If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Des Moines Register)   Bummed-out Iowa Republican withdraws amendment to drug test any moms who get child support   (blogs.desmoinesregister.com) divider line 92
    More: Unlikely, Iowa, amendments, child support  
•       •       •

2585 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Apr 2012 at 11:59 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



92 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-14 08:10:03 AM
If they are going to start doing that, why not go whole hog? Just make it mandatory for anyone raising children to be drug tested - male and female. It's for the children!

\and so much for small government, fiscal spending, or just being intelligent
 
2012-04-14 08:17:37 AM

SpaceyCat: If they are going to start doing that, why not go whole hog? Just make it mandatory for anyone raising children to be drug tested - male and female. It's for the children!

\and so much for small government, fiscal spending, or just being intelligent


Since fetuses are really illegal aliens, they should be tested too.
 
2012-04-14 08:45:17 AM
The Hells with it. Drug tests for everyone. Operate heavy machinery? Drug test before work. Drug test after work. Take care of children? Drug test before work and after work. Never know what those so-called Hippy-Liberal-Loosey-Goosey types will do in the break room. Reefer and the mushrooms, and probably blotter acid. Driving? Install breathalyzers in every single one. Just to make sure. Doctor? Lawyer? Legislator? Cop? Firefighter? On the public payroll in the slightest? Test them all, to be safe. Hell, the kids should be tested before school and after school, right along with their teachers. Teach them some respect that way. In no way, shape, or form should we not expand the reach of the governmetn into our private affairs, since, after all, if you don't have anything to hide, why should you mind?

I'm sure that these brave and noble legislators will be the first to step up with their Freedom Cups of urine to be tested before heading into session.
 
2012-04-14 08:53:48 AM
"We shouldn't be ducking our head and running away every time there's a difficult issue coming up," Chelgren said

And speaking of difficult issues, they should censure this guy and mock him every time he opens his misogynistic mouth.
 
2012-04-14 08:54:56 AM

hubiestubert: The Hells with it. Drug tests for everyone. Operate heavy machinery? Drug test before work. Drug test after work. Take care of children? Drug test before work and after work. Never know what those so-called Hippy-Liberal-Loosey-Goosey types will do in the break room. Reefer and the mushrooms, and probably blotter acid. Driving? Install breathalyzers in every single one. Just to make sure. Doctor? Lawyer? Legislator? Cop? Firefighter? On the public payroll in the slightest? Test them all, to be safe. Hell, the kids should be tested before school and after school, right along with their teachers. Teach them some respect that way. In no way, shape, or form should we not expand the reach of the governmetn into our private affairs, since, after all, if you don't have anything to hide, why should you mind?

I'm sure that these brave and noble legislators will be the first to step up with their Freedom Cups of urine to be tested before heading into session.


I propose an alternate solution: all legislators must try the drugs they rail against.

/All of them, Charlie
//CSPAN would get a lot more interesting on mushroom soup tuesday.
 
2012-04-14 10:07:48 AM
I wonder if the dude proposing this has an investment in a drug testing company, like Gov. Rick "Derp" Scott of Florida did when he made a similar proposal in that state.
 
2012-04-14 10:17:44 AM
They should test the father and if he's doing drugs, the state gets the money instead.

/Gotta fund the war on drugs somehow
 
2012-04-14 10:31:42 AM

actualhuman: I propose an alternate solution: all legislators must try the drugs they rail against.

/All of them, Charlie
//CSPAN would get a lot more interesting on mushroom soup tuesday.


Pretty much the best idea ever.


FTFA: The proposal came from Sen. Mark Chelgren, R-Ottumwa who said he was pushing the idea on behalf of an unidentified constituent who believed his ex was using child support money for illegal drugs.

Then prosecute that one woman, you dopes.
 
2012-04-14 10:36:12 AM
why don't we make drug tests mandatory for elected officials? I just don't get it....they can do enormous damage if they vote while high or drunk, right? plus, there's the whole 'lead by example' thing. we should slap breathalyzers on the voting switches and make them all go pee in a cup at least once every six months.

after all...they've got nothing to fear so long as they've got nothing to hide...
 
2012-04-14 10:51:46 AM

Di Atribe: FTFA: The proposal came from Sen. Mark Chelgren, R-Ottumwa who said he was pushing the idea on behalf of an unidentified constituent who believed his ex was using child support money for illegal drugs.

Then prosecute that one woman, you dopes.


I caught an interesting speech^ on public radio a few weeks ago given by a retired newspaper editor who refused to use anonymous sources and was calling for other professional journalists to follow suit. He said in most instances when he was presented with a quote the speaker wanted to promulgate anonymously it was a politician trying to make himself look better.

/Food for thought.
 
2012-04-14 11:07:45 AM

actualhuman: Di Atribe: FTFA: The proposal came from Sen. Mark Chelgren, R-Ottumwa who said he was pushing the idea on behalf of an unidentified constituent who believed his ex was using child support money for illegal drugs.

Then prosecute that one woman, you dopes.

I caught an interesting speech^ on public radio a few weeks ago given by a retired newspaper editor who refused to use anonymous sources and was calling for other professional journalists to follow suit. He said in most instances when he was presented with a quote the speaker wanted to promulgate anonymously it was a politician trying to make himself look better.

/Food for thought.


Without anonymous sourcing we wouldn't have stories like Abu Ghraib or the My Lai massacre or Watergate break. I get what you're saying, but it's not something to do away with entirely, particularly when we have a growing national security state and increasingly harsh penalties for whistleblowers.
 
2012-04-14 11:10:06 AM

coco ebert: actualhuman: Di Atribe: FTFA: The proposal came from Sen. Mark Chelgren, R-Ottumwa who said he was pushing the idea on behalf of an unidentified constituent who believed his ex was using child support money for illegal drugs.

Then prosecute that one woman, you dopes.

I caught an interesting speech^ on public radio a few weeks ago given by a retired newspaper editor who refused to use anonymous sources and was calling for other professional journalists to follow suit. He said in most instances when he was presented with a quote the speaker wanted to promulgate anonymously it was a politician trying to make himself look better.

/Food for thought.

Without anonymous sourcing we wouldn't have stories like Abu Ghraib or the My Lai massacre or Watergate break. I get what you're saying, but it's not something to do away with entirely, particularly when we have a growing national security state and increasingly harsh penalties for whistleblowers.


No one is saying you can't go on deep background - just that you shouldn't report things you only have from deep background.

/Not actually my position but it's an interesting idea.
 
2012-04-14 11:11:09 AM
(cont.) In the modern world things like Abu Graib would leak to the blogosphere and then public figures would be forced to at least comment on them.
 
2012-04-14 11:14:42 AM

actualhuman: (cont.) In the modern world things like Abu Graib would leak to the blogosphere and then public figures would be forced to at least comment on them.


nah, they'd ignore the allegations as long as possible, then say the bloggers were child molesting pricks and put the FBI and Homeland security on the cover up case. someone would end up getting caught with 'objectionable material' on their computer, the press would report the whole thing as a computer crimes case, and evidence would quietly be destroyed while the rest of the country watched American Idol or Hunger Games.
 
2012-04-14 11:17:53 AM

Weaver95: actualhuman: (cont.) In the modern world things like Abu Graib would leak to the blogosphere and then public figures would be forced to at least comment on them.

nah, they'd ignore the allegations as long as possible, then say the bloggers were child molesting pricks and put the FBI and Homeland security on the cover up case. someone would end up getting caught with 'objectionable material' on their computer, the press would report the whole thing as a computer crimes case, and evidence would quietly be destroyed while the rest of the country watched American Idol or Hunger Games.


Interestingly, I just checked the wikipedia article on Abu Graib and it appears that the military had informed the press about the abuse scandal several before there were any media reports of it.
 
2012-04-14 11:18:54 AM
DOH - several months
 
2012-04-14 11:23:54 AM

actualhuman: DOH - several months


Sure, but the press mostly sat on it. Seymour Hersh broke the story in The New Yorker, and he indeed relied on anonymous sourcing.
 
2012-04-14 11:34:14 AM
I yesterday's print edition of the Des Moines Register, its version of the story was that the parent asking to have the other tested would have to pay for the drug test. It doesn't make it any less vindictive and nasty, but..

If this had any chace of passing, it had damn well better stipulate that the parent wanting the testing done gets tested, too.
 
2012-04-14 11:44:50 AM

actualhuman: Weaver95: actualhuman: (cont.) In the modern world things like Abu Graib would leak to the blogosphere and then public figures would be forced to at least comment on them.

nah, they'd ignore the allegations as long as possible, then say the bloggers were child molesting pricks and put the FBI and Homeland security on the cover up case. someone would end up getting caught with 'objectionable material' on their computer, the press would report the whole thing as a computer crimes case, and evidence would quietly be destroyed while the rest of the country watched American Idol or Hunger Games.

Interestingly, I just checked the wikipedia article on Abu Graib and it appears that the military had informed the press about the abuse scandal several before there were any media reports of it.


Very true that the press dropped the ball on this. One of my nieces was in Iraq with the Christian Peacekeepers Teams at the time. She and the others were blogging about this for months and no press picked it up.
 
2012-04-14 12:03:23 PM

Di Atribe: FTFA: The proposal came from Sen. Mark Chelgren, R-Ottumwa who said he was pushing the idea on behalf of an unidentified constituent who believed his ex was using child support money for illegal drugs.


This sounds totally legit.

Oh Ottumwa. You never cease to amaze me.
 
2012-04-14 12:11:34 PM

Weaver95: why don't we make drug tests mandatory for elected officials? I just don't get it....they can do enormous damage if they vote while high or drunk, right? plus, there's the whole 'lead by example' thing. we should slap breathalyzers on the voting switches and make them all go pee in a cup at least once every six months.

after all...they've got nothing to fear so long as they've got nothing to hide...


They can do a hell of a lot more damage than a person on the dole could.

Instead of peeing a cup hair follicle testing covers a longer span of time.
 
2012-04-14 12:11:35 PM
Republicans think being poor is a crime so of course being on welfare should be like being on probation or parole.
 
2012-04-14 12:12:32 PM
Chelgren additionally has an amendment that would require people on state welfare programs submit to random drug testing.

This question is already before a federal court, with a preliminary injunction in place and federal precedent to indicate it's unconstitutional.

Can you dickbags not wait for the issue to be settled before blowing your constituents' loads for them?
 
2012-04-14 12:13:25 PM

Nem Wan: Republicans think being poor is a crime so of course being on welfare should be like being on probation or parole.


Child support isn't welfare.
 
2012-04-14 12:13:55 PM
"Should Iowa child support recipients prove they don't do drugs?"

Thought it was supposed to be "innocent till proven guilty", not the other way round.
 
2012-04-14 12:18:08 PM
The money would better be spent on genetic testing every kid with every dad.
 
2012-04-14 12:21:34 PM
well that's just ducky, how is this guy's friend supposed to get even with is ex-wife now?
 
2012-04-14 12:21:48 PM
If drug use is being suspected among everybody, it has gotten to be big enough where any attempts to criminalize it have failed. So if we're going to waste money on testing everybody, we might as well save money and make every single one of those drugs legal--or rather, a health issue instead of making the government bigger.

This is what the Republicans--if they believed their own supposed stances--should be pushing. It shrinks the government, demilitarizes the police, and saves money. And it even supports their bigotry because it means people that don't fit into the narrow definition of 'Americans' that the Republicans like will eventually die.

The Republicans have just lost their minds. Laughter is the only response. They don't even deserve arguments to be made.
 
2012-04-14 12:22:36 PM

Guidette Frankentits: The money would better be spent on genetic testing every kid with every dad.


I'll bite why, if a man doesn't think he is the dad he can challenge paternity, why should the state get involved?

If someone wants to claim a child as his and the mother agrees the state has no standing to contest paternity.
 
2012-04-14 12:23:23 PM

hubiestubert: The Hells with it. Drug tests for everyone. Operate heavy machinery? Drug test before work. Drug test after work. Take care of children? Drug test before work and after work. Never know what those so-called Hippy-Liberal-Loosey-Goosey types will do in the break room. Reefer and the mushrooms, and probably blotter acid. Driving? Install breathalyzers in every single one. Just to make sure. Doctor? Lawyer? Legislator? Cop? Firefighter? On the public payroll in the slightest? Test them all, to be safe. Hell, the kids should be tested before school and after school, right along with their teachers. Teach them some respect that way. In no way, shape, or form should we not expand the reach of the governmetn into our private affairs, since, after all, if you don't have anything to hide, why should you mind?

I'm sure that these brave and noble legislators will be the first to step up with their Freedom Cups of urine to be tested before heading into session.


But who will drug test the drug testers?
 
2012-04-14 12:24:09 PM
Politcians take quite a bit more of our tax dollars in the form of a salary than a single mother does. Drug test the ones who receive the most money and work your way down.
 
2012-04-14 12:29:42 PM

hubiestubert: The Hells with it. Drug tests for everyone.


Even those who are rich and have penises? That's socialism, you commie!

...It's amazing to me to see how far you've come from your "supporting these idiots" days. Glad to see you joined us on the sane side of the street.
 
2012-04-14 12:30:45 PM

spongeboob: I'll bite why, if a man doesn't think he is the dad he can challenge paternity, why should the state get involved?


Wait, you're asking me why should the state get involved in a matter where the state determines how much a man pays to a woman to support a child for 18 year?
 
2012-04-14 12:36:49 PM

kronicfeld: Child support isn't welfare.


A thousand times THIS.

I think some people in the thread think this is similar to Florida's pea-brained "drug testing for the unemployed". It's not. This is drug testing for CHILD SUPPORT. Which is about half a step away from saying "Women need to be drug tested before leaving the house."
 
2012-04-14 12:38:08 PM

kronicfeld: Nem Wan: Republicans think being poor is a crime so of course being on welfare should be like being on probation or parole.

Child support isn't welfare.


It is in the eyes of the people who are pushing for all (non-corporate)welfare recipients to be drug tested.
 
2012-04-14 12:39:17 PM

Ed Finnerty: SpaceyCat: If they are going to start doing that, why not go whole hog? Just make it mandatory for anyone raising children to be drug tested - male and female. It's for the children!

\and so much for small government, fiscal spending, or just being intelligent

Since fetuses are really illegal aliens, they should be tested too.


...if we're going that far, why not just abort them?

...oh, wait...
 
2012-04-14 12:39:46 PM

Guidette Frankentits: spongeboob: I'll bite why, if a man doesn't think he is the dad he can challenge paternity, why should the state get involved?

Wait, you're asking me why should the state get involved in a matter where the state determines how much a man pays to a woman to support a child for 18 year?


"The State" only gets involved if the man isn't man enough to handle the issue himself. There's no law that says you have to go through court arbitration. Step up and support your kids without being ordered to do so by a court, and then the only people who "determine how much you pay" is you and your ex wife.
 
2012-04-14 12:41:18 PM
If mom's doing drugs, prove it in court, move to have custody changed to you, and, hey, voila, you don't have to pay child support anymore. Of course, now you have custody of your child and have to pay more anyway for the child's day to day expenses and needs, and you'll realize how much taking care of a kid single infringes on your free time and autonomy, but, hey, at least that [insert misogyny here] isn't getting none of your money!
 
2012-04-14 12:43:39 PM

Mavent: Guidette Frankentits: spongeboob: I'll bite why, if a man doesn't think he is the dad he can challenge paternity, why should the state get involved?

Wait, you're asking me why should the state get involved in a matter where the state determines how much a man pays to a woman to support a child for 18 year?

"The State" only gets involved if the man isn't man enough to handle the issue himself. There's no law that says you have to go through court arbitration. Step up and support your kids without being ordered to do so by a court, and then the only people who "determine how much you pay" is you and your ex wife.


Wait, I think he's on to something.

My proposal then:
Anyone who sues anyone has to be drug tested. Their lawyers too.
 
2012-04-14 12:48:11 PM

kronicfeld: If mom's doing drugs, prove it in court, move to have custody changed to you, and, hey, voila, you don't have to pay child support anymore. Of course, now you have custody of your child and have to pay more anyway for the child's day to day expenses and needs, and you'll realize how much taking care of a kid single infringes on your free time and autonomy, but, hey, at least that [insert misogyny here] isn't getting none of your money!


This.

Here's what I wish all single mothers would do: drop the kids at dad's house and disappear.

Men need to be saddled with this responsibility and see how long he lasts without the support of drugs.
 
2012-04-14 12:48:57 PM
By unidentified constituent he means drug testing company.
 
2012-04-14 12:50:34 PM

Mavent: "The State" only gets involved if the man isn't man enough to handle the issue himself. There's no law that says you have to go through court arbitration. Step up and support your kids without being ordered to do so by a court, and then the only people who "determine how much you pay" is you and your ex wife.


What? No man or woman who deserves child support is going to work it out via gentlemanly agreement. You nearly always have to go to court to 1.) set the amount of the payment and 2.) ensure it's being paid.

And nice ironic misogyny there, implying that only women get child support.
 
2012-04-14 12:51:09 PM
Chelgren rejected that argument but ultimately withdrew his amendment.

"We shouldn't be ducking our head and running away every time there's a difficult issue coming up," Chelgren said.


llamabutchers.mu.nu

Actual photo of Mr. Chelgren.
 
2012-04-14 12:56:38 PM

hubiestubert: The Hells with it. Drug tests for everyone. Operate heavy machinery? Drug test before work. Drug test after work. Take care of children? Drug test before work and after work. Never know what those so-called Hippy-Liberal-Loosey-Goosey types will do in the break room. Reefer and the mushrooms, and probably blotter acid. Driving? Install breathalyzers in every single one. Just to make sure. Doctor? Lawyer? Legislator? Cop? Firefighter? On the public payroll in the slightest? Test them all, to be safe. Hell, the kids should be tested before school and after school, right along with their teachers. Teach them some respect that way. In no way, shape, or form should we not expand the reach of the governmetn into our private affairs, since, after all, if you don't have anything to hide, why should you mind?

I'm sure that these brave and noble legislators will be the first to step up with their Freedom Cups of urine to be tested before heading into session.


Well I came here to say this although much more briefly, so there it is.
 
2012-04-14 12:58:41 PM
Don't you dare call it a "war on women" though.
 
2012-04-14 01:01:50 PM

Salt Lick Steady: And nice ironic misogyny there, implying that only women get child support.


Dear retard: read the title of the article again.
 
2012-04-14 01:03:51 PM

Guidette Frankentits: spongeboob: I'll bite why, if a man doesn't think he is the dad he can challenge paternity, why should the state get involved?

Wait, you're asking me why should the state get involved in a matter where the state determines how much a man pays to a woman to support a child for 18 year?


Your original post The money would better be spent on genetic testing every kid with every dad.

I took that to mean every kid born, and I said IF the father admits paternity and the mother agrees he is the father, why should the state get involved. If the father denies paternity then the state should do genetic testing.

If you are only talking about children who are going for child support, I guess that is okay, but really if the 'dad' is not raising questions of paternity why should the state?
Sorry I have to go now I'll check back later.
 
2012-04-14 01:03:53 PM

actualhuman: I propose an alternate solution: all legislators must try the drugs they rail against.

/All of them, Charlie
//CSPAN would get a lot more interesting on mushroom soup tuesday.



The Gentledragon with the melty walls is out of order!
 
2012-04-14 01:21:39 PM

Salt Lick Steady: No man or woman who deserves child support is going to work it out via gentlemanly agreement. You nearly always have to go to court


I do this for a living, literally every day. You are unbelievably wrong.
 
2012-04-14 01:23:05 PM
Exactly how deeply invested are the GOP in drug testing companies?

Did they bet the farm or what?

Drug laws for the most part do more harm than good and much of the public are aware of this by now.

Doubling down on drug testing laws when the War on DrugsTM policies are increasingly seen as a losing proposition is foolish from both a long term political POV and from a moral/logical POV.

Stupid Republican policy is stupid.

I'm glad it's been withdrawn.
 
Displayed 50 of 92 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report