Just like the TSA, a program like this can only expand if it doesn't die on the vine. If they get the results they expect, they need more to "reduce costs further" (ignore the fact that the test costs). If they don't get the results they expect, they will need "more thorough tests" to catch substances they don't test for.

But I agree that politicians should be drug tested regularly, minimally every 2 months. They had the big thing about Clinton and Lewinski and how she could have been a spy and blah blah....and that's why they needed to know all that stuff...having ties that could lead to outside influences. Many drugs pretty much epitomize "outside influences" especially if they are addictive.

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.

>>> I could've saved you the trouble. Just google Paula Jones and follow the trail backwards. BTW, no one here has much to say about how Slick Willie used and tossed Monica. You almost can't fault him, like all textbook sociopaths he has no depth, no real emotions. "I feel your pain." Ha ha ha ha.

But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency.

>>> Even if a President had a spouse who approved of open marriage, they'd be out on their asses. That's just the way the American people are, and vote. Marital infidelity the American people will not abide. Historically speaking, there is no evidence that being a philanderer affects political performance. In other words, when the red chinese stole our missile guidance technology during Clintoon's watch, putting the entire nation in further danger, that had nothing to do with whether he visited Monica that week. That was just being a POS excuse of a president.

>>> Bozo was impeached--and fined $90,000-for lying under oath. If you or I did it we'd still be in prison. He should've stepped down.

>>> Considering the Republic is hanging by a thread with a narcissistic marxist presently at the helm--and a false media which defends, protects and shills for him--the people are ready for someone who will get the job done. It might be Newt, it might be Romney, it might be a talking Chia Pet, but we DO know it ain't gonna be His Earness, unless you've enjoyed the chaos of the last 4 years.

Absolutely. I believe that Newt's fidelity issues (given their frequency and consistency) are indicative of a larger lack of personal integrity that I don't find desirable in a presidential candidate. Legally it still does not disqualify him, but I'd sure as heck not vote for him, nor do I think he is above scrutiny. It's much like the people protesting abortion clinics getting abortions themselves, a la "The only moral abortion is my abortion", except replace "abortion" with "affair."

My point of replying to QM's rhetoric (of which the 'sift is familiar with) was to remind him that both cases must be treated the same, as it's just another crossover of sexual transgressions with political career. If he vilified Clinton during the Lewinksy scandal then he is obligated to similarly vilify Gingrich; the flip side being that if he supports Gingrich in spite of his flaws, then he must have opposed Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

P.S. I'm of the camp that thinks QM is just a very good troll and doesn't actually believe the stuff he says. But for the sake of the sift we still have to take his comments at face value.

In reply to this comment by RadHazG:
>> ^HaricotVert:

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.
But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?
>> ^quantumushroom:
A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.



marital infidelity is one thing, it's the way in which Newt handled and participated in it that I find reprehensible. Clinton got his dick sucked and lied about it (and more importantly actually went to court about it even if he did get off. no pun intended) and Newt has treated his wives as if they were little more than cars he kept trading off for a newer model after test driving the new one for a while on lease.

>> ^HaricotVert:

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.
But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?
>> ^quantumushroom:
A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.



marital infidelity is one thing, it's the way in which Newt handled and participated in it that I find reprehensible. Clinton got his dick sucked and lied about it (and more importantly actually went to court about it even if he did get off. no pun intended) and Newt has treated his wives as if they were little more than cars he kept trading off for a newer model after test driving the new one for a while on lease.

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.

But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?

>> ^quantumushroom:

A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.

coincidence?

I Think Not.

>> ^NetRunner:

Fun fact, the actress they've cast as Monica Lewinsky is the same one who played Sarah Palin in Nailin' Palin.

Fun fact, the actress they've cast as Monica Lewinsky is the same one who played Sarah Palin in Nailin' Palin.

From wikipedia:

Gingrich has been married three times. In 1962, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old and she was 26.[105][106] In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther.[107][108] Battley told the Washington Post in 1984, "He can say that we had been talking about [a divorce] for 10 years, but the truth is that it came as a complete surprise ... He's a great wordsmith ... He walked out in the spring of 1980 and I returned to Georgia. By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said Daddy is downstairs and could he come up? When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from the surgery ..." [109] Gingrich has disputed that account.[88] In 2011, their daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, said that it was her mother who requested the divorce, that it happened prior to the hospital stay (which was for the removal of a benign tumor, not cancer), and that Gingrich's visit was for the purpose of bringing the couple's children to see their mother, not to discuss the divorce.[110]

Gingrich has two daughters from his first marriage. Kathy Gingrich Lubbers is president of Gingrich Communications,[111] and Jackie Gingrich Cushman is an author, whose books include 5 Principles for a Successful Life, co-authored with Newt Gingrich.[112]

Six months after the divorce from Battley was final, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther in 1981.[113][114][115][116]

In the mid-1990s, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior. They continued their affair during the Lewinsky scandal, when Gingrich became a leader of the Republican investigation of President Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with his alleged affairs.[117] In 2000, Gingrich married Bisek shortly after his divorce from second wife Ginther. He and Callista currently live in McLean, Virginia.[118]

In a 2011 interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network Gingrich addressed his past infidelities by saying, "There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate."[115][116]

Staggering that this serial adulterer and hypocrite of the first degree is STILL doing the "Return to Family Values" schtick and equating religion with morality.

Friedman as saboteur, eh? This is actually an interesting and telling clip, considering that Freedmanites Reagan and Bush jr raised the deficit so dramatically. It makes me wonder if the attempt to force Clinton out of office had more to do with balanced budgets than the stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:


You'll love this.

>> ^thinker247:
While I am one to never believe anything my government tells me, I find it highly improbable that anybody but the 19 hijackers caused the events of September 11th. But to play devil's advocate, let me for a minute suspend my belief and agree with the "truthers" that my government perpetrated an act of terrorism against itself.
Why?
In order to invade Afghanistan to plunder its oil? We already had bin Laden on the FBI's Most Wanted List for the bombings of U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. We easily could have invaded under the pretense of finding and extracting bin Laden (and the Taliban and al-Qaeda), because that's exactly what we did after September 11th.
In order to invade Iraq under the banner of anti-terrorism? Hussein had already defied U.N. weapons inspectors for over a decade and Bush was never the type to ask permission, so we didn't need September 11th to justify illegally invading a sovereign nation. We did it anyway.
In order to enact greater restrictions upon the citizens by inducing their fear response? Hell, as a general populace we're lemmings. The Bush administration certainly did not need to kill 3000 people in order to take away our liberties. We gladly give them up whenever anybody in authority asks.
I have yet to hear a rational answer to the question of "Why?" But I'm all ears.


niiiice.
ask a question and then propose possible hypothesis which of course you then dismantle.
let me preface this by stating i am not a "truther" and am not as convinced as my friend rougy is concerning 9/11.
that being said,the US government has never,in my opinion,given this a proper investigation.
let me give you an example:
lewinsky and the impeachment of bill clinton =168 million dollars.
9/11 investigation=6 million dollars
and lets be clear here.the governments version of what happened on 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory and one that does not hold up well under closer scrutiny.
who is responsible? i do not know and neither do you but i think it prudent to not only ask questions but be allowed to ask those questions.
agree?
now...
as for YOUR question thinker247.
why?
i presume you are asking for motive.
ok.
1.lusitania
2.reichsthag
3.gulf of tonkin
these are all false flag operations and all preceded war.WW!,WW2 and vietnam respectively.i could mention the oil embargo on japan but that is a lengthy conversation.
what ARE the motives for war?
they have always been unequivocally about:
1.land/labor/resources/trade
how does a government,crown or ruling entity get its poorest,least educated and therefore most expendable to go fight and die for something the ruling class wishes?
1.propaganda.
which creates a "fighting spirit".
for thousands of years religion was the impetus to create this spirit but for the last hundred years it has been nationalism but it is ALWAYS the F>E>A>R that is the true driving force.
now that we have established a basis for war let us get to the heart of your question.
since i am not privy to secret documents i must make my answer based on conjecture.i shall do my best.
why would the US government use 9/11 (by action or by proxy) to change 200 years of national defensive posturing to one of "pre-emptive" and declare a war,not on any person or nation but one against an ephemeral opponent?the "war on terror".
1.war is HUGE business and the DOD has been one of the top 10 lobbyists since 1962.
2.saddam hussein,having been bombed for over 10 years straight(fact,look it up) along with sanctions and that ridiculous "oil for food" threatened to change iraq's oil transactions from the american dollar to the euro(fact,look it up)which would have cost the US billions if not trillions.seeing that every oil transaction is done in american dollars.it is the world reserve currency (not for much longer).
3.uzbekisthan has one the last and richest oil and natural gas left in the world.a pipeline which was denied by turkey (that has since changed,but for europes benefit,not america) is being built right now...
where?
ill give ya a guess.
iraq.
and do you know where it will lead into?
want to try another guess?
afghanistan.

those are just a few off the top of my head.i could take the time to be more concise and specific but this is a comment section.
maybe we have differing political philosophies thinker247.i do not trust government nor power because that power historically has ALWAYS attempted to garner more power for itself at the expense of liberty,freedom and the common good of society.
so while i dont think the US government attacked the twin towers,i believe they ALLOWED it.
what evidence do i have? none.and any evidence we could have gotten has been destroyed.
but i was military for a number of years and unless they have gotten lazy and stupid there is no way that would have happened.
could i be wrong?you betcha.
but unlike you i do not trust government and neither should you because historically,governments will abuse whatever powers they have and take your rights away as fast as they are allowed to.
might i recommend:
1.bryzinski "the grand chessboard"
2.naomi klein "the shock doctrine"
3.chalmers johnson "blowback"
hell...just go the PNAC website they practically lay it out for you and that minority controlled the government for 8 years.
history is the greatest teacher and it is your friend.
i have enjoyed this conversation thinker247.

>> ^Diogenes:
the total costs of the 'clinton blowjob' investigation also include years' worth of whitewater investigations begun under independent counsel robert fiske -- ken starr replaced him, and then further investigations were tacked on... namely travelgate, filegate, and finally the paula jones civil suit leading to the breaking of the lewinsky story...
the total pricetag for seven years of multiple investigations? approximately 70 to 80 million
let's also keep in mind that it wasn't 'clinton getting a blowjob' that incurred these expenses, rather that there were shady land deals, as well as questionable firings of whitehouse travel staff, and improper access of fbi files... being investigated parallel to his sexual harrassment (paula jones) case while arkansas governor - the latter led to lewinsky... and it was then that clinton was charged with PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.... not just getting a bj
the cost of the lewinsky portion of the investigation, and that which caused the two above charges, is estimated at 6.7 to 7.2 million dollars
the total cost of the 9-11 investigation was 12 million dollars... 3 million initially allocated, and another 9 million of a requested 11 million allocated later
finally, as to the 'gop spen[ding] more money' ... well, the original investigation was initiated at clinton's request... through janet reno, who was appointed by clinton himself -- and reno appointed fiske, and then fiske was replaced--using a law of special counsel (originally created by a democrat-controlled congress in 1978) reenacted by clinton--by starr who was appointed by an independent three-judge panel to continue the whitewater investigation - also remember that starr had previously been the leading candidate for a us supreme court seat, but was deemed 'not conservative enough' by the gop... and therefore h.w. bush nominated david souter
yeah, there was monkey-business besides clinton and a cigar, but let's not forget the basic facts


Why muddy your propaganda with facts, escpecially when the fact don't support you.

the total costs of the 'clinton blowjob' investigation also include years' worth of whitewater investigations begun under independent counsel robert fiske -- ken starr replaced him, and then further investigations were tacked on... namely travelgate, filegate, and finally the paula jones civil suit leading to the breaking of the lewinsky story...

the total pricetag for seven years of multiple investigations? approximately 70 to 80 million

let's also keep in mind that it wasn't 'clinton getting a blowjob' that incurred these expenses, rather that there were shady land deals, as well as questionable firings of whitehouse travel staff, and improper access of fbi files... being investigated parallel to his sexual harrassment (paula jones) case while arkansas governor - the latter led to lewinsky... and it was then that clinton was charged with PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.... not just getting a bj

the cost of the lewinsky portion of the investigation, and that which caused the two above charges, is estimated at 6.7 to 7.2 million dollars

the total cost of the 9-11 investigation was 12 million dollars... 3 million initially allocated, and another 9 million of a requested 11 million allocated later

finally, as to the 'gop spen[ding] more money' ... well, the original investigation was initiated at clinton's request... through janet reno, who was appointed by clinton himself -- and reno appointed fiske, and then fiske was replaced--using a law of special counsel (originally created by a democrat-controlled congress in 1978) reenacted by clinton--by starr who was appointed by an independent three-judge panel to continue the whitewater investigation - also remember that starr had previously been the leading candidate for a us supreme court seat, but was deemed 'not conservative enough' by the gop... and therefore h.w. bush nominated david souter

yeah, there was monkey-business besides clinton and a cigar, but let's not forget the basic facts

Clinton was no saint. Not by a long shot.

But all of that hullabaloo about him and Lewinsky hurt our country a hell of a lot more than it helped it.

The GOP spent more money investigating the whereabouts of his dick than they spent investigating 9/11.

And the way that Ken Starr timed it all to happen right before the mid-term elections should have been my first clue as to the reality of American government.

Total bullshit.

"The budget for the Monica Lewinski sex scandal investigation was $6.2 million and $3 million was set aside for the non independant 9/11 investigation. Crazy"

Funny.. they could carry out one of the biggest crimes of all time , and cover their tracks, yet keeping an affair secret... too hard.

Lodurr

All 4 links clearly and plainly show a liberal/democrat bias in the news media. It is what it is. I'd love to see all bias (left or right) vanish but it is a free society and as such it is more important to have freedom of speech - warts and all. Cable news is awful. Affiliate news is better. Newspapers are liberal bastions. Radio is owned by the right.

I remember how they did this all the time when Bush was president.

FOX didn't need to because every other news agency was showing all the Bush stupidity. They gave up on that critical role once the guy they liked got the gig. The only TV news outlet filling this role now is FOX. I'd rather have a crappy news channel hitting on his faults than no one at all. Clearly NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, AP, et al are very biased in favor of Obama. They want him to do well, and prop him up when he makes mistakes. Like when during the Clinton years they sat on the Lewinsky story for weeks until a plucky guy that tilted right broke the story. The media gave up on journalistic integrity due to bias long before FOX. But I'd rather have a free news media full of bias on both sides than just one biased side.

The PEOPLE love Obama and his health care proposal, and therefore the media has to report on it if it is to remain viable in the free market

Uh - no - they don't. That is you projecting YOUR bias. The majority of Americans are against both Obama and his reforms.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

The Nashville Network?

Haw haw. No - of course I mean Turner News Network before it went belly up.