USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
- Thread starter unofan
- Start date
- Status
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Are such opportunities available?
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Think of all the people in possession of child pornography that could be caught if only police were allowed to randomly bust down peoples' doors in the middle of the night. Why won't we just think of the children?!
Think of all the people in possession of child pornography that could be caught if only police were allowed to randomly bust down peoples' doors in the middle of the night. Why won't we just think of the children?!
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
if you include the true value of fringe benefits, most government employees are closer to the 1% than the 99%.......
Let's try this instead:
One party feeds trial lawyers, "green" companies, and Wall Street bankers (who have benefited more than any other group the past six years...)
One party feeds military contractors and large corporations.
Neither party gives a flying f&ck about the 99% except when they trot out their hypocritical pieties every election cycle.
We have two different parties each engaged in their own form of corporate welfare.
What is so bizarre is how you turn this into "sides" and imagine somehow you are on one "side" in glorious defense against the scurrilous other "side." Neither party cares about you in the slightest.
Some of us don't trust government at all, no matter which party runs it. That seems beyond the comprehension of most left-wing folks today. You seem to think that if we don't trust government, we somehow "must" support Republicans. Why would we do that? They can't be trusted either.
if you include the true value of fringe benefits, most government employees are closer to the 1% than the 99%.......
Let's try this instead:
One party feeds trial lawyers, "green" companies, and Wall Street bankers (who have benefited more than any other group the past six years...)
One party feeds military contractors and large corporations.
Neither party gives a flying f&ck about the 99% except when they trot out their hypocritical pieties every election cycle.
We have two different parties each engaged in their own form of corporate welfare.
What is so bizarre is how you turn this into "sides" and imagine somehow you are on one "side" in glorious defense against the scurrilous other "side." Neither party cares about you in the slightest.
Some of us don't trust government at all, no matter which party runs it. That seems beyond the comprehension of most left-wing folks today. You seem to think that if we don't trust government, we somehow "must" support Republicans. Why would we do that? They can't be trusted either.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
This would have more meaning if you didn't reflexively display your man-love of George W Bush every chance you get!
This would have more meaning if you didn't reflexively display your man-love of George W Bush every chance you get!
unofan
Well-known member
Do you know how easy it is to get a warrant?
Don't blame privacy, blame the ***** idiot and/or lazy cops.
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
In some places, yes. The main problem with IUDs in this country is the cost of the device. I have heard anywhere from $500-1000 for the device alone, depending on the market. It is actually cheaper, in the long run, than oral contraceptives because of the 5-10 year life span, depending on the device. Many insurance plans will cover an IUD. Unfortunately, those who would benefit greatly from it (uninsured and those on public assistance) often have to pay a lot, up front, out of pocket. According some of the OB/GYNs I worked with who cover at Planned Parenthood, PP was allotted a number of IUDs that they could dispense in any given time period. Those were prioritized to those who were taking medications that could severely harm a fetus. There were far more women seeking safe, long term, effective and reversible contraception than IUDs available. These women were more likely to be put on OCPs, which have greater side effects, are less effective and are directly reliant on patient compliance (which is depressingly low, in all fields of medicine, for many varied reasons).
I rotated through an urban hospital for OB/GYN and that was the greatest limitation for a patient's access. They ran a resident clinic where the cost to place an IUD was next to nothing (the residents and students all were eager), we just did not have the funding for the actual device. After you see several women having their second or third unexpected child who want effective birth control but lack access, money, or even the education/social structure to be compliant with OCPs (which are difficult to be compliant with for people of all backgrounds), you really start to realize the tremendous upside IUDs.
Sorry for all of the in a legal thread. It just interests me that the legal definition of many things (like IUDs as abortifacients per Hobby Lobby) is in direct conflict with medical knowledge of both a physiologic mechanism and how things are used in practice.
In some places, yes. The main problem with IUDs in this country is the cost of the device. I have heard anywhere from $500-1000 for the device alone, depending on the market. It is actually cheaper, in the long run, than oral contraceptives because of the 5-10 year life span, depending on the device. Many insurance plans will cover an IUD. Unfortunately, those who would benefit greatly from it (uninsured and those on public assistance) often have to pay a lot, up front, out of pocket. According some of the OB/GYNs I worked with who cover at Planned Parenthood, PP was allotted a number of IUDs that they could dispense in any given time period. Those were prioritized to those who were taking medications that could severely harm a fetus. There were far more women seeking safe, long term, effective and reversible contraception than IUDs available. These women were more likely to be put on OCPs, which have greater side effects, are less effective and are directly reliant on patient compliance (which is depressingly low, in all fields of medicine, for many varied reasons).
I rotated through an urban hospital for OB/GYN and that was the greatest limitation for a patient's access. They ran a resident clinic where the cost to place an IUD was next to nothing (the residents and students all were eager), we just did not have the funding for the actual device. After you see several women having their second or third unexpected child who want effective birth control but lack access, money, or even the education/social structure to be compliant with OCPs (which are difficult to be compliant with for people of all backgrounds), you really start to realize the tremendous upside IUDs.
Sorry for all of the in a legal thread. It just interests me that the legal definition of many things (like IUDs as abortifacients per Hobby Lobby) is in direct conflict with medical knowledge of both a physiologic mechanism and how things are used in practice.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
It is beyond comprehension. If you don't trust government AT ALL, then you don't support democratic institutions. What's left? Rule by the strongest and the wealthiest, by intimidation and force.
That's what government is. It's obvious why the richest and the strongest hate all government -- they want to be free of constraint. How dare those peasants get together and make laws abridging their sacred independence!!! But they're not hypocrites, oh no. They believe everyone, rich or poor, should have an infinite right to use their personal wealth to do whatever they want.
Government is just a tool, and like any tool it has appropriate and inappropriate uses. If you think there should be a law against using hammers on people's heads, you're right. If you think hammers are intrinsically evil, you're just an idiot.
It is beyond comprehension. If you don't trust government AT ALL, then you don't support democratic institutions. What's left? Rule by the strongest and the wealthiest, by intimidation and force.
That's what government is. It's obvious why the richest and the strongest hate all government -- they want to be free of constraint. How dare those peasants get together and make laws abridging their sacred independence!!! But they're not hypocrites, oh no. They believe everyone, rich or poor, should have an infinite right to use their personal wealth to do whatever they want.
Government is just a tool, and like any tool it has appropriate and inappropriate uses. If you think there should be a law against using hammers on people's heads, you're right. If you think hammers are intrinsically evil, you're just an idiot.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
At least, I really hope that a judge wouldn't grant a request for a warrant that read, "we want to search this guy's phone for child pornography because we have probable cause to believe he was driving drunk."
True, but not really relevant, since had they gotten a warrant in this case, it would have been to search his phone for evidence of where he had been drinking. Any child pornography they found during that search should be just as inadmissible as if they'd not gotten a warrant at all. Requiring a warrant DOES prevent the police from charging this creep - properly, in my opinion.
At least, I really hope that a judge wouldn't grant a request for a warrant that read, "we want to search this guy's phone for child pornography because we have probable cause to believe he was driving drunk."
unofan
Well-known member
They get a warrant to search the phone for pictures of where he was drinking, and happen to see the child porn, i'd say that's admissible.
Obviously depends what they're seeking, but if they get a warrant to search my house for drugs and find an illegal gun, that would still be admissible as long as the gun was in as place that the drugs could have been.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Perhaps, but I think the courts will have to rule on that again (and again and again). The parameters of a physical search don't translate all that well to a digital one - it doesn't seem right that a warrant to search a phone for any thing gives them the right to look at every thing, which would certainly be the case if your "could have been stored there" standard becomes the law.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
You just contradicted yourself. Government has been taken over by the richest and strongest. They don't "hate" it, they find it useful cover.
The whole idea behind separation of powers and checks and balances as institutional imperatives derives from this concern: anyone who has power over others cannot be trusted with it. Any person's, or group's, power, must be constrained. that was the genius of our Founders.
You have a deluded notion that if people run government then they will act well while if those very same people run a business they will not act well. That makes no sense. There is nothing intrinsically sacred about government compared to any other institution.
I can distrust a liar and still do business with him / her because I can build safeguards into my dealings with that person. I can completely distrust government and still grudgingly submit to one as long as we include adequate safeguards.
Your secular religion seems to blind you from that same fallacy you criticize so easily in others. Generally, people in power are not benevolent. they are not necessarily malevolent either. It is human nature to use power for one's own purposes, not the public good. That's just life. We deal with it in a clear-headed manner. To pretend otherwise is just naive.
You just contradicted yourself. Government has been taken over by the richest and strongest. They don't "hate" it, they find it useful cover.
The whole idea behind separation of powers and checks and balances as institutional imperatives derives from this concern: anyone who has power over others cannot be trusted with it. Any person's, or group's, power, must be constrained. that was the genius of our Founders.
You have a deluded notion that if people run government then they will act well while if those very same people run a business they will not act well. That makes no sense. There is nothing intrinsically sacred about government compared to any other institution.
I can distrust a liar and still do business with him / her because I can build safeguards into my dealings with that person. I can completely distrust government and still grudgingly submit to one as long as we include adequate safeguards.
Your secular religion seems to blind you from that same fallacy you criticize so easily in others. Generally, people in power are not benevolent. they are not necessarily malevolent either. It is human nature to use power for one's own purposes, not the public good. That's just life. We deal with it in a clear-headed manner. To pretend otherwise is just naive.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
It's the worst system except for all the others. All we can do is keep pruning the weeds back.
Your example invalidates your premise. The entire point of a well-designed government is to lock those forces into endless conflict with each other, so that freedom is preserved whether angels or demons are in charge. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay would like several thousand words with you.
The naivete resides in those who believe that removing barriers to the powerful promotes liberty. The exact opposite is true: the solution to a government overrun by privilege is to aggressively curb the influence of privilege, not disband government. You can die of a heart attack, but the solution is to adopt practices that lead to a healthy heart, not rip your heart from your chest and drop dead triumphant in the knowledge that now you have no risk of cardiovascular disease.
It's the worst system except for all the others. All we can do is keep pruning the weeds back.
Your example invalidates your premise. The entire point of a well-designed government is to lock those forces into endless conflict with each other, so that freedom is preserved whether angels or demons are in charge. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay would like several thousand words with you.
The naivete resides in those who believe that removing barriers to the powerful promotes liberty. The exact opposite is true: the solution to a government overrun by privilege is to aggressively curb the influence of privilege, not disband government. You can die of a heart attack, but the solution is to adopt practices that lead to a healthy heart, not rip your heart from your chest and drop dead triumphant in the knowledge that now you have no risk of cardiovascular disease.
ericredaxe
Veteran
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
FF seems a lot smarter to me than that. In all honesty he seems like he wants to understand things but he's just been exposed to a narrow viewpoint until now. There are definitely people who will stonewall any facts or views that are dissonant with their worldview, but he doesn't seem like one of them. He's caustic, but then again so am I.
FF seems a lot smarter to me than that. In all honesty he seems like he wants to understand things but he's just been exposed to a narrow viewpoint until now. There are definitely people who will stonewall any facts or views that are dissonant with their worldview, but he doesn't seem like one of them. He's caustic, but then again so am I.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Fishy's a BS artist, but I won't hold that against him. He has the same problem all talk show host issue driven righties have, which is conservatism has no practical application in the real world. Mitt Romney doesn't need more tax cuts. Repealing the ACA with no replacement costs millions of people their insurance. Bringing peace to Iraq means another trillion dollars and 5,000 more US troop deaths. None of these counter points gets brought up listening to right wing media, but I can't tell you how many knucks' look at me like a stuffed deer when I bring up something like "If Obama personally ordered the IRS to investigate Tea Party groups, why in God's name don't the House Republicans offer Lois Lerner complete immunity in exchange for her testimony". You can tell by their stunned silence that they're thinking "sh ! t, Rush didn't cover that on his program this week...." 
FF seems a lot smarter to me than that. In all honesty he seems like he wants to understand things but he's just been exposed to a narrow viewpoint until now. There are definitely people who will stonewall any facts or views that are dissonant with their worldview, but he doesn't seem like one of them. He's caustic, but then again so am I.
Fishy's a BS artist, but I won't hold that against him.
He has the same problem all talk show host issue driven righties have, which is conservatism has no practical application in the real world. Mitt Romney doesn't need more tax cuts. Repealing the ACA with no replacement costs millions of people their insurance. Bringing peace to Iraq means another trillion dollars and 5,000 more US troop deaths. None of these counter points gets brought up listening to right wing media, but I can't tell you how many knucks' look at me like a stuffed deer when I bring up something like "If Obama personally ordered the IRS to investigate Tea Party groups, why in God's name don't the House Republicans offer Lois Lerner complete immunity in exchange for her testimony". You can tell by their stunned silence that they're thinking "sh ! t, Rush didn't cover that on his program this week...."
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
The stuff the Echo Chamber peddles isn't conservatism, it's the crackpot conspiracies of the John Birch Society circa 1965. There are plenty of intellectual conservatives out there trying to thread the needle between modern reality and the conservation of traditional institutions and values, but there are exactly ZERO of these in the GOP or their media water carriers. "Conservatism" as dutifully regurgitated on forums and Sunday morning panels is just a mugs' game to keep the rubes angry, buying coffee table books, and filling PAC coffers to protect the Walmart heirs from paying the taxes that would defray the future debt burden of... the mugs. That's what Ailes & Co. set it all up for two decades ago -- it's just a machine to keep the money pouring in.
I think guys like Bob have figured it out and are horrified but see nowhere else to go because they think the opposition is even worse, while guys like FF haven't figured it out yet but when they do, baby, a hard rain's gonna fall on the right.
The TP is, in its own tenebrous, Cyclopean, and otherwise Lovecraftian-adjectival way, a very early awakening on the right that their enemy is within and the call is coming from inside the House. For whatever reason they were easily co-opted by the very corporate cons they originally wanted to smash. The TPers originally wanted to stop TARP, while the folks astro-turfing what's left of the TP now have their blood funnels jammed so deep into crony capitalism they come reddish-golden parachutes.
Of course, the next rightward populist lurch might be way, way more obscene and dangerous than the Palin/Bachmann clown car. That's why it would be nice if thinking conservatives actually stood up and started to be counted now, before it gets more chaotic.
The stuff the Echo Chamber peddles isn't conservatism, it's the crackpot conspiracies of the John Birch Society circa 1965. There are plenty of intellectual conservatives out there trying to thread the needle between modern reality and the conservation of traditional institutions and values, but there are exactly ZERO of these in the GOP or their media water carriers. "Conservatism" as dutifully regurgitated on forums and Sunday morning panels is just a mugs' game to keep the rubes angry, buying coffee table books, and filling PAC coffers to protect the Walmart heirs from paying the taxes that would defray the future debt burden of... the mugs. That's what Ailes & Co. set it all up for two decades ago -- it's just a machine to keep the money pouring in.
I think guys like Bob have figured it out and are horrified but see nowhere else to go because they think the opposition is even worse, while guys like FF haven't figured it out yet but when they do, baby, a hard rain's gonna fall on the right.
The TP is, in its own tenebrous, Cyclopean, and otherwise Lovecraftian-adjectival way, a very early awakening on the right that their enemy is within and the call is coming from inside the House. For whatever reason they were easily co-opted by the very corporate cons they originally wanted to smash. The TPers originally wanted to stop TARP, while the folks astro-turfing what's left of the TP now have their blood funnels jammed so deep into crony capitalism they come reddish-golden parachutes.
Of course, the next rightward populist lurch might be way, way more obscene and dangerous than the Palin/Bachmann clown car. That's why it would be nice if thinking conservatives actually stood up and started to be counted now, before it gets more chaotic.
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
FF seems a lot smarter to me than that. In all honesty he seems like he wants to understand things but he's just been exposed to a narrow viewpoint until now. There are definitely people who will stonewall any facts or views that are dissonant with their worldview, but he doesn't seem like one of them. He's caustic, but then again so am I.
That's because you haven't been around lately, seeing him claim to be an independent for 6 years while posting nothing but articles from the Murdoch empire, primarily the WSJ and NY Post.
It's quite the shtick, up there with joecct's I'm just asking questions routine.
- Status