Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

DRUGS: Test to weed out freeloaders

Letter by John Tankiewicz, Tacoma on Feb. 9, 2012 at 4:51 pm with 204 Comments »
February 9, 2012 4:51 pm

Most employers now do pre-employment drug screening. This is intended to ensure a safe work environment and help make good decisions in regard to human resources. Now that this practice is commonplace, it forces people serious about getting a job to get clean.

Why is it then, that those who get food stamps, government assistance and even unemployment benefits are not required to pass a drug test? It seems that this practice would be even more important to keep those in the system honest and save taxpayers from supporting deadbeat druggies.

Additionally, let’s do Pre-Occupy drug testing. Before you make a nuisance of yourself and take over public property, is it too much to ask that you demonstrate that you are not addicted to substances and are clear of thought? After you pass your test you will receive an Occupy ID card.

I am sure this would end the movement, as most activists would never even take test. Boom! Occupy Tacoma is over!

I have no problem helping those who are truly in need and formulating a plan to get them back on their feet, but it is time to weed out the freeloaders who are taking advantage of the system.

 

Leave a comment Comments → 204
  1. concernedtacoma7 says:

    You have to take frequent drug tests to fight for your country but zero to receive a check for sitting on your couch. System is broken.

  2. ManuelMartini says:

    We need smaller government. That’s why we add departments to drug test people.

    After reading the letter, I’m thinking there is another drug test that should be done.

  3. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Nope, make the welfare recipient prove they are clean. No new costs to the taxpayer. Heck, would even make some private sector jobs!

    Why you support paying for people’s habits makes no sense. That is not charity or beneficial to society. But then again neither are most lib policies.

  4. Dave98373 says:

    I agree that anyone on the dole should submit to a drug and alcohol test. But not the occupiers. That is freedom of speech. Besides, if testing was required of these protestors there wouldn’t be anyone left in these camps!

  5. ManuelMartini says:

    You have to love the ignorance that perpetrates the myth that all Occupy protestors are unemployed or receiving welfare.

    It’s be proven over and over and over in news stories and interviews that the majority are employed, but those trying to discredit the movement continue to lie.

    “Why you support paying for people’s habits makes no sense.”

    Oh, so those recieving assistance should no longer be allowed to smoke cigarettes or drink coffee – both habits.

    I’m sure glad that we don’t want the government in people’s lives.

    Who is going to pay for the test kits, the people to administer the tests, the lab work, etc? Are the pharm companies providing their services to the government for free?

    One of these days Hell will freeze over. The very next day a conservative will think before posting on this comment thread.

  6. ManuelMartini says:

    What is really humorous is that people on welfare don’t get enough money to have a drug habit.

    But let’s spend money testing them because our friends in the medical field make money and welfare people are just lowlifes that we love to kick when they are down anyway.

  7. ManuelMartini says:

    When will we drug test the corporate CEOs whose companies are “on the dole”?

  8. bobcat1a says:

    Florida has been a marvelous example of how this works. In tests done so far, welfare recipients have failed the tests at about 1/4 the rate of non-welfare recipients in general. Costing the state a bundle because those passing the test get reimbursed the cost of the test. But Rick Scott loves that because his pet company gets paid to do the testing. Losers: the taxpayers! That’s why Republican conservative Scott has an approval rating half that of President Obama.

  9. ManuelMartini says:

    bobcat – all in the name of “smaller government”. I believe Florida also passed a law about wearing your pants too low.

    Yep – “A new bill has passed in the House of Representatives that bans clothing worn in a “vulgar” manner

    Yesterday, the Florida House of Representatives’ K-20 Education Innovation Subcommittee unanimously passed a legislative bill targeting sagging pants.

    “This pro-family, pro-education, pro-jobs bill provides each school district … adopt a student dress code of conduct, a policy that explains to each student their responsibility,” said Rep. Hazelle Rogers, who introduced the bill. “This would make for a better school district and more productive students.”

  10. John:
    While your premise is interesting, I think we can continue the conversation. Why do we allow people who have clearly demonstrated their inability to support a child, financially or otherwise, to continue having more children, solely for the purpose of inflating their benefits?
    More and more welfare has stopped being a stop-gap measure, and become a career choice. We all pay extra fees on our power, water, gas, cable, phone, and internet, just so these folks can get the same type of services subsidized or flat given free. If you get to stay home with your kids, rent paid, utilities, food, cable, internet, oh yeah, and a cash stipend so you have money for beer and smokes for the baby daddy who isn’t supposed to be living there.
    What we need is more policing of the benefit systems that are already in place. Who actually checks to make sure the benefits we pay for are being properly used? Nobody! All bureaucrats do is protect their phoney-baloney jobs. They can’t do that by showing the waste and failings of their policies

  11. “Why is it then, that those who get food stamps, government assistance and even unemployment benefits are not required to pass a drug test?”

    Why is it then, that those who write letters to the editor are not required to pass a drug test?

  12. ItalianSpring says:

    Good letter John, and your point makes perfect sense. Sadly, no lib will understand it, and most will twist your point, using comparisons like apples to fanbelts.

  13. Same scenario that we heard 30 years ago with Reagan, the myth of the welfare queen robbing the taxpayers blind while the Corporate CEO’s (Remember Savings and Loan?) get all the handouts and no accountability. I’d like to see all the execs from Haliburton, Goldman Sachs, Bank of A, … the WHOLE host of them to take drug and lie detector tests!

  14. elmerfudd says:

    If we were to just end welfare, food stamps, et al. we would save even more money.

    The one saving grace of the welfare state is that you can laugh at the people fighting for the crumbs when it finally falls of it’s own weight.

  15. ManuelMartini says:

    Speaking of drug tests – can we provide one for Congress that detects alcohol?

  16. It is funny when all the usual leftist commentaries on here are reduced to talking points and deflection. It is hard to make a strong argument against testing for drugs on freeloaders. If paying for the drug tests saved us just $10 a month as taxpayers, I’m all for it.

  17. ReadNLearn says:

    I think that the mandatory drug tests for welfare recipients are passing all state challenges. When will we see leadership from the Gov on something that actually matters?

  18. There should be drug testing for letters to the editor.

  19. The druggies in the public and subsidized housing drag down
    the people down the hall. Cigarettes are the biggest drug
    and cost perhaps billions each year in medical costs. Then
    there’s pot and crank. To see someone fall into being a
    disorganized meth freak is very hard. What wears on me the
    most is the manipulation and lies, lies, lies. As AA points
    out there is a moral component in recovery which the ‘science’
    community is trying very hard to undermine. To defy the
    basics of human motivation is hardly productive.

  20. There are 4 letters that prevents the Government from piss testing freeloaders A C L U.
    The ACLU believes it’s non of anyone’s business whether they are doing drugs. Our federal government is the ACLU bitch why do think the freeloader are able to have the following that you work hard to pay for.
    Cell phones, Cigarettes, Alcohol, broadband internet, cable pretty anything they want except the lottery and all they have to do is withdraw cash to do that.

  21. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    “That’s why Republican conservative Scott has an approval rating half that of President Obama.”

    Really? So 0bama now has an approval rating of 76%? And if we believe that, we should also believe the rest of your comment(s)?

    “… welfare recipients have failed the tests at about 1/4 the rate of non-welfare recipients in general. Costing the state a bundle because those passing the test get reimbursed the cost of the test.”

    Interesting, considering “non-welfare recipients” are not taking this test. Mind providing a link to your data? And kindly leave out the Think Progress/ Huffpo/ DailyKos crap.

    The fact is Florida is saving money on welfare payments, by any standard of measurement. As a previous poster stated, any savings is better than none.

    … for July, 9.6 percent of otherwise qualified applicants for cash assistance were denied for a drug-related reason. With an approximate annual savings to the state of $1,608 per drug-related denial (see Table 3), these 574 denials from July 2011 represent annualized savings to Florida taxpayers of $922,992. The cost of reimbursing the 5,390 approved applicants with a negative drug test ($30 average for each) reduces this annualized savings figure by $161,700, for a net savings to taxpayers of $761,292 for the first month of the program alone. Since Florida’s initial denial rate is 9.6 percent, the State is currently saving an estimated $5.71 on drug testing for every $1 it spends reimbursing approved applicants with negative drug tests who ultimately receive cash assistance.

    http://www.floridafga.org/2011/09/the-impact-of-florida-new-drug-test-requirement-for-welfare-cash-assistance/

    And the democrat blogs you are sourcing don’t tell the whole truth; a very large savings was also being realized in Florida, as a result of otherwise welfare eligible applicants who have not/ will not take the test because they knew they would fail. A failed test means a minimum of one year without cash assistance, and six months before another test can even be taken. Given this, the druggies know it is better to not take the test at all – at least until they are clean. But this class of eligible applicants does not show in any of the data the lib blogs and, sadly, you are citing.

    Oh, and by the way, you did know that the Florida law has been under temporary injunction since October, right? This means that since the date of enactment, it has been suspended for about as long as it was law in Florida, thanks to the usual suspects – the aclu. So any savings – documented or otherwise – that were realized over the first 4 months, have now more than evaporated over the subsequent Katie-bar-the-door 4 months.

    Nice.

  22. I am always amazed at conservatives who refuse to look at any facts in their zeal for big government solutions to non-problems.

    During the short life of the Florida drug testing program, less than 2% of the tests were positive, and the costs far outweighed any savings to the system.

    A conservative analyst fabricated information in a brochure that other states have used to initiate drug testing. Rick Scott claimed that the average welfare recipient would be on welfare at least 12 months in determining savings, when, in fact, the average in this bad economy is 4.5 months. In good times it was just under 3 months.

    Scott used a number of people that either dropped off welfare voluntarily or were taken off welfare for other reasons and claimed it was due to the drug testing program when no such evidence was available.

    Drug testing has not been shown to save any state any money and has been a huge failure in reducing wefare benefits. It is another myth created and perpetuated by those who hate decisions based on reason and who love decisions based on falsehoods and fear.

  23. Vox, you perpetuate the falsehoods in Scott’s claims. They have been debunked over and over. Your (Scott’s) 9% denial rate for drugs assumes that people who dropped out of the system after the testing was instituted all did so because of the drug testing, and that is a false claim. Anyone who dropped out of the system after receivinjg a test notice, for whatever reason they dropped welfare, was claimed by Scott to have dropped out for “refusing” to take a drug screening test.

    In followup studies it was found that some people went to work, some people did not schedule an appointment, and many we just don’t know why they dropped out of the system.

    Show me one proof that people who dropped off welfare are “druggies” as you claim. I guess I can call you a druggie, too, since I have just as much proof as you are Scott does for your claims – none.

  24. One question after reading your comment. Are you on drugs right now?

  25. Right wing “wit” aimed at strawmen.

    Welfare was significantly altered in Clinton’s Administration – limiting access to public assistance and restricting the amount of time one can be on it.

    Unemployment insurance benefits and “food stamps” recipients have risen due to unemployment – yes – but those safety net aspects (remember, the safety net that Mitt says he will fix to make sure no one falls through the holes) have risen, not because of a sudden onset of millions of druggies who want to live the glorious homeless lifestyle but because the true “useless eaters” members of the finance industry (aka Wall St.) turned a once glorious version of capitalism based in manufacturing into a shell game of ever-increasing debt which destroyed our economy.

  26. Oh…..and don’t blame the ACLU, blame the Founding Fathers for including the basic right against unreasonable search and seizure in the Constitution.

  27. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    Milatary tested me for years as a crane operator plus a lie detector test for a security clearance and I tool a government paycheck.

    Those on welfare that take a government check must be tested for drugs. I would be in favor of other test too.

    We make it too easy for the lazy in society to get government cash and no accountability.

  28. Drug testing is a violation of my constitutional rights. It is a warrant less search. I don’t care who you are you still need to abide by the constitution. No where does it say that my employer may violate my constitutional rights. No where does it say you may violate my constitutional rights except if you want to work for me. This is what is fundamentally wrong with society today we justify how our freedoms are being nibbled at without looking at the whole enchilada. If I don’t think it will affect me then what the hay. Sometimes those chickens come home to roost and it may be too late. We as a society are not that much off from the communist societies of the cold war we were against. Show me your papers, warrant less searches and seizures, less freedom of speech, less freedom of religion, less property rights. Your new master is the Corporation and you accept it blindly.

  29. before you write an ignorant letter to a newspaper with your name on it; we want you to pee in a cup…

  30. ManuelMartini says:

    I won’t argue with the “9.6 percent of otherwise qualified applicants for cash assistance were denied for a drug-related reason”

    What I do question is the sense of a witch hunt for less than 10%.

  31. rooster_02 says:

    What a moronic letter

  32. ItalianSpring says:

    See?

  33. andreab451 says:

    Manuel: “What is really humorous is that people on welfare don’t get enough money to have a drug habit.”

    Among the group I grew up with, 100% of them receiving any kind of benefits has a drug habit. Those that only receive food stamps sell them for .50 on the dollar in order to buy their drug of choice. 75% of them are on Section 8, with rent of less than $100/month, with 2-5 extra people living there that are also getting some kind of benefits. 5 of them have government supplied cell phones, that they’re using to sell drugs to support their habits. Although there’s supposed to be a time limit, there are all kinds of things that have extended and extended benefits to people that just would rather sell and use drugs than go to work. Anecdotal evidence for sure, but this is what’s been my experience with the welfare system. It needs to be fixed. Just like when I apply for a job and have to sign a consent to be tested, so it should be for those who are accepting free money.

  34. commoncents says:

    I find it ironic that people who scream and yell about taxes, big government, and adherence to the constitution of the United States would even remotely think that this is a good thing. Yes, let’s institute a costly new program in the same year that the state is going to be legalizing marijuana (and no I’m not in favor of it) so we then have a program that seeks out people who are doing something entirely legal. Hmmm…think that program would just up and disappear? And all to find that 10% of the population that is abusing the system AND are drug users. WOW!

    And that’s not even getting into the constitutionality of requiring an invasive test administered by the government without any probable cause. These people are not employed…they are receiving social benefits. There is a difference.

  35. I almost hate to bring this up, but I feel I must.

    The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    In our country there must be “probable cause’ before any government official can conduct a search of a citizen. That includes government organizations that dispense government assistance and unemployment benefits. It is against the law for them to conduct drug prescreening without “probable cause.”

    Non-government employers are not subject to that rule, and can require drug screenings, but employees or potential employees have the option to refuse those employer drug screenings. That’s the way the law works.

    (By the way, The Patriot Act has exempted the Dept. of Homeland Security, TSA and some other government organizations from following The Fourth Amendment. That’s not right either.)

  36. ManuelMartini says:

    “Among the group I grew up with, 100% of them receiving any kind of benefits has a drug habit.”

    There is a difference between 100% of drug abusers getting welfare (which my experience says is wrong. I know plenty that are employed) and 100% of welfare recipients being drug abusers. Even the results quoted by Vox stipulate less than 10%.

    Regardless – the issue is taking on more government programs and costs to maintain such a program.

  37. BlaineCGarver says:

    A drug test does not restrict your “rights”….You have the right to not work at a place that drug tests, and you have a right not to apply for welfare…by the way, unemployment is NOT welfare..you paid for it.

  38. Blaine! Blaine! Blaine!

    You apply for unemployment through the Washington State Employment Security Department, which you might happen to notice is a GOVERNMENT organization, and thus is covered by sate and federal law.

    Here’s the link…

    http://www.esd.wa.gov/index.php

    See the dot “gov” part of the address. That means “government” Blaine.

    And YOU do not pay for it. The employers pay into the unemployment fund, not the employee. It is an employER tax, not and emploEE tax.

    Unemployment 101: Who pays for jobless benefits, anyway?

    “Employers pay state and federal taxes to cover all those unemployment checks. But with unemployment at 9 percent, those taxes aren’t enough, leaving some states in dire straits.”

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0209/Unemployment-101-Who-pays-for-jobless-benefits-anyway

    Hope this helps you understand what’s going on buddy!

  39. ReadNLearn says:

    People talk about costs…I don’t care if they spend MILLIONS to prevent one penny going to some welfare cheat or drug addict. I’d prefer they simply stop all the welfare. If they stopped it, what would we lose?

    Nothing of value.

  40. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Muck- nice childish deflection. They have a right to seek income in a drug positive, non-taxpayer funded industry.

    You want taxpayer funds, pee in a cup.

    The defense of subsidizing drug use is incredible. Once again the left shows a lack of morals.

  41. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Also, the long term benefit to society if a welfare check makes one junky quit is huge.

  42. “It is hard to make a strong argument against testing for drugs on [gratuitous insult removed].”

    Not at all. Drug testing without probable cause constitutes an unwarranted search, and violates the Constitution. Two federal rulings have already said this.

  43. “Mind providing a link to your data? And kindly leave out the Think Progress/ Huffpo/ DailyKos crap.”

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/24/v-fullstory/2423049/an-offer-legislators-cant-refuse.html

    “Oh, and by the way, you did know that the Florida law has been under temporary injunction since October, right?”

    Yep, because it violates the constitution – a document you conservatives profess to hold sacred.

  44. con7, Just trying to educate your pal Blaine. He has a quite faulty perception of unemployment insurance, so I though as a public service I could help him learn something, like I have tried to teach you various things as well. Also, I see you are still posting opinions and pretending they are facts. When are you going to learn that facts include references and links. You opinion doesn’t really count for anything.

    The connection between unemployment, and drug testing for welfare, is that any service that is provided by a government agency or office, like unemployment for example, is governed by constitutional law as well as other federal and state laws. Government offices can not require drug testing in violation of The Fourth Amendment.

    Whereas, NGO’s can require drug testing if they want to, and will not be in violation of The Fourth Amendment.

    Does that make sense to you?

  45. “Really? So 0bama now has an approval rating of 76%”

    Scott’s approval rating is down around 26%. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/scott-hits-a-new-low.html

    Obama’s approval rating is right around 50%, roughly double that of Scott.

    You’re welcome.

  46. “A drug test does not restrict your “rights”….You have the right to not work at a place that drug tests, and you have a right not to apply for welfare”

    Mandatory body cavity searches for every drivers license holder does not restrict your “rights”….You have the right to not drive.

  47. I don’t care if they spend MILLIONS to prevent one penny going to some welfare cheat or drug addict.

    Another demonstration that ideologues are unaffected by cost/benefit analyses and all their supposed concern about governmental waste is a sham.

  48. Milatary tested me for years as a crane operator plus a lie detector test for a security clearance and I tool a government paycheck.

    Those on welfare that take a government check must be tested for drugs.

    Seriously? You are comparing the skill set and mental acuity required to be a crane operator with getting a welfare check?

    Dude! You seriously undervalue the dangers involved in operating heavy equipment.

  49. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Bb- do you recall BHOs quote when asked why he would impose a higher tax even though it was proven revenue to govt would shrink? I believe ideology was front and center.

  50. “Here, try this one:”

    Floridians Now Slightly More Likely to Approve of Governor Than Believe in Haunted Houses
    http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2012/01/rick_scott_approval_rating_haunted_houses.php

    Congratulations.

  51. ManuelMartini says:

    “I don’t care if they spend MILLIONS to prevent one penny going to some welfare cheat or drug addict.”

    Oh man…..LMAO….you can’t make up stuff like that!!! ReadNWHAT???

    Meanwhile the Pentagon just bought another $500 blender for margaritas in the Officer’s Club

  52. I took a polling class in college, and it educated me to the fact that a 48% approval rating is about the “break-even point” in presidential politics. Anything above that is a pretty good indicator of likely re-election.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/what-to-watch-in-obamas-approval-numbers/2012/02/09/gIQANxRp1Q_blog.html

  53. Interesting note. Congress’ approval ratings have dropped significantly since the GOP took over the House. And Obama leads Willard in almost every poll. Things aren’t looking good for the Republicans.

  54. ManuelMartini says:

    Scott got a 38% rating on one poll.

    That’s enough. No need to check further. I’m certain that he’s back in the saddle again.

    I think after today’s spike, Obama will be looking quite nicely.

    I guess, since 68% of Americans agree with his actions today, that means he has a 68% approval rating? Let’s see, no other president on this day in time has ever had a 68% rating of approval for a stand on birth control, therefore Obama would even beat Trump in an arm wrestling match at Caesar’s Palace during the month of May between the hours of midnight and 4am.

    Isn’t that how you present such a poll?

    BFD

  55. ManuelMartini says:

    “PPP – a democrat party apparatus”

    Rasmussen had Obama’s approval rating at 50%. Are they a Democratic Party apparatus?

    Who is the next apparatus?

  56. ManuelMartini says:

    Is Rush Limbaugh on welfare? He is/was addicted to drugs.

  57. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Nice thread shift Kard.

    He did not use my money to buy his drugs. Not right, but different topic.

    Funny, you posting many times recently supporting drug users. You only support them if they vote democrat?

  58. stumpy567 says:

    Wow, do you people have your shorts/panties in a knot!!!@!!
    Who opened up this can of worms anyway.
    It wouldn’t matter if there were tests or not. Most who knew they were going to get tested would simply drink a gallon of “test pure” and be on with the day. The real question shoud be What can we do to be sure those getting public assistance are providing something of value in return.
    Self improvement?
    Community involvement/ volunteering?
    Any thing to have a sense of accomplishment.

  59. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    The New Times Blogs, The Pulp? Are you serious… I mean you said you went to college – even took a polling class (sociology major, right?) – so you should know terms like out-of-date, tongue-in-cheek, biased sampling, etc… unless you didn’t do so well in your… polling class.

    And thanks for the link to the opinion piece in the Miami herald, I particularly like this comment:

    How much does it cost to investigate, arrest, prosecute, (plus the PD) then incarcerate bank robbers for decades. Exponentially more than they steal…..

    Clearly not cost effective so let’s take that on off the books. Save billions a year in taxes (the banks are insured anyway).

    What you can count on is the DCF #s are bogus. That crack team of experts can’t even count the kids in it’s care. Hundreds missing as we speak. Believe none of what they say and half of what you see. The welfare cheats will always be a step ahead of them. My favorite was the guy’s whose blood work came back…
    pregnant.

    All good questions. But you failed to provide proof that (quoting the bobcatster) “welfare recipients have failed the tests at about 1/4 the rate of non-welfare recipients in general”.

    Look, you can link all the irrelevant opinion pieces from dubious left wing sources you like – heck, even throw in your usual dose of lefty talking points, doesn’t matter. None of your links, or any other links provided by your comrades have shown that Florida is not saving money. So I have two questions for you all:

    1) Are you against the state saving money – any money?
    2) Do you realize that welfare is a benefit, not a right?

    And finally (but not surprisingly) your statement that “Congress’ approval ratings have dropped significantly since the GOP took over the House” is way off the mark. You need to brush up on history a bit. Let’s start with the pelosi/ reid congress in July, 2010:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/Congress-Ranks-Last-Confidence-Institutions.aspx

    Really hope this helps – somehow doubt it.

    Bravo.

  60. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    ACLU opposed?
    The republican withdrew it himself.

    Florida/ Indiana? Please try to keep up.

  61. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Rasmussen had Obama’s approval rating at 50%. Are they a Democratic Party apparatus?

    And that has… what to do with Florida Governor Scott’s approval ratings on December 6, 2011?

    Please try to keep up.

  62. ManuelMartini says:

    “done by the PPP – a democrat party apparatus. OH YEAH, very convincing!”

    And this had what to do with Scott’s approval ratings?

    I’m just following you Vox. Quit misleading me.

  63. ManuelMartini says:

    I guess drug abuse is OK if you are one of the leaders of the Republican party.

  64. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Focus Kard! This thread is about freeloaders freebasing off my tax dollars.

    Nice try, A+ for persistence.

    If you want to talk about Rush write a LTE.

    Back to you being a hypocrite, drugs are Ok if they are purchased with welfare checks but bad if they are purchased private funds? With people on welfare we (society) have and addition stick to use in the effort to cut drug use. Withholding govt checks would not effect the wealthy.

    Focus!

  65. ManuelMartini says:

    Oh…I see….Public Polling made up the Scott poll because they have an affiliation with the Democratic Party.

    So Rasmussen now has an affiliation with the Dems because they polled Obama at 50%.

    I hate it when I have to explain the punchline.

  66. ManuelMartini says:

    tunnel that vision. Only talk about welfare people on drugs.

    That’s why Obama’s popularity rating entered the conversation.

    I should have known.

  67. ManuelMartini says:

    People can illegally use drugs and hire their domestic help to mule for them. They just need to be wealthy and not on welfare.

    As shared by a genius of our time:

    “I don’t care if they spend MILLIONS to prevent one penny going to some welfare cheat or drug addict.”

    Don’t I recall people defending Rush Limbaugh saying he was sick and needed help? I guess that doesn’t work for someone on welfare.

  68. ManuelMartini says:

    You see, if you are sick and addicted on welfare, you’re cheating the system.

    I wonder what happens if your addiction started by a doctor’s Rx just like Rush?

  69. ManuelMartini says:

    Should someone on welfare be able to have an addiction to nicotine? Caffeine? How about consuming alcohol?

    All drugs.

  70. ManuelMartini says:

    “Withholding govt checks would not effect the wealthy.”

    Unless you are an Oil Company or Corporate Farm CEO.

    I wonder what would happen to Michele Bachmann if we withheld her government welfare check.

  71. ManuelMartini says:

    “You have to take frequent drug tests to fight for your country”

    From the stories we see from Fort Lewis it appears that program isn’t working too well.

  72. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Wow. 7 posts in a row. With this new format you cannot hide your madness by pushing a thread count over a multiple of 50, so calm down and write a coherant post.

    But no, welfare should not go for nicotine or booze either. They should get no cash. EBT only good for dietary staples of the cheapest variety, a mass transit pass, and if housing assistance is needed the check goes straight to the landlord. The recipeants get zero cash or cash equivalents. Drug test them and do quality of life inspections. 50 inch LCD or iPhone in the house and they get dropped. Mandatory community service. Mandatory trade schooling.

  73. “The New Times Blogs, The Pulp?” — When you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger. Thanks for admitting that you can’t refute the message.

    “I mean you said you went to college – even took a polling class (sociology major, right?)” — Nope. Pre-law.

    “you should know terms like out-of-date, tongue-in-cheek, biased sampling, etc… unless you didn’t do so well in your… polling class.” — And what do any of those terms have to do with the fact that only one percent more Floridians approve of their governor than believe in haunted houses?
    “you failed to provide proof that (quoting the bobcatster) “welfare recipients have failed the tests at about 1/4 the rate of non-welfare recipients in general”.” — You didn’t read the column very carefully, did you? Here, I’ll quote it for you to save you all that hard work: “The Department of Children and Families reports that since July, when the drug-testing program started, only 2.5 percent of welfare applicants have failed. By contrast, about 8.9 percent of the general population illegally uses some kind of drug.” 8.9 divided by 2.5 is roughly 4.

    “you can link all the irrelevant opinion pieces from dubious left wing sources you like” — Ahem. Message. Messenger. Remember?

    “Are you against the state saving money – any money?” — Nope. Never said I was. But (1) this isn’t cost-effective, (2) it violates the constitution, and (3) it expands the government’s role in our personal lives. Sort of a wrong-wing trifecta.

    “Do you realize that welfare is a benefit, not a right?” — Are you aware that the constitution prohibition against unwarranted searches applies to everyone, including those hated welfare recipients?

    “your statement that “Congress’ approval ratings have dropped significantly since the GOP took over the House” is way off the mark…Let’s start with the pelosi/ reid congress in July, 2010” — You DO remember what I wrote, don’t you? When “the GOP took over the House” (HINT: in January 2011), approval ratings were over 20%. Now they’re down around 10%. http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

  74. “The real question shoud be What can we do to be sure those getting public assistance are providing something of value in return.”

    And that’s a reasonable question. In this state every welfare recipient who is able to work is required to hold down a job, look for a job, or obtain training to make them hireable.

  75. concernedtacoma7 says:

    We hear that all the time here, yet everyone knows a total freeloader. There are so many forms of state and fed ‘assistance’ programs, it is too easy to game the system.

    So much of the working man’s tax dollars go to benefit other individuals it is sickening.

    And back to the stats in question- doesn’t it seem obvious that if the would-be applicant was a druggie, they would simply not subject themselves to the test?

  76. “everyone knows a total freeloader”

    I don’t.

  77. concernedtacoma7 says:

    You try to dignify what they are doing with another title. Have a spine, call a spade a spade.

    Look at the numbers of people on the govt teet. If you can avoid that much of the population, you must be quite rich. Even then, you would probably have an illegal or two working for you getting an annual check (if they file taxes, which illegals can, they get paid!).

  78. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Or, you reside in some conservative utopia. Definately not Washington State or Tacoma. Where is the paradise you speak of, where everyone earns their keep? Who is John Galt?

  79. ManuelMartini says:

    Total freeloader?

    Sure! The oil companies.

  80. ManuelMartini says:

    ehill – actually, if Congress had a rating of 20% and dropped to 10%, the drop is 50%, not 10%.

  81. “You try to dignify what they are doing with another title. Have a spine, call a spade a spade.”

    OK, you’re a moron. I said I don’t know any “total freeloaders” for one good reason: I don’t know any total freeloaders. Is that still too complicated for you?

    I volunteer at a food bank one day a week. I meet lots of people who are down on their luck. But not ONE of them is a “total freeloader”. We had a high school student show up right before Thanksgiving to fill out an application to volunteer. While filling it out, she confessed that she was homeless herself – her mother threw her out for wanting to spend the night at a friend’s house. But despite her predicament, she wanted to help others. We called the school and found out she’s an honors student. And you want her tested for drugs.

    “If you can avoid that much of the population, you must be quite rich. Even then, you would probably have an illegal or two working for you getting an annual check (if they file taxes, which illegals can, they get paid!)”

    Since you asked so nicely (pardon the sarcasm), the wife and I are comfortably retired, but not the 1% (although we were close when we were working). Our housekeeper is a US citizen, as are the folks who take care of our yard.

    “Or, you reside in some conservative utopia. Definately not Washington State or Tacoma. Where is the paradise you speak of, where everyone earns their keep? Who is John Galt?”

    News flash: Tacoma is part of Washington, so it wouldn’t be “Tacoma OR Washington”, it would be “Tacoma AND Washington”. We live in South Kitsap, definitely part of the State of Washington. I was born in this state, and the wife moved here during high school.

    John Galt is a fictitious character created by a writer of fiction who professed to avoid government support in her works of fiction, but who in real life accepted government support and lived on Social Security in her declining years. Wonder if she was tested for drugs?

  82. ManuelMartini says:

    “Since you asked so nicely (pardon the sarcasm), the wife and I are comfortably retired” – ehill

    Well, there goes another LF paranoia episode…down the drain. There should be an ample supply of red faces in Pierce County at this moment, unless they are really bad at math, which I wouldn’t doubt.

    ehill…thanks for the story about the high school homeless girl. There lies the problem with most of these conservatives, they are so busy to label that they don’t know anything. Think of the number of veterans that are homeless and are not addicted. The list goes on.

  83. Gotta give props out to the headline editor for the witty pun on the word “weed”.

  84. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    When you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger. Thanks for admitting that you can’t refute the message.
    Unless you live in la-la land, you would recognize the message was simply hate for Rick Scott by a well-known liberal blog whose only other “message” is their anti Fox News obsession. Gee, do you think if I polled readers of my blog (if I had one) I could get the same results for 0bama?

    Real credible source you got there.

    (sociology major, right?)” — Nope. Pre-law.
    LMAO, even if I believed you I’d have to say it’s pretty much the same thing. But then for some, internet swagger is so… undemanding, and internet facades can be so much more impactful than humorous exchange.

    And what do any of those terms have to do with the fact that only one percent more Floridians approve of their governor than believe in haunted houses?
    I hate to beat the dead horse that is the Broward Palm Beach Hew Times Blog to which you keep referring, but let’s try the same methodology they used in their laughable piece:
    -84% reject the official accounts of 9/11. Thus, using your logic, 0bama’s sub-50% approval ratings are even more embarrassing.
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm

    Continuing this very scientific line of polling, (relevant to the campaigner-in-chief’s approval rating):
    -50% of Americans believe in guardian angels
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm
    -64% believe aliens have contacted humans
    -50% say that aliens have abducted humans
    http://articles.cnn.com/1997-06-15/us/9706_15_ufo.poll_1_ufo-aliens-crash-site?_s=PM:US

    We could go on to bigfoot, fairies, ghosts, Nessy, etc, but it suddenly occurs to me where your beliefs probably lie, thus making this an exercise in futility.

    You didn’t read the column very carefully, did you?
    You don’t comprehend well, do you. Let’s go back to my original challenge to bobcat:
    “Interesting, considering “non-welfare recipients” are not taking this test. Mind providing a link to your data?”

    The whole comparison is specious since you are contrasting a percentage of welfare applicants who have actually failed a drug test, with an assumed percentage of a population. Since “non-welfare recipients” are not taking this test, any comparison is pure speculation. Simply put, any estimate of the actual percentage of a given population that uses illegal drugs cannot be compared to actual test results, since the subjects have not been tested. But the larger point is that it doesn’t matter. The fact is that (using your figures) 2.5% of welfare applicants who were dumb enough to actually take the test before getting themselves clean, are not on the FL welfare rolls, thus saving the taxpayers more money than it cost to test all of the applicants. And that’s using your figures – actual failure rate for July is 9.6%, as detailed below.

    … this isn’t cost-effective, (2) it violates the constitution, and (3) it expands the government’s role in our personal lives.
    1) If you bothered to read my first link, you would know it is cost effective. “Here, I’ll quote it for you to save you all that hard work:”
    … for July, 9.6 percent of otherwise qualified applicants for cash assistance were denied for a drug-related reason. With an approximate annual savings to the state of $1,608 per drug-related denial (see Table 3), these 574 denials from July 2011 represent annualized savings to Florida taxpayers of $922,992. The cost of reimbursing the 5,390 approved applicants with a negative drug test ($30 average for each) reduces this annualized savings figure by $161,700, for a net savings to taxpayers of $761,292 for the first month of the program alone.
    But maybe you didn’t take economics classes in… college, so you don’t understand the whole cost/ benefit thing.
    2) So your… uh-hum, pre-law courses make you judge, jury, and executioner? I didn’t realize the the courts had ruled, but if you say so…
    3) LMAO, you’re really new at this, aren’t you. Sweetheart, where tax-payer money is involved there is no such thing as “personal”. If you expect privacy, don’t take government money.

    Are you aware that the constitution prohibition against unwarranted searches applies to everyone, including those hated welfare recipients?
    First of all, I don’t “hate” anyone – least of all deserving welfare recipients/ applicants. Secondly, aside from the fact this case is far from resolved (contrary to your opinion), the operative word in your… opinion here is “unwarranted”. Again, I’ll save you some key strokes:
    In May 2011, the Florida Legislature passed and Governor Rick Scott signed into law HB 353[1] requiring applicants for Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA, Florida’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program) to have a negative drug test before receiving cash benefits. Federal welfare reform legislation signed by President Clinton in 1996 specifically allows states such discretion.

    Now they’re down around 10%. http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

    Again with the lame-ass cherry picking. The RCP average is 12% – 1% higher than the low I linked for the pelosi/reid congress. But thanks for the link showing CBS/New York Time had pelosi/reid at 10% on 10/21 – 26/10.

    And how conveniently phony of you to overlook the fact the Republicans currently only control one half of the congressional bodies. Kinda makes your side about 75% responsible for the current low congressional approval ratings, no?

  85. ManuelMartini says:

    “Kinda makes your side about 75% responsible”

    No math majors allowed.

    The Republicans have the majority of The House, control the Senate with a filibuster and the Democrats have the Administration.

    Best case scenario – 33.3333333%

    doncha love numbers?

  86. John Galt was a fictional character who, as an engineer who invented something, was actually a producer unlike the useless eaters who currently infest the financial sector.

    That being said, even with Rand’s attempts to make make her fictional hero completely self-sufficient by removing him from public schooling at an early age, it was impossible for the author to make his absurd “producers’ strike” come off as anything more than just another whiny elitist who is unwilling to acknowledge that his “individual” accomplishments would have been absolutely impossible without a whole lot of efforts and accomplishments made possible through government funding and…yes…union labor.

    Atlas Shrugged is FICTION based upon an unsupportable fiction.

  87. ManuelMartini says:

    “for July, 9.6 percent of otherwise qualified applicants for cash assistance were denied for a drug-related reason. With an approximate annual savings to the state of $1,608 per drug-related denial (see Table 3), these 574 denials from July 2011 represent annualized savings to Florida taxpayers of $922,992. The cost of reimbursing the 5,390 approved applicants with a negative drug test ($30 average for each) reduces this annualized savings figure by $161,700, for a net savings to taxpayers of $761,292 for the first month of the program alone.”

    YET…..have the Obama Administration post unemployment numbers and the cons will assure you it’s a lie.

  88. ManuelMartini says:

    Note the only cost cited of administration of the tests – was the actual cost of the kits used. No labor costs.

    Yeah, THAT really happens

  89. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    No math majors allowed.

    Careful Kardi, the mods may notice your slip is showing. Any linkage to one of your previously-snatched bodies will certainly result in a a ban… again.

    I too hate to explain punchlines, but…

    Congressional approval ratings first began to plummet below 50% levels in August 2007, during the pelosi/reid regime – 100% Democrat control – and have remained low under the current congressional make-up – 50% D – 50% R.

    Thus, given the fact the Dems were in complete control over 3 1/2 years of that slide into the negative, and remain in 50% control through today, I am being rather generous in placing their blame at only 75%.

  90. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    YET…..have the Obama Administration post unemployment numbers and the cons will assure you it’s a lie.

    WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot?

    If you can’t keep up, at least please try to stray… er, stay on topic.

  91. ManuelMartini says:

    “100% Democrat control”

    Yeah, for about 30 days or less. That is the length of time of a filibuster proof Senate. Ask The Turtle, he had in marked on a calendar.

    Now as to your whiskey drink – it’s hilarious when you quote statistics leaving out the labor factor as part of the cost, BUT, if the Obama Adminstration quotes ANYTHING, it’s immediately a lie.

    How’s that? A little closer? No? Yeah, let’s tighten up the category so that the only thing that can be discussed is your anally retentive subject – The category is: Numbers that are manipulated about welfare savings.

    Sorry, I don’t have anything to offer on that category.

  92. ManuelMartini says:

    “if I polled readers of my blog (if I had one)”

    Uh…yeah.

  93. ManuelMartini says:

    “Congressional approval ratings first began to plummet below 50% levels in August 2007″

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/145238/Congress-Job-Approval-Rating-Worst-Gallup-History.aspx

    It looks like there was sub-50% ratings clear back to 1975. Definite drop from 2002 to 2006.

    Pants on fire.

  94. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    OK, you’re a moron.

    Shoot the messenger, indeed. Nice.

    No matter how hard you try to wallpaper an issue, your hypocrisy still shows through.

  95. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Yeah, for about 30 days or less. That is the length of time of a filibuster proof Senate.

    So the LarEhill has tagged-out, and now teammate Kardy is in the ring – and their trunk size is exactly the same, imagine that!

    What The Frittata does a lack of a filibuster-proof majority have to do with congressional make-up by percentage? (Grasp, grasp… )

    it’s hilarious when you quote statistics leaving out the labor factor as part of the cost, BUT, if the Obama Adminstration quotes ANYTHING, it’s immediately a lie.

    Alright, Kardy, find us data on the administrative costs of FL HB 353. If they outweigh the $761,292 in savings it would not only be an even sadder statement on government efficiency, but would constitute a huge “miss” by all of your pet liberal blogs.

    Again, what part of “net savings” do you libs not like?

    Never mind.

    As to your bizarre deflection, I would love for you to show where I have ever so much as questioned Dept. of labor unemployment statistics – under any president or pretender thereof.

    “if I polled readers of my blog (if I had one)”

    Uh…yeah.

    Oh, I forgot… you have one of those, dontcha’ Larry.

    It looks like there was sub-50% ratings clear back to 1975. Definite drop from 2002 to 2006.

    Uhmm, again, try to stay with me here; I believe the record shows we were discussing approval ratings of the pelosi/ reid Congress as compared to the current Boehner/reid Congress – that would be the 110/ 111th Congress compared to the 112th for you math geniuses.

    Again, please try to keep up.

  96. ManuelMartini says:

    “Congressional approval ratings first began to plummet below 50% levels in August 2007″

    Can’t stand behind their own posts.

  97. ManuelMartini says:

    I wonder if the savings in Florida are anything like the balanced budget in Wisconsin?

    “Yesterday, 49 states joined the federal government in announcing a $26 billion settlement with five of the nation’s biggest banks over the banks’ foreclosure fraud abuses. The money from the settlement is meant to aid homeowners who lost their homes to foreclosure or who find themselves underwater, meaning they owe more on their mortgage than their home is currently worth.
    However, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) — whose high profile assault on workers’ rights has prompted a recall effort against him — isn’t planning to use the money to help homeowners. Under the terms of the settlement, Wisconsin is set to receive $140 million, $31.6 million of which comes directly to the state government. And Walker is planning to use $25.6 million of that money to help balance his state’s budget”

    More creative account from a Republican.

  98. ManuelMartini says:

    “these 574 denials from July 2011 represent annualized savings to Florida taxpayers of $922,992. The cost of reimbursing the 5,390 approved applicants with a negative drug test ($30 average for each) reduces this annualized savings figure by $161,700, for a net savings to taxpayers of $761,292 for the first month of the program alone.”

    And in the second month if they had NO DENIALS….how much money does it cost?

    Labor, test kit payoffs…..

    Nothing like stacking the old deck with the report….LOL

  99. ManuelMartini says:

    $761,292 annualizes to $922,992??????

    Who did the math for that one????

  100. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    $761,292 annualizes to $922,992??????

    Who did the math for that one????

    LMAO! Kardy, for someone who has touted his math skills frequently, while deriding others, you sure know how to step in it.

    Your lesson for the day:

    922,992 Annual Savings
    -161,700 Cost of Fee Reimbursement
    =761,292 Annualized Net Savings (Before Administrative Fees, okay?)

    Just like the quote reads.

    Geez, and I thought I was the only dyslexic one here.

    And speaking of administrative fees, one would naturally conclude that the $30 charge would cover them, assuming all applicants failed. Therefore, it follows that one could deduct an additional $161,700 from the gross savings to cover administrative costs after reimbursement. Even at that it leaves a net savings of $599,592.

    HTH

  101. ManuelMartini says:

    “savings to taxpayers of $761,292 for the first month of the program alone.”

    “$922,992 Annual Savings”

    How can you have $761K the first month and have $922K for the year?

    I guess 11 months the “failure rate” dropped off significantly.

    These people don’t even read their own comments.

    Like I said, no math majors allowed.

    This is a perfect case of “if the report says what I want it to say, the accuracy doesn’t count”.

  102. ManuelMartini says:

    It’s classic manipulation of the figures and as we can see – IT WORKED!

    This is like saying that Congress had a 20% rating and dropped to 10%, thus only dropped 10%.

    NO. They lost 50% of their approval rating.

    If you had a half tank of gas and now have a quarter tank, you used 50% of what you had, not 25%.

    The amazing part is that people are suckers for that kind of report.

  103. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    And in the second month if they had NO DENIALS….how much money does it cost?

    Totals for First QUARTER

    48% – drop in monthly cash assistance approvals since requirement began (June-September, 2011)

    $26.78 – average drug test reimbursement fee

    $58,000 – total testing fees reimbursed by the state for negative results since requirement took effect

    $1.8 Million – estimated taxpayer savings from drug-related denials for entire first quarter

    30.64 – first quarter taxpayer savings for every $1 spent reimbursing negative drug test fees

    19% – portion of otherwise eligible applicants who received a drug-related denial for September 2011

    $1,125 – savings for each drug-related denial (250 average monthly benefit x 4.5 months average length of benefits)

    11 – number of counties with a drug related denial rate of 33% or higher

    10 – number of counties with NO drug-related denials

    http://www.floridafga.org/2011/10/floridas-drug-test-law-for-welfare-cash-assistance-first-quarter-facts-2/

    And some interesting observations from legal scholars and political figures about the… judge who sided with the aclu and drug users:

    http://www.floridafga.org/2011/11/legal-scholar-blasts-pro-addict-judge’s-judicial-activism/

  104. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    “$922,992 Annual Savings”

    How can you have $761K the first month and have $922K for the year?

    Kardy, I suspect you know the difference between “annualized” and “annual”. Because changing the quote from a form of the root word, back to the root is a pretty cheap trick. But then we have come to expect nothing less than such juvenile antics from you.

    And since the actual savings from the 1st quarter of implementation is now known to be 1.8 million, we can expect the rest of your puny processing power to fry at any time.

  105. ManuelMartini says:

    to everything…spin…spin…spin….

  106. ManuelMartini says:

    an·nu·al·ize   /ˈænyuəˌlaɪz/ Show Spelled [an-yoo-uh-lahyz] Show IPA verb, -ized, -iz·ing.
    verb (used with object)
    1. to calculate for or as for an entire year: Investors earned an annualized rate of seven percent paid quarterly.

  107. ManuelMartini says:

    Next, we’ll explain how adding drug testing to a governmental program makes smaller government.

    :::pulls rabbit from top hat::::

  108. ManuelMartini says:

    Oh…this will be fun….

    The Foundation for Government Accountability is a state-level conservative policy think tank based in Naples, Florida. It is run by former Maine legislator Tarren Bragdon and is affiliated with the State Policy Network.

    “Mind providing a link to your data? And kindly leave out the Think Progress/ Huffpo/ DailyKos crap.”

    Yeah…the same person claiming Think Progress, Huffington Post and Daily Kos is “crap” submitted the Foundation of Government Accountability as a source of expertice and honesty.

    Can’t make this stuff up.

  109. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Of course, because you didn’t bother to follow the link, you carelessly missed the graphs backing up the data – graphs produced by the Florida Department of Families and Children, you know, the agency overseeing the administration of the drug testing.

    What was that someone was crying about up-thread… something about shooting the messenger.

    Still waiting for you to produce verifiable data to the contrary for anything I have linked.

    There is a season, spin, spin, spin…

  110. “the message was simply hate for Rick Scott by a well-known liberal blog whose only other “message” is their anti Fox News obsession” — Message. Messenger. Ring any bells?

    “[Pre-law and sociology are] pretty much the same thing. “ — That’s about what I’d expect from a high-school dropout.

    “I hate to beat the dead horse that is the Broward Palm Beach Hew Times Blog to which you keep referring” — Once again. Message. Messenger. Ring any bells?

    “Simply put, any estimate of the actual percentage of a given population that uses illegal drugs cannot be compared to actual test results, since the subjects have not been tested.” — Oh, I see. Now you’re an expert on statistics. I suggest you look up “extrapolation”.

    “it doesn’t matter.” — Facts never matter to zealots.

    “I didn’t realize the the courts had ruled, but if you say so…” — Two separate rulings. Both of which said that the mandatory drug testing was unconstitutional.

    
“Sweetheart, where tax-payer money is involved there is no such thing as “personal”. If you expect privacy, don’t take government money.” — Please point out where exactly the courts have ruled that the right of privacy doesn’t extend to welfare recipients. OH, that’s right. They haven’t.

    “First of all, I don’t “hate” anyone”– No, you just love accusing everyone else of hatred. While you’re looking up “extrapolation”, I suggest you also look up “projection.” I think you’ll find your picture.

    “the fact this case is far from resolved (contrary to your opinion)” — I didn’t say it was resolved. I said that two separate federal courts have ruled that mandatory drug testing without probable cause violates the constitution.

    “Again with the lame-ass cherry picking. “ — ROFL – nice try at deflecting from the irrefutable fact that Congress’ approval rating has dropped substantially since the Republicans took over the House.

    “how conveniently phony of you to overlook the fact the Republicans currently only control one half of the congressional bodies. Kinda makes your side about 75% responsible for the current low congressional approval ratings, no?” — I bow to your statistical expertise. ROFLMAO

  111. “Congressional approval ratings first began to plummet below 50% levels in August 2007″

    ROFL http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-03-14-congress-poll_x.htm

  112. “Kinda makes your side about 75% responsible for the current low congressional approval ratings, no?”

    Not according to your own words: “the current congressional make-up – 50% D – 50% R.”

  113. “So the LarEhill has tagged-out, and now teammate Kardy is in the ring – and their trunk size is exactly the same, imagine that!”

    …said AVoxIslander.

  114. “Uhmm, again, try to stay with me here; I believe the record shows we were discussing approval ratings of the pelosi/ reid Congress as compared to the current Boehner/reid Congress”

    ROFLMAO – that’s absolutely HYSTERICAL coming frlom the author of “Again with the lame-ass cherry picking. The RCP average is 12% – 1% higher than the low I linked for the pelosi/reid congress. But thanks for the link showing CBS/New York Time had pelosi/reid at 10% on 10/21 – 26/10.”

    Thanks for yet another great laugh!

  115. ManuelMartini says:

    A bogus right wing “foundation” in bed with a Republican governor?

    Naw…never happens.

  116. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    LMAO, LarEhill tags in with enough cheap material to make Wallpapers-To-Go envious.

    Too bad it’s dinner time – after which I should have an extra hour or two to wade through your voluminous non-responses.

    BTW, I see you prefer printed wallpaper to the vinyl and hessian types.

  117. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Typical Kard, bent around the axle over the meaning of a word, ignoring the big picture. The state saved money, period. Can you admit that?

    I will bite on your thread shift bait- Walker is taking that money to balance his budget, something dems know nothing about (like BHOs joke of a budget proposal).

    Dems control the admin and the Senate. Just because they can no longer ram through unwanted legislation does not place it in republican control. Next time you get banned Kard, you should take a class or two down at the senior center.

    Can you break the previous record and reply with 8 posts this time? Why did you change monikers again?

  118. ehill, While reading your back-n-forth with Voxy, I became curious about those Congressional Approval Ratings.

    Voxy wrote 12/10 @ 6:29 PM
    “And finally (but not surprisingly) your statement that “Congress’ approval ratings have dropped significantly since the GOP took over the House” is way off the mark. You need to brush up on history a bit. Let’s start with the pelosi/ reid congress in July, 2010:”

    and then…

    Voxy wrote 2/11 @ 11:47 AM
    “Uhmm, again, try to stay with me here; I believe the record shows we were discussing approval ratings of the pelosi/ reid Congress as compared to the current Boehner/reid Congress – that would be the 110/ 111th Congress compared to the 112th for you math geniuses”

    .

    WELL…. Here are the FACTS by Year:

    CONGRESSIONAL – AVERAGE – APPROVAL RATING (for each year)

    2007, 28.83% House-DEM, Speaker Pelosi, Senate-DEM, Leader Reid

    2008, 19.40%

    2009, 30.14%

    2010, 21.13%

    2011, 17.94% House-GOP, Speaker Boehner, Senate DEM, Leader Reid

    2012, 12.25%

    .

    As you can see from these 2012 Individual rankings (below), the AVERAGES I calculated (above) from the PollingReport.com data come from many many more sources/raters than just the one single Gallup Poll that Voxy – Cherry-Picked to support his bogus claim.

    2012 INDIVIDUAL APPROVAL RATINGs

    2/6-9/12 Fox RV 13%
    .
    2/2-5/12 Gallup 10%
    .
    1/22-24/12 NBC/Wall Street Journal 13%
    .
    1/12-17/12 CBS/New York Times13%
    .
    1/12-15/12 ABC/Washington Post 13%
    .
    1/11-12/12 CNN/ORC 11%
    .
    1/5-8/12 Gallup 13%
    .
    1/4-8/12 CBS 12%

    http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

    .

    And the factual data clearly shows that…

    .

    ehill is CORRECT! (… and Voxy is WRONG, yet again! Seems like Voxy needs to “brush up” on his history more than just a bit, as he keeps getting things wrong all the time. )

    .

    The fact is, as ehill first noted, the Congressional Approval Ratings DID DROP SIGNIFICANTLY when the GOP/Republicans won the Majority in the House and John Boehner became Speaker.

    Facts are Facts! (Unless you try to Cherry-Pick them like Voxy does.)

  119. “LMAO, LarEhill tags in with enough cheap material to make Wallpapers-To-Go envious.”

    Message. Messenger. Remember?

  120. “Too bad it’s dinner time – after which I should have an extra hour or two to wade through your voluminous non-responses.

    BTW, I see you prefer printed wallpaper to the vinyl and hessian types.”

    Wow, another wrong-winger who believes in talking wallpaper.

  121. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Who cares? It only proves the public buys BHOs excuses.

    Harry led the least productive senate in history. House was not much better, but the budgets died in the senate.

    http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/15/congress-logs-most-futile-legislative-year-on-reco/?page=all

    So, before the finger gets pointed at the house, admit the bigger problem is the senate.

    It’s a mobile link but you google warriors can find the data.

  122. tree_guy says:

    We could divide the beneficiaries into two categories, one category would get premium benefits and those people would agree to the drug and alcohol tests. The people who dont wish to be tested would continue getting benefits at the current rate.

  123. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    — Message. Messenger. Ring any bells?
    Yeah, like when you said OK, you’re a moron. Your standard answer when you have no answer… which apparently is often. BTW, what say you to the “message” that more people deny the official accounts of 9/ 11 than approve of 0bama?

    That’s about what I’d expect from a high-school dropout.
    Nope. MIT – rocket scientist here.

    “Extrapolation”?
    You mean the method used to estimate a 7.2 million dollar annualized savings to Florida through implementation of welfare drug testing if it were not stopped by TI? Ohhhhh, that’s right, you don’t agree with that extrapolation. But in order to form an extrapolation, one must begin from known data. So how can you use an estimated (unknown) failure rate in the general population – who have not taken the test – as a basis for comparison against test results in which the same demographic clearly did not, would not participate. It makes no sense, but then:
    Facts never matter to zealots.
    Yes, you’ve demonstrated that nicely.

    Two separate rulings. Both of which said that the mandatory drug testing was unconstitutional.
    I guess you really weren’t paying attention the day they explained temporary injunctions in your… pre law class. And Michigan chose not to appeal the district court ruling. To say this is settled law is the definition of premature.

    No, you just love accusing everyone else of hatred. I suggest you also look up “projection.”
    Why, so that I’ll understand what you just did there? Ohhh the irony.

    nice try at deflecting from the irrefutable fact that Congress’ approval rating has dropped substantially since the Republicans took over the House.
    Let’s stick to facts here. You said “Congress’ approval ratings have dropped significantly since the GOP took over the House.” I said they began their (current) trend to sub 50% under the democrats. Both statements are true. Only one little sticky detail remains; Republicans control only one branch of Congress, leaving the Dems more than 75% responsible for the decline since 2007.

    Rest of your posts nothing but mindless ranting reruns of above.

  124. “We could divide the beneficiaries into two categories”

    We’ve already divided the country into two categories. One category that cares about the constitution and one category that doesn’t.

  125. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Exactly! On one side we have the Tea Party and Conservatives. On the other we have BHO, the NYT, Justice Ginsburg, and progressives as a whole.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/m-why_obama_loves_ginsburg_best.html

    One sides see it as a limit on government, one side sees it as a limit to their power.

  126. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    BTW, you flatter me with your laughable attempt to link me to islander – not sure he would appreciate it though. But I am now convinced you are your own entity – your schtick is just not up to Kardy par. ‘Fraid your schtick is stuck in the muck.

  127. “Yeah, like when you said OK, you’re a moron” — I try not to respond in kind to vitriolic provocations, but I did to that one, and I apologize.

    “MIT – rocket scientist here.” — LOL, that’s really funny coming from the author of “for some, internet swagger is so… undemanding, and internet facades can be so much more impactful than humorous exchange.” You should take your act on the road!

    “In order to form an extrapolation, one must begin from known data.” — And here’s the known data: The rate of current illicit drug use among persons aged 12 or older in the US in 2010 was 8.9 percent. Here’s the source. Take your complaints up with them: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.htm

    “I guess you really weren’t paying attention the day they explained temporary injunctions in your… pre law class” — Which doesn’t alter the FACT that two separate federal courts have ruled that drug testing without probable cause violates the constitutions. How many federal courts have rules that drug testing without probable cause passes constitutional muster?

    “Let’s stick to facts here” — I’ve already done so. I’m waiting for you to start. Here’s the history of Gallup Congressional approval ratings. They make your lie about the start of low approval ratings pretty obvious, don’t you think? http://www.gallup.com/poll/28456/congress-approval-rating-matches-historical-low.aspx

    “your laughable attempt to link me to islander” — I knew you would appreciate that. Especially since you’ve tried several times to link me with several others. In addition to looking up ‘extrapolation’ and ‘projection’, I suggest you now look up ‘hypocrite.’

  128. “One sides see it as a limit on government, one side sees it as a limit to their power.”

    Yep. Those who claim to want “limited government” want the government to be able to search citizens without probable cause.

  129. “violates the constitutions” — make that violates the constitution. Sorry for the typo.

  130. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Nice deflection. And funny, BHO has not overturned the Patriot act or ended the TSA. So who are you talking about here?

  131. Pacman33 says:

    Has anyone seen my keys?

    I can’t find them anywhere, man.

    I’m sure I left them around here somewhere.

  132. “Nice deflection. And funny, BHO has not overturned the Patriot act or ended the TSA.”

    LOL – oh the irony!

  133. 
Voxy wrote on 2/11 @ 9:44 PM:
    “Let’s stick to facts here. You said “Congress’ approval ratings have dropped significantly since the GOP took over the House.” I said they began their (current) trend to sub 50% under the democrats. Both statements are true. Only one little sticky detail remains; Republicans control only one branch of Congress, leaving the Dems more than 75% responsible for the decline since 2007.”

    No Voxy! Your statement is still FALSE, and ehill’s is still TRUE.

    Voxy! Even using ONLY your own personally Cherry-Picked Gallup Poll, the LAST TIME Congress had an approval rating of 50% or higher was on June 2003, when it was exactly 50%!

    In 2003 the GOP took over the leadership of the Senate under Majority Leader Bill Frist.

    And in 2003 The House was already under the GOP Majority with Dennis Hastert as the Speaker.

    Since then Congressional Approval Rates, according to Gallup, have remained under 50%. As you would no doubt have to now agree, that is all due to the GOP!

    FACE IT Voxy, Your FACTS are FAKE ! (And so are you!)

  134. BTW, where is aislander these days. He’s obviously MIA. Did someone scare him away?

  135. concernedtacoma7 says:

    He stated a reason for his absence a while back. Glad you look forward to his educated and conservative posts also.

    Ehill- you deflect then repeat my response. Once again you have no point.

    And what is the point with the bickering over the approval rating of Congress? I just showed you who is to blame. And further proof, who won overwhelmingly in 2010? Proof dems are to blame.

    Back on topic please.

  136. The only real point about the Congressional Approval Ratings, is simply to prove the Voxy posts lies. That’s all.

  137. “Ehill- you deflect then repeat my response. Once again you have no point.” — ROFL – I see you didn’t understand the humor in your last post. That makes it so funny!

    “just showed you who is to blame. And further proof, who won overwhelmingly in 2010″ — And yet Congress’ approval rating has dropped 50% since the GOP took over the House, and the Democrats in Congress have a higher approval rating than the Republicans.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm
    http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

    This is why I’ve nicknamed you lot “the wrong wing”; because you aren’t “right” about much of anything.

  138. “Back on topic please.”

    ROFLMAO – that’s hysterical coming from the the author of “BHO has not overturned the Patriot act or ended the TSA”.

    You crack me up!

  139. “He stated a reason for his absence a while back.”

    He lost his thesaurus.

  140. ManuelMartini says:

    LOL

  141. He lost his thesaurus.

    ….and his Word of the Day calendar!

  142. Has anyone seen my keys?

    I can’t find them anywhere, man.

    I’m sure I left them around here somewhere.

    Not certain whether your self-parody was intentional or not….

  143. If we drug tested all the people in the government, half of them probably wouldn’t be there.

    So, why don’t we drug test all candidates for public office before they are allowed to put there names on the ballots. Let’s start there and filter it down through all levels of the government, before we start testing the unemployed and indigent. Take a Top Down approach so to speak.

  144. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Glad to see the left is done debating this issue.

    Defending the drug addicts. Nice party line. You can have them.

    The right is looking for ways to encourage self-improvement, while the left wants to cut them a check in exchange for a loyal D vote. Pathetic.

  145. con7 typical response to advocate applying drug testing only to the poor, but not the rich. Maintaining that conservative double standard of discriminating against the poor as always. I guess we know which half of the government employees that con7 thinks would fail drug testing. His half!

  146. Test everyone who earns an income to be sure they are sober enough to pay their taxes. Fail the test and your wages are attached. Pass the test and you are audited.

  147. Defending the drug addicts. Nice party line. You can have them.

    No, defending the Constitutional protections against unreasonable search.

  148. The right is looking for ways to encourage self-improvement, while the left wants to cut them a check in exchange for a loyal D vote.

    On this issue it is the Right who are looking for a way to cut a check to (right-leaning?) drug-testing businesses…

  149. Was really hoping Voxy would show up and try to refute the Congressional Approval Ratings, but since he hasn’t I’ll post these stats for him from USA Today/Gallup, his favorite Cherry Tree for Cherry-Picking purposes.

    From most recent to oldest poll dates, you will note that the Democrats have consistently polled higher approval ratings than the GOP on every poll since April-May 2005. The GOP was already on a downward trend since it dropped below 50% approval in November 2003.

    What happened in 2003? Oh! That’s right! That’s when George W. Bush started the war in Iraq!!!

    US Today/Gallup Poll
    Congressional Approval Ratings by Party
    (D% = Democrat %, R% = Republican.GOP %)

    D% R% date of poll

    28 26 9/15-18/11
    33 28 7/15-17/11
    32 31 3/25-27/11
    33 32 8/27-30/10
    37 31 5/24-25/10
    37 33 3/26-28/10
    36 27 9/11-13/09
    42 30 3/27-29/09
    47 36 2/20-22/09
    37 25 12/12-14/08
    30 26 12/14-16/07
    37 29 8/3-5/07
    41 33 2/9-11/07
    38 33 6/23-25/06
    41 38 10/21-23/05

    D’s take lead over R’s

    40 42 4/29 – 5/1/05
    47 48 11/14-16/03
    45 51 10/03

    Just can’t fight the FACTS!

  150. “Defending the drug addicts. Nice party line. You can have them.” — Last time I checked, the constitution applies to everyone, including those despised drug addicts.

    “the left wants to cut them a check in exchange for a loyal D vote. Pathetic.” — got any facts to prove which way drug addicts vote? If so, lets see it. Got any proof about the motives of “the left”? Otherwise it’s yet more empty hyperbole.

  151. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Well well, I see Kardy’s love spawn have all been busy today.

    So… where are we now…

    “Yeah, like when you said “OK, you’re a moron” — I try not to respond in kind to vitriolic provocations, but I did to that one, and I apologize.

    Only after you were called on it – twice. And you want me to look up “hypocrite”?

    And speaking of being called, in light of belief in fairies, angels ghosts, alien contact, 9/11 truthers, etc, polling higher than 0bama, I’m still wondering if you’re standing by your big find in the Broward/ Palm Beach New Times Pulp Blog that you were so fiercely defending up-thread? Or maybe now you’d like to share some favorable polling from the National Enquirer.

    Enquiring minds want to know.

    “MIT – rocket scientist here.” — LOL, that’s really funny coming from the author of “for some, internet swagger is so… undemanding, and internet facades can be so much more impactful than humorous exchange.” You should take your act on the road!

    Let’s try a phrase now; “sense of humor”. Then we can go for some one syllable words like “droll”. After that we’ll go to big words like facetious and sarcasm – e.g.; “I am to rocket science as you are to law.” Let me know when you “get it”. In the mean time, stick to your statistics courses at TCC. You’ll need them to get to those 400 level course requirements – the next step toward your dream degree in sociology at Evergreen State.

    And here’s the known data: The rate of current illicit drug use among persons aged 12 or older in the US in 2010 was 8.9 percent.

    Okay, even if we concede the number without the same test being administered, using your… logic, one would conclude through extrapolation that the same number would have failed the FL welfare drug tests. The fact they didn’t indicates a flaw in the conclusions. Either (A) there are far fewer drug users in the general population, or (B) the remaining 6.4% are not taking the test because they know they will fail (resulting in a one-year ineligibility and mandatory re-test after 6 months), or (C) they are doing a hell of a job of masking.

    My vote’s with “B”.

  152. “Well well, I see Kardy’s love spawn have all busy” — Ahem. Message. Messenger. Remember?

    “the Broward/ Palm Beach New Times Pulp Blog that you were so fiercely defending up-thread” — please be so kind as to point out exactly where I “fiercely defended” it. I bet you can’t.

    “sense of humor” — let’s refresh your memory with the first three letters of my response, shall we? “LOL” You’re welcome.

    “we concede the number without the same test being administered” — Thanks.

    “Either…” — nice use of the “false choice” logical fallacy. There are other possibilities, of course. The most likely one is that those poor enough to apply for welfare can’t afford drugs.

    Of course this is all irrelevant to the fact that two separate federal courts have ruled that drug testing without probable cause is unconstitutional..

  153. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Here’s the history of Gallup Congressional approval ratings. They make your lie about the start of low approval ratings pretty obvious, don’t you think?

    And here’s a history of this quarrel:

    You said “Congress’ approval ratings have dropped significantly since the GOP took over the House.”

    I replied “And finally (but not surprisingly) your statement that “Congress’ approval ratings have dropped significantly since the GOP took over the House” is way off the mark. You need to brush up on history a bit. Let’s start with the pelosi/ reid congress in July, 2010:” (link to Gallup poll followed).

    Subsequently, I said in response to the troll: “Congressional approval ratings first began to plummet below 50% levels in August 2007, during the pelosi/reid regime – 100% Democrat control – and have remained low under the current congressional make-up – 50% D – 50% R.”

    “I believe the record shows we were discussing approval ratings of the pelosi/ reid Congress as compared to the current Boehner/reid Congress – that would be the 110/ 111th Congress compared to the 112th for you math geniuses.”

    So who’s lying here?

    More internet bravado. So far you’ve called ct7 a moron, and me a liar. Nice “message”.
    Lowering yourself to muck standards are we? (Like the proverbial butt pimple – only validated when scratched.)

    But again thanks for the cool link:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/28456/congress-approval-rating-matches-historical-low.aspx

    Dateline August 21, 2007 (see my quote above)

    PRINCETON, NJ — A new Gallup Poll finds Congress’ approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.

    100% Democrat control.

    That 18% job approval rating matches the low recorded in March 1992, when a check-bouncing scandal was one of several scandals besetting Congress…

    100% Democrat control.

    Congress had a similarly low 19% approval rating during the energy crisis in the summer of 1979.

    100% Democrat control.

    Perfect perspective on how things now are merely continuing an overall downward trend from a 21st century high of 84% in 2001. And though as anyone with any ability to read can see from the above quotes we were not discussing the period from 2001 – 2006 until the love children saw the obvious need to inject it into the discussion, the decline from the high nevertheless did in fact continue through those Republican-controlled years as well.

    Today’s record low congressional approval ratings:

    50% Democrat control.

    Congratulations to the Dems for their… improvement – oh yeahhhh, addition by subtraction.

  154. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    WELL…. Here are the FACTS by Year:

    CONGRESSIONAL – AVERAGE – APPROVAL RATING (for each year)

    2007, 28.83% House-DEM, Speaker Pelosi, Senate-DEM, Leader Reid

    2008, 19.40%

    2009, 30.14%

    2010, 21.13%

    2011, 17.94% House-GOP, Speaker Boehner, Senate DEM, Leader Reid

    2012, 12.25%

    LOL, so, the “facts” show a 4% drop in 2011 vs 8% from ’07 – ’10.

    Thanks for making my point.

    And posting 2012 with year-over averages is pretty funny too. Skew much ‘ya think?

  155. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    please be so kind as to point out exactly where I “fiercely defended” it.

    Because you linked the poll in question as a serious piece of journalism, never mind the fact it was from an obscure left wing blog, and even they intended it as some kind of joke (I hope), I said:

    The New Times Blogs, The Pulp? Are you serious… I mean you said you went to college – even took a polling class (sociology major, right?) – so you should know terms like out-of-date, tongue-in-cheek, biased sampling, etc… unless you didn’t do so well in your… polling class.

    You replied:

    The New Times Blogs, The Pulp?” — When you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger. Thanks for admitting that you can’t refute the message.

    So you were saying the “message” was accurate – however unscientific – and actually needed to be “refuted”?
    Seriously? And now you say you didn’t defend the “messenger”?

    Okey-dokey.

  156. I rrelevant to the fact that two separate federal courts have ruled that drug testing without probable cause is unconstitutional.

  157. “I said in response to the troll” — Message. Messenger. Ring any bells?

    “Like the proverbial butt pimple – only validated when scratched” — See above.

    “the love children” — See above.

    “Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.” — And now, after the GOP has taken over the House, it’s down around 10%.

    “Congress had a similarly low 19% approval rating during the energy crisis in the summer of 1979.” — And now, after the GOP has taken over the House, it’s down around 10%.

    “So you were saying the “message” was accurate – however unscientific – and actually needed to be “refuted” — Your “message” wasn’t anything but an attack on the blog. You didn’t even try to refute the polling numbers it contained. As I said, you couldn’t refute the polling data in the blog, so you attacked the blog itself. Thanks for proving me right once again.

  158. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    So what’s this, neener-neener-neener time now.

    Shall we go into the thousands of cases whereby a federal judge, panel, or circuit court ruled something as unconstitutional, only to ultimately be reversed by a higher court?

    C’mon, you said you were pre-law, you must know how hollow your statement rings. And with more and more states looking to adopt similar legislation, this will be settled by the supremes.

    I like our chances.

    See ‘ya in court.

  159. “And posting 2012 with year-over averages is pretty funny too. Skew much ‘ya think?”

    OK, let’s compare like-for-like:

    o February 2011 approve: 31% (Fox)
    o February 2012 approval: 13% (Fox)

    No matter how desperately you try to spin things, the irrefutable fact is that Congress’ approval ratings have plummeted since the GOP took control of the House.

  160. “So what’s this, neener-neener-neener time now”– No, it’s fact time, and you’re lacking.

    “Shall we go into the thousands of cases whereby a federal judge, panel, or circuit court ruled something as unconstitutional, only to ultimately be reversed by a higher court” — Perhaps you could bolster your case by pointing out ONE instance where drug testing without probable cause was declared to be constitutional and then overridden at a higher level. Once again, I bet you can’t.

  161. Voxy, it’s getting more and more difficult to understand your vituperative rantings.

    But it seems like you accused me of calling ct7 a “moron”.

    Just when and where did I do that? Because I have searched this blog and I cannot find a single comment I posted where I called anyone a “moron”.

    So, would you like to reference that for me?

  162. muck,

    No, it was me he was accusing. And he was right. I’ve already apologized for it.

  163. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    They make your lie about the start of low approval ratings pretty obvious, don’t you think?
    Okay, you’re a moron

    Your message?

    And now, after the GOP has taken over the House, it’s down around 10%.
    That’s funny, muck says it’s 12.25%. So, by your standards, this is a lie too? And the drop in 2011 was the lowest average drop since the 2009 anomaly, reinforcing the fact that approval ratings not only dropped 3 out of 4 years from 2006, but the latest downward trend began in 2007.

    Your “message” wasn’t anything but an attack on the blog.
    Which you didn’t defend, right? Hate to bring up the “L” word again, but… your still trying.

    You didn’t even try to refute the polling numbers it contained. As I said, you couldn’t refute the polling data in the blog, so you attacked the blog itself.
    Again, using your standards, more “L’s”. I illustrated how completely absurd it was for them to take unrelated polling data and draw a conclusion to anything – you simply chose not to respond because there is no rational response; to wit:

    I hate to beat the dead horse that is the Broward Palm Beach (N)ew Times Blog to which you keep referring, but let’s try the same methodology they used in their laughable piece:
    -84% reject the official accounts of 9/11. Thus, using your logic, 0bama’s sub-50% approval ratings are even more embarrassing.
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm

    Continuing this very scientific line of polling, (relevant to the campaigner-in-chief’s approval rating):
    -50% of Americans believe in guardian angels
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm
    -64% believe aliens have contacted humans
    -50% say that aliens have abducted humans
    http://articles.cnn.com/1997-06-15/us/9706_15_ufo.poll_1_ufo-aliens-crash-site?_s=PM:US

    We could go on to bigfoot, fairies, ghosts, Nessy, etc, but it suddenly occurs to me where your beliefs probably lie, thus making this an exercise in futility.

    Same methodology, exactly. And you cannot defend their… methodology because it wasn’t serious, so you resort to juvenile taunts. But really, you might want to just move on… let this one go – really looks silly on you. I mean, did you see their internet poll on the same subject at the bottom of the piece? Verrrry scientific stuff there too.

  164. ManuelMartini says:

    How did the Republican majority Congress go from over 80% approval in 2002 to less than 40% in 2006?

    That’s like blowing a 10 run lead in the 9th inning.

  165. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Perhaps you could bolster your case by pointing out ONE instance where drug testing without probable cause was declared to be constitutional and then overridden at a higher level. Once again, I bet you can’t.

    Wow, bold wager. You must be a legend at the Vegas prop bet windows.

    Tell you what, double-or-nuthin’ if you can link an actual current poll from a fair sampling of Floridians, where the questions asked were/ are “Do you approve of Governor Rick Scott’s job performance to date?”
    OR, “Do you believe in haunted houses”.

  166. ManuelMartini says:

    muckibr – it’s rather frustrating when someone is purposefully obtuse when the facts are to the contrary, isn’t it?

  167. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Bet you can’t.

  168. ManuelMartini says:

    “Well well, I see Kardy’s love spawn have all been busy today.”

    “Kardy” certainly owns a sizeable portion of what is left of your brain. Who is the “love spawn” this time? I’ve been paying attention to admissions of age. It should be funny to see which person you try to attach to “Kardy” who admitted to being 60.

  169. ManuelMartini says:

    ehill – it’s nice that you apologized, but considering that ct7 has no problem with namecalling and such, I don’t think you need to be too worried.

    Anyone that posts “leave my booze alone” is rather self incriminating anyway.

  170. ManuelMartini says:

    I finally figured out why ct7 is so obsessed about me being “Kardy” and “Kardy” being banned from this website. ct7 narc’d “Kardy” and is po’d that “Kardy” didn’t really get banned.

    OK, ct7. I’m “Kardy” if it will keep your blood pressure above 200/100

  171. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    o February 2011 approve: 31% (Fox)
    o February 2012 approval: 13% (Fox)

    Love how you guys jump back and forth between average numbers and specific polls… when it suits your purpose.

    Hey, I can do that too:

    o May 2009 approve 41% (Fox)
    o May 2010 approve 22% (Fox)

    Child’s play.

    It’s winter in America, cherry pickers not needed.

  172. ehill, it sure seemed like Voxy was accusing me of calling ct7 a “moron”, which I did not.

    But, I have to say all of Voxy’s recent comments seem to be getting more and more, what’s the word….. bizarre!

    I feel like he needs to change his name to Voxman33 for the sake of truthiness!

    I do see where you apologized for the “moron” remark. Anyone else would accept your apology and move on, but apparently Voxy can’t quite do that.

    Oh well, the stats I provided on Congressional Approval Rates are accurate and honest, even though Voxy has tried and failed miserably to refute them with his babbling double-talk.

  173. “it’s down around 10%.
    That’s funny, muck says it’s 12.25%” — Wow, a whole 2.5% difference.

    “the latest downward trend began in 2007″ — Not true. Not even close to being true.

    “how completely absurd it was for them to take unrelated polling data and draw a conclusion to anything” — Liar. You claimed that there was no real data to support statistics about drug use among the general population.

    “you simply chose not to respond because there is no rational response” — I chose not to respond to this because there was no rational point in the first place.

    “you resort to juvenile taunts.” — LOL. Coming from you that’s really funny.

    “And you cannot defend their… methodology because it wasn’t serious” — They cited Quinnipiac University and Gallup (“Scott scored his highest approval rating ever in a Quinnipiac University poll released this morning, with 38 percent of folks thinking he’s doing an OK job.

    According to the last Gallup poll that tested people’s belief in haunted houses, just 37 percent were believers — the same score as Scott’s previously high score for an approval rating.”)

    You saying Quinnipiac University and Gallup aren’t serious polling organizations? Message, messenger. Remember?

    Here’s a clue, pal. When you find yourself in a hole of your own creation, the first rule is to quit digging.

  174. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Kardy tags-in – time to punch out. I’ll leave you guys to continue your cute little group hug.

  175. “Tell you what, double-or-nuthin’ if you can link an actual current poll from a fair sampling of Floridians, where the questions asked were/ are “Do you approve of Governor Rick Scott’s job performance to date?””

    LOL – Think anyone noticed that you didn’t provide any federal court rulings to support your case?

  176. ManuelMartini says:

    Uh oh. Someone embarrassed Vox about that obsessive behavior and paranoia about “Kardy”.

  177. “Love how you guys jump back and forth between average numbers and specific polls… when it suits your purpose.”

    ROFLMAO – perhaps you’ve forgotten this: “posting 2012 with year-over averages is pretty funny too. Skew much ‘ya think?”

    You wanted a like-for-like specific example, pal. That undermines your whining when you get one.

  178. ManuelMartini says:

    ehill – did you notice how Vox used a conservative think tank for “facts and figures”, but said that Kos, Huffpo, etc weren’t valid?

  179. “ehill – it’s nice that you apologized, but considering that ct7 has no problem with namecalling and such, I don’t think you need to be too worried.”

    My Methodist minister grandfather taught me that name-calling and insults are an admission that you know you’ve lost the argument, so I try very hard not to play that game. Sometimes I fail and return the insults, but mostly I get sarcastic. It’s a failing that I’m working to eliminate.

  180. “Kardy tags-in – time to punch out. I’ll leave you guys to continue your cute little group hug.”

    Something else my grandfather taught me: you know someone has lost when they pick up their toys, declare unilateral victory, and go home.

  181. ManuelMartini says:

    ManuelMartini says:
    Feb. 12, 2012 at 5:51 pm

    ehill says:
    Feb. 12, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    Either ehill or I posted, logged out, logged in with another name composed a post AND submitted it, all within one minute

    Kardy, Kardy, Kaaaarrrdy….

  182. “said that Kos, Huffpo, etc weren’t valid”

    When you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.

  183. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Oops, mia culpa first:

    “the latest downward trend began in 2007″ — Not true. Not even close to being true.
    Got me on that one – I meant 2010.

    Lie detector buzzing off the chart:

    Liar. You claimed that there was no real data to support statistics about drug use among the general population.
    Again with the “liar” thing. You really are a piece of… work. Go on back up-thread and find the quote where I said that. Again, who’s the liar here?

    I chose not to respond to this because there was no rational point in the first place.
    Another fib. You can’t seriousl defend the link because if you did you would look even stup.. ahhh not going to “stoop” to your level.

    They cited Quinnipiac University and Gallup…
    Please, you can’t seriously still be defending this… right? News flash: THERE WAS NO POLL – they took data from one poll (cherry picked) and compared it to Scott’s approval ratings in order to poke fun at him. You took/ take it seriously? How the hell can that be realistic, let alone scientific. Geez man, give it up already!

    I only see one “hole” around here right now “pal”.

  184. ManuelMartini says:

    Oh…look who really didn’t leave.

  185. “Go on back up-thread and find the quote where I said that.” — Glad to: “any estimate of the actual percentage of a given population that uses illegal drugs cannot be compared to actual test results, since the subjects have not been tested”.

    “News flash: THERE WAS NO POLL – they took data from one poll (cherry picked) and compared it to Scott’s approval ratings in order to poke fun at him. You took/ take it seriously? How the hell can that be realistic, let alone scientific. Geez man, give it up already!” — don’t you just LOVE it when someone says there was no poll, and the cites not one, but two polls?

  186. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Vox- let them bicker about when and why congress began to be hated by the people.

    2010 proved the people blamed dems prior to that election. In a few months we will see who is blamed for the next 2 years of slow growth and fat govt waste.

  187. Something rather bathetic about the quibbling between Republican and Democratic loyalists about which Party is loathed more by the American public…..

    “They hate me less than they hate you”

    Congratulations to the winner on that argument….what an amazing achievement….to be hated less than the other side. Facts is this: 10% approval rating for Congress is propelled by the actions on both sides.

    However – if I were a Republoyalist I would be a little nervous because Obama’s numbers are creeping up as my numbers were sinking even further down.

  188. ManuelMartini says:

    Vox- let them bicker about when and why congress began to be hated by the people.

    Yo…homey:

    How did the Republican majority Congress go from over 80% approval in 2002 to less than 40% in 2006? Remember, the GOP had majorities in the House, Senate and Admin during that time.

  189. ManuelMartini says:

    Actually, beerBoy, the whole Congress approval argument is silly, considering that everyone thinks their representative is fine, it’s all the rest that are wrong.

    Part of the “low information voting”

  190. Ahh, more name-calling and insults from someone who knows they’ve lost the argument. Thanks for living down to my expectations.

    “Federal Court Upholds Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients” — Your citation conveniently left off the FACT that the FULL appeals court reversed that ruling.

    “[gratuitous insult removed], a one-month average from 2012 is comparable to a full year average, never mind the fact there remain 11 months in the year?” — (1) I didn’t post the original numbers. (2) You complained about the original numbers, so I posted two polls conducted by the same polling organization as close to one year apart as I could find. They show exactly the same thing: Congress’ approval ratings have plummeted since the GOP took over the House.

    “it’s okay for you to cherry-pick a specific poll because using the average for the same period” — I didn’t “cherry-pick” anything. The data came from here: http://www.pollingreport.com/

  191. beerBoy,

    I’m not a Democrat. I’m an independent, and I vote for Republicans regularly.

  192. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Ohhhhhhh, I get it, one minute you state:

    Think anyone noticed that you didn’t provide any federal court rulings to support your case?

    Next you state:

    Your citation conveniently left off the FACT that the FULL appeals court reversed that ruling.

    ROTFLMFAOx100~ Typical loser’s strategy:
    When faced with irrefutable facts and the argument is lost, simply raise the bar. I met your criteria, you can’t meet mine – I win.

    I didn’t “cherry-pick” anything.
    Fib much? Or maybe you just conveniently forgot this:

    o February 2011 approve: 31% (Fox)
    o February 2012 approval: 13% (Fox)

    Context, e, context.

    Out of nowhere, we’re now comparing a one-month poll number from a specific polling group, instead of the year-over averages of all polling institutions from your own link @ polling report.com? I’d say that’s cherry-picking data in the first degree.

    Again, when, where, and what do I collect from you for winning your bet.

  193. Voxy, In my original post on 2/11 @ 7:11 PM I provided the 2012 Individual Approval Ratings, for two specific reasons:

    1. I wanted to prove that the Approval Polls included in these calculated yearly averages were from many news sources, and NOT just Cherry-Picked from one like you did when you Cherry-Picked just one poll from Gallup to support your faulty conclusion.

    and

    2. I realized the yearly average I calculated for 2012 was not comparable to the other full year averages I calculated. I therefore provided the individual 2012 poll results to show you I was NOT trying to mislead you or anyone else with partial statistics.

    How you can make an issue out of any of that is beyond me!

    You are grasping at straws to refute that which you CANNOT refute. Give it up. FACTS are FACTS and you cannot change them or twist them to mean something you want them to mean, but that they don’t mean.

    The TRUTH is according to at least USA Today/Gallup, the polling source YOU seem to prefer Voxy, the GOP has been on a consistent downward trend since it dropped below 50% approval in November 2003, and that is a FACT, whether you like the results or not Voxyman33!

  194. ManuelMartini says:

    this titfortat reminds me of the old days of “Kardy” and “Saduj”.

    Could it be…….?

  195. “Out of nowhere, we’re now comparing a one-month poll number from a specific polling group, instead of the year-over averages of all polling institutions from your own link @ polling report.com”

    Nice try at having it both ways. Failed, but nice.

    When Muck posted the original polling numbers, you said: “posting 2012 with year-over averages is pretty funny too. Skew much ‘ya think?” Remember? We’ll ignore the fact that you presented no evidence of “skew”.

    Then, in order to eliminate any possibility of error, I posted two polls taken a year apart, using the same methodology, and taken by the same polling organization. Now you foolishly it came “out of nowhere” and claim it’s not valid either.

    But you haven’t said why. Looks like you’re the one who’s skewed.

    So, (1) posting the two Fox polls wasn’t “out of nowhere” (unless you consider your own posts to be “nowhere”), and more importantly, (2) you haven’t done anything to refute the fact that Congress’ approval ratings have dropped 50% since the GOP took over control of the House.

  196. “foolishly it” should be “foolishly claim it”.

  197. Oh, one more thing. Since you apparently don’t like Fox News as a polling source, here are a few other approval polls results:

    o Gallup: Feb 2011 23%, Feb 2012: 10%
    o NBC/Wall Street Journal: Feb 2011 22%, Jan 2012: 13%
    o CBS/New York Times: Feb 2011 24%, Jan 2012: 13%
    o ABC/Washington Post: Jan 2011: 28%, Jan 2012 13%
    o CNN: Jan 2011 26%, Jan 2012 11%

    They all confirm the same thing. Congress’ approval rating has plummeted since the GOP took over control of the House.

  198. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Oh stop flailing. Game’s over sonny, go home.

    And no, you don’t get the last word.

    When, where, and what do I collect from you for winning your bet?

  199. LOL -when you know you’ve lost, declare victory and run away.

  200. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    When, where, and what do I collect from you for winning your bet?

    While we wait, here’s a little poem for you:

    Taffy was a Welshman,
    Taffy was a thief;
    Taffy came to my house
    And stole a piece of beef.

    (Origins of the term “welch”, as in to “welch” on a bet.)

    HTH

  201. Cute….nothing like a little ethnic stereotyping to spice up the board. Next are you going to “gyp” us (from Gypsy)? I guess derogatory ethnic sayings are alright as long as they don’t use the N-word or use any of the various negatives based in the word Jew.

  202. How pathetic.

  203. tacoman1 says:

    Before creating another branch of big government to intrude in the private lives of American citizens , maybe we can subject congress and all legislators to random Alcohol and Drug testing.
    To be fair prescription drugs and booze should be included in any conversation, and it should be pointed out that those less wealthy do not have the resources to purchase expensive drug masking agents.
    I for one don’t want my tax money thrown at the boondoggle drug testing would create.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0