If you want us to have a single payer system then that's a debate worth having. The Democrats didn't pass a single payer system though. They passed a huge gift to their friends in the insurance industry. It also sets a pretty scary precedent. If the Federal Government has the power to compel me to do business with a private enterprise then there is effectively no limitation on Federal power. You might want to think about whether or not that's a road we ought to be going down.
BTW, the CIA isn't the "secret police" and the correct term is state, not province.
Yeah they do get a lot of leeway, for better or worse. That said, I've never actually seen them aim their guns at someone during an encounter. I have seen them draw their guns during encounters (thankfully not with me) and they do seem to have a lower burden for that action than you or I would. Where I live I'm not allowed to legally draw a gun unless the situation is such that I can legally shoot it, i.e: I'm afraid for my life.
There's already economic uncertainty, driven largely at this point by excessive Government deficit spending. Most of that spending was a result of the bailouts. It may well turn out that we would have been better served to let capitalism run it's course.
From the millions of people that would have otherwise bought GM automobiles? You can't have such a bad understanding of economics as to believe that GM's demand comes entirely from employees of GM and GM suppliers.
No it's not. It's just another way for the government to mooch off productive people.
In New York State you need to be licensed by the state before you can cut hair for a living. WTF is up with that? We aren't talking about Doctors or Lawyers -- we are talking about hairdressers. I don't see it as a proper role for Government to keep me from getting a bad haircut, do you?
Regardless of the merit of this case, don't you think it's just a bit early to come with this magic market libertarian stuff as we are still in the midst of a major financial crisis caused by massive deregulation?
Has it occurred to you that government interventions in the marketplace helped to create the imbalances that contributed to the financial crisis? Government keeps interest rates artificially low, thus negating any real incentive to save, then wonders why we have high debt and low savings rate. Government favors large corporations at the expense of small ones and then wonders why large players dominate the financial/telecommunications/medical/etc industries.
Ever heard of regulatory capture? Ever wonder why established business lobbies in favor of regulations that make it harder for upstarts to enter the market?
So get rid of the mandate that ER's treat people who can't pay. Problem solved.
Bush didn't "steal" anything. Gore lost the election. If Gore had won his own state FL would have been a big fat moot point. Of course as it turns out Bush won FL, but don't let that fact deter you from your conspiracy theories.....
What do you mean, "without someone to sell to"? Do you think the demand for automobiles would have disappeared just because GM went under? Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc. would have had to expand their capacity to meet increased demand. The easiest way for them to do that would have been to start purchasing parts from GM's now idled suppliers. There was no reason to bail them out other than as a gift to labor. Look at the way the administration abused the bankruptcy code. The bankruptcy code said that the bondholders were secured creditors and should have been repaid first -- but they got screwed while the unions got most of what they asked for.
Beware the Government that can't even be bothered to follow it's own laws.
There is good reason to worry about the loss of an independent source of information to an otherwise uninformed electorate. So all the comparisons to capitalism "we didn't bail out the wagon-wheel, buggy-whip,...has-been technology" are a bit shoot from the hip.
How is it an independent source of information if it needs to rely on money from the government to stay in operation?
No, their plant and equipment are strategic assets. That equipment wouldn't have vanished if GM went out of business. It would have been bought up by more nimble competitors during the Chapter 7 proceedings.
If Congressmen are legitimate targets then can you also shoot the people that voted for them? I would say no, but the people who fly airplanes into our buildings would probably say yes.
I would confront someone who was assaulting/robbing/raping a third party. I would do it without hesitation.
I would just have a hard time doing it over a property crime, mainly because I don't want to escalate the situation to one where I'm forced to defend myself. Most criminals would probably run away if you confronted them -- but what about the one that doesn't?
According to this a majority of the Marines (61%) said they would not participate in an illegal order directed against American civilians. Remember that members of the US military swear an oath to uphold the Constitution....
Actually, that building was a Federal government building, so they weren't really "civilians", most people there were part of the government.
The fact that you work for the Government in some capacity does not negate the fact that you are a civilian. Among other things, that building housed the Social Security Administration. Even if I agreed with Mr. McVeigh's motivations (which I do not) I would have a hard time accepting those people as legitimate targets of war.
He should have gone to D.C. and shot Congresspeople instead if he really wanted to make a difference.
What he should have done is exercised his 1st amendment rights. The 2nd amendment is useless without the 1st amendment, because no one man can hope to topple the status quo. Which item do you think the Founders of this country reached for first, the musket or the printing press?
*shrug*, I never really thought of them that way either until I decided to get my concealed carry permit. Going through that process made me think about what it would be like to be in a situation where I was fighting for my life. That's something that the police have to think about every single time they pull somebody over. I don't think that makes them "noble knights" but it does give me a certain amount of respect for what they do.
That's also part of the reason why I'm not inclined to argue with the cops, even when they are completely in the wrong. My last speeding ticket was for a whooping 59 in a 55. The officer was just being a dickhead about it because I had the nerve to pass him on the right. He followed me for six miles until he could get a reading on his radar gun that exceeded the speed limit, then pulled me over. I wanted to tell him where to shove his ticket and badge but nothing good would have come from it. I swallowed my pride, shook his hand and resolved to beat his bullshit citation in court, which I eventually did.
when I see someone jimmying the lock on my car door. I'm hoping that they take off, but if I see them draw a weapon
Why would you confront someone jimmying the lock on your car door? I would back off and call the police. It's not worth escalating a property crime into a situation where you might have to defend yourself with deadly force. Presumably your car is insured, no?
I had an interesting encounter a few weeks ago. Was shopping at the 24 hour grocery store late and night and discovered half a dozen teenagers hovering around my car when I left the store. One of them made eye contact with me and said something to his buddies, who then proceeded to split up and start advancing towards me. I retreated into the store and called 911 on my cell phone. As it happened, I was carrying my firearm that night. I'm convinced that those kids were up to no good and intended to do me harm but I saw no reason to confront them over it. It was annoying to have to wait for the cops to show up and order them to disperse but I'd rather deal with that then the fall out from a deadly force encounter.
That's the problem with revolutions; it's a big gamble whether you'll get enough popular support. If you're successful, you're called a "hero" and a "revolutionary", like George Washington, Sam Adams, and Patrick Henry. If you fail, you're a "crackpot" or a "mass murderer" like Tim McVeigh or the guy who flew a Cessna into the IRS building.
George Washington and Sam Adams didn't blow up buildings full of civilians in downtown London just because they happened to contain a few Crown employees. Tim McVeigh isn't a mass murderer because he failed to start a revolution. He's a mass murderer because he blew up a building filled with civilians and a daycare center.
Yeah, but watching condemned criminals hack each other to death with swords while being eaten by lions had to be more entertaining than swallowing a pill or watching would-be musical stars compete to see who can avoid being yelled at by a smug British guy.
I didn't make that statement to excuse police abuses of power, I made it to point out a difference in their mentality vs. most other occupations. Regardless, I would stand by my comment that the vast majority of police officers are professionals that aren't that much different than the rest of us. The fact that the GP got modded up for stereotyping an entire profession is extremely disappointing.
Until then, it's one more example of the way in which cops are increasingly generally subpar people, recruited from the less educated and less successful demographics of society, eager to hold a gun, and drawn to the profession precisely because they feel powerless in other areas of their life as a result of their general lack of merit, and thus need to abuse citizens in order to compensate for this lack.
You got a +4 insightful for this stereotyping? Your kidding right? Replace the word "cop" with "black person" and you'd rightfully be standing at -1 troll.
I've had my share of encounters with the police, ranging from traffic tickets to working with them in a professional capacity to being arrested for a crime I didn't commit. In my experience the vast majority of them aren't that different from you or I -- except we don't usually have to worry about being shot in the course of our employment.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want us to have a single payer system then that's a debate worth having. The Democrats didn't pass a single payer system though. They passed a huge gift to their friends in the insurance industry. It also sets a pretty scary precedent. If the Federal Government has the power to compel me to do business with a private enterprise then there is effectively no limitation on Federal power. You might want to think about whether or not that's a road we ought to be going down.
BTW, the CIA isn't the "secret police" and the correct term is state, not province.
Yeah they do get a lot of leeway, for better or worse. That said, I've never actually seen them aim their guns at someone during an encounter. I have seen them draw their guns during encounters (thankfully not with me) and they do seem to have a lower burden for that action than you or I would. Where I live I'm not allowed to legally draw a gun unless the situation is such that I can legally shoot it, i.e: I'm afraid for my life.
There's already economic uncertainty, driven largely at this point by excessive Government deficit spending. Most of that spending was a result of the bailouts. It may well turn out that we would have been better served to let capitalism run it's course.
Oh please. You've bought into the "too big to fail" crap hook, line and sinker. How's it feel to be a sucker for the UAW?
From the millions of people that would have otherwise bought GM automobiles? You can't have such a bad understanding of economics as to believe that GM's demand comes entirely from employees of GM and GM suppliers.
No it's not. It's just another way for the government to mooch off productive people.
In New York State you need to be licensed by the state before you can cut hair for a living. WTF is up with that? We aren't talking about Doctors or Lawyers -- we are talking about hairdressers. I don't see it as a proper role for Government to keep me from getting a bad haircut, do you?
Regardless of the merit of this case, don't you think it's just a bit early to come with this magic market libertarian stuff as we are still in the midst of a major financial crisis caused by massive deregulation?
Has it occurred to you that government interventions in the marketplace helped to create the imbalances that contributed to the financial crisis? Government keeps interest rates artificially low, thus negating any real incentive to save, then wonders why we have high debt and low savings rate. Government favors large corporations at the expense of small ones and then wonders why large players dominate the financial/telecommunications/medical/etc industries.
Ever heard of regulatory capture? Ever wonder why established business lobbies in favor of regulations that make it harder for upstarts to enter the market?
So get rid of the mandate that ER's treat people who can't pay. Problem solved.
Bush didn't "steal" anything. Gore lost the election. If Gore had won his own state FL would have been a big fat moot point. Of course as it turns out Bush won FL, but don't let that fact deter you from your conspiracy theories.....
What do you mean, "without someone to sell to"? Do you think the demand for automobiles would have disappeared just because GM went under? Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc. would have had to expand their capacity to meet increased demand. The easiest way for them to do that would have been to start purchasing parts from GM's now idled suppliers. There was no reason to bail them out other than as a gift to labor. Look at the way the administration abused the bankruptcy code. The bankruptcy code said that the bondholders were secured creditors and should have been repaid first -- but they got screwed while the unions got most of what they asked for.
Beware the Government that can't even be bothered to follow it's own laws.
If the news agencies failed It would leave a huge information vacuum that the government could fill as it wished.
And you don't think those same news agencies will be beholden to the government when the government is the one keeping them in business?
There is good reason to worry about the loss of an independent source of information to an otherwise uninformed electorate. So all the comparisons to capitalism "we didn't bail out the wagon-wheel, buggy-whip, ...has-been technology" are a bit shoot from the hip.
How is it an independent source of information if it needs to rely on money from the government to stay in operation?
No, the automakers are kind of strategic assets
No, their plant and equipment are strategic assets. That equipment wouldn't have vanished if GM went out of business. It would have been bought up by more nimble competitors during the Chapter 7 proceedings.
If Congressmen are legitimate targets then can you also shoot the people that voted for them? I would say no, but the people who fly airplanes into our buildings would probably say yes.
I would confront someone who was assaulting/robbing/raping a third party. I would do it without hesitation.
I would just have a hard time doing it over a property crime, mainly because I don't want to escalate the situation to one where I'm forced to defend myself. Most criminals would probably run away if you confronted them -- but what about the one that doesn't?
According to this a majority of the Marines (61%) said they would not participate in an illegal order directed against American civilians. Remember that members of the US military swear an oath to uphold the Constitution....
Actually, that building was a Federal government building, so they weren't really "civilians", most people there were part of the government.
The fact that you work for the Government in some capacity does not negate the fact that you are a civilian. Among other things, that building housed the Social Security Administration. Even if I agreed with Mr. McVeigh's motivations (which I do not) I would have a hard time accepting those people as legitimate targets of war.
He should have gone to D.C. and shot Congresspeople instead if he really wanted to make a difference.
What he should have done is exercised his 1st amendment rights. The 2nd amendment is useless without the 1st amendment, because no one man can hope to topple the status quo. Which item do you think the Founders of this country reached for first, the musket or the printing press?
*shrug*, I never really thought of them that way either until I decided to get my concealed carry permit. Going through that process made me think about what it would be like to be in a situation where I was fighting for my life. That's something that the police have to think about every single time they pull somebody over. I don't think that makes them "noble knights" but it does give me a certain amount of respect for what they do.
That's also part of the reason why I'm not inclined to argue with the cops, even when they are completely in the wrong. My last speeding ticket was for a whooping 59 in a 55. The officer was just being a dickhead about it because I had the nerve to pass him on the right. He followed me for six miles until he could get a reading on his radar gun that exceeded the speed limit, then pulled me over. I wanted to tell him where to shove his ticket and badge but nothing good would have come from it. I swallowed my pride, shook his hand and resolved to beat his bullshit citation in court, which I eventually did.
when I see someone jimmying the lock on my car door. I'm hoping that they take off, but if I see them draw a weapon
Why would you confront someone jimmying the lock on your car door? I would back off and call the police. It's not worth escalating a property crime into a situation where you might have to defend yourself with deadly force. Presumably your car is insured, no?
I had an interesting encounter a few weeks ago. Was shopping at the 24 hour grocery store late and night and discovered half a dozen teenagers hovering around my car when I left the store. One of them made eye contact with me and said something to his buddies, who then proceeded to split up and start advancing towards me. I retreated into the store and called 911 on my cell phone. As it happened, I was carrying my firearm that night. I'm convinced that those kids were up to no good and intended to do me harm but I saw no reason to confront them over it. It was annoying to have to wait for the cops to show up and order them to disperse but I'd rather deal with that then the fall out from a deadly force encounter.
That's the problem with revolutions; it's a big gamble whether you'll get enough popular support. If you're successful, you're called a "hero" and a "revolutionary", like George Washington, Sam Adams, and Patrick Henry. If you fail, you're a "crackpot" or a "mass murderer" like Tim McVeigh or the guy who flew a Cessna into the IRS building.
George Washington and Sam Adams didn't blow up buildings full of civilians in downtown London just because they happened to contain a few Crown employees. Tim McVeigh isn't a mass murderer because he failed to start a revolution. He's a mass murderer because he blew up a building filled with civilians and a daycare center.
There isn't a lot of drawback for a cop pointing his gun at you. (Filling out some paperwork)
Umm, I don't know about your state, but my state doesn't give cops the right to point guns at people without some sort of justification for doing so.
Ever tried to subdue someone on PCP? Six police with batons sometimes can't slow them down.
I hear that fast moving pieces of lead are moderately effective at slowing them down.....
This is America. If you don't have a gun that's your own damn fault ;)
Yeah, but watching condemned criminals hack each other to death with swords while being eaten by lions had to be more entertaining than swallowing a pill or watching would-be musical stars compete to see who can avoid being yelled at by a smug British guy.
I didn't make that statement to excuse police abuses of power, I made it to point out a difference in their mentality vs. most other occupations. Regardless, I would stand by my comment that the vast majority of police officers are professionals that aren't that much different than the rest of us. The fact that the GP got modded up for stereotyping an entire profession is extremely disappointing.
Until then, it's one more example of the way in which cops are increasingly generally subpar people, recruited from the less educated and less successful demographics of society, eager to hold a gun, and drawn to the profession precisely because they feel powerless in other areas of their life as a result of their general lack of merit, and thus need to abuse citizens in order to compensate for this lack.
You got a +4 insightful for this stereotyping? Your kidding right? Replace the word "cop" with "black person" and you'd rightfully be standing at -1 troll.
I've had my share of encounters with the police, ranging from traffic tickets to working with them in a professional capacity to being arrested for a crime I didn't commit. In my experience the vast majority of them aren't that different from you or I -- except we don't usually have to worry about being shot in the course of our employment.