Agreed - I guess hatch just liked the sound bite of it.

Basic unemployment is administered by the government, but it is paid for by the employees (payroll taxes the employer pays).  I have no problem with people collecting unemployment.  It is a part of their wage when they are employed, so testing them is stupid.

I do have a problem with people on welfare that apparently have enough disposable income to be buying drugs.  If they have that much money, they do not need welfare, so testing them is just one string attached to the money they did not earn nor do they merit.

Why?  You seem to think there is an all or nothing attitude for those who do not agree with you.  But I doubt those who do agree with you, do so (or you with them) 100% of the time.

Why?  You seem to think there is an all or nothing attitude for those who do not agree with you.  But I doubt those who do agree with you, do so (or you with them) 100% of the time.

What exactly is there to disagree on here?

Look, if you're one supposed small government conservatives, you ought be pretty pissed off about the idea that the government should be drug testing unemployed folks. Let's be honest:  It'll cost a shitload, it's not really going to be effective at anything more than kicking people when they're already in a tough spot, and it's a gross violation of privacy.   Moreover,  if you're something resembling a human being and know anybody who's caught up without a job right now (or are unemployed yourself) you should be flat out insulted that this dick is likening your friends/family/ or you to a crack addicted wellfare recipient. 

The latter is a little advanced for what's left of the republican party.  The former should generate some pretty substantial outrage on it's own.  FWIW, I just checked a couple of the known Reagan blowers, and as predicted:  thus far it's just crickets chirping.  Nada.  Nothing.  Zip.  

Come to think of it: 

Rand Paul says doesn't have to sell shit to black people

Rank and File Response:  Because Rand is so 'businessy'. 

Sharon Angle says 'okey dokey lets have that armed revolution now" followed by 'lets take Harry Reid out'

Rank and File Response:  Ohhhhh she didn't mean 'take him out' like "armed revolution take him out".  Anyway, it wouldn't matter even if she did say that, because JEFFERSON SAID IT FIRST, BITCHEZ!

Orrin Hatch: Let's screw the bajillions of unemployed Americans even they happen to enjoy a little ganja now and again. 

Rank And File Response:  ?????

Your article said you would hear nothing but "crickets chirping" in regards to Hatch's proposal.  I am saying that just because he is a republican, does not mean a lock step agreement from conservatives who believe in small government.  I being an example of one who thinks he is barking up the wrong tree on the issue (yes, I agree with your position on this, no I do not think you will hear crickets chirping).

I have been unemployed twice now in my career, so I do know about the unemployed (at least the ones making an honest effort - not the ones looking to take an extended vacation).  SO yes, I think the drug testing - based more on the fact that it is not a "handout" - is stupid as I stated in the original post.

Perhaps you are talking about the "pundits", not the "little people" like myself.  In that case, you could be right.  It is politics after all.  Republicans are only marginally better than democrats.

She did not say that.  She said we are in danger of an armed revolution based upon congress legislating against the will of the majority.  Her "take Reid out" is a stretch for moonbats and lefty loonies as she was clearly saying to defeat him at the polls.

So does Dr. Walter E. Williams - you know who he is?

Ok, I freely admit I have never been nor will ever be a republican.  So I guess I am not rank and file.  But you heard me peep and I am on the right, so there is static coming for Hatch, just perhaps not within his own party at the moment.

Well that's really tough criteria if you need unemployment or welfare... don't be wasted when you apply.  With 5 thousand barrels of oil pumping into the gulf everyday and with it already reaching the level of 3 Exxon Valdez disasters with no end in sight and a totally clueless President with no executive experience, I doubt most folks care about Orrin Hatch.

Yes. 

Yes.  You're not seriously trying to justify the statements of one loon with the opinions of another, are you? 

Wait a second.  You're telling me that saying "take him out" in the same breath that she's waxing poetic about the violent over throw of the United States government doesn't even register a red flag for you?

Dr. Williams is not a loon.  He is not passing a value judgment on the practice.  He is talking strictly economics, and that is how he is correct.  I do not agree with the issue (seeing some things as being necessary for the minimal functioning of a society).  But his reasoning, from a scientific standpoint, is sound.  I do not think he is advocating a return to retail discrimination, only demonstrating, from an economic standpoint, how it cannot succeed.

If it is someone who has shown a propensity for violent resolution of problems, yes it would.  As such, I see no red flag with her statements given the context and her point.  Again, clearly, a dramatic pause would probably have been more politically correct (say of a day).  But then that is why they have 30 second sound bites.  To bring together 2 un-related comments into one inflammatory commercial.  sometimes the candidate does it for you.