Page 40 of 46 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 459

Thread: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

  1. #391
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Stop right there.

    No, they don't all get treated, or treated well.
    So you're claiming that some hospitals will refuse to treat an emergency case, and some hospitals may treat the person but consciously not provide adequate care. I'm sure it's happened before but again, it's the vast minority meaning, I would say this happens in 1% or less times and if it does happen, it may occur because the person in question is not sick but may be trying to game the system, may be a drug addict shopping for an emergency doc to give him/her perscription pain killers, or may be mentally unstable --- there are reasons to deny treatment in which there is a question about legitimacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    But the larger point is this - we simply can't keep up such a system. It's incredibly inefficient. It hikes up costs, even for those who do have insurance. It encourages dumping those who are high-risk. One way or the other, it had to change (and still needs to).
    Well that's true, and my argument has been and will continue to be the more government is involved and adds layers of bureaucracy into it, and with good intentions (I assume that btw) try to make the system better they apparently (As we see with Obama Care) make it worse and not just a little worse, a LOT worse. To the point where if nothing is done, health care will literally bury the entire country in 30-40 years.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  2. #392
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Paying 20% - 30% more for private insurance may be irrelevant to you does not make it irrelevant to the majority who pay for health insurance.
    You're 3 for 3 on irrelevant... want to continue and go for 4 for 4 or more?
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  3. #393
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,580

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    So you're claiming that some hospitals will refuse to treat an emergency case, and some hospitals may treat the person but consciously not provide adequate care. I'm sure it's happened before but again, it's the vast minority meaning, I would say this happens in 1% or less times and if it does happen, it may occur because the person in question is not sick but may be trying to game the system, may be a drug addict shopping for an emergency doc to give him/her perscription pain killers, or may be mentally unstable --- there are reasons to deny treatment in which there is a question about legitimacy.

    Well that's true, and my argument has been and will continue to be the more government is involved and adds layers of bureaucracy into it, and with good intentions (I assume that btw) try to make the system better they apparently (As we see with Obama Care) make it worse and not just a little worse, a LOT worse. To the point where if nothing is done, health care will literally bury the entire country in 30-40 years.
    Our current health care system will bury us a lot sooner than that.

    I agree that "Obamacare" isn't going to solve the problem of increased costs, but with or without that plan, health care costs are already burying us.

    Consider this, just round figures: The federal government accounts for abour 21% of the GDP, while health care accounts for 17%. Both of those figures are growing.

    It would be tempting to say that government accounts for a little more than health care, but that would be misleading. Medicare/Medicaid/VA accounts for around 9%, and that is government spending, included in the 21% above. Take that out, and you can see that, aside from health cre spending, the federal government, everything from corporate welfare to wars to Social Security, accounts for about 12% of the GDP, 5% less than health care.

    In other words, health care costs significantly more than the federal government.

    It is unsustainable.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  4. #394
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,961
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Can someone explain to me how this thread went from the NDAA 2012 to talking about healthcare?
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  5. #395
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,580

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    Can someone explain to me how this thread went from the NDAA 2012 to talking about healthcare?
    Thread hijackers. Turn this thread around and fly it to healthcare, or we'll blow up our underwear bombs!
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  6. #396
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    You are under the impression that the Manhattan Project was run by Wal-Mart?
    Progressive Liberals like Catawba usually don't identify Nukes as an achievement, which is why it's funny. See there was this whole 1960's demonstration movement that went on until oh... the early 90's and still has a small following that protests "No Nukes". It was pretty famous so you may have heard about it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    Oh, I got your claim, but you are unable to prove it. Your cites are examples of programs that worked fine for decades, but have come under fire lately for problems related to the 2008 Economic Crash or simple progress combined with Congressional malfeasance (the Postal System).
    Flawed from the beginning more like it - Amtrak has a 40 year history of losing money. The postal service as well... the proof is in the amount of money, economic ruin and inefficiency which continues to this day. It was broken, it continues to be broken. The proof is historical fact - settled history. Are you seriously going to claim the Postal Service works just fine and dandy? Amtrak? Federal Educational system?

    If so, I have a bridge to sell you because you look like you really could use a bridge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    That Obamacare is not even really implemented yet shows the desperate nature of your argument (claiming that something has failed before it has even fully begun).
    See previous posts - Obama Care is signed law. The projections are out. Fact is it costs the system more and as the liberals on MSNBC's Morning Joe even pointed out, unless it's changed, it will bankrupt the entire country. That's their view... my view is, it's Un-Constitutional to begin with due to the mandate so when that's pulled out of the law, Obama Care collapses in on itself and implodes and we're back to square one again. Some victory eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    Infrastructure problems are an issue of recent neglect (in favor of exotic weapon systems, Republican tax cuts, and overseas wars) -- not of any failure in concept or implementation.
    Concept no... implementation yes. Ever hear the joke: "How many Dept. of Highway guys does it take to fill a pot hole?" Answer: Twelve. Ten to sit around and talk, one to supervise, and one to fill the pot hole. Labor unions! Huzzah!


    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    Yet you claimed the military was the bright shiny nugget of governmental stewardship. Nope, I'm not the one feeling foolish....
    Really? See there's a thing call "Search" where you can find me calling the military a bright shiny nugget of government stewardship.... so please, go find it and post it up. When you don't come back with it, you'll just be consistent in my and everyone else's disappointment. :
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  7. #397
    Guru
    Mustachio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,587

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    There are two things that stand out to me about the news regarding the NDAA's passage. First, the sudden change of heart from both sides on the issue of indefinite military detention (abroad or on US soil for illegal aliens suspected of terrorist activities). Why can't we all just agree that Guantanamo should be closed as soon as possible and we should create a policy to ensure that anybody we detain abroad will be transported here or elsewhere and ensured a fair trial and the certainty of facing extended jail time if found guilty? Doesn't that seem pretty logical?

    But the second thing that gets me, maybe even more, is how horrible the new media is at spreading information. There are so many websites and forums out there pushing the NDAA as a bill that says the military can detain US citizens indefinitely on our own soil. But it clearly does not say that. I find it enraging that people read these articles from sources with absolutely no credibility, make no attempt to check the facts or read the bill for themselves, and go around screaming about what they mistakenly believe to be the truth. I'm against the indefinite detention of anybody without some kind of due process, but I'm not going to go around arguing that a section of this bill says the police can detain an American citizen indefinitely when it actually says the military can detain terrorism suspects only if they're illegal aliens or we capture them abroad AND aren't US citizens.

    Please, people (and very few people on this forum are the intended target of this statement) check sources, read bills, stop letting people tell you what to think.
    A working class hero is something to be

  8. #398
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,580

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    There are two things that stand out to me about the news regarding the NDAA's passage. First, the sudden change of heart from both sides on the issue of indefinite military detention (abroad or on US soil for illegal aliens suspected of terrorist activities). Why can't we all just agree that Guantanamo should be closed as soon as possible and we should create a policy to ensure that anybody we detain abroad will be transported here or elsewhere and ensured a fair trial and the certainty of facing extended jail time if found guilty? Doesn't that seem pretty logical?

    But the second thing that gets me, maybe even more, is how horrible the new media is at spreading information. There are so many websites and forums out there pushing the NDAA as a bill that says the military can detain US citizens indefinitely on our own soil. But it clearly does not say that. I find it enraging that people read these articles from sources with absolutely no credibility, make no attempt to check the facts or read the bill for themselves, and go around screaming about what they mistakenly believe to be the truth. I'm against the indefinite detention of anybody without some kind of due process, but I'm not going to go around arguing that a section of this bill says the police can detain an American citizen indefinitely when it actually says the military can detain terrorism suspects only if they're illegal aliens or we capture them abroad AND aren't US citizens.

    Please, people (and very few people on this forum are the intended target of this statement) check sources, read bills, stop letting people tell you what to think.
    The wording in the final bill, after much quibbling, is as follows:

    All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces. The law affords the the option to have U.S. citizens detained by the armed forces but this requirement does not extend to them, as with foreign persons. Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States."
    So, can they or can they not detain US citizens on US soil?

    And, even if it has to be outside of the country, where does that leave trial by jury?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  9. #399
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    The wording in the final bill, after much quibbling, is as follows: [....]
    That is not the wording in the final bill. It appears to be someone's opinion, which is quite incorrect on two counts:

    Section 1021 (1031) does not including any "requirement" for military custody.

    Section 1021 (1031) subsection (e) exempts U.S. citizens (at least as far as this particular bill is concerned).

    H.R.1540.ENR
    H.R.1540 -- National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)
    SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

    • (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.


    • (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:



      • (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.




      • (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.



    • (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:



      • (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.




      • (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).




      • (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.




      • (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.



    • (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.


    • (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.


    • (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

    Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

  10. #400
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

    It appears this will have to be defeated through Congress as all the viable candidates for president support the Patriot Act.

    Here was the support in Congress to end the Patriot Act as of May of last year. Anyone know of a more recent status update of Congressional opposition?

    "The 13 Democrats who voted to halt reauthorization of the Patriot Act
    Senator Max Baucus
    Senator Mark Begich
    Senator Jeff Bingaman
    Senator Sherrod Brown
    Senator Maria Cantwell
    Senator Benjamin Cardin
    Senator Patrick Leahy
    Senator Jeff Merkley
    Senator Jeanne Shaheen
    Senator Jon Tester
    Senator Mark Udall
    Senator Tom Udall
    Senator Ron Wyden

    The 4 Republicans who voted to halt reauthorization of the Patriot Act
    Senator Dean Heller
    Senator Mike Lee
    Senator Lisa Murkowski
    Senator Rand Paul

    And props also go out to the 1 Independent voting against the Patriot Act, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont."

    (Source: Roll Call 081 in the U.S. Senate, May 26 2011 at 10:00 AM)

    13 Democrats, 4 Republicans and 1 Independent Vote to Stop Patriot Act Reauthorization | Irregular Times
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Page 40 of 46 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •