|
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. |
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
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!
|
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.
|
On October 02 2013 13:23 Danglars wrote: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.
|
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
|
On October 02 2013 13:23 Danglars wrote: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."
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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!
|
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?
|
United States41989 Posts
Let's not bring God into this.
|
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
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
