Tea Party Logic - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 03-30-2011, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Politicians who try to do the job they were elected to instead of cowering to special interest are hated by the left.

No surprise here.

Do you mean cowing?

And, for the record, no one here even mentioned the word or emotion "hate," except you.

Personally, I think "disgusting to the left," would work just fine.

Actually, I would think that someone who blatantly uses his position as a government official to personally profit from the taxpayer's money would be more hated by the right than by the left - but maybe that's just me. I tend to take the right at it's word when they say they despise people who scam the taxpayers, spend their money frivolously and, perhaps, unconstitutionally and whose own "special interest" happens to be lining his own personal pocket with the taxpayer's money.

You might not be surprised to find that this is untrue - but I am.

chicowalker · 03-30-2011, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Scott, Walker, Kasich, Christie are all being attacked for the same reason. They are looking to reduce the growth in government spending, and reduce the size of government workforces.

All the petty nonsense about how much their appointees and nonsense like this is a line to attack to distract them noting more and nothing less.

The left is losing the argument on the issue of spending to the Tea Party and is trying to change the subject and attack on other issues.

Ironic, given that you're trying to change the subject here.

Basically, you're saying you're OK with a law that is government overreaching, most likely is unconstitutional, and at best has an appearance of impropriety (and at worst is an example of government corruption).

Real World · 03-30-2011, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reflexblue

Rick Scott and Scott Walker have testicles the size of bowling balls, they'd have to be dragged kicking and screaming. I don't think either one would just leave even if ordered by the court.

BTW i can't imagine that most tea partiers would condone what Rick Scott is doing.

I don't think anyone would condone passing a policy that benefits your private companies balance sheet. I do think that a sizable portion of the taxpaying population would be ok with drug testing state employees and welfare recipients. Lots of private companies require employees be tested, so what's wrong with taxpayer funded jobs gavin the same? The funds part and his company standing to profit are absolute conflicts of interests. That to me is BS. If he truly wants testing, then he should forbid his business from doing any of the tests. He wont though, cuz politicians are mostly liars and crooks with no regard for ethical behavior.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 03-30-2011, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Politicians who try to do the job they were elected to instead of cowering to special interest are hated by the left.

What part of Scott had pledged during the campaign to put his financial holdings into a blind trust when elected, but instead transferred his Solantic stock to his wife, Ann, in January. is doing what he was elected to do or even doing what he promised to do?

scout · 03-30-2011, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Politicians who try to do the job they were elected to instead of cowering to special interest are hated by the left.

No surprise here.

Are you freakin serious? Are you that partisan? What the Gov. of Florida is doing is one step better then congressman Jefferson putting cash in his freezer. I'm not opposed to drug testing. But making someone submit 4 times to drug testing for the purpose of putting money in your own pocket is unconscionable. Please let me know if I'm off base here, because I really didn't think anyone would defend what this piece of crap is doing. If Scott feels so strongly about drug testing, then he should opt for a company doing the testing which there is not a conflict of interest. If he ok'd that, I'm guessing the 4 times becomes random testing once a year.

***reflexblue*** · 03-30-2011, 03:10 PM

When Scott was running his health care company i wonder how many times a year his employees were tested for drugs since he had to come up with the money.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 03-30-2011, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

Lots of private companies require employees be tested, so what's wrong with taxpayer funded jobs gavin the same?.

Actually, mandatory drug testing in private businesses is modeled after the federal governments testing policies.

Mostly they all follow The Federal Government's Model Plan for a Comprehensive Drug-Free Workplace Program and only allows for the following 6 types of testing.

Section 503 of the Act requires the [Agency] Plan to specify the nature, frequency, and type of drug testing to be instituted. The [Agency] Plan includes the following types of drug testing:

(1) Applicant testing;
(2) Random testing of those employees in sensitive positions that have been designated as testing designated positions;
(3) Reasonable suspicion testing;
(4) Accident or unsafe practice testing;
(5) Voluntary testing, and
(6) Testing as part of or as a follow-up to counseling or rehabilitation.

http://dwp.samhsa.gov/FedPgms/Pages/ModelPlan508.pdf

Four times a year for no good reason and without suspicion seems pretty excessive. Previous attempts by various businesses to random drug testing of non-sensitive (machine operators, drivers, etc.,) employees at will and without provocation have been declared unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy as well as illegal search and seizure.

***reflexblue*** · 03-30-2011, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Scott, Walker, Kasich, Christie are all being attacked for the same reason. They are looking to reduce the growth in government spending, and reduce the size of government workforces.

All the petty nonsense about how much their appointees and nonsense like this is a line to attack to distract them noting more and nothing less.

The left is losing the argument on the issue of spending to the Tea Party and is trying to change the subject and attack on other issues.

Except for Christie these guys are one and done, if they make it. I could see walker, scott, and the the gov of michigan being recalled.

The Brandon Five · 03-30-2011, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs.PatsFanInVa

While balancing the budget is a top priority a drug free working enviornment seems to be equally important to Florida's new governor, Tea Party/Republican Rick Scott. In spite of the fact that mandatory drug testing has been declared unconstitutional in several other states, the governor of Florida has filed an executive order mandating that all state employees be drug tested 4 times a year at a cost to taxpayers of 2.7 million dollars.

Florida Taxpayers to fund $2.7 million Gov. Scott drug testing order

One of the places that Florida employers have available to do drug testing of this magnitude is a group of "Urgent Aid" centers called Solantic which is already a state approved "provider" of drug testing and workman's comp. care.

From their website: At Solantic, we offer good medicine for your business.

From treatment of work-related injuries and drug screen testing to a wide range of physicals (DOT/basic physical, OSHA respiratory physical or customized exams) and a la carte wellness services, we can help trim employee-related healthcare costs.

Our ongoing clinician education program ensures we continue to provide the highest level of service to you and your workers. Plus, Solantic is an approved provider for most worker's compensation networks and insurance carriers. The Florida Fee Schedule is used for self-insured companies.

Plus, we now offer an out-of-state solution for your drug screening and blood alcohol testing needs.

For Employers | Employee Physicals | Drug Screening

Here's where it gets interesting.

Solantic was founded by - oh no, hold your breath and guess - Governor Rick Scott. But don't worry - even though he didn't put his holdings in the company into a blind trust as he promised to do if elected - he did transfer his stock to his wife.

Asked about his family's financial stake in Solantic, the urgent care company he founded and which provides drug-testing services, Scott said, "As I've told you, I'm not involved in that company" and refused to directly answer whether he would consider prohibiting the state from contracting with the firm if it requires state employees and welfare recipients to take drug tests. Scott had pledged during the campaign to put his financial holdings into a blind trust when elected, but instead transferred his Solantic stock to his wife, Ann, in January.

Food stamp applicant challenges Scott

This is straight up wrong. He needs to either divest his family interest in the firm or bar them from contracts over which he has influence.

***patsfan13*** · 03-30-2011, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reflexblue

Except for Christie these guys are one and done, if they make it. I could see walker, scott, and the the gov of michigan being recalled.

If they are one and done so are their states finances. The gravy train has to end it isn't sustainable no matter how much the union hacks whine threaten and bully.