Fox News can't find one. Every time they give an example like that, and somebody checks their facts, it turns out Fox was wrong.
Stop being a partisan tool. It makes you look like an extreme idiot. Your entire post starts off like someone who doesn't have the facts and doesn't care about them even if they did. FFS, blaming things on Fox News is childish and ignorant. Especially when I do not even have cable.
There is one. Now I know there is a large movement among the left who want to blame the victim in all this. I agree that a lot of the problems is because the victim is stupid as hell, but that doesn't get around the fact that it worked for them before the ACA.
This is an interesting example of conservative thinking. Conservatives like Hannity decide that Obamacare must be forcing people to get bad policies, because conservatives believe that the government (and especially the Democrats) can't do anything right. Therefore, they don't have to bother checking their facts. If somebody claims they're worse off undere Obamacare, it must be true. That's why Hannity gets it wrong all the time.
Actually, it seems that you cannot check any facts and only dig in deeper with some ideology when they are presented to you. I don't know who Hannity is outside of a goolge search that you were more then capable of doing yourself to easily find examples but refused to in order to rant about something that exists in your head.
This is in contrast to the scientific method, where we come up with a theory and look at the facts in the real world to see whether the theory is true.
If you are going to pretend that you or your position is based off the scientific method, then I will declare that all you produce is junk science. It really is that simple. You have shown with your post that you do not seek answers, you seek answers that you agree with and are on par or a bit lower then global warming deniers and intelligent design proponents.
I don't think the driving a car example is close to relevant. You can always opt out of driving by taking public trasnportation, relying on friends and family, walking or riding a bike and so on. You cannot opt out if the health insurance mandate unless you leave the country and renounce citizenship or die. I suppose being incarcerated could give you a way also but that illistrates just how different this is.
It doesn't really matter what the intent is or how the justification is presented, you simply cannot get around the fact that once born, or a lawful citizen in the US, you are obligated to pay a third party private company else face penalty under the law with absolutely no due process at all. For many, no sugar coating or slick talk will make that acceptable.
Let us keep in mind that even if your linked methods were truly dangerous, they aren't magically more dangerous in the hands of the mentally ill.
They don't have to be magically more dangerous in the hand of the mentally ill. As you admitted earlier, mentally ill is the diagnosis mass murders generally get. You are trying to run in circles and have forgotten where you got to.
TL;DR: you're being an idiot on the internets.
Ok, I understand now, you ignore that which is inconvenient to your point and instead insist you are correct only because of some deficiency you cannot prove on the other participants part.
You have yet to even provide one shred of evidence or a bit of correlation for the claim that the mentally ill are somehow more dangerous on an airliner, much less dangerous enough that their presence should be regulated.
Why would I ever need to do that? I never said they were. I said that the last several mass murders we had were mentally ill and that qualified as deadly in the GP's statement. It is up to congress and the power they delegate to various border apparatuses to determine if entry is undesirable and that is what has happened, end of story. Congress is constitutionally empowered to do so and it does not need to follow any correlation or causation or anything of the such in doing so. If congress delegates it, the border agents can deny entry to non-citizens because they are wearing red socks on Tuesday for all it matters. If they want to not allow a mentally ill person in or on a plane that goes through the US and stops inside it, they can.
but if you work for the government the "justice" department looks the other way.
You spelled it wrong. It's a common mistake and even book publishers do it.
It is actually spelled "Just us" department. Justice implies something completely different then what normally happens where just us hits the nail on the head.
I would suggest professionals decide not to use the code from well-meaning but undertrained amateurs then. I mean the only way it would impact them is if the code is taken up and used. Outside of that, they are getting paid to do something specific and doing what you are hired to do was as far as I know, a hallmark of professionalism.
Interestingly, Roe v. Wade couldn't stop the government from banning abortions now. The PPACA or Obamacare has put the government so far into the healthcare of everyone that there is no expectation of privacy left. Seriously, the court already rejected the notion of the government being involved based on the same arguments that prevailed in Roe v. Wade. Now that all your medical records are electronic and the IRS and HHS has access to them and to some point can even make decisions on which medical procedures you can have, you have no privacy in the area of medical anymore so Roe's entire premise is gone after the full implementation of Obamacare.
Anyways, Roe v. Wade wasn't about sovereignty, just constitutional limits of the government. The Border search doctrine actually does put sovereignty over the US constitution. the court was pretty much united in that too. the dissenting opinions on the one case I have linked to in sister posts under this thread shows the problem the dissent had was with the court placing limits on how much the right of sovereignty could jump over the constitution.
Canada's government controlls the health care not some private company which is what Obamacare is. It would be different if you had to pay taxes and the government functioned, but for the first time since America was a colony of England, simply by being a citizen, you are forced by law to purchase something from a third party private company. Traditionally, this was only true if you participated in certain activities and had the options to not participate. Now the only way you can avoid participation is moving to another country and denouncing your citizenship or dieing.
Or how about a way to opt in if you ever need to goto the ER and cannot pay. That is the most enraging portion of this law, it treats people as if they are guilty of a future crime and demands they make restitution before ever committing it. Just as you said, people without insurance will go to the ER and not be able to pay for it which most of the people without insurance have never done and probably will never do.
So perhaps this entire pit of bullshit would be easier to swallow if the mandates were removed and people who actually do need insurance after the fact pays a penalty of some sort, they become enrolled. Most insurance companies will require a years wait before covering someone with a preexisting condition so make the penalty two years coverage payments and an obligation to keep the insurance for 5 consecutive years after. Then you will only have people who are in positions like you describe who are impacted by the laws. It is like only charging and convicting people of robbing banks when they actually do rob banks.
Medical bills are not the primary reason for bankruptcies, While you can rack up bills that will take more then your life time to pay off, the biggest problem is the lack of income that comes with those large medical bills. You simply do not often get large medical bills without missing work and often, you are permanently off work or off work for a substantial period of time. I don't care how well you planned or if you have insurance, the lack of income usually is devastating to most all working families. Health insurance does nothing to fix that, obamacare of the ACA does nothing to fix that.
People cite medical as reasons for filing bankruptcy because they have to have a reason other then they spent too much. But what normally happens when they file for bankruptcy is that they are trying to protect assets they can no longer afford like their home or cars or have racked up serious credit card debt trying to keep them because they lack the financial wherewithal to keep their lifestyles without that income.
This is also not getting into the problems with the ACA's cheap plans that do nothing to fix it either. We are seeing family plans with $10k a year out of pocket deductibles before the insurance even kicks in.
They make you pay your bill before leaving. It isn't a situation where you can eat, become an ass and get ejected and not have to pay the bill.
I've been tossed from plenty of places. Usually from having too much to drink and starting a fight or something stupid along those lines. I was thrown out of one place for saying I didn't want my back to the door.
Yes, you can. By making it physically impossible to open the door at 30,000 feet which incidentally is already done. And if they start whacking on a window with a heavy item, there would be plenty of passengers to subdue the person.
And if they do open the door or break the window, it's not likely to kill many people. I think the risk is acceptable, especially given that people not diagnosed as mentally ill can do whatever a mentally ill person can do.
I guess what you think doesn't matter because people with the power to had actually denied her the chance. They think the risk was unacceptable and denied it which is why we are bothering with it.
Well, we know there are people who were receiving coverage for cancer and heart conditions who had their policies yanked from them because the government said they were junk. These same people also complained that they cannot find affordable replacements and they won't have access to their doctors.
So while it might be easy on your conscious to say the government swooped in and saved those ignorant bastards, the reality is a little different. Some of those plans, most of them were exactly opposite of what you claim.
Because it shows that we treat people with mental illness differently regardless of causation or any bullshit saying. There simply does not need to be any causation in order for things to remain the way they are.
There is a correlation between consumption of alcohol and risk of harm in accidents. Saying what you just did is in error. OTOH, where's the correlation between mental illness and risk of serious injury or death in airliner passengers?
No, there is a correlation between consumption of alcohol and degraded physical and mental abilities. Driving while impaired can increase the chances to be more dangerous then you otherwise would be but there is no correlation between alcohol and accidents. More people drive as good or better while legally drunk then people who are a danger when legally drunk. 2011 statistics show that only 1.2 million people (out of over 300k) were arrested for for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. - Note that is both alcohol and narcotics and was just arrests, not conviction. The number is likely a lot higher who drive well enough not to get caught. In fatal accidents, only 15% of the drivers involved were drinking on the weekday and only 30% were on the weekend.
But because shit happens, we define a legal limit and restrict activities due to it. The same is with mental illness, we see shit happen and restrict activities due to it. No causation or correlation needs to be present beyond an association.
Ok, why do you think that is confusing? A verdict of mental illness doesn't require that the people be a danger to others.
But some are which is why we don't let most of them purchase or poses firearms. Well, when the laws are followed that is.
And the point about the absence of correlation is that most mentally ill people aren't actually a danger to others.
Interestingly, most legally drunk drivers are not a danger to others either. Likewise, most smokers don't get cancer (fewer then 10% last I saw) and most cancer deaths are not from smoking (fewer then 30% total last I saw). The problem is we still care about these people and what they are doing because 30% of cancer deaths were from smoking and legally drunk drivers do harm others on occasion. Yet no one is jumping in about correlation and causation and no one is specifically saying that all drunk drivers will kill someone either. Now there are people saying that smoking will kill people including others despite the limited amounts. And we do have laws banning those actions in certain places- not because everyone who comes in contact with a smoke or drunk driver will be killed or harmed, but because the risk of fit is there.
The article also says nothing about the cutting off of the hand. I suppose you could just use a tourniquet in order to keep blood inside the hand after it is severed.
I guess a bigger question might be is how if the system accessed in case of death or injury? I mean suppose I crash my car and lose my arm on the way home tonight, how will I access the laptop after that or does it become a brick. What if I died, is some next of kin going to show up at my funeral and pull my hand out of the coffin and try to trick this thing into opening so they can find all my accounts or something? And if there is a way around it, that would sort of defeat the entire security point to some degree. I mean it wouldn't matter how big and strong the dead bolts on the doors to the house are if someone can squeeze through the doggy door and simply unlock them.
Your reply is sort of confusing. If there isn't enough evidence to show mentally ill people harm others, but after mass murders the culprit is often diagnosed as mentally ill because one of the symptoms is harming others or themselves seems like you went full circle.
Mass murders by mentally ill people would qualify as deadly. You do not need to show anything more then that to satisfy the question I answered. I did not attempt to justify the exclusion or correlate them together, just that mass murders by a specific group of people with a medical condition is sufficiently deadly. The exclusion itself is justified simply by our nation's ability to regulate who enters our borders regardless of the reason. It is one of the constitutional duties of the US government that is actually followed when it can.
I have found that most people I know find their desire to learn or an interest in studying until well after they were supposed to. For what it is worth, the younger people who are interested in learning rather than going through the motions in order to complete some goal are to be commended. But the reality might be a lot of people do not appreciate or understand the value of learning until it does become a matter of the Discovery Channel being the lecturer.
That may be why there is a propensity to build luxury four year resorts with fancy dorms and gyms at the universities. It may be the marketing that keeps students around.
I would agree but the courts are the ones who seem to not agree. It you read the entire page, you will also notice that the dissenting opinions seemed to hinge around the reasonable suspicion requirement the court imposed as being to stringent and causing problems with centuries old border search doctrine.
The en banc majority cited United States v. Ramsey (431 U.S. 606, 621 [1977]) to support "the long-standing right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country." This interest at the borders creates "a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment prohibition against warrantless searches without probable cause," the majority said, although it does not create an "anything goes" atmosphere. Per United States v. Montoya de Hernandez (473 U.S. 531, 539 [1985]), the panel stated that privacy rights at the border are not abandoned but are "[b]alanced against the sovereign's interests."
Well, it isn't as misleading as you might think. First and foremost, I do not support this interpretations but the angle being taken is that the 4th amendment does not prohibit all searches without a warrant, it only prohibits searches that are unreasonable and allows searches with a warrant and probable cause. The courts have decided that the right of sovereignty allows the fourth amendment to be weighed against probable cause so to say.
In United States v. Ramsey (431 U.S. 606, 621 [1977] , the court declared there is
"the long-standing right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country."This interest at the borders creates "a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment prohibition against warrantless searches without probable cause," the majority said, although it does not create an "anything goes" atmosphere. Per United States v. Montoya de Hernandez (473 U.S. 531, 539 [1985]), the panel stated that privacy rights at the border are not abandoned but are "[b]alanced against the sovereign's interests."
So it is actually placing the right of sovereignty over the fourth amendment but doing so in claiming an automatic probable cause exception in most cases. I agree with you about the conflict and even purpose that the solution is already built into the US constitution with the 9th amendment which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Except in this case, the people would appear to mean the people of the United States so foreigners would be excluded. Anyways, a layman's reading of the 9th basically says that if any parts of the constitution are in conflict, it needs to be resolved without depriving the people of rights protected by it. Or in other words, it needs to be resolved without the government trampling on our rights.
I think there is a shortage in value. What you are seeing is an abundance of people without the abilities to provide enough value or the same types of value competing for the same jobs.
Training can fix this and when trained employees earn more, they spend more, but business grows, new businesses find a spot and it moves up from there. This of it more like a stimulus package from the government.
This is probably more productive then anything. Some people think you trade hours of the day or time for a paycheck. The reality is that you trade value for wealth. You bring value to the business and in return it pays you. Sometimes it doesn't pay you enough for the value, but that is the principle behind it. Going with the vocational angle will allow people to bring more value to the table and have more options in pursuing that wealth should a company not appreciate it enough. This will have nothing but positive results for both the workers and employers and should empower the workers to realize vast resources of wealth.
But you cannot prevent them from opening the door at 30,000 feet causing the entire plane to violently depressurize and possibly taking most of it with it. You cannot stop them from breaking the glass and using it as a weapon- killing others and themselves, you cannot stop them from having materials that could create a bomb or bomb like mechanism that could cause serious damage. You cannot stop them from making a scene right at take off causing the entire airport to be shut down while the pilot aborts and returns to a gate to remove the passenger and cause the entire security theater to go into overdrive making everyone's life hell.
Shootings is ancillary to the comment. Mentally ill people have done some things with the intent of harming others. Guns and explosives are not the only things that can harm others.
It really has nothing to do with his criticisms because they do not address anything said. The question was more or less what does mental illness have to do with The "not allowed to enter" on medical grounds; can come in handy, if the disease is communicable, highly contagious, highly deadly, and likely to become a pandemic.
I simply show that our lack of addressing mental illness has resulted in the latest mass shootings which would fall under highly deadly if someone wanted to make the case. I even said it was statistically unlikely to even show that there was no correlation between the two although I would say someone who could mass murder innocent people would be suffering some sort of mental illness.
So let me ask you something, does the arguments he presented allow you the confidence to allow mentally ill people purchase, own, and posses firearms at will? Does it persuade you to allow them to remain brain surgeons operating you you or a loved family member? IF you answer is not yes to either of those, then you would be suffering the same as the parent argues against. You simply do not need correlation or anything in order to suspiciously act prudently and deny these people the abilities to harm themselves or others. But in either case, I was never making the argument for or against, just the argument that they are not completely unconnected.
I agree. But it was first argued to support a law allowing the unwarranted searches of ships that was passed by the first congress of the US in its second session. Although i don't remember when the court case was specifically,, it was significantly later in our history that it was invoked.
When i get to a computer, i will look the details up and post a link to the case
Just because a person is legally drunk doesn't mean they will cause an accident ir injure someone. This is especially true when the legal limit keeps getting lower. The fact of the matter is that the law and application of it does not strictly adhear to logic.
Now, i did not say i thought the decision to bar the person was sound or logical, just that given the criteria, deadly fit the bill. But everything you said about logic and causation is also imediately transferable to mentally ill nronh barred from puchasing and owning firearms. Should we allow them open access to guns like regular people have?
Slashdot Mirror
We do? Name one.
Fox News can't find one. Every time they give an example like that, and somebody checks their facts, it turns out Fox was wrong.
Stop being a partisan tool. It makes you look like an extreme idiot. Your entire post starts off like someone who doesn't have the facts and doesn't care about them even if they did. FFS, blaming things on Fox News is childish and ignorant. Especially when I do not even have cable.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446
There is one. Now I know there is a large movement among the left who want to blame the victim in all this. I agree that a lot of the problems is because the victim is stupid as hell, but that doesn't get around the fact that it worked for them before the ACA.
Actually, it seems that you cannot check any facts and only dig in deeper with some ideology when they are presented to you. I don't know who Hannity is outside of a goolge search that you were more then capable of doing yourself to easily find examples but refused to in order to rant about something that exists in your head.
If you are going to pretend that you or your position is based off the scientific method, then I will declare that all you produce is junk science. It really is that simple. You have shown with your post that you do not seek answers, you seek answers that you agree with and are on par or a bit lower then global warming deniers and intelligent design proponents.
I don't think the driving a car example is close to relevant. You can always opt out of driving by taking public trasnportation, relying on friends and family, walking or riding a bike and so on. You cannot opt out if the health insurance mandate unless you leave the country and renounce citizenship or die. I suppose being incarcerated could give you a way also but that illistrates just how different this is.
It doesn't really matter what the intent is or how the justification is presented, you simply cannot get around the fact that once born, or a lawful citizen in the US, you are obligated to pay a third party private company else face penalty under the law with absolutely no due process at all. For many, no sugar coating or slick talk will make that acceptable.
They don't have to be magically more dangerous in the hand of the mentally ill. As you admitted earlier, mentally ill is the diagnosis mass murders generally get. You are trying to run in circles and have forgotten where you got to.
Ok, I understand now, you ignore that which is inconvenient to your point and instead insist you are correct only because of some deficiency you cannot prove on the other participants part.
Why would I ever need to do that? I never said they were. I said that the last several mass murders we had were mentally ill and that qualified as deadly in the GP's statement. It is up to congress and the power they delegate to various border apparatuses to determine if entry is undesirable and that is what has happened, end of story. Congress is constitutionally empowered to do so and it does not need to follow any correlation or causation or anything of the such in doing so. If congress delegates it, the border agents can deny entry to non-citizens because they are wearing red socks on Tuesday for all it matters. If they want to not allow a mentally ill person in or on a plane that goes through the US and stops inside it, they can.
You spelled it wrong. It's a common mistake and even book publishers do it.
It is actually spelled "Just us" department. Justice implies something completely different then what normally happens where just us hits the nail on the head.
I would suggest professionals decide not to use the code from well-meaning but undertrained amateurs then. I mean the only way it would impact them is if the code is taken up and used. Outside of that, they are getting paid to do something specific and doing what you are hired to do was as far as I know, a hallmark of professionalism.
Interestingly, Roe v. Wade couldn't stop the government from banning abortions now. The PPACA or Obamacare has put the government so far into the healthcare of everyone that there is no expectation of privacy left. Seriously, the court already rejected the notion of the government being involved based on the same arguments that prevailed in Roe v. Wade. Now that all your medical records are electronic and the IRS and HHS has access to them and to some point can even make decisions on which medical procedures you can have, you have no privacy in the area of medical anymore so Roe's entire premise is gone after the full implementation of Obamacare.
Anyways, Roe v. Wade wasn't about sovereignty, just constitutional limits of the government. The Border search doctrine actually does put sovereignty over the US constitution. the court was pretty much united in that too. the dissenting opinions on the one case I have linked to in sister posts under this thread shows the problem the dissent had was with the court placing limits on how much the right of sovereignty could jump over the constitution.
Canada's government controlls the health care not some private company which is what Obamacare is. It would be different if you had to pay taxes and the government functioned, but for the first time since America was a colony of England, simply by being a citizen, you are forced by law to purchase something from a third party private company. Traditionally, this was only true if you participated in certain activities and had the options to not participate. Now the only way you can avoid participation is moving to another country and denouncing your citizenship or dieing.
Or how about a way to opt in if you ever need to goto the ER and cannot pay. That is the most enraging portion of this law, it treats people as if they are guilty of a future crime and demands they make restitution before ever committing it. Just as you said, people without insurance will go to the ER and not be able to pay for it which most of the people without insurance have never done and probably will never do.
So perhaps this entire pit of bullshit would be easier to swallow if the mandates were removed and people who actually do need insurance after the fact pays a penalty of some sort, they become enrolled. Most insurance companies will require a years wait before covering someone with a preexisting condition so make the penalty two years coverage payments and an obligation to keep the insurance for 5 consecutive years after. Then you will only have people who are in positions like you describe who are impacted by the laws. It is like only charging and convicting people of robbing banks when they actually do rob banks.
Medical bills are not the primary reason for bankruptcies, While you can rack up bills that will take more then your life time to pay off, the biggest problem is the lack of income that comes with those large medical bills. You simply do not often get large medical bills without missing work and often, you are permanently off work or off work for a substantial period of time. I don't care how well you planned or if you have insurance, the lack of income usually is devastating to most all working families. Health insurance does nothing to fix that, obamacare of the ACA does nothing to fix that.
People cite medical as reasons for filing bankruptcy because they have to have a reason other then they spent too much. But what normally happens when they file for bankruptcy is that they are trying to protect assets they can no longer afford like their home or cars or have racked up serious credit card debt trying to keep them because they lack the financial wherewithal to keep their lifestyles without that income.
This is also not getting into the problems with the ACA's cheap plans that do nothing to fix it either. We are seeing family plans with $10k a year out of pocket deductibles before the insurance even kicks in.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-15/obamacare-deductibles-26-higher-make-cheap-rates-a-risk.html
BTW, I didn't think anyone didn't know about this which I commented about. I guess you can stay inside your bubble all you want.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446
They make you pay your bill before leaving. It isn't a situation where you can eat, become an ass and get ejected and not have to pay the bill.
I've been tossed from plenty of places. Usually from having too much to drink and starting a fight or something stupid along those lines. I was thrown out of one place for saying I didn't want my back to the door.
Yes, because you said so.. Sigh.. http://www.terminalcornucopia.com/
I guess what you think doesn't matter because people with the power to had actually denied her the chance. They think the risk was unacceptable and denied it which is why we are bothering with it.
Well, we know there are people who were receiving coverage for cancer and heart conditions who had their policies yanked from them because the government said they were junk. These same people also complained that they cannot find affordable replacements and they won't have access to their doctors.
So while it might be easy on your conscious to say the government swooped in and saved those ignorant bastards, the reality is a little different. Some of those plans, most of them were exactly opposite of what you claim.
Because it shows that we treat people with mental illness differently regardless of causation or any bullshit saying. There simply does not need to be any causation in order for things to remain the way they are.
No, there is a correlation between consumption of alcohol and degraded physical and mental abilities. Driving while impaired can increase the chances to be more dangerous then you otherwise would be but there is no correlation between alcohol and accidents. More people drive as good or better while legally drunk then people who are a danger when legally drunk. 2011 statistics show that only 1.2 million people (out of over 300k) were arrested for for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. - Note that is both alcohol and narcotics and was just arrests, not conviction. The number is likely a lot higher who drive well enough not to get caught. In fatal accidents, only 15% of the drivers involved were drinking on the weekday and only 30% were on the weekend.
But because shit happens, we define a legal limit and restrict activities due to it. The same is with mental illness, we see shit happen and restrict activities due to it. No causation or correlation needs to be present beyond an association.
But some are which is why we don't let most of them purchase or poses firearms. Well, when the laws are followed that is.
Interestingly, most legally drunk drivers are not a danger to others either. Likewise, most smokers don't get cancer (fewer then 10% last I saw) and most cancer deaths are not from smoking (fewer then 30% total last I saw). The problem is we still care about these people and what they are doing because 30% of cancer deaths were from smoking and legally drunk drivers do harm others on occasion. Yet no one is jumping in about correlation and causation and no one is specifically saying that all drunk drivers will kill someone either. Now there are people saying that smoking will kill people including others despite the limited amounts. And we do have laws banning those actions in certain places- not because everyone who comes in contact with a smoke or drunk driver will be killed or harmed, but because the risk of fit is there.
The article also says nothing about the cutting off of the hand. I suppose you could just use a tourniquet in order to keep blood inside the hand after it is severed.
I guess a bigger question might be is how if the system accessed in case of death or injury? I mean suppose I crash my car and lose my arm on the way home tonight, how will I access the laptop after that or does it become a brick. What if I died, is some next of kin going to show up at my funeral and pull my hand out of the coffin and try to trick this thing into opening so they can find all my accounts or something? And if there is a way around it, that would sort of defeat the entire security point to some degree. I mean it wouldn't matter how big and strong the dead bolts on the doors to the house are if someone can squeeze through the doggy door and simply unlock them.
Your reply is sort of confusing. If there isn't enough evidence to show mentally ill people harm others, but after mass murders the culprit is often diagnosed as mentally ill because one of the symptoms is harming others or themselves seems like you went full circle.
Mass murders by mentally ill people would qualify as deadly. You do not need to show anything more then that to satisfy the question I answered. I did not attempt to justify the exclusion or correlate them together, just that mass murders by a specific group of people with a medical condition is sufficiently deadly. The exclusion itself is justified simply by our nation's ability to regulate who enters our borders regardless of the reason. It is one of the constitutional duties of the US government that is actually followed when it can.
I have found that most people I know find their desire to learn or an interest in studying until well after they were supposed to. For what it is worth, the younger people who are interested in learning rather than going through the motions in order to complete some goal are to be commended. But the reality might be a lot of people do not appreciate or understand the value of learning until it does become a matter of the Discovery Channel being the lecturer.
That may be why there is a propensity to build luxury four year resorts with fancy dorms and gyms at the universities. It may be the marketing that keeps students around.
I would agree but the courts are the ones who seem to not agree. It you read the entire page, you will also notice that the dissenting opinions seemed to hinge around the reasonable suspicion requirement the court imposed as being to stringent and causing problems with centuries old border search doctrine.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/litigation/b/litigation-blog/archive/2013/03/11/9th-circuit-finds-border-search-of-laptop-did-not-violate-4th-amendment.aspx
In this they cite
The en banc majority cited United States v. Ramsey (431 U.S. 606, 621 [1977]) to support "the long-standing right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country." This interest at the borders creates "a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment prohibition against warrantless searches without probable cause," the majority said, although it does not create an "anything goes" atmosphere. Per United States v. Montoya de Hernandez (473 U.S. 531, 539 [1985]), the panel stated that privacy rights at the border are not abandoned but are "[b]alanced against the sovereign's interests."
Well, it isn't as misleading as you might think. First and foremost, I do not support this interpretations but the angle being taken is that the 4th amendment does not prohibit all searches without a warrant, it only prohibits searches that are unreasonable and allows searches with a warrant and probable cause. The courts have decided that the right of sovereignty allows the fourth amendment to be weighed against probable cause so to say.
In United States v. Ramsey (431 U.S. 606, 621 [1977] , the court declared there is
So it is actually placing the right of sovereignty over the fourth amendment but doing so in claiming an automatic probable cause exception in most cases. I agree with you about the conflict and even purpose that the solution is already built into the US constitution with the 9th amendment which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Except in this case, the people would appear to mean the people of the United States so foreigners would be excluded. Anyways, a layman's reading of the 9th basically says that if any parts of the constitution are in conflict, it needs to be resolved without depriving the people of rights protected by it. Or in other words, it needs to be resolved without the government trampling on our rights.
I think there is a shortage in value. What you are seeing is an abundance of people without the abilities to provide enough value or the same types of value competing for the same jobs.
Training can fix this and when trained employees earn more, they spend more, but business grows, new businesses find a spot and it moves up from there. This of it more like a stimulus package from the government.
This is probably more productive then anything. Some people think you trade hours of the day or time for a paycheck. The reality is that you trade value for wealth. You bring value to the business and in return it pays you. Sometimes it doesn't pay you enough for the value, but that is the principle behind it. Going with the vocational angle will allow people to bring more value to the table and have more options in pursuing that wealth should a company not appreciate it enough. This will have nothing but positive results for both the workers and employers and should empower the workers to realize vast resources of wealth.
But you cannot prevent them from opening the door at 30,000 feet causing the entire plane to violently depressurize and possibly taking most of it with it. You cannot stop them from breaking the glass and using it as a weapon- killing others and themselves, you cannot stop them from having materials that could create a bomb or bomb like mechanism that could cause serious damage. You cannot stop them from making a scene right at take off causing the entire airport to be shut down while the pilot aborts and returns to a gate to remove the passenger and cause the entire security theater to go into overdrive making everyone's life hell.
Shootings is ancillary to the comment. Mentally ill people have done some things with the intent of harming others. Guns and explosives are not the only things that can harm others.
It really has nothing to do with his criticisms because they do not address anything said. The question was more or less what does mental illness have to do with The "not allowed to enter" on medical grounds; can come in handy, if the disease is communicable, highly contagious, highly deadly, and likely to become a pandemic.
I simply show that our lack of addressing mental illness has resulted in the latest mass shootings which would fall under highly deadly if someone wanted to make the case. I even said it was statistically unlikely to even show that there was no correlation between the two although I would say someone who could mass murder innocent people would be suffering some sort of mental illness.
So let me ask you something, does the arguments he presented allow you the confidence to allow mentally ill people purchase, own, and posses firearms at will? Does it persuade you to allow them to remain brain surgeons operating you you or a loved family member? IF you answer is not yes to either of those, then you would be suffering the same as the parent argues against. You simply do not need correlation or anything in order to suspiciously act prudently and deny these people the abilities to harm themselves or others. But in either case, I was never making the argument for or against, just the argument that they are not completely unconnected.
I agree. But it was first argued to support a law allowing the unwarranted searches of ships that was passed by the first congress of the US in its second session. Although i don't remember when the court case was specifically,, it was significantly later in our history that it was invoked.
When i get to a computer, i will look the details up and post a link to the case
Just because a person is legally drunk doesn't mean they will cause an accident ir injure someone. This is especially true when the legal limit keeps getting lower. The fact of the matter is that the law and application of it does not strictly adhear to logic.
Now, i did not say i thought the decision to bar the person was sound or logical, just that given the criteria, deadly fit the bill. But everything you said about logic and causation is also imediately transferable to mentally ill nronh barred from puchasing and owning firearms. Should we allow them open access to guns like regular people have?