backtop


Print 220 comment(s) - last by BailoutBenny.. on Jul 12 at 3:41 PM


U.S. President Barack Obama is fighting to overturn an appeals court ruling that bans police from warrantless GPS tracking.  (Source: Canada Research)

The Obama administration argues that its necessary to nullify citzens' Fourth Amendment protections in order to fight terror and drugs.  (Source: AP Photo)
White House urges Supreme Court to consider nullifying Constitutional protections again warrantless searches

A fight over the fourth amendment is brewing in Washington D.C. The United States Supreme Court, the nation's highest court, will hear arguments over whether police should be given a blank check to track the nation's citizens with Global Position System (GPS) devices, without warrants.

The fight escalated with Washington D.C. cases against nightclub owners Antoine Jones and Lawrence Maynard.  Mr. Jones was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to distribute cocaine.  Physical evidence against him was relatively weak, but the case was greatly aided by a GPS tracking device that was planted on his car a month before his arrest and showed his movements.  

Convicted and sentenced to life in prison, he appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.  Mr. Maynard, who had been added as a co-defendant and had been convicted, also appealed. The key question was whether the tracking violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, the nation's most important governing document, states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The question here is whether secret 24-7 surveillance constitutes "unreasonable" searches.  

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas had both ruled that the practice was acceptable [1][2][3].  They pointed to the Supreme Court's 1983 ruling in U.S. v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 which stated that "beeper" devices planted on cars to track suspects did not violate the Forth Amendment protections.

However, the D.C. Circuit Court went in a different direction ruling that modern 24-7 GPS monitoring was far more invasive than the beeper monitoring of the 1980s.  Thus the court threw out the verdict, saying the suspect's Fourth amendment rights were violated. 

That would have been the final say, had the Obama administration not intervened.  Attorneys for the administration blasted the ruling, saying that allowing the Fourth Amendment protections would harm the war on terror and drug enforcement.  

They argued that the fourth amendment protections should be nullified and law enforcement be written a blank check to sneak onto your property, plant a GPS tracking device on your vehicle, and monitor you 24-7.

On Monday the Supreme Course announced [PDF] that it would review the case.  The new case will be titled "United States v. Antoine Jones, No. 10-1259".  The case will begin in October with attorneys for both sides delivering arguments.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

uh huh
By sprockkets on 6/28/2011 9:30:03 AM , Rating: 5
You really want to be out of office in 2012 don't ya?




RE: uh huh
By 3minence on 6/28/2011 9:44:45 AM , Rating: 5
Bush was no better. It appears our leaders, both Democrat and Republican, are intent on tearing down the freedoms they claim they are protecting.


RE: uh huh
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/28/2011 9:48:17 AM , Rating: 5
Republicans, Democrats -- same s**t, different toilet.


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2011 10:00:58 AM , Rating: 5
It's funny how you people never said that when Republicans were running the show. Now that Obama has shown you the true face of the Democratic party, we see this "both sides suck" mantra.

How much are you willing to bet that you won't be saying that when the next Republican president takes power?


RE: uh huh
By quiksilvr on 6/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: uh huh
By weskurtz0081 on 6/28/2011 10:25:57 AM , Rating: 4
Huh? Which Republican's don't want legal immigration? On abortion and gay marriage, from what I can tell, the Republican stance is they want these issues to be left up to the states. On abortion, because it CAN be viewed as killing an unborn fetus, and on gay marriage because they view marriage as a religious institution. From what I can tell, they aren't against letting gay people have unions and the same rights, they just don't want it called marriage. Me personally, I don't care what it's called, but I can understand the argument.

On the "benefit the wealthy" comment, don't kid yourself, both parties are in SOMEONE'S pocket, just depends on who. Why do you think Obama is wining and dining Wall Street right now? He wants the campaign money that he lost after the financial reform. What do you think he is telling them to get the money back? Pretty Please???? Ummmm.... no.

And, on the warrantless searches, you are saying that since it's already done without our knowledge, illegally, Obama is just trying to make it legally done without our knowledge? So, that makes it OK? That makes it so you can still support your man right?


RE: uh huh
By quiksilvr on 6/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: uh huh
By weskurtz0081 on 6/28/2011 11:33:27 AM , Rating: 2
Immigration- really? I suppose the Democrat's don't either then since they opposed immigration reform under Bush right? You DO realize that every party opposes immigration reform when they aren't in power don't you? They don't want the opposition party to get a mass influx of new voters!

I'm sure there are, and there are also a whole bunch of Blue states that don't allow them either! OMG, those evil gay hating Democrats!

Yeah, and you are fully entitled to your opinion on what "killing a life" is, as are the other voters that disagree with you.

We might know it's being done, but we don't know when, to whom, and when used in court might not even know if it was illegal in many cases. So, the answer isn't to say "it's already being done illegally, so lets just change the law to make it legal!".


RE: uh huh
By quiksilvr on 6/28/2011 11:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't say they were god sends, I'm just saying I prefer their party over Republican.


RE: uh huh
By weskurtz0081 on 6/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: uh huh
By Manch on 6/28/2011 2:06:02 PM , Rating: 5
Most Republicans have no problem with legal immigration. Hell, I'm all for it, but I dont want to make illegal immigration easier, I want it stopped, and I want illegal immigrants out of the country. Immigration isn't a right.

If immigrants want in they need to do it the right way. America cannot afford to be the International welfare distributor for the world let alone Mexico.

Like you said; To each their own. If you decide abortion is something you are willing to do then that's between you, the mother and your maker. I'm pro-life and my wallet shouldnt be included. Using taxpayer money to und abortions is wrong.

And lastly, just like illegal immigration just bc it's being done, doesnt make it OK. Warrantless GPS tracking should not be allowed or legalized and if they are overstepping their powers then they need to be stopped, not wellsince you're doing it OK go ahead.


RE: uh huh
By quiksilvr on 6/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: uh huh
By weskurtz0081 on 6/29/2011 11:44:38 AM , Rating: 4
Immigration is a right? So, ANYONE should be allowed to come to the US? Is immigration a right in ANY OTHER COUNTRY in this world?


RE: uh huh
By Dorkyman on 6/29/2011 12:44:06 PM , Rating: 3
The country was born through illegal immigration???

That has got to be the dumbest statement I've read in weeks.


RE: uh huh
By Manch on 6/29/2011 2:41:54 PM , Rating: 3
No people from other countries are allowed to apply for immigration, but it's not a right. America can turn that spigot off if they so desire. Illegal immmigration is Illegal. That means it's against the law. If you're having trouble understanding what I'm saying go ask an adult. Just remember STRANGER DANGER! and if it says FREE CANDY! then it's probably not a good thing.

If you want to learn how our country was born, you really should read the Declaration of Independence or ask a libraian for guidance on which books to read. It may provide you a clue.


RE: uh huh
By EricMartello on 6/28/2011 4:04:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
On abortion and gay marriage, from what I can tell, the Republican stance is they want these issues to be left up to the states....

...and on gay marriage because they view marriage as a religious institution.


Marriage is NOT a religious institution. It's a legal contract between two parties - commonly a man and a woman - that exists to merge two families, typically elevating the social status of one family to the other's level. If it was a religious issue then "separation of church and state" would and should end any meddling by any government...but since it is a legal contract, any two parties who are legally able to enter a contract should be able to get married.

quote:
And, on the warrantless searches, you are saying that since it's already done without our knowledge, illegally, Obama is just trying to make it legally done without our knowledge? So, that makes it OK? That makes it so you can still support your man right?


I didn't vote for Obama and I don't think he has accomplished much in office...but these unconstitutional laws that have been cropping up seem to stem from 9/11...when people were stupidly emotional instead of level-headed and supported these kind of things in the name of improved "security". It's really up to the people to realize that these so-called security measures are only giving our already bloated government more power that it doesn't need.


RE: uh huh
By LRonaldHubbs on 6/28/2011 5:00:36 PM , Rating: 1
Well said.


RE: uh huh
By weskurtz0081 on 6/29/2011 11:09:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Marriage is NOT a religious institution. It's a legal contract between two parties - commonly a man and a woman - that exists to merge two families, typically elevating the social status of one family to the other's level. If it was a religious issue then "separation of church and state" would and should end any meddling by any government...but since it is a legal contract, any two parties who are legally able to enter a contract should be able to get married.


I am fully aware of how marriage works, and it's a legal contract, but like I said, they don't want it to be called a "marriage" because marriage was first a religious term before it was a legal term. Most people that are opposed to it don't care if you call it a civil union and have it be federally recognized and give them the same benefits, they just don't want it called "marriage". So, what's so bad about calling it something else? Personally, I don't care what it's called, but that's the argument.

quote:
I didn't vote for Obama and I don't think he has accomplished much in office...but these unconstitutional laws that have been cropping up seem to stem from 9/11...when people were stupidly emotional instead of level-headed and supported these kind of things in the name of improved "security". It's really up to the people to realize that these so-called security measures are only giving our already bloated government more power that it doesn't need.


Oh, yeah, absolutely! The problem I have is that I am not seeing the "change", it's just more of the same. He is supporting stuff he said he wouldn't, and supporting a change in the law where cops can do things like this without even a warrant is absurd.


RE: uh huh
By EricMartello on 6/30/2011 6:33:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am fully aware of how marriage works, and it's a legal contract, but like I said, they don't want it to be called a "marriage" because marriage was first a religious term before it was a legal term. Most people that are opposed to it don't care if you call it a civil union and have it be federally recognized and give them the same benefits, they just don't want it called "marriage". So, what's so bad about calling it something else? Personally, I don't care what it's called, but that's the argument.


Actually you have it backwards. Marriage was not originally created for religious purposes - it was created for contractual purposes, specifically for "nobility" to expand their kingdoms. Marriages were typically arranged, where sons and daughters were forced to marry members of other families primarily to gain wealth and power by "uniting" the two families. Once a son of one family married the daughter of another, the families essentially gained each others' resources.

The religious element existed primarily due to the powerful influence that the church (and other religions within other cultures) had in those times. If marriage had the blessing of the respective religious organization (i.e. the catholic church), it mean that the union was "official" and therefore could not be disputed. As to why marriages had to take place between man and woman - well back then, if you even mentioned anything that would go against the teachings of the church you may end up in jail or put to death for heresy...and the church did not approve of homosexuality (Homosexuality is not normal from a biological and factual standpoint, it doesn't mean it has to be unacceptable socially).

In this day and age the religious component of marriage is preferential. If two people want to get married all they need to do is get in front of a judge or minister...so unless the government is discriminating against homos there is no reason that marriage should not be possible between any two people.


RE: uh huh
By Jeffk464 on 6/28/2011 6:39:18 PM , Rating: 1
Who told you the Republicans don't want illegal immigration? Republicans want whatever corporations want and corporations love to exploit cheap labor.


RE: uh huh
By Jeffk464 on 6/28/2011 6:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
Remember Reagan passed the first amnesty in the 80's that opened the doors to the unchecked immigration we have today. Furthermore if you remember Mcaine was pushing hard for a second amnesty. Nope, both parties want open borders, they just have to put up with their pesky subjects that don't.


RE: uh huh
By weskurtz0081 on 6/29/2011 11:46:18 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty much every President, Republican/Democrat, tries to do some sort of amnesty/immigration reform, but the minority party ALWAYS objects and if they can they block it.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 10:49:07 AM , Rating: 5
We need a moderate as the next president. A true moderate.

One that will stand up and say--Civil Unions should be a State requirement for _all_ couples, gay or straight to guarantee equality under the courts and rule of law and the title of Marriage will only be bestowed upon by the Church, guaranteeing separation of Church and State.

One that will say Adoption is a better alternative to Abortion BUT Abortion should still be reserved as an option in cases of rape or danger to the mother. There is a massive demand for American babies to be adopted, but a lack of supply.

One that will say bring jobs back to America instead of focusing on things such as national healthcare!

One that will penalize companies for incorporating overseas by imposing tariffs upon them and reward companies by paying American taxes and their headquarters here. Force their hand to come back to America instead of giving up all the tax revenues because the bracket is so high. At some point we have to decide if some revenue is better than none. I'd argue that some is far better.

We need someone that looks out for the people, not their own special interests.

Hence, why I vote for whomever I think will do the best job, not which party they are affiliated with.

We need a Moderate. A non-partisan moderate. One that will stand up for State and Individual rights.

And last, but not least, in reference to the article:

Benjamin Franklin once said,

quote:
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.


The Constitution MUST be protected. GPS tracking is a violation of our 4th Amendment and Ben's words still hold true to this day.


RE: uh huh
By weskurtz0081 on 6/28/2011 11:09:43 AM , Rating: 3
I support this message!


RE: uh huh
By Akrovah on 6/28/2011 11:22:31 AM , Rating: 3
6


RE: uh huh
By MrBungle123 on 6/28/2011 11:49:30 AM , Rating: 3
Most rational people in the US would agree with you. however if either of the parties were to label a person from your point of view you're a right wing extrimist tea party nutjob according to the democrats, and a flaming liberal anti marriage progressive to the republicans.

Too many people in the US think of their political affiliations like they do their favorite sports teams... the "my party good, everyone else bad" mantra that is spewed all over the news is what is killing the country.

We need some way to get regular, common sense, average people that live in the real world in office instead of elites and political hack chrony capitalism types in office.


RE: uh huh
By Spuke on 6/28/2011 11:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
I'm really lovin you guys right now!!!! Starting to see the forest. :)


RE: uh huh
By quiksilvr on 6/28/2011 11:58:52 AM , Rating: 2
I suggested free vasectomies but got yelled at :(


RE: uh huh
By eskimospy on 6/28/2011 12:00:16 PM , Rating: 1
'A true moderate' basically means 'someone I agree with', and the rest is just campaign drivel.

Your marriage plan is probably the only position on gay marriage that would be universally unpopular.

Look out for the people instead of special interests? Good plan. What does that even mean?

Bring back jobs to America? Good plan. How? Be specific.

Institute tariffs? Which ones? America currently gains quite a bit from free trade. How will America gain from limiting it? There will be severe WTO consequences for this, how do you suggest dealing with it?

As always, the devil is in the details, not in vacuous campaign rhetoric.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 12:17:09 PM , Rating: 5
How would my marriage plan be unpopular? It completely falls within the guidelines of constitution, guarantees state rights, grants total legal equality to all couples and protects the sanctity of marriage--all at the same time! Everyone wins. ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong on the above--with details, please.

Look out for people instead of special interests--lets see, End lobbying... completely as well as Term Limits for ALL of Congress. That's both the House and Senate. Both of those would go a long way towards crashing down special interests.

In addition, if you end the ability to accept external campaign contributions from Corporations and Individuals--and set all campaigns to be funded strictly through a set Federal, escrowed fund (not even your personal money can count), you limit the budget immensely. Of course, there's one flaw with this idea and that means the people would have to pay for it through taxes. I haven't quite solved that but I'm still thinking about it where we could keep the costs to an extremely reasonable level. It would at least give meaning towards contributing 5.00 when you file your taxes to the Presidential Election fund.

You do file your own taxes, don't you--i.e. prepare them yourself? Any good American should.

Institute tariffs? I thought I was clear about that. If a Corporation is incorporated overseas (an American Corporation like Cisco, for example) and then sells the products back to Americans--we impose Tariffs on their products that they sell to us. Sure, it will raise prices and people will then seek out substitute goods. If they don't, we generate tax revenue indirectly.

At the same time, we give tax breaks and incentives to companies in the same industry that remain incorporated within our country. They gain pricing leverages over their international counterparts (American companies incorporated overseas) thus helping them have higher margins and better compete.

Sure, it creates and uneven playing field and potentially costs the taxpayer money to start (through higher prices for the now imported good)--on the flip side we'll gain tax revenue that was previously being lost and companies that have a competitive disadvantage will eventually convert to U.S. incorporation to receive tax breaks to compete more evenly (thus paying U.S. taxes once again--taxes that are being lost more and more frequently these days).

WTO consequences be darned. Have you looked at our Economy lately? We are suffering from a weakening dollar, potential inflation and lack of industry within our Nation. We are declining while China and India are growing in wealth and prosperity. We have to work on the basics again and look out for our own. We are not a global charity. International commerce is important but we increasingly are having our potential tax revenue streams walking out of our borders and instead going into the pockets of foreign nations because of our messed up tax code.


RE: uh huh
By ebakke on 6/28/2011 2:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
Your international business taxation plan sounds like an absolute mess to me. I see there being about a 25% chance things pan out as you expect (will eventually convert to U.S. incorporation to receive tax breaks to compete more evenly) and about a 75% chance they just bail on US operations all together. Plus, can you imagine the amount of rules/restrictions on what tax rate you pay based on who's where, and what's incorporated where, how many of this the company has, how many of that the company has. Yuck.

Why not just eliminate all individual and corporate income taxes, and replace it with a national sales tax (ala the Fair Tax)? Taxes on businesses are just taxes on people, so why don't we just cut to the chase.

Plus, protectionism always brings about the law of unintended consequences. So let's stop trying to prevent competition with other countries, and start trying to figure out what we do better than they do. If Company A wants to produce Widget X in China, who cares? We should be focusing our energy on things that we do better than the Chinese, so that that work won't be shipped away.


RE: uh huh
By bh192012 on 6/28/2011 5:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
How is that a "Fair Tax?" It's basically a way to screw poor people.

Bob pulls in 20k a year, spends 20k a year to survive, loosing a total of 30% to your Fair Tax.

Bill pulls in 1 million and spends 300k a year to survive, investing/saving the rest. 30% of 300k gets taxed. So Bill only looses a total of 9% to taxes.

Makes more sense to tax it once when you earn it, rather than at random times all over the place when you spend it. I would prefer a simple income tax w/o deductions etc. Then the govt knows how much it'll earn. If it wants to pay farmers to plant corn just in case, or whatever, they won't have some random amount depending on how many farmers decided to take that deduction. It actually counts as spending money, so there is accountability.

Non-protectionism always brings about the law of unintended consequences as well, so wake me up when the WTO does anything about the IP China steals, the knockoffs they make or the toxicity of products they sell to us.


RE: uh huh
By ebakke on 6/28/2011 6:44:33 PM , Rating: 3
I see you neglected to read about the Fair Tax. Here's hoping I haven't lost your interest already. We'll assume Bob's single and has no kids. If Bob's spending 20,000 a year, let's assume that his "pulling in" number is post-tax in the current system.

Current System
Bob earns $25,337 a year before taxes are withheld. His federal income tax burden is $3,399 and his half of the payroll tax burden is $1,938. This means his total federal tax burden is $5337 bringing his post-tax income to to $20,000. There's also another $1,938 in payroll taxes being paid by his employer.

As a percentage of his income, his tax burden is 21%. Add in the employer half of payroll taxes (which one could argue results in that much lower pay) and it jumps to 28.7%

Fair Tax
Bob pulls in $25,337 a year, and spends $20,000 a year to survive. Bob pays $6,000 in sales taxes (30% at the point of sale). Bob gets a prebate of $2,491. His tax burden is now $2,509.

As a percentage of his income, his tax burden is 9.9% And he has $5,337 left in his savings at the end of the year.

How exactly is that screwing poor people?

quote:
Makes more sense to tax it once when you earn it, rather than at random times all over the place when you spend it.
I disagree. Spending is historically more stable than earnings, and you now have an incentive to save (something Americans could certainly do more). It also makes the tax system more transparent as it's a line item on every single purchase you make. It also greatly simplifies the collection/verification system.
quote:
Non-protectionism always brings about the law of unintended consequences as well, so wake me up when the WTO does anything about the IP China steals, the knockoffs they make or the toxicity of products they sell to us.
These are separate problems. Which would you like to address? Taxation? Protectionism? Or shady practices of certain companies?


RE: uh huh
By ebakke on 6/28/2011 6:52:08 PM , Rating: 4
Whoops! I used 2008 numbers for the current system. Let's try that again with 2011 rates:

Current System
Bob earns $25,307 a year before taxes are withheld. His federal income tax burden is $3,371 and his half of the payroll tax burden is $1,936. This means his total federal tax burden is $5307 bringing his post-tax income to to $20,000. There's also another $1,936 in payroll taxes being paid by his employer.

As a percentage of his income, his tax burden is 20.9%. Add in the employer half of payroll taxes (which one could argue results in that much lower pay) and it jumps to 28.6%


RE: uh huh
By ebakke on 6/28/2011 7:01:23 PM , Rating: 4
Ugh, math fail. I biffed the other numbers too. Fair Tax, revisited.

Fair Tax
Bob pulls in $25,337 a year, and spends $20,000 a year to survive. Bob pays $6,000 in sales taxes (30% at the point of sale). Bob gets a prebate of $2,491. His tax burden is now $3,509 .

As a percentage of his income, his tax burden is 13.8% And he has $5,337 left in his savings at the end of the year.


RE: uh huh
By MrBungle123 on 6/28/2011 7:36:45 PM , Rating: 4
No you both have it wrong...

Heres why we need to drop the Income Tax, disolve the IRS and save us the headache, abuse, and arguements over "fairness".

Current System:

Bob makes 20K a year, pays $3K in taxes, and gets a tax return of $9000, $2500 after deductions, and $6500 from the child tax credit for having 3 kids and not reporting his wife/girlfriends income on his tax return. Because his reported income is so low he also collects $5000 more in food stamps and qualifies for a HUD house. His total tax burden is NEGATIVE $11,000 a year . He consistently votes Democrat because they keep promising to expand social services.

Sally makes 75K a year and pays 30K in taxes because she is an evil rich person who is greedy and has gotten that way off the back of Bob by going to college and trying to better herself instead of smoking weed all the time. Sally is self sufficent and does not like taxes so she does not typically vote for democrats because she hates the idea of paying more to support shlubs like bob.

the government is happy because they can get people like bob on the dole and have a reliable voting block of "bobs" and they can socially engineer behavior by rewarding certain things with tax deductions.

Sales Tax

Bob makes 20K a year and pays out 3K in taxes over the course of the year when he buys stuff... He is not very comfortable because he is trying to support three kids with his wife and between the both of them they are very tight so he is taking night classes to get a degree in business so he can get promoted.

Sally makes 75K a year and pays out 11500 in taxes by shopping and is getting ready to expand her business with the extra 20K a year she is saving from not being shanked by the income tax. The increased demand has caused 4 new positions to open up and bob is the top applicant for the assistant mangager.

The government is not happy because they cannot get socially engineer people like bob into defacto slavery anymore via income tax redistrobution programs, this also irks them because now all adults pay taxes and will almost universally oppose tax increases because they effect everyone equally.


RE: uh huh
By ebakke on 6/28/2011 7:51:27 PM , Rating: 3
Heh. Well played sir.


RE: uh huh
By JediJeb on 6/29/2011 10:59:00 AM , Rating: 3
Now that is more accurate and believable and is what I see every day.


RE: uh huh
By eskimospy on 6/28/2011 4:04:03 PM , Rating: 1
So basically your plan is to enact a whole bunch of laws that violate the Constitution. (end of lobbying violates 1st amendment, as does your campaign finance reform idea)

What I'm saying is that your post was filled with comforting platitudes that wouldn't work in reality. I guess in that respect it's a great campaign speech, but it's little more than that.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 4:26:21 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not so sure ending lobbying violates the 1st amendment. Where in it does it guarantee Corporations the right to hand over money to our Congressmen to sway them towards making a decision in their favor?

We are guaranteed the freedom of speech, but not the freedom to bribe to get our way.

Besides, the Supreme Court has never ruled that Lobbyists have the right to "lobby" via the first amendment. Face it--Lobbying in its current form is "broken." Do you care to disagree?

Campaign finance reform in NO WAY violates the first amendment. Not at all. It completely, utterly levels the playing field. My idea in no way prevents the exchange of information to the populace on a candidates ideals. It only prevents some candidates from taking large sums of money to get an edge. What my idea DOES do is give all candidates a fair shake, regardless of party.

How is that bad? How is that unconstitutional? How can they not work?

Prove your points.


RE: uh huh
By JediJeb on 6/28/2011 5:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not so sure ending lobbying violates the 1st amendment. Where in it does it guarantee Corporations the right to hand over money to our Congressmen to sway them towards making a decision in their favor?


The Supreme Court just ruled that Corporations are allowed to fund election campaigns and have all the rights as a "Citizen" when it comes to free speech and campaign involvement. Which means in a nutshell that even though donations are limited concerning all citizens to candidates, due to free speech the corporations can spend as much as they want on commercials promoting their candidate of choice since the 1st Amendment applies to them as well as a person.


RE: uh huh
By MrBungle123 on 6/28/2011 5:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
I can see how large corporations could use thier pocket book to influence elections, but then again broadcasters and news organizations have 24/7 access TV broadcasts to sway public opinion.

I think that all sides of an issue need to be able to make their case and that should include large corporations. It's far from perfect and it might not be "fair" but without limiting free speech on some slipery slope i don't see a better way to handle the issue.


RE: uh huh
By theapparition on 6/28/2011 4:09:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
How would my marriage plan be unpopular? It completely falls within the guidelines of constitution, guarantees state rights, grants total legal equality to all couples and protects the sanctity of marriage--all at the same time! Everyone wins. ;)

I agree with your solution 100%, as it's my own personal opinion of how the matter should be handled.

However, as the other poster pointed out, that "sensible" option is universally derided by the most vocal critics.

The religious fanatics hate it because it legitimizes the gay lifestyle. You've just lost the bible belt states.
The gays hate it because they think they are being shortchanged. Marriage or bust.
And then you'll have people voting against it, just because you're not thier party of choice.

Sounds stupid, but that's the way it is.


RE: uh huh
By Iaiken on 6/28/2011 12:30:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
One that will say bring jobs back to America instead of focusing on things such as national healthcare!


The only problem with the idea of government healthcare systems in the US is the fact that it's national. There are states where it makes sense, Washington, Montana, New York, Mass, etc and states where it makes no sense at all Texas, Florida, California, Arizona, New Mexico, etc because of the different problems these states face.

Even in Canada, it's not a national healthcare provider, instead it is handled at a provincial level, for example OHIP is Ontario only, but all Canadian residents of Ontario are entitled to it. The biggest problem I see with private healthcare is the 31% of the dollar overhead (paperwork, CEO salaries, profits, etc) vs the 1% overhead of typical single payer systems.

I guess what really gets me most when I am travelling in the US is the myths about single-payer healthcare.

1. Taxes
The taxes are not higher, in fact, our taxes on investments are actually lower.

2. Bureaucracy
It's not a cumbersome bureaucracy, you go see a doctor, they get you the care you need. In fact, reason that American healthcare has such a high overhead is because it is a massive bureaucratic web of hospitals and insurers that spends massive amounts of money on paperwork to figure out who is covered and for how much.

3. National Expense
It's not more expensive, 10% of the Canadian GDP covers 100% vs 17% of the GDP covering 85%.

4. Government Interference
The government doesn't have a say in the treatment you get, it is completely up to your doctors discretion. Meanwhile in the US, if your insurer says you aren't getting an MRI, you don't unless your pocketbook can handle it.

5. Canadians seeking treatment in the US
For the most part, Canadians are not paying out of pocket for care in the US, in most cases, the provincial government will cover it if it was deemed necessary. There are exceptions, but these are cases where the care was deemed elective by the doctor. This February, OHIP sent my sister to Phoenix AZ and paid to fly specialists in from France, North Carolina, and Singapore because they couldn't figure out the cause of her liver condition. OHIP covered the entire $390,000 cost and she may even get a disease named after her. But when you spread it out far enough, the tax payers of Ontario each paid 3 cents each to not only prevent her death, but to ensure that she can go back to work and pay taxes.

6. Doctors work for the government
This is a wholesale lie. An overwhelming 90% of Canadian Physicians are either self employed, or work for private practices. These doctors are paid on a fee-for-service basis where claims are submitted to the single payer for reimbursement. Even the hospitals themselves are governed by private boards that oversee how money is spent and where in the best interest of the local community, this is important because most rural hospitals receive significant apportionment above and beyond their operating budget from local donations and trusts. Most hospitals actually leave the equipment purchased by these funds under the ownership of the trusts so that no matter what, the government cannot interfere with their allocation.

7. It's perfect
For all the complainers, there are always people on this side of the fence and having lived under both systems I can safely say it's not perfect, but neither system is. There are longer wait times for elective or non-essential services and the government has to provide incentives to get doctors to move into rural areas.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 12:36:43 PM , Rating: 2
What about the wait though? The waiting is my biggest problem.

Right now, if you feel you need medical care, and a doctor or hospital wants to make you wait--you can go find another one in America that will give you treatment sooner.

Once you move over to Canada's system, you are at the mercy of the system as to when you get treatment. That, for many people with life-long medical issues, is a major fear.


RE: uh huh
By Iaiken on 6/28/2011 12:56:51 PM , Rating: 3
What you wait for depends on what you have.

In my sisters case, it was deemed urgent, but they didn't have the available equipment do diagnose her. So they secured a medical visa for her same day and flew her and a nurse to take care of her during the flight to a hospital in Phoenix that had an available MRI and flew something like 5 liver specialists from 4 different countries in to meet her there.

After the Air France crash at Pearson, the 5 of 12 people with serious injuries were stabilized at the nearest hospital and taken by helicopter to other nearby hospitals with available operating rooms.

However, your concerns are justified, if you need something that is not life threatening, you may have to wait. The average wait time on a joint replacement is 14 weeks and this can have a profoundly negative impact on quality of life in the intervening time.

Like I said, not perfect.


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2011 4:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
So wait, the Canadian healthcare system is so great your sister had to be flown to Phoenix, Arizona for something as simple as an MRI?

Dude I can go get an MRI THIS WEEK with my private plan. If it was urgent like in your sister's case my MRI would be done TODAY.

You've utterly failed to convince me, or anyone else, that Universal Healthcare is desirable and competitive with our private car insurance. If your sister had died I think you would be singing a different tune.


RE: uh huh
By Iaiken on 6/28/2011 4:19:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If your sister had died I think you would be singing a different tune.


The fact that you would attempt to lord my sisters life over me like that is both petty and pathetic, but I didn't expect any less from you.

The reason she was flown specifically to Pheonix was that there were additional tests and observations that needed to be performed by a resident specialist with equipment that was only available at their labs. The specialist specifically requested my sisters presence at the hospital so that they could have 24-7 access to her. She's since returned to Canada after treatment, but they still don't actually know what was wrong with her, just that their best guess treatment worked out.

Does the fact that you jump to idiotic conclusions (based largely on your imagination), and loudly so, ever bother you?


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2011 6:34:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The fact that you would attempt to lord my sisters life over me like that is both petty and pathetic, but I didn't expect any less from you.


Oh no you don't. You were the one who used your own sister as a human shield for your arguments, in a blatant attempt to elicit compassion and support for your side. You really couldn't have found ANY other examples? Please. You can't use your sister as a supporting argument and then cry foul when it's turned around on you. Are you 12?

quote:
The reason she was flown specifically to Pheonix was that there were additional tests and observations that needed to be performed by a resident specialist with equipment that was only available at their labs.


So the terrible, inept, and outpaced private health care system we keep hearing so much about here had equipment and specialist NOT readily available in the utopia that is Canada? Why is that?


RE: uh huh
By Breathless on 6/28/2011 7:34:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So the terrible, inept, and outpaced private health care system we keep hearing so much about here had equipment and specialist NOT readily available in the utopia that is Canada? Why is that?


Yea, I want to hear an answer for that.

My wife has a series of rare and complicated medical issues (IE: Dyskeratosis Congenita for one) and I am in the hospital right now where i've been with her for weeks and will likely be for more weeks while she gets a stem cell transplant. In general, she frequently needs biopsies for strange things that pop up out of nowhere, some of which aren't serious, and some of which are. All we would need is for one of her issues to be deemed "not a medical necessity" for one of these things to potentially kill her from lack of immediate treatment. AS IT IS, she has to wait several weeks or even over a month to get precancerous legions frozen or cut off her hands under our current private insurance. If healthcare were socialized, not only would she have to wait days, weeks, or maybe even months LONGER to get treatment (putting her at a substantially higher risk for worsening issues), but if any of these are not deemed necessary to treat immediately, they could spread / get worse or develop into life threatening cancer. It is not far fetched either that this would be the case and would end up happening at some point with her various issues, and if it did - and something bad happened to her as a result - the persons responsible for the decision would have a hard time hiding from an individual such as myself.

Oh, and I also don't think that it is fair that my tax dollars should go towards sucking out baby brains. If other wanna suck out they're childrens baby brains - fine - but I work hard for my money and don't want to fund grotesque selfishness.


RE: uh huh
By Iaiken on 6/28/2011 10:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
As I said, it is completely upto the discretion of the doctor, as it should be. In the US, it's up to the doctor, but it's really up to the insurer as to whether they will pay for it or not.


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2011 11:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As I said, it is completely upto the discretion of the doctor, as it should be. In the US, it's up to the doctor, but it's really up to the insurer as to whether they will pay for it or not.


More bulls$$t

It's not up to your doctor, it's up to the government. Because Universal Healthcare operates on cost controls and spending caps. Your doctor is directed to do all he can to keep spending down, NOT to provide you the best care possible.

And it's not even working. In a country of 33'ish million people, Canada spent 192 billion in 2010 for healthcare. Amazing efficiency, wouldn't you say? Go figure, something Government run being wasteful. Scale that kind of spending to the population of the U.S, and you can plainly see why we're alarmed about Obamacare.

Personally I rather have an Insurance company tell me I can't have something than a bureaucrat. At least I have options then.


RE: uh huh
By Iaiken on 6/29/2011 10:56:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not up to your doctor, it's up to the government.


This is a bold faced lie for which you have no proof of government intervention in care. Seriously, you're as big an idiot as you are a liar.

Whats more, you are free to see as many different doctors or visit as many different hospitals as you wish if you don't like the care you are receiving or you feel the doctors are unhelpful.

quote:
Amazing efficiency, wouldn't you say?


Apply the to the $8,047 per person the US spends to the Canadian population and it works out to $271.5 billion.

So it's actually 29% less expensive. Again, did you actually check your figures before making such a profoundly stupid statement?

The fact that medical expenses are the straw that broke the camels back for 60% of personal bankruptcies in the US is one of the great tragedies of the 21st century. Over three quarters of them had insurance, but the above and beyond expense (co-pays, deductibles, uncovered) still sunk them. Some option...


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/29/2011 11:26:56 AM , Rating: 2
I would rather be in debt than dead or have less quality of life, Iaiken.

quote:
This is a bold faced lie for which you have no proof of government intervention in care. Seriously, you're as big an idiot as you are a liar.


Oh come off it. You seriously expect anyone to believe the government has a strict hands off approach to your Universal Healthcare and there are no cost caps in place? You're the liar here. I can use Google just as good as anyone, I know the truth even if you refuse to see it.

quote:
Apply the to the $8,047 per person the US spends to the Canadian population and it works out to $271.5 billion.


So for a country with over ten times your population, we spend roughly twice as much for the BEST PRIVATE HEALTHCARE in the world. And you see this as a negative? Did you fail math class or something?

quote:
The fact that medical expenses are the straw that broke the camels back for 60% of personal bankruptcies in the US is one of the great tragedies of the 21st century.


Oh please. I don't expect a Canadian to understand concepts like personal accountability, living within your means, and responsibility. But the vast majority of bankruptcies are because of poor financial discipline and bad decision making. Your "straw that broke the back" claim seems HIGHLY myopic and I would like to know what source your found. Notice you aren't saying that 60% of all bankruptcies are BECAUSE of medical expenses exclusively. You're just trying to attribute some correlation.

Maybe buying that 5 series BMW with a credit card on a salary of 30k a year wasn't such a hot idea? Oh here comes some medical expenses, well that's ok, blame those on your misfortune and file bankruptcy.

Our system isn't perfect Iaiken and neither is yours. But you know what? I like my system, I'm alive today because of it. And that's good enough for us.

By the way, next time you talk to your sister, tell her America says "you're welcome".


RE: uh huh
By Iaiken on 6/29/2011 12:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So for a country with over ten times your population, we spend roughly twice as much for the BEST PRIVATE HEALTHCARE in the world. And you see this as a negative? Did you fail math class or something?


Are you stupid? That $271.5 billion was a product from the application of the per capita US cost to the population of Canada. The US spent $2.5 trillion. That's 13 times as much despite having only 10 times the population you moron. Hence my statement of the US spending 30% more per capita.

Seriously? Did you deliberately misinterpret that or are you need to work on your comprehension skills? I'm OK with either since one makes you stupid and the other dishonest.


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/29/2011 11:09:20 AM , Rating: 2
Under Obamacare, you wife wouldn't have received that many expensive medical procedures. Or maybe not ANY of them. She would be loaded up on pain medication, "made comfortable", and left to die.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs6Y&feature...

Here's the man himself telling someone that maybe her grandmother doesn't get the pacemaker that saved her life under Obamacare. Maybe we're all better off if she doesn't get the surgery that saved her life and just takes a "pain killer".

See when a bureaucracy is in charge of your medical care, and not your doctors, it becomes a cold matter of statistics vs. cost of treatment. Obama see's an old lady who needs a pacemaker and thinks "well she's old, she's lived her life, that money should be spent on someone else. We can't afford to treat everyone."

But to that woman's family, they have had 6+ (can't find if she's still alive or not) years to spend with a loved one. Six more years than someone under Universal Healthcare would have gotten.


RE: uh huh
By Iaiken on 6/29/2011 12:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
Let's go straight to the mouth of the horse that got America into it's current costly/profitable mess:

quote:
John D. Ehrlichman: “On the … on the health business …” President Nixon: “Yeah.”
Ehrlichman: “… we have now narrowed down the vice president’s problems on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these health maintenance organizations like Edgar Kaiser’s Permanente thing. The vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from Friday to explain it to him and then help him to understand it. He finally says, ‘Well, I don’t think they’ll work, but if the President thinks it’s a good idea, I’ll support him a hundred percent.’”
President Nixon: “Well, what’s … what’s the judgment?”
Ehrlichman: “Well, everybody else’s judgment very strongly is that we go with it.”
President Nixon: “All right.”
Ehrlichman: “And, uh, uh, he’s the one holdout that we have in the whole office.”
President Nixon: “Say that I … I … I’d tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it’s, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I’m not to keen on any of these damn medical programs.”
Ehrlichman: “This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …”
President Nixon: [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: “This … this is a …”
President Nixon: “I don’t [unclear] …”
Ehrlichman: “… private enterprise one.”
President Nixon: “Well, that appeals to me.” Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care , because …”
President Nixon: [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make .”
President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: [Unclear] “… and the incentives run the right way .”
President Nixon: “Not bad.”


If you honestly think that the prerogative of the insurers has changed, than you are more naive than I thought.


RE: uh huh
By weskurtz0081 on 6/29/2011 2:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, with all the trash talking you did to the guy up above, this post you made is VERY narrow minded when it comes to the problems with our health care system! You think insurers are the largest cost driver associated with our system? Do you think they make obscene profit margins?


RE: uh huh
By Iaiken on 6/29/2011 2:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ou think insurers are the largest cost driver associated with our system?


No, that would be drug costs.

quote:
Do you think insurers are the largest cost driver associated with our system?


Nope, I know it was around 3.7% last year, but that can largely be attributed to massive losses they suffered on their floats and market investment of capital. Historically, many of these insurers have touted 12% to even 20% profits. However, many still managed to pay out significant apportionment's to their investors in spite of this. However, it's a convenient time for them to point at their lower profit margins while screaming "See! We're not the villains you thought we were!" :D


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/29/2011 3:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow, with all the trash talking you did to the guy up above, this post you made is VERY narrow minded when it comes to the problems with our health care system!


Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Some outsourced and incomplete quotes from a conversation that took place somehow makes his argument? Oh and of course Nixon is to blame for all our problems today, how typically Liberal of Iiaken.


RE: uh huh
By Iaiken on 6/28/2011 9:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So the terrible, inept, and outpaced private health care system we keep hearing so much about here had equipment and specialist NOT readily available in the utopia that is Canada? Why is that?


Again, you missed the ball.

She would have had to been flown to Phoenix regardless of whether she was in Ontario, or New York or pretty much any place that wasn't Phoenix. The only other locations where this equipment was readily available was Singapore and a Bordeaux, France.

Keep on swinging for the fences Reclaimtard. :P


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/29/2011 10:51:10 AM , Rating: 2
Nice dodge. Again you display how intillectually dishonest you are. If Americans were being flown to Canada for treatment, you would make that part of your argument and use it as evidence of our failing system. When I ask you the inverse, why your sister couldn't be treated in Canada, you balk.

Yellow Iaiken, very yellow. I ask you again, WHY was the treatment not readily available in Canada? Why out of only three countries with the equipment and expertise, is one of them the United States and not Canada?

quote:
Keep on swinging for the fences Reclaimtard. :P


Are you 12? I'm hitting home runs and you're grounding out with dishonest viewpoints and insulting play-on-word games about my username.


RE: uh huh
By Iaiken on 6/29/2011 11:14:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If Americans were being flown to Canada for treatment, you would make that part of your argument and use it as evidence of our failing system.


Americans flood to Canada all the time to take advantage of the fact that drugs here are flat out less expensive than their co-pays back in the US. I didn't even bring that up.

There is even a website for Americans seeking to marry Canadians for health care.

quote:
WHY was the treatment not readily available in Canada


I genuinely cannot answer that for you, but why not other rich nations? Japan, England, Spain. I don't know what relationships or agreements that OHIP or even Princess Margret Hospital have with the hospital in Phoenix, but a system was in place for outside care and it worked.

However, I can safely speculate that it could just be that the population isn't big enough to warrant the equipment and experts standing idle. When she was in Phoenix, the specialist only had 4 other patients with obscure liver problems last year and at the time, she was their only patient. Some 20 other doctors from around the world also came to visit her out of curiosity during her 2 week stay there.


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/29/2011 11:30:11 AM , Rating: 2
You didn't bring it up because far more Canadians have to come HERE for care, and it's well documented. Most of the time it's just because of the insane wait times. So a few Americans want cheaper drugs? Big deal. Drugs aren't medical procedures!


RE: uh huh
By Iaiken on 6/29/2011 12:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
far more Canadians have to come HERE for care


Hahahah, I'd like to see you back THAT up with hard fact...

The more I looked into it, the more I found sites catering to Americans to help them marry people from France, UK, Canada, NZ, Aus, and the list goes on, purely so that they can get the healthcare they can't afford.

The vast majority of people who do go to the US, do so for ELECTIVE procedures. If it is an emergency, you will likely receive treatment within 24 hours even if they have to fly you to another hospital to find an open OR.


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/29/2011 1:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
Rare identical quadruplets recently born in Montana were delivered in the U.S. because the Canadian health care system had (you guessed it) no available maternity beds. The Jepps drove 325 miles to Great Falls for the births because hospitals in Calgary were at capacity. The average wait time for a maternity ward in Canada is now ten months!

This is like being forced to drive from Boston to Philadelphia to find a hospital bed! Are there really people out there who actually believe it would be a good idea for the U.S. to emulate such a system?

Why is the hip replacement center of Canada in Ohio–at the Cleveland Clinic, where 10% of its international patients are Canadian? Why is Canada's Brain and Spine Center in Buffalo NY serving about 10 border-crossing Canadians a week?

Number of Canadians on waiting lists for referrals to specialists or for medical services–875,000.


It would appear that Canadians with sufficient financial means are seeking medical treatment in a country where such waiting lists exist only in the the fond dreams of single-payer advocates.

And what about the Canadians who don’t have the money to come here for care? I guess they just pray that their illnesses don’t kill them before the vaunted Canadian system can fit them in.

And you found a few websites looking to scam people into marriage? Grats


RE: uh huh
By Iaiken on 6/29/2011 2:29:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rare identical quadruplets recently born in Montana were delivered in the U.S. because the Canadian health care system had (you guessed it) no available maternity beds. The Jepps drove 325 miles to Great Falls for the births because hospitals in Calgary were at capacity.

The average wait time for a maternity ward in Canada is now ten months! This is like being forced to drive from Boston to Philadelphia to find a hospital bed! Are there really people out there who actually believe it would be a good idea for the U.S. to emulate such a system?


Looks good for your argument until you add some context.

The populations of both Calgary and Edmonton have exploded along side their economies over the last 10 years and every aspect of infrastructure is still racing to catch up. Most of these people are young married couples and having babies is what they do best.

In the face of a wave of an additional 500,000 people, the government of Alberta/Calgary has already built 1 new hospital (completed in 2008), with 2 more on the way to be ready in 2012 and 2014 as a response to this explosion. It takes almost 10 years just to build and staff each of them along with a massive amount of cash. In the mean time, the cities have had to lean on hospitals in neighboring cities and even states/provinces. Edmonton has similar plans for an additional 2 hospitals already in the works or 7 and 9 years respectively.

To state that an incident created by the unique situation faced by this province is indicative of a nation-wide problem is logically bankrupt (but I can't really expect much less from you). How well would any other group of cities fair if you suddenly jacked their populations by over 40% each? Each new hospital that comes into operational status will alleviate the problem until the service level returns to normal.

I also like how you plagiarize directly from healthcarebs.com without checking his sources or theirs, classy.

quote:
Number of Canadians on waiting lists for referrals to specialists or for elective medical services–875,000.


Fixed that for you.

When it all comes down to it, Canadians have a longer life expectancy, a lower infant mortality rate and a higher quality of life, while spending less per capita on health care. It provides outstanding base care, and there are no restrictions on you purchasing additional health insurance or using outside healthcare systems if you feel it necessary. Personally, I have additional health care for both my wife and myself simply because I can afford it and because we travel a lot and need to be covered while abroad.

I'm sorry, but you're just not going anywhere with this. We both agree that private systems can have their merits, but where we will just never see eye to eye is that I am OK with paying my fair share to make sure that everyone' right to live is upheld. Personally, I find that your "if they can't afford it, f*** em" disgusts me.


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/29/2011 3:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Personally, I find that your "if they can't afford it, f*** em" disgusts me.


Nice parting shot, I expected no less. Seeing as how I never said this once or even intimated such a thing.

You know what, I think food is more important than health care. Do you pay for your food in Canada or is that "free" too?

quote:
When it all comes down to it, Canadians have a longer life expectancy, a lower infant mortality rate and a higher quality of life, while spending less per capita on health care.


Provided they wait weeks, months, or years for treatments we take for granted here.

I'm sure your next retort will be that because that's not the case in your particular province, that means wait times aren't an issue in general.


RE: uh huh
By Iaiken on 6/29/2011 4:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seeing as how I never said this once or even intimated such a thing.


Oh yeah, so what about the people who can't afford it smart guy?


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/29/2011 4:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
We signed single payer into law, remember? So they'll be taken care of, right?

I personally hope it's repealed, but there you have it.


RE: uh huh
By Manch on 6/29/2011 3:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To state that an incident created by the unique situation faced by this province is indicative of a nation-wide problem is logically bankrupt


You've been using your sisters situation to argue your point. It's a unique situation, so how is that not the same as his quadruplet ref?


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/29/2011 5:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. Because it's his sister and we're all supposed to care and not argue, most likely.

My example was hardly unique. Having a baby isn't some freaky liver condition that requires rare equipment and world renowned experts. When people have to drive to another country to deliver a child, I'm sorry, but that has to be an eye opener.

He claims the population suddenly increased and not everyone can get care. Okay bypassing the obvious fact that these people didn't materialize out of thin air, and the Government was unwilling or unable to expand the healthcare infrastructure fast enough. Why couldn't they just drive to the next city over? Why drive to another country just to deliver a child?

Answer: Because the situation wasn't any better anywhere else in Canada.


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/29/2011 7:31:21 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and we HAVE had cities where the population exploded in a few short years from illegal immigration. I haven't been able to find stories of people having to drive from Los Angeles or Arizona to Canada to deliver their babies!


RE: uh huh
By ebakke on 6/28/2011 2:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting post, however, you omitted the number one reason why I oppose a single-payer system: It's no one's responsibility other than my own to determine how much or how little health insurance I need, want, and am able/willing to pay for. The same is true in reverse. As soon as you make me financially responsible for someone else's personal decisions (and, to be fair, their random misfortunes) now I have a vested interest in their behavior, with no ability to affect/influence/change that behavior. Well, short of more government coercion.


RE: uh huh
By farleytron on 6/28/2011 2:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone will need healthcare at some point in their lifetime. If you want to opt-out of the entire single payer system FOR LIFE, that should be an option.

And if that happens, you will be screaming like a banshee when you are unable to pay for the costs you get hurt or get sick.

You (and your ilk) are just cheapasses who complain about paying for anything that leaves your sphere of influence.

Faux quote from Ebakke: "I'm never going to get sick because I am indestructible. I'll never get old because I am going to live forever! Screw anybody else! America is about me."


RE: uh huh
By ebakke on 6/28/2011 3:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Tone it down a notch.
quote:
Everyone will need healthcare at some point in their lifetime. If you want to opt-out of the entire single payer system FOR LIFE, that should be an option.
If I could opt-out forever, and be ensured that none of my tax dollars in any way were being diverted to fund someone else's insurance, I'd accept it. I still wouldn't like it, but I'd accept it. But that means no General Fund dollars for 'America Care'. It has to be completely self sustaining.
quote:
And if that happens, you will be screaming like a banshee when you are unable to pay for the costs you get hurt or get sick.
You know nothing about me. You have absolutely no idea what I will or will not do.
quote:
You (and your ilk) are just cheapasses who complain about paying for anything that leaves your sphere of influence.
Again, you don't have a leg to stand on here. You have no idea where I spend my money, or how much of it I spend. Your accusation here is just as inflammatory as if I said you (and your ilk) are just thieves who want to steal from others who have more than you out of pure greed and envy. That kind of vitriol gets us nowhere, and I challenge you to debate the issue, not resort to hateful rhetoric.
quote:
Faux quote from Ebakke: "I'm never going to get sick because I am indestructible. I'll never get old because I am going to live forever! Screw anybody else! America is about me."
I'm going to get sick. I'm going to get old (hopefully), and I'm going to die. And when I do, I will likely spend everything I have to postpone that eventuality (after the insurance I paid for has been exhausted). I expect no one else to do it for me. Why should you pay for my chemo treatments in 20 years? Why should I pay for yours?

I see no distinction between health insurance (or any health related expense, for that matter) and every other expense in my lie. I buy my own food, housing, car, computer, internet, toilet paper, car insurance, etc. I expect myself to be self sufficient, and I expect others to be so too. Frankly, I'm a bit taken aback that others don't share that mindset.


RE: uh huh
By farleytron on 6/28/2011 3:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
You say you want to be self-sufficient, but do you live in a cave on an otherwise uninhabited island with only yourself to rely on?

No, you live in a human society that values cooperation and contribution over self-interest (for the most part).

As such, you will be expected to contribute, cooperate, and simply "do your bit".

Anything less is not an option.

You sound like a die-hard libertarian... which in itself, sounds like a wonder ideology... with the exception that it is a ridiculous pipe-dream. A society where everyone fends for themselves is not a society... its more akin to something you'd see in nature, like bugs or feral cats.


RE: uh huh
By mherlund on 6/28/2011 3:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
Don't push your values on someone else. If ebakke thinks that people should be responsible for themselves and you think that people should be responsible for each other, so be it.

This is America, people can have their own values where one is not right over the other. This is why not everyone will be happy with the decisions and why it is so hard to come up with them.

Don't tell people how to live their lives if you don't want to be told how to live yours.


RE: uh huh
By ebakke on 6/28/2011 3:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
We seem to be on different pages as far as what is meant by "self sufficient". I'm not claiming I want no interactions with any other humans, and that I will raise my own animals, make my own cheese, refine my own fuel, and otherwise be a hermit. I'm claiming I should be able to provide for myself. I should be able to add value to someone else, in exchange for money or something of value to me. I should be able to exchange the things of value I have, for other things of value. In short, I should be able to get a job and buy my own stuff. I shouldn't depend on someone else's money to fund my life.
quote:
As such, you will be expected to contribute, cooperate, and simply "do your bit".
Anything less is not an option.
Your beliefs, while fine for you, are hardly fact as you present them to be. I feel no such obligation to society, other than to be a productive member by withholding my bargain to be self-sufficient. What I do with my time, money, or other resources is no one's business but my own. If I feel like giving the guy on the street a buck, great. If I feel like spending it on myself, great. The "human society" in which I live does not get to dictate what behaviors I must participate in. So long as my actions aren't infringing on someone else's liberties, I'm free to do as I see fit.


RE: uh huh
By theapparition on 6/28/2011 4:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
While I applaude your spirit of personal reliance, understand that the core problem is not with you, but most of your neighboors who do not have that same attitude.

If your neighboor gets sick, and needs to spend 200k out-of-pocket, plus is now incapable of working at the same level, what happens?
Likely he goes into bankruptcy, where his creditors lose money. They in turn must raise rates for everyone else to cover the loss. You've now been affected.
That person must now rely on more state services to pay for food and housing.....and state run medical insurance (medicaid). State needs money to pay for those services so must increase property and sales/income taxes. You've been affected again.

I could go on, but the problem is that no matter how much you get your own house in order, others actions will affect you.

I don't claim to know the solution. I don't think nationalized health care is the way to go. But neither do I think sitting on the sidelines telling everyone to look out for themselves is going to make the situation better.


RE: uh huh
By ebakke on 6/28/2011 4:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Likely he goes into bankruptcy, where his creditors lose money. They in turn must raise rates for everyone else to cover the loss. You've now been affected.
And that's fine with me. If those rates are still something I'm willing to pay for whatever value I'm receiving, great. If not, I have the ability to take my money elsewhere. Surely you can see this is very different from when the government forcibly takes my money and discards my freedom to choose where it is spent.
quote:
That person must now rely on more state services to pay for food and housing.....and state run medical insurance (medicaid). State needs money to pay for those services so must increase property and sales/income taxes. You've been affected again.
I disagree. The person will likely choose to draw from state services, because they are available. There's nothing forcing a) him to draw from them, or b) the state to offer them in the first place. One thing is for certain though, if you aren't paying for something directly, you're far more likely to consume more of it. If the boss is footing the bill for dinner, you might not think twice about ordering the steak. Or if your parents are funding college, suddenly that private college you really liked is on the table. If the insurance company is paying for everything after your $50 copay, you might go to the ER instead of going to the clinic on Monday.

Somewhere along the way, America adopted the idea that without government assistance people who fall on hard times will just wither up and die. As much as people annoy me, and as greedy as they are - people aren't inherently evil. I'm constantly shown the virtue of humanity, and believe that people will help one another. Now that isn't to say that Bill Gates is suddenly going to say "hey, you there! here's a new house just because you want one!" But if Frank gets cancer, and has to quit working his friends/family/neighbors will bring him food, and help him around the house. They'll organize a benefit dinner to raise money for bills/etc. They'll pay for his kids to register for baseball because he can't afford it any more. Life might be uncomfortable for a bit, but it will most certainly go on.


RE: uh huh
By theapparition on 6/29/2011 12:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And that's fine with me. If those rates are still something I'm willing to pay for whatever value I'm receiving, great. If not, I have the ability to take my money elsewhere.

Missing the big picture. Every bank will have more losses that need to get covered so ALL rates will go up. Credit will be more difficult to get for others, which stalls the economy, reduces mfg, hurts employment, etc.

quote:
I disagree. The person will likely choose to draw from state services, because they are available.

There certainly are people who take advantage of the situation (but that's because the state is too lax on enforcement of thier eligibility-another topic). But again, what do you do with a family who has lost thier home and job due to an uncovered medical illness? It's all fine to say that everyone should be self sufficient, but what happens in that situation? They either take services, or they are cast aside. Not everyone has friends and families to take care of them. I know if I had financial trouble, my immediate family would have no one to look out for us. Luckilly, I am very self sufficient.

Perhaps we can just throw all of society's undesireables in a big hole and let them fend for themselves. Because that's what would happen if society adapted the self sufficient mantra.


RE: uh huh
By JediJeb on 6/28/2011 5:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, you live in a human society that values cooperation and contribution over self-interest (for the most part). As such, you will be expected to contribute, cooperate, and simply "do your bit". Anything less is not an option.


When you place this ideal in contrast to self reliance ideals there becomes a problem. The self reliance ideal says that everyone is responsible for their own welfare, even though they must also interact with the rest of society. Your statement only works as long as EVERYONE in a society puts in their fair share. What I think is being debated is should you be expected to carry the burden of someone who does not contribute their fair share to society yet keeps asking for their needs to be met.

When you said "Anything less is not an option" how do you enforce equal contribution of every person in society? Do you say if they don't work they don't eat, which again would be based on self reliance ideals. Do you instead say you receive all the benefits yet do not have to contribute, which would not be fair to those who do. Or do you force the person who does not want to contribute to contribute anyhow against their will, which could be considered a form of slavery to society?

Your idea of the utopian communal society only work in two ways. One is that everyone in the society has the exact same ideals and motivation to contribute. The second is that the society becomes a forced slavery type society where everyone is forced to do equal work and receives equal benefits.

I myself believe in the self reliance society with only a guarantee of the right to succeed or fail given to each individual. This means government is there to protect individuals rights to work and protect them from outside dangers. Each community should set its own guidelines with the State government ensuring cooperation between communities and providing infrastructure for such, and the Federal government providing protection from foreign enemies and protection from unfair foreign trade practices and guaranteeing cooperation and trade among the States and providing the infrastructure to support such. Actually if I am not mistaken, that is exactly what our Constitution says should be happening right now.


RE: uh huh
By Manch on 6/28/2011 3:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. Self reliance is a great thing, and I dnt feel I should have to pay for others because they do not want to do for themselves. Income redistribution, wether it's thru universal healthcare, free insurance for "drivers in need" etc. I dont see my healthcare different from any other investment. I adjust it accordingly to payout compensate as my situation in life changes.

Just be forewarned, you cannot argue with a mob mentality. There's no way of having a rational discourse over healthcare with someone who will constantly bait you with inflamatory remarks. Good luck tho if you try!


RE: uh huh
By eggman on 6/28/2011 4:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
You have the right to fund your own healthcare. The real problem is the escalating cost. For the last 10 years my insurance cost have risen 8 to 10 percent a year. My pay has will never keep up with that. We spend 3 times more that any other industrialized nation and and are at the bottom of those nations in life expectancy, infant mortality and over all quality of care. This is not sustainable.


RE: uh huh
By ebakke on 6/28/2011 4:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have the right to fund your own healthcare.
I'm less concerned about my right to fund my own, and more about my right not to fund someone else's.
quote:
This is not sustainable.
Agreed. Wholeheartedly. So let's start by asking why the costs are going up.


RE: uh huh
By Manch on 6/28/2011 6:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
2 off the top of my head:

Bull$h!t Lawsuits=increased premiums for doctors/hospitals. Those costs are passed onto us.

I would never suggest not treating people in need of help but we cannot sustain millions of illegals that pay no taxes and therefore contribute nothing into the system which they take from. It's broken California already


RE: uh huh
By JediJeb on 6/29/2011 11:13:50 AM , Rating: 2
I think we should make malpractice a criminal instead of a civil problem. If a doctor does something willingly to cause harm then they should go to prison, if it is an accident that could have been avoidable they get fined or jail time depending on the severity of the infraction, if it was something they couldn't avoid then nothing happens. These lawsuits where someone is compensated $500,000 for losing the tip of a finger is just nonsense. Unless you are a musician where it will effect your work to a degree you can not compensate for or some other such then maybe it would be understandable but still it doesn't make so much sense.

If it was a death caused by malpractice, I just don't understand anyone who believes money is a good compensation for the loss of a loved one.


RE: uh huh
By FITCamaro on 6/28/2011 1:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One that will stand up and say--Civil Unions should be a State requirement for _all_ couples, gay or straight to guarantee equality under the courts and rule of law and the title of Marriage will only be bestowed upon by the Church, guaranteeing separation of Church and State.


Yes the fact that that is a pure violation of states rights is irrelevant I guess. Show me where the federal government has the right to define marriage in the Constitution. It doesn't. As such, states define it.

Abortion is the same. It should be up to the people of the state. Not a blanket "it is allowed" mandate from the federal government.

I'll go one step further and say the same should be for drug policy. If a state wants to utterly ruin itself, let them legalize all drugs. The ones with a brain will at most legalize marijuana and they should heavily tax it. It ain't gonna end the world and they could use the money. I won't use it regardless.

Agreed on the next one.

The next is debatable. But yes the tax rate for corporations needs to be lowered. Democrats like to talk about a global society but they have no concept that part of a global world is the ability for companies to move overseas when taxes get too high.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 1:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes the fact that that is a pure violation of states rights is irrelevant I guess. Show me where the federal government has the right to define marriage in the Constitution. It doesn't. As such, states define it.


Right--leave it up to the States. It makes me cringe when I see some of the nominees saying they want to ratify an Amendment to the constitution guaranteeing Marriage as Man and Woman.

It has nothing to do with the federal level and Marriage should be kept strictly religious thus out of State hands as well. Civil Unions are the great compromise and as thus will be the only thing recognized by the States, legally.

Unfortunately, I have -yet- to see a politician be willing to take a stand like this other than Ron Paul. The problem with Ron though is he has some other items on his platform I have big problems with.


RE: uh huh
By bah12 on 6/28/2011 1:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
Although I agree 99.9% of this, I do have a problem with...
quote:
...BUT Abortion should still be reserved as an option in cases of rape or danger to the mother.
Pro-lifers that make this argument shock me. To me it is a matter of life. The issue is quite basic, is a fetus "alive"? If you believe yes then there is NO acceptable case that you can terminate that life. Just because the father was a rapist a-hole doesn't mean we kill the kid.

I can see both sides of the life or not life argument, but once you choose your side with regards to that question I find it shocking that anyone could support an exception to the protections granted to a life.

Physical danger to the mother is a bit different, because it poses a risk to 2 lives. At this point I think it is the sole choice of the mother to weigh the choice. And I am talking measurable risk not the statistical chance that ALL pregnancies pose some risk. To me this issue is the far more complex one, than the flawed "rape" argument.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 1:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can see both sides of the life or not life argument, but once you choose your side with regards to that question I find it shocking that anyone could support an exception to the protections granted to a life.


Thus why I consider myself a Moderate and say we need a Moderate. Divisive policy is killing America.

Yes, you need a line drawn for many things as to whether it is acceptable or not--you need a politician that is not so divided that is willing to look at all sides of an issue and not be blinded by the extremes.


RE: uh huh
By Steve1981 on 6/28/2011 1:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The issue is quite basic, is a fetus "alive"? If you believe yes then there is NO acceptable case that you can terminate that life.


Of course there are acceptable cases to terminate that life; you already mentioned physical danger to the mother as being acceptable. How is being forced to relive the trauma of a brutal rape for nine months any less dangerous to the mental (and ultimately physical) health of the mother? Do we need a clinical trial to see how many women sink into serious depression or commit suicide under such circumstances to validate the threat?


RE: uh huh
By bah12 on 6/28/2011 3:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do we need a clinical trial to see how many women sink into serious depression or commit suicide under such circumstances to validate the threat?
Do we need one on how many suffer the same mental disorder from the very act of abortion. I don't want to trivialize rape at all, but that act will haunt the poor woman forever. If said woman believes that the embryo is "alive" what does killing it do for her mental state? Now she is a rape victim, and a killer. Again, that is only true if she sees it as a life. Taking a life ALWAYS leaves a scar. I'd postulate that she would be better off delivering, and giving it up for adoption.

If she doesn't see it as a life then you are 100% correct, abort it. My point was "halfsies" on the issue of terminating life should not be considered. The physical danger issue is acceptable only because 2 lives are at stake. There you choose which one, because you believe one or both are at risk.

This is why the issue is so hard to solve, because it is a moral question that cannot be compromised on. There are somethings that simply cannot be solved via compromise is all. If you truly believe that it is a living human, then the rape argument just does not exist. What I propose is that if you feel that way, you don't really see it as an equal life.

Again, you would not dare kill a 5yr old kid because his father was an a-hole. The age of said living kid makes no difference.


RE: uh huh
By Steve1981 on 6/28/2011 5:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do we need one on how many suffer the same mental disorder from the very act of abortion.


Somehow I suspect 99.99% of women would say the mental anguish caused by taking a morning after pill is dwarfed by carrying the unwanted child of a rapist. In any case, the woman always has the right to keep the child, but I have no moral problems if they felt the pain would be too great to bear.


RE: uh huh
By Breathless on 6/28/2011 8:17:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
but I have no moral problems if they felt the pain would be too great to bear.


Thats because your brains haven't been sucked out. You not feeling any moral responsibility does not mean brains weren't chopped to bits and sucked out through a tube.

"Now she is a rape victim and a murderer".... BINGO

Kill the rapist, not the kid.


RE: uh huh
By Steve1981 on 6/28/2011 8:32:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Kill the rapist, not the kid.


While I do not wish harm to anyone, I suspect you'd change your tune if a loved one was brutalized, impregnated, and traumatized.

quote:
You not feeling any moral responsibility does not mean brains weren't chopped to bits and sucked out through a tube.


No brains are developed at the time the morning after pill does its work.


RE: uh huh
By bah12 on 6/29/2011 10:01:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No brains are developed at the time the morning after pill does its work.
So you define life as a brain being developed. That is a valid argument, but the flaw in your argument is that I specifically said IF she believes it is a life then she is a killer plain and simple.

Since you don't YOU don't have this belief, your perspective and argument that it would be less traumatic is flawed.

Again it is a moral question of life, and the protections that go with that. This is why a compromise can never be acceptable by the side that believes it is a life the moment it is an embyro.

The debate should be is it or is it not "alive". Like I said before once you pick a stance the the rape compromise should not exist. Since in your position rape or no rape the morning after pill is fine since your not killing anything. I do respect this position, as proving life is about as likely as proving "god". And thus the problem with trying to compromise on a un-provable issue of morals.

There have been times in our nations history when a moral law was voted in, and times when it was forced upon us. Think prohibition and its reversal as well as the civil war and slavery. Point is these things are tricky for a reason, people will fight to the death over beliefs.


RE: uh huh
By Steve1981 on 6/29/2011 11:06:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you define life as a brain being developed.


No; simply pointing out that no brains are involved, just a fertilized egg at that point.

quote:
IF she believes it is a life then she is a killer plain and simple.


Regardless of whether she believes it is life or not, she is killing cells (which are by any scientific definition, life) that could develop into a human baby. The question is whether that killing is justifiable. Given the circumstances we're discussing, I firmly believe it is (as I suspect do the vast majority of people), just as it is justifiable if the mother's life were in jeopardy. Maybe one in a million women will feel some moral obligation to carry the baby, and she certainly has the right to. However, I can understand that you can recognize the life and still justifiably terminate it.


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/29/2011 11:52:00 AM , Rating: 3
You do realize a lot of abortions take place when the child is nearly, or completely, fully developed right? Not only "fetuses" are aborted.

Also I don't see how relevant it is what stage we determined that something is "life". The fact is it's something that would normally become a child with a chance at life. Our infant mortality rate is pretty low, so that's a safe statement in my opinion.

I think that's what bugs me so much about abortion, not all the other bull@#%^ talking points and religious debates. It robs someone of a chance at a life just because the mother says so. Something about that seems just really wrong to me.

People used to have the opinion that the Bill of Rights and Constitution didn't apply to African Americans because they were, I don't know, different or inferior. Then we finally came to our senses. I can only hope there will come a day when we get a clue and realize that maybe unborn people, who would fall under those same protections, might deserve a chance to.


RE: uh huh
By Steve1981 on 6/29/2011 12:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It robs someone of a chance at a life just because the mother says so. Something about that seems just really wrong to me.


Opinion of what is right and wrong ultimately don't even enter the equation. It is simply not practical or feasible to force a woman to carry a baby she does not want.


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/29/2011 12:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
Where did you see me advocating for "forcing" in my post?


RE: uh huh
By Steve1981 on 6/29/2011 12:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
Where did I accuse you of advocating forcing women to carry babies to term in my post? I simply stated that abortions are legal because it is simply not possible to enforce their ban. Right and wrong don't come into it.


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/29/2011 12:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
Look I'm not interested in your ideas of "right or wrong" or saying it doesn't interest you. That post was my opinion, there it is, take it or leave it. Debating abortion over the Internet is a huge waste of time.


RE: uh huh
By bah12 on 6/29/2011 12:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can understand that you can recognize the life and still justifiably terminate it.
Ok then maybe life was not specific enough. Sure a plant has cells, and is alive, but I'm speaking more of what the religious call the soul or what you may refer to as conscious life. That is the area that cannot be compromised over. Obviously you believe that the soul or actual conscious person does not exist until the brain is there (btw I too believe this), but there are many that do believe there is a human being there as soon as the cells merge regardless of brain development. To these people it really is as absurd as killing a 5 year old as age to them does not matter.

quote:
I firmly believe it is (as I suspect do the vast majority of people), just as it is justifiable if the mother's life were in jeopardy
To this I would say if the VAST majority believed this it would be law. Truth is, there is a very high % of the population that believe that is a conscious soul that has every right as you and I (I too believe they are in the minority, but not by much). If it were not the case we would not be debating it now. The VAST majority of people think that murder should be illegal, thus it is. I would tend to say that a small majority thinks as you and I with the definition of life, but certainly not a vast majority.


RE: uh huh
By Steve1981 on 6/29/2011 12:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is the area that cannot be compromised over.


Fair enough I suppose.

quote:
To this I would say if the VAST majority believed this it would be law.


To the best of my knowledge, it is. Plan B (the morning after pill) is readily available women 17 and over, and is available by prescription to girls 16 and under. AFAIK, it is generally offered to rape victims. Roe Vs Wade is still used to strike down overly restrictive anti-abortion laws at the state level.


RE: uh huh
By FITCamaro on 6/28/2011 4:35:55 PM , Rating: 3
How I see the rape issue is that the mother then did not make the choice to have sex and get pregnant. Thus I believe in absence of that choice, I can understand her not wanting to carry the baby to term. I think everything should be done to convince her to though and give it up for adoption.


RE: uh huh
By Fracture on 6/28/2011 1:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


-Benjamin Franklin's notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 to be exact.


RE: uh huh
By BailoutBenny on 6/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 1:19:27 PM , Rating: 3
The Constitution and Bill of Rights were wisely crafted back in the day. The vision our founders had was astonishing.

Unfortunately, Lincoln felt differently when he fought the Civil War and sought to lessen the powers of States.

I wouldn't throw the documents out at all, but instead lean towards us moving back to a government centered around them--which we have strayed so much from.

I worry that with our current political theater, any attempts to rewrite these sacred documents would be a disaster.


RE: uh huh
By BailoutBenny on 7/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: uh huh
By YashBudini on 6/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: uh huh
By knutjb on 6/28/2011 4:17:48 PM , Rating: 3
Uh...No we don't. The current ruler has pulled the country far to the left, i.e. Obamacare, massive expansion of Government and heavy handed spending. We need to correct that back to a range we can afford. BTW Gerald Ford was a moderate. Bush was not a fiscal conservative and was much closer to a moderate than either party wants to admit.

To correct the economy we need a leader, not a ruler, who is willing to drastically shrink the size of the Federal government.

To stop the Reagan argument the Repubs in Congress were MODERATES which is why spending continued to grow fueled by the huge revenue increases from tax cuts. Look back at what Coolidge did after the massive Federal growth and spending by Wilson. The Roaring Twenties happened. After WWII Truman did the same thing, contrary to Roosevelt's advisers who wanted to return to big spending on infrastructure (sound familiar?) and like social programs. What happened, growth. That, not WWII, pulled us out of the depression.

Take those under-represented historical events together and you have a proven guideline to correct our massive, one-sided jerk to the left with a jerk back to the right to get us back where we function best, a smaller Federal Government.

As to the main story, I thought it violated the 4th when I read it some months ago. This and other like ideas are flagrant violations that are more common with a bigger government.

To your social issues, they don't belong, for the most part, in the Federal arena but at the state level. We ARE a State based Republic. Socialized healthcare will bankrupt the treasury and discourages Doctor motivation. Reasonable financial compensation for the decades of training. Medicare price controls cannot work. Nixon tried it with gas and it failed. Price caps always fail.

quote:
One that will penalize companies for incorporating overseas by imposing tariffs upon them and reward companies by paying American taxes and their headquarters here. Force their hand to come back to America instead of giving up all the tax revenues because the bracket is so high. At some point we have to decide if some revenue is better than none. I'd argue that some is far better.

The tax code is what created that problem and you cannot force a company to come back, that is Socialist, Fascist, Communist, etc... Your mindset is an oxymoron. To get companies back give them a low, fair, and stable tax rate.

You need to understand history and the context in how transpired. As I read you I think you are merely "a useful idiot." Please look up the quote and its context.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 4:41:21 PM , Rating: 3
Sure, our current leader is far to the left. Bush was a moderate by many measures, though he did stray quite to the right in a few areas. The problem is--neither party represents America anymore. They represent themselves and their own interests. This has to stop. People have to stop seeing just white or black--they have to start blending the two colors together by using their minds in order to have a choesive comprehension which will enable them to get involved and make smart choices in our nation's direction.

I see very little of that going on right now.

If we swing all the way back to the right, we'll get more extreme, special-interest decisions that will set us of for hurt in different ways--thus, a perpetual pendulum of doing and un-doing.

Sure, that is sustainability for campaign contributions but it is no way to stabilize a country and build it up.

I'm completely for State rights. I'm completely for a shrinking of the Federal government--I don't know how you did not get that impression. I want our Constitution and Bill of Rights followed like they were written.

As for forcing companies to come back--no, I'm not forcing them. I'm suggesting we give tax breaks (yes, that's right, cutting corporate taxes) to get them to come back (as they are already sky-high compared with the rest of the world). For those that don't, impose a penalty of some sorts for them trying to skirt the rules. The more I think about it, the more mild the penalty would have to be and I'm totally for pure-incentive based modes if possible.

I really, really think you should re-think using "useful idiot" to describe me. It was generally reserved to describe the political left, socialists and Soviet sympathizers--none of which I am. I believe you used it in poor taste and context.

I understand history clearly--the one thing I'm sure of is we lack the industry of old that made us strong. We need to bring it back to turn us into a "producing" nation rather than a pure consumer--that gives our wealth to the rest of the world, thereby depleting our own.


RE: uh huh
By knutjb on 6/29/2011 3:03:28 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If we swing all the way back to the right, we'll get more extreme, special-interest decisions that will set us of for hurt in different ways--thus, a perpetual pendulum of doing and un-doing.
But we had a purely partisan system for Obama's first two years. Now that they don't have total control suddenly they want compromise, so long as they don't have to. One side has forced the country far further left than we were. For what reason? Codependency on government like in Europe. Once addicted to that welfare, of any kind, people will adapt their lives to keep getting it even if they stay impoverished. What is wrong in trying to correct that?

quote:
Benjamin Franklin once said, quote: Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
quote:
One that will say bring jobs back to America instead of focusing on things such as national healthcare!


If national healthcare is allowed to continue the public will lose medical security. Isn't that contrary to Franklin's statement? Your ability to pick your Medical providers are a freedom to choose. I am in a government plan and there are very few choices. Therefore if national healthcare is not rescinded we give up yet another freedom.

quote:
As for forcing companies to come back--no, I'm not forcing them.
quote:
Force their hand to come back to America instead of giving up all the tax revenues because the bracket is so high.
"Force" was your word. So which force is it.

quote:
We need a moderate as the next president. A true moderate.
The problem with most moderates is that they are utilitarians at heart and waiver with the wind void of a vision, core beliefs, strong ideas, and direction. That is without a vision, core beliefs, strong ideas, and direction they will concede on issues like reducing spending and the size of government. They are unable to do what is necessary to reign in government gone wild, a deficit ~ 1.6 trillion per year because some face might get harmed, a farmer and the elimination of corn ethanol subsidies, or school meals for the disadvantage because schools must provide breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Too bad they won't put a face with an empty wallet because the government just took their last dollar... A moderate sees the symptom as the problem and works to fix the symptom. A community to fix our ills rather than personal responsibility to care for ourselves. Those who truly need assistance will not be discarded by conservatives.

Sorry you won't see it.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/29/2011 10:28:36 AM , Rating: 1
Ya know, I used to think like you do now, I really did. Years ago when I was much younger. Age, a little crotchetyness has helped to mold and refine my perspective over the years.

I was at one time what you'd call an extreme-right-wing extremist. I took a hard line on everything with no compromise and thought--it must be the only way. I didn't just think it, I was convinced.

Eventually though, I began to realize that system of thought was flawed. Through all my vehemence and vitriol towards non-believers, those who did not take as extreme a stance, I realized that I was failing myself and my goal I originally set out on. That goal was of course a complete dedication to our great nation. What I found is that even with my extreme viewpoint, I was clouding my own eyes of reason.

Reason? Yes--the ability to take in other views, views even from those I hated, loathed and disagreed with. I found that by ignoring them, even though I was convinced they were completely, utterly wrong, I was failing because without great compromise and collaboration, all efforts at a governmental level will fail (and even a personal level). One who dictates purely on a sole ideal without any exception afforded to re-examine based on other viewpoints is doomed to drive themselves into a corner.

This is what extremism is doing to America. While you argue a Moderate has no vision, I argue a Moderate has an improved vision. One that can truly weigh all sides of an issue and through rational thought, reasoning and logic, can come to a conclusion that works--not for my own slanted belief, but works for the country.

I'd say that is vision. Vision enough to get America back on track and have our government working for the people once again. I want smaller government as I've previously said and I agree, spending is completely out of control. Social programs will become a burden to our society (they already have if you look at Social Security) and adding additional, larger ones when we can't even balance our budget is monetary suicide.

I have plenty core beliefs that I hold dear to my heart. Plenty of which that "I" believe in. I, as a moderate though, understand that others might not believe in them. The job of a politician is not to dictate upon the people their ideals as "right" and shove them down their throats. No, the job of a politician is to lead with "vision" as you so say (and I agree), but to also listen to the pulse of their constituents and help achieve for them what they'd like within the government--as it pertains and falls within the framework of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We must always let those documents guide us and never forget it.

As for national healthcare--I never once said I was in favor of it--and you're right, giving up our freedom to choose our medical providers is a direct violation of Ben's statement.


RE: uh huh
By FITCamaro on 6/28/2011 12:54:19 PM , Rating: 1
We have the easiest immigration standards of any developed nation in the world perhaps save Russia. But they need the population as they are losing people in droves. Other nations require you show how you plan to support yourself after you move into the country and judge you based on what value you'll add to their society. We only require that you pay the fee, wait in line, and take the test.

What the Democrats stand for is an open door that lets anyone in. No nation can survive with that kind of policy long term. We did it in the early 20th century because we had a massive nation we needed to fill. Now it has a large population and our government can't afford those we have much less tens of millions more poor that will just further strain overtaxed welfare systems.


RE: uh huh
By gixser on 6/28/2011 4:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on how you are coming to the country. My sponsor had to submit an I-864 back in 1989 and was required to demonstrate the ability to support me. (I believe $100,000 was the requirement back then.) Can't remember the details but I believe it involved bank accounts, income statements and tax returns.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb...

Regardless, I feel the US has embraced the title of "beacon of light" with regards to "demorcracy and freedom." I *feel* this is intrinsic to the US vision of itself. Requiring folks to demonstrate financial security prior to their arrival in the US might undermine that vision.

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


RE: uh huh
By FITCamaro on 6/28/2011 4:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
Just because people perceive us as a "beacon of light" doesn't mean its an open door policy. If you are a broke, uneducated moron with no desires to improve, we don't want you. We have enough of our own.


RE: uh huh
By gixser on 6/28/2011 5:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
It not about folks outside of the US perceiving the US as a beacon of light. (Though they might.) Its about the US believing itself to be a "beacon of light".

National identity is big deal to any country. From my perspective the US revels and celebrates itself as a beacon of freedom and hope. If the US somehow made it harder to immigrate does that have any effect on how the US sees itself? Does it matter that the US is a nation of modern immigrants?

The purpose of quoting "The New Colossus" was to hint at how a nation can develop and become powerful by securing a uniform national identify....even if those that populate the country are originally "broke and uneducated." Doesn't the fact that they are trying to come to the US prove a desire to improve? At least to some degree?


RE: uh huh
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 6/28/2011 1:53:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'd take a Democratic president over a Republican president any day because I stand by more Democratic ideals such as open to gay marriage, universal health care, easier legal immigration and abortion rights.


Don't forget to include:
Open to Adultery (Clinton, Spitzer, and Edwards)
Open to Sexting (Weiner)
Open to Gun Smuggling (Eric Holder)
Open to Antisemitism (All of 'em)
Open to FEC Violations (Obama)
Open to Bribery (Blago)
Open to Passing Bills without actually reading them (Pelosi)
Open to Fanni and Freddie illegal activities (Frank)
Open to Tax Fraud (Daschele)
Open to Tax Misappropriations (Rangel)
Open to Race Baiting (Sharpton, Jackson)
Open to Junk Science (Gore)
Open to Junk News (Mathews, Olbermann, Maddow)
Open to Pant Suits (Clinton.. LOL)
Open to Over-the-top Pensions (Unions)
Open to free puppies (the State of California)
Open to "Black Panther" intimidation (Blacks)
Open to reading 24k emails from non-public servants (idiots)
etc..etc...etc...

Indeed... a good Party to associate yourself with (ideologically of course)!!


RE: uh huh
By farleytron on 6/28/2011 2:51:23 PM , Rating: 1
And you think the Republicans are a bunch of straight-arrow types?

Dream on.

What's worse, is that Republicans are HYPOCRITES!

How many anti-gay lawmakers have been caught in gay-sex scandals?? How many "fiscal conservatives" are bleeding the country dry??

Remember when Boehner was handing out Tobacco lobbyist payout checks to each Republican Congressman ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE?

Really, the Republican party needs to change its name to the "Corporatist Party", since all they care about is taking bribes from big business to give corporations everything they want!


RE: uh huh
By mherlund on 6/28/2011 3:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
Whoa, you didn't respond well when Rott3nHIppi3 generalized about a democrats, but now you are doing it against republicans.

Parties are not hypocrites, but people can be. And just like you and Rott3nHIppi3 pointed out, they exist on both sides. And don't say more exist on one side than the other because there is no facts to prove that, only opinions.

Just ask yourself this, is it better to elect someone who will vote with your ideologies some of the time, or someone who will vote against them all of the time? Let's face it, unless it is yourself running, there is very few people that agree with you on everything.


RE: uh huh
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 6/28/2011 3:39:56 PM , Rating: 1
You should really stick with the newspapers and less listening to Bill Mahar talking points. Under the Obama administration, there's been over 1300 waivers to Obamacare already granted to his top supporters (corporations too.. dare I say), there's been over 300 lobbyists added to his star-studded bama brat-pack, and the public-sector employees have increased net income by over 6.2 billion. Talk about appealing to your own kind! Whatever it takes to get that vote.. right?

Hypocrisy floats across both sides of the aisle. However, if you're using "hypocrisy" as an edge to support your party affiliation, you really have your head up your ***. And if you really want me to post all of Obama's Hypocritical stances (and quotes from his campaign), I'd be happy to post all of them. Surely though.. you have seen them all as well and just playing naive to support your own theory.


RE: uh huh
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 6/28/2011 3:55:06 PM , Rating: 1
Our representatives are voted into office to represent our ideologies. I spelled out the names of the Democratic representatives that your base voted for (that by association, create the "image" of the democratic party). Can I get a H. Dean HHHHYYYYAAAAAA??? Perhaps the Democratic Party can change their name to "The Blunder Party." In the eyes of the public (indies included), they look like a bunch of morons and the polls seem to indicate as such. And I don't think Boehner had anything to do with that!


RE: uh huh
By YashBudini on 6/28/2011 4:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Our representatives are voted into office to represent our ideologies.

They're voted into office based on hatred of the other party and allowing one's party to do your thinking for you.

quote:
Perhaps the Democratic Party can change their name to "The Blunder Party."

That would be reasonable right after Faux News is allowed to broadcast in Canada.
Don't hold your breath.


RE: uh huh
By jhb116 on 6/28/2011 7:14:12 PM , Rating: 1
I agree and have said for years that all politicians are the same.

I am surprised that you still seem to fall for Democratic dogma with regard to taxation. You do know that the democrats state ideals on "taxing the rich" in public to win your vote but then make sure there are a ton of loopholes in the tax law so they (who are also rich) don't pay taxes. The tax code is so complicated that it takes paying a professional good money to get those tax breaks - money the rich have, the poor don't have to worry about and us middle class don't have. This equates to the middle class gets screwed by both the demos and repubs.


RE: uh huh
By ATX22 on 6/29/2011 3:18:13 AM , Rating: 1
So, you're hung up on the social issues. It's a shame really. One thing that republicans should've done a long time ago was to address social issues properly: they're typically a state level problem, not federal.

Now, the warrant-less searches, that shouldn't be happening, I don't care how "open about it" this administration wants to be... still trying to perpetuate this is still trying to go against what this country was founded on. Though, the current administration seems to be up front about that too... still doesn't make it right.

So.. as long as Obama and his administration smear what they're doing in the faces of (at least) US citizens, it's OK? Legal or not?


RE: uh huh
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/28/2011 10:10:22 AM , Rating: 2
You People? Is that to mean anyone who dares question a single ideal of the conservative party? Those that are seen as traitors to their nation because they have a differing viewpoint from Fox News or other conservative talking points?

Listen, I'd rather not get into a back and forth, however, I didn't agree with Bush on the wars, but I for the most liked the guy. I didn't vote for him the first go-around, but I did the second time (Kerry was a joke).

Again, I can feel your "Us vs Them" mentality starting to brew up again ;)


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2011 10:17:16 AM , Rating: 1
"You people" as in Obama apologists. You know who you are. Like I said, this "both sides are the same" only got fabricated when it became obvious that your savior wasn't what you believed him to be. 'Both are the same' was something NEVER said under Bush by you.


RE: uh huh
By 3minence on 6/28/2011 10:48:47 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it was. If you really want you can go back and look through any posts I made and see I did say it on a number of occasions.

Both parties got us into the current mess, neither party seems willing or able to get us out. Politicians only seem to be interested in campaign money and giving themselves (the government) more power.


RE: uh huh
By Akrovah on 6/28/2011 10:48:49 AM , Rating: 2
Pot to Kettle much?

Many of those who voted Obama into office said much the same kinds of things about the Bush adminsitration, but now are oddly silent about the things that Obama is doing that are as bad, if not worse, than what Bush was trying to pull.

And yes, there were people who had issues with it even then. *raises hand


RE: uh huh
By LRonaldHubbs on 6/28/2011 11:22:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And yes, there were people who had issues with it even then.

*raises hand as well


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 10:51:10 AM , Rating: 2
And look at how Edwards turned out...


RE: uh huh
By ClownPuncher on 6/28/2011 11:54:42 AM , Rating: 2
Like a politician. It seems they are all adulterers, liars and thieves. If you aren't on your fourth marriage, or have a mistress while your wife is dying, you probably won't get elected.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 12:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
I've always looked at politicians like this:

The wider they are smiling, the bigger twinkle in their eye--the more they are hiding and the more they are willing to screw us over when we aren't looking.

Edwards had a huge smile, always.


RE: uh huh
By ClownPuncher on 6/28/2011 12:24:19 PM , Rating: 1
That would mean the angry politicians are best! I think if Cheney taught us anything, it was that he was a terrible VP.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 12:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, the angry ones are to be worried about as well. Just look at Hitler. He was angry all the time and the Jews suffered as a result.

Probably a good poker-face is the best bet. One who smiles normally, gets upset occasionally, but generally has a pensive, thoughtful expression is more real.

It's all a crap-shoot really if you judge them just on looks. ;) I've seen a lot of filthy smilers, though.


RE: uh huh
By ClownPuncher on 6/28/2011 12:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
Hitler only seemed angry because he was speaking German. ;)


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 12:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
I bet it was because he was having a hard time finding someone to hide his schnitzel with. ;) In that, hot, kinky German kind of way... The German did add great effect to it, though.


RE: uh huh
By YashBudini on 6/28/2011 3:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you aren't on your fourth marriage, or have a mistress while your wife is dying, you probably won't get elected.

Not entirely true. For example Trump is only on wife #3. He can't be on wife #4, because she hasn't been born yet.


RE: uh huh
By YashBudini on 6/28/2011 4:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is that to mean anyone who dares question a single ideal of the conservative party? Those that are seen as traitors to their nation because they have a differing viewpoint from Fox News or other conservative talking points?

Well of course, isn't that why the flag is always flying at News Corp?
To make everyone else a card carrying communist?

quote:
, I can feel your "Us vs Them" mentality starting to brew up again ;)

What made you say again?
Where/when was the let up?


RE: uh huh
By LRonaldHubbs on 6/28/2011 11:21:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yay irony. You go from this:
quote:
Obama ran on a platform of ending wars and being the "Anti-Bush". So far he's not only increased policies that Democrats slammed Bush over, but he's increased troop levels in Afghanistan and he's starting new wars.

to this:
quote:
Now that Obama has shown you the true face of the Democratic party


So Obama has shown that the true face of the Democratic party is that of the Republican party. Congratulations, you just agreed with Brandon. Now what was your point, exactly?


RE: uh huh
By YashBudini on 6/28/2011 4:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So Obama has shown that the true face of the Democratic party is that of the Republican party. Congratulations, you just agreed with Brandon. Now what was your point, exactly?

+ 1

And the clusterfluck continues.


RE: uh huh
By steven975 on 6/28/2011 11:43:05 AM , Rating: 2
You're just assuming that people are on one side or the other.

There is such a thing as a Libertarian, and they complained about both presidents.

Obama is way worse than even Bush was. In fact, every single policy he has ever supported has not been a "change" but a double-down of Bush.


RE: uh huh
By NellyFromMA on 6/28/2011 2:37:15 PM , Rating: 3
uh oh, here comes political hero #64096840968 coming to let us know we are racist against Democrats. This just in, everyone is entitled to EVERYTHING to. I never knew the world was so plentiful in resources!


RE: uh huh
By seamonkey79 on 6/28/2011 4:18:53 PM , Rating: 2
I tend to vote Republican, and you'd better believe I was railing against them when they were doing what they've been doing for the last 20 years. Just like I rail against Obama and his stupidity, and I didn't want McCain to be elected for the same reason...

bad is bad, red or blue.


RE: uh huh
By Samus on 6/29/2011 2:09:06 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think there is any arguing Barack Obama is a better president than George H.W. Bush was.


RE: uh huh
By ebakke on 6/29/2011 12:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'll argue that. I don't know I'd go so far as to say Barack Obama's any worse. But he's certainly no better.


RE: uh huh
By Samus on 6/29/2011 1:43:47 PM , Rating: 1
You've got to be joking. Our last president fucking destroyed the entire global economy and put us 6 trillion more into debt. So far, Obama, with a bad economy and heavy internal investing, has only added ~1.5 trillion to the national debt. The bailout was under the Bush administration, four months before Obama took office and two months before he was even elected. TARP was Obama's way of saying "If Bush can blow 800 billion on wallstreet, I can blow 800 billion on the rest of our economic infrastructure." Both were arguably stupid, but both are arguable neccessary, too.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/29/2011 1:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
Nuts. BO is in no way better than Bush. In some ways, he's worse because he is doing nothing at all. Bush wasn't great--heck, he was quite frustrating; even so, I would in no way say BO is better than he was.

Bush didn't destroy the entire global economy. Congress along with our mis-managed regulatory bodies did. They ignored the problems, they ignored the warning signs and worst of all, when Bush tried to pass legislation to help correct Fannie and Freddie, Congress blocked it--particularly Barney Frank. Bush's economic ineptitude only exacerbated an already bad problem that was set in motion even before he took office.

Basically the problem originated from way back in 1998 when the Commodities Futures Trading Commission tried to regulate OTC Derivatives Contracts lead by Brooksley Born--and she was completely stonewalled and blocked by Greenspan, Robert Rubin and Arthur Levitt under the Clinton Administration. Because this regulation failed to pass, Wall Street and the major Banks were able to run rampant with this gambling which ultimately--and completely lead to the need for TARP and the Bush Bailouts because their structured products market dried up and their net asset values dropped to near zero. The repeal of the Glass-Stegal Act only visciously exacerbated the problem by allowing depository Banks and Investment banks to Co-mingle and exist under one parent.

I realize what I said is hard to digest and it is very technical with very little explanation--but... do yourself a favor AND PLEASE READ ABOUT IT. This was a complicated problem and by no means was it completely Bush's mismanagement that caused it. The foundation was already laid and the sytem was broken for years--and finally it came crashing down. You can pass regulation all day long (or not pass it) but if you don't enforce it, it will eventually blow up.

Know all the facts before you're quick to praise BO. There is little to be praiseworthy about him.


RE: uh huh
By cknobman on 6/28/2011 10:36:48 AM , Rating: 2
All hail ze furer!!!!!!!!!


RE: uh huh
By MechanicalTechie on 6/28/2011 7:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
Another day, another lost freedom in America, must be awesome to live in such a politically corrupt, bankrupt police state.

America home of the free?? I say give it a few more years and that slogan will have to change.


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2011 9:56:09 AM , Rating: 1
We're done talking about Bush. Obama ran on a platform of ending wars and being the "Anti-Bush". So far he's not only increased policies that Democrats slammed Bush over, but he's increased troop levels in Afghanistan and he's starting new wars. His domestic policies are disastrous and he's an embarrassment in foreign relations.

There are things Bush had to do because of 9-11. We can debate that ad nausea. But I find it hard to grasp why, 11 years later, we NOW need warrant less GPS tracking of American citizens.


RE: uh huh
By ClownPuncher on 6/28/2011 11:58:25 AM , Rating: 1
To be fair, Obama only did that stuff because he sucks.


RE: uh huh
By FITCamaro on 6/28/2011 12:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
Ok the one difference here is that Bush never ran on a platform of being against it. Obama campaigned against it and blasted Bush for the same thing.

Personally in matters of anti-terrorism, I am for this. You don't always have time to get a warrant to intercept a phone call or track a suspect. That's why they had to go back and log their actions to make sure they were appropriate. In investigations, no foul play was ever found.


RE: uh huh
By YashBudini on 6/28/2011 3:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It appears our leaders, both Democrat and Republican, are intent on tearing down the freedoms they claim they are protecting.

If you got that much money and perks from corporate lobbyists, wouldn't you?


RE: uh huh
By ebakke on 6/28/2011 4:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
Here are 3 things I'd get behind to greatly improve the state of affairs at the US federal level:

1. Term limits on Congress. 12 years max between the two chambers. Partial terms where you stepped in for someone who left don't count against you.
2. Congressmen/women get $50k/yr plus modest travel expenses to/from home districts. No retirement benefits (aside from social security), and no post office-holding benefits like health insurance.
3. All pay, benefits, incentives, etc changes for any elected office must be approved by voters directly.

Let's remove career politicians who know the ins/outs of Washington, and can milk the system for their particular interest group. Let's bring the 'service' back to 'public service'.


RE: uh huh
By gorehound on 6/28/2011 4:40:08 PM , Rating: 1
they both are assholes that is reps and dems.
until we can get em both out we will have to put up with a lot of BS.this is just one big example.of course you should get a legal warrant to search/GPS anyone DUH !!!

i think these shmucks really want us to live in Orwell's world.


RE: uh huh
By Jeffk464 on 6/28/2011 6:35:22 PM , Rating: 3
What gives, you expected this crap from Bush, but Obama seems just as bad.


RE: uh huh
By CU on 6/28/2011 9:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
I want him out in 2012, but this doesn't bother me much. It is just a cheaper means of tailing via under cover cops. Not sure about the beeper from 1980, but if that just broadcasts your location and you had to be x miles from the beeper to pick it up. How big does x have to be to make it illegal? I don't think they should be able to sneak onto your property to do it, but if your car is in a public packing lot then yeah that is fine. As for the 4th Amendment, how is tracking, search or seizure.


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2011 10:03:26 AM , Rating: 2
Your car doesn't cease to become personal property because it's in a public parking lot.


RE: uh huh
By CU on 6/28/2011 10:43:47 AM , Rating: 2
True and I assume the cops don't need to enter your car. But you can look at it from any distance as the ground it sits on is public property. And since the beeper from 1980 is legal then I assume it is legal for the cops to stick a tracking device on the car without doing any damage to the car.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 11:08:24 AM , Rating: 2
But that's not logical, at all.

By your logic, you could argue that while you are leasing an apartment, thus as long as you are current, anything in that apartment is your property--however, since you are not leasing the land that is underneath it, by default, the police have every single right to ignore the lease and search your Apartment at will if the landlord agrees to it (or, in the case that it is city property such as section 8 housing, they don't have to even ask the landlord as they are it).

That doesn't make much sense now, does it?

Your car is your property and as such by the Constitution is afforded 4th Amendment protections. Your car is also, coincidentally, qualified under Castle Doctrine and Stand your Ground doctrine in many States.

It doesn't matter if your car is on public property or not.


RE: uh huh
By CU on 6/28/2011 11:17:26 AM , Rating: 1
They are not entering or should not be entering your car. So your apartment example does not work. If they have to enter the car or damage the car in anyway then gps is wrong. I also think if you find the gps it is yours since they basically gave it to you.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 11:25:19 AM , Rating: 2
But they are entering your car. They are going underneath it and placing it inside your bumper. Even placing it "on" your car would be considered an intrusion as it would be a form of seizure--it is grasping the physical surface thus taking away from you your freedom to travel in an unsupervised manner within your own property.

My apartment example completely works. They don't have to damage your car to place it--nor would they have to damage an apartment either to get inside. Do you know how easy it is to get inside an apartment? That steel door does little to protect those behind it.

However, the police would not place it in plain view on your car as they know it would be knocked off--thus, they have to violate the property space of the vechicle in order to plant it. They put them under bumpers/fenders, wheel wells, engine bays etc.


RE: uh huh
By sabbede on 6/28/2011 12:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
This
quote:
it is grasping the physical surface thus taking away from you your freedom to travel in an unsupervised manner within your own property.
is actually a 5th, not a 4th amendment argument. While interesting, it probably wouldn't fly, especially since the "unsupervised manner" bit is nonsense. Unless you're driving without a license.
You are also incorrect about the placement being an intrusion. So long as the police do not open your trunk, hood or door(s), or even toss the device into an open window, they have not intruded into your vehicle. Consider the surface of the car as a boundary layer - anything within that boundary is off limits, but the external surface is not. If the device were attached via some sort of hook that pierced the surface (or perhaps even some adhesives), it would be impermissible, but a magnet is okay.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 12:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
As I said below:

Inside your bumper, engine bay or wheel well is IN your car, as well as ON it. It is out of plain sight.


RE: uh huh
By CU on 6/28/2011 12:44:20 PM , Rating: 1
Yes the object is to hide it, just as a tail is not done in a marked car. I don't consider the parts of the car you named inside my car. I consider the passenger and trunk inside my car. The engine bay I can go either way on. And I don't believe on your car is protect by the 4th Amendment. If that is the case how about all those flyers you get under your windshield wipers.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 12:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
You're being asinine now,

quote:
If that is the case how about all those flyers you get under your windshield wipers.


Those flyers are not neither a search nor seizure. They're not done by a government body, either. Stay within the spirit of the Constitution, please.

quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches


Your car is an effect.

Even if the Constitution does not prevent this (assuming it is argued as far as it can go), can you really tell me it isn't worth fighting for this freedom?

Answer that.


RE: uh huh
By CU on 6/28/2011 1:15:16 PM , Rating: 1
A gps is not a search or seizure. They neither look in/through your car or take it. It just sits there on your car just as a flyer. The one difference is it records your position. As for done by the government part change flyer to parking ticket.

I agree your car is an "effect". But you are still secure in your car. They didn't search or take it or attack you in it. They just know where your car is. I don't see where search, seizure, secure in means they can't know where something is while it moves around in plan sight. I think the sprite of that part of the constitution was to protect you and your belongs from being hurt or taken by the government. Not to hide you from the government.

As for fighting for this freedom. I see way bigger things to fight for, plus I don't care if they know where my car is at. They don't know where I am at or what I am doing. Not to mention I think the Constitution allows it. And since unmarked cars and plain clothes cops have been legal for a long time I don't think most people will fight for it.

I would rather there be a gps on my car, than being tailed in an unmarked car and followed and watched as I go about my day by a plain clothes cop. Which would you prefer?


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 1:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
I prefer nothing that might compromise my freedom or liberties. As such, I feel all Americans should fight for this. Any compromise is a reduction in our future and a smite upon those who died for our freedom.


RE: uh huh
By CU on 6/28/2011 2:20:10 PM , Rating: 1
Fair enough. I hope you/we win your/our fight. I don't think it is illegal now under the constitution, but I have no problem with there being a law to make it illegal without a warrant. Sounds like a good law to me, and I would vote for it. I would make it cover unmarked cars and plain clothes cops also. Cops should not be made into nor should they want to be sneaky watchers trying to catch you make a mistake, but instead seen as protectors.


RE: uh huh
By sabbede on 6/28/2011 1:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
First: The flyers likely are not governmental, but a parking ticket is. So is a Denver boot or a white stripe on your tire.
Second: The Constitution, while protecting the contents of your car (under the 4th as you said) is silent on tracking devices.
There is a simple remedy though - petition your lawmakers. They can require that any state law enforcement agency must have a warrant to place a tracking device on a car.


RE: uh huh
By sabbede on 6/28/2011 12:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
There is no requirement that surveillance of any kind be "in plain sight". That would be ridiculous. For example, the police are allowed to follow you with unmarked cars. Plain sight is an exemption to the 4th's protections - allowing the police to come into your home and arrest you if they see a pot plant growing in your front window.
Now, the "inside" of your bumper or wheel well are still external surfaces. The engine bay, on the other hand, may not be as one would likely have to open the hood to gain effective access.
Whether or not you consider them such is irrelevant as the legal precedent clearly states otherwise. Else, planting any other sort of tracking device would not have been possible.


RE: uh huh
By CU on 6/28/2011 12:24:26 PM , Rating: 1
That was going to be my reply.

I will add that even while driving on you private property (100ac ranch or something) can't the cops follow you using a helicopter.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 12:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
The cops typically need reasonable suspicion or probable cause to follow you with a helecopter. It is also in plain sight--so you know you are being followed.

Thus, it does not require a warrant--as they aren't touching your property.

If the police put the GPS device on your hood in plain view, then they would not technically need a Warrant as you would be able to consent--either by leaving it in place or removing it. If you removed it, that would be construed as lack of consent and then they would need to seek a warrant.


RE: uh huh
By CU on 6/28/2011 12:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
Is the "typically need reasonable suspicion or probable cause to follow you with a helecopter" due to cost or due to laws? How is plain sight knowing you are being followed and consenting. It could be painted like a news copter. Also cops don't tail people in marked cars. The point is to gather evidence and/or catch you doing something. Not tell them we are watching will you please give us a reason to bring you in.

Do you think unmarked car should be illegal or require a warrant?


RE: uh huh
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2011 12:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
Blastman I'm agreeing with everything you said.

It seems all too often people try to obey the letter of the law, but not the spirit. So they try to interpret phrases or wording to make their argument, seemingly oblivious to the intent of the article in general.

It's pretty obvious what the 4'th Amendment is saying and the spirit behind it. And why this sort of thing is 100% against it.


RE: uh huh
By sabbede on 6/28/2011 12:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
But the letter of the law is clear, and the spirit mere interpretation.
The 4th means what it says, that people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unless you can make the argument that a tracker is a search or a seizure of your person, houses, papers, and effects; you cannot argue that it has been violated. That list of things protected has, by precedent, been made to include your vehicles. However it does not include your whereabouts, a subject about which the police may inquire without a warrant, and to which a false reply is a criminal act.
That the 4th protects against anything else is a fanciful legal fiction.

Interestingly enough, should the police want to examine your GPS for a record of your movements, it would require a warrant to search your car, including the GPS' memory.


RE: uh huh
By sabbede on 6/28/2011 11:50:59 AM , Rating: 2
No, its perfectly logical.
But to counter your analogy: There is specific wording in the various evidentiary laws that prohibit your landlord from allowing searches of your property. In fact, one's 4th amendment rights are rather broadly construed so that individual rooms, and sometimes even containers within rooms, are protected; such that your roommate cannot consent to a search of your dresser, and a warrant to search your property in the apartment doesn't cover his dresser. This is all well, and specifically, established.
The proper extension of your analogy would be for your landlord to consent to allowing the police to place a tracking device on the exterior wall of your apartment. This would of course be pointless, but it would be legal. Somewhat more apt would be the landlord/city placing motion detectors or cameras on the exterior walls - something not only well within their rights, but also commonplace. In fact, the police could cover every cubic inch of space around your apartment with sensors of any kind so long as they are not capable of monitoring its interior. That includes pressure sensors on the floors in the hall, seismic sensors in the ground outside, chemical detectors in the ceiling analyzing the composition of your exhaled breath... These are things for which you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The location of your vehicle would clearly fall under the plain sight exception. You're driving around, anyone can see it; you're parked on the street or in a parking lot, anyone can see it.
Moreover, anyone can slip a flyer or parking ticket under your windshield wiper. Castle doesn't apply since neither the contents nor the integrity of the vehicle are at risk - i.e. there is nothing against which to defend.
If precedent states that placing a tracking device ON (as opposed to IN, which would be intrusive) your vehicle does not constitute an invasion, then that's it.
I'd still want a judge to sign off on it though.


RE: uh huh
By MrBlastman on 6/28/2011 12:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
Paragraphs with line breaks... Use them. ;)

Inside your bumper, engine bay or wheel well is IN your car, as well as ON it. It is out of plain sight.


RE: uh huh
By sabbede on 6/28/2011 12:17:18 PM , Rating: 1
Nah, I follow my own rules regarding formatting. I don't indent either.


RE: uh huh
By quiksilvr on 6/28/2011 10:03:33 AM , Rating: 1
What boggles my mind is what were they basing his cocaine dealings on if physical evidence was pretty much non-existent? I mean, if you find someone that bought cocaine from him and said "I got it from this guy," that's usually enough. You mean to tell me that they couldn't find ONE person, ONE shipment of cocaine, ONE overheard conversation in the club, ONE eyewitness account, ONE complaining resident about the crack addicts by his apartment, ONE slip up? Really? Great investigative work there, guys.


RE: uh huh
By CU on 6/28/2011 11:10:12 AM , Rating: 3
They may have just thought that since tailing is legal and so is a beeper then why would gps not be. It's like a beeper with really really good range. It was just used to build a case for a warrant and to find out where more buyers, shipments, etc. maybe found, so they can investigate further. I see it as just another surveillance tool, with pros and cons like any other tool.


RE: uh huh
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/28/2011 10:08:32 AM , Rating: 3
Really? You see nothing wrong with the government being able to invade your private property and track you 24-7?

To quote V is for Vendetta (the graphic novel):
quote:
I thought it time we had a little talk. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin... I suppose you're wondering why I've called you here this evening. Well, you see, I'm not entirely satisfied with your performance lately...

I'm afraid your work's been slipping and... and well, I'm afraid we've been thinking about letting you go. Oh, I know, I know. You've been with the company a long time now. Almost... let me see. Almost ten thousand years!

My word, doesn't time fly? It seems like only yesterday... I remember the day you commenced your employment, swinging down from the trees, fresh-faced and nervous, a bone clasped in your bristling fist... "Where do I start, sir?", you asked, plaintively. I recalled my exact words: "There's a pile of dinosaur eggs over there, youngster", I said, smiling paternally all the while. "Get sucking". Well, we've certainly come a long way since then, haven't we? And yes, yes, you're right, in all that time you haven't missed a day. Well done, thou good and faithful servant.

Also, please don't think I've forgotten about your outstanding service record, or about all of the invaluable contributions that you've made to the company... Fire, the wheel, agriculture... It's an impressive list, old-timer. A jolly impressive list. Don't get me wrong.

But... well, to be frank, we've had our problems too. There's no getting away from it. Do you know what I think alot of it stems from? I'll tell you... It's your basic unwillingness to get on in the company.

You don't seem to want to face up to any real responibility. To be your own boss. Lord knows you've been given plenty of opportunities... We've offered you promotion time and time again, and each time you've turned us down. "I couldn't handle the work, Guv'Nor", you wheedled. "I know my place".

To be frank, you're not trying, are you? You see, you've been standing still for far too long, and its starting to show in your work... And, I might add, in your general standard of behavior. The constant bickering on the factory floor has not escaped my attention... nor the recent bouts of rowdiness in the staff canteen. Then of course there's... Hmm.

Well, I didn't really want to have to bring this up, but... Well, you see, I've been hearing some disturbing rumors about your personal life. No, never you mind who told me. No names, no pack drill... I understand you are unable to get on with your spouse. I hear that you argue. I am told that you shout. Violence has been mentioned. I am reliably informed that you always hurt the one your love... the one you shouldn't hurt at all.

And what about the children, its always the children who suffer, as you're well aware. Poor little mites. What are they to make of it? What are they to make of all your bullying, your despair, your cowardice and all your fondly nurtured bigotries? Really, its not good enough, is it?

And its no good blaming the drop in work standards on and management either... though to be sure, the management is very bad. In fact, let us not mince words... The Management is terrible! We've had a string of embezzelers, frauds, liars and lunatics making a string of catastrophic decisions. This is plain fact.

But who elected them? It was you! You who elected these people! You who gave them the power to make your decisions for you!

While I'll admit that anyone can make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after century seems to me nothing short of deliberate. You have encouraged these malicious incompetents, who have made your working life a shambles. You have accepted without question their senseless orders. You have allowed them to fill your workspace with dangerous and unproven machines.

You could have stopped them. All you had to say was "No". You have no spine. You have no pride. You are no longer an asset to the company.

I will, however, be generous. You will be granted two years to show me some improvement in your work. If at the end of that time you are still unwilling to make a go of it... you're fired. That will be all. You may return to your labors.


RE: uh huh
By CU on 6/28/2011 10:59:24 AM , Rating: 1
How are they invading your private property? They are not or should not be allowed to enter your house or set foot on your property to do this. They are following you. They can already do this and it has been legal for a long time. This is just a more cost effective and easier way. Should it also be illegal to use a satellite to track someone's car 24/7. Not very cost effective, but it would not lose you in traffic or be out ran like you might could do with cop tailing you. I just don't see how a gps showing your car's location 24/7 should be illegal vs a cop tailing you 24/7 is legal. All or nothing in my opinion. The cop can actually follow you on foot where the gps on your car can't and the cop can see what you are doing where the gps can't. I would rather have the gps on my car than a cop tailing me 24/7


RE: uh huh
By LRonaldHubbs on 6/28/2011 11:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
A cop trailing you, as long as he remains on public property, is a different issue. Placing a tracking device onto a person's vehicle without a warrant (and thus without sufficient evidence of a need to track) is not only an invasion of privacy but also an invasion of private property, especially if they trespass in your yard to plant it. It is completely unacceptable to ignore citizens' rights. If officers/agents don't have enough evidence to get a warrant then they shouldn't be tracking the person in question.


RE: uh huh
By CU on 6/28/2011 12:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
No trespassing in your yard should be allowed.

I don't see how a cop tailing you and watching you pull into your garage is any different than a gps reporting that you drove down a street and pulled into your garage. How is the gps an invasion of private property, but the other is not? Shouldn't be tracking at all without a warrant, even tailing? How do you think they get evidence for a warrant.


RE: uh huh
By LRonaldHubbs on 6/28/2011 5:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
Affixing a tracking device to my car, a piece of property which I own outright, is an intrusion upon my property. Furthermore, the GPS unit would track my vehicle anywhere I go, including on private property where a tailing police officer would not be allowed to go without a warrant. I can see how someone living in an urban area might not see this as being particularly meaningful, sas shown by your example with a cop watching you pull into your garage. However, if you live in the country like I do where large properties with private drives are not uncommon, being able to track someone far out of public view is a big deal.


RE: uh huh
By LRonaldHubbs on 6/28/2011 11:38:55 AM , Rating: 2
Forgot to comment on this part:
quote:
They are not or should not be allowed to enter your house or set foot on your property to do this.


Except that they have done exactly that. There was an article about it on this site a while back. Basically the FBI declared that if your car is not locked in a garage then they can trespass on private property to plant a tracking device.


RE: uh huh
By CU on 6/28/2011 12:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that is wrong. They should not set foot on your property to place it or throw it onto your property, etc.


RE: uh huh
By SiliconJon on 6/28/2011 10:41:40 AM , Rating: 1
Don't worry, team Red won't revert this course, and when they setup team Red for a comeback they'll have their easy-in for the relinquishing of our arms (weapons), for the way to get people to give up their liberties is to get their own gang/team to rationalize its ("temporary") suspension.

See: Obama & War, Civil Liberties
See Also: Bush & Katrina Gun Confiscation, Big Government

And many more examples.


RE: uh huh
By LRonaldHubbs on 6/28/2011 11:27:31 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is the only candidate that I could see unconditionally opposing this is Ron Paul, and he has zero chance of getting the Republican nomination, let alone getting elected.

Let's just hope the Supreme Court makes the correct decision on this, and there really is only one correct decision, which is to shoot it down outright. Otherwise we should all start buying these:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/security/5a42


No thanks...
By Iaiken on 6/28/2011 9:57:13 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
They argued that the fourth amendment protections should be nullified and law enforcement be written a blank check to sneak onto your property, plant a GPS tracking device on your vehicle, and monitor you 24-7.


I guess those gents are just going to have to do it the old fashioned way: issue secret warrants and break in to homes while the owners are away.

As if the fact that they already have several means of getting around the 4th amendment without notifying you wasn't frightening enough.

The real problem is, despite the number of loopholes created by the Patriot Act being horrifying, there was nary a peep nor meaninful protest from the American people.

We need less of the above, more of the below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_qgVn-Op7Q




RE: No thanks...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2011 10:13:26 AM , Rating: 3
Section 206 of the PATRIOT Act allows law enforcement, after approval from the FISA court, to track a suspect as he moves from cell phone to cell phone. The government must first prove that there is “probable cause” to believe that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power . It further requires continuous monitoring by the FISA court and substantial reporting requirements to that Court by the government.

Comparing this to the Patriot Act is propaganda. The goal of the Patriot Act was NOT to spy on citizens. Despite alarmist rhetoric from Internet bloggers and people like you, the fact is what Obama is trying to do is FAR more detrimental to U.S citizens right's than the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act was so we could monitor foreign agents, terrorists, what have you's cell phone activities. It seems like Obama just want's to be able to track YOU. And I don't see ANY mention of the type of safeguards and official oversight here that the Patriot Act has put in place.


RE: No thanks...
By Iaiken on 6/28/2011 11:32:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The government must first prove that there is “probable cause” to believe that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power .


Careful with your wording there... If my American family members call me while I am in Canada, it counts. There is evidence of this very scenario playing out, so the statute is essentially that any communications from within the country to without is fair game through FISA.

To date, the government enjoys an practically perfect record in regards to application approvals. Of the 30342 FISA applications, only 11 have ever been rejected by the courts for a 99.99964% success ratio. This is indicative of the FBI/CIA either practically always being bang on about tens of thousands of threats, or that they are abusing the act. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing the ratios of the former to the later.

What's more, once they have the taps approved based on your international communications, they are entitled to intercept calls within the nation. There is also evidence of numerous cases of tap-first-apply-later where the substance of the tap was used to flesh out the application. Coupled with the degree of automation in the tapping system, computer natural language filters that are performing data mining on all calls in order to pick out traffic of interest. Most of what is known about this is because of security industry insiders like Susan Landau that actually helped build these systems and others like it.


RE: No thanks...
By Etsp on 6/28/2011 11:38:52 AM , Rating: 2
Do you have a source for those numbers? I'd really like to see that. I've never been a fan of the Patriot Act, but I hadn't realized that the oversight was that terrible. Of course, I also don't blindly repeat statistics I read in the comments section of a website either. So, I would really appreciate some references to back up the numbers. :)


RE: No thanks...
By Iaiken on 6/28/2011 12:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
Forgot the link.

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.h...

The data there is aggregated from these sources:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/

The original documents were provided by the FISA annual report to congress.


RE: No thanks...
By MrTeal on 6/28/2011 10:22:55 AM , Rating: 2
Forgive my ignorance of the US system, but is their any indication that the police were sneaking onto the person's property to plant the device? It would seem that would require a warrant.

Is Jason sure that the device wasn't planted while the car was parked in a public place?


RE: No thanks...
By fic2 on 6/28/2011 11:14:47 AM , Rating: 2
The courts (or at least a court) has ruled that it is ok for law enforcement to sneak onto someone's property and plant a GPS tracking device. But I believe the car was parked in the driveway and not in an enclosed garage.

Still BS though.


RE: No thanks...
By 3minence on 6/28/2011 1:00:06 PM , Rating: 3
Correct. The case I read about said it went to the state supreme court which said it was legal. They said that since the yard had no walls and theoretically anyone could walk up to the car parked in the driveway, then the police could too. The dissenting opinion said this created a class system where people with fences or garages were protected and those without were not.


Biggest problem
By 3minence on