We know that a criminal act requires motive, means and opportunity. These men clearly had a motive - hatred of the Unites States and a desire to harm innocent people. I do not think it's the undercover agents who put these thoughts into the heads.
Except the undercover agents encouraged those thoughts and literally provided the "weapons" to be used in the "attack". Take the FBI out of the equation, and the "attack" never would have happened in the first place. Is creating criminals really what our law enforcement agencies should be doing? How about if this approach were commonly used in vanilla law enforcement operations?
Eh? I think you're crossing multiple topics here. How is universal health care going to deplete resources from other countries? Who are Norway and France depleting with their socialized medicine?
Perhaps you should read my post again, then the Constitution? General Welfare is the same sentence as Common Defense in Article 1.
The army was specifically mentioned in order to provide a restriction on how appropriations are to be made. The Navy was mentioned specifically so that that requirement would not be imposed on it.
Air Force: not a part of the Army or the Navy. CIA: not a part of the Army or the Navy. NSA: not a part of the Army or the Navy. NORAD: not a part of the Army or the Navy. FBI: not a part of the Army or the Navy.
Either Article 1, Section 8 is a strictly enumerated list of powers granted to Congress, or it's not. You can't have it both ways. If General Welfare is strictly limited, than so is Common Defense. If Common Defense is expansive, so is General Welfare.
But you never see conservatives complaining that the Air Force is unconstitutional. It's almost like they're making arguments of convenience that only apply to things they don't like (social spending) but not things they do like (war spending and spying). Like they're partisan hacks, or something.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you believe law enforcement agencies should be in the business of directly creating the criminals they end up arresting.
Undercover agents or informants egging the suspects on. Undercover agents supplying fake weapons. Then, FBI arrests the suspects who are then charged for plots they were encouraged to come up with and for obtaining weapons given to them by other undercover FBI agents.
Because their costs are offloaded onto others, who lose their house because they can't afford to pay for it after they've paid all the taxes.
Randian drivel. They also don't have health insurance CEO's worth three quarters of a billion dollars, funny how you left that part out. How do you think that happens? Because United Health pays for prompt medical care, or because they delay and deny care?
Whine about scary socialism as much as you want, but under the scariest scenario you at least get what you pay for: health care. As opposed to in the U.S., where your insurer takes your double digit increase in your premiums and strives to find new ways to deny your claims. Like calling a severe miscarriage an "elective abortion", calling acne an "undisclosed precondition" to deny coverage for breast cancer treatment, or Vietnam vets that lose coverage because were two cents short on their payment.
Lovely platitudes without a shred of empirical evidence.
Just because you willfully ignore it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Single payer provides better care for less money. Deal with it.
I read all the time that heads of state and others come to USA for their surgeries, etc
Because they're rich, and they can afford it. Duh. Rush Limbaugh thinks nothing of paying $30,000 for a trip to the hospital because $30,000 is pocket change for him. Meanwhile a 24 year old father dies from a toothache because he couldn't afford to get treatment, and not everyone lives next door to a fucking dental school.
In a free market economy, the unemployment is very low, anybody with a job can afford * health care and insurance, because those services are very cheap, just like they were prior to 1965 **.
In a free society, a person deserves to keep 100% of his earnings. However he does not deserve anything if he is not willing to protect his earnings. The only way that a person deserves to keep 100% of his earnings is by him participating in the voting process and voting only for his liberties and always against any government intervention against his liberties.
Demand creates jobs, not a "free market economy". And we already know about this so called free society.
Alas for your denialism, medical bills are the cause of more than half the number of bankruptcies in the U.S., and we've had this little thing called the foreclosure crisis. Things must be nicer on planet Teabaggia, maybe I'll visit sometime....
Referring to people you disagree with on the political spectrum in a purposefully derogatory manner is a banal ad-hominem attack that blah blah blah blah
Fainting couch or bag of prunes for you? If I engage in blatant intellectual dishonesty, by all means mock me for it.
I'd say you're hand waving so you don't have to answer the point. Undercover FBI agents/informants egg the suspects on, who are then supplied with fake weapons from the FBI, who then swoop in and arrest the suspects for planning the use the fake weapons given to them by the FBI.
There have been many cases where, as one defense attorney put it, the "plots" were 'written, directed and produced by the FBI'. As in FBI undercover agents or paid informants will actively encourage people to Do Shit who would otherwise be no more troublesome than your average online malcontent. The agent/informant will, of course, try to get the "perps" to say to hidden microphones that they are acting of their own free will, or even make statements on video, so the defendants can't use entrapment as a defense.
Fair enough, although the US was under the impression that fewer people would die (on both sides) by use of the bombs than by not using them.
That is the storyline. Except before the bombs were dropped, the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender, with a primary condition that they be allowed to keep their emperor, no doubt to save some face. U.S. said "fuck no, we want unconditional surrender" and dropped the bombs.
What did we do after getting said unconditional surrender? Why, we let the Japanese keep their emperor, of course...he held his title until his death in ninteen freaking eighty nine.
If someday I join a belief system with less credibility than Scientology, that's entirely devoted to rationalizing selfish, self-centered attitudes from "screw you, I got mine" navel gazers that treats a social security check as an abomination and a deadly coal mining disaster as a cost of doing business....by all means, mock me without mercy.
Speed limits are set by the states because there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to regulate traffic laws.
Interstate highways, interstate commerce. You figure it out.
Health care is like speed limits. Since there is no Constitutionally granted power for the feds to regulate it, the power falls to the states.
General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice. And if you're going to go the teabagger route and claim that Article I, Section 8 is a strict list of enumerate powers, that means that the Air Force/CIA/NSA/FBI/NORAD are also unconstitutional, since Congress "only" has the authority to fund an Army and a Navy. But you never see conservatives make that argument....almost like they're a bunch of unprincipled hacks making arguments of convenience, or something.
This is why the Massachusetts health care law is Constitutional, but "Obamacare" is not.
That and there's nothing in the Constitution to force private citizens to buy products from private businesses. But teabaggers seldom see a corporate Koch that they don't beg to suck, and the four most conservative votes on the Supreme Court are no exception to this. So don't be surprised to see the mandate rubber stamped in a ruling from SCOTUS this year or next year.
Actually, it does - how else do you expect to promote the general welfare without the government paying for services, which requires taxation.
The 'necessary and proper' clause was the last item in a carefully enumerated list of powers.
Headed, again, by General Welfare, making it's second appearance in the Constitution. And if you're going the "it's a strict list of enumerated powers" route, keep in mind that means that huge parts of the military, intelligence and law enforcement branches are unconstitutional, as Congress "only" has the authority to fund an Army and a Navy.
This isn't even a new argument, all this was debated and settled in the Irrelevant Papers.
FTFY, unless you can point out in the Constitution where it specifies that the Federalist Papers define what the Constitution actually means.
we do not have the physical resources to provide everyone with our best medical care. So somehow we must have some people who do not receive our best care. And some who do.
Just about every other industrialized nation on the planet manages to do just that, while providing better care for less money.
We're already tired of hearing this false comparison. You chose to drive a car. You don't choose to get pneumonia or cancer.
You also don't find your auto accident claim denied because you bought your last set of tires from an out-of-network store, or find your coverage canceled due to an undisclosed precondition - a couple of rust spots on your front bumper.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep.
Except the undercover agents encouraged those thoughts and literally provided the "weapons" to be used in the "attack". Take the FBI out of the equation, and the "attack" never would have happened in the first place. Is creating criminals really what our law enforcement agencies should be doing? How about if this approach were commonly used in vanilla law enforcement operations?
Eh? I think you're crossing multiple topics here. How is universal health care going to deplete resources from other countries? Who are Norway and France depleting with their socialized medicine?
Perhaps you should read my post again, then the Constitution? General Welfare is the same sentence as Common Defense in Article 1.
Air Force: not a part of the Army or the Navy.
CIA: not a part of the Army or the Navy.
NSA: not a part of the Army or the Navy.
NORAD: not a part of the Army or the Navy.
FBI: not a part of the Army or the Navy.
Either Article 1, Section 8 is a strictly enumerated list of powers granted to Congress, or it's not. You can't have it both ways. If General Welfare is strictly limited, than so is Common Defense. If Common Defense is expansive, so is General Welfare.
But you never see conservatives complaining that the Air Force is unconstitutional. It's almost like they're making arguments of convenience that only apply to things they don't like (social spending) but not things they do like (war spending and spying). Like they're partisan hacks, or something.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you believe law enforcement agencies should be in the business of directly creating the criminals they end up arresting.
Undercover agents or informants egging the suspects on. Undercover agents supplying fake weapons. Then, FBI arrests the suspects who are then charged for plots they were encouraged to come up with and for obtaining weapons given to them by other undercover FBI agents.
Convenient.
Randian drivel. They also don't have health insurance CEO's worth three quarters of a billion dollars, funny how you left that part out. How do you think that happens? Because United Health pays for prompt medical care, or because they delay and deny care?
Whine about scary socialism as much as you want, but under the scariest scenario you at least get what you pay for: health care. As opposed to in the U.S., where your insurer takes your double digit increase in your premiums and strives to find new ways to deny your claims. Like calling a severe miscarriage an "elective abortion", calling acne an "undisclosed precondition" to deny coverage for breast cancer treatment, or Vietnam vets that lose coverage because were two cents short on their payment.
Just because you willfully ignore it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Single payer provides better care for less money. Deal with it.
Because they're rich, and they can afford it. Duh. Rush Limbaugh thinks nothing of paying $30,000 for a trip to the hospital because $30,000 is pocket change for him. Meanwhile a 24 year old father dies from a toothache because he couldn't afford to get treatment, and not everyone lives next door to a fucking dental school.
Except your explanation is Randian fantasy:
Demand creates jobs, not a "free market economy". And we already know about this so called free society.
Alas for your denialism, medical bills are the cause of more than half the number of bankruptcies in the U.S., and we've had this little thing called the foreclosure crisis. Things must be nicer on planet Teabaggia, maybe I'll visit sometime....
Fainting couch or bag of prunes for you? If I engage in blatant intellectual dishonesty, by all means mock me for it.
I'd say you're hand waving so you don't have to answer the point. Undercover FBI agents/informants egg the suspects on, who are then supplied with fake weapons from the FBI, who then swoop in and arrest the suspects for planning the use the fake weapons given to them by the FBI.
So, yeah. Written. Directed. Produced.
Think how often your commando and Hellfire scenario has actually happened. Watch out for chummy guys encouraging you to act out your fantasies....
Or, maybe he's not.
...surveillance complex.
There have been many cases where, as one defense attorney put it, the "plots" were 'written, directed and produced by the FBI'. As in FBI undercover agents or paid informants will actively encourage people to Do Shit who would otherwise be no more troublesome than your average online malcontent. The agent/informant will, of course, try to get the "perps" to say to hidden microphones that they are acting of their own free will, or even make statements on video, so the defendants can't use entrapment as a defense.
That is the storyline. Except before the bombs were dropped, the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender, with a primary condition that they be allowed to keep their emperor, no doubt to save some face. U.S. said "fuck no, we want unconditional surrender" and dropped the bombs.
What did we do after getting said unconditional surrender? Why, we let the Japanese keep their emperor, of course...he held his title until his death in ninteen freaking eighty nine.
Thank you. Browser spell check helps alot, but lags behind helping people with they're spelling errors irregaurdless of advamancments.
WHOOOOOOSH.
Make sure and read the video summary while you're at it.
If someday I join a belief system with less credibility than Scientology, that's entirely devoted to rationalizing selfish, self-centered attitudes from "screw you, I got mine" navel gazers that treats a social security check as an abomination and a deadly coal mining disaster as a cost of doing business....by all means, mock me without mercy.
Just because Libertarian ideology can't stand up to five minutes of scrutiny from a 2nd grader, doesn't mean that I don't understand it just fine....
Interstate highways, interstate commerce. You figure it out.
General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice. And if you're going to go the teabagger route and claim that Article I, Section 8 is a strict list of enumerate powers, that means that the Air Force/CIA/NSA/FBI/NORAD are also unconstitutional, since Congress "only" has the authority to fund an Army and a Navy. But you never see conservatives make that argument....almost like they're a bunch of unprincipled hacks making arguments of convenience, or something.
That and there's nothing in the Constitution to force private citizens to buy products from private businesses. But teabaggers seldom see a corporate Koch that they don't beg to suck, and the four most conservative votes on the Supreme Court are no exception to this. So don't be surprised to see the mandate rubber stamped in a ruling from SCOTUS this year or next year.
Actually, it does - how else do you expect to promote the general welfare without the government paying for services, which requires taxation.
Headed, again, by General Welfare, making it's second appearance in the Constitution. And if you're going the "it's a strict list of enumerated powers" route, keep in mind that means that huge parts of the military, intelligence and law enforcement branches are unconstitutional, as Congress "only" has the authority to fund an Army and a Navy.
FTFY, unless you can point out in the Constitution where it specifies that the Federalist Papers define what the Constitution actually means.
Neither is the authority to fund an Air Force, a CIA, an NSA, NORAD, and most of the FBI. As Congress "only" has the power to fund an Army and a Navy.
Funny how you never hear about conservatives complain about why any of those things are unconstitutional.....
Just about every other industrialized nation on the planet manages to do just that, while providing better care for less money.
Not even close. Read what you blockquoted again:
Driving cars is a choice, not a natural part of the human existence. Illnesses and diseases, are.
We're already tired of hearing this false comparison. You chose to drive a car. You don't choose to get pneumonia or cancer.
You also don't find your auto accident claim denied because you bought your last set of tires from an out-of-network store, or find your coverage canceled due to an undisclosed precondition - a couple of rust spots on your front bumper.