published Wednesday, May 9th, 2012

Picking on the poor

The Legislature's passage of a bill requiring eligible welfare applicants in Tennessee to submit to drug testing in order to qualify for benefits isn't expected, by the state comptroller's own analysis, to save Tennessee any money in the operations of the Department of Human Services. In fact, it's expected to impose new costs of approximately $100,000 to defend against a predictable lawsuit on constitutional grounds.

So if the bill has a purpose, it must be lawmakers' spite for, and mean-spirited intimidation of, welfare applicants generally -- or legislators' willingness to pander on the worst stereotype of welfare applicants, never mind the economic hardships that usually drive people to seek welfare aid.

With the apparent purpose of this bill so flawed and malicious, its passage also calls into question Gov. Bill Haslam's weak agreement to sign the bill into law, as his press secretary announced Monday.

Why, precisely, would Haslam give his approval to legislation that effectively strips impoverished applicants for welfare of their constitutional 4th Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches? And why would Haslam bend to crass pandering against the state's neediest citizens -- poor women with dependent children? Is it his and lawmakers' desire to further demean people already deep in dire circumstances?

If Tennessee lawmakers and Gov. Haslam think the typical welfare applicant is an irresponsible or conniving social leech who merits such degrading presumptions, they should review the record numbers of children and strapped families who depend on homeless shelters, community kitchens, food banks and food stamps to survive the loss of jobs, family wage incomes and housing as a result of the corporate off-shoring of jobs in recent years.

The Legislature's path to this bill, in fact, was clearly spurious and politically motivated. As originally proposed in January by state Sen. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, drug-testing for controlled substances, and denial of benefits for a positive urinalyses test, was to be imposed on every welfare applicant. The initial version of the bill also required the poor recipients to pay for the test. Apparently no thought was given to a legal contest over 4th Amendment rights against illegal searches, or to the fact that welfare benefits are largely funded -- about two-thirds -- by the federal government.

It wasn't until the very last day of the legislative session last week that an amendment was hurriedly accepted to limit application of the bill to welfare applicants who appeared to DHS interviewers to show possible signs of drug use. That vague standard remains a problem, though the state would now pay for the test.

What the Legislature has produced -- by 73-17 margin in the House and a 24-9 vote in the Senate -- is a mean-spirited bill of dubious legal durability and dicey application which is sure to be legally challenged, and should be overturned. That's about par for a Legislature miserably addicted this year to hard-edged, far-right social stances as a means of shifting public focus away from the coming wave of corporate campaign funding it quietly unleashed. The question now is why Gov. Haslam won't use his veto to stall the bill.

69
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
joneses said...

No one is picking on the poor as the lying author of this piece insinuates. Have you liberals ever thought that this legislation will help get people off drugs? When employers started drug testing the employee had to make a choice choice, either you work or you can be unemployed and take drugs. Only a fool could find something wrong with helping people get off drugs. But then again the liberal agenda is to keep people down and dependent on government and drug testing welfare recipients will could make their life's better. I also find it entertaining that this POS author of this article is supporting the 4th amendment but has no issues with the government forcing us to buy something, obastard care. Just another liberal hypocrite.

May 9, 2012 at 5:56 a.m.
CADMAN1 said...

If your not doing drugs, whats the problem?

May 9, 2012 at 6:23 a.m.
conservative said...

What Lieberal gibberish!!! This is going to be fun. I can't wait to see the usual Lieberal sheep rail against drug testing for those receiving other people's money.

Those who refuse to take the drug test in order to receive other people's money will save Tennessee taxpayers many times over the cost of the drug test ( around $30 ). A recent article in the Free Press told of 1,600 people in Florida who refused to take the drug test in order to get cash benefits. If those benefits were as little as $200 a month, the state would save $320,000 a month and $3,840,000 a year!!! We can surely do better than that in the great state of Tennessee.

What a freebie this Lieberal has given me.

Thanks to joneses and CADMAN1 for starting the fun!

May 9, 2012 at 8 a.m.
conservative said...

Did you notice that the only representative mention by name was a Republican? The bill has large bipartisan support, 73-17 in the House and 24-9 in the Senate. Why doesn't the writer take his Demoncrats to task for joining Republicans in this common sense legislation?

May 9, 2012 at 8:15 a.m.
chet123 said...

THE IDEA SOUNDS GOOD TO ME JONESES....I RECOMMEND THE CONGRESS TAKE THE SAME TEST..Hmmmmm? WHAT GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER....HAVE EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS PEEING IN A BOTTLES....SOUNDS GREAT.....WE COULD HELP THEM OUT WITH THEIR DRUG PROBLEM....LET START WITH JOHN BOEHNER...AND MITCH MCCONELL.....GREAT IDEAL.....LET CONGRESS LEAD BY EXAMPLE......

May 9, 2012 at 9:29 a.m.
chet123 said...

OH...LISTEN TO REV.CONSERVATIVE TALK.....AMEN BROTHER HA HA HA...THE STATE WILL SAME 320,000 DOLLARS.....HA HA HA HA....THE CHILDREN CAN EAT BEANS AND RICE 7 DAYS A WEEK LIKE SEAN HANNITY RECOMMEND

BUT DONT TAX THE RICH AND GREEDY EVENTHOUGH THEY PLAN TO WASTES 2,000,000,000.00 DOLLARS IN NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING......HA HA HA HA....THATS 2,000,000,000.00 DOLLARS HA HA HA HA

CONSERVATIVE WANT TO STARVE CHILDREN OVER 320,000 WHEN RICH AND GREEDY ARE BURNING 2,000,000,000.00...IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?????...HE CLAIM TO BE A BIBLE THUMPING MAN OF GOD HA HA HA HA......THIS BOZO JUST IGNORE FACTS LIKE THIS....HE IGNORE THE FACT THAT GOD DESTROYED COUNTRIES ABOUT EXPLOITED THE POOR AND GREED......ON REV. CONSERVATIVE WOULD RATHER PICK ON THE GAYS.....HA HA HA HA HA...IS THIS WHAT YOU CALLL PICKING AND CHOOSING

REV.CONSERVATIVE....LOVES TO GO AFTER THE MINORITIES GROUPS AND THE POOR.....THIS IS THE CHARACTERISTIC OF A FULL-BLOWN COWARD AND HYPOCRITE...HIDING BEHIND HIS PULPIT.....THEN THIS FOOL WANDER WHY MUSLIM REIGION IS GROWING IN AMERICA.....HA HA HA

May 9, 2012 at 9:45 a.m.
chet123 said...

BY THE WAY JONESES IS ANOTHER SOUTHERN BAPTIST KLAN

May 9, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.
conservative said...

The Lieberal writer....." it's expected to impose new costs of approximately $100,000 to defend against a predictable lawsuit on constitutional grounds."

You say "predictable", and it is, but so what? Leftist are always suing, trying to overcome the will of the people, that is why they are called Lieberals, loons, leftists, and cereal people ( fruits, flakes and nuts ) in general.

May 9, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.

Damn those liberals, actually using the courts to obtain justice, and not just taking whatever imposition conservative wants to put on them.

How dare they use the legal system for its intended purpose, how dare they suggest that there be some principles to this nation that transcend simple majority rule.

Besides, how long will it be before you start talking about your own lawsuits. Apparently you use the courts too. What does that make you, if not a hypocrite?

But then, we knew that from your name-calling.

Anyway, this will be yet another useless endeavor to solve a non-problem. It's just a way to waste money in this War on Drugs and make the poor look bad. Because you have your war on the poor to consider.

After all, if you attack them, and brutalize them, then they won't want to be so poor.

It's simple right-wing logic.

May 9, 2012 at 11:20 a.m.
conservative said...

The Lieberal writer....." it's expected to impose new costs of approximately $100,000 to defend against a predictable lawsuit on constitutional grounds."

Lieberal sheep (redundant) have been led to believe by bad shepherds that drug testing is against the Fourth Amendment.

Someone needs to inform them that drug testing has been going on for a long time and has already passed Constitutional muster.

May 9, 2012 at 11:32 a.m.

Somebody needs to inform you that there are nuances to laws.

Just because some drug testing is constitutional, doesn't mean all of them are.

Much like just because some security screening is constitutional, doesn't mean all of it is.

Just ask Rand Paul.

May 9, 2012 at 11:41 a.m.
conservative said...

The Lieberal writer....." it's expected to impose new costs of approximately $100,000 to defend against a predictable lawsuit on constitutional grounds."

WOW! The Lieberal writer laments over spending $100,000 for a lawsuit that he is for! There is a word for that, ( hint-begins with an "h").

May 9, 2012 at 11:43 a.m.
Downtownman said...

Before any oil company can get a tax subsidy..Board of Directors must pee in a cup. Before a millionaire can receive a tax loophole..pee in a cup. Before owner of professional sports team gets a stadium at public expense...pee in a cup. Before any congressinal raise...pee in a cup. Before Halliburton gets new contract, board of directors must pee in a cup. I don't want my tax dollars going to these snow blowing coke heads. And unlike the poor, I don't think their children would be innocent victims.

May 9, 2012 at 1:02 p.m.
conservative said...

The Lieberal writer....." it's expected to impose new costs of approximately $100,000 to defend against a predictable lawsuit on constitutional grounds."

In Florida 1,600 people hoping to get other people's money refused to take the drug test saving taxpayers $3,840,000 per year if they receive as little as $200 a month of other people's money. The Lieberal writer obviously wants other Lieberal sheep (redundant) to be upset about this $100,00 cost of which he is for. Subtract $100,000 from $3,840,000 and we still end up with a savings of $3,740,000 and that is using conservative figures (no pun intended).

I believe the great state of Tennessee can save more than that.

May 9, 2012 at 1:35 p.m.
Downtownman said...

As usual, the Cons tell their favorite part of the story. Actual facts from the state of Florida (not Glen Beck or Fox): 108 of 4086 failed the test. Overall,the cost of administering the test cost more than the savings. And the cost of staff, lawyers, etc implementing the program were not even included. The governer in fact, has backed off the claim savings are the reason for the program...its his heartfelt concern for drug users. HAHAHAHAHAHAH

May 9, 2012 at 2:10 p.m.
conservative said...

Let's move on to paragraph 2 :

The Lieberal writer....."So if the bill has a purpose, it must be lawmakers' spite for, and mean-spirited intimidation of, welfare applicants generally..."

So the Lieberal writer is telling us that the purpose of the bill is "spite" and "mean-spirited intimidation of welfare applicants." This Lieberal knows that many welfare recipients are on drugs and he doesn't want it to come to light like it came to light in Florida. In his anger he strikes out with personal attacks as Lieberals often do.

Notice he doesn't mention any names for the simple reason he would have to name many Demoncrats.

May 9, 2012 at 2:23 p.m.

Notice how you don't name politicians who refuse drug tests, because it'll be Republicans.

May 9, 2012 at 2:36 p.m.
conservative said...

OK big mouth, you name them

May 9, 2012 at 2:46 p.m.
EaTn said...

I think to require pee drug tests from all on welfare is totally absurd, especially those like a 90 year old grandma. However, to require drug tests from those who have been convicted of a drug related offense the past five years is not out of the question. There is a big difference.

May 9, 2012 at 3:40 p.m.
conservative said...

The Lieberal writer..."never mind the economic hardships that usually drive people to seek welfare aid."

And what does this have to do with someone receiving other people's money unless he believes they are on drugs and would be denied other people's money of which he insinuates is not the case. If the applicant is clean she will receive other people's money just like those who now receive other people's money.

This is nothing but a red herring.

May 9, 2012 at 3:49 p.m.
joneses said...

chet,

I have never said anything on here that would make anyone think I was a southern baptist klan. So therefore you have proven again to be a lying POS. Maybe you could get obastard drug tested. He is obviously on drugs because all his failed decisions he makes have to be coming from a sick drug induced state of mind.

May 9, 2012 at 3:54 p.m.
conservative said...

Let's move on to paragraph 3 :

The Lieberal writer : "With the apparent purpose of this bill so flawed and malicious"

Says you. Yes, you have a right to that opinion, but this is just emotion and feelings, the hallmarks of Lieberalism. You are at odds here with your fellow Demoncrats of which there were many who voted for the bill.

May 9, 2012 at 4:21 p.m.

Here's some names:

David Holt of Oklahoma, Guy Lie man of Oklahoma, Rick Scott of Florida, and the members of the Florida House who rejected the Afford Amendment.

Face it, you won't live by your own standards. Give us the results of your drug test before you continue posting.

May 9, 2012 at 4:36 p.m.
riverman said...

Ah, the poor little parasites get their feelings hurt because they have to submit to a drug test? I think every time a food stamp recipient parasite goes through the grocery line a Blue light and Siren should go off so at least we producers can see who our money is going to.

May 9, 2012 at 4:43 p.m.

In that case, you will want to hang out in executive boardrooms. Corporate welfare and bailouts trump social by a huge factor. Heck, let's make that happen every time a lobbyist gets time with a politician

Or you know, you can stop acting as if excoriation was the best and only motivator.

The more you try to beat others down, the harder they will resist.

May 9, 2012 at 4:58 p.m.
conservative said...

riverman....

Awesome! and funny!

I personally hate the debit card they use because not many people recognize it as a food stamp card. That was deliberately done by Congress so that responsible citizens would not readily see who was getting other people's money.

They stood out when they used that funny money.

May 9, 2012 at 5:05 p.m.
riverman said...

Well bulbs, if the worthless parasites spent the same amount of time looking for a job as they do trying to elect democrats the whole country would be better off.

May 9, 2012 at 5:27 p.m.

This drug testing thing will really screw those who didn't get a job because they failed their drug test and had to go on welfare. Good. This law will protect the truly indigent by reserving the aid for them.

Those who can't afford food can't afford drugs either right? If some idiot out there decides to buy drugs instead of food, he deserves to starve since he made the choice to do just that. This law clearly protects those who truly need the help.

May 9, 2012 at 5:33 p.m.
conservative said...

Let's move on to paragraph 4 : First get out your hankies for "it's crying time again."

The Lieberal writer...."Why, precisely, would Haslam give his approval to legislation that effectively strips impoverished applicants for welfare of their constitutional 4th Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches?"

Says you. Notice how the Lieberal writer tries to shift the burden of blame in his eyes to Gov. Haslam once again omitting the role his Demoncrat buddies played in passing the bill. Is the word "impoverished" suppose to make drug use OK or to gain misplaced sympathy for drug uses who may be denied other people's money?

The left constantly uses the 4th Amendment "reasonable search" argument. Past losses were airport screening, random police stops and random drug testing to name a few.

May 9, 2012 at 5:34 p.m.

The 4th amendment no longer matters. Just go ahead and scream about your 4th amendment rights when you are in line for your TSA sponsored rape.

May 9, 2012 at 5:36 p.m.
chet123 said...

WELL WELL WELL....REV CONSERVATIVE IS AT IT AGAIN.....QUOTING BIBLE AND SPEWING OUT BIGOTRY.......

NOTICE HE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH CONGRESS TAKING MONEY IN GOVERNMENT SALARY AND NOT DURING THEIR JOB..WHY NOT REQUIRING THEM TO TAKE A DRUG TEST..THEY EARN ABOUT 130,000.00 A YEAR PLUS BENEFITS SUCH AS GOVERNMENT PAID HEALTH ,DENTAL,LIFE INSURANCE....AND WHY DO TAX PAYERS HAVE TO PAY CONGRESS PENSION..THAT WOULD SAVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS...BUT THIS HYPOCRITE GOES SILENCE AT THAT SUGGESTION HA HA HA...HE RATHER PENNY PINCH THE WEAK....

REV.CONSERVATIVE PENNY PINCH WHEN IT COMES TO THE POOR.....BUT BIG OIL CAN MILK AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR BILLIONS WITH HIGH GAS PRICES.AND WALL STREET CAN SPEACULATE WITH PRICES....THIS SO CALLED SELF-PROCLAIM MAN OF GOD REFUSE TO CONDEMN...HE NEVER MENTION ABOUT OCCIDENTAL OIL CHIEF IN 2007 MAKING 450,000,000.00 IN SALARY AND AWARD BONUS IN ONE YEAR(THATS ABOUT 13,000,000.00 DOLLARS A WEEK)....WHERE WAS THE BIBLE THUMPING REV.CONSERVATIVE..HA HA HA

I HAVE MORE RESPECT FOR A BANK ROBBER THAN I DO FOR CONSERVATIVE...THIS MAN IS THE LOWEST KIND OF HUMAN....A COWARD WITH NO SPINE..AND HE'S ON A MISSION..NOT LIKE CHRIST WHO FED THE WEAK...THIS MAGGOT FEED ON THE WEAK!.....THAT MAKE HIM FEEL SUPERIOR HA HA HA HA...GUESS HE GO BACK TO THE RICH AND GREEDY WITH HIS BROWN NOSE AND SAY...."LOOK WHAT I DID BOSS"....CREDIT SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH FOR THIS WEASEL.....THIS IS SOUTHERN BAPTIST POLITICS HA HA HA HA

May 9, 2012 at 5:58 p.m.
chet123 said...

CONSERVATIVE...YOU CAN RUN AND HIDE ALL YOU WANT BUT I WILL CALL YOU OUT ON ALL YOUR PHONY,RIGHT-WING LINK LIES... YOU CANT TAKE A MAN HEAD ON WITH ANY SUBJECT THATS BASED ON REAL FACTS HA HA HA...WHAT A JOKE!

May 9, 2012 at 6:07 p.m.
chet123 said...

JONESES....GLAD YOU DO HAVE BACK-BONE TO SAY SOMETHING....THE PRESIDENT IS DURING WELL....IF HE IS ANGRYING YOU AND THE RIGHT-WING NUTTY THEN THE PRESIDENT IS DURING EXACTLY WHAT YOU ELECTED TO DO.....

IF YOU HAVE A HALF A BRAIN THEN YOU CAN SEE THE HAND WRITING ON THE WALL.....JUST A MATTER OF TIME!HA HA HA

May 9, 2012 at 6:12 p.m.

River man, you have it wrong, it's the wealthy in the form of super-pacs who instead of creating useful jobs are pouring money into electing Republican and Tea Party candidates. I suppose it's good for media consultants, but I'd rather the money go elsewhere than buying elections.

FPSE, except it'll be taking more money from you the tax payer than it will result in finding people on drugs. This will take away more from the welfare. Spending quarters to save dimes.

Or worse yet, it'll force us to put more money into dealing with crime. I believe we spend more than twice as much fighting drugs than it would cost giving them out free to anybody who wants them. Why make that worse? (Just ask Ron Paul what he thinks)

May 9, 2012 at 6:28 p.m.
conservative said...

Let's move on to paragraph 6 :

"The Legislature's path to this bill, in fact, was clearly spurious and politically motivated."

"Spurious path", I have no idea what that is other than an attempt to use a loaded word for his side. "Politically motivated", well duh. Passing a bill is politics, who knew?

"The initial version of the bill also required the poor recipients to pay for the test." Well a $30 dollar fee to receive by many, thousands in other people's money is a pretty good deal from where I come from.

Then the Lieberal writer - "welfare benefits are largely funded -- about two-thirds -- by the federal government." Translation, we taxpayers shouldn't complain because the feds are footing most of the bill. Now this is sure to appeal to to the welfare crowd because they don't pay those taxes either!

May 9, 2012 at 7:52 p.m.
chet123 said...

LISTEN TO CONSERVATIVE....THE WELFARE CROWD HA HA HA HA HA.....THIS MAN LOVE TO FEED ON THE WEAK.....I WANDER WHY.....MAYBE BECAUSE HE'S A BROWN NOSE BIBLE THUMPER WHO APPLY THE BIBLE TO OTHERS BUT EXEMPT HIMSELF.......SEE HES ON A MISSION..OBSESS WITH HURTING WOMEN AND CHILDREN..THAT MAKE HIM FEEL BIG...IT MAKE HIM FEEL SUPERIOR....SINCE THIS MAGGOT CANT ELEVATE HIS SELF HE LOOK FOR THE WEAK AND CRUSH THEM..THAT MAKE YOU A BIG MAN DOESNT IT CONSERVATIVE....HE DONT CARE HOW MANY BILLIONS ARE WASTED BY GREEDY PEOPLE...THATS OK WITH CONSERVATIVE...I'M RIGHT HERE CONSERVATIVE......I WILL ASK YOU AGAIN.....LET REQUIRE THE CONGRESS AND EVEN STATE LEGISLATOR BE ADMINISTER THE SAME DRUG TEST.....

BRING THE DRUG TEST ON FOR ALL GOVERNMENT WORKERS....AND SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENT AS YOURSELF.....TO HEAR YOU TALK YOU AND JONESES ARE OLD FARTS....

CONSERVATIVE COULDNT PASS THE PEE TEST.....NOPE! THE OLD MAN WOULD FAIL IT.......BUT HES ON A MISSION TO GET THE POOR PEOPLE.....THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM PREDATORS LIKE CONSERVATIVE....BUT I WILL SPEAK IN THEIR BEHALF..HE KNOW I'M A REAL MAN....YOU CAN IGNORE ME ALL YOU WANT TO....BUT I WILL BE HERE RESPONDING TO ALL YOUR HATE TALK......HA HA HA

May 9, 2012 at 10:37 p.m.

Somehow I believe that there's genuine concerns, and there's pure political grandstanding.

This, along with other laws like the Voter ID law, or the No-firing for Gun ownership law, are political gamesmanship, whereas real and genuine laws actually address problems that do occur.

You know, like the endless examples of people being fired because of their sexuality.

May 9, 2012 at 10:41 p.m.
328Kwebsite said...

If we had genuine concern for the lives of drug addicts and the care and support they receive from the community, we would have come up with better laws than this.

Instead, we will spend a lot of money to discover that our prejudices of who is on welfare are incorrect. We will drug test a lot of grandmas. Many of them will fail because of their doctor-prescribed medications. Patients and legislators will stammer as they try to explain what happened.

We will drug test a lot of working mothers and fathers. We will drug test people who hold down three jobs and still can't pay the rent. We will not catch more criminals or welfare cheats. Instead, we will discover that we have passed a law that lets us praise ourselves while actually doing nothing about serious problems.

That's what this law is about: praising ourselves into thinking we're right and tough at the same time. It's a sham. The poorest of the poor will pay the most for our folly of pride, false witness and wrath.

We need to give up the witch hunt BS and get on with making good public policy that makes sense. Most of the laws that have made the news in the past few years have failed to represent what our citizens need from state and local government.

Encourage your legislators to stop being stupid. When that fails, vote them out. We cannot continue to elect people who act like this. Combat corruption and stupidity in government by voting.

If we had made our politicians recognize that voters are in charge, they would not have dared touch the assistance that voters use to survive. Instead, look at the corrupt lot we have put in office. They are selfish, self-paying, self-serving, self-appointing, and without a care for what the people need.

Vote.

May 9, 2012 at 10:52 p.m.

Can't we change the voting system too? Is there some reason I'm forced into an artificial district that only serves to disenfranchise my vote?

May 9, 2012 at 11:21 p.m.
joneses said...

happywithbeingafool

Disenfranchise? I hate it when liberals learn a new word. The liberals learned "disenfranchise" when Al "I invented the internet" Gore tried to steel the election in 2000 and now they want shut up as they keep saying it over and over. Absolutely stupid.

May 10, 2012 at 6:46 a.m.
joneses said...

chet,

You are correct obastard will probably get reelected because of fools like you who do not understand he and is communist friends like Bill Ayers are out to destroy America as we know it. Obastard keeps telling you idiots he wants to move the country "forward" but he never tells you morons what he wants to move the country forward to. You are following him blind like the sheep you are. From all I have seen obastard wants complete government take over of all our lives and to install a ruling class like communist Russia had which will take away the incentive for the citizens to be productive all under the disguise of being fair. Apparently this is what you morons want and it is pathetic as this type of government has proven to never work anywhere. Margaret Thatcher said "Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money". Well, we are at the point where we have run out of other people's money. Obastard, by spending 6 trillion dollars has made it impossible to pay back this debt so the only option is for the country to go bankrupt. If obastard confiscated all the wealth of the wealthiest 1% of Americans it would not come close to paying off this debt. One of the reason's you liberals voted for obastard was because he said he would cut the debt in half. Well, he is on track to more than double the debt. Do you not feel stupid? It is obvious you and the rest of your sheep do not realize how this will impact you and all of us. When America defaults on it's debt Inflation will be so high a loaf of bread could cost $20.00. The American dollar will be worth pennies. the unemployment rate will sky rocket, and there will not be ay money for the government to rescue your sorry ass. I cannot understand why you liberals do not see this or you do and think it a good thing. It is mind boggling. You liberals were correct condemning President Bush for adding 5 trillion dollars to the debt in 8 years which I agree was stupid but you praise obastard for adding 6 trillion dollars to the debt in 4 years. I do not understand why you give obastard a pass for adding over twice the amount of debt than President Bush. How can anyone see this as a good thing? Are you liberals that blind and stupid to not see what obastard is doing to this country? Wake up for God's sake obastard is out to destroy you.

May 10, 2012 at 7:13 a.m.

joneses: A new word? One that's existed for centuries?? How is that being done?

Your criticisms continue to show themselves void. Especially since Mitt Romney wants us to follow Merriam-Webster, and they clearly say the word was first used in the 1600s.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchise

First Known Use of DISENFRANCHISE

1664

Oh my, oh my, it's actually an old word, we've been using it for quite a long time, and now you want us to believe we just now started caring about it, when in reality, it's been an issue for decades.

It has nothing to do with Al Gore, it's a problem I had before he was Vice President, and I noticed how artificial congressional district borders were. Not to mention how certain states have the same representation despite a wide gulf in population. It was Alaska and North Dakota at the time. The states have shifted, so it's now Montana and Wyoming, but the problem is still real.

I'd invite you to read my paper at the time, but apparently you can't even find the Harvard Law review, let alone a less prestigious college's publications.

May 10, 2012 at 10:43 a.m.
Downtownman said...

I'm glad joneses mentioned the Al Gore says he invented the internet. Not that it pertains to the subject of this thread, but rather points to the zombie gullibility of the cons. This is the formula: Take an interview: Gore telling Wolf Blitzer he helped create the initiative for universities to move forward in their developement of the internet. Conservatives: twist words to mean something self serving and untruthful, quote becomes "I, Al Gore, invented the internet" (keep in mind this is a blantant, willful distortion"). Then, have conservative media outlets saturate airwaves with distortion. Zombies hear and believe, way too lazy to actual find the actual quote. The lie festers into fact.

I present this only because it is an example of all the above conservative arguments.Fact, research, and intellectual curiosity never enters the process for them.

May 10, 2012 at 1:07 p.m.

Joneses didn't say it was a newly invented word. He just suggested that liberals had just recently learned it from Al Gore.

May 10, 2012 at 1:22 p.m.
JustOneWoman said...

FlyingPurpleSheepleEater said... Joneses didn't say it was a newly invented word. He just suggested that liberals had just recently learned it from Al Gore.

And jonesass knows sooooo much about liberals! LOLOLOLOL Jonesass doesn't know squat about squat. He parrots.

May 10, 2012 at 1:55 p.m.
joneses said...

I know this much about chickens$##t liberals like you justonebitch. I know you support failed policies and fools and follow the fools like a bunch of sheep. You are not that smart.

May 10, 2012 at 3:04 p.m.
joneses said...

happywithbeingapieceofs$#t

You stupid ass liberals learned "disenfranchised" when the multimillionaire one per center Al Gore tried to still the election. I say it is new to you morons because like any idiot that learns a new word you keep repeating it over and over like the retards you are. Shut up already with the "disenfranchised" as it just proves you to be the dumb asses you are. LOL!

May 10, 2012 at 3:10 p.m.
Downtownman said...

To Joneses: "If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” Ask your principle where the school library is.

May 10, 2012 at 3:23 p.m.
joneses said...

downtownbitch

If you cannot think for yourself shut the f%$k up.

In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

This is fact you morons.

May 10, 2012 at 3:47 p.m.
joneses said...

Answer this question liberals.

Do you think Obama was being honest when he said he would cut the debt in half if he became president and he actually ended up adding 6 trillion dollars to the debt increasing it by 60%? Please do not show your stupidity by answering "he just changed his mind" or "the Republicans would not let him tax the wealthy" or "it was president Bush's fault" or my best stupid liberal response "you have to spend money to be able to cut the debt". There are only two answers, one is "yes" and the other is "no" so please do not show your stupidity by answering with any other answer other than yes or no. I will give you a hint. One of two of the answers will make you look stupid so be very careful.

May 10, 2012 at 3:57 p.m.
JustOneWoman said...

LOL

I think you are funny jonesass!

May 10, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.
Downtownman said...

Read the rest of the quote from the Blitzer interview. did you puposefully leave it off?

"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names". Joneses, you're response was perfect. thanks!

May 10, 2012 at 4:50 p.m.

Downtownman, every time Joneses calls me a name, it becomes another indicator showing I'm right. There's another quote about being known by the quality of the opposition.

FPSE, and if you read my full comment, you'd realize that I covered that too. As I said, the disenfranchisement caused by Congressional districts has bothered me since the early 80s. Joneses' focus on Al Gore only shows a failure to recognize that. Not that I was first, there was a reason why Baker v. Carr was filed in this very state.

And yes, Baker WAS a liberal Republican and the decision was made by liberals on the Supreme Court.

But let me ask you this, why so quick to rise to Joneses defense? Do you wish to associate that closely with that poster, or will you show the integrity to repudiate the behavior?

Too bad the TFP staff won't.

May 10, 2012 at 5:32 p.m.
joneses said...

Wow! The liberals have just made me realize something. I have been wrong. I do not have to refer to liberals as stupid, idiots, disgusting, pathetic, morons, POSs, dumb asses, losers, hypocrites, wimps, or any other words that might accurately describe them. All I have to do is ask them a question about obastard and they will prove to the world they are all these things because they are to chickens$#t to answer the question. How wonderful is that?

May 10, 2012 at 9:35 p.m.
joneses said...

Downtownman, every time happywithbeinganidiot lies, it becomes another indicator showing I'm right. There's another quote about being known by the quality of the opposition.

And if happywithbeinganidiot read my full comment, he would realize that I covered what a moron he is by being a whipping boy for obastard. As I said, the word disenfranchised caused by the dummycratic party telling their whipping boys like happywithbeingafool to repeat this word over and over. My focus on happywithbeingafool is to show he is a pawn of the dummycratic propoganda machine and his only purpose is to regurgitate what they tell his whipping boy ass to say.

But let me ask you this hapywithbeinganidiot, why do you not have the balls to answer my question? Do you wish to associate that closely with obastard and contnue to make a fool of yourself, or will you show the integrity to acknowledge obastard as the failure he has been as an idiot in the White House.

Too bad the TFP staff won't either. LOL!

May 10, 2012 at 9:47 p.m.

Name-calling, name-calling, that's all Joneses has.

Pity the TFP is so reluctant to tell you to behave.

Reminds me of Mitt Romney, he had the chance to express his disapproval of such conduct, but whiffed.

May 10, 2012 at 9:52 p.m.
joneses said...

hapywithbeingstupid

I am not calling you names you poor helpless fool, I am only identifying you. If identifying something accurately is wrong in this country then we are in more trouble than I thought. I have another question you are to chickens$#t to answer. You remind me of obastard as he will not answer questions either. Answer this question. When obastard holds a White House Press Conference why does he never allow any questions from the news media? Do not say he does because you will prove again you are a liar.

May 10, 2012 at 10:14 p.m.

Nope, it's name-calling through and through. Your justification rings as hollow as your accusations.

May 10, 2012 at 10:18 p.m.
joneses said...

happywithbeingapatheticfool

Nope, it is identifying plain and simple.

May 10, 2012 at 10:22 p.m.

Keep up with that. Somehow I think you'll be in for a surprise when you realize the true mnheaning of the path you have chosen.

May 10, 2012 at 10:32 p.m.
joneses said...

Happywithbeingdense

And you know.

Are you that dense? Let me explain something to you stupid (identifying). If I called you "happywithnewbulbs" that would be calling you a name. if I identify you as "stupid" identifying is exactly what I am doing. Just as identifying you as an idiot, moron, or any other fitting descriptions I might find suitable. It is that simple. Go to sleep an maybe you will feel better in the morning.

May 10, 2012 at 10:42 p.m.

No, that would be calling me by name.

Name-calling is what you're doing when you choose to fill your posts with derogatory insults in order to disguise your lack of a genuine argument. The more you deny it, the more you discredit yourself, and your whole purported movement.

I wonder if the TFP leaves your posts up because they know how bad it makes you look.

Or maybe you're just paid to be so incompetent. If that's the case, you should find yourself a new profession. One where you can look yourself in the mirror.

May 10, 2012 at 10:52 p.m.
joneses said...

happywithbeingahypocrite

You made a comment about this so called path I have chosen and yet you support the dummycratic party and obastard that supports the killing of unborn babies. Instead of concerning yourself with the path I have chosen you might want to take a look at that rocky road you are traveling on.

You referred to me as incompetant. Are you calling me a name or identifying me? Or maybe you are proving yourself to be the lying hypocrite you are. Thanks for confirming your true self idiot.

May 10, 2012 at 10:58 p.m.

Nope, incompetent is describing your arguments, which is different from your presentation, which is focused on the personal instead.

See how you engage in your juvenile name-twisting? That's the point. It devalues your posts by making nothing more than a petty attack.

But instead of recognizing your own conduct, you concern yourself with the mote in other's eyes.

If you truly had any integrity, you'd recognize how destructive your behavior is. But you don't, so I wonder if you're paid to make Republicans look bad.

May 10, 2012 at 11:10 p.m.
joneses said...

happywithbeingaPOS.

Actually you are the one who looks incompetent. Do you read what you post or are you depending on another idiot who lives with you to make you look stupid? You have not even the courage to answer a simple question about obastard. You are for killing unborn babies. You think obastard is the Messiah. You think 16 trillion dollars of debt is a good thing. Screw you, you pathetic loser. You have not the balls God gave a jack rabbit. You are nothing but a hypocritical fool and every time you post you prove it to me and everyone on here.

I really like the way you prove yourself an idiot by how you continue to converse with a person like me. You must actually think highly of me.

Good night POS. LOL

May 10, 2012 at 11:24 p.m.

Joneses, have you ever shown your posts to somebody else off the internet? I really think you need somebody to give you an honest assesment of their content.

And yes, in a sense it is a waste of time to engage with you, but I figure it's worth letting you speak out since you're the best advocate I've seen against your alleged cause in quite a while.

May 10, 2012 at 11:33 p.m.
Downtownman said...

"Read the rest of the quote from the Blitzer interview. did you puposefully leave it off?"

still waiting Joneses. Either you copied and pasted the quote from a CONservative source which left off the rest of the quote, meaning youre a parrot, OR you saw the rest of the quote and left it off intentionally, meaning you're a liar.

Liar or parrot? Its an easy question.

And yes, you're questions have been answered either in this thread or others. You don't get the answer you want, or you're slammed with actual facts, so you retreat into your name calling denial world.

The first period bell has sounded, you need to get to class, young man. You're name calling and lack of argument skills have forced me to conclude you're in junior high.

May 11, 2012 at 8:19 a.m.

That would be a poor commentary on education.

May 11, 2012 at 3:43 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.