Republicans at work for America

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#21 Nov 23, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? Especially elected officials should be pizz tested and background checked.... why would I want a crack head cruising for drugs in any office? If a fed employee has to undergo the background check and drug testing to determine reliability and integrity, why not an elected official? Why would any one want a pothead, cokehead, or drunk in office? They aren't known for their decision making skills.
I agree 100%. Besides clouding the thought process, if you've ever known an addict...nothing surpasses their need for a 'fix.' Dangerous place to lay any kind of decision making where the supplier can sway the decision.

Random drug tests are the norm with many private companies, why not all elected and appointed officals and government employees? And forget the urine test, go for the hair. There are 100 ways to rig a urine sample.

I am so sick of the drunks and druggie's getting a 'pass' because of their 'sickness' while they collect their pay and build up their pensions.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#22 Nov 23, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? Especially elected officials should be pizz tested and background checked.... why would I want a crack head cruising for drugs in any office? If a fed employee has to undergo the background check and drug testing to determine reliability and integrity, why not an elected official? Why would any one want a pothead, cokehead, or drunk in office? They aren't known for their decision making skills.
Actually, addiction has absolutely nothing to do with one's intelligence. The question really is, is their disease affecting their job performance, or not?

No different than any other disease.

woof

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#23 Nov 23, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree 100%. Besides clouding the thought process, if you've ever known an addict...nothing surpasses their need for a 'fix.' Dangerous place to lay any kind of decision making where the supplier can sway the decision.
Random drug tests are the norm with many private companies, why not all elected and appointed officals and government employees? And forget the urine test, go for the hair. There are 100 ways to rig a urine sample.
I am so sick of the drunks and druggie's getting a 'pass' because of their 'sickness' while they collect their pay and build up their pensions.
AMEN.

I agree--addictions are illnesses. But that does not give them a pass. If it is an illness, TREAT it. Get over the mental or psychological issues that have fed it. It's not easy. But do it, your life will be much better for it.

I was married to one. I won't feed that thought process because it's never enough, they take you down with them if you allow it. And no, they cannot make a rational decision to save their own soul while actively drinking or drugging.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#24 Nov 23, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, addiction has absolutely nothing to do with one's intelligence. The question really is, is their disease affecting their job performance, or not?
No different than any other disease.
woof
And intelligence has nothing to do in the long run with the ability to make sound, wise, informed decisions.

I was married to a drunk/addict. Was he stupid? Hell no. He was in fact, one of the most highly intelligent men I have ever known. It was his intelligence that hindered him in the long run--very smart people are capable of much lying and deception, too.

You are so uninformed when it comes to understanding the mentality of an addict or an active alcoholic it's hilarious. You attempted to connect the idea of having a skill of making good decisions with one's intelligence. Seriously, most life decisions don't require a high intelligence level. Most people understand what is harmful, what is destructive, and what is ethical. Being a drunk or constantly stoned doesn't just cloud your judgement, it makes you so self-centered and so dependent upon getting your next fix, you don't give a sh!+ how getting that fix affects anyone else--you will beg, borrow, lie, steal to get it.

Meow.

Trayvonius Martinez

“Seven Days In May”

Since: Oct 13

Hilliard, OH

#25 Nov 23, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, addiction has absolutely nothing to do with one's intelligence. The question really is, is their disease affecting their job performance, or not?
No different than any other disease.
woof
Bullsh!t. If street drugs are involved, the criminal behavior alone is an indicator of poor judgement at the very least. That's a job performance factor.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#26 Nov 23, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
And intelligence has nothing to do in the long run with the ability to make sound, wise, informed decisions.
Gokeefe in one sentence. Outstanding.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#27 Nov 23, 2013
Trayvonius Martinez wrote:
<quoted text>Bullsh!t. If street drugs are involved, the criminal behavior alone is an indicator of poor judgement at the very least. That's a job performance factor.
Of course its "poor judgement". But a drug is a drug is a drug, as far as its physiological effects upon the process of addiction.

Societal acceptance of one drug over another changes over time. The effects upon on addict don't, whether its alcohol, cocaine, or marijuana.

I'm always amused when folks like you are freely willing to accept alcohol use/abuse as "acceptable" merely because its legal, while looking down your nose at those who dabble in "street drug" use/abuse as if the mere illegality has any bearing upon the actual effects upon a person, or society, without delving further into the individual circumstances of each case.

woof

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#28 Nov 23, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Gokeefe in one sentence. Outstanding.
Che, in one thought: you're a total loser.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#29 Nov 23, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
And intelligence has nothing to do in the long run with the ability to make sound, wise, informed decisions.
I was married to a drunk/addict. Was he stupid? Hell no. He was in fact, one of the most highly intelligent men I have ever known. It was his intelligence that hindered him in the long run--very smart people are capable of much lying and deception, too.
You are so uninformed when it comes to understanding the mentality of an addict or an active alcoholic it's hilarious. You attempted to connect the idea of having a skill of making good decisions with one's intelligence. Seriously, most life decisions don't require a high intelligence level. Most people understand what is harmful, what is destructive, and what is ethical. Being a drunk or constantly stoned doesn't just cloud your judgement, it makes you so self-centered and so dependent upon getting your next fix, you don't give a sh!+ how getting that fix affects anyone else--you will beg, borrow, lie, steal to get it.
Meow.
I agree with you for the most part. Its a cycle. Its driven by chemical reactions in the brain. Its a disease. Not unlike cancer whatsoever. Chronic and progressive.

But its not a death sentence, and it can be treated. To say that simply because one has it, they cannot be trusted to serve the public is rather simple, in my opinion.

woof

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#30 Nov 23, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course its "poor judgement". But a drug is a drug is a drug, as far as its physiological effects upon the process of addiction.
Societal acceptance of one drug over another changes over time. The effects upon on addict don't, whether its alcohol, cocaine, or marijuana.
I'm always amused when folks like you are freely willing to accept alcohol use/abuse as "acceptable" merely because its legal, while looking down your nose at those who dabble in "street drug" use/abuse as if the mere illegality has any bearing upon the actual effects upon a person, or society, without delving further into the individual circumstances of each case.
woof
I'm always more than amused when idiots are willing to accept, even laud and help, people with active destructive psychological issues--which are manifest in addictions--to hold public office.

I don't see where in any of George's comments there was distinction between "street drug" abuse or abuse of legal drugs. Addiction is a non-discriminatory disease, based in large part on brain chemistry and also in part on behavioral issues that one cannot control without some sort of therapy--cognitive, psychiatric, etc.

Why did you want to side-track this off from the discussion of addictions to splitting hairs over illegal street drugs or legal drugs such as alcohol?

Trayvonius Martinez

“Seven Days In May”

Since: Oct 13

Hilliard, OH

#31 Nov 23, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course its "poor judgement". But a drug is a drug is a drug, as far as its physiological effects upon the process of addiction.
Societal acceptance of one drug over another changes over time. The effects upon on addict don't, whether its alcohol, cocaine, or marijuana.
I'm always amused when folks like you are freely willing to accept alcohol use/abuse as "acceptable" merely because its legal, while looking down your nose at those who dabble in "street drug" use/abuse as if the mere illegality has any bearing upon the actual effects upon a person, or society, without delving further into the individual circumstances of each case.
woof
My employment is contingent on not having a criminal record. That standard applies to the vast majority of private sector career positions. There's no reason it shouldn't apply to those paid with tax dollars and especially to those who write and debate legislation.
BTW...my company tests for alcohol, too. A second DUI gets you fired, despite the fact that there isn't a single position in my office that requires a valid driver's license. So spare me the crap about alcohol being legal.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#32 Nov 23, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm always more than amused when idiots are willing to accept, even laud and help, people with active destructive psychological issues--which are manifest in addictions--to hold public office.
I don't see where in any of George's comments there was distinction between "street drug" abuse or abuse of legal drugs. Addiction is a non-discriminatory disease, based in large part on brain chemistry and also in part on behavioral issues that one cannot control without some sort of therapy--cognitive, psychiatric, etc.
Why did you want to side-track this off from the discussion of addictions to splitting hairs over illegal street drugs or legal drugs such as alcohol?
Read Paco's post. I was responding to his assertion that street drug use is somehow more egregious because of its criminality. He brought that up, not me.

woof

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#33 Nov 23, 2013
Trayvonius Martinez wrote:
<quoted text>My employment is contingent on not having a criminal record. That standard applies to the vast majority of private sector career positions. There's no reason it shouldn't apply to those paid with tax dollars and especially to those who write and debate legislation.
BTW...my company tests for alcohol, too. A second DUI gets you fired, despite the fact that there isn't a single position in my office that requires a valid driver's license. So spare me the crap about alcohol being legal.
Spot on. In my world, even misdemeanors will get you passed over in the background check if there's a consistent record. Two points against your DL for speeding, not an issue--pay the fine. But criminal activity, no. Dirty urine test, no. We have the same rule, a second DUI and you're out. The first will likely put you on "suspension"--you might be required to wait to come back on the job after the matter is handled legally and you undergo counseling. One dirty urine test, mandatory counseling/treatment. A second dirty test, you're out. It doesn't matter if it is alcohol, pot, or legal drugs (of course, if you self-report that you are on pain killers or controlled substances for a medical condition and can provide the dx/medical report, ok so long as there is no erratic behavior--but most I know in that spot will take a leave of absence while undergoing med treatment that requires pain management).

Seriously, Dukie's splitting hairs here and not addressing the issue regarding the lack of ability to make sound decisions or judgement... if you and I are required to undergo these rules due to the nature of our work (which does require judgement about how and what to communicate), what make these flaming libs believe that people like Ted Kennedy, their hero, should have been above it all? There are way too many politicians out there like ol' Teddy who are so damned narcissistic, sick, and twisted and people just love them! Spew!
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#34 Nov 23, 2013
Trayvonius Martinez wrote:
<quoted text>My employment is contingent on not having a criminal record. That standard applies to the vast majority of private sector career positions. There's no reason it shouldn't apply to those paid with tax dollars and especially to those who write and debate legislation.
BTW...my company tests for alcohol, too. A second DUI gets you fired, despite the fact that there isn't a single position in my office that requires a valid driver's license. So spare me the crap about alcohol being legal.
Alcohol abuse/addiction causes much more destruction than certain other "street drugs" that are illegal. That's factual. Part of the reason that is true is simply because of the social acceptance and legality of alcohol.

If you're willing to toss otherwise intelligent and capable public servants aside merely because they suffer from a disease you're free to that opinion.

I am not willing to do that.

woof

Trayvonius Martinez

“Seven Days In May”

Since: Oct 13

Hilliard, OH

#35 Nov 23, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Spot on. In my world, even misdemeanors will get you passed over in the background check if there's a consistent record. Two points against your DL for speeding, not an issue--pay the fine. But criminal activity, no. Dirty urine test, no. We have the same rule, a second DUI and you're out. The first will likely put you on "suspension"--you might be required to wait to come back on the job after the matter is handled legally and you undergo counseling. One dirty urine test, mandatory counseling/treatment. A second dirty test, you're out. It doesn't matter if it is alcohol, pot, or legal drugs (of course, if you self-report that you are on pain killers or controlled substances for a medical condition and can provide the dx/medical report, ok so long as there is no erratic behavior--but most I know in that spot will take a leave of absence while undergoing med treatment that requires pain management).
Seriously, Dukie's splitting hairs here and not addressing the issue regarding the lack of ability to make sound decisions or judgement... if you and I are required to undergo these rules due to the nature of our work (which does require judgement about how and what to communicate), what make these flaming libs believe that people like Ted Kennedy, their hero, should have been above it all? There are way too many politicians out there like ol' Teddy who are so damned narcissistic, sick, and twisted and people just love them! Spew!
Your employer's policy is exactly the same as mine...for obvious reasons.
Notice that Douchie is only defending those in the public sector when it comes to the issue. That's how leftist think. The worker bees of their deity, Government, must be free to do "god's work" without interference.

Trayvonius Martinez

“Seven Days In May”

Since: Oct 13

Hilliard, OH

#36 Nov 23, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Alcohol abuse/addiction causes much more destruction than certain other "street drugs" that are illegal. That's factual. Part of the reason that is true is simply because of the social acceptance and legality of alcohol.
If you're willing to toss otherwise intelligent and capable public servants aside merely because they suffer from a disease you're free to that opinion.
I am not willing to do that.
woof
Because your "god," Government, is not to be questioned or held accountable.
Got it.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#37 Nov 23, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Spot on. In my world, even misdemeanors will get you passed over in the background check if there's a consistent record. Two points against your DL for speeding, not an issue--pay the fine. But criminal activity, no. Dirty urine test, no. We have the same rule, a second DUI and you're out. The first will likely put you on "suspension"--you might be required to wait to come back on the job after the matter is handled legally and you undergo counseling. One dirty urine test, mandatory counseling/treatment. A second dirty test, you're out. It doesn't matter if it is alcohol, pot, or legal drugs (of course, if you self-report that you are on pain killers or controlled substances for a medical condition and can provide the dx/medical report, ok so long as there is no erratic behavior--but most I know in that spot will take a leave of absence while undergoing med treatment that requires pain management).
Seriously, Dukie's splitting hairs here and not addressing the issue regarding the lack of ability to make sound decisions or judgement... if you and I are required to undergo these rules due to the nature of our work (which does require judgement about how and what to communicate), what make these flaming libs believe that people like Ted Kennedy, their hero, should have been above it all? There are way too many politicians out there like ol' Teddy who are so damned narcissistic, sick, and twisted and people just love them! Spew!
I would assert that a very sizeable percentage of the world's elected public servants have been afflicted with the disease of addiction while in office.

Making decisions while under the influence...bad idea. Does that mean they should be prohibited from serving?

I don't see it that way. No human being is all good, or all bad.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#38 Nov 23, 2013
Trayvonius Martinez wrote:
<quoted text>Your employer's policy is exactly the same as mine...for obvious reasons.
Notice that Douchie is only defending those in the public sector when it comes to the issue. That's how leftist think. The worker bees of their deity, Government, must be free to do "god's work" without interference.
Huh?

woof

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#39 Nov 23, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Alcohol abuse/addiction causes much more destruction than certain other "street drugs" that are illegal. That's factual. Part of the reason that is true is simply because of the social acceptance and legality of alcohol.
If you're willing to toss otherwise intelligent and capable public servants aside merely because they suffer from a disease you're free to that opinion.
I am not willing to do that.
woof
No, the process and damage is largely the same, no matter the substance abused. Don't buy the crap that pot isn't addictive. It is. And addiction is both a mental and physical disease. The longer the substance abuse, the more difficult it is to stop use.

I am willing to toss aside a public servant who has shown he cannot manage his own personal life because of his addictions. He may be talented, he may have a lot of charisma. Let him come back when he's sober and capable of demonstrating he can manage his own life, first. You want Teddy to come back from the dead, don't you?

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#40 Nov 23, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Read Paco's post. I was responding to his assertion that street drug use is somehow more egregious because of its criminality. He brought that up, not me.
woof
Well, in the case of Toronto's mayor, it most certainly is in my eyes. Not only is he showing he has severe psychological/psychiatric issues by self-medicating with crack, he's resorting to criminal behavior while on the job. And this guy is leading a major city, directing criminal programs, assisting others, making financial decisions? Wasn't this the guy who made really crude [email protected] sex comments? I thought you liberals were all about "no sexual harassment" on the job? Does that display that he's capable of holding down the job of Mayor? What a psychotic loser.

http://tinyurl.com/klots9y --> link to abc.com ; shortened because I didn't want the auto censors to strip the URL due to the words in the URL...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Trump Supporters love Russia more than The USA 17 min They cannot kill ... 3
Trump's Erraticism < loss of Eroticism 33 min Pope Che Reagan C... 8
Trump will 'look into' his drug czar nomination! 39 min They cannot kill ... 2
Who Sent Their Child To Intern With Harvey Wein... 46 min They cannot kill ... 3
WWJD about N Korea? 56 min BizzyBee 16
Harvey Weinstein 1 hr Bill Clinton 2
News Scandal forces appraisal of gay issues | The Co... (Oct '10) 2 hr tellthetruth 334

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages