• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 04:17
CEST 10:17
KST 17:17
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments2[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt2: Turbulence10Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon10[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt1: Ascent10Maestros of the Game: Week 1/Play-in Preview12
Community News
StarCraft II 5.0.15 PTR Patch Notes172BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch2Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups4WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments1SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia8
StarCraft 2
General
StarCraft II 5.0.15 PTR Patch Notes #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time SC4ALL: A North American StarCraft LAN Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 Stellar Fest KSL Week 80 StarCraft Evolution League (SC Evo Biweekly)
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 491 Night Drive Mutation # 490 Masters of Midnight Mutation # 489 Bannable Offense Mutation # 488 What Goes Around
Brood War
General
StarCraft Stellar Forces had bad maps ASL ro8 Upper Bracket HYPE VIDEO Starcraft: Destruction expansion pack? StarCraft - Stratospace. Very rare expansion pack BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
[ASL20] Ro16 Group D SC4ALL $1,500 Open Bracket LAN BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch [ASL20] Ro16 Group C
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile Borderlands 3 General RTS Discussion Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Big Programming Thread UK Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread High temperatures on bridge(s)
TL Community
BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Too Many LANs? Tournament Ov…
TrAiDoS
i'm really bored guys
Peanutsc
I <=> 9
KrillinFromwales
A very expensive lesson on ma…
Garnet
hello world
radishsoup
Lemme tell you a thing o…
JoinTheRain
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1397 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 498

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 496 497 498 499 500 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
TheTenthDoc
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States9561 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-10-02 02:04:13
October 02 2013 02:03 GMT
#9941
On October 02 2013 09:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Show nested quote +
WASHINGTON -- If and when the federal government reopens for business, congressional lawmakers will have to decide whether or not to retroactively pay federal workers for the time they were out of work. So far, Republicans appear split on the question of back pay for furloughed civil servants -- even though members of Congress are guaranteed to get paid regardless.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she would support such a measure. "They're being furloughed for no fault of their own, and this is very poor policy," she said.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) agreed. "Oh, of course," he said when asked by HuffPost if he would support back pay legislation. "Why penalize these good people for our malfeasance?"

The Arizona Republican even predicted that it wouldn't be too difficult to get a bill retroactively paying federal workers through Congress.

But some of McCain's colleagues weren't so sure federal workers should be made whole for their lost time.

"I think it's way too early to even consider that, but again we're $7 trillion more in the hole now than we were [in 1995-1996]," said Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). "It makes it that much more difficult."

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also raised the issue of the national debt, signaling what might prevent many Republicans from getting on board.

"I think there would be less chance of that now considering the great big budget deficit we have now," Grassley said. "We're in a much worse situation."

So how would he vote if a measure were brought to floor to back pay federal employees?

"I would not make a judgment at this point," Grassley responded.


Source


Lower the deficit by just not paying government workers. I actually like this idea in a way. Let's start with Congressmen, Senators, and Obama and work our way down.
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
October 02 2013 02:06 GMT
#9942
On October 02 2013 11:03 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 02 2013 09:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WASHINGTON -- If and when the federal government reopens for business, congressional lawmakers will have to decide whether or not to retroactively pay federal workers for the time they were out of work. So far, Republicans appear split on the question of back pay for furloughed civil servants -- even though members of Congress are guaranteed to get paid regardless.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she would support such a measure. "They're being furloughed for no fault of their own, and this is very poor policy," she said.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) agreed. "Oh, of course," he said when asked by HuffPost if he would support back pay legislation. "Why penalize these good people for our malfeasance?"

The Arizona Republican even predicted that it wouldn't be too difficult to get a bill retroactively paying federal workers through Congress.

But some of McCain's colleagues weren't so sure federal workers should be made whole for their lost time.

"I think it's way too early to even consider that, but again we're $7 trillion more in the hole now than we were [in 1995-1996]," said Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). "It makes it that much more difficult."

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also raised the issue of the national debt, signaling what might prevent many Republicans from getting on board.

"I think there would be less chance of that now considering the great big budget deficit we have now," Grassley said. "We're in a much worse situation."

So how would he vote if a measure were brought to floor to back pay federal employees?

"I would not make a judgment at this point," Grassley responded.


Source


Lower the deficit by just not paying government workers. I actually like this idea in a way. Let's start with Congressmen, Senators, and Obama and work our way down.

Too bad they'll just make money in other ways, like through lobbyists, appearances, and book deals.
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4825 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-10-02 03:10:03
October 02 2013 03:08 GMT
#9943
Some genius told me the other day that the Republicans didn't care about the Military. Guess it's not their fault anymore, so try again.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h506?utm_campaign=govtrack_feed&utm_source=govtrack/feed&utm_medium=rss

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hjres72asIntroduced.pdf
"It is therefore only at the birth of a society that one can be completely logical in the laws. When you see a people enjoying this advantage, do not hasten to conclude that it is wise; think rather that it is young." -Alexis de Tocqueville
ZeaL.
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
United States5955 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-10-02 04:14:48
October 02 2013 04:12 GMT
#9944
On October 02 2013 12:08 Introvert wrote:
Some genius told me the other day that the Republicans didn't care about the Military. Guess it's not their fault anymore, so try again.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h506?utm_campaign=govtrack_feed&utm_source=govtrack/feed&utm_medium=rss

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hjres72asIntroduced.pdf



The Republicans failed with their budget + 1 year delay of Obamacare so they're trying to pass mini bills that will fund everything but Obamacare to get around it. Hell, an article about it was linked like 5 posts above yours by stealth blue. It's got nothing to do with who loves the military more.

Edit: Given that you've spent the time to find it, I find it hard to believe that you missed the fact that this is the GOP's second strategy for trying to defund Obamacare or at least make democratic legislators vote against what would normally be popular bills. Almost seems like you're willfully ignorant.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
October 02 2013 04:23 GMT
#9945
On October 02 2013 12:08 Introvert wrote:
Some genius told me the other day that the Republicans didn't care about the Military. Guess it's not their fault anymore, so try again.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h506?utm_campaign=govtrack_feed&utm_source=govtrack/feed&utm_medium=rss

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hjres72asIntroduced.pdf

Last I heard, we were the party of big oil and the military. Didn't you get the talking points? Big on corporations, evil hate-mongering against the poor and the civil servants.

If Reid wants to keep the government in shutdown instead of coming to the negotiating table, that's his choice. If Obama would rather engage in rhetoric hoping the Republicans cave first, that's his choice. Let's hear it for the word we hear whenever Democrats are negotiating to get everything they want ... bipartisanship compromise!
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
madsweepslol
Profile Joined February 2010
161 Posts
October 02 2013 04:33 GMT
#9946
On September 30 2013 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
There was plenty of real bipartisan negotiation on major pieces of legislation. That there hasn't been any during Obama's administration is a testament to how bad of a political leader Obama is.

Or how racist the Republicans are.
paralleluniverse
Profile Joined July 2010
4065 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-10-02 04:48:51
October 02 2013 04:39 GMT
#9947
On October 02 2013 13:23 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 02 2013 12:08 Introvert wrote:
Some genius told me the other day that the Republicans didn't care about the Military. Guess it's not their fault anymore, so try again.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h506?utm_campaign=govtrack_feed&utm_source=govtrack/feed&utm_medium=rss

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hjres72asIntroduced.pdf

Last I heard, we were the party of big oil and the military. Didn't you get the talking points? Big on corporations, evil hate-mongering against the poor and the civil servants.

If Reid wants to keep the government in shutdown instead of coming to the negotiating table, that's his choice. If Obama would rather engage in rhetoric hoping the Republicans cave first, that's his choice. Let's hear it for the word we hear whenever Democrats are negotiating to get everything they want ... bipartisanship compromise!

A load of rubbish.

You do not walk into a negotiation with a gun pointed to your head. It would be a disaster if Democrats negotiate on this or the debt ceiling. It would set a precedent that the minority party could use extortion to threaten the entire economy every time this happens.

What if Democrats in minority and under a Republican president threaten to cause a default or government shutdown unless Republicans raised taxes on the rich? Or threaten to cause a default or government shutdown unless the Republicans implemented a single payer healthcare system?

Democrats can negotiate when the Republicans take off the suicide vests. Democrats have every incentive to negotiate with Republicans without the threats as they can't get anything pass without Republican votes.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
October 02 2013 04:41 GMT
#9948
Now that the U.S government has officially shut down, Colorado will be providing the funding the National Guard members who continue to aid in flood relief efforts across the state, Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) announced Tuesday.

"The state is going to pay the costs," Hickenlooper said in a Tuesday press conference. Under the shutdown, an estimated 800,000 workers could be furloughed, but the state is using money from its emergency relief fund to cover the National Guard costs until the government opens back up again.

Colorado hopes it will recover 75 percent of the expense from FEMA. The state and local governments will pay the remaining 25 percent to help ensure that recovery work continues without interruption.

“We can’t afford to lose one day in rebuilding areas destroyed or damaged by the floods,” Hickenlooper said in a statement. “Our National Guard troops are an invaluable part of the team working on the recovery. We need them to stay on the job.”


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
wei2coolman
Profile Joined November 2010
United States60033 Posts
October 02 2013 04:45 GMT
#9949
On October 02 2013 13:23 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 02 2013 12:08 Introvert wrote:
Some genius told me the other day that the Republicans didn't care about the Military. Guess it's not their fault anymore, so try again.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h506?utm_campaign=govtrack_feed&utm_source=govtrack/feed&utm_medium=rss

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hjres72asIntroduced.pdf

Last I heard, we were the party of big oil and the military. Didn't you get the talking points? Big on corporations, evil hate-mongering against the poor and the civil servants.

If Reid wants to keep the government in shutdown instead of coming to the negotiating table, that's his choice. If Obama would rather engage in rhetoric hoping the Republicans cave first, that's his choice. Let's hear it for the word we hear whenever Democrats are negotiating to get everything they want ... bipartisanship compromise!

Wait wut?
Some how it's Democrats fault for wanting to pay for stuff the GOVERNMENT said it would do?
This isn't bipartisanship compromise, this budget bill was meant as routine "oh, yeah, we gotta pay for the stuff we said we'd do", not the "oh, this is the time, to rignig back on the shit that was voted on a couple years back, cuz now we got 800,000 jobs as leverage."
liftlift > tsm
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
October 02 2013 06:08 GMT
#9950
On September 30 2013 10:00 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 30 2013 09:43 DoubleReed wrote:
Honestly, I don't see anything about what Roberts wrote that doesn't fit with an originalist interpretation.

The privacy of our communications is a good example. I don't object to the government using tech to watch terrorists (even if the warrant occurs after the collection. That IS a thing to be debated), I have an issue with massively collecting data on everyone and just keeping it with no suspicion or intention of getting a warrant. Also, the founders were very much against the idea of general warrants. (Google it). But that is EXACTLY what the government is doing, just with computers and not soldiers. Thus, the words and intent are important. Not the tech.


And the NSA will say that it is collecting data, but not looking at it. Something that would be impossible to consider from the founders' perspective. This also does not block general surveillance of public areas (including the entire internet). Doing Mass Surveillance of the various parts of the internet, like your email and communications is also not covered under a strict interpretation of the 4th Amendment.

Remember, the 4th Amendment 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.[1]


Technology is obviously very important if you want to be an originalist about it. You want the 4th Amendment to be technology invariant. Which is great, and we agree. However, I cannot see how you can possibly attain what you want from an originalist interpretation of the 4th Amendment. An e-mail is not a house, paper, or an effect. Certainly not what the founding fathers means by that.

No, you are taking a more general "Right to Privacy" approach to this. Which is perfectly reasonable. But not originalist.


Just read the dissent, since the discussion has moved on from Obamacare. Simply put, he was using the LC idea because the founders would NOT have approved of this. Every originalist from CA to Maine (and those on the Court, except for Roberts) was united on this.

As I've said before, we have to interpret what happens now in light of what they intended then. So, what would the founders say about internet surveillance? [Here I would like to make a point, if I may: I am aware that the founders are dead. But if they were alive, they would be just as informed as everyone else is, and thus I think my question is fair one.] I'm not going to look right now, but I'm fairly certain that the Court, while recognizing that emails are not your sole property, still says they are the property of the ISP. The government has simply seized what is still private information and using computers to scan it. People have to program the computers, and are still very much involved. I think that if you read about the framers thoughts on general warrants it would be of great benefit.

Now there are many right minded people (though not me) who don't see a problem with the NSA. I think they are wrong, but whatever. (I mean in the extreme. If you get info on a known terrorist, collect his email, THEN get a warrant, it's fine. You have both reasonable suspicion and a warrant, or intention of getting a specific warrant, before you act). There is certainly a discussion to be had, but for my part in said discussion, I advocate looking at things the way the Constitution meant for them to be seen.

"Right to Privacy" is a thing, just not the way the Court meant it in Roe v. Wade, which is why it was brought up earlier as an example of Supreme Court stupidity.


I find it funny when conservatives treat the Constitution more reverentially than their own Bible. Oh yes, we should be trying to understand the intent of the founders by reading their words carefully. But no, we can believe whatever we want about the Bible. According to us, the Bible says family first and nation second. How about you admit that you are interpreting in light of what you want the Constitution to say, and if it happens to line up with what the "original intent" was then all the better.
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4825 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-10-02 06:35:39
October 02 2013 06:33 GMT
#9951
On October 02 2013 15:08 IgnE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 30 2013 10:00 Introvert wrote:
On September 30 2013 09:43 DoubleReed wrote:
Honestly, I don't see anything about what Roberts wrote that doesn't fit with an originalist interpretation.

The privacy of our communications is a good example. I don't object to the government using tech to watch terrorists (even if the warrant occurs after the collection. That IS a thing to be debated), I have an issue with massively collecting data on everyone and just keeping it with no suspicion or intention of getting a warrant. Also, the founders were very much against the idea of general warrants. (Google it). But that is EXACTLY what the government is doing, just with computers and not soldiers. Thus, the words and intent are important. Not the tech.


And the NSA will say that it is collecting data, but not looking at it. Something that would be impossible to consider from the founders' perspective. This also does not block general surveillance of public areas (including the entire internet). Doing Mass Surveillance of the various parts of the internet, like your email and communications is also not covered under a strict interpretation of the 4th Amendment.

Remember, the 4th Amendment 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.[1]


Technology is obviously very important if you want to be an originalist about it. You want the 4th Amendment to be technology invariant. Which is great, and we agree. However, I cannot see how you can possibly attain what you want from an originalist interpretation of the 4th Amendment. An e-mail is not a house, paper, or an effect. Certainly not what the founding fathers means by that.

No, you are taking a more general "Right to Privacy" approach to this. Which is perfectly reasonable. But not originalist.


Just read the dissent, since the discussion has moved on from Obamacare. Simply put, he was using the LC idea because the founders would NOT have approved of this. Every originalist from CA to Maine (and those on the Court, except for Roberts) was united on this.

As I've said before, we have to interpret what happens now in light of what they intended then. So, what would the founders say about internet surveillance? [Here I would like to make a point, if I may: I am aware that the founders are dead. But if they were alive, they would be just as informed as everyone else is, and thus I think my question is fair one.] I'm not going to look right now, but I'm fairly certain that the Court, while recognizing that emails are not your sole property, still says they are the property of the ISP. The government has simply seized what is still private information and using computers to scan it. People have to program the computers, and are still very much involved. I think that if you read about the framers thoughts on general warrants it would be of great benefit.

Now there are many right minded people (though not me) who don't see a problem with the NSA. I think they are wrong, but whatever. (I mean in the extreme. If you get info on a known terrorist, collect his email, THEN get a warrant, it's fine. You have both reasonable suspicion and a warrant, or intention of getting a specific warrant, before you act). There is certainly a discussion to be had, but for my part in said discussion, I advocate looking at things the way the Constitution meant for them to be seen.

"Right to Privacy" is a thing, just not the way the Court meant it in Roe v. Wade, which is why it was brought up earlier as an example of Supreme Court stupidity.


I find it funny when conservatives treat the Constitution more reverentially than their own Bible. Oh yes, we should be trying to understand the intent of the founders by reading their words carefully. But no, we can believe whatever we want about the Bible. According to us, the Bible says family first and nation second. How about you admit that you are interpreting in light of what you want the Constitution to say, and if it happens to line up with what the "original intent" was then all the better.


I never said ANYTHING about the Bible, so your whole post is just a BS personal attack. Of course, you ignore the rather vast collection the founders wrote about the Constitution- we can know with a good deal of certainty what they meant about most things.

I guess you don't really know how to think outside of stereotypes.


The Republicans failed with their budget + 1 year delay of Obamacare so they're trying to pass mini bills that will fund everything but Obamacare to get around it. Hell, an article about it was linked like 5 posts above yours by stealth blue. It's got nothing to do with who loves the military more.

Edit: Given that you've spent the time to find it, I find it hard to believe that you missed the fact that this is the GOP's second strategy for trying to defund Obamacare or at least make democratic legislators vote against what would normally be popular bills. Almost seems like you're willfully ignorant.


Actually, I didn't search, the link was posted by someone I know (although the question must be asked, WTF does it matter if I looked for it or not?). I was just responding to the absurd notion floated around that the Republicans didn't care. Sure the Repubs can try mini bills, but certainly this is one EVERYONE could agree on? The House/Senate is not stuck at all or nothing, they could have passed ONLY this one. Which you would think they would have done, given the rhetoric.

Edit: I did search for the CBO link, so I knew exactly what they were passing. the phrase on the other side mentioned "and for other purposes" which made me suspicious. So the searching I did do was to ensure I wasn't being swindled. Thanks though.
"It is therefore only at the birth of a society that one can be completely logical in the laws. When you see a people enjoying this advantage, do not hasten to conclude that it is wise; think rather that it is young." -Alexis de Tocqueville
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
October 02 2013 06:37 GMT
#9952
On October 02 2013 15:33 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 02 2013 15:08 IgnE wrote:
On September 30 2013 10:00 Introvert wrote:
On September 30 2013 09:43 DoubleReed wrote:
Honestly, I don't see anything about what Roberts wrote that doesn't fit with an originalist interpretation.

The privacy of our communications is a good example. I don't object to the government using tech to watch terrorists (even if the warrant occurs after the collection. That IS a thing to be debated), I have an issue with massively collecting data on everyone and just keeping it with no suspicion or intention of getting a warrant. Also, the founders were very much against the idea of general warrants. (Google it). But that is EXACTLY what the government is doing, just with computers and not soldiers. Thus, the words and intent are important. Not the tech.


And the NSA will say that it is collecting data, but not looking at it. Something that would be impossible to consider from the founders' perspective. This also does not block general surveillance of public areas (including the entire internet). Doing Mass Surveillance of the various parts of the internet, like your email and communications is also not covered under a strict interpretation of the 4th Amendment.

Remember, the 4th Amendment 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.[1]


Technology is obviously very important if you want to be an originalist about it. You want the 4th Amendment to be technology invariant. Which is great, and we agree. However, I cannot see how you can possibly attain what you want from an originalist interpretation of the 4th Amendment. An e-mail is not a house, paper, or an effect. Certainly not what the founding fathers means by that.

No, you are taking a more general "Right to Privacy" approach to this. Which is perfectly reasonable. But not originalist.


Just read the dissent, since the discussion has moved on from Obamacare. Simply put, he was using the LC idea because the founders would NOT have approved of this. Every originalist from CA to Maine (and those on the Court, except for Roberts) was united on this.

As I've said before, we have to interpret what happens now in light of what they intended then. So, what would the founders say about internet surveillance? [Here I would like to make a point, if I may: I am aware that the founders are dead. But if they were alive, they would be just as informed as everyone else is, and thus I think my question is fair one.] I'm not going to look right now, but I'm fairly certain that the Court, while recognizing that emails are not your sole property, still says they are the property of the ISP. The government has simply seized what is still private information and using computers to scan it. People have to program the computers, and are still very much involved. I think that if you read about the framers thoughts on general warrants it would be of great benefit.

Now there are many right minded people (though not me) who don't see a problem with the NSA. I think they are wrong, but whatever. (I mean in the extreme. If you get info on a known terrorist, collect his email, THEN get a warrant, it's fine. You have both reasonable suspicion and a warrant, or intention of getting a specific warrant, before you act). There is certainly a discussion to be had, but for my part in said discussion, I advocate looking at things the way the Constitution meant for them to be seen.

"Right to Privacy" is a thing, just not the way the Court meant it in Roe v. Wade, which is why it was brought up earlier as an example of Supreme Court stupidity.


I find it funny when conservatives treat the Constitution more reverentially than their own Bible. Oh yes, we should be trying to understand the intent of the founders by reading their words carefully. But no, we can believe whatever we want about the Bible. According to us, the Bible says family first and nation second. How about you admit that you are interpreting in light of what you want the Constitution to say, and if it happens to line up with what the "original intent" was then all the better.


I never said ANYTHING about the Bible, so your whole post is just a BS personal attack. Of course, you ignore the rather vast collection the founders wrote about the Constitution- we can know with a good deal of certainty what they meant about most things.

I guess you don't really know how to think outside of stereotypes.



It's not necessarily about you. You are free to disavow religion. I am just making a comment about conservatives in general.
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4825 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-10-02 07:17:40
October 02 2013 06:44 GMT
#9953
On October 02 2013 15:37 IgnE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 02 2013 15:33 Introvert wrote:
On October 02 2013 15:08 IgnE wrote:
On September 30 2013 10:00 Introvert wrote:
On September 30 2013 09:43 DoubleReed wrote:
Honestly, I don't see anything about what Roberts wrote that doesn't fit with an originalist interpretation.

The privacy of our communications is a good example. I don't object to the government using tech to watch terrorists (even if the warrant occurs after the collection. That IS a thing to be debated), I have an issue with massively collecting data on everyone and just keeping it with no suspicion or intention of getting a warrant. Also, the founders were very much against the idea of general warrants. (Google it). But that is EXACTLY what the government is doing, just with computers and not soldiers. Thus, the words and intent are important. Not the tech.


And the NSA will say that it is collecting data, but not looking at it. Something that would be impossible to consider from the founders' perspective. This also does not block general surveillance of public areas (including the entire internet). Doing Mass Surveillance of the various parts of the internet, like your email and communications is also not covered under a strict interpretation of the 4th Amendment.

Remember, the 4th Amendment 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.[1]


Technology is obviously very important if you want to be an originalist about it. You want the 4th Amendment to be technology invariant. Which is great, and we agree. However, I cannot see how you can possibly attain what you want from an originalist interpretation of the 4th Amendment. An e-mail is not a house, paper, or an effect. Certainly not what the founding fathers means by that.

No, you are taking a more general "Right to Privacy" approach to this. Which is perfectly reasonable. But not originalist.


Just read the dissent, since the discussion has moved on from Obamacare. Simply put, he was using the LC idea because the founders would NOT have approved of this. Every originalist from CA to Maine (and those on the Court, except for Roberts) was united on this.

As I've said before, we have to interpret what happens now in light of what they intended then. So, what would the founders say about internet surveillance? [Here I would like to make a point, if I may: I am aware that the founders are dead. But if they were alive, they would be just as informed as everyone else is, and thus I think my question is fair one.] I'm not going to look right now, but I'm fairly certain that the Court, while recognizing that emails are not your sole property, still says they are the property of the ISP. The government has simply seized what is still private information and using computers to scan it. People have to program the computers, and are still very much involved. I think that if you read about the framers thoughts on general warrants it would be of great benefit.

Now there are many right minded people (though not me) who don't see a problem with the NSA. I think they are wrong, but whatever. (I mean in the extreme. If you get info on a known terrorist, collect his email, THEN get a warrant, it's fine. You have both reasonable suspicion and a warrant, or intention of getting a specific warrant, before you act). There is certainly a discussion to be had, but for my part in said discussion, I advocate looking at things the way the Constitution meant for them to be seen.

"Right to Privacy" is a thing, just not the way the Court meant it in Roe v. Wade, which is why it was brought up earlier as an example of Supreme Court stupidity.


I find it funny when conservatives treat the Constitution more reverentially than their own Bible. Oh yes, we should be trying to understand the intent of the founders by reading their words carefully. But no, we can believe whatever we want about the Bible. According to us, the Bible says family first and nation second. How about you admit that you are interpreting in light of what you want the Constitution to say, and if it happens to line up with what the "original intent" was then all the better.


I never said ANYTHING about the Bible, so your whole post is just a BS personal attack. Of course, you ignore the rather vast collection the founders wrote about the Constitution- we can know with a good deal of certainty what they meant about most things.

I guess you don't really know how to think outside of stereotypes.



It's not necessarily about you. You are free to disavow religion. I am just making a comment about conservatives in general.


And it was an almost entirely irrelevant point. The only purpose was mockery, so far as I can tell. Didn't contribute anything.

nor does this post. So please, next time make it relevant. You quoted from an long discussion I had with someone else just to take a cheap shot.

Edit: It's not a requirement that only those mocked can recognize mockery, genius. Have fun troll!
"It is therefore only at the birth of a society that one can be completely logical in the laws. When you see a people enjoying this advantage, do not hasten to conclude that it is wise; think rather that it is young." -Alexis de Tocqueville
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
October 02 2013 07:07 GMT
#9954
On October 02 2013 15:44 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 02 2013 15:37 IgnE wrote:
On October 02 2013 15:33 Introvert wrote:
On October 02 2013 15:08 IgnE wrote:
On September 30 2013 10:00 Introvert wrote:
On September 30 2013 09:43 DoubleReed wrote:
Honestly, I don't see anything about what Roberts wrote that doesn't fit with an originalist interpretation.

The privacy of our communications is a good example. I don't object to the government using tech to watch terrorists (even if the warrant occurs after the collection. That IS a thing to be debated), I have an issue with massively collecting data on everyone and just keeping it with no suspicion or intention of getting a warrant. Also, the founders were very much against the idea of general warrants. (Google it). But that is EXACTLY what the government is doing, just with computers and not soldiers. Thus, the words and intent are important. Not the tech.


And the NSA will say that it is collecting data, but not looking at it. Something that would be impossible to consider from the founders' perspective. This also does not block general surveillance of public areas (including the entire internet). Doing Mass Surveillance of the various parts of the internet, like your email and communications is also not covered under a strict interpretation of the 4th Amendment.

Remember, the 4th Amendment 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.[1]


Technology is obviously very important if you want to be an originalist about it. You want the 4th Amendment to be technology invariant. Which is great, and we agree. However, I cannot see how you can possibly attain what you want from an originalist interpretation of the 4th Amendment. An e-mail is not a house, paper, or an effect. Certainly not what the founding fathers means by that.

No, you are taking a more general "Right to Privacy" approach to this. Which is perfectly reasonable. But not originalist.


Just read the dissent, since the discussion has moved on from Obamacare. Simply put, he was using the LC idea because the founders would NOT have approved of this. Every originalist from CA to Maine (and those on the Court, except for Roberts) was united on this.

As I've said before, we have to interpret what happens now in light of what they intended then. So, what would the founders say about internet surveillance? [Here I would like to make a point, if I may: I am aware that the founders are dead. But if they were alive, they would be just as informed as everyone else is, and thus I think my question is fair one.] I'm not going to look right now, but I'm fairly certain that the Court, while recognizing that emails are not your sole property, still says they are the property of the ISP. The government has simply seized what is still private information and using computers to scan it. People have to program the computers, and are still very much involved. I think that if you read about the framers thoughts on general warrants it would be of great benefit.

Now there are many right minded people (though not me) who don't see a problem with the NSA. I think they are wrong, but whatever. (I mean in the extreme. If you get info on a known terrorist, collect his email, THEN get a warrant, it's fine. You have both reasonable suspicion and a warrant, or intention of getting a specific warrant, before you act). There is certainly a discussion to be had, but for my part in said discussion, I advocate looking at things the way the Constitution meant for them to be seen.

"Right to Privacy" is a thing, just not the way the Court meant it in Roe v. Wade, which is why it was brought up earlier as an example of Supreme Court stupidity.


I find it funny when conservatives treat the Constitution more reverentially than their own Bible. Oh yes, we should be trying to understand the intent of the founders by reading their words carefully. But no, we can believe whatever we want about the Bible. According to us, the Bible says family first and nation second. How about you admit that you are interpreting in light of what you want the Constitution to say, and if it happens to line up with what the "original intent" was then all the better.


I never said ANYTHING about the Bible, so your whole post is just a BS personal attack. Of course, you ignore the rather vast collection the founders wrote about the Constitution- we can know with a good deal of certainty what they meant about most things.

I guess you don't really know how to think outside of stereotypes.



It's not necessarily about you. You are free to disavow religion. I am just making a comment about conservatives in general.


And it was an almost entirely irrelevant point. The only purpose was mockery, so far as I can tell. Didn't contribute anything.

nor does this post. So please, next time make it relevant. You quoted from an long discussion I had with someone else just to take a cheap shot.


Wait, you are a Christian?
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42983 Posts
October 02 2013 07:08 GMT
#9955
Let's not bring God into this.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-10-02 08:26:15
October 02 2013 07:14 GMT
#9956
You are right Kwark. If the founders had wanted to found this country on Judeo-Christian religious principles they would have mentioned God in the constitution.

User was warned for bringing God into this
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
iPlaY.NettleS
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
Australia4338 Posts
October 02 2013 08:33 GMT
#9957
On October 02 2013 13:33 madsweepslol wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 30 2013 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
There was plenty of real bipartisan negotiation on major pieces of legislation. That there hasn't been any during Obama's administration is a testament to how bad of a political leader Obama is.

Or how racist the Republicans are.

Vote against Obama and you're racist.Top logic there.Besides, i read some comments from McCain that were heavily pro Obamacare the past couple days, anyone else see them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7PvoI6gvQs
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
October 02 2013 08:56 GMT
#9958
On October 02 2013 17:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 02 2013 13:33 madsweepslol wrote:
On September 30 2013 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
There was plenty of real bipartisan negotiation on major pieces of legislation. That there hasn't been any during Obama's administration is a testament to how bad of a political leader Obama is.

Or how racist the Republicans are.

Vote against Obama and you're racist.Top logic there.Besides, i read some comments from McCain that were heavily pro Obamacare the past couple days, anyone else see them?


The fact that "there hasn't been any" during Obama's administration is a testament to how divorced from reality the republican party is. Besides, what does wall street need the republicans for? The democrats are doing a fine job of ensuring that the rich keep getting richer.

McCain is senile. Nothing he says can be taken seriously.
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Funnytoss
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
Taiwan1471 Posts
October 02 2013 09:13 GMT
#9959
On October 02 2013 17:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 02 2013 13:33 madsweepslol wrote:
On September 30 2013 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
There was plenty of real bipartisan negotiation on major pieces of legislation. That there hasn't been any during Obama's administration is a testament to how bad of a political leader Obama is.

Or how racist the Republicans are.

Vote against Obama and you're racist.Top logic there.Besides, i read some comments from McCain that were heavily pro Obamacare the past couple days, anyone else see them?


I think you're misconstruing his statement. By "how racist the Republicans are", I assume he means that modern Republicans, already disinclined to negotiate and compromise with a Democratic President, are even less inclined to due so when it comes to Obama, and something tells me his policy positions aren't the issue here. It's kind of hard to be a "good political leader" when your opposition, from day one, states that their goal is to make sure you fail.
AIV_Funnytoss and sGs.Funnytoss on iCCup
sc2superfan101
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
3583 Posts
October 02 2013 09:18 GMT
#9960
On October 02 2013 18:13 Funnytoss wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 02 2013 17:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On October 02 2013 13:33 madsweepslol wrote:
On September 30 2013 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
There was plenty of real bipartisan negotiation on major pieces of legislation. That there hasn't been any during Obama's administration is a testament to how bad of a political leader Obama is.

Or how racist the Republicans are.

Vote against Obama and you're racist.Top logic there.Besides, i read some comments from McCain that were heavily pro Obamacare the past couple days, anyone else see them?


I think you're misconstruing his statement. By "how racist the Republicans are", I assume he means that modern Republicans, already disinclined to negotiate and compromise with a Democratic President, are even less inclined to due so when it comes to Obama, and something tells me his policy positions aren't the issue here. It's kind of hard to be a "good political leader" when your opposition, from day one, states that their goal is to make sure you fail.

No, I'll tell you right now that it's his policy positions.

If Obama had actually made an effort to prove himself to be different from his election promises than maybe Republicans wouldn't have been so against him... Of course, this is all neglecting the fact that Obama had a near 50% approval rating from Republicans when he first took office. Rush Limbaugh never gave Obama the chance (not really), but a decent amount of Republicans did. It just turned out that Rush was right.
My fake plants died because I did not pretend to water them.
Prev 1 496 497 498 499 500 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
08:00
Day 2 - Play Off & Finals Stage
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
ProTech75
StarCraft: Brood War
GuemChi 2640
Hyuk 1636
PianO 1601
Sea 554
Larva 395
Leta 346
Dewaltoss 73
Hm[arnc] 10
Dota 2
XcaliburYe515
League of Legends
JimRising 476
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K779
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King118
Westballz35
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor191
Other Games
XaKoH 217
NeuroSwarm103
ViBE82
RotterdaM80
amsayoshi17
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
lovetv 165
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Sammyuel 37
• LUISG 5
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota247
League of Legends
• Jankos1448
Other Games
• WagamamaTV195
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
1h 43m
Classic vs TBD
WardiTV Invitational
2h 43m
Online Event
7h 43m
Afreeca Starleague
1d 1h
Barracks vs Mini
Wardi Open
1d 2h
Monday Night Weeklies
1d 7h
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
LiuLi Cup
3 days
The PondCast
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
[ Show More ]
Maestros of the Game
6 days
Clem vs Reynor
[BSL 2025] Weekly
6 days
[BSL 2025] Weekly
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-09-18
Chzzk MurlocKing SC1 vs SC2 Cup #2
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
2025 Chongqing Offline CUP
BSL World Championship of Poland 2025
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1

Upcoming

IPSL Winter 2025-26
BSL Season 21
SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL 21 Team A
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
EC S1
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.