(Close Window)
Topic: Are we a Police State yet?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 10, 2012 06:38PM)
I don't like to indulge in hyperbole for this sort of thing, but be honest--did you know it was [i]this[/i] many?


[quote]The number of Americans affected each year by the growing use of mobile phone data by law enforcement could reach into the [b]tens of millions[/b], as a single request could ensnare dozens or even hundreds of people. Law enforcement has been asking for so-called “cell tower dumps” in which carriers disclose all phone numbers that connected to a given tower during a certain period of time...

The reports showed that AT&T, the nation’s second largest carrier, received about 125,000 requests from the authorities in 2007 — mushrooming to more than 260,000 last year. [b]It charged $2.8 million for the work in 2007 and $8.25 million last year...

the company employs more than 100 full-time staffers and “operates on a 24/7 basis for the purpose of meeting law enforcement demands...[/b]

All the while, the Justice Department employs a covert internet and telephone surveillance method known as pen register and trap-and-trace capturing. Judges sign off on these telco orders when the authorities say the information is relevant to an investigation.[b] No probable cause that the target committed a crime — the warrant standard — is necessary[/b][/quote]

More here: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/massive-phone-surveillance/
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Jul 10, 2012 06:44PM)
Answer: Hell yes, and we have been for years...
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 10, 2012 06:50PM)
I'm not sure what your question is. This is nothing new by any means. Just another example of a technology where the government tests the boundaries of what they can and can't get away with. I remember similar things happening when I first went online with my Commodore 64 in the 80's, and it's been happeining ever since. The extent of enforcement just increases with the type of technology and the extent it's used.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 10, 2012 07:17PM)
[quote]I'm not sure what your question is.[/quote]

The questions are:
1) Did the ten million number surprise you?
2) Are we a police state yet?

I would guess that in the Commodore 64 days, the number of warrantless telephone surveillance requests was nowhere near 10 million. At a certain point a quantitative change becomes a qualitative one.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jul 10, 2012 08:07PM)
Remember the dancing arrests?

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/07/08/couple-arrested-for-dancing-while-waiting-for-the-nyc-subway/
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 10, 2012 08:26PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 20:17, landmark wrote:
[quote]I'm not sure what your question is.[/quote]

The questions are:
1) Did the ten million number surprise you?
2) Are we a police state yet?

I would guess that in the Commodore 64 days, the number of warrantless telephone surveillance requests was nowhere near 10 million. At a certain point a quantitative change becomes a qualitative one.
[/quote]

1.) No.
2.) We've always been on the brink. We are usually one law away from being a police state.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 10, 2012 10:44PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 21:07, gdw wrote:
Remember the dancing arrests?

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/07/08/couple-arrested-for-dancing-while-waiting-for-the-nyc-subway/
[/quote]
If you're not engaging in criminal dancing activity, there's nothing to worry about.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 10, 2012 10:55PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 23:44, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 21:07, gdw wrote:
Remember the dancing arrests?

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/07/08/couple-arrested-for-dancing-while-waiting-for-the-nyc-subway/
[/quote]
If you're not engaging in criminal dancing activity, there's nothing to worry about.
[/quote]

First of all, that's not correct by any means, but let's assume it is. Let's assume only the guilty get in trouble. Let's also assume that you are a person who does nothing wrong. Do you want the government spying on you "just in case"? Maybe you are in a silly mood and talked about things that are very personal with a friend. You want to be investigated because some officials were listening to you and took your joking too seriously because they CAN?

You may not be doing anything wrong, but do you want people listening in on your private life just to make sure? Innocent until proven guilty was nice. Do we now go to guilty until someone who may be an idiot decides you are innocent?

How many of your personal rights are you willing to give up?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 11, 2012 01:20AM)
Does anyne know what crimes this has solved or prevented? Has it saved any lives? Has it ensnared any terrorists? Has it caught any drug dealers? Has it harmed any innocent individuals? I am not saying it is right or wrong but just curious about what it is acomplishing if anything or is it just an infringment on our privacy.

Do cell phones have an expectation of privacy? I mean people use them all the time in public. I of course to not want to see them become an ankle trcking device as put on criminals. I guess I am asking how much of an infringement is it really.

While the numbers seem high I am sure there are millions upon millions of cell phones used daily and not tracked in any way, but they could be. Is that the problem here, that they could be tracked? I mean cell phone tower dumps. Just what are they used for?

All this sounds like an ingringement but is it really? I mean if they dump hunderds of thousands of numbers on a cell tower dump and yours happen to be one of them is that a bad thing if they are not looking for your number and it is lost in the shuffle? However if your number is associated with a known drug dealer and you have let us say 50 calls a week to him is that now a red flag?

I would like to know a lot more about this before passing any sort of judgement on its merits.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 11, 2012 01:38AM)
How many questions can be asked in one post?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jul 11, 2012 06:08AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 23:55, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 23:44, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 21:07, gdw wrote:
Remember the dancing arrests?

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/07/08/couple-arrested-for-dancing-while-waiting-for-the-nyc-subway/
[/quote]
If you're not engaging in criminal dancing activity, there's nothing to worry about.
[/quote]

First of all, that's not correct by any means, but let's assume it is. Let's assume only the guilty get in trouble. Let's also assume that you are a person who does nothing wrong. Do you want the government spying on you "just in case"? Maybe you are in a silly mood and talked about things that are very personal with a friend. You want to be investigated because some officials were listening to you and took your joking too seriously because they CAN?

You may not be doing anything wrong, but do you want people listening in on your private life just to make sure? Innocent until proven guilty was nice. Do we now go to guilty until someone who may be an idiot decides you are innocent?

How many of your personal rights are you willing to give up?
[/quote]

I believe Landmark was being ironic.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 11, 2012 06:58AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 07:08, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 23:55, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 23:44, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 21:07, gdw wrote:
Remember the dancing arrests?

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/07/08/couple-arrested-for-dancing-while-waiting-for-the-nyc-subway/
[/quote]
If you're not engaging in criminal dancing activity, there's nothing to worry about.
[/quote]

First of all, that's not correct by any means, but let's assume it is. Let's assume only the guilty get in trouble. Let's also assume that you are a person who does nothing wrong. Do you want the government spying on you "just in case"? Maybe you are in a silly mood and talked about things that are very personal with a friend. You want to be investigated because some officials were listening to you and took your joking too seriously because they CAN?

You may not be doing anything wrong, but do you want people listening in on your private life just to make sure? Innocent until proven guilty was nice. Do we now go to guilty until someone who may be an idiot decides you are innocent?

How many of your personal rights are you willing to give up?
[/quote]

I believe Landmark was being ironic.
[/quote]

I know. :)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 11, 2012 08:32AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 02:38, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
How many questions can be asked in one post?
[/quote]

As many as one wishes?

People ask questions and no one knows any of the answers. Yet this does not stop them from posting on the subject. When asked a simple question about the subject they avoid it and post somethng else they just read on the internet. They love to throw numbers around. That is usually a sign that they have no idea what they are talking about but if the numbers are big enough it sounds impressive.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 11, 2012 10:57AM)
A 16 year old American citizen, who was accused of no crime or wrongdoing, was killed by a drone-launched missile, on the President's orders, and there is no outrage from those who had protested incessantly since 2001.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 11, 2012 12:16PM)
Lots of upset from some on the left. Greenwald has written a lot about it. I have seen no one on the right who thinks it wrong on principle , rather than tactically.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 11, 2012 01:42PM)
I'm curious landmark. You've let it be known how unhappy you are with Obama. Will you be sitting out this next election? Writing someone else in or voting the status quo as the least worst of two evils?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 11, 2012 03:00PM)
I wonder if the government is following this thread. :) Some here will be getting a knock on their door so if you don't hear from them again don't be surprised. :) In the meanntime :gossip:
Message: Posted by: innercirclewannabe (Jul 11, 2012 03:11PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 16:00, acesover wrote:
I wonder if the government is following this thread. :) Some here will be getting a knock on their door so if you don't hear from them again don't be surprised. :) In the meanntime :gossip:
[/quote]

Whatever you say, say nothing
When you talk about you know what
For if you know who could hear you
You know what you'd get
For they'd take you off to you know where
For you wouldn't know how long
So for you know who's sake
Don't let anyone hear you singing this song

And you all know what I'm speaking of
When I mention you know what
And I think it's very dangerous to even mention that
For the other ones are always near
Although you may not see
And if anyone asks who told you that
Please don't mention me :crazydude:
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 11, 2012 03:47PM)
Maybe we should not discuss you know what. :) You know what I mean.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 11, 2012 03:49PM)
All of us are in Police states.

The Police are always in control.
Message: Posted by: innercirclewannabe (Jul 11, 2012 03:54PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 16:49, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
All of us are in Police states.

The Police are always in control.
[/quote]

Not too sure about that. There were certain parts of the North of Ireland where the police were NOT in control of public order. Same could be said for some of the "no go" areas, that every country seem to have.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 11, 2012 08:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 16:00, acesover wrote:
I wonder if the government is following this thread. :) Some here will be getting a knock on their door so if you don't hear from them again don't be surprised. :) In the meanntime :gossip:
[/quote]

I'm in handcuffs as we speak. Oh, you mean by the actual police?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 11, 2012 08:50PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 14:42, rockwall wrote:
I'm curious landmark. You've let it be known how unhappy you are with Obama. Will you be sitting out this next election? Writing someone else in or voting the status quo as the least worst of two evils?
[/quote]
At this point in our history, voting for President is highly overrated. Democracy isn't something you dust off and haul out every four years. I'll probably vote third party if the mood strikes, but I'm under no illusions. Coke or Pepsi. Some say there's a difference, fine if you think so. I'd rather spend my time and attention elsewhere.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 09:02PM)
Landmark-

Three words: Supreme Court appointments.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jul 11, 2012 09:21PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 21:50, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 14:42, rockwall wrote:
I'm curious landmark. You've let it be known how unhappy you are with Obama. Will you be sitting out this next election? Writing someone else in or voting the status quo as the least worst of two evils?
[/quote]
At this point in our history, voting for President is highly overrated. Democracy isn't something you dust off and haul out every four years. I'll probably vote third party if the mood strikes, but I'm under no illusions. Coke or Pepsi. Some say there's a difference, fine if you think so. I'd rather spend my time and attention elsewhere.
[/quote]

He gets it.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 11, 2012 09:29PM)
Amounts to very little in practice. The torture goes on, the innocents get murdered, the privacy gets invaded, one dollar equals one vote, the standard of justice for the elite is completely different than for the rest of us, and so on.

It's broken from top to bottom. You don't become a "viable" candidate for the Presidency unless you are already severely compromised.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 11, 2012 09:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 22:29, landmark wrote:
Amounts to very little in practice. The torture goes on, the innocents get murdered, the privacy gets invaded, one dollar equals one vote, the standard of justice for the elite is completely different than for the rest of us, and so on.

It's broken from top to bottom. You don't become a "viable" candidate for the Presidency unless you are already severely compromised.
[/quote]

And let's not forget that you have to balance the religious beliefs on one side while making the other side content. It's a game I never want to get into.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jul 11, 2012 09:38PM)
Is this a more recent view, or are you just letting out what you've always felt?
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 11, 2012 09:42PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 22:38, gdw wrote:
Is this a more recent view, or are you just letting out what you've always felt?
[/quote]

Pretty much just venting...lol.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 11, 2012 10:47PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 22:38, gdw wrote:
Is this a more recent view, or are you just letting out what you've always felt?
[/quote]
If you're asking me, I've long considered myself a radical; the difference is that as I get older, I feel it is less likely that things will get any better. Or, perhaps that things will have to get a whole lot worse for a long time before they will get any better, and even then there's no guarantee. As to voting, I was probably a little more enthusiastic when I was younger, but except for two times--my first and my last--I've always voted third party under the reasoning that it was important to declare opposition to the two party one party system. But really, no one cares, and it doesn't make a difference either way.

Debbie Downer, over and out.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 12, 2012 01:43PM)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/executive-order-assignment-national-security-and-emergency-preparedness-#.T_sYsRJrreM.twitter
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 12, 2012 02:10PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 23:47, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 22:38, gdw wrote:
Is this a more recent view, or are you just letting out what you've always felt?
[/quote]
If you're asking me, I've long considered myself a radical; the difference is that as I get older, I feel it is less likely that things will get any better. Or, perhaps that things will have to get a whole lot worse for a long time before they will get any better, and even then there's no guarantee. As to voting, I was probably a little more enthusiastic when I was younger, but except for two times--my first and my last--I've always voted third party under the reasoning that it was important to declare opposition to the two party one party system. But really, no one cares, and it doesn't make a difference either way.

Debbie Downer, over and out.
[/quote]

So you're saying you 'didn't' vote Obama in '08? I must admit, that surprises me. I assumed you thought him the great savior like so many progressives did and were only later disalusioned. As to 'things will have to get a whole lot worse before they will get any better', that's exactly how I felt back in '08 and why I was OK with Obama getting elected. I knew the result would be that things would get a whole lot worse. I just didn't realize they'd get 'this' bad. Or that so many people would be so blind to how bad it continues to get.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jul 12, 2012 03:20PM)
I believe he was saying his last vote was not third party.

Landmark, things can change, but the current institution will have to get much worse first.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 12, 2012 04:48PM)
Ah, thanks gdw. I think I missed the 'my last' part of that post. So, possibly my assumption was somewhat accurate.

Anyway, I agree with Bob but for obviously different reasons. "Three words: Supreme Court appointments."

I also don't think the two parties are as identical as some like to claim. One word. obamacare.

But I will admit that there are more similarities than one would think despite what the rhetoric would indicate.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 05:31PM)
Are you referring to the Affordable Health Care Act? And the mandate that started out as a conservative idea and was praised by Romney when he introduced "RomneyCare" to Massachusetts? The plan that promoted the conservative ideal of personal responsibility? The idea that was considered a great conservative concept until Obama finally supported it at which time it magically transformed into "socialized medicine" and government sponsored "death panels?"

That act?

Because if you are, I agree with you that we need to eventually get rid of it, establish single payer - medicare for all - and join the rest of the civilized industrial countries of the world.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 12, 2012 05:39PM)
Yes Bob, that one. You mean to tell me you're not sure what Obamacare refers to?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 05:56PM)
Making people pay for healthcare they won't need in order to provide care to others is promoting personal responsibility?
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 06:12PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 18:56, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Making people pay for healthcare they won't need in order to provide care to others is promoting personal responsibility?
[/quote]

How pathetic is that? We have plenty of free land in the mid-west where we just lay the poor sick folks to die. As long as the people who can afford medical care get it, all is good.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 06:31PM)
I'm not saying it's good or bad; I'm just saying that it's written into the ACA text that we know there are people who won't need or use healthcare services, but we still want their money to pay for others, and that doesn't entirely sound like what I think of when I hear "personal responsibility." It's not saying that I have to pay because I might need healthcare; it's saying that I have to pay because OTHERS need healthcare. Now, you can say it's good, it's neighborly, it's the only moral thing to do, etc. I'm just questioning the "personal responsibility" tag.

Although with all of the distaste you express in the religiously based threads about people "imposing their moral beliefs on others," I'm just shocked that you'd approve of such a thing. [/irony]
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 07:13PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 18:56, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Making people pay for healthcare they won't need in order to provide care to others is promoting personal responsibility?
[/quote]

EVERYONE eventually needs healthcare. Bigger pool, lower costs for all.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 07:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 18:39, rockwall wrote:
Yes Bob, that one. You mean to tell me you're not sure what Obamacare refers to?
[/quote]
Sure I do, but I have a rep to live up to around here!

:eek:
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 07:17PM)
Lobo-

So someone decides they don't need healthcare and they'll just freeload the emergency rooms if something comes up. Is that the kind of personal responsibility you're talking about?

And, once again, I'd point out that the personal responsibility rationale was the one used by the Republicans who first came up with the idea and was touted by Romney as the justification for the mandate in Massachusetts.

Like I said, I'd much prefer a Medicare for all single payer approach.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jul 12, 2012 07:24PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 20:13, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 18:56, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Making people pay for healthcare they won't need in order to provide care to others is promoting personal responsibility?
[/quote]

EVERYONE eventually needs healthcare. Bigger pool, lower costs for all.
[/quote]

But mandatory purchasing means proves go up, and no incentive to improve.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jul 12, 2012 07:25PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 17:48, rockwall wrote:
Ah, thanks gdw. I think I missed the 'my last' part of that post. So, possibly my assumption was somewhat accurate.

Anyway, I agree with Bob but for obviously different reasons. "Three words: Supreme Court appointments."

I also don't think the two parties are as identical as some like to claim. One word. obamacare.

But I will admit that there are more similarities than one would think despite what the rhetoric would indicate.
[/quote]

Bob's point was RomneyCare, which ObamaCare was modelled on.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jul 12, 2012 07:26PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 20:24, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 20:13, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 18:56, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Making people pay for healthcare they won't need in order to provide care to others is promoting personal responsibility?
[/quote]

EVERYONE eventually needs healthcare. Bigger pool, lower costs for all.
[/quote]

But mandatory purchasing means proves go up, and no incentive to improve.
[/quote]

Should have read "prices go up"
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 07:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 20:17, mastermindreader wrote:
Lobo-

So someone decides they don't need healthcare and they'll just freeload the emergency rooms if something comes up. Is that the kind of personal responsibility you're talking about?

And, once again, I'd point out that the personal responsibility rationale was the one used by the Republicans who first came up with the idea and was touted by Romney as the justification for the mandate in Massachusetts.

Like I said, I'd much prefer a Medicare for all single payer approach.
[/quote]

I'm actually referring to something that directly plays into what you THOUGHT the ACA said - that if you don't use healthcare services, you're not subject to the penalty. That would be more in line with what I think of in connection with "personal responsibility." The fact of the matter is that even if you don't pay or use healthcare for 20 years, you're subject to 20 years of penalties, interest, and penalties on the unpaid penalties. I assume this revelation doesn't undermine whatever modicum of support you have for the ACA (despite its not being your first choice).
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 07:41PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 20:17, mastermindreader wrote:
Lobo-

So someone decides they don't need healthcare and they'll just freeload the emergency rooms if something comes up. Is that the kind of personal responsibility you're talking about?

And, once again, I'd point out that the personal responsibility rationale was the one used by the Republicans who first came up with the idea and was touted by Romney as the justification for the mandate in Massachusetts.

Like I said, I'd much prefer a Medicare for all single payer approach.
[/quote]

Not living close to Massachusetts, I hadn't heart of "Romneycare" before he became a presidential candidate, but my response would have been the same; I'm commenting on the idea, and I don't particularly care who's espousing it.

The fact that taxpayers may end up picking up the tab if one doesn't buy healthcare is also, IMO, not an example of personal responsibility. Personal responsibility, IMO, would be something like you buy healthcare or you don't; if you don't, you work out arrangements with a provider to help you out (why should we lawyers do all the pro bono work?) or you don't; if you don't, you find someone else willing to foot the bill, or you don't; if you don't...you've got problems.

None of which is to say that personal responsibility is the be-all, end-all of decision making. I'm not taking issue with the system; I'm just saying it's based on things other than personal responsibility, e.g. sharing the load, mercy (with respect to free healthcare at ERs), etc.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 07:46PM)
Of course it is based on other factors. Many other factors. I just find it ironic that those who once happily espoused the notion of personal responsibility as a rationale for a mandate, suddenly hated the idea when Obama accepted it in an attempted bi-partisan compromise to what he originally wanted.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 07:49PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 20:46, mastermindreader wrote:
Of course it is based on other factors. Many other factors. I just find it ironic that those who once happily espoused the notion of personal responsibility as a rationale for a mandate, suddenly hated the idea when Obama accepted it in an attempted bi-partisan compromise to what he originally wanted.
[/quote]

And what did the Massachusetts Democrats who love it as Obama's signature legislation think of it when it was Romney's idea?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 07:52PM)
From what I read, the people in Massachusetts approved of it. It was jointly supported, don't forget, by both Romney and Ted Kennedy - probably another reason why Romney wants to distance himself from it now.

It's also why Rick Santorum stated during the primaries that it was Romneycare that made Romney the worst possible choice for the Republican nomination. (It should also be noted that the many of the same people who drafted the Massachusetts law drafted the ACA and have acknowledged that they are almost exactly the same.)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 07:56PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 20:52, mastermindreader wrote:
From what I read, the people in Massachusetts approved of it. It was jointly supported, don't forget, by both Romney and Ted Kennedy - probably another reason why Romney wants to distance himself from it now.

It's also why Rick Santorum stated during the primaries that it was Romneycare that made Romney the worst possible choice for the Republican nomination. (It should also be noted that the many of thesame people who drafted the Massachusetts law drafted the ACA and have acknowledged that they are almost exactly the same.)
[/quote]

I just did some reading that showed it passed overwhelmingly in both Houses in Massachusetts with bipartisan support. Props to the MA Democrats for their consistency.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 08:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 19:31, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'm not saying it's good or bad; I'm just saying that it's written into the ACA text that we know there are people who won't need or use healthcare services, but we still want their money to pay for others, and that doesn't entirely sound like what I think of when I hear "personal responsibility." It's not saying that I have to pay because I might need healthcare; it's saying that I have to pay because OTHERS need healthcare. Now, you can say it's good, it's neighborly, it's the only moral thing to do, etc. I'm just questioning the "personal responsibility" tag.

Although with all of the distaste you express in the religiously based threads about people "imposing their moral beliefs on others," I'm just shocked that you'd approve of such a thing. [/irony]
[/quote]

Distaste? As an atheist, people hate on me all the time for no other reason than that label. If there's any distate, it's Christians who feel that anyone who doesn't think the way they do will go to Hell and they make sure we know it. I don't knock on people's doors on the weekend and tell them there's no good news.

Back on topic though, you are shocked about my views on healthcare? I'm an atheist. All that means is that I have no belief in a god or gods. It has nothing to do with my political views, or any other aspect in my life. I believe in doing what's right for people, and access to healthcare for all is right.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 08:20PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 21:15, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 19:31, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'm not saying it's good or bad; I'm just saying that it's written into the ACA text that we know there are people who won't need or use healthcare services, but we still want their money to pay for others, and that doesn't entirely sound like what I think of when I hear "personal responsibility." It's not saying that I have to pay because I might need healthcare; it's saying that I have to pay because OTHERS need healthcare. Now, you can say it's good, it's neighborly, it's the only moral thing to do, etc. I'm just questioning the "personal responsibility" tag.

Although with all of the distaste you express in the religiously based threads about people "imposing their moral beliefs on others," I'm just shocked that you'd approve of such a thing. [/irony]
[/quote]

Distaste? As an atheist, people hate on me all the time for no other reason than that label. If there's any distate, it's Christians who feel that anyone who doesn't think the way they do will go to Hell and they make sure we know it. I don't knock on people's doors on the weekend and tell them there's no good news.

Back on topic though, you are shocked about my views on healthcare? I'm an atheist. All that means is that I have no belief in a god or gods. It has nothing to do with my political views, or any other aspect in my life. It's just that simple.
[/quote]

The "[/irony]" tag was intended to convey that I wasn't really shocked; I was just making a point.

In the religious threads, you've expressed your displeasure for those who attempt to enforce moral views on others. The ACA, whether you agree with it or not, is [i]most certainly[/i] an effort to impose moral views on others.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 08:25PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 21:20, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 21:15, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 19:31, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'm not saying it's good or bad; I'm just saying that it's written into the ACA text that we know there are people who won't need or use healthcare services, but we still want their money to pay for others, and that doesn't entirely sound like what I think of when I hear "personal responsibility." It's not saying that I have to pay because I might need healthcare; it's saying that I have to pay because OTHERS need healthcare. Now, you can say it's good, it's neighborly, it's the only moral thing to do, etc. I'm just questioning the "personal responsibility" tag.

Although with all of the distaste you express in the religiously based threads about people "imposing their moral beliefs on others," I'm just shocked that you'd approve of such a thing. [/irony]
[/quote]

Distaste? As an atheist, people hate on me all the time for no other reason than that label. If there's any distate, it's Christians who feel that anyone who doesn't think the way they do will go to Hell and they make sure we know it. I don't knock on people's doors on the weekend and tell them there's no good news.

Back on topic though, you are shocked about my views on healthcare? I'm an atheist. All that means is that I have no belief in a god or gods. It has nothing to do with my political views, or any other aspect in my life. It's just that simple.
[/quote]

The "[/irony]" tag was intended to convey that I wasn't really shocked; I was just making a point.

In the religious threads, you've expressed your displeasure for those who attempt to enforce moral views on others. The ACA, whether you agree with it or not, is [i]most certainly[/i] an effort to impose moral views on others.
[/quote]

There's a major difference. If everyone get's health care, nobody is FORCED to see a doctor. When laws based on religious beliefs are passed, we HAVE to abide by them.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 08:41PM)
You're not forced to see a doctor, but you're forced to buy healthcare. You're also forced to support a trillion+ dollar system with tax dollars. It's absolutely the direct imposition of a moral belief on people who don't agree with it. The only real difference is, they didn't say the 'G' word.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 09:01PM)
Before my last few posts are misconstrued TOO many times, let me point out that they're not criticisms of the ACA; they're simply a reductio-ish look at the oft-heard ridiculous notions that "You can't legislate morality," and that the effort to do so is the exclusive province of the religious right.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 09:12PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 21:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
You're not forced to see a doctor, but you're forced to buy healthcare. You're also forced to support a trillion+ dollar system with tax dollars. It's absolutely the direct imposition of a moral belief on people who don't agree with it. The only real difference is, they didn't say the 'G' word.
[/quote]

You are talking about 2 different beasts. One is based in economics and one is based on law. If I have to pay a couple dollars so someone less fortunate than me can see a doctor, I'm fine with that. If I have to spend my life in a wheelchair because a politician decided stem cell research was against his religion, I'm not fine with that.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 09:14PM)
Not at all. They're both based in law, and they're both based in morality.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 09:18PM)
Who's morals? Stem cell research is based on religious morals, healthcare is based on secular morals.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 09:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 22:18, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
Who's morals? Stem cell research is based on religious morals, healthcare is based on secular morals.
[/quote]

Right. So you're fine with using the political and legal system to impose moral beliefs on others who disagree with them, just as long as they keep God out of it. That's all I was saying.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 09:42PM)
Define "morals".
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jul 12, 2012 09:51PM)
Define "potrezebie."
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 09:55PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 22:42, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
Define "morals".
[/quote]

For the purposes of this discussion, I'd say "pertaining to principles of right and wrong." The position that we "should" help our fellow person with his/her healthcare needs is a moral belief. Requiring us to do so under threat of legal financial sanctions is an imposition of that moral belief.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 11:16PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 22:55, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 22:42, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
Define "morals".
[/quote]

For the purposes of this discussion, I'd say "pertaining to principles of right and wrong." The position that we "should" help our fellow person with his/her healthcare needs is a moral belief. Requiring us to do so under threat of legal financial sanctions is an imposition of that moral belief.
[/quote]

I agree with your definition in this case. We can both be correct in our opinion as to healthcare vs. a religious law such as stem cell research. I'll just ask you this. At the end of the day, would you rather pay a couple bucks so someone in need can get medical help, or be told you can't shop or do business on a certain day because some politicians decided it was a holy day?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 12, 2012 11:32PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 20:46, mastermindreader wrote:
Of course it is based on other factors. Many other factors. I just find it ironic that those who once happily espoused the notion of personal responsibility as a rationale for a mandate, suddenly hated the idea when Obama accepted it in an attempted bi-partisan compromise to what he originally wanted.
[/quote]

Don't confuse the fact that 'some' Republicans happily espoused the notion that 'all' Republicans loved the idea.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 13, 2012 12:25AM)
That's true. Just as there are many Democrats who weren't thrilled with the idea either but merely saw it as a compromise and somewhat less that what they wanted.

That said, though, I still think its pretty revealing how so many Republicans did an about face on the idea the moment Obama adopted it. It wasn't the idea they were opposed to, it was simply that they had already decided not to endorse ANY plan he came up with.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jul 13, 2012 07:47AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 00:16, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 22:55, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 22:42, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
Define "morals".
[/quote]

For the purposes of this discussion, I'd say "pertaining to principles of right and wrong." The position that we "should" help our fellow person with his/her healthcare needs is a moral belief. Requiring us to do so under threat of legal financial sanctions is an imposition of that moral belief.
[/quote]

I agree with your definition in this case. We can both be correct in our opinion as to healthcare vs. a religious law such as stem cell research. I'll just ask you this. At the end of the day, would you rather pay a couple bucks so someone in need can get medical help, or be told you can't shop or do business on a certain day because some politicians decided it was a holy day?
[/quote]

Besides being a false dichotomy . . .
It's the fact they you're being FORCED to pay for someone else. Most people certainly don't mind helping, they just don't like being forced to, nor being punished, or threatened, for nor helping.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 13, 2012 08:57AM)
Hi Bob,

If Obamacare is such a great thing, why does the legislation specifically exempt Members of Congress from it?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 13, 2012 11:13AM)
People who already have health insurance aren't effected by it. The ACA actually gives a lot of other folks the opportunity to get the same coverage enjoyed by members of Congress.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 13, 2012 11:17AM)
The logic that being forced to buy insurance is paying for someone elses care doesn't really hold up. You are actually paying for the care you yourself will eventually need. The side benefit is that early participation enlarges the pool and brings the costs down.

The same argument you are making can be, and has been, made against Social Security. (I don't want it so why should I pay for it?)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 13, 2012 11:31AM)
Beginning in 2014, members of Congress will be *more* constrained by the ACA than the rest of us.

As for the logic that you're paying for someone else's care not holding up, it's written directly into the bill.

I agree that people who already have insurance aren't directly affected, but I would add that they may be indirectly affected if they have that insurance through an employer who discontinues the plan they're on and would not do so but for the ACA. It remains to be seen how this will shake out; the number of employers expected to discontinue plans is a small number, but it's not zero.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 13, 2012 11:34AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 01:25, mastermindreader wrote:
That's true. Just as there are many Democrats who weren't thrilled with the idea either but merely saw it as a compromise and somewhat less that what they wanted.

That said, though, I still think its pretty revealing how so many Republicans did an about face on the idea the moment Obama adopted it. It wasn't the idea they were opposed to, it was simply that they had already decided not to endorse ANY plan he came up with.
[/quote]

I find it pretty revealing that you think that many Republicans would have supported Nationalized health care if only someone else had been President. If only John McCain had been elected, health care would have been passed by a large bi-partisan group! Sure.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 13, 2012 11:38AM)
Your right about the logic. What I meant to say was that being forced to buy insurance is not solely for the purpose of paying for other people. It is also to eventually cover your own needs. As I noted, it is wide participation that brings the costs down for everyone.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 13, 2012 09:00PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 15:10, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 23:47, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 22:38, gdw wrote:
Is this a more recent view, or are you just letting out what you've always felt?
[/quote]
If you're asking me, I've long considered myself a radical; the difference is that as I get older, I feel it is less likely that things will get any better. Or, perhaps that things will have to get a whole lot worse for a long time before they will get any better, and even then there's no guarantee. As to voting, I was probably a little more enthusiastic when I was younger, but except for two times--my first and my last--I've always voted third party under the reasoning that it was important to declare opposition to the two party one party system. But really, no one cares, and it doesn't make a difference either way.

Debbie Downer, over and out.
[/quote]

So you're saying you 'didn't' vote Obama in '08? I must admit, that surprises me. I assumed you thought him the great savior like so many progressives did and were only later disalusioned. As to 'things will have to get a whole lot worse before they will get any better', that's exactly how I felt back in '08 and why I was OK with Obama getting elected. I knew the result would be that things would get a whole lot worse. I just didn't realize they'd get 'this' bad. Or that so many people would be so blind to how bad it continues to get.
[/quote]
I voted for the present office holder without any illusions. Well almost no illusions. Despite his campaign rhetoric, it was clear from his Congressional record that he was a hack bought and sold. If there was any doubt at all, he gave himself away during the campaign by voting to retroactively immunize telephone companies from prosecution for invasion of privacy, after he said he would not vote that way.

Anyway, so why did I vote for him, given my record for the 36 years before that? Because, and only because, I was so terrified that if the previous office holder's party won again, the record of his crimes would go into some dark hole, and the evildoers would never be punished. Surely his successor from the opposing party would find it in his self-interest at least to hold his predecessor accountable.

So I held my nose and voted.

And Lucy pulled the football away from Charlie Brown again.

Foolish me.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 13, 2012 10:13PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 22:00, landmark wrote:
I voted for the present office holder without any illusions. Well almost no illusions. Despite his campaign rhetoric, it was clear from his Congressional record that he was a hack bought and sold. If there was any doubt at all, he gave himself away during the campaign by voting to retroactively immunize telephone companies from prosecution for invasion of privacy, after he said he would not vote that way.
[/quote]

If Chance or Al call you a racist Tea Partier conservative for making such critical comments about our president, and as a result, Coke Zero comes out my nose and ruins my laptop, I'm taking the New York bar exam just so I can sue you.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 13, 2012 10:32PM)
As Zimmerman said (no, the other one) when you ain't got nothing you got nothing to lose.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 13, 2012 11:23PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 12:34, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 01:25, mastermindreader wrote:
That's true. Just as there are many Democrats who weren't thrilled with the idea either but merely saw it as a compromise and somewhat less that what they wanted.

That said, though, I still think its pretty revealing how so many Republicans did an about face on the idea the moment Obama adopted it. It wasn't the idea they were opposed to, it was simply that they had already decided not to endorse ANY plan he came up with.
[/quote]

I find it pretty revealing that you think that many Republicans would have supported Nationalized health care if only someone else had been President. If only John McCain had been elected, health care would have been passed by a large bi-partisan group! Sure.
[/quote]

I find it pretty revealing that both the Obama's ACA and Romneycare were both, in fact, largely based on the plan set forth by that darling of the left :eek: - Richard Nixon:

[quote]Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal President Obama's universal health care law if he is elected president. Critics find his position rather strange, arguing that the plan he helped develop when he was governor of Massachusetts is quite similar in design to the Obama plan. Romney disputes his critics, saying there are important and fundamental differences between the plans. Who is correct?

In actuality, both plans draw extensively from legislation offered by President Nixon in January 1974. In a book just published, "Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care," David Shactman and I explain how Romney and Obama used the same approach as Nixon to lower the number of uninsured.

All three built their system on private, employer-sponsored insurance in which all but the smallest employers had to provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty. All utilized Medicare to insure the elderly and an expanded Medicaid-type program to insure the poor. All provided subsidies to low-income individuals and small employers. The Romney and Obama plans created state-based private insurance exchanges to make insurance more accessible and affordable to small business and individuals.[/quote]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/25/opinion/altman-romney-obama-health-care/index.html

We should also remember that Republican Theodore Roosevelt was the FIRST president to push for national health care way back in 1912. I guess those modern Republicans who are proud that Teddy was one of their own didn't know that he was obviously a Socialist.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 13, 2012 11:34PM)
Somehow, I just don't see Nancy Pelosi gushing over "Nixoncare,"
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jul 13, 2012 11:38PM)
I think the genius "Rope a Dope" strategy that Obama adopted was to push through the Republican's own plan, even though to most of us Democrats it was anathema. We wanted, and have always wanted, a universal coverage single-payer plan.

He could never have gotten a single payer plan through. By turning to Nixon's idea, which had been added to and enlarged by conservative Republican think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, he was able to push through a workable compromise.

The Republicans didn't treat it as a compromise. They attacked it as if it were from Satan himself. They vilified it and the President. They could never now support anything like it.

But this is a death pill for the Republicans.

Now the Republicans have no alternative to offer.

They have to run against their own plan, and have no decent alternative to put in its place. That is why this election is going to be fun to watch. It isn't just Romney running against his own wonderful accomplishment, it is the whole Republican Party running against their own best alternative to single-payer universal coverage.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 14, 2012 12:20AM)
I still believe, though, that we will eventually end up with single payer. The ACA was definitely a compromise but it was also a step in the right direction.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jul 14, 2012 02:09AM)
It is better than nothing. I believe in single-payer, but it is probably too great a disruption at the present time. I think we will eventually move toward it because it is a more sensible plan, and has been proved to work.

I don't really see any alternatives. It will be something like Romneycare, or it will be some kind of single payer like most of the civilized world.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 14, 2012 05:58AM)
[quote]I believe in single-payer, but it is probably too great a disruption at the present time.[/quote]

Should that comment go in one of the faith-based threads?
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jul 15, 2012 01:31PM)
I don't see why. I think the single-payer is the most effective solution, but to redo the law now would be very disruptive to the health care system. The new law is just beginning to come online. It may not be the best option, but it is an improvement, and changing course now would be difficult and expensive.

I think we are stuck with this Republican healthcare plan, at least for the time being.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 15, 2012 03:03PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 00:38, Pop Haydn wrote:
I think the genius "Rope a Dope" strategy that Obama adopted was to push through the Republican's own plan, even though to most of us Democrats it was anathema. We wanted, and have always wanted, a universal coverage single-payer plan.

He could never have gotten a single payer plan through. By turning to Nixon's idea, which had been added to and enlarged by conservative Republican think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, he was able to push through a workable compromise.

The Republicans didn't treat it as a compromise. They attacked it as if it were from Satan himself. They vilified it and the President. They could never now support anything like it.

But this is a death pill for the Republicans.

Now the Republicans have no alternative to offer.

They have to run against their own plan, and have no decent alternative to put in its place. That is why this election is going to be fun to watch. It isn't just Romney running against his own wonderful accomplishment, it is the whole Republican Party running against their own best alternative to single-payer universal coverage.
[/quote]


This is a pretty funny comment Pop considering that not one Republican voted for Obamacare. So, if he was rope-a-doping anyone, it was his own party. If the democrats wanted single payer, they could have gotten it passed with the majorities they had just as they did Obamacare.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 15, 2012 03:52PM)
Of course not a single Republican voted for it. They marched in lockstep against it THE MOMENT that Obama endorsed the idea. It wasn't the plan, but Obama, who they were committed to voting against in order to stick to their stated number one goal of insuring that he would be a one-term president.

Will you not even concede the FACT that it was the conservative think tanks and the Republican party that came up with the mandate idea and the basic structure of the legislation?

But I agree with you that the Democrats should have stuck with single payer and voted that through. The reason they didn't, though, was that they mistakenly believed that at least some Republicans would sign on to what was clearly a compromise made in the spirit of bi-partisanship. In that regard, the Democrats and the President were naive- they mistakenly assumed the other side was acting in good faith. They weren't.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 15, 2012 05:19PM)
It seems to me, that if have security that not necessary, that is based on lies and propaganda, then you have a police state.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 15, 2012 09:23PM)
Well, I won't exactly concede the FACT? you try and make that it was the conservative think tanks, (plural) and the Republican party that came up with the mandate idea. I know of A think tank, singular, not plural, that came up with idea. And I know of 'some' Republicans that supported the idea as an alternative to single payer. It was never a part of the Republican platform and was not supported by the majority of Republicans or conservatives. Can you at least concede the FACT that it doesn't matter if it was Obama, Bush, Clinton, or McCain, that national universal healthcare would have been strongly opposed by most Republicans?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 15, 2012 09:43PM)
Yes. I will concede that. I will also stand corrected that it was a conservative think tank (singular) that came up with the idea in the first place.

But, sadly, the party of Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower is no more. Even Richard Nixon would be too far to the left for today's Republicans. Even Reagan would probably have a hard time getting elected today given his stance on deficits and federal spending.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 15, 2012 09:44PM)
Rockwall, what do you think about the original post?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 15, 2012 09:59PM)
Oh, look at you, trying to get us back on topic! :)

hmmm. I don't have a strong opinion either way. While I am concerned about privacy issues, I wouldn't say that this is what would definitively put us into a police state. I guess we would need to define what we think a police state is as your definition would probably differ to some degree than mine. While the numbers sound large, it's a big country. Are these justified requests? Are the police using these records to go fishing? Is the information they collect admissible in court? I'm not surprised by the rapid increase because it is probably something more and more agencies are becoming aware of as a means of gathering evidence as the technology is 'relatively' new. Certainly the ability to track someone by their phone and where they've been.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 15, 2012 10:02PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-15 22:43, mastermindreader wrote:
Yes. I will concede that. I will also stand corrected that it was a conservative think tank (singular) that came up with the idea in the first place.

But, sadly, the party of Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower is no more. Even Richard Nixon would be too far to the left for today's Republicans. Even Reagan would probably have a hard time getting elected today given his stance on deficits and federal spending.
[/quote]

I find it quite funny when those on the left pine for the days of the 'good' republican party and then make the laughable statement that even Reagan would have a hard time getting elected today. It's like, sure, Bush, McCain, Romney are all sooooo much farther right than Reagan ever was!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 15, 2012 10:03PM)
Wow Rockwall. I agree with you on that! I'm not so sure either.
Message: Posted by: Zombie Magic (Jul 15, 2012 11:06PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 00:38, Pop Haydn wrote:
I think the genius "Rope a Dope" strategy that Obama adopted was to push through the Republican's own plan, even though to most of us Democrats it was anathema. We wanted, and have always wanted, a universal coverage single-payer plan.

He could never have gotten a single payer plan through. By turning to Nixon's idea, which had been added to and enlarged by conservative Republican think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, he was able to push through a workable compromise.

The Republicans didn't treat it as a compromise. They attacked it as if it were from Satan himself. They vilified it and the President. They could never now support anything like it.

But this is a death pill for the Republicans.

Now the Republicans have no alternative to offer.

They have to run against their own plan, and have no decent alternative to put in its place. That is why this election is going to be fun to watch. It isn't just Romney running against his own wonderful accomplishment, it is the whole Republican Party running against their own best alternative to single-payer universal coverage.
[/quote]

Whit, I think the election will be fun/interesting to watch, but I think we learned from our President, William Jefferson Clinton in the '92 election, that "it's the economy Stupid" ( a variation of James Carville's internal campaign mantra ).

In dire times, people will vote with their wallets ( 1980 election ). If they feel financially worse off than 4 years ago, they'll vote a change. Those that weren't doing well 4 years, 8 years, 12 years ago, but now have healthcare, will stay the course.

All the rhetoric on the airwaves this summer, all the polls mean nothing. Who passed the first mandated healthcare law as Governor, who passed it as President, who ran what company, who went to what church, will just be chatter to make the heat bearable. And of course the Presidential debates will be a hoot. A good old fashioned sideshow for the folks.

At the end of the summer, based on the unemployment numbers, we'll know who will be our President after November 6th.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 16, 2012 05:47AM)
I would say this is not yet a "police state" but the structures are being put in place. Here is a list of some of the President's [url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/do_obamas_executive_orders_reveal_a_pattern.html#ixzz20mVDUOLG]recent executive orders:[/url]

[quote]
• EO 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
• EO 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
• EO 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision
• EO 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
• EO 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
• EO 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations.
• EO 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.
[/quote]

All that's needed is the justification to implement them.

Like the [url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=13684]"State of Emergency" Harry S. Truman ordered in 1950.[/url]
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 16, 2012 06:27AM)
Woland, Interesting list, although one could now add the power to assassinate any US citizen anywhere without any judicial oversight under complete protection of executive secrecy.

Anyway, would you still feel the same way if the other party were in power? Would you be as vocal? Serious question.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 16, 2012 09:41AM)
Hi landmark, I agree with your addition. Yes, I would be as vocal if the "other party" held the reins. (I don't think posting here is really being "very vocal," though, do you?

If you read about Proclamation 2914, you may be surprised at how long some of President Truman's "emergency" measures remained in force. I think some of them lasted until President Bush (43!) rescinded them.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 16, 2012 11:39AM)
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/11/london-2012-military-extra-troops-olympic-securirty_n_1665458.html

Welcom to the London
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 16, 2012 01:34PM)
I expect it will go a lot better than the Munich.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 16, 2012 01:48PM)
Same problem, though, no?