determine the stage of gestation, should she decide to have an abortion because she is likely to die if she goes full term, that kinda small government. Please either remove your head from your rectum and get a clue or shut the hell up. Here's and idea let's get rid of the FAA,EPA,FDA,FDIC,SSA,NRC,DOT, there all just a bunch of big government agencies that have never done anybody in America any good.
harp...... I was totally shocked by your "we totally disagree" statement.
It has always been my understanding that regulation REQUIRES legislation.
Yes, I'm sure that laws on the books against cocaine for example, are curbing the use of cocaine and am equally sure that "no war on drugs" or any war, can be won by surrendering.
As a Conservative, I believe in our Constitution which gives me the right to own a gun. I have guns, bullets and the will to use them if necessary. I have yet to meet anyone who was a Conservative and who also wanted to ban gutns.
conservative.....
The regulations are developed after congress empowers, which is akin to abdicating their responsibility, an agency to regulate an activity or industry. Check out the DOE, EPA, NLRB and others that issue reg after reg or rulings without a congressional review. Check out the authority granted the AHCA committee (PPACA).
Where we disagree for sure is that the laws on the books curbs the use of cocaine. What study or data do you use to support that? It does corrupt law officers and destroys lives by making those that made a bad choice unwilling to admit it and seek help. How are today's drugs and our handling different than the prohibition era when we made so many crooks filthy rich.
limric said...It is a bit strange that you wish for all grants, subsidies, incentives and special tax deductions to be abolished, but wind up defending them.
Please point out any time I have defended any business, local or state government getting any of those. Each of the listed activities are government tools of manipulation. Local governments seek them from the state and push local problems to the state level, the state does the same thing with the federal where they can borrow and print money taking the pressure of unpopular decisions from their plate.
nooga, my 1:39 post was meant in the most sarcastic way.
Your's is confusing.
Harp3339,
No, I can't recall you ever defending corporate welfare per se - but the statement, “However, most do pay a reasonable tax on profits plus matching social security and medical tax before distributing a dividend to investors which is a form of a stimulus when spent. Not to mention the jobs provided and the taxes workers pay.” sure sounds like a defense. Thinly veiled as derision, but a defense nevertheless. The word “however” being the keystone.
So. Do we live in a massive welfare state? I’d say in all actuality, and unfortunately, yes! If all grants, subsidies, incentives and special tax deductions are abolished, this will then cause the corporations benefiting from governmental largesse to reduce their workforce, thereby increasing social welfare by NOT providing said jobs. It's done all the time.
We've kind of gotten ourselves into a death spiral. Like flying a Beech Bonanza in IMC conditions and you don’t notice a wing drops. Pull back on the yoke to counter the loss of altitude, but the speed slows and the wing drops some more. Very very hard to correct but possible.
What is needed is a law that says that in the case of any legislation passed that is struck down as unconsitutional by federal court. That the state's cost of defending said legislation come from the pockets of the legislators that voted for it, and not the TAXPAYERS!
Now THAT I like Hambone.
I think Keith Humphreys makes a good point about this issue. . . Indeed, life is Dukkha.
“Last week, I had a lively discussion about drug policy with a blazingly smart member of parliament. I explained that there is no true solution to drug problems. Rather, we use public policy to pick the particular sort of drug problem society will have. For example, different policy environments can make it a human rights problem, an addiction problem, a crime problem, an AIDS problem, a public disorder problem etc., but no policy will produce a true ending of all of society’s problems with drugs. There are some policies that ameliorate multiple aspects of the problem, but in most cases we are faced with hard choices about what sort of problem we will have rather than a problem-free alternative. And because people do not agree about which choice is the best, the policy debate is both eternal and unresolvable.”
http://www.samefacts.com/2012/03/drug-policy/the-darwinian-selection-of-public-policy-problems/
harp....OK, I see you what you mean by "regulation", but it has almost nothing to do with what I wrote about laws and morals. I'm not going to chase that rabbit.
There is no doubt whatsoever that laws now on the books curb the use of cocaine. I don't need a study for that, for that is a no brainer. If the penalties were removed the use would skyrocket, beginning almost overnight.
You say the same things as Libertarians and I have noticed that they try to separate morals from laws on many matters including drug use, an impossibility.
conservative said... harp....OK, I see you what you mean by "regulation", but it has almost nothing to do with what I wrote about laws and morals. I'm not going to chase that rabbit.
There is no doubt whatsoever that laws now on the books curb the use of cocaine. I don't need a study for that, for that is a no brainer. If the penalties were removed the use would skyrocket, beginning almost overnight.
That is an opinion and requires the belief that people not inclinded to use illegal drugs would use them if they had access to them. I wouldn't, I don't think you would, in fact I don't know anyone that I think would begin using illegal drugs because they could be obtained if prescribed and the fact they obtained them documented. Employers would not be required to hire anyone using them or to reatain them as employees.
I firmly believe morals cannot not be legislated but comes from the natural goodness of most people. Morals can be taught and encouraged but not required of people.
Actual accountability in government?
Never going to happen.
harp.....Repeal the laws against murder, assualt, theft, rape and slander and you will quickly see the "natural goodness of most people" and why morals must be "required."
Except what you're suggesting is an endorsement of a massive legal system to criminalize every bad act...which is the very thing you protest when you believe it is a liberal idea.
But no, I won't suddenly go murdering or assaulting, or stealing from people, whether or not it's something I would get punished for.
Slander is a bit more complicated, since criminalizing it is something very easy to abuse. There's a reason why the standards for it are deliberately high.
I bet half of them would test positive for rugs.
I just hope the progressive world doesn't keep up with our legislation for comic relief. "Hey, they're still stuck on Scopes down/over/up there!"
I just don't want them to think we're all 'banjo swingers.' (yes, I am referencing the the kid in Deliverance)
This subject is boring and a HUGE diversion from Oanus' antics. Wonder how that spoiled brat, Malia Obutthead, is doing in ol' Mexico?? See how quickly Obutthead pressed the media to pull the story. What kind of an irresponsible donkey would let his daughter go to Mexico these days???
If all of this weren't so serious, I would laugh very loudly.
Or from an old Doc Watson song, 'when you see me laughing, I'm laughing just to keep from crying'.
I hope there will be a wicked funny Etch a Sketch cartoon soon.
shifabrains... You're trashing a 14 year old kid, tough guy. Go into the bathroom, if you have one indoors, and look in the mirror. Then repeat these words... I will never be famous. I am a nobody. My opinion is laughed at. Feel better now, after having told the truth?
conservative said... harp.....Repeal the laws against murder, assault, theft, rape and slander and you will quickly see the "natural goodness of most people" and why morals must be "required."
These laws are not legislating morals but are laws to protect us from those that would inflict physical or fiscal harm upon others. These reflect the protection the constitution provides. They are not to protect us from ourselves or from our own ignorance. Enforcement resources would be better utilized addressing those crimes and violations of the laws you reference. The punishment for these crimes are too lenient, the jails are too full of those violating laws where no one was harmed other than the violater.
Or login with:
New Account