BigRedBuster

I would be willing to spend a huge amount of money if this is done right. Just brain storming here, but, I think they should be drug tested. If they fail, then they go to rehab for X amount of time. They are then given assistance but tested monthly. If they fail again, they are sent back. Yes, this is going to cost a HUGE amount of money. But, I personally find the drug problem so disgusting that I would rather spend MORE money on that then just constantly pay (admittedly less) money to these people so that they can go buy drugs where the money ends up in drug cartel's hands and other criminal organizations. Heck, there is even a certain amount of this money that ends up in terrorist's hands.

pretty simply, actually; drug testing the recipients costed more than they saved in denying benefits. That is my point. That doesn't look at the entire issue.

I would be interested in information on that. Probably more specific information than what can be provided here. I believe this is something that would need to be in place for a very long time and see a trend over time. On one side, you have the cost of the welfare and the incarceration when someone gets caught with drugs. You also have the cost of all the crime that goes along with the drug lifestyle. On the other side, you have the cost of rehab and the testing. Now, saying that, I fully understand that the success of the rehab is going to be lower for this group than people who go to rehab on their own will. I just don't know how you can quantify the "it wasn't cost effective". If you are simply looking at the cost of the welfare compared to rehab...then yes...but, that isn't the entire story.

That didn't work too well when it was tried in Florida. Why?

Just curious, were you going to list the points that were false or misleading in Biden's "facts"?

Now we're talking. (And I guess that you've abandoned your demand that I back up my statements with facts, bro?) No arguments that combatting illegal drug abuse is critical. From what I've seen I'd like to see the following changes in our strategy: 1. Focus more attention on treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts rather than straight incarceration. 2. Simultaneously, maintain or increase the penalties for distributing narcotics. 3. Where fiscally prudent, expand the training and deployment of canine units. 4. Increase cooperation with foreign governments (Mexico - methamphetamine, Columbia - cocaine, etc.) to intercept shipments both inside and outside of the US. 5. Decriminalize marijuana. Thoughts? The first 12 posts in this thread should just be deleted. The war on drugs is very frustrating. I think it is a necessity just like we must always now fight against terrorism in one form or another. The problem will always be here and we must always fight against it. However, surely there are things we can do better. I can't disagree with very many of the points you posted Carl. As for #1, I know drug problems persist in every economic level. However, I am most concerned about the lower income people who have absolutely NOTHING to their name but are addicted to this drug life style that literally ruins their entire world and they can be taken advantage of in forms of prostitution and other crimes. I agree that we need to put more into rehab instead of incarceration. However, I will put one more point on this. To receive public assistance such as welfare...etc, the person should be required to undergo a drug test. I am required to do that for my job along with many of the other millions of people who have jobs. Welfare is supposed to be a system to assist a person to support themselves while they imrpove their lot in life. It isn't supposed to be how they survive long term. NOBODY is going to get off of welfare while they are on drugs. If they can be put into rehab and they can see the difference that makes in their lives and THEN we can give them welfare while they get their life back together, the entire welfare system will be much more successful. Nobody can make a clear cut effort to get off of welfare and take care of themselves while they are in a drug infested state.

The stupid thing about this entire issue is that Maher didn't "ruin" the script Ohio. Heck, the band didn't even have to change what they were doing. Ohio fans need to get over it.

No . . . it's fine. I suppose it's easier for a certain type to deny defeat. Plus they can always retreat to the echo chamber rather than face reality. In fact, that's exactly what I expect if Obama is re-elected. Obama didn't really win. Voter fraud. ACORN. Soros voting machines. Etc. It's all rather sad from the outside looking in. LOL...I'm not the one coming on here as soon as you can claiming victory. I said it was a draw and it appears through polls that more people in this world agree with me. Maybe you should take off your donkey glasses and not be so biased. Only a biased person would believe one side, without question, won that debate last night. Biden being a condescending asshat is a side note to all of this. Of course, people who aren't blindly convinced that the Dems are winning everything already knew that.

You guys are laughable on this one. Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times in a 90 minute debate. Now, if I remember correctly, Ryan talked 38 minutes. That means that Biden interrupted him every 27 seconds while he was talking. That doesn't even count totally looking like an azzhat sitting there laughing and smirking. It proves one thing. Biden as VP is Obama's best security blanket. NOBODY wants anything to happen to Obama because Biden would be next in line.

Interrupting the moderator is totally different than every time your opposition tries to say something you interrupt him.

It's no wonder why we got our butts handed to us in the second half! First time I saw a video of that. That was damn funny. Props to Maher.

I think his team showed plenty of weakness on Saturday. Admitting it frustrated them would hardly make it any worse. I said his in game demeanor has improved. However, spitting mad rants on the sideline don't show "football passion" they show a person incapable of controlling their temper and I fail to see how this "quality" has done much to fire up the team. Lying, in my experience, is a bad idea all around. It's a sad reality that telling the truth is seen as "showing weakness." That's where we have our differences, if someone blows their cover, multiple times, I don't have a problem with him ranting on the sideline to that said player. You do wrong, you point it out. Now people take the context of him yelling last week, just like they did against the TAMU game with Martinez. Discipline is a thing he has enforced and will continue to force. Your a STARTER, you shouldn't be making mistakes like that. I have not seen Pelini lie, but I have seen him avoid an answer, which is something ALL coaches do when they are frustrated. He has stated that its his fault, the coaches fault for that loss at OSU, and it trickled down to the players, what else do you want? Want him to go on Dr. Phil and express his true feelings? OMG...a football coach yelled at a player on the side lines. This should make ESPNs 30 30 program.

I hate to break it to you, but Romney didn't win the debate last week. He's an idiot and didn't say anything. Wow.......even Obama's own campaign is saying he got slaughtered last week. Even Obama himself said it wasn't a good night for him.

you obviously don't understand why I put that word in quotation marks.

They think they are.

Lol...I have my opinion and these people don't change that.

The humorous part of these events is always the spin doctors after its over.

Biden did not win that debate. At best it was a draw. I find it funny that you think Biden won when not one other " expert" i'm listening to on CNN thinks so.

She is a horrible moderator.

OMG.....You actually put that in writing.

I don't care if you agree with him out not. But, he is one of the most annoying people to watch debate.

I have many relatives who have many friends and family across the country and an overwhelming majority have an extreme dislike for Obama and Havre a fear of him bring reelected. They view Romney as a great change. America hates Obama.

So, what you are saying is that there is no beginning of time? Wow...talk about faith.

I disagree with your definition of faith. As I'm sure the scientific community would have issue with your calling the origins of the universe something the human brain can't comprehend. Because if you're saying we are unable to comprehend it, then why say it's an intelligent form....or a god? More specifically, the Christian god. How are you able to comprehend that it is what you say it is? There are many scientists who DO have hypotheses on those specific questions. Many of them are working to find evidence to support their hypothesis and many probably already can point to their evidence that they believe supports it. We don't know everything and may never. This universe has been around too long. It's like trying to solve a murder trillions of years in the past. There's a LOT of work that needs to be done. You can find a lot of information over at http://talkorigins.org/ And eventually you have to explain where your god came from. What is what Junior was asking originally. The thing is I can see how someone would jump to the conclusion that it is a higher power. We're curious beings that need answers (and need them NOW, especially in this day of age). So a lot of people are not happy with "I don't know"...and decide to make up their own explanation. And a god seems to fit that bill. But it's an ever receding answer that's been used since the first questions about the world we live in. God explained EVERYTHING in our world. He caused the rain, the lightening, the famines, the floods, death, birth, etc. When science starting explaining things, god just got pushed back bit by bit. The great thing about science is that it's fine with "I don't know." Because "I don't know " means the answer is still out there and we have a chance of finding it! But it still makes people comfortable to use god to explain what they cannot. And not only a god, but you define a specific god. We live in a natural world governed by natural laws. And even though scientists can't explain everything, we DO know we can't settle on supernatural magic being the explanation for everything. Especially since there has never been evidential support for magic ever. And saying "i don't know, therefore, god"...is not a way to answer these questions that we are all interested in. At some point in time in our history, there was nothing, then there was something. That takes faith. It might not be in a higher power. But, then it takes faith in believing something that the human mind can't comprehend. Faith doesn't need to be tied to a religion if that is what are implying.

OMG....Comish...Don't you remember how so many people thought people around the world would start loving us once Bush was out and Obama was in? Heck, he even was given the Nobel Peace Prize because we would now have world peace. All he needed to do is buy the world a Coke.