I love TDS. All politicians should be required to give random piss tests.
Good for goose,good for gander.

mamoru: The Onion is prophetic: GAT_00: penthesilea: I think Aasif Mandvi is my favorite correspondent since Colbert left.

Aasif Mandvi Is Brown (new window)

I like John Oliver better, but Aasif Mandvi is a close second.

I'm more of a Jason Jones guy myself

/NTTAWWT

I think the whole of the Best F$*#&ing News Team on Television (Samantha Bee, John Oliver, Aasif Mandvi, Jason Jones, Wyatt Cenac, and I'll also include Larry Wilmore and Kristen Schaal, even though they aren't as regular) is excellent. They all mesh together extremely well and hilariously, IMHO.

I can't get myself to like Wyatt Cenac. John Oliver and Jason Jones are awesome, though.

The Jason Jones Dirty Jobs piece on campaign attack ads still cracks me up.
Link (new window)

I'm a state worker in Florida, so getting a kick, etc.

Haven't had to take a drug test, but my department is headed by an elected official, so Voldemort has no control over us.

GAT_00: SilentStrider: mamoru: I think the whole of the Best F$*#&ing News Team on Television (Samantha Bee, John Oliver, Aasif Mandvi, Jason Jones, Wyatt Cenac, and I'll also include Larry Wilmore and Kristen Schaal, even though they aren't as regular) is excellent. They all mesh together extremely well and hilariously, IMHO.

Enh, I'm old school. I like those people, but my favorite remains Lewis Black.

Yeah, the current bunch is good, but it was better back with Colbert, Carell, Helms and Corddry. Bee was there too, and maybe she was better then. These days, her segments are 'Woo, I have a vagina!'

Also, this. Needs more Back In Black.

FTA: Later, the Herald reports, Mandvi tried again to pass the cup forward: "I hate to keep harping on this, would you pee in a cup?"

Scott fired back: "You don't get to run this."

Sounds like they already did.

I'm a bit surprised he didn't say "Fine, I'll do it, but you're paying MY company to test it!"

Me, on drugs? What makes you think that?



HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

/Hot like a cup of fresh piss.
/All Rick Scott threads are required by farklaw to contain that pic.
///This goes doubly so when drugs are on the table.

I've never understood this.

In the Army, we do random drug tests monthly (that has to be at least 30% of your unit per month, and 100% annually). I know it doesn't always work well, but there's a system in place.

I have no problem with elected officials, you know, ones that would be in a position to control armed forces (ie, state government with NG units, congressmen), being subjected to random drug tests.

All of our tests are observed too. Meaning someone gets to stand there and watch you pee in the cup (Affectionately called 'Meat Gazers').

I guess that's always been my issue with the idea of drug testing people on welfare...I'm for it, but, shouldn't that same standard apply (like GAT_00 said above) to all government personnel? I understand the financial and logistical problems it could cause, so how about, no staffers/aides, just the guys in power?

Not to mention, it might bring some of them down a peg to have to, monthly, have a dude stand over you until you pee in the cup (I also have never attended a urinalysis where the Meat Gazers did not provide color commentary).

OR, like the Army, where the MGs are basically 'volunteered' from the NCOs in a company, representatives are responsible for being the observer for all welfare recipients in their district? I like that one.

I'ma let you finish, but Stevens Carrel and Colbert were the best Daily Show reporters of all time!

I think that if you tested all members of congress, all governors, and all state legislators for drugs, you'd probably get positive responses back in, hard to say for sure, but let's say between 98-99.999%.

I know that's a pretty broad range, and a bold statement, suggesting what sounds laughable, that as many as 2% of those people are not on drugs. I'll accept the ridicule. I want to give our heroic job creating government officials the benefit of the doubt. Yes, it's laughable to think that as many as 9 members of Congress are not coked to the gills, but we don't know for sure.

Until we start testing them.

Which we should start doing today.

Came for a pic of the "Do it f*g" girl.

One day in 1999 our college did a trip to TDS. Our bus wasn't ready to go when we were done, so hanging out after the show I got my ticket signed by Stephen Colbert, Steve Carrell, and the day's guest, Ben Stein. All were very cool and talked to us for a while. Ben was a dirty old man who tried to lure my girlfriend at the time into his limo and told her she could go to Los Angeles with him. My girlfriend kept the ticket "for safe keeping," broke up with me shortly thereafter and I never got my ticket back.

/true story
//my blog sucks

Bigdogdaddy: FTA: Later, the Herald reports, Mandvi tried again to pass the cup forward: "I hate to keep harping on this, would you pee in a cup?"

Scott fired back: "You don't get to run this."

Sounds like they already did.

It's so cute when a control freak thinks he's in control!!

Kinmuan: I've never understood this.

In the Army, we do random drug tests monthly (that has to be at least 30% of your unit per month, and 100% annually). I know it doesn't always work well, but there's a system in place.

I have no problem with elected officials, you know, ones that would be in a position to control armed forces (ie, state government with NG units, congressmen), being subjected to random drug tests.

All of our tests are observed too. Meaning someone gets to stand there and watch you pee in the cup (Affectionately called 'Meat Gazers').

I guess that's always been my issue with the idea of drug testing people on welfare...I'm for it, but, shouldn't that same standard apply (like GAT_00 said above) to all government personnel? I understand the financial and logistical problems it could cause, so how about, no staffers/aides, just the guys in power?

Not to mention, it might bring some of them down a peg to have to, monthly, have a dude stand over you until you pee in the cup (I also have never attended a urinalysis where the Meat Gazers did not provide color commentary).

OR, like the Army, where the MGs are basically 'volunteered' from the NCOs in a company, representatives are responsible for being the observer for all welfare recipients in their district? I like that one.

I would be willing to bet that the armed forces drug test to reinforce the notion that they are in complete control of your life. Obviously they want to keep drug use to a minimum, but it's equally important to remind you that they own your ass. While I'm all for drug testing politicians randomly, there is *no way* that they will give up that sort of control. They strive to be in power, not let others have any leverage over them whatsoever.

Sid_6.7: My biggest complaint with drug testing is that there is no way to provide a document ahead of time that states what medications you're on.

Instead, every time I get tested, I have to go through the same idiotic process of taking the test, having it come up positive due to the medication I take, and then having to deal with all the dirty looks and silent accusations from HR people, having to go to the pharmacy to get a note that I indeed take the prescription, faxing it to the testing company, and then waiting for a response.

And I've had HR people make statements about me having come up positive in front of non-HR staff. Way to keep my private info private, dumbass!

It's stupid that you can't preempt that sh*t.

That sounds like grounds for a lawsuit (or at least a complaint to someone high up).

damnit, ComicBookGuy said it so much more succinctly.

On balance, I'm OK with people being assholes to elected officials in public.

Michael: So I need you to do some work on the St. Andrews account. I need your urine. I need some filing done.
Dwight: What kind of filing?
Michael: Just forget it. Just the urine.
Dwight: That goes directly to the tester.
Michael: Just. I need your urine.
Dwight: Like in a cup?
Michael: Yes in a cup, we're not animals, Dwight.

MisterRonbo: Ed Finnerty

I heard he shaves his head to prevent hair testing.

I know you're being snarky, but in the interest of truthiness: he has a short hair fringe on both sides. I know this because, first, I've met him, and second, when I'm in Tallahassee I get my hair cut by the same guy that shaves the gov's head - Nathan at Chelsea salon. He's great (Nathan, not Scott), I highly recommend him.

Body hair can be used in a drug test. People are mistaken that they can beat a drug lab by shaving in the first place. If he truly had anything to worry about he wouldn't do drugs.

People fail to realize that politicians are not hired for the job they are elected. As in we trust these people enough that we should not have to drug test them. This is one time that I disagree with a majority of people. Sorry but we should not extend drug laws further, same with the law that was passed in Florida its just stupid.

Kinmuan: Not to mention, it might bring some of them down a peg to have to, monthly, have a dude stand over you until you pee in the cup

that can't be right. last time one of these drug-testing threads came up, some moran asserted that having to piss in a cup wasn't demeaning or degrading at all.

Machello: People fail to realize that politicians are not hired for the job they are elected.

What are they hired for then? To collect campaign contributions?

As in we trust these people enough that we should not have to drug test them.

What's this we shiat?

Boxcutta: One day in 1999 our college did a trip to TDS. Our bus wasn't ready to go when we were done, so hanging out after the show I got my ticket signed by Stephen Colbert, Steve Carrell, and the day's guest, Ben Stein. All were very cool and talked to us for a while. Ben was a dirty old man who tried to lure my girlfriend at the time into his limo and told her she could go to Los Angeles with him. My girlfriend kept the ticket "for safe keeping," broke up with me shortly thereafter and I never got my ticket back.

/true story
//my blog sucks

She is probably living in LA with Ben Stein.

shanrick: [img861.imageshack.us image 400x500]

You are the wind beneath my wings.

Sid_6.7: My biggest complaint with drug testing is that there is no way to provide a document ahead of time that states what medications you're on.

Instead, every time I get tested, I have to go through the same idiotic process of taking the test, having it come up positive due to the medication I take, and then having to deal with all the dirty looks and silent accusations from HR people, having to go to the pharmacy to get a note that I indeed take the prescription, faxing it to the testing company, and then waiting for a response.

And I've had HR people make statements about me having come up positive in front of non-HR staff. Way to keep my private info private, dumbass!

It's stupid that you can't preempt that sh*t.

One of the many logistical problems with requiring drug tests for welfare.

I have no moral problem and would be for it if it wouldn't cause problems like you mentioned.

I heard Ben Stein raped and murdered a girl in 1999

Arkanaut: Came for a pic of the "Do it f*g" girl.

You mean this one?

Kinmuan: I've never understood this.

In the Army, we do random drug tests monthly (that has to be at least 30% of your unit per month, and 100% annually). I know it doesn't always work well, but there's a system in place.

I have no problem with elected officials, you know, ones that would be in a position to control armed forces (ie, state government with NG units, congressmen), being subjected to random drug tests.

All of our tests are observed too. Meaning someone gets to stand there and watch you pee in the cup (Affectionately called 'Meat Gazers').

I guess that's always been my issue with the idea of drug testing people on welfare...I'm for it, but, shouldn't that same standard apply (like GAT_00 said above) to all government personnel? I understand the financial and logistical problems it could cause, so how about, no staffers/aides, just the guys in power?

Not to mention, it might bring some of them down a peg to have to, monthly, have a dude stand over you until you pee in the cup (I also have never attended a urinalysis where the Meat Gazers did not provide color commentary).

OR, like the Army, where the MGs are basically 'volunteered' from the NCOs in a company, representatives are responsible for being the observer for all welfare recipients in their district? I like that one.


My problem with it is that is costs so much, and when testing without suspicion you have a sample so large that false positives become more than actual positives. Then you have to have some appeals process in place, which costs moe money. And eventually, once you have proven that a small minority of people have used drugs illegally, you get to deny their kids food. I don't have nearly enough farks to give about the drug issue to spend that much money to deny kids food.

Coco LaFemme: Arkanaut: Came for a pic of the "Do it f*g" girl.

You mean this one?

Well damn.

Trying again.....

Zalan: I agree with those above that said that politicians should be tested for drug abuse. I mean, look at all the Koch addicts there are among the republican party!

I always thought their name was pronounced "cock". But "Koch addicts" that way seems to work for a lot of the Republican men, too.