View Full Version : Supreme court - another attack on America
Al Coutra - the terroist brank of the US government-ruled today that you cannot sue your HMO for malpractice. Bought and piad for court, obvious. And we cannot vote them out of office. This constitution needs to be uspended and revised. It doesn't work when the laws are made by dottering old fools accountable to no one. Accountability is the key to honoest governemnt. The court has got to go. It is a dictatorship. Of traitors for sale.
schweitz
06-21-2004, 06:53 PM
You can sue them--just can't do it in a State Court--has to be Federal Court. I don't like it either.
This one concerns BANKING regulations.
Banks want to offer "check Protection" to the small custiomer. Up to $500.00
the banks argued that these fees they charged were exempt from the TRUTH in LENDING act. They argued it was a service not a loan,, and as such they need not disclosed to the customer the APR (annuall % Rate).
The Interest rates are 540% on average. But they do not have to tell you that.
Further.. the defendants (us) argued with a Memo they uncovered from the banks legal consultant. The memo reccommended that banks open branchs in Low income nieghborhoods and grocery stores in improvished areas.
The Sumpreme court sided with the banks.
Right up the pooper....... again.
Remember when a bank had a certain intrinsic responsiblility to it, and air of truth, a sort on unmentioned trust for all?
What have banks become today?
Telemarketers, ursers, no better than the guy in the trench coat olding a bag of candy to little children on the playground.
They lie about the real costs, they send actual credit cards to people totally unqualified and give them an 800 number to activate.
Bankruptcies are at a record high and banks are making record profits off of the ignorant, the desperate. Where the hell is the government to regulate theses preying mantises?
When somebody tells me they are a banker, I cringe, as if I were in presence of child molester.
Where did American pride and integrity go?
Secretariat
06-21-2004, 11:27 PM
I don't care what party affiliation you belong to, this is a travesty...
I thought the government was the people...not anymore...it's the corps...the Court is now bought and sold...I can't beleive this one...just cannot beleive it....
What do you expect from a bunch of grown men running around in dresses?
Queer Eye for the Oppressed Guy?
JustRalph
06-22-2004, 12:59 AM
I am surprised that nobody is talking about the I.D. Case
this is a big deal..........it changes the way police operate in several ways. It will be a different world for the bad guys all over America during tonights 3rd shift..............
Dick Schmidt
06-22-2004, 02:44 AM
How so Ralph? Details please.
Dick
JustRalph
06-22-2004, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by Dick Schmidt
How so Ralph? Details please. Dick
Try this one........... you stop a suspicious car. To stop that car you need a couple of different reasons.....i.e. traffic offense, articulable suspicion etc. No matter the reason...follow this on...
individuals with past criminal histories or active warrants are aware that if they are driving one of these automobiles they can be identified when stopped. Therefore they always have drivers who haul them around. Many times it is a "clean cohort" who has no current "paper on him" (think late night Burglary types who are cruising around looking for targets) Many jurisdictions follow the letter of the law and do not allow officers to force passengers to produce I.D. unless they are being stopped for "suspicious circumstances" which means it is harder to I.D. every person in the "suspect car" if the stop is made for a traffic violation. The standard for suspicious circumstances is much more broad and tougher to obtain. Even though some jurisdictions push the envelope pretty hard. As of today.........an officer can ask for I.D. from all riders in a car. All individuals in a group etc. Even though they actually stopped one of the parties for jay walking after midnight etc....... You can see where this goes........no more protection for passengers........or passive participants. If a group gets stopped for just about anything, they all now have to produce I.D. There are a whole bunch of schemes and scams used by "bad guys" to avoid being properly Identified. Many of these schemes and scams just went away. this will also allow I.D.'s to be requested in very meager suspicious circumstances. As opposed to having several different elements of suspicious circumstances, you can now ask for I.D. for just about anything. In fact it appears via this case, just having contact with an individual will be grounds for asking for I.D.
The real trick is this..............now that this case has been adjudicated, now what do you do with those wanted individuals who just plain don't carry I.D. ? I would think that until they can produce I.D. you can hold them? Until you can I.D. them via fingerprints etc. This has been done before, but only in serious situations with serious paper warrants or serious suspicious circumstances. It is going to get interesting. It just got tougher to be a burglar on the late night streets of America. This should also result in more individuals being arrested on active warrants that they have ignored for obvious reasons. The secondary reaction to this could be serious. Think about the law of unintended consequences..... Think like a bad guy for a minute you have a couple of choices now........the "bad guys" stay home more now that they have to produce I.D. or they run like hell upon every contact with police...............like I said it could be interesting........ The day shift officers aren't going to be too wound up about this. But the guys who work 3rd shift and are constantly dealing with the true late night criminals and drug addicted types, just got a brand new tool to work with.
Secretariat
06-22-2004, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by JustRalph
...If a group gets stopped for just about anything, they all now have to produce I.D. ... this will also allow I.D.'s to be requested in very meager suspicious circumstances. As opposed to having several different elements of suspicious circumstances, you can now ask for I.D. for just about anything. In fact it appears via this case, just having contact with an individual will be grounds for asking for I.D.
The real trick is this..............now that this case has been adjudicated, now what do you do with those wanted individuals who just plain don't carry I.D. ? I would think that until they can produce I.D. you can hold them? Until you can I.D. them via fingerprints etc. ... It just got tougher to be a burglar on the late night streets of America. This should also result in more individuals being arrested on active warrants that they have ignored for obvious reasons. The secondary reaction to this could be serious. Think about the law of unintended consequences..... Think like a bad guy for a minute you have a couple of choices now........the "bad guys" stay home more now that they have to produce I.D. or they run like hell upon every contact with police...
Man this is pretty damn Orwellian. So you're saying if you are in a car, and the driver gets pulled over for "suspicious circumstances" which is interpretive and varies or even pulled over for a traffic violation, the passenger in the car can be held if he/she does not have ID. Oh, this one is a beaut...So much for "probable cause". Man, you're guilty until proven innocent in this country anymore. Yeah, you may catch a burglar or two, but this is gonna blow up in somebody's face when someone is detained who simply was along for the ride and just forgot to carry ID with them. Does this include minors/children in a car who are not carrying ID? What about disabled people? Retired people? Coming back from the beach? The world gets weirder and weirder.
Secretariat
06-22-2004, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Suff
This one concerns BANKING regulations.
Banks want to offer "check Protection" to the small custiomer. Up to $500.00
the banks argued that these fees they charged were exempt from the TRUTH in LENDING act. They argued it was a service not a loan,, and as such they need not disclosed to the customer the APR (annuall % Rate).
The Interest rates are 540% on average. But they do not have to tell you that.
Further.. the defendants (us) argued with a Memo they uncovered from the banks legal consultant. The memo reccommended that banks open branchs in Low income nieghborhoods and grocery stores in improvished areas.
The Sumpreme court sided with the banks.
Right up the pooper....... again.
I wonder why the media barely coverd this. Between the giveaway to the HMO issue, the 540% interest rate giveaway to the banks, the passenger lack of ID detention, and one just shakes their head. A person's freedoms keep getting less and less.
Is this HMO ruling applicable to all health insurance companies OR only HMO's? For example, a PPO provider is going to be clamoring for the same protections I would imagine? My God protections used to be for the people, not for businesses.
The arguments of the HMO case are insane. Argument One - Juries are incapable of awarding fairly. What the hell does that mean? Our judicial system is built on the judgment by jury.
What the hell happened to Amendment VII of the Bill of Rights?
Amendment VII
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. "
Argument Two - If you want to cap awards, cap lawyer compensaton for the awards, not the victim's right to trial. If a jury finds an insurance firm guilty of negligence why the hell should they be protected anymore than the local grocer. This is disgusting.
eclecticapper
06-22-2004, 01:39 PM
In all likelihood, the ruling only applies to fully-insured plans like HMOs. In fully-insured plans, the insurance company charges employers a monthly premium; that premium is supposed to include the costs of administration, claims and (of course) profit for the insurance company. If the insurance company doesn't price the plan correctly (i.e. claims run higher than anticipated), the insurance company has to absorb the additional cost. This is why HMOs are so big on cost-cutting.
Generally, PPO plans are self-insured; the insurance company administers the plan (and charges the employer an admin fee) but the employer actually pays the claims. If costs run higher than expected, the employer is liable rather than the insurance company. The insurance company just processes the claims in accordance with the terms of the plan. (NOTE: I'm a financial analyst specializing in benefits and work for an employer that offers both types of plans.)
My 4th amendments rights went out the window with th patriot act.
I subway to work. Police now troll the subways with dogs and they can search me and go through my bags without cause.
If I refuse, I'll be detained.
Nazi type stuff
Originally posted by Suff
My 4th amendments rights went out the window with th patriot act.
I subway to work. Police now troll the subways with dogs and they can search me and go through my bags without cause.
If I refuse, I'll be detained.
Nazi type stuff
Take the bus? :D
Originally posted by cjmilkowski
Take the bus? :D
Its the same.. Bus , train, even standing on the platform.
Without cause...
Secretariat
06-22-2004, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by eclecticapper
In all likelihood, the ruling only applies to fully-insured plans like HMOs. In fully-insured plans, the insurance company charges employers a monthly premium; that premium is supposed to include the costs of administration, claims and (of course) profit for the insurance company. If the insurance company doesn't price the plan correctly (i.e. claims run higher than anticipated), the insurance company has to absorb the additional cost. This is why HMOs are so big on cost-cutting.
Generally, PPO plans are self-insured; the insurance company administers the plan (and charges the employer an admin fee) but the employer actually pays the claims. If costs run higher than expected, the employer is liable rather than the insurance company. The insurance company just processes the claims in accordance with the terms of the plan. (NOTE: I'm a financial analyst specializing in benefits and work for an employer that offers both types of plans.)
I appreciate the explanation (although I'm dense in this stuff). So why would the ruling only be applicable to the benefit of the insurance company and not to the employer when they have to pay the claim. So you understand this ruling to mean that a jury is capable of calcuating an award when a PPO is involved, but is incapable of making that same determination when an HMO is involved. I'll be honest, I am confused on this. It just makes no sense.
Secretariat
06-22-2004, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Suff
My 4th amendments rights went out the window with th patriot act.
I subway to work. Police now troll the subways with dogs and they can search me and go through my bags without cause.
If I refuse, I'll be detained.
Nazi type stuff
We're losing the whole Bill of Rights daily under the argument of national security.
schweitz
06-22-2004, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Suff
My 4th amendments rights went out the window with th patriot act.
I subway to work. Police now troll the subways with dogs and they can search me and go through my bags without cause.
If I refuse, I'll be detained.
Nazi type stuff
Don't know--haven't been there---but isn't this similar to what the dogs are doing at he other area of mass transportation, the airport. If these dogs are bomb sniffing or biological agent sniffing dogs then I would have no problem with someone being searched if the dogs hit on them. Are you seeing very many searchs?
eclecticapper
06-22-2004, 05:02 PM
The distinction is based on who actually has responsibility for payment/denial of a claim. In a fully-insured HMO, the "bureaucrats" are making the decision and have ownership of the claim. In a self-insured plan, the employer (NOT the insurance company) has ownership of the claim. In self-insured plans, the employer has a legal obligation to spell out what the plan covers (in a document known as a Summary Plan Description); the insurance company administering the plan is supposed to process claims in accordance with the Summary Plan Description. With my employer, both our legal department and our compliance department stress the importance of having a detailed Summary Plan Description. With claims issues in a self-insured plan, the employer is essentially making the determination of what the plan will and will not pay for. That's why I don't think the court decision applies to those plans.
PaceAdvantage
06-22-2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Suff
My 4th amendments rights went out the window with th patriot act.
I subway to work. Police now troll the subways with dogs and they can search me and go through my bags without cause.
If I refuse, I'll be detained.
Nazi type stuff
9/11 changed many things. Perhaps the work of the police as you describe is the reason 3000 more innocent Americans haven't been murdered.
Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
9/11 changed many things. Perhaps the work of the police as you describe is the reason 3000 more innocent Americans haven't been murdered.
First of all.,... your kidding right? You honestly think the 4th amendment of the constitution should just be indiscrimately tossed by GWB's administartion?
2nd... 10's of millions of people have been Murdered by corrupt Govt's that stripped people of civil Rights. Hitler did it to the jews and he rang up 6 million all by himself.
Its called the slippery slop.
I really wonder how many people know what the constitution means... how it seperates us from any civilization past or present. The ease in which people on this board disregard it is baffling to me. Check that...STARTLING!
and i'll type the quoate again ,, because you musta mist it.
Any Man who gives up an ounce of Liberty for an ounce of protection, deserves niether
Benjamin Franklin
1776
Originally posted by Secretariat
We're losing the whole Bill of Rights daily under the argument of national security.
Well what you have them do? PROFILE people who fit the modles of almost every terrorosit in the last 50 years?
Or inconvenience hundreds of thousands of legitmate Americans on a daily basis?
PA...the reason 3000 people died in NYC on 9-11-02 is because a bunch of lazy, incompetant people working at Logan Airport failed to do their jobs, probably the way they did thier everyday while pulling down inflated salaries. One guy in FLorida did his and stopped on of the terroists. All the existing laws on 9-10-01 are enough to stop this from happening. Everything since then is wated money. The only thing we should doing differently today is not allowing non-citizens to raom our country at will. ALL visitors whould be restricted, trakced, and not allowed to go anywhere without special permission. If we profiled, the terroists would be stopped cold in America.
Our real enemy is Washington. And they have a leg up on our right now. And that may not be a coincidence of the WTC.
JustRalph
06-22-2004, 11:48 PM
I agree it is a slippery slope......... it started with DUI check points. Blantant violation of the 4th amendment. You can thank MADD for that one.
The patriot act stuff really isn't going farther than what was already there for drug dealers. The dog thing has been around for years. Suff.....the patriot act doesn't have anything specifically to do with those dogs. They could do what they are doing with the old laws. The Ohio Highway Patrol has had dogs sniffing cars as they go by the toll booth on the Turnpike. If the dog alerts, they pull the car over.
Prior to 9-11 They didn't use Bomb dogs often in public and in fact there frankly weren't many bomb dogs around. They didn't use them in subways or anywhere else unless there was a reported threat. Nowadays there are more bomb dogs out there due to the terrorists threats. The way they are employing them in the Subways etc was perfectly legal before 9-11. Don't try to make Bush look bad by complaining about the Patriot act and using the subway as an example. It was legal long before Bush was in office. You are wrong on this one Suff.
On that slippery slope comment, I wonder if you apply the same grievance to the 2nd Amendment?
PaceAdvantage
06-22-2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Suff
First of all.,... your kidding right? You honestly think the 4th amendment of the constitution should just be indiscrimately tossed by GWB's administartion?
2nd... 10's of millions of people have been Murdered by corrupt Govt's that stripped people of civil Rights. Hitler did it to the jews and he rang up 6 million all by himself.
Its called the slippery slop.
I really wonder how many people know what the constitution means... how it seperates us from any civilization past or present. The ease in which people on this board disregard it is baffling to me. Check that...STARTLING!
NOBODY is tossing aside the 4th amendment. I have YET to be inconvenienced OR had to do ANYTHING different since 9/11. Maybe that's because I haven't flown since 9/11, and I DRIVE to work everyday.
Oh yeah, they won't let me bring huge coolers into Belmont anymore, or glass bottles....
Big deal. If I lived or worked in NYC, you better believe I'd feel a lot better seeing police on the corner with their big guns and their dogs. It's called the REALITY of the current situation.
BTW, the Patriot Act DOES have a sunset clause. It's set to expire soon, is it not? I say they renew it for another couple of years, but keep the sunset clause. That is a must.
You think I WELCOME all this new security and erroding of rights? I certainly DO NOT! But I feel it is NECESSARY given the current climate out there. As a matter of fact, we're probably not doing enough, especially at our BORDERS.
The appearance of FORCE can be a very powerful deterrent.
AND LETS BE BRUTALLY HONEST HERE SUFF. The POLICE have ALWAYS PATROLLED THE SUBWAYS. Whether they do it with dogs or not isn't any different than it used to be. Does the addition of a dog errode the Constitution any more? No.
The police, prior to 9/11, could EASILY stop and search ANYONE they wanted. They would MAKE UP A GOOD REASON if they had to. How is today any different....really? The police have ALWAYS stopped whomever they wanted. Remember all the RACIAL PROFILING problems we had PRIOR to 9/11? Do you think police stopping people because of the color of their skin was lawful?
So really, has that much changed? The police will always, and HAVE always, stopped whomever they thought was worth their time STOPPING.
Suff, it bothers me that you so easily toss aside what has happened in our country. Our country was BRUTALLY ATTACKED. Blame whoever you want for not stopping the attack (if that was ever actually POSSIBLE), that ISN'T THE ISSUE ANYMORE.
Now the collective security of this country is working in a more PROACTIVE manner. This is something you and others clamor should have happned prior to 9/11 so that 9/11 was stopped before it ever happened. So what is the problem now that we are proactively working to prevent further attacks? Attacks that CONTINUE to occur all over the WORLD, BUT NOT HERE.
I say the system is working, and it is working while NOT inconveniencing a MAJORITY of the population. That's the reality of the situation, and it sits well with me at the moment.
Originally posted by JustRalph
I the subway as an example. It was legal long before Bush was in office. You are wrong on this one Suff.
On that slippery slope comment, I wonder if you apply the same grievance to the 2nd Amendment?
Of Course I do. I'm a constitutionist. I encourage all US Citizens to purchase a Gun. Rights are like Muscles. they need to be excercised to stay in shape. Even if your uncomfortable with Guns You could take it apart and keep pieces in different parts of your house.
I encourage Gun Ownership...
I watched Ted Nugents wife on C-span about a month ago.
She was going on and on defending why she owns Guns,,
I wanted to scream. WE OWE NO ONE explananation. I own a Gun Because I can. PERIOD. I don't need a reason. Its My Right.
Of course , I'm speaing rhetorically. I lost my right to bear arms in 1997.
\\
These things (no suing hmos and search and seizure based on no ID.) are part of the package. First suing hmos is bad for corporate America and secondly search and seizure is in line with the right wing goal of complete control of the populace.
Next we will all be issued identity cards with imbedded chips. Big brother will be watching you!
The hmos will be outsourcing their work so your healthcare decisions will be made by a bean counter in India. But hey look at the positive side, Saddam is an evil man and we got him! ;)
JustRalph
06-23-2004, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by ljb
First suing hmos is bad for corporate America and secondly search and seizure is in line with the right wing goal of complete control of the populace.
You are so off base here it is incredible. I would say the conservatives I know are for less control..............I know I am.
schweitz
06-23-2004, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by JustRalph
You are so off base here it is incredible. I would say the conservatives I know are for less control..............I know I am.
Ditto.
Jr and Schweitz,
You both may want to join a different group of conservatives. Look at what's happening now, with this gang running the show.
You both should consider checking into the progressive plans on the other side, they are for individual rights!
Secretariat
06-23-2004, 10:05 AM
LJB,
Yes, conservatives are supposed to be for smaller government and a balanced budget, and against deficits, and yet this adminstration has the largest federal budget ever, has the federal government telling local and state governments how to educate thier children, has the largest deficits in the history of the country, and now they want to remove as many cilvil liberties as they can. It's not what you say you stand for, but what you do that defines who you are, and these guys by their actions are for:
1. Large deficits
2. a Large Federal budget
3. An unbalanced budget
4. Restrictions on citizens personal liberties guranteed i nthe Bill of Rights
5. Federal government overruling local and state governments in matters of education and even attempting to overrule state governments in forcing discrimination
6. Defying Madison's amendment on the seperation of church and state and foisting religion into government using public taxpayer funds and funneling that taxpayer money to religious organizations
7. Functioning as the world's policemen when as JR says "it suits our interest"
8. Giving large corporations who offshore and outsource huge tax breaks.
I just don't view this as conservatism, but extremism,
PaceAdvantage
06-23-2004, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by ljb
Next we will all be issued identity cards with imbedded chips. Big brother will be watching you!
The conspiracy groups have been talking about this kind of stuff way before Bush and way before 9/11. This is nothing new.
You forgot to mention the imbedded chips in your SKIN and the references to REVELATIONS in the Bible. Mark of the beast and all that, remember?
From PA
The conspiracy groups have been talking about this kind of stuff way before Bush and way before 9/11. This is nothing new.
I didn't say it was new, I said it appears to be coming true.
Sec,
I find it hard to believe these rightys on board are still following their leader. He is, in fact defying all their previous teachings and beliefs.
But then "Saddam is an evil man and we got him"
JustRalph
06-23-2004, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Secretariat
1. Large deficits
2. a Large Federal budget
3. An unbalanced budget
4. Restrictions on citizens personal liberties guranteed i nthe Bill of Rights
5. Federal government overruling local and state governments in matters of education and even attempting to overrule state governments in forcing discrimination
6. Defying Madison's amendment on the seperation of church and state and foisting religion into government using public taxpayer funds and funneling that taxpayer money to religious organizations
7. Functioning as the world's policemen when as JR says "it suits our interest"
8. Giving large corporations who offshore and outsource huge tax breaks.
I won't disagree with all of these.........a few of them fall under "pissing off your base" and he has done it. But some of your points are pure dung........ I won't get into debating these with you..........I have a business to run. You would out link me anyway.........
Originally posted by ljb
Tng hmos is bad for corporate America and secondly search and seizure is in line with the right wing goal of complete control of the populace.
;)
Absolutely it is the Republicans that are the "rule" makers. Republicansd have a penchant for "Morality"... They love to legislate it. Far and away the democrats are the social and legal liberals.
Every Law Bush makes lately deals with Behavior that the Radical Religous right deems unsuitable.
Bush only signs bill into law that have passed both houses. Blame the congress for passing them, not Bush for signing them.
And of course we all know how much Bush and the Republican congress disagree. Is veto still an option? Tom you are only fooling yourself if you believe Bush is being led astray by congress. But then on the other hand Bush has been fooled by many others in the last three years, (Chalabi comes to mind) maybe you are right?
Originally posted by ljb
And of course we all know how much Bush and the Republican congress disagree. Is veto still an option? Tom you are only fooling yourself if you believe Bush is being led astray by congress. But then on the other hand Bush has been fooled by many others in the last three years, (Chalabi comes to mind) maybe you are right?
Threre he goes again. Where did I say he was led astray. I merely pointed out a fact, the president doesn't pass laws, only signs them, and you dispute it. Thank you for your consistency. Your aversion to the truth is so predicatable.
JustRalph
06-23-2004, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by Suff
Every Law Bush makes lately deals with Behavior that the Radical Religous right deems unsuitable.
suff, I gotta call you on this. give me some examples will ya?
Tom,
If you believe Bush has no voice/control over the laws passed by congress, I have some wmds in Iraq I would like to sell you.
Secretariat
06-24-2004, 11:56 AM
Heres' the latest Supreme Court masterpeice:
Cheyney gets his way. Big surprise. The people again are denied the right to know.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20040624/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_cheney
Sec,
This fits right in with their goal of total control. Watch your back the rightys are coming to get you.
;)
Originally posted by ljb
Sec,
This fits right in with their goal of total control. Watch your back the rightys are coming to get you.
;)
Not until December 3rd, 2004.
That's was the date from our last meeting.
You are safe until then.
:eek:
JustRalph
06-24-2004, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Secretariat
Heres' the latest Supreme Court masterpeice:
Cheyney gets his way. Big surprise. The people again are denied the right to know.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20040624/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_cheney
I bet you weren't whining when Clinton and Hillary invoked "Executive Privilege" a Gazillion times. This is along the same lines.
Originally posted by Secretariat
Heres' the latest Supreme Court masterpeice:
Cheyney gets his way. Big surprise. The people again are denied the right to know.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20040624/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_cheney
The travesty of justice is not the decision, but the fact that Chenny's close friend did not recuse himself. That is indefensible.
Originally posted by JustRalph
suff, I gotta call you on this. give me some examples will ya?
1. He Institiuted new FDA rules that Lesbians and/or gays cannot Donate Blood or tissue.
2. He instituted New FCC rules that restricted Free Speech
3. He instituted new FBI rules that allow for "Sneak & Peaks" against anyione the suspect is behaving inproperly
4. He instituted new NSA rules that require Librarys to report who and whaT BOOKS THEY ARE READING
5. He is requiring Criminals to recieve "Faith based" counseling as a precondidtion of release
6. he's implemneted new laws that viloate my ist, 4th anf fifth amendent rights.
7. He's supporting a Constitutional Amendment to exclude certain groups based soley on thier conduct
Originally posted by JustRalph
I . This is along the same lines.
It either IS or it IS'NT
He could claim Exuctive Priv. But he has not because that will make the entire Energy Plan Off Limits.
Don't you want to know who "crafted" the plan and if the people that wrote the laws will directly profit from it?
That is a reasonable request and our Govt is (or was) set up in such a way that we have the right to know...
He's stonewalling....
Secretariat
06-24-2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by JustRalph
I bet you weren't whining when Clinton and Hillary invoked "Executive Privilege" a Gazillion times. This is along the same lines.
Actually Ralph I have severe reservations about the growing power of the executive branch and i don't know how many times I have to say it I voted for Dole in 96, but Clinton in 92.
I am against the abuse of exectiuve power including executive privilege AND the abuse of the executive order which is nowhere i nthe constitution. I remember Nixon, and had enough of that secrecy nonsense. I thought we were done with that, but it is just as bad as it ever was.
Aside from national security matters, and damn few of those, the governemtn has no right to secrecacy. WE are the government, and WE have absolute right to know everythin gthat goes on, every dirtly littel deal, every penny from every lobbyist, every skeleton inevery closet. Those who serve serve at the pleasure of US. And if the want privacy an have secrets, they have no plac ein governement. We hav eto take back the governement from the traitors that have stolen it from us. The only way to do that is to vote out every single incumbent, every singe time. No exceptions. Give them no time to form alliances, to get entrenches, to learn the system. A guy elected to a 2 year term, or a four year term, or a six year term has no time to learn the ropes-he is there to fullfill his campaign lies, er promises andnoting more, and them make room for the next guy wheh he is done. It should not be out of the ordinalry that PA's board should hve at least a few congressional candidates on the role every year. It is our level of people that will maek the difference.
Except Ljb, of course:D (k-i-d-d-i-n-g)
Secretariat
06-24-2004, 09:34 PM
Well said tom..whatever party you are...Our country doesn't need the secrecy of Nixon, or Reagan, or Clinton or Bozo...This is supposed to be a government by the people for the people, not for an aristocracy...but unfortunately, America is now controlled by the wealthy, more than it ever has I fear...[and I belevie this is applicable to both parties]
JustRalph
06-24-2004, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Suff
1. He Institiuted new FDA rules that Lesbians and/or gays cannot Donate Blood or tissue.
I have No problem with this one, see the link: http://health.discovery.com/news/healthscout/article.jsp?aid=519302&tid=16
2. He instituted New FCC rules that restricted Free Speech
I disagree that some of this crap is free speech, most of it is talentless speech, but lack of talent is not against the law. I am against all the crap the FCC has done lately. But this action has been called for by goups for years. You can blame Janet for this crap. She pushed things over the edge. Personally I am in favor of just turning the dial.
3. He instituted new FBI rules that allow for "Sneak & Peaks" against anyione the suspect is behaving inproperly
Disagree. Most of the stuff that is being done was already there and it was only being applied against drug dealers. When it is apparent that it is being mis-used, I am for pulling the P. Act back. Until then........most of it is warranted.
4. He instituted new NSA rules that require Librarys to report who and whaT BOOKS THEY ARE READING
I heard about this crap, but if I remember right the courts are throwing it out all over the place, and libraries are built and run with public funds. They can be regulated by the Feds...and that has been upheld several times. See prior Highway funds cases. I never said I agree with everything he does, but he is better than Kerry. This is not a deal breaker with me.
5. He is requiring Criminals to recieve "Faith based" counseling as a precondidtion of release
show me? Most Criminals are in State facilities and many of them already require this at the state level. I don't think Bush pushed this, but if he did.......I don't care. And remember, I am an aetheist. I can tell you that you can't get parole in some states unless you see the head doctor and the priest , rabbi, etc, and it has been this way a long time.
6. he's implemneted new laws that viloate my ist, 4th anf fifth amendent rights.
go back to my previous response..#3 .and please explain how your 5th adm. rights are compromised?
7. He's supporting a Constitutional Amendment to exclude certain groups based soley on thier conduct
I agree with the Pres. a marriage is a man and a women. I won't quibble with your wording, but we exclude people all the time for their conduct.
Point by point, we can agree to disagree on some of this.
From j
I bet you weren't whining when Clinton and Hillary invoked "Executive Privilege" a Gazillion times. This is along the same lines.
If I remember correctly Clinton and Hillary were being attacked for personal matters/actions. These activities hardly compare with a national energy policy which, will have an affect of all of us. Now if Cheney wanted to hide something about how he treats his lesbian daughter I would say he has the right to do so, that is a personal activity.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.