backtop

Internet Binary Heroes: The End is Near
Rob Mach (Blog) - January 15, 2008 9:47 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 173 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Jan 18 at 5:08 PM
'


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Disagree
By NullSubroutine on 1/15/2008 9:51:44 AM , Rating: 4
It is not the end, but every end has a beginning. This could very well be another devise the federal government uses to enhance its power.

How many people have died from terrorism? How many people die from health ailments? How much of our federal budget is spent on 'terrorism' and drugs vs that of health care? How many of our liberties have been lost to health care?

Hmm...




RE: Disagree
By Frallan on 1/15/2008 9:53:37 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed...


RE: Disagree
By qwertyz on 1/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Disagree
By ImSpartacus on 1/15/2008 7:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
...smartass


RE: Disagree
By TomZ on 1/15/2008 10:04:23 AM , Rating: 1
I agree, and in addition to what you mention approximately 44,000 people die in traffic accidents each year in the US, and many more are injured. Maybe the government needs to wage a "war" on traffic accidents?


RE: Disagree
By Micronite on 1/15/2008 10:24:25 AM , Rating: 4
I guess the difference is that the innocents targeted by terrorists are entirely innocent.
Though many people who die in traffic accidents each year are innocent, there are more who die because they were doing something stupid/risky.

Although, I do think you made an ironic comparison. A national ID card isn't too different than a driver's license. One is issued by a State Government and is already used for more than just stating your ability to drive. The other would be issued by the Federal Government and would eventually be used for everything except stating your ability to drive.


RE: Disagree
By NullSubroutine on 1/15/2008 10:47:21 AM , Rating: 2
A death is a death. You mean to tell me a person who is killed by terrorism has more right to life than 100 killed by traffic accidents?


RE: Disagree
By therealnickdanger on 1/15/2008 2:03:17 PM , Rating: 3
I doubt that was his point and you know it. Terrorists don't accidentally kill people. They specifically target easy targets that will strike FUD into the hearts of an established society. With terrorism, there are very clear methods of prevention that we already have established: military strikes.

As long as humans are allowed to drive vehicles for themselves, mistakes will be made and deaths will result. The time and cost involved with building an automated, reliable infastructure is overwhelming at this point - not to mention the public opposition.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 10:13:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You mean to tell me a person who is killed by terrorism has more right to life than 100 killed by traffic accidents?

Well, I find it hard to compare 1 life to 100 lives. Not really a fair, or logical at that, comparison at all.

But if you want to dig deep into this, I would say that someone killed in a terrorist attack would get my backing over someone who died by driving drunk. And by that, I do not mean an innocent person who was killed by a drunk driver.


RE: Disagree
By FITCamaro on 1/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 10:37:17 AM , Rating: 5
Are you sure the government could stop terrorism? Short of breeding people into docile walking zombies?

That's Hollywood's job dude.


RE: Disagree
By Ringold on 1/15/2008 10:47:04 AM , Rating: 1
I must've missed the multiple 9-11 scale attacks in the US since 2001!

It's done a good job at preventing one here, and it's not for lack of them trying, probably much more often than we're aware of. How it stops it overseas, though.. I dont know. "Delenda est Carthago!" I know what the Roman's would do, but that's not a politically correct option 2000 years later. :)

Worth pointing out though that the police-state United Kingdom has in fact been the one getting its ass kicked. I find that strange.. I'd think the invasive systems they'd have in place would help them be more effective than we are, but apparently its not that easy.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 11:02:10 AM , Rating: 3
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence?

I think the reason we don't get bombed into oblivion daily is because the countries that share a border with us need us more than we need them. Let's face it, it was still pretty hard to get in this country even before 9/11.

And its not like there wasn't terrorist attacks, they've just picked softer targets.


RE: Disagree
By Polynikes on 1/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Disagree
By andrinoaa on 1/15/2008 4:41:22 PM , Rating: 5
Are you another 15yr old wanna be? Are you serious or just parroting neo-cons?
AMERICA CREATED OSAMA, AMERICA CREATED SADDAM. Check your recent history, read about the CIA!!!!
Get your house in order. Your foreign policies created the mess, not your counter terrorism stopped it!
You are thinking " cart before the horse"


RE: Disagree
By rcc on 1/15/2008 5:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
As with most countries, the US has had it's ups and downs in foreign policy. However, no, we didn't create the worlds terrorists, lunatics, and religous zealots; their own culture did that. We have, however, provided them a large target, for which "you" should be grateful, at least they aren't pissing in your pond quite so much.

The horse is very much before the cart, although it does try to pass on the downhills occasionally.


RE: Disagree
By andrinoaa on 1/15/2008 6:20:10 PM , Rating: 4
Ok , Can you please explain to me how Bin laden got CIA training yet it has nothing to do with your country?
Can you explain to me how Saddam was armed by your country, yet your country had nothing to do with it?


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 8:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok , Can you please explain to me how Bin laden got CIA training yet it has nothing to do with your country?

Osama Bin Laden was party of roughly 40,000 muslim's who teamed up with Afghanistan during the late 70's pushback against the Soviet Union. He wasn't a known figure at the time, and him, along with all the others, were given less training than todays Iraqi & Pakistani armys are. Dont make it sound like the CIA created a monster, all they did was help the middle eastern countries defy the Soviet Unions pressure that was migrating to the middle east.
quote:
Can you explain to me how Saddam was armed by your country, yet your country had nothing to do with it?

The United States supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. The support took the form of technological aid, intelligence, the sale of dual-use and military equipment, and direct involvement and warfare against Iran and was refered to as "Operation Staunch".

Other countries that supported Iraq during the war included Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and West Germany.

Of those arms that were provided, none were WMD/Chemical/Biological weapons (like the gas used on the Kurds). Those were purchased from other countries. In fact, the basis of providing any weaponry to Iraq was due to the thought that Saddam's regime would be the lesser of two evils when compared to Iran.

I am going to assume this is not the false information that is being portrayed to you by the liberal left thinkers, but the facts are the facts.


RE: Disagree
By rcc on 1/18/2008 5:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
What I said, if you would care to read it, was the US did not "create" any of the nutcases you named.

For the rest, See mdog's response, I don't need to retype it.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 10:31:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
AMERICA CREATED OSAMA, AMERICA CREATED SADDAM.

No they didn't, so stop being an idiot. American CIA trained 40,000+ middle easterners when they were revolting against the Soviet Union in the late 70's. Osama just happened to be one fo the 40,000+, and at the time, was not a threat or a known terrorist. What he evolved into 30+ years later was of his own doing, not the United States. Saddam already had a ruthless regime - but it was considered the lesser of two evils between Saddam and Iran - so the US chose. They needed to choose in order to try to get the least threatening side to win to bring stability (even if temporary) to the region. I dont think there was any right choice - especially when Saddam was ruthless to his own people, and Iran still plays a major threat to the region. I call it a lose-lose situation.
quote:
Check your recent history, read about the CIA!!!!

Perhaps you should reflect on your own statements. Reading the first and last sentence of a paragraph does not mean you read the entire article andrinoaa.
quote:
Your foreign policies created the mess, not your counter terrorism stopped it!

False. More far left propaganda. I've elaborated so many times its becoming a waist of time.
quote:
You are thinking " cart before the horse"

Ahh, but "THINKING" is actually the point.


RE: Disagree
By Polynikes on 1/16/2008 12:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, where exactly did I say "WE CREATED OSAMA?" My point, which you clearly missed, was that maybe, because of our current distraction in the middle east, those who would travel over here to cause us harm decided to stay home, where it's easier to kill Americans.


RE: Disagree
By Pythias on 1/15/2008 12:01:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Let's face it, it was still pretty hard to get in this country even before 9/11.


You're joking right? Everybody and his dog sneaks across our borders every day.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 1:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
Compared to other countries, the US is and was prohibitively harder to get into. This is not really something people in the international sphere debate about.

Of course, why the hell would you want to sneak into Colombia or Libya or Norway ...


RE: Disagree
By johnsonx on 1/15/2008 1:07:22 PM , Rating: 6
quote:
Everybody and his dog

Correction: todos y los perros


RE: Disagree
By Yawgm0th on 1/15/2008 3:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
I believe it would be todos y sus perros or todos y su perro, but I still laughed my ass off to this. This should have a 6.


RE: Disagree
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/16/2008 1:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
"Todos y sus perros" would be the right way.
But that little technical detail won't ruin his post at all :D


RE: Disagree
By johnsonx on 1/17/2008 2:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
wow, my first 6! Thanks KK, I'm touched...


RE: Disagree
By JustTom on 1/15/2008 12:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's face it, it was still pretty hard to get in this country even before 9/11.


Um, there are 12-20 Million people who in the US illegally, most of whom are not trained in the secret arts of the ninja. Basically it is as simple as over staying your visa or walking across the desert.


RE: Disagree
By Pythias on 1/15/2008 12:28:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Basically it is as simple as over staying your visa or walking across the desert.


lets not forget our neighbors to the north.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 12:35:02 PM , Rating: 2
OK, but compared to Israel / Jordan or places in Africa and Malaysia. Where someone can walk from his local Terrorism Depot into a bus full of people.

Also, keep in mind the people who are in the U.S. generally want to be here for some job or family or something along those lines.

It's an insane amount of motivation to travel thousands of miles, at risk of execution, just to blow up a building or a few people. Try thinking about the process in reverse. What force would posses you to travel halfway across the world just to blow something up?

Take into account you'd have to learn the language just to get by, find a job just to not look suspicious, learn the lay of the land enough to find arms. These aren't trivial tasks, but we, in the US, are already at a significant advantage over terrorism because of the geographical and cultural differences when compared to Asia.


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 1:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "It's an insane amount of motivation to travel thousands of miles, at risk of execution, just to blow up a building..."

It's an even more insane amount of motivation to blow yourself up, just to take out a building, no?


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 1:46:58 PM , Rating: 3
Are you sure about that? Do you know how easy it is to brainwash people?

I'd call it insane to run into a battlefield guns blazing regardless of who its for or why.

Nah, finding people willing to kill themselves is easy. Finding people willing to spend 3-4 months of prep time, learning local culture and traversing nations just to do it is another thing. That's probably why it doesn't occur as often.


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 2:22:50 PM , Rating: 1
> "Nah, finding people willing to kill themselves is easy. "

While your other posts have been extremely intelligent, you're contradicting yourself here. First you argue that its insanely difficult to find someone willing to fly to the US and only "risk" death....then you turn around and say its easy to find suicide bombers.

So which is it?


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 2:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
It's easy to MAKE suicide bombers. I didn't convey the sarcasm well.

My point remains the same. It's easy to get people to die for something. It's very hard to get them to think about it for months on end and then still pull it off.


RE: Disagree
By DeSade on 1/15/2008 1:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What force would posses you to travel halfway across the world just to blow something up?


God/Allah/Prophet/Aliens told me to?


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 1:49:29 PM , Rating: 3
More like, my local militia told me God told me to do it. Few people, terrorists included, wake up one day and decide it's their life's mission to go off themselves in a very public way.

It's just not built into the human psyche to kill yourself. There's always some prodding.


RE: Disagree
By theapparition on 1/16/2008 7:22:10 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot "Family Guy" told me to do it....


RE: Disagree
By xsilver on 1/15/2008 11:05:39 AM , Rating: 2
a post below shows the spending on health and defence budgets. Theoretically if the entire defence budget was moved over to health, how many more lives would that save?
what about vice vera?

The budget is out of whack.


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 11:28:22 AM , Rating: 4
Luckily, the founding fathers saw the need for a strong defense, even going so far as to write it into the preamble of the Constitution as one of the primary goals of the government.

A military is like a home insurance policy. It's expensive...until there's a fire or a flood, then its dirt cheap. The US has been free from the threat of serious attack so long most citizens believe its a normal state of being. It's not.


RE: Disagree
By MatthiasF on 1/15/2008 12:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
That's one interpretation of a "common defense", but to "insure domestic tranquility" comes first on the list and I doubt fearmongering an entire nation with the threat of terrorist attacks would pass this goal.


RE: Disagree
By nidomus on 1/15/2008 12:34:38 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't the founding fathers oppose a standing army and throw their support to a strong Navy? I was always under the impression that the Right to Bear Arms Amendment was for two things. One was to maintain a strong militia so the US would not need a standing army, the other was to keep weapons in the hands of the people in case the government became a tyrannical entity. Then again, it's been years since my history classes, and of course my teacher could have interpreted it in his own way.


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 1:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
The Constitution specifically authorizes an army, but whether it authorizes a standing army is a bit open to debate. As for intentions, Madison didn't want one, Hamilton did...that much we know.

In regards to the Second Amendment, yes it was intended as a check against the threat of a federal standing army.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 1:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
I think Madison and Hamilton were both in favor of an army as a deterrence. I think both would even be in favor of nukes as a deterrence.

However, from what I've read both of their definitions of an army were more that of a militia. An army ready to rise to threats as they developed. You could argue that's still how the US military operates. You could argue the other way though too.


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 2:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
Hamilton was for a standing army; Madison against. This was one of the standing disputes between the Federalists and anti-Federalists.

They were both in favor of an "army", but Madison et. al. defined it as one called up from local militias as required.

Hamilton and crew preferred a professional, permanently funded force.


RE: Disagree
By xsilver on 1/15/2008 8:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
I was originally just trying to conceptualize if there such thing as "too much insurance"?

Are other areas are being neglected at the cost of this insurance?
Some will also argue that a good part of that defence budget is not insurance at all but rather a form of colonialism.


RE: Disagree
By retrospooty on 1/15/2008 10:43:05 AM , Rating: 4
"The government cannot stop traffic accidents. The government can stop terrorism."

Agreed. Its just the the Bush admin is going about it the wrong way entirely. It is our intrusive foreign policy that is creating hatred toward us in the middle east which is why the psycho fundamentalists are out to terrorize us. Our govt. needs to fix that, not by war, but by butting the hell out of the middle east. Only then will the terrorism stop. The middle east will never be peaceful, it is almost a hell on earth. Lets stay out of it.


RE: Disagree
By Ringold on 1/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 11:03:29 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah but maybe if we didn't throw Iran into the Axis of Evil we could have had their help with the whole thing. Maybe with Iraq too.

Look it up, we were weeks away from installing a puppet government over there.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 11:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah but maybe if we didn't throw Iran into the Axis of Evil we could have had their help with the whole thing. Maybe with Iraq too.

Yeah, right after we help them build nuclear facilities, and they joyously shake hands with Israel.

Pfffft.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 11:20:54 AM , Rating: 4
Don't confuse the rhetoric Ahmadinejad spouts with the sentiment of the people in the country (or the ayatollas who are actually in control of the whole nation anyway). He's pretty much just as nuts and just as much of a puppet as Bush.

Our media loves to show Iran as this weird backwards farm country, but it's sort of like when Al Jezeria comes over here and "documents" America as some backwater redneck growth.

And you know what, it's been 60 years. It's time to let Israel start figuring some of this shit out for themselves. I'm getting really tired about hearing how US aide to Israel ends up in China or Iraq or India.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=isra...


RE: Disagree
By retrospooty on 1/15/2008 11:23:47 AM , Rating: 5
Yup. both Ahmadinejad and Bush are equally religious psychos.


RE: Disagree
By cochy on 1/15/2008 11:29:13 AM , Rating: 2
Israel can figure it all out for themselves. The only problem with that is the outcome might not be exactly to America's liking which is the only reason why America is involved in the first place. Israel didn't retaliate against Iraq during 2nd Gulf War because America asked them not to. Israel getting involved in a war with another middle-east nation destabilizes the region. In the 50s and 60s when America didn't get so involved and Israel got weapons from France etc. they had no problems going to war with Egypt, Jordan and Syria and wiping out their respective armies and annexing some land as security buffers.


RE: Disagree
By Pythias on 1/15/2008 12:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
We didn't throw them , they jumped.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 12:24:12 PM , Rating: 3
Clever, but I seriously hope you look into this with more detail. I was involved in a very successful US-Iranian startup that went bellyup on January 31, 2002.

Iraq could have been over 3 years ago. The Iranians were more than willing to help us take care of Afghanistan. Iran was just pulling itself out of religious fervor in the same way China began to pull itself out of the Cultural Revolution.

Instead, we have extremely powerful people playing politics with each other over events still in their memories from the 1970s.

I'm totally disgusted by the way this country and other countries behave when it comes to international doctrine. The temporary feel-good tit-for-tat bullshit that breeds and encourages psychopaths like Ahmadinejad can be entirely avoided when a superpower like the US just emphasizes some self control.


RE: Disagree
By cochy on 1/15/2008 10:56:28 AM , Rating: 1
Sure. Once there's no more need for it's oil you'll notice the foreign policy shift to something more to your liking.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 11:04:21 AM , Rating: 3
Give it a rest with the oil. If that was really the focal point of the last 4 years we would have just invaded Canada. There's a hell of a lot more oil there and it's a lot closer.


RE: Disagree
By cochy on 1/15/2008 11:15:23 AM , Rating: 1
Why would I give it a rest? Why would you invade Canada? Canada is America's largest trading partner and largest exporter of oil. Your source of oil is secure here.

The oil in the middle-east is not secure as that part of the world is very unstable. The result of much of your foreign policy is to ensure stability in the middle-east to secure the oil. Man you don't need a Masters in Poli-Sci to figure this out. Other than oil the middle-east's next biggest export is sand.


RE: Disagree
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 11:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
Please don't confuse "my" trading policies with that of my government.


RE: Disagree
By jeff834 on 1/16/2008 3:21:21 AM , Rating: 2
But without that sand, where would we get all the silicon for the computer chips from?


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Disagree
By cochy on 1/15/2008 11:22:09 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not a left loon. I just can understand simple international relations. Take over Mexico or Canada? That comment is utter silliness. There's no stability problems here in North America. The United States is concerned with global stability. They are concerned with it because you can not guarantee much in an unstable environment. Whether it be guaranteeing an energy source or security or trade.


RE: Disagree
By retrospooty on 1/15/2008 4:18:59 PM , Rating: 2
Its easier for Mdogs to call anyone and everyone a leftist than it is to come up with a rational statement. Anything you dont like = left wing radical mentality, therefore its dismissed as irrelevant.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 8:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, just calling them like I see it.

Its much easier for the liberal left to make up conspiracies for everything that happens - Iraq war was about oil, California fires are due to global warming, Katrina victims who died did so because of Bush's cleanup efforts (or lack there of).

You guys just make excuses for everything in an effort to take away "personal responsibility" - much like your wanted efforts of Universal Healthcare, social welfare policy, and increasing taxes on the middle and upper classes. The sense of entitlement, class warfare, and government blame gets old after a while Retro...


RE: Disagree
By retrospooty on 1/15/2008 8:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
The issue is that you lump everyone into that "you guys" category. Not everyone that is liberal is a conspiriacy driven/greenpeace loving/anti nuclear/flag burning freakbag that you make them out to be. Most make a lot more sense than that. You are using a few examples of some extreme radicals and lumping everyone into that category. Its as if I accuse you of thinking everything that Ann coulter thinks, just because you are conservative.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 9:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
Although I do understand what you are saying, my statements are not of the "personal attack" type - unless I'm referring to one person by responding to the post. By lumping people and saying "liberal left" doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who is a liberal believes the same for every issue. But when you are referring to the left or right political parties - you speak in terms of the issues that they support as a majority, not on a person by person basis.

And although Ann Coulter can be a cold hearted person, I do agree with a lot of things that she says, just not in the same context as she puts them in.


RE: Disagree
By retrospooty on 1/15/2008 9:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
"although Ann Coulter can be a cold hearted person, I do agree with a lot of things that she says"

Nevermind then... ick.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 9:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget Oreilly and Limbaugh. They must be liars too?


RE: Disagree
By retrospooty on 1/15/2008 9:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say liars, just terribly predjudiced and misguided, and more than anything both are hippocrites.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 9:56:38 PM , Rating: 1
Fair enough. Thats your opinion, but I think differently. However, I don't believe that prejudice (if you are referring to racism) is portrayed by either of them. I also do not find Oreilly to be a hypocrite at all - perhaps you can elaborate on that claim a bit. As for Rush, I dont really listen to him much, so I don't have much of an opinion on him either way except to say that hes the most popular political figure on radio (and perhaps all media combined).


RE: Disagree
By retrospooty on 1/15/2008 4:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
That is exactly why we need to aggressively explore other alternatives to get us off foreign oil.


RE: Disagree
By themadmilkman on 1/15/2008 10:43:10 AM , Rating: 4
Tell me, Fit, is it the local government's job to handle trash collection or should it be handled by private companies? That question was asked in my Constitutional Law class last semester. The class was split, and the split occurred based on the personal experiences of the individuals in the class. I've always had my trash collection handled by the local government. Other people haven't.

So what's the point? The government's purpose is a matter of perception, to a large degree. While you don't think that the federal government should handle health care, I would imagine that most of Europe would disagree with you. It's certainly not unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate health care (the interstate commerce clause certainly covers this).

As for being nobody's fault but the individual if they can't afford health insurance? What about individuals with birth defects and conditions of such a nature that private insurance companies won't cover them, because they present too large a liability? Should they simply be SOL simply because they were born?


RE: Disagree
By dreddly on 1/15/2008 10:53:41 AM , Rating: 5
No, the idea behind resource pooling is that it provides for everyone, regardless of their specific situation and contribution, because there is an inherent good in making sure my neighbor's house doesn't end up being a trash heap because he can't afford to participate.

The problem is that there is no interest in the 'public' anymore. Your question begins from a faulty premise that assumes public and private are equal. Think about the way that governance has followed us into a 'me first' culture.

Politicians are beholden to their contributors, their religious supporters, their local voters and rarely do you see politicians or elected officials argue there is a need for action because it is in all of our interests. Public is not the sum of private interests, it is an effort to act in the best interests of everyone. The public is needed because it doesn't discriminate; it sees the public as a good end in itself, rather than an means of bolstering the welfare of your supporters and yourself.


RE: Disagree
By gramboh on 1/15/2008 5:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, this is one of the best posts I have ever read on DT. Someone should 6 this, and people should think about it.


RE: Disagree
By Ringold on 1/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Disagree
By JustTom on 1/15/2008 11:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
He did say local government, not federal.


RE: Disagree
By Ringold on 1/15/2008 12:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
I must've misunderstood/misread, then. What does local government have to do with a constitutional law class, then?

My statement on perception also stands.


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 11:08:59 AM , Rating: 2
> "The government's purpose is a matter of perception"

I hope they weren't teaching you that in Constitutional Law. The public's opinion on the government's purpose may vary...but that purpose is rather clearly defined, and independent of perception.

> "It's certainly not unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate health care (the interstate commerce clause certainly covers this)."

Only by a severe stretch. If you interpret the interstate commerce law as applying not only to trade between states, but all economic activity within those states-- then you've given the federal power to regulate anything and everything. And that, the Framers most assuredly did not intend.


RE: Disagree
By JustTom on 1/15/2008 12:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, however it is a sad fact that the commerce clause has been stretched to cover damn near every facet of life the federal government wants to regulate.


RE: Disagree
By themadmilkman on 1/15/2008 2:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
Given that I don't know of a single insurance company that exists within a single state (most are national offices), I think that the Commerce Clause stands on its own grounds without any further interpretation. And given the Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause, even an insurance company that did only support individuals in one state, using funds that remained within that state, only investing in that state, etc., would still fall under the commerce clause since the activities of that company affect interstate commerce.

As for whether the government's purpose is clearly defined? It's not, to be honest. The Constitution enumerates certain federal powers, yes, but it also gives the federal government the means by which to use certain UNENUMERATED means to fulfill their enumerated powers and responsibilities.

The Constitution is also subject to interpretation by the Court, who's authority to bind the government based on those interpretations is in itself an interpretation and not enumerated in the constitution.


RE: Disagree
By rninneman on 1/15/2008 1:04:06 PM , Rating: 3
The brilliance of the constitution is that it left most governance to state and local governments because the founding fathers knew the federal government could never effectively operate at the micro level. (Ever heard of states' rights?) So if you have a community of communists, they can elect to have lots of public programs funded by local taxes including public trash collection. It also enables a community to elect to have few social services with lower taxes. Then we all have the freedom to live in which ever community we choose.


RE: Disagree
By TomZ on 1/15/2008 10:59:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The government cannot stop traffic accidents. The government can stop terrorism.

The government has the same ability to control traffic accidents as it does to prevent terrorism: it can work to reduce them both.

All accidents are in theory preventable. We may not ever reach that goal, but the real problem is that people don't seem to be aware of the traffic fatality issue and about their role in traffic safety. People these days are more concerns about getting there faster and multitasking than safety. Whenever someone gets behind the wheel, their #1 priority should be safey; otherwise, the consequences can be fatal. I think most of us lose sight of that in our daily lives.

The role of the government in helping prevent traffic accidents is through education, safety regulations, and investement in development and maintenance of our transportation infrastructure.


RE: Disagree
By Polynikes on 1/15/2008 11:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
<sarcasm>
The government should do more to stop accidents. Your hands should be locked in clamps to the wheel; manual transmissions will be banned from production. All vehicles will have an electronic speed limit of 55 MPH, and none of them will be able to accelerate to 55 MPH in less than 10 seconds. We'll be VERY safe that way.
</sarcasm>

Seriously, you can argue the government CAN help reduce accidents, but they won't be effective doing it in any way that won't seriously reduce our freedom. I seriously doubt "education, safety regulations, and investement in development and maintenance of our transportation infrastructure" are going to make a serious difference. People KNOW not to talk on their cell phone, break the speed limit, etc, yet they still do it. You can make it a crime to talk on your cell phone while driving, but everyone still does it. Traffic accidents are an unfortunate side effect of having millions of cars on our roads, and for the most part, the only way to prevent them is for people to be more careful. I really don't feel any pity for anyone who causes an accident, as in 99% of cases, it could've been prevented with more alertness. The government has much bigger problems to deal with. People can take care of themselves.

<sarcasm>
Actually, come to think of it, banning AUTOMATIC transmissions would be better, as people need to think just a tad bit more when driving a stick; they're automatically a bit more alert.
</sarcasm


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 11:43:25 AM , Rating: 6
> "the government CAN help reduce accidents, but they won't be effective doing it in any way that won't seriously reduce our freedom"

I think the government can reduce traffic accidents without infringing upon civil liberties much easier than they can prevent terrorism without doing the same. Additional driver education, better roads and road markers, higher safety standards...none of these have the constitutional impediments that warrantless searches and suspension of habeas corpus do.

Are our priorities straight? I am reminded of a comparison drawn for Calfornia, which once spent over $2B on an environmental cleanup that was expected to save 1 life in excess cancer rates....yet the state couldn't afford a guard rail for a dangerous curve that had claimed six lives in a single year.


RE: Disagree
By andrinoaa on 1/15/2008 4:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
Careful masher2, you might be labeled a socialist for thinking outside the box! lol


RE: Disagree
By rcc on 1/15/2008 5:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, socialists don't think outside the box! They want everyone in the same box. Except themselves, generally.


RE: Disagree
By Visual on 1/16/2008 5:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
never been in the usa myself
but from what i've heard, the tests are extremely easy, and everyone gets a license. driving licenses are, like, a substitute to an id card - even blind people have them.

what do you propose to be done? "additional driver education"? well no one would go to such classes just for the fun of it, they have to be a requirement for getting a license. effectively, the current exam must be tightened up...

but that would mean people need more effort to get a license, and less people are able to do it, and so everyone would object and view this as another "the government is after me" thing.


RE: Disagree
By imaheadcase on 1/15/2008 11:12:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The government cannot stop traffic accidents. The government can stop terrorism.


Of course, just like racism, poor, health care, murder, government waste, government "research"...catch that sarcasm rainbow!

That was a pretty dumb comment FITCamaro.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 11:24:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course, just like racism, poor, health care, murder, government waste, government "research"...catch that sarcasm rainbow!

Inequality fuels racism, brought on by government force. For example, taking away the right of employers to hire who they think is the best person for the job - or who has "proven" to be the best person for the job. Ever hear of affirmative action? Im sure that was the savior of civil rights - i mean, equal rights.

I have a solution for the poor. Its called "workfare". Get a freakin job.

I have a solution for healthcare. Buy your own! You dont need those $100 pair of jordans and an iPhone. Learn to budget what is needed vs. what is wanted.

I have a solution for Murder too. Automatic death penalty w/o chance of parole. No sitting around in jail trying to appeal. You get put to death next day.

I have a solution for Government Waste. Quit spending it on wasteful social policies like welfare & pork barrel projects.

Why would you want to stop government research? Idiot.
quote:
That was a pretty dumb comment FITCamaro.

No it wasn't. You just need to quit being such a liberal pantywaist and grow some balls.


RE: Disagree
By straycat74 on 1/15/2008 12:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think along the same lines here, but people are very sensitive to feelings being hurt in here. Which illustrates my point. It seems more people want to be taken care of in this society. Why do we go to work at all? i go to work to pay bills, and hopefully save and invest to have be able to retire. Maybe the government should pay my mortgage, and utility bills, because in America, no one should be without a home. I need vehicles to get to work too. The government should make sure I have those, because I need them. Food should be supplied too. Without food, I die. That's why my health care should be paid for. Just like living with my parents. I can work all week, and the government can pay my bills, and give me a small portion for an allowance. It all makes so much sense now. Thank you. After all, it wasn't hard work that made this country great, it was handouts. Forget about what that old dead dude said too, "ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country."


RE: Disagree
By rcc on 1/15/2008 5:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
Damn, now I feel really old. Thanks! : )


RE: Disagree
By Yawgm0th on 1/15/2008 4:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Inequality fuels racism, brought on by government force. For example, taking away the right of employers to hire who they think is the best person for the job - or who has "proven" to be the best person for the job. Ever hear of affirmative action? Im sure that was the savior of civil rights - i mean, equal rights.
You seem to have the concept of affirmative action confused with the practice. Employers are very much entitled to hire who they think is best for a given job.

Moreover, I believe racism in America has been around much longer than any affirmative action, and the reasons are far more widespread than resentment brought on by inequality due to affirmative action. In fact, racism has traditionally been an extension of xenophobia in the United States, not so much inequality. I would say that any inequality-fueled racism today would more likely be derived from a race of or races of people which finds itself or themselves stuck in poverty.

quote:
I have a solution for the poor. Its called "workfare". Get a freakin job.
I have a solution for healthcare. Buy your own! You dont need those $100 pair of jordans and an iPhone. Learn to budget what is needed vs. what is wanted.


Jobs are not always available, and in fact having a job does not prevent you from being poor. You can survive off a sub-$10/hr job just fine. Not so much with children. Are we to send children to foster care or leave them with parent(s) who are unable to support them because of lack of opportunity or lack of educations? Are children, who are unable to support themselves due to their age, to be denied healthcare because of how much money their family has?

Extending that, should they be denied the same quality of education children from wealthier families receive? Lacking quality education, health care, and a good environment in general, don't said children tend to grow up to be just like their parents? Stuck in poverty and lacking the education necessary to remove themselves from it.

Doesn't that, largely (there are many exceptions to this -- but not for the majority of people), lock that family's descendants into poverty?

So the rich, healthy, and well educated stay rich, healthy, and well educated, whilst the poor, ill-educated, and sickly remain poor, ill-educated, and sickly?

Is that really the principle of a free market economy? It sounds more like a caste system. Perhaps the United States should have an aristocracy (though some we argue we almost do) or even hereditary rule as well?

Going with your first comment about how inequality fuels racism, wouldn't having the majority or a very large portion of a race locked into poverty for hundreds of years due largely to these principals, have a fairly substantial impact on racism fueled by inequality?

quote:
I have a solution for Murder too. Automatic death penalty w/o chance of parole. No sitting around in jail trying to appeal. You get put to death next day.

<sarcasm>Excellent solution. No one has ever been wrongfully sent to prison, therefore no one should have the right to appeal, and those with death sentences should have them carried out immediately.</sarcasm>


RE: Disagree
By Ringold on 1/15/2008 5:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
You could've had a good post, but you've bought in to the class warfare Kool-Aid distributed by race warriors without thinking or experiencing things for yourself --

quote:
Jobs are not always available


Perhaps we live in different countries, but the US Federal Reserve Beige Book has been complaining of shortages of labor for years.

quote:
Extending that, should they be denied the same quality of education children from wealthier families receive?


That's really where you drop off the deep end. I went to an inner city school (desegregation program yanked me there with lies), and the teachers there were excellent in quality and gave more effort in to their jobs then most people I know working on other fields. The problem isn't always the school, though that is part of the problem, but the real source of their failure was a culture of victimhood. You noted the parents, and you're right. Society, however, bends over backwards to provide them with *better* than equal opportunities to advance themselves; are we to be in the job of social engineering to somehow force them to want to achieve? How the hell do you even do that?

quote:
It sounds more like a caste system.


It sounds like a meritocracy, which is different in that its mobile and based on free will. I saw several, though rare, instances in high school of poor, black kids consciously choose to ignore all the drugs, gangs, and other misc. crap going on all around them and work full time jobs, save money, graduate and then go on to college. They'll earn far more money than their peers who did nothing in high school (or dropped out entirely, which a lot did), and they'll have earned it. Those that didn't work deserve, in my mind, nothing. They contribute nothing, they get nothing. Thats a free market.


RE: Disagree
By gramboh on 1/15/2008 6:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with some of what you are saying, if you have too many people in society contributing nothing, and a high concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, you are heading for problems both economically and socially.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 8:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if you have too many people in society contributing nothing, and a high concentration of wealth in the hands of a few

Doesn't that show an extreme lack of motivation to better themselves due to a sense of "entitlement" and "class warfare"?
quote:
you are heading for problems both economically and socially.

Economically - I would have to disagree. Being able to afford the luxuries in life is what motivates the average person to reach above and beyond the "norm". Working overtime, getting a second job, extending your education, making wise & educated life & business decisions. All those enable you to better yourself economically - and in most cases, the average middle class person starts at the bottom and increases their wealth due to motivation. The "bottom of the barrel" of society is content with receiving "something for nothing" - much like social welfare. Its much easier to just "get by" with a little of something, than to work hard and earn a little bit more.

Socially - that will never change. Its called class warfare. When the bottom decides that they do not want to work hard enough to get the luxuries, they turn it into a sense of "entitlement". Universal Healthcare is Robin Hood's mentality of defying the constitution in order to take from the wealthy and give to the poor. Unfortunately, in today's society, people actually have to work & earn their wealth...not steal it from peasants. So all this does is steal from honest, hardworking people...to give to lazy, non-working people. If not letting this happen causes social problems, then so be it. Motivation will kick in once the free handouts stop.


RE: Disagree
By Yawgm0th on 1/16/2008 9:28:10 PM , Rating: 3
I would ask that you not derive of opinions of what my opinions are based on that post. I was more countering the points of the post I replied to (which I found entirely outrageous) than I was making a statement of my own. My post probably makes me come off as socialist or something, which is far from the truth. That said...

quote:
Perhaps we live in different countries, but the US Federal Reserve Beige Book has been complaining of shortages of labor for years.

That's true, but job availability nation-wide does not correlate 100% with jobs available locally. Also, there's quite a bit to be said of the quality of the job, how much you can earn doing it, and what kind of qualifications it requires. I do not believe there is an overabundance of reasonably paying jobs that require little to no qualifications in this country. I will, however, admit that I have not delved too deeply into the statistics, so I may, in fact, be talking out my ass.

quote:
That's really where you drop off the deep end. I went to an inner city school (desegregation program yanked me there with lies), and the teachers there were excellent in quality and gave more effort in to their jobs then most people I know working on other fields. The problem isn't always the school, though that is part of the problem, but the real source of their failure was a culture of victimhood. You noted the parents, and you're right. Society, however, bends over backwards to provide them with *better* than equal opportunities to advance themselves; are we to be in the job of social engineering to somehow force them to want to achieve? How the hell do you even do that?


Note that this is your experience -- not mine. I went to a nice middle-class suburban school. But there is a nicer, newer, more upper-middle class school in the same district. The borderline for the schools is interesting, as it seems to correlate far more with economic status than geographical status. Long story short, there was a trailer park that was much closer to the newer school, but they wanted to keep the poor students at the poorer school (mind you both schools are quite excellent by public high school standards and very well-funded, but the principal is the same). The zoning for the elementary schools was even worse.

In any case, the state, county, and school district one lives in has a big impact on how effective my example is. Generally, school funding is based largely on property taxes. You pay more for property taxes, the school has more money. A school with more money tends to be nicer and provide a better education. Thus, the wealthier kids ten to obtain better educations. Because the taxes are generally based on municipal, county, or district zoning, the State and Federal aspects do very little to make the schools in poorer areas as well-funded as those in nicer areas. This is how it works here, though. I'm sure it's different elsewhere.

That said, you are right. It's certainly hard to socially engineer the idea of victimhood or the the reluctance to leave poverty out of people. It's certainly no ones job. But, in many cases, the funding of schools (in many states) could be regulated in a way that does not leave the poor in low income per-capita schools versus the wealthy or middle class.

quote:
It sounds like a meritocracy
The problem with this so-called meritocracy is that one is only set above one's peers in their own neighborhood, area, or economic class.

It's great if you get a 4.0 at your inner-city school, but you'll still have more trouble getting into an ivy-league school than someone with a 3.7 at a decent middle-class school, and you probably had to work much harder in much harder conditions than a student getting the 3.7 at middle-class school. You have to work really hard in that environment to demonstrate more merit, if you will, than someone who is in an environment that makes it easier to show said merit. Although that may give the student in the inner-city school a much better opportunity to build character and have actual merit, rather than perceived merit, they are far less likely (in most cases) to be motivated to do so, and again, because of their circumstances their achieved merit is more difficult to achieved and well be likely be less perceived.

That felt long-winded and confusing. :( To go with your end statement better, the problem with the application of free market principals to education (particularly the public, compulsory education system) is that it doesn't work that way. Those who didn't work or who worked less can still be likely to succeed more than those who worked more because of their economic positions.

Again, if you go to a poor, inner-city school that somehow has as much money as or the same quality of education as a middle or upper-middle class suburban school, I think you would be part of the exception to this trend. Generally, poorer people = less property taxes = less money for schools = lower quality of education = students must work harder to achieve the same perceived or even actual achievement level.

I still caste system. Inadvertent, unregulated caste system. Meritocracy would be wonderful, but free market (in this case -- for the actual business world and whatnot, free market and meritocracy go hand-in-hand) in the cause of public education and healthcare for adolescents tends to (again, inadvertently) favor wealth over merit.


RE: Disagree
By jeff834 on 1/16/2008 4:07:08 AM , Rating: 2
Most likely I will be called a "liberal pantywaist" for this post, but hey everyone's entitled to their own opinions, yours are just wrong.

Racism is like religion and smoking, kids follow their parent's example. That's not 100%, but few people become racist at 30, it usually stems from what they're taught at a young age. And it doesn't take card carrying members of the KKK to raise racists, a few comments here and there is enough. I see both sides of the affirmative action argument. Do undeserving people get jobs or promotions sometimes because of it? I'm sure it happens. But fundamentally it was created to stop the hiring of lesser qualified white men over well qualified minority candidates, and to think that wouldn't happen today if affirmative action didn't exist is just plain naive.

If you think poor people are poor because they don't have jobs you must live in a bubble. I have a job, I assume you have a job, and based on your comments you must not be poor, but 90% of the people I know who would be considered "poor" either have jobs and barely make enough money to have food and shelter, or are unable to work. Are there poor people who are unwilling to work? Sure. Is that a majority? Not even close.

I can't even imagine what goes through a person's mind when they want an automatic next day death penalty. All I have to say is that some of those people in jail trying to appeal their death penalty sentences are eventually acquitted, and as far as I'm concerned it only takes one wrongfully executed person to make me want as many appeals for the others as possible.

Your statement about healthcare is simply idiotic. The idea of universal healthcare is not to help the people buying iphones and expensive jeans. It's to help the people who can't afford healthcare. I know it might sound crazy to you, but there are actually people out there with full time jobs who can't afford health insurance. One solution is universal healthcare. Another solution is to require all employers to guarantee healthcare for their full time employees. Which would you prefer? Not everyone in this country can just go out and get a job that guarantees them good affordable health insurance. And if they could, who would do the jobs that don't?

Anyway, you seem awfully confident in your opinions, perhaps you should run for president. I'm sure you could win most of the south and hell your death penalty idea alone would guarantee you pick up Texas. Have any other brilliant ideas? How about instead of just allowing people the right to bear arms we require everyone to carry a concealed weapon at all times? Why stop at banning gay marriage? We should make it illegal to be gay at all! I'm not sure if I'm saying this simply enough for you to understand, so I'll just say you're a tool and everything you've said so far to date is stupid.


RE: Disagree
By ZapatistasLL on 1/15/2008 11:59:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The government cannot stop traffic accidents. The government can stop terrorism.


WHAT ????? I feel sorry that we ended up in the 21st century with such thoughts floating around!!

quote:
And its not the governments job to provide healthcare. It's a citizens job to purchase that. If they don't make enough money to do so, or have a job that gives good healthcare cheap enough, thats no ones fault but their own


Really ??? so tens of other nations especially in Europe who provide at least a basic healthcare to the people are probably wrong and of course a low paid employee (burger flipper in some joint or so) in the US has less right to healthcare than a burger flipper in the UK or France or Greece or Italy or Spain or something ???

Bravo ...nothing else ... Bravo .. I only signed up because of your post ... .Bravo !!!!


RE: Disagree
By straycat74 on 1/15/2008 12:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
And who has lead this world? Which country do people go to when they want to make their dreams a reality? Who else has the best "public schools, health care systems, giant water parks"? I'll let you answer.


RE: Disagree
By JustTom on 1/15/2008 12:35:51 PM , Rating: 1
How is healthcare a right? And where do rights end? Do I have a right to a jaguar? A McMansion?

Healthcare might be a pleasant thing to have; it might even be reasonable for the federal government to ensure everyone has access to it however it is hardly a right.

Europe is not America, nor is America Europe. I think it is silly in the extreme to say "Well, Europe does it why can't we?" Just as it would be silly to say "That is how it is done in the US why can't the Europeans do the same?"

Resources are scarce, even in an economy as large as the US. Too many people think that when the federal government pays it means noone pays. What it means is taxpayers pay.


RE: Disagree
By andrinoaa on 1/15/2008 5:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
Whats more important. Military or health. In my heirachy of needs, health comes before military. Get rid of the military expense and then there will be money AND lower taxes.
Who am I going to defend myself from when I am sick? We have healthcare because its in society's interst to have a happy and healthy population. If the population is unhealth and disgruntled, you have a receipe for instability, ie third world country.
Its something rich people don't have to worry about but would be the first in line if it affected their lilly white asses.


RE: Disagree
By Ringold on 1/15/2008 5:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
So, it's an absolute choice between military and health care, and the only solution to health care is government spending? That's how you just presented it, and only Sith Lords speak in absolutes, by the way.

Something tells me you won't be voting Republican.

That can also be turned around. Why be healthy if you have to bow before all and exist on their sympathies? Canadian's wouldn't consider this, since they have a perpetual blank check of support from the US, but if the US were no longer a military power.. there would be no real order to the world at all. Anybody could get away with almost anything without fear of repercussion, because even when the "UN" does a large operation, they end up relying on US military assets and logistical support to get it done.

quote:
their lilly white asses.


Because only white people are rich, eh? Asides from that clear, ignorant racist remark, I'd leave you to ponder what habits make people successful, and perhaps what that had to do with it rather than race. Might be a useful thing to ponder since, after all, a black man with muslim background is a front runner for the White House. Besides racist, it was class warfare too -- just wrong on many levels. Need to chill out.


RE: Disagree
By andrinoaa on 1/15/2008 6:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
You are the one dealing in absolutes,(proof read your work ) I am just highlighting the current irrationalty. Why the amazing insecurity?
Come to think of it, I cannot help you if you keep putting your foot in it.


RE: Disagree
By rcc on 1/15/2008 5:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whats more important. Military or health. In my heirachy of needs, health comes before military


Military spending is the ultimate healthcare. Without it, you don't really need to worry about your ingrown toenails.

quote:
If the population is unhealth and disgruntled, you have a receipe for instability, ie third world country


If by "we" you mean the US, we don't have an unhealthy population. A little world travel, and just looking at the people will show you that.


RE: Disagree
By andrinoaa on 1/15/2008 5:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
You guys need a little more perspective. Please be a little less shrill when you see sarcasm. Maybe its a little too subtle. lol
Besides, it wasn't meant to be one OR the other, just that the priorities are a little too lop sided.


RE: Disagree
By andrinoaa on 1/15/2008 6:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes, one has to exaggerate to get a point across. If you see racism in my remarks, you see too much. The words are part of a song, durh


RE: Disagree
By gramboh on 1/15/2008 6:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? Don't have an unhealthy population? Spend a week or two in most of the southern states where 'homestyle' type food is served then spend a few weeks in Europe (I've done both, in close proximity time wise). I was literally blown away by the prevalence of fatasses in horrible shape compared to Europe where people do this thing called walking and eating reasonable food. Canada (where I live) isn't much better.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 9:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Spend a week or two in most of the southern states where 'homestyle' type food is served

History Lesson - much of the "southern fried food" was because the poor & the slaves got the "leftover" parts of the animals, and the only way they cook them was in used grease over a fire. Not exactly the most healthy, but in the day, its all they had. This has migrated over the years into the type of "southern hospitality" food in the South. Although there is much more to this, its just a brief summary.
quote:
I was literally blown away by the prevalence of fatasses in horrible shape compared to Europe where people do this thing called walking and eating reasonable food.

They walk because many cannot afford a car, afford the gas for the car, and the cities are so congested that its easier & faster to walk than it is to drive. The landscape of the US (and Canada for that matter) is must different. We've been around for 200 years, they've been around for thousands. That length of time gives a good reason for population & building congestion in the countries throughout Europe. Compare the Country of Britain to the State of Ohio, or Virginia, or whatever else. You'll see what im talking about.

But at the same time, while they may be "fitter" due to more exercise & perhaps healthier food, they also have very poor personal healthcare & hygeine in comparison. We may be "fatter", but we didnt give up our freedoms for a set of dentures.


RE: Disagree
By JustTom on 1/15/2008 7:34:13 PM , Rating: 1
Health care spending is already over 15% of GDP in the US. And growing, which is far higher than military spending.


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 9:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whats more important. Military or health.

Well, in terms of a young country who is now the #1 superpower in the world in terms of GDP & Military power, I would say the "Military". Its what enables the country to keep proceeding and moving forward, and makes other countries think twice before trying to take that away.
quote:
In my heirachy of needs, health comes before military.

Well, no offense, but I think you're from Canada - and not that I dont like the country, but the entire country of Canada has no NEED for a Military. Its called the USA. So I would only expect that Health comes before Military for you.
quote:
Get rid of the military expense and then there will be money AND lower taxes.

Get rid of social welfare, social policies of entitlement, & pork barrel projects and there will be money and lower taxes. See, I can do the same thing too.
quote:
We have healthcare because its in society's interst to have a happy and healthy population.

No, you have Universal Healthcare because if you actually needed a significan defense budget, your taxes would be so outrageous that you wouldnt want Universal Healthcare.
quote:
If the population is unhealth and disgruntled, you have a receipe for instability, ie third world country.

Uh no, if you have an inept economy, you would have instability leading towards a third world country. There are many countries who have stability without universal healthcare - and the US has displayed that for 200 years.
quote:
Its something rich people don't have to worry about but would be the first in line if it affected their lilly white asses.

Rich people dont worry about having health insurance because they are motivated enough to work their butts off for the luxuries of life and afford those things with their OWN paychecks. But are you really saying that wealthy people do not get health problems, cancer, etc? Or are you saying that only white people have money? Or are you really just a racist liberal who wants something for nothing?


RE: Disagree
By mindless1 on 1/15/2008 12:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently the government CAN'T stop terrorism, else they wouldn't keep insisting on more and more things that encroach on our rights, with their inability to deal with terrorism as an excuse.

What we need is not a way to keep track of all citizens, rather we need a way to keep track of the government employees that are spending their time putting addt'l burdens on everyone, no matter how slight, because it all adds up.

As for your other arguments, they are senseless. No it's not the individual's fault if they don't make enough money to have good health care, because the fact of the matter is you as well as the rest of us depend on the labor, services provided by lower wage earners as well as the higher wage earners. These jobs HAVE to be filled, the workers are no less worthy of proper health care than anyone else.

The common argument of ignorant fools is that people can just better themselves and afford better healthcare but it ignores basic fact that our society depends on all jobs to exist. The competition for better jobs does not eliminate the lower wage jobs, someone has to fill them and those people are no less worthy of quality healthcare. Some might even say they are all the more worthy as it tends to be that the lowest paid people end up doing a disproportionately large amount of the actual work.

The government exists to keep society functioning, including bailing out individuals when it is not a specific choice at fault but rather a symptom of the inequality. The government has a function to keep the lower class with enough to exist so they can continue earning pennies while servicing your needs. You are foolish to discount just how much you have because of others who do so much more work than you, and I am sure they do a lot more work because you would understand if you did as much for as little pay as some.

When someone goes to work every day and puts in a full day they are as entitled as anyone else to quality health care, even if the individual moves on to a different job that job still exists and has to be filled by someone. That someone is in fact contributing to society even if you turn up your nose at them for not being *rich* enough to afford the things the rest of us enjoy.


RE: Disagree
By Pythias on 1/15/2008 12:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
Cant stop crime either, therefor, we should keep a police force. Cant prevent fires, so we don't need fire department. Cant fight death, therefore we shouldn't fund healthcare.


RE: Disagree
By JustTom on 1/15/2008 12:58:26 PM , Rating: 1
Explain how they are 'entitled'. And what else are they entitled to?

It might be beneficial to provide healthcare to lower income groups, it might be humane but I fail to see how it is an entitlement.

quote:
You are foolish to discount just how much you have because of others who do so much more work than you, and I am sure they do a lot more work because you would understand if you did as much for as little pay as some.


The poor as a whole, at least in the US, do not work longer hours than the rich. There is copious data on this. The higher the income level the more hours worked. You might argue that physical labor, which tends to be poorly paid, is harder than non-physical labor. I've done both and I'd disagree.


RE: Disagree
By nidomus on 1/15/2008 12:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
The government can stop terrorism to an extent. I find it hard to believe terrorism could be wiped out entirely until there is a Utopian society, which isn't going to happen soon.

Also, i know this may be dumb, however, what about children who did not ask to be born? Do they not have a right to free health care? It's not like it's their fault that their parents can not afford health care. With the rising costs even some middle class americans are finding it hard to cope.


RE: Disagree
By rcc on 1/15/2008 6:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps I'm missing something. But to the best of my knowledge no child "asks" to be born. But if you are speaking of unwanted children, and isn't that just a horrible statement by itself, then they have a claim upon their parents perhaps, but not on society as a whole.


RE: Disagree
By gramboh on 1/15/2008 7:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with that view is that one born into unfortunate circumstances would disagree, and that person is a member of society equal to you (privledged, as am I). It's basically random chance. This just boils down to a fundamental difference in ideals in society between those who think underprivledged deserve assistance and those who think "tough luck".


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 9:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This just boils down to a fundamental difference in ideals in society between those who think underprivledged deserve assistance and those who think "tough luck".

And that is the fundamental difference between "choiceless entitlement" and "charity".


RE: Disagree
By Sunbird on 1/15/2008 1:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
They can stop traffic accident if they REALLY wanted to.

And on healthcare:
Say you are a 8yo child (very smart, can be very contributing member of society one day) with a disease that can be cured by taking a $100 pill per day, for a year. Now your parents dont have the money. Just tough luck being you, huh?


RE: Disagree
By straycat74 on 1/15/2008 2:16:19 PM , Rating: 2
no. Your loving parents sacrifice for a year (no cable, movies, Christmas/B-day gifts, eat pasta- no steak, drink lots of water, part-time jobs, put off new car, have a benefit dinner, ask family/friends for help, help from your church(thats what they do- those evil churches), and on, and on.


RE: Disagree
By themadmilkman on 1/15/2008 2:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
Okay then, what do you do when you develop a condition where medication costs over $150,000 a year? A friend of my family had that happen (I don't remember the condition, some lung disease I think), and her health insurance denied the claim. She was lucky enough to be able to afford the medication until she successfully sued the insurance company for coverage, but that is certainly not an option for most Americans.


RE: Disagree
By djc208 on 1/15/2008 4:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
There are always more of these scenarios out there. The fundamental problem is that a capitolist system puts a monitary value on everything, but the christian values of this country say life is priceless. These two concepts are fundamentaly at odds with each other.

A socialist health care system doesn't solve all the problems it just makes different ones. Since there's only so much money budgeted for healthcare once you run out what does the government do? The little 8-year old isn't guaranteed help in a socialist system. She could be the eleventh kid to apply for that treatment when there's only a budget for 10, she could be the 111th kid, where do you draw the line?

Some moraly flawed decisions do need to be made even if you removed the greedy profit driven healthcare insurance companies. The biggest one being what is the value of a human life?


RE: Disagree
By andrinoaa on 1/15/2008 5:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
So what you are saying is we shouldn't try?
I am buying you a pack of razors for christmas, hope you succeed! There just isn't any point to life.
And America is a god fearing country? What total Hypocrisy


RE: Disagree
By clovell on 1/16/2008 12:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
No, you confrontational bloke. He's saying you're damned no matter how you try to solve the problem - each approach has its own ethical complications. It's a fair assessment - more fair than many that have already been posted.


RE: Disagree
By NullSubroutine on 1/15/2008 2:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the top reasons for driving fatalities are poor road construction, poor road design, and improper road maintenance. I just can't find where I read that at just yet.


RE: Disagree
By andrinoaa on 1/15/2008 4:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
If its not the governments job to provide adequate healthcare, what the F , is the governments job?
This attitude man, is a reason for war. Its obvious you have no EMPATHY for any human. You are no better then any terrorist. At least a terrorist has a reason. You would rather people suffered because "no ones fault but their own"
PS how old are you son? Brutalised at 15?


RE: Disagree
By mdogs444 on 1/15/2008 9:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If its not the governments job to provide adequate healthcare, what the F , is the governments job?

The governments role is to create laws, solve disputes, and provide safety & security for its citizens. The governments role is not to provide each person with money & healthcare. Although each countries "constitutions" are different, there is nothing in the US Constitution that says the government is supposed to take from the "have" and give to the "have not". That is why it is called the "land of opportunity", not the "land of entitlement".
quote:
Its obvious you have no EMPATHY for any human.

You can have emotions and love one another, but it does not mean you have to give up what you have to support another. Big difference. There is a difference between charity and entitlement.
quote:
You are no better then any terrorist. At least a terrorist has a reason.

Everything happens for a "reason". But those who have reasons are not always sane, logical, or correct. Choosing not to sacrifice your own life for the sake of someone else is not the same as killing someone else. It just means they have to find their own way of living, instead of depending on you.
quote:
You would rather people suffered because "no ones fault but their own"

In many cases this is acceptable. Someone suffers in jail becuase they made bad decisions. Someone can be poor because of bad decisions. Where does it say that its the rest of societies job to pick them back up and be motherly?


RE: Disagree
By winterspan on 1/16/2008 8:24:49 AM , Rating: 1
So when you or a family member is diagnosed with a terrible disease or injury that requires hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care each year which in turn you won't be able to pay, what then? Your child or spouse dies and/or has a miserable life. Thats what. If you are against helping your fellow human being, I suggest you move to an isolated foreign country where you won't be "burdened" with the "hardships" of taxes and the roads, public infrastructure, libraries, schools, hospitals, healthcare, military, police, firemen, courts, etc that come from them.

No one is arguing that things are perfect, and there sure is alot of waste spending that goes on in the USA, but most of it is for special interests and earmarks. Even in the event that some percentage of social service type funds are misused, abused, etc ... It's well worth the small loss for the large benefits to the poor and needy. Just because 1 family found a way to abuse welfare/foodstamps/medicare/medicaid/etc doesn't mean that 10 others in true need of help should suffer. It means that the system needs more reform and safeguards....

It's only my opinion, but I'm so sick of hearing comments from self-serving, narcissistic, conservative nuts that try to vilify attempts to benefit humanity and the common good. It's as if they are not human in their disregard and even malice towards helping your fellow man. What happened to the virtues of selflessness, generosity, and compassion?
I can only imagine the havoc that would have been wrought had the past 30 years of government been controlled by the likes of Newt Gingrich, et al.

I hope my generation finds itself more enlightened and is able to transform America's obsession and preoccupation with money and greed, and wave the banner of altruism and volunteer work.

This country has many challenges to overcome in the next decade and I sure hope we get a competent president up to the task. God forbid another Bushie.............


RE: Disagree
By ViperROhb34 on 1/15/2008 11:14:12 AM , Rating: 2
Ahh man come on ! !

I mean lets not forget the 75,000 a year that die of falling down..

Or even the 200,000+ who die in surgery due to malpractice.

And yes those are about avg figures..they vary from yr to yr..

This is life..


RE: Disagree
By reretteK on 1/15/2008 10:20:47 AM , Rating: 4
Here's the fed's FY2008 approved budget:

http://www.washingtonbudgetreport.com/gb/front/?p=...

$704 million on health care
$674 million on defense

There's another $589 on Social Security and the bulk of the rest of the $2.9 trillion budget is spent on "other" things like mandatory entitlement programs and other "discretionary programs". This "other" bucket adds up to $604 million.

So that's really about $1.9 trillion on government programs and $674 million on "terrorism".

What does this have to do with ID cards? You want to argue for government health care? Try harder! And what do you mean about liberties lost to health care???


RE: Disagree
By NullSubroutine on 1/15/2008 10:39:01 AM , Rating: 2
You mean we spend less than 5% more on health care vs defense while health care represents a couple hundred percent more deaths? By god I should rethink my world.

I should also ignore the billions of dollars we spent saving a middle eastern country that cost them a million of their own people during the process of installing good old democracy.

I should remember how good democracy is in the middle east but how horrible it is in places like...say Pakistan where their citizens are ill-capable of deciding their own government.


RE: Disagree
By reretteK on 1/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Disagree
By reretteK on 1/15/2008 11:18:19 AM , Rating: 2
Oops...that's $2.9 trillion...don't let my typo distract you from putting out a real opinion...


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 11:16:36 AM , Rating: 2
> "You mean we spend less than 5% more on health care vs defense "

No. It always amazes me that certain people automatically equate "we the people" with the federal government, unconciously ignoring even the possibility of a private sector.

The government spends slightly more on defense than health care. The people themselves spend nothing on defense, and several trillion on health care.

Even adding federal and private spending together, total healthcare expenditures outweigh defense spending by several hundred percent.


RE: Disagree
By NullSubroutine on 1/15/2008 1:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
That couldnt be because the costs of health care is disproportionately high because we have an entire health care industry worried about one thing. Profit.

The insurance industry (that is part of the health care industry) is not there to save lives and save the government money. They are there to take the money of as many people as possible while denying as many claims as possible, for profit.

Socialized medicine won't work in the current system of government/society, because the cost of health care will be paid for by the government (which is the peoples taxes) and go to private industry. Just like when we go to war and 'pay for reconstruction costs' the money goes privately own companies and corporations.

Until the government (ie the people) own the health care industry from top to bottom - meaning research/manufacturing of equipment, drugs, and hospitals - we will not see successful socialized health care system.


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 1:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Until the government (ie the people) own the health care industry from top to bottom - meaning research/manufacturing of equipment, drugs, and hospitals - we will not see successful socialized health care system.
A truly frightening quote.

Fortunately, we can learn from history, and those places which have tried such a system in the past. They always fail.

The US has the best health care in the world, bar none. I don't want that to change. The last time I needed surgery, I had to wait all of 48 hours for it...and it wasn't even emergency surgery. A recent poll in Britain revealed that many are having to wait 18+ months for certain types of surgery:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7386/416/g...

Here's a story about a Canadian man who, unable to wait 16 months for knee surgery, decided to fly abroad and pay for it himself:

http://www.pr.com/press-release/54883

From a recent UK news story:
quote:
Record numbers of Britons are travelling abroad for medical treatment to escape the [National Health Service] ...
Some are even flying to INDIA of all places, to get better care than they can in Britain...a nation that once led the world in medical science.

Socialized medicine is one of the worst evils to ever wish upon man. Don't wish for it, lest your hopes one day be granted.


RE: Disagree
By NullSubroutine on 1/15/2008 2:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm...wait longer to get an unnecessary surgery vs millions of people dieing from receiving no surgery (or health care). These choices are so hard.

What is truly frightening is that in the 21st century that money is one of the best indicators to the health care a person receives.

What is truly frightening that you can go down the road and get elective plastic surgery where millions(or thousands) of other people die yearly from inadequate preventable diseases simply because they didn't make enough money to afford health care, despite working 60-80 hours a week.

What is truly frightening is that there are plenty of people who actually have health insurance and are denying live saving procedures because it would effect their bottom line and the CEOs of these insurance companies could profit an extra, 10, 20, 30 million dollars.


RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 2:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "vs millions of people dieing from receiving no surgery (or health care). "

Millions are people are dying from lack of health care? Did you put on your tinfoil hat for that news, or did it come through the fillings in your teeth?

In any case, you're still dodging the point. Healthcare is enormously expensive. *Someone* has to pay for it.

If you want the absolute possible best health care for even the poorest citizens, then either we turn all doctors and nurses into slave labor...or we turn the rich into slave labor. Either way its slavery, and a blight upon the principles the nation was founded on.

A far better solution is to build a society where anyone who works can afford health care. That motivates people to do so, and ensures the wheels of society keep moving.

Let's face facts. If everyone in the country was assured of great food, decent housing, and the very best medical care for them and their family...why would most people work? Why not stay home and watch TV? Isn't that a lot easier?


RE: Disagree
By andrinoaa on 1/15/2008 5:51:19 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry masher2, but I have to disagree. You have fallen into the same vague ascersions. Your experience is different from mine. I draw a different conclusion. Your health system is fucked. The basic mechanisms employed in your country created the current situaion. ie, incompatable goals. You guys have profit on the brain, every human endevour is consummed by profit. If it costs the system less, it will just let you die.
In my country, we are a little bit more compasionate. Profit is not the be all and end all. Our government is EXPECTED to run the system well within a reasonable budget.
We just got rid of our neo-cons because they were trying to go in your discredited direction with health.
I am not saying spend everything on health, but rather your country's priorities are warpped. And you think your system is more efficient because its capitalist?
You spend more on defence yet are the most insecure people on earth. Some thing wrong there.
I didn't know you were a late 18th century Prespetarian.
Who said that man HAD to work. Its a historical fact but it doesn't have to always be. In an ideal society, basic needs are provided and then my brain can be used more productively
but I am also realistic enough to beleive it ain't gonna happen soon. Which comes back to my point, it doesn't mean we stop trying.


RE: Disagree
By gramboh on 1/15/2008 7:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is the costs are out of control due to poor regulation of the health insurance industry. Insurance companies have documented practices of awarding employees based on the amount of money saved/claims denied.

As said, there is a fundamental issue between profit and health. This doesn't have to be the case, the system can be made to work, but it will take some ballsy regulation to do it, and it will hurt the bottom lines of insurance companies (whose profits are artifically high as the real costs of their business are not being reflected due to invalid claims denial procedures).


RE: Disagree
By xsilver on 1/15/2008 8:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
Here in australia we have a hybrid system; socialized health care free for all and cheap drugs for the poor.
If you dont want to wait - you can pay and skip the queue and be in a private hospital.
Depending on your income bracket, you may also get a rebate from the government to offset some of the costs.
SO
Poor = free healthcare (but possibly a long wait, especially for non critical surgery)
Middle class = Choice, Free or private. Private health care costs can be offset by a rebate from the government
Rich = Private, pay for it yourself, skip the queue. (or if you're stingy you still can get the free healthcare, but not the cheap drugs)
Is this a system worth looking forward to?


RE: Disagree
By milomnderbnder21 on 1/15/2008 10:45:10 AM , Rating: 2
Do those numbers include all the funds going into Iraq? Bush has been funding that mess with 'Emgergency' funding requests, keeping billions of dollars from showing up on the normal budget bills. I had hoped this would stop with a democrat controlled congress, but recall that at first, at least, this was not fixed.


RE: Disagree
By Misty Dingos on 1/15/2008 11:06:42 AM , Rating: 2
I crunched the same numbers at the site you mentioned. My numbers were a little different.

$804.7 billion on defense
$1,214.1 billion on the big entitlement programs

I only post this for clarification of the big picture.

The question becomes. Do we as a nation want to grant the federal government something that the founding fathers would not likely approve of, has shaky constitutional grounds, and is going to promote many of our fellow citizens to break the law (those people here that will not comply to receive an ID card or will destroy theirs upon receiving it) all in the name of convenience?

Let's stick a fork in the National ID Card movement and call it dead and done. It is quite literally not worth the trouble at all.


RE: Disagree
By reretteK on 1/15/2008 11:48:49 AM , Rating: 2
I put VA healthcare and benefits into healthcare. I only counted defense and homeland security as defense.

Anyway...back to real issue of a nation ID card...

Why should citizens expect entitlements like free healthcare and social security from the government without the government being able to account for the people who receive these benefits? We already use drivers licenses and SSNs without much regulation but with many privacy issues. Why not create an ID that replaces those for the purposes they are inappropriately used for, only with strict privacy regulations? It would be convenient for citizens and the government and should help increase security.

If you’re worried about big brother spying on you…they already have all of our SSNs and can build centralized databases of drivers licenses so we’re already there.


Obligatory "Not Funny"
By James Holden on 1/15/2008 9:57:04 AM , Rating: 5
Before everyone jumps on Rob's ass for being "not funny," I want to make a few points.

1.) This isn't Family Guy. It's supposed to be cerebral, not just a random practice in absurdity.
2.) There are interesting juxtapositions occurring here. The only guy warning of the apocalypse is a bum. The average guys walking on the street seem to not care. The art isn't saying listen to bums, but it's clear this guy sitting around on the corner has thought about things more than the two lovebirds walking away.
3.) A cartoon is most effective if you use it to springboard the conversation. Someone the other day mentioned that he didn't like the cartoons, but the cartoons incited conversation. Rob, as a DT employee, doesn't care if you like his cartoon or not. He only cares if you start a conversation because of it.

Keep up the good work Rob. Hopefully if I'm way off on these points you can step in and let me know.




RE: Obligatory "Not Funny"
By Vanilla Thunder on 1/15/2008 10:03:50 AM , Rating: 2
This might not be Family Guy, but that guy's profile does remind me of a young Hank Hill.

V


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/15/2008 10:09:44 AM , Rating: 2
Mike Judge > *


RE: Obligatory "Not Funny"
By therealnickdanger on 1/15/2008 10:17:13 AM , Rating: 2
Funny, all the bums that live near me also enjoy yelling and fighting with people that aren't there in addition to drinking a whole bottle of scotch in 4 minutes. Perhaps that is yet another topic that bums have time to think about. They have unlocked a dimension filled with beings trying to invade our universe that even modern science is unable to detect. I've never actually considered that bums are actually defending our national security before, in this case, our metaphysical security. Remind me to reward my local bums with some additional fuel.


RE: Obligatory "Not Funny"
By James Holden on 1/15/2008 10:24:44 AM , Rating: 2
Ask yourself if the guy that looks like a bum really is a bum, or maybe just looks transient. I wouldn't go chasing messages that aren't there, but I think the message in this cartoon is very clear: the people on the street dismissed his message not because of the message, but because of the presenter.

If the same bums you see fighting over a piece of cheese told you the stock market was going to crash tomorrow, I'd dismiss it too.


RE: Obligatory "Not Funny"
By NullSubroutine on 1/15/2008 10:49:33 AM , Rating: 2
Id say he looks like he just got out of Guantanamo after being tortured for several years.


By therealnickdanger on 1/15/2008 2:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, if he were "tortured" there, he would be all wet.


RE: Obligatory "Not Funny"
By thornburg on 1/15/2008 10:19:40 AM , Rating: 4
It is entirely possible for a cartoon to be funny AND insightful at the same time.

All the great webcomics achieve this at least some of the time. I don't expect everyone to be perfect all the time, but I must say, so far, if Binary Heroes didn't appear on a site I read all the time, I wouldn't bother looking for it.

No offense intended to the guy who makes the cartoons, I just don't really like them.

I put my comment here saying it because if enough DT readers don't like them, maybe something can be done to change or improve them. If I turn out to be in the minority, then leave them as they are, and everyone can enjoy them (and I'll skip them).


RE: Obligatory "Not Funny"
By James Holden on 1/15/2008 10:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
Good points. I still find these very funny. I hope if you don't enjoy the cartoons that you at least enjoy the discussion after -- there's some interesting points brought up.


RE: Obligatory "Not Funny"
By JustTom on 1/15/2008 11:05:03 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps the young couple DID think about the subject and found it non-threatening. How you could know from the cartoon is beyond me.


Darwinism?
By Fnoob on 1/15/2008 9:56:12 AM , Rating: 2
"This could very well be another devise the federal government uses to enhance its power.
"




RE: Darwinism?
By Bioniccrackmonk on 1/15/2008 10:07:57 AM , Rating: 2
I am sure he meant to use device and not devise.


RE: Darwinism?
By NullSubroutine on 1/15/2008 10:58:45 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, so used to spell check that I didnt even notice this misappropriation of the word device/devise.


RE: Darwinism?
By TomZ on 1/15/2008 11:01:50 AM , Rating: 2
Mistakes around here will not be tolerated! Just one more typo and DT is going to terminate your account, LOL!


RE: Darwinism?
By straycat74 on 1/15/2008 2:24:30 PM , Rating: 1
The id card or the health insurance? !ALL YOUR HEALTH ARE BELONG TO US!


huh?
By rodrigu3 on 1/15/2008 11:54:22 AM , Rating: 2
I may be out of the loop, but how does this differ from a social security number or passport?




RE: huh?
By GaryJohnson on 1/15/2008 2:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
That one simple fact negates almost any argument anyone could have for or against a national ID card. I think people just like to argue.


RE: huh?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 2:42:10 PM , Rating: 2
How is it different? You don't need SS card or passport to fly or take a train or bus inside the country. You don't need your SS card to enter any federal building.

You don't have your fingerprints on your SS card. You don't have an RFID tracking tag on your SS card, potentially allowing the federal government to record your position, at least at certain checkpoints. It doesn't force you to turn over additional personal information to a government agency, with no privacy limits on how or why its being used.

Worse still, the ID card program shifts control from state governments to the Department of Homeland Security. I can't even begin to think of what abuses that might engender...but Im sure that department will come up with plenty.


RE: huh?
By rodrigu3 on 1/16/2008 9:44:10 AM , Rating: 1
No, but you do need your drivers license for a lot of things - and I'm pretty sure your ss number shows up when cops run that number through their database, no matter what state you're in. Fingerprints? Unless I plan on committing some crime, I could really care less whether they have access to those or not. You still won't need that ID card to ride a train or bus, unless public transportation becomes federally run as well (in which case I'll be moving to Europe).

I can see why some people might be uneasy with having the government know where they are at all times. If the private sector were to gain access to this information, it would be catastrophic.

Personally, I think the department of homeland security will not be able to take as many liberties with people's information and privacy once Bush and Cheney are out of office. These past 2 terms have completely shit all over the constitution and have turned America into a hypocritical nation, with a government that doesn't listen to its citizens and is controlled by big business. It's like the 1800s all over again without the economic growth and real politics. There may not be any monopolies left; however, new forces, in addition to some old ones, still run washington - oil, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies.


RE: huh?
By clovell on 1/16/2008 1:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
To board a plane, you already need a Driver's License. I don't think you do for buses or trains, but I saw no mention of making that in the description of this law. You also usually need a Driver's License to enter a federal building.

There's nothing that indicates my fingerprints will be on my National Driver's License - I'll fight that legislation if and when it comes up. Ditto for RFID. As for personal information, they have it. They know where I live, where I work, my phone number, my SSN, how much money I made last year, how much I paid in mortgage interest, how many children I have, their names, SSNs, etc, and that of my spouse, they know if I bought a new car or boat, they know if I have investment property, etc, etc.


I'm no big city conspiracy lawywer but,
By umeng2002 on 1/15/2008 10:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
I just don't want it illegal to not have ID. Cops still cannot
stop and question you for no reason, but I just don't want this country to go down the slippery slop that rest of the world seemed to have done where you somehow need the permission of the government to live our life.




RE: I'm no big city conspiracy lawywer but,
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 10:31:46 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe. Maybe freedom is overrated.

Somehow I have this feeling that humans would rather not be in control. They'd rather have some omnipotent force guiding their every action. Or at least controlling it to the point where we don't kill ourselves from stupidity.

Its been said before. We welcome totalitarianism with a standing ovation.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2008 11:10:44 AM , Rating: 2
> " Its been said before. We welcome totalitarianism with a standing ovation."

Britain-- for centuries the greatest nation on the planet-- traded in its freedom for free dentures. Unfortunately, it seems the US is on a similar path.


By tmouse on 1/15/2008 10:41:57 AM , Rating: 2
In many jurisdictions you can be taken into custody if you cannot produce any ID when requested by a peace officer. Now they do need probable cause for the stop but any excuse such as vagrancy is good enough, so in effect ID is already necessary. I assume you mean you cannot be imprisoned for not having an ID and here I agree with you. Anyways you practically cannot do or get anything without a social security card, which is an unofficial but de facto national ID anyways so I for one see no big deal.


By geeg on 1/15/2008 11:01:36 AM , Rating: 2
is it related?




By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 11:06:13 AM , Rating: 2
... What Tom's Hardware subjects?


By geeg on 1/15/2008 4:27:06 PM , Rating: 2
I read both TH and AnandTech. Mixed-up :-)


Bum
By rickon66 on 1/15/2008 11:12:40 AM , Rating: 2
The poor guy that most are calling a bum was once a sucessful engineer that lost job and family due to post traumatic stress syndrome. He was drafted into the Army in late 1968 and was assigned to the infantry. After 9 months of fighting the VC he was seriously wounded and sent back to the states to recover. He was honorably discharge in 1970 and went on to graduate from state college with a engineering degree. He got job with a major oil company and was married in 1976. He and his wife had three children and were reasonably happy for a few years, except for one thing. He had recurrent nightmares of the horrors he had seen and experienced in Vietnam. These nightly visions drove him to increasing episodes of depression and periods of drinking and abusing prescription drugs. After a time he lost his family, his job and is living on the street with fear, depression and paranoia his daily companions. He is afraid of the government after his experiences with the army, the police and the IRS.




RE: Bum
By JackBeQuick on 1/15/2008 11:32:38 AM , Rating: 2
I lolled :)


RE: Bum
By rickon66 on 1/15/2008 11:40:15 AM , Rating: 2
Don't laugh, I had to post this from my laptop while laying in the guttter in front of a Starbucks. Thank goodness for WiFi!


Downvote
By GoodRevrnd on 1/16/2008 12:19:21 AM , Rating: 2
So I see we are all able to down-vote each other. I think we should be able to down-vote the article.




"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki