janmcn - I work for the Air Force. (late lunch today)

coralway - Yes, drug tests are considered a search. No problem there. But if I'm supposed to be "free to choose not to work" at this job - meaning the 4th Ammendment doesn't apply to me at work, then public assistance recipients are "free to choose not to receive" if they don't want to be tested.

As anyone who knows me can attest, it's the double standard that I hate.

Your statement MAY be true IF - and this is a big IF - welfare recipients CHOOSE to be on welfare.

If recipients choose to be on welfare, then there may be some validity to requiring drug testing. I believe there is a very strong body of evidence to support the argument most welfare recipients have no choice.

To address the question of the original poster it will be difficult to address anything during this campaign or the presidential election IMHO. It will be difficult because the deciding factor for both the GOP nominee and eventually the presidency will be independent voters who have grown in numbers since the 2008 election. And since independent voters more so than those labeled Democrats or Republicans don't decide until their in the voting booth it would be an educated guess by even the best of us.

Once the battle begins between the two presidential nominee's it will become increasingly clear whether the country is going red or blue. for now it appears purely speculation and wishful thinking by many of us voters.

Kind of a crazy logic.

They also have no "constitutional right" to be supported by their fellow citizens, and we are not "constitutionally required" to support them.

Once you apply for public funds, what's wrong with the requirement that you submit to a drug test? Why is it OK in the workplace but not for recipients of public assistance? Why isn't it a "unreasonable search" to drug test employee applicants and employees once they're hired?

You're giving the impression here that Ultra-Leftist Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg was speaking to this issue. She actually was speaking to the issue of candidates for State Office in 1997. She said they were protected from drug screenings. I guess the Supreme Court has decided that drug addled State Office holders, who are most likely involved with the illegal consumption of narcotics, are no danger to the American public. What logic that is. What a brilliant ruling.

I'm thinking it's time for the Court to revisit this question.

What's next? Drug testing social security recipients, testing medicare recipients, testing medicaid recipients? Where do you draw the line? I thought republicans were the party of small government?

If Ron Paul wins, this will be a moot point because drugs will be legal. We can only hope.

entitlements
 

this is one problem with calling social security and medicare entitlements...the recipients are "entitled" to receive payments because they have paid into these systmes for years of their work lives, and also their employers paid into them...at least that is how we hope it is being handled but i have heard of many illegals drawing on these benefits without paying into them...the difference with "entitlements" of welfare and even medicaid is that one has not paid into a specific program if they have paid taxes at all....yet recipients seem to feel "entitled" to be supported by taxpayers.

We draw the line at people who should be in the workforce and aren't for one reason or another, and are asking their fellow citizens for a bail out. These people are never going to be productive citizens again if they're drug abusers.

You want my help, I can set conditions. You don't like it?; the door swings both ways into the Welfare Office.

Yes. They DO have a choice. You ALWAYS have choices.

Nobody is rounding up indigents and forcing them to take public money. These are people who, for whatever reason, have chosen this (presumably) last resort.

I'm not saying they chose to be poor or anything like that. I'm saying they chose to go to a public office and seek relief.

My daughter is an example of this. She's 19 and works but cannot afford everything in her life - school, car, rent. So what did she choose? She chose to live with her mother despite some family friction. She chooses dealing with the friction so that she can make her car payments and keep going to school rather than giving up school.

She could easily choose public assistance and chooses NOT to.

I understand that people feel as though they may have no other choice, but no outside influence is forcing them.

Besides, to use an old saying, if they have money for drugs, tobacco or alcohol, they don't need mine.

My daughter lives under a 'no drugs' rule (not that it's an issue since she's very anti-drug) and that comes from her mother (and it would come from me if she lived under my roof). Why should relief recipients be exempt?

If there is any place where routine drug testing ought to be required, it's in Congress.

Drugs with booze is the only explanation for their suicidal spending and borrowing habits.

After Romney's two big wins, the tea-partiers I saw on TV today are beside themselves. It seems there's a meeting of 150 evangelicals this week-end trying to come up with a plan. I don't know what the choice is since none of the other candidates appear to be very viable. Anybody know?

Here's what I'd do:

Use the group clout to make a quick deal with Gingrich and Perry to drop out now, and throw all support behind Santorum. South Carolina is the last chance to advance a conservative candidate. It's lights out if the conservative vote is still split and Romney "landslides" with 30%.

We must watch different news because I have no idea what you're talking about here. Did MSNBC search out someone calling themselves a teapartier for a soundbite? Do you just label every conservative or Republicans or any non-Democrat a "tea partier"? Evangelicals are not necessarily "tea partiers".

Romney's tracking well now, but South Carolina and Florida are coming up. We'll see how it goes in South Carolina before jumping to your assumptions on what constitutes a viable candidate.

All the liberals love Romney. Gives me a warm feeling all over.

Well, I was just watching a few minutes (all I could stomach) of Fox News and Neil Cavuto was trying to browbeat some correspondent who said in a laughing tone that Ron Paul might form a 3rd party and run for president on that ticket. This would take lots of Republican votes away from the real GOP candidate and would insure another Obama victory. Cavuto was just sputtering at the end that it had not happened yet.

Yes, it does look as though Romney is running away with the votes. Shows that the American voters do not want extremists like Perry or Bachmann. It was very funny to see Bachmann got only 4 % in Iowa and Perry got 1% in New Hampshire.

You caught me. I was watching MSNBC and saw this woman from Atlanta identified as head of some tea party group, and she was just about in tears. When the reporter asked her about Nikki Haley supporting Mitt Romney, she said Nikki Haley should be recalled.

Then a few minutes later I heard on another show that 150 evangelicals are meeting in Texas this week-end to come up with a plan, like I said earlier.

If you say so. Sounds kind of fishy to me, but knowing MSNBC I already know not to quite believe their reporting methods.

In tears?.............please.

Liberals are dying for a 3rd party. Only sure way to get Obama reelected. Does Ron Paul want to be the most hated man in America?

Paul is not going to form a 3rd party - he would kill his kid's career.

Romney, after campaigning for 6 years, could not even muster 40% in a R primary. Any way you spin it - that is a very, very poor showing.

Chachacha: "entitlement refers to the mebers of congress who feel entitled to use this alleged trust fund to pay for their pet projects so they can get re-elected

you mean as oppsed to voters favorite such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, charlie Rangel, Anthony Weiner, Maxine Waters...you mean like that...I'm running out of space so need to stop with the Dem names Oh yea Barack Obama

I was speaking of tea-party candidates who lost or are on their way out. I don't see what this list of democrats has to do with that subject.

Can you say disarray? :laugh:

Democrats would like to see Ron Paul form a 3rd Party like Ross Perot did and would drain votes from Republicans.

Republicans are quaking in their boots at that very possibility. :coolsmi







__________________________________
"Its nearly impossible to know whether a quote on the Internet is really true"--Abraham Lincoln

Best Post of the Year!

What a pack of oddballs and crooks. And John Edwards must be included in the list.

And Corzine, who can't locate a billion dollars, is in that list too.

C'mon, there were a lot of candidates. 38% is good in that big a field.

I don't know if 40% should be 'the bar' for such a large field but Romney DID have the home-field advantage. He was a popular governor in MA and owns a home in NH. Short of William Weld, he was probably the most popular MA governor as far as NH residents go, in recent memory.

Romney is dangerous and so is Paul but no matter who runs on rep. I will vote for them can see obama in again. He's helping the ruin of this country to speed alone. Rep. may end up just as bad but I know obama intention

How about rep favorites: Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, John Ensign, David Vitter, Mark Sanford, Mark Foley, Christopher Lee, Joe Walsh, Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, and oh yea George W Bush and Dick Cheney?

"C'mon, there were a lot of candidates. 38% is good in that big a field. "

How 'bout 1% for Rick Perry in New Hampshire or 4% for Michelle Mouth in Iowa? Those were good numbers, too?

???????????......Someone said they were?

why is it presumed that if a 3rd party was formed by whoever with an R, that "republicans would drain votes from Romney and assure Obama a win"??

I believe there would be a majority of those R folks that would be unhappy but not so unhappy to allow Obama a free pass for another 4 years.

And the other ongoing false assumption of all the D voters that voted for Obama will be back to reelect him. There will be a fair percentage that like the rest of disappointed Americans will not buy his rhetoric a second time. Whether the percentage will be sufficient depends how Obama's ratings hold up.

And we all understand the position of your man will win no matter what.

btk

You are right that the assumption that a third party run would assure an Obama win is flawed. However, it is fair to assume that a third party R candidate would siphon more votes from the republican than it would from Obama. In a close election, that could be enough to swing the election a la the Nader effect in Florida in 2000. A third party run by Ron Paul might be interesting, as much of his support is young voters, a block that overwhelmingly supported Obama in 08, and could swing things either way.

John Edwards and John Corzine were not holding public office when they committed their alledged crimes as republicans: Gingrich, DeLay, Ensign, Vitter, Sanford, Foley, Walsh, Lee, Nixon and Agnew were.

Agreed. And why don't people see the signs of their being phonies and crackpots before they're elected? With several IL governors serving prison sentences, the people elected Blagodovich and all his flamboyancy. Why don't people read the signs along the way??

Did anybody else notice how quickly Mitt Romney got out of South Carolina? He was there less than 24 hours, leaving to go to Palm Beach, FL to be with his own ilk. It will be very interesting to hear how Mitt plans to solve the unemployment and foreclosure problems dogging Florida, since he said earlier let them foreclose and the market will take care of the problem. Those envious whiners need to go to their quiet room.

One of the objectives of the coming election is to elect a candidate who will move more government out of our lives.

The governor, local representatives and we the residents of FL are able to fix FL problems.

btk

Au contraire , I also am talking about candidates who lost or are on their way out with one exception. Yours are based on history...nice guess. Mine are prescient...watch them fall

Au contraire all we can say is that John Edwards and John corzine did not get caught until after the fact. Beside which do you mean to infer that as long as you don't hold office its OK to be a lousy crook. Isn't dishonesty just plain displicable and should not be tolerated and excused. Lock them all up they breached the public trust

Does anybody have any idea what Romney was talking about when he said the "politics of envy" on the Today show yesterday? Who was he calling the "envious whiners": the democrats, the press, the other candidates, the 99%, or anybody that disagrees with him?

And when he said our tax structure must only be talked about in "a quiet room" did he mean not in the halls of congress or speeches, but only behind closed doors?

And how long will Romney be able to avoid FL's gov, Rick Scott, while campaigning in Florida. Sooner or later, he's going to get the kiss-of-death endorsement.

Mitt has already received the kiss-of-death............

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...008/?mobile=nc

I hope we residents, the governor and local representatives start doing a better job than we've been doing.