We wanted him out. The reason he sat in the chair for the rest of his term is because of partisan politics. Look at the votes, they were down party lines. These were congressmen, not an impartial judge and an impartial jury. But it is our system and he beat it, not much unlike O.J. I know I'm over it, I have no more recourse to take. I don't like the results, but I accept them. Impeachment is not holding someone responsible for their actions, a conviction is. Taking someone to trial for a crime and finding them not-guilty is not punishment, it is procedure. He admitted he lied under oath (kinda sounds like a "guilty" plea, eh?) and congress, our "impartial judges", chose not to accept the plea and overturned it. So again, I accept the results, but I still feel "justice" was not served.
There were some Republicans who broke party lines and voted against conviction. From what I recall there wasnt even a majority vote for conviction in the Senate.
And there were Democrats who voted for impeachment in the House.
A quick look here shows the Senate Vote breakdown, with several Republicans voting not guilty. There are probably some conservatives who have the names of the Republicans voting not guilty burned in their memory.
If someone asked me under oath if I had gotten a blow-job from Ms. "x", I would lie about it, whether that is "OK" or not, and obviously 70% or more of the people thought so too, or they thought it wasn't any great sin, because they consistantly supported him in office, even after his lying about it.
so if 70% of the people feel that it's o.k to lie under oath which he did, then we ought to change the law then eh? Fine but a law is a law wether you like the law or not or only wish to enforce it when it's convienent. So from now on since 70% feel it's o.k to lie about sex under oath then I guess the next time a child molester is asked about sexual past and or deeds he can lie about it. The next time someone is on trial for rape and they are establishing patterns he can lie about it. And the obvious is the next time someone is on trial for sexual harrasment he can lie about that too since it's just about sex. I realize the Pres was niether of the first 2 but the law is simply the LAW. And he broke it and as the top legal official in the country he broke his oath palin and simple he broke that oath. We don't get to decide what parts of the law don't apply to us. He also is the commander in cheif of the military. What do you suppose would happen to a Gen. who not only was boinking the help but lied about it under oath ? Again personally I don't care who someone sleeps with but he broke the law, something you nor none of his defenders can deny. They just don't like it because hey, everyone lies about it right, he just happened to be under oath, that's the difference. No one answered this question, when is it o.k to lie under oath ? Everyone lies about money too right ? as CSC said I am over it as well. But wanted to respond since it was brought up. He was one of two presidents ever impeached or to go through those proceeddings. I wasn't happy either with the votes but that's the system we have. Much like the elections, they arent perfect and although I didn't like the outcome of the impeachment I was glad it was over and glad he's out of office. And I accepted the results and moved on. Too bad some will defend him always, I won't. He was a bane, a liar and broke the law. The last of the three being why he went through the Impeachment proceedings and barred from parcticing law, good riddance.
If someone asked me under oath if I had gotten a blow-job from Ms. "x", I would lie about it, whether that is "OK" or not, and obviously 70% or more of the people thought so too, or they thought it wasn't any great sin, because they consistantly supported him in office, even after his lying about it.
They were wrong on both counts. Furthermore, the press kep harping on job performance numbers. His personal approval rate was dismal.
Face it man... The Repubs. had a vendetta for the guy and they got hurt, not him. He left office on time, and slippery as ever. But, several Rep. people left office NOT of their own time, and why? Because they wasted the people's time and money and got caught doing the same things.
Clinton is despised by most Americans remember the personal ratings not the job performance ratings.
And 100 years from now the only thing people will remember or write about him is that he was impeached and there was sex involved. That will be the legacy of the one president who was obsessed about his legacy.
I think he was, and he pushed for it. And the result is the disaster Russia is in now.
Rick, I probably wouldn't disagree about your analogy of every president being concerned about his legacy. I'm sure most do in one way or another, he did seem a bit obsessed by it. Oh well. But saying that Russia is in the mess it is now due to him "pushing" is pretty far off. I remember the shock from the left when he called them the evil empire, oh no, the war monger is going to get us into war with Russia. What it did was probably call some attention to it and the cold war. He wasn't soley responsible for winning the cold war but like him or not he was a major factor in it. There is many reasons Russia struggles today but the biggest reason is that it is still a very new and foreign way of doing things. When you change that dramatically overnight it's bound to have problems at the start. I hope they are patient enough to see it through. Look at the growing pains we as nation went through. I think that many thought o.k we are a capatalist democracy and they would be at the same level quickly as America. What I think they are missing is that it took many many many years to get where we are. And alot of hard work to do it as well. I hope they have the patience to see it through, the lives of thier kids and grandkids will be much better off. The Russian mob isn't helping either but it will take years of struggle for them to get rolling.
"Russia struggles today but the biggest reason is that it is still a very new and foreign way of doing things."
Exactly my point. Russia could have moved slowly, under the right leadership, toward a market economy; with first a move to socialist democracy. But even as Grobachev tried to move that way, he was always the enemy. His reform, largely in steps, largely peaceful, was never enough for the old Cold Warriors.
So in came Yeltsin -- unfocused, impulsive and a serious binge drinker. Everything the Russians didn't need.
So now Russia is what it is, without enough controls and mooring. Mexico with nuclear weapons.
WASHINGTON — Jane Fonda poured $12.2 million into the 2000 national                  elections, most of it to help Democrats who support abortion rights. A new                  campaign-finance law intended to wring big-bucks influence out of politics will                  make that impossible in the future, right? Wrong. Even as the Senate votes                  this week to send the measure to President Bush, election lawyers and                  political operatives are probing for ways around it — and finding them.
And it will restrict the slashing "issue ads" that saturate the                  TV airwaves every election season.
No matter what would have happened Russia would, like any young democracy or capatalistic society be experiencing growing pains. Anything implemented no matter how slow would have caused pains. .
His reform, largely in steps, largely peaceful, was never enough for the old Cold Warriors.
So in came Yeltsin -- unfocused, impulsive and a serious binge drinker. Everything the Russians didn't need.
And we supported Gorbachev. And had good relations with him, where you're getting the idea that we didn't support him I don't know. Remember it was the people of the Soviet Union that wanted new blood. They are the ones who brought in the two fisting Yeltsin. We had to support Yeltsin since he was elected. And as of today we are sending millions in aid to help out and to try to prevent them from floundering back to their old ways. But it will take years and years and alot of work. It's not overnight or even in 10-20 years until they will see the fruit of their labor.
So now Russia is what it is, without enough controls and mooring. Mexico with nuclear weapons.
Heck they can't even account for all of them. I wonder who the Russian mob sold them to ? Scary isn't it.
I remember peristroika, Gorbachev's attempt to bring about an orderly dissolution of the satellite nations and a movement toward market economies.
I should have known that you would remember peristroika.
With Reagan, it was all about weapons. Outspend the Russians and bankrupt them.
As for the people of the country, well, hell, they got themselves into this mess, they can get themselves out.
They didn't call it a "cold war" for nothing. But you seem to forget the people of East Germany, Poland and other occupied eastern block countries that were also freed, thanks to Ron.
With Reagan, it was all about weapons. Outspend the Russians and bankrupt them.
And it wasn't about weapons with them ? Yes we did outspend them and it was one of the main things that did bring about change by essentially bankrupting them. And who did that Jimmy Carter ? LOL. He almost bankrupted us. That and almost as big was that people saw what was possible under capatalism. They had their first taste of levis and coke and listened to our music. They saw the way Americans lived and what they had and desired the freedom. They saw all this from the media. They grew tired of poor living conditions, low wages and little freedom. They were among the first to see that communism is a lie and an opresive way to live. Instead of many who get jealous and engage in social envy or classism they did something about it with a little push from us. So Rick should we not have done that ? are we or they better off going back to food rationing and no freedom ? Perhaps today but if they work hard and are patient at it with the resources they have they could very well become a very prosperous nation. It will take patience.
As for the people of the country, well, hell, they got themselves into this mess, they can get themselves out.
Yes we do nothing right ? ahh paultry millions and agricultral aid. Infastructure aid and sharing of technology and private investment in their country. Yes we as usual are at fault and it's not enough I forgot. Without Dennis here lately you'd almost think this was a good nation. Thank for the reminder.
But what if Kogut's company was mandated by law to allow longer leaves with job guarantees? Or what if she earned Social Security benefits for the years she spent working as a mother? And what if hiring preference laws were enacted to help stay-at-home parents re-enter the workforce?
Just what we need. Where do people come up with these ideas?
He may have helped that process along, but he certainly cannot take credit for all that happened in that area of the world during the 1980's...
More than any other person Reagan most certainly can take credit for the demise of the Soviet Union. Reagan was a leader. Every liberal before or after him that I have ever heard of was/is not.
The Senate Judiciary Committee's rejection of federal appeals court nominee Charles Pickering bodes ill for the future of judicial selection, for several reasons.
First, the committee's action is almost unprecedented. In fact, this was just the fifth time since 1939 that the committee had actually voted down a judicial nominee. (Four of them, by the way, were Republican nominees -- do you                     see a pattern here?) The committee's proper role in the confirmation process                     is to hold hearings and give recommendations to the full Senate. The                     Constitution, after all, gives the power of "advice and consent" on nominations                     to the Senate, not the Judiciary Committee.
That's why the committee does not vote on the nomination itself, but on motions to send the nomination to the Senate with various recommendations -- favorable, none or negative. More controversial nominees, such as circuit nominee Daniel Manion in 1986 and Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork the following year, were moved to the full Senate for a final decision. Even Ronnie White, the only Clinton nominee defeated by the full Senate, made it out of the Judiciary Committee's clutches.
So if Senate Democrats are willing to take such a radical step on an appeals court nominee, what do you think they will do to a Supreme Court nominee?
"When the folks at the constitutional convention passed the First Amendment, they weren't trying to give free speech and freedom of the press only to people who were rich enough to own newspapers," David R. Henderson writes in the New York Post.
"They wanted everyone to have those freedoms, so that people could speak out against whatever upset them," said Mr. Henderson, a research fellow with the Hoover Institution and author of "The Joy of Freedom: An Economist's Odyssey."
"That's why they said, 'Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech.'
"That makes you wonder: What part of 'no law' does Congress not get?" Mr. Henderson asked, referring to campaign-finance legislation that would restrict political ads by private groups in the 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.
Mr. Henderson noted that the most ardent supporters of the legislation are the nation's most elite newspapers and broadcasters.
Robert Jackson has this question. If the Supreme Court says it is OK to require a drug test before government school students can participate in extracurricular activities ... why not require a drug test of welfare recipients?
Wouldn't you just love to hear the leftists screaming about that one?
well at least you didn't phrase it in the form of a question, jethro.
i'll rephrase the question: what's so special about school kids that they should all be tested for drug use? and the natural follow-up: do we test high school seniors who have already reached the age of 18? why or why not?
as an aside to this, i remember reading an article a year or so ago about how many silicon valley companies would not drug test their employees. the reason being that marijuana and cocaine use in the valley was at the time so high that they wouldn't have any employees. the article went so far as to interview a ceo whose son had died of a cocaine overdose, and yet he still refused to institute a drug testing policy at his company.
with the breaking of the dot-com bubble, and the significant increase in the size of the employee pool there, i don't know if any of that has changed any.
what's so special about school kids that they should all be tested for drug use? What makes them so special that they shouldn't be tested?and the natural follow-up: do we test high school seniors who have already reached the age of 18? why or why not? Why shouldn't the age be 21? That is the age the feds say you are old enough to drink.
as an aside to this, i remember reading an article a year or so ago about how many silicon valley companies would not drug test their employees. the reason being that marijuana and cocaine use in the valley was at the time so high that they wouldn't have any employees. That is their choice. No one is saying that any organization MUST test their students or employees.
back to the old answer a question with a question tactics i see.
actually 21 is the age the states say you are old enough to drink. that was dictated by the feds withholding highway funds for states that didn't raise the age to 21. for a long time, louisiana's legal drinking age was 18. i assume that their highways also sucked but thats beside the point.
and what exactly would the goal be of testing all students, as you proposed?
participation in extra-curricular activities is a privilege. attending school and getting an education isn't. that's not to say though that i support drug testing of students for participating in extra-curriculars just for the sake of doing it.
But those that do drugs that are not in extra curricular activities have an influence on others. If testing is going to be done it is not the one in extra curricular activites that do a lot of drugs. The kids that do drugs usually don't participate in much of anything. Test them and if they are positive remove them from the regular class rooms.
But those that do drugs that are not in extra curricular activities have an influence on others.
as do the adults around them. i understand the point you're trying to get at here, and you're absolutely right when it comes to users not participating in anything, i just think your logic is just a little flawed given what you've said earlier. so i come back to my original question: why not test everyoneacross the board? kids, adults. everone.
I don't have a problem testing everyone. My point was that the 4th amendment should not prevent testing kids. While an argument may be able to be made that adults have the right to be free from unreasoanble searches, I don't think that should apply to children.
Children don't have the capacity to excecise their responsibilities as citizens until they do they shouldn't be protected to the same degree. But of course the question should be moot because the feds shouldn't be protecting rights at all. The Constitution was designed to set forth specific powers. All the feds have to do is refrain from violating those rights. The feds shouldn't be controlling what goes on in the schools. That is for state and local authorities to do.
We wanted him out. The reason he sat in the chair for the rest of his term is because of partisan politics. Look at the votes, they were down party lines. These were congressmen, not an impartial judge and an impartial jury. But it is our system and he beat it, not much unlike O.J. I know I'm over it, I have no more recourse to take. I don't like the results, but I accept them.
Impeachment is not holding someone responsible for their actions, a conviction is. Taking someone to trial for a crime and finding them not-guilty is not punishment, it is procedure. He admitted he lied under oath (kinda sounds like a "guilty" plea, eh?) and congress, our "impartial judges", chose not to accept the plea and overturned it. So again, I accept the results, but I still feel "justice" was not served.
CSC:
Look at the votes, they were down party lines.
Thats not correct
There were some Republicans who broke party lines and voted against conviction. From what I recall there wasnt even a majority vote for conviction in the Senate.
And there were Democrats who voted for impeachment in the House.
A quick look here shows the Senate Vote breakdown, with several Republicans voting not guilty. There are probably some conservatives who have the names of the Republicans voting not guilty burned in their memory.
Bill Fold,
so if 70% of the people feel that it's o.k to lie under oath which he did, then we ought to change the law then eh? Fine but a law is a law wether you like the law or not or only wish to enforce it when it's convienent. So from now on since 70% feel it's o.k to lie about sex under oath then I guess the next time a child molester is asked about sexual past and or deeds he can lie about it. The next time someone is on trial for rape and they are establishing patterns he can lie about it. And the obvious is the next time someone is on trial for sexual harrasment he can lie about that too since it's just about sex. I realize the Pres was niether of the first 2 but the law is simply the LAW. And he broke it and as the top legal official in the country he broke his oath palin and simple he broke that oath. We don't get to decide what parts of the law don't apply to us. He also is the commander in cheif of the military. What do you suppose would happen to a Gen. who not only was boinking the help but lied about it under oath ? Again personally I don't care who someone sleeps with but he broke the law, something you nor none of his defenders can deny. They just don't like it because hey, everyone lies about it right, he just happened to be under oath, that's the difference. No one answered this question, when is it o.k to lie under oath ? Everyone lies about money too right ?
as CSC said I am over it as well. But wanted to respond since it was brought up. He was one of two presidents ever impeached or to go through those proceeddings. I wasn't happy either with the votes but that's the system we have. Much like the elections, they arent perfect and although I didn't like the outcome of the impeachment I was glad it was over and glad he's out of office. And I accepted the results and moved on. Too bad some will defend him always, I won't. He was a bane, a liar and broke the law. The last of the three being why he went through the Impeachment proceedings and barred from parcticing law, good riddance.
Clinton was guilty and should have been removes. Anyone that defends the position that he shouldn't needs to question their own moral integrity.
If someone asked me under oath if I had gotten a blow-job from Ms. "x", I would lie about it, whether that is "OK" or not, and obviously 70% or more of the people thought so too, or they thought it wasn't any great sin, because they consistantly supported him in office, even after his lying about it.
They were wrong on both counts. Furthermore, the press kep harping on job performance numbers. His personal approval rate was dismal.
Face it man... The Repubs. had a vendetta for the guy and they got hurt, not him. He left office on time, and slippery as ever. But, several Rep. people left office NOT of their own time, and why? Because they wasted the people's time and money and got caught doing the same things.
Clinton is despised by most Americans remember the personal ratings not the job performance ratings.
And 100 years from now the only thing people will remember or write about him is that he was impeached and there was sex involved. That will be the legacy of the one president who was obsessed about his legacy.
"That will be the legacy of the one president who was obsessed about his legacy."
The "one president?"
OK, Clinton is the one singular president concerned about his legacy.
Anyone who has the ego to aspire to be President has the ego to be obsessed about legacy. And I mean any-damn-one.
The Soviet Union was tottering for decades. You don't think Reagan was obsessed to have it fall under his term? On his watch?
I think he was, and he pushed for it. And he did his part to make Russia the basket case it is now.
Rick, I probably wouldn't disagree about your analogy of every president being concerned about his legacy. I'm sure most do in one way or another, he did seem a bit obsessed by it. Oh well.
But saying that Russia is in the mess it is now due to him "pushing" is pretty far off. I remember the shock from the left when he called them the evil empire, oh no, the war monger is going to get us into war with Russia. What it did was probably call some attention to it and the cold war. He wasn't soley responsible for winning the cold war but like him or not he was a major factor in it. There is many reasons Russia struggles today but the biggest reason is that it is still a very new and foreign way of doing things. When you change that dramatically overnight it's bound to have problems at the start. I hope they are patient enough to see it through. Look at the growing pains we as nation went through. I think that many thought o.k we are a capatalist democracy and they would be at the same level quickly as America. What I think they are missing is that it took many many many years to get where we are. And alot of hard work to do it as well. I hope they have the patience to see it through, the lives of thier kids and grandkids will be much better off. The Russian mob isn't helping either but it will take years of struggle for them to get rolling.
"Russia struggles today but the biggest reason is that it is still a very new and foreign way of doing things."
Exactly my point. Russia could have moved slowly, under the right leadership, toward a market economy; with first a move to socialist democracy. But even as Grobachev tried to move that way, he was always the enemy. His reform, largely in steps, largely peaceful, was never enough for the old Cold Warriors.
So in came Yeltsin -- unfocused, impulsive and a serious binge drinker. Everything the Russians didn't need.
So now Russia is what it is, without enough controls and mooring. Mexico with nuclear weapons.
Just another reason not to pass the current campaign finance reforms
WASHINGTON — Jane Fonda poured $12.2 million into the 2000 national
                 elections, most of it to help Democrats who support abortion rights. A new
                 campaign-finance law intended to wring big-bucks influence out of politics will
                 make that impossible in the future, right? Wrong. Even as the Senate votes
                 this week to send the measure to President Bush, election lawyers and
                 political operatives are probing for ways around it — and finding them.
And it will restrict the slashing "issue ads" that saturate the
                 TV airwaves every election season.
Which I am pretty sure violates free speech.
The Soviet Union was tottering for decades. You don't think Reagan was obsessed to have it fall under his term? On his watch?
Yes against the advice of most people especially weak-kneed liberals. Unlike Clinton who took a poll to see what to do. Which one was a leader?
The truth about the so-called 'living wage
Maybe Reagan just wanted the credit.
Perhaps a true leader would have been more of a partner to lead the Soviet Union to a better future that it's experiencing now.
Maybe they tried that and it didn't work. Remember detente or however you spell it.
Rick,
No matter what would have happened Russia would, like any young democracy or capatalistic society be experiencing growing pains. Anything implemented no matter how slow would have caused pains. .
And we supported Gorbachev. And had good relations with him, where you're getting the idea that we didn't support him I don't know. Remember it was the people of the Soviet Union that wanted new blood. They are the ones who brought in the two fisting Yeltsin. We had to support Yeltsin since he was elected. And as of today we are sending millions in aid to help out and to try to prevent them from floundering back to their old ways. But it will take years and years and alot of work. It's not overnight or even in 10-20 years until they will see the fruit of their labor.
Heck they can't even account for all of them. I wonder who the Russian mob sold them to ? Scary isn't it.
I remember peristroika,Gorbachev's attempt to bring about an orderly dissolution of the satellite nations and a movement toward market economies.
With Reagan, it was all about weapons. Outspend the Russians and bankrupt them.
As for the people of the country, well, hell, they got themselves into this mess, they can get themselves out.
Putting a Price Tag on Stay-at-Home Parents
I remember peristroika, Gorbachev's attempt to bring about an orderly dissolution of the satellite nations and a movement toward market economies.
I should have known that you would remember peristroika.
With Reagan, it was all about weapons. Outspend the Russians and bankrupt them.
As for the people of the country, well, hell, they got themselves into this mess, they can get themselves out.
They didn't call it a "cold war" for nothing. But you seem to forget the people of East Germany, Poland and other occupied eastern block countries that were also freed, thanks to Ron.
And it wasn't about weapons with them ? Yes we did outspend them and it was one of the main things that did bring about change by essentially bankrupting them. And who did that Jimmy Carter ? LOL. He almost bankrupted us. That and almost as big was that people saw what was possible under capatalism. They had their first taste of levis and coke and listened to our music. They saw the way Americans lived and what they had and desired the freedom. They saw all this from the media. They grew tired of poor living conditions, low wages and little freedom. They were among the first to see that communism is a lie and an opresive way to live. Instead of many who get jealous and engage in social envy or classism they did something about it with a little push from us. So Rick should we not have done that ? are we or they better off going back to food rationing and no freedom ? Perhaps today but if they work hard and are patient at it with the resources they have they could very well become a very prosperous nation. It will take patience.
Yes we do nothing right ? ahh paultry millions and agricultral aid. Infastructure aid and sharing of technology and private investment in their country. Yes we as usual are at fault and it's not enough I forgot. Without Dennis here lately you'd almost think this was a good nation.
Thank for the reminder.
But what if Kogut's company was mandated by law to allow longer leaves with job guarantees? Or what if she earned Social Security benefits for the years she spent working as a mother? And what if hiring preference laws were enacted to help stay-at-home parents re-enter the workforce?
Just what we need. Where do people come up with these ideas?
<
<As for the people of the country, well, hell, they got themselves into this mess, they can get themselves out.>>
Something wrong with that?
He may have helped that process along, but he certainly cannot take credit for all that happened in that area of the world during the 1980's...
More than any other person Reagan most certainly can take credit for the demise of the Soviet Union. Reagan was a leader. Every liberal before or after him that I have ever heard of was/is not.
Gazing with hindsight from the communal foxhole that 9-11 dug, it's easy to muse sympathetically about a period now ended. But let's remember that the moderate Clintons who left the White House were not the same ambitiously liberal Clintons who entered, and we may have the VRWC to thank in part for that.
The Senate Judiciary Committee's rejection of federal appeals court nominee
Charles Pickering bodes ill for the future of judicial selection, for several
reasons.
First, the committee's action is almost unprecedented. In fact, this was just the
fifth time since 1939 that the committee had actually voted down a judicial
nominee. (Four of them, by the way, were Republican nominees -- do you
                    see a pattern here?) The committee's proper role in the confirmation process
                    is to hold hearings and give recommendations to the full Senate. The
                    Constitution, after all, gives the power of "advice and consent" on nominations
                    to the Senate, not the Judiciary Committee.
That's why the committee does not vote on the nomination itself, but on
motions to send the nomination to the Senate with various recommendations
-- favorable, none or negative. More controversial nominees, such as circuit
nominee Daniel Manion in 1986 and Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork
the following year, were moved to the full Senate for a final decision. Even
Ronnie White, the only Clinton nominee defeated by the full Senate, made it
out of the Judiciary Committee's clutches.
So if Senate Democrats are willing to take such a radical step on an appeals
court nominee, what do you think they will do to a Supreme Court nominee?
Their Real Agenda
This editorial states exactly how I feel on the Pickering and Ridge debates.
Partisanship's Dangerous Slope
"When the folks at the constitutional convention passed
the First Amendment, they weren't trying to give free speech
and freedom of the press only to people who were rich
enough to own newspapers," David R. Henderson writes in
the New York Post.
"They wanted everyone to have those freedoms, so that
people could speak out against whatever upset them," said
Mr. Henderson, a research fellow with the Hoover Institution
and author of "The Joy of Freedom: An Economist's
Odyssey."
"That's why they said, 'Congress shall make no law ...
abridging freedom of speech.'
"That makes you wonder: What part of 'no law' does
Congress not get?" Mr. Henderson asked, referring to
campaign-finance legislation that would restrict political ads
by private groups in the 30 days before a primary and 60
days before a general election.
Mr. Henderson noted that the most ardent supporters of
the legislation are the nation's most elite newspapers and
broadcasters.
What part of "More than any other person..." don't you understand?
Robert Jackson has this question. If the Supreme Court says it is
OK to require a drug test before government school students can
participate in extracurricular activities ... why not require a drug test
of welfare recipients?
Wouldn't you just love to hear the leftists screaming about that one?
Test all school kids!
The Camp David talks were a disaster. Barak was pressured into making historic concessions -- which Arafat rejected in the mistaken belief that the United States would be able to push the Israelis even further. The unfulfilled expectations arising from the process fueled the Intifada -- which Arafat exacerbated with fiery rhetoric -- and by turning loose the suicide squads of Hamas, the Islamic Jihad Organization and Hizbollah.
while we're at it, why not just test everyone?
If you don't see the difference between kids and adults, ares, there is no point in discussing the issue with you.
If we ever think as seriously about the criminal justice system as we do about sports, many of the words and practices of today will disappear. Think about the notion that convicted criminals' sentences should vary according to whether they do or do not "show remorse." Should sentences vary according to acting ability? Or according to whether judges are self-infatuated enough to imagine that they can read minds and hearts?
fold's hero
well at least you didn't phrase it in the form of a question, jethro.
i'll rephrase the question: what's so special about school kids that they should all be tested for drug use? and the natural follow-up: do we test high school seniors who have already reached the age of 18? why or why not?
as an aside to this, i remember reading an article a year or so ago about how many silicon valley companies would not drug test their employees. the reason being that marijuana and cocaine use in the valley was at the time so high that they wouldn't have any employees. the article went so far as to interview a ceo whose son had died of a cocaine overdose, and yet he still refused to institute a drug testing policy at his company.
with the breaking of the dot-com bubble, and the significant increase in the size of the employee pool there, i don't know if any of that has changed any.
what's so special about school kids that they should all be tested for drug use? What makes them so special that they shouldn't be tested?and the natural follow-up: do we test high school seniors who have already reached the age of 18? why or why not? Why shouldn't the age be 21? That is the age the feds say you are old enough to drink.
as an aside to this, i remember reading an article a year or so ago about how many silicon valley companies would not drug test their employees. the reason being that marijuana and cocaine use in the valley was at the time so high that they wouldn't have any employees. That is their choice. No one is saying that any organization MUST test their students or employees.
back to the old answer a question with a question tactics i see.
actually 21 is the age the states say you are old enough to drink. that was dictated by the feds withholding highway funds for states that didn't raise the age to 21. for a long time, louisiana's legal drinking age was 18. i assume that their highways also sucked but thats beside the point.
and what exactly would the goal be of testing all students, as you proposed?
If you are going to test why not test all students? Why discriminate?
participation in extra-curricular activities is a privilege. attending school and getting an education isn't. that's not to say though that i support drug testing of students for participating in extra-curriculars just for the sake of doing it.
But those that do drugs that are not in extra curricular activities have an influence on others. If testing is going to be done it is not the one in extra curricular activites that do a lot of drugs. The kids that do drugs usually don't participate in much of anything. Test them and if they are positive remove them from the regular class rooms.
But those that do drugs that are not in extra curricular activities have an influence on others.
as do the adults around them. i understand the point you're trying to get at here, and you're absolutely right when it comes to users not participating in anything, i just think your logic is just a little flawed given what you've said earlier. so i come back to my original question: why not test everyoneacross the board? kids, adults. everone.
I don't have a problem testing everyone. My point was that the 4th amendment should not prevent testing kids. While an argument may be able to be made that adults have the right to be free from unreasoanble searches, I don't think that should apply to children.
i should hope that an argument can be made for adults to be free from unreasonable searches :)
mind if i ask why it shouldn't apply to children?
Jethro's a "conservative", he doesn't believe children have rights, unless it's a fetus of course.
Am I right Jethro?
oh yeah. forgot about that :)
mind if i ask why it shouldn't apply to children?
I have nothing to say
Does the constituiton say anything to the effect that people don't have rights granted to them until a certain age?
Children don't have the capacity to excecise their responsibilities as citizens until they do they shouldn't be protected to the same degree. But of course the question should be moot because the feds shouldn't be protecting rights at all. The Constitution was designed to set forth specific powers. All the feds have to do is refrain from violating those rights. The feds shouldn't be controlling what goes on in the schools. That is for state and local authorities to do.
Is it unreasoable to to do drug tests?
It makes no sense at all. You're contradicting yourself. Either children have rights (Including the fetus), or they don't.