• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

Ockham said:
Thanks for that irrelevant bit of information.
Click to expand...

It may be irrelevant to you. It is not to those that find private health insurance unaffordable.


The exception and not the rule. Thanks for proving my insight correct.
Click to expand...

"In 45 states across the country, insurance companies can discriminate against people based on their pre-existing conditions when they try to purchase health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual insurance market.

45 states out of 50 is the exception not the rule according to your math?
 
Karl said:
Gov't accomplishments:

1. Hoover Dam (among others).

2. Created U.S. postal system (despite recent troubles, it has been quite an accomplishment for many decades).

3. Harnessed Mississippi and Ohio rivers for navigation.

4. Created atomic bomb.

5. Created interstate highway system.

6. Put a man on the moon.

7. Created internet.

8. Put remote control rovers on Mars.

And that's just off the top of my head. Now don't you feel foolish parroting that moronic right wing talking point?
Click to expand...

Hardly... the atomic bomb? Really?? :lamo

You don't seem to get it... when the Government steps in and manages something - it's a failure.

1. Postal System
2. Amtrak
3. Obama Care (see previous post) which will eventually bankrupt the country
4. The entire K-12 U.S. Educational system
5. Energy Grid
6. Roads and Bridges which were created but cannot be repaired
7. Medicare overspending for drugs
8. Freddie and Fannie

And since you'd like to go all the way back to the Hoover Dam, let's throw in

9. Vietnam
10. Bay of Pigs
11. The Military Industrial Complex
12. U.S. Federal Reserve (including QE1 and QE2)
13. The INS

Now don't you feel foolish parroting moronic liberal talking points from MSNBC?
 
misterman said:
Already done on this thread. But it's not really a provable/disprovable point, just a bit of lame, unsupported, way overstated rightwing hyperbole. Like most rightwing hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Ahh with the invisible facts... yes... I'll make squint harder next time I want to flush my time down the toilet talking to you. Since you got nothing except foolish claims of my hyperbole when at the exact same time blathering only hyperbole of your own; the hypocrisy and irony is almost ludicrous. Do you even see what you did?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why not just let anyone who wants to buy into Medicare?

Why not allow employers to put their employees on Medicare?

I'll tell you why we don't: The insurance lobby would never allow it, that's why.
Click to expand...

But I'm quite sure they would allow those with pre-existing conditions. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing their best to drop them like hot potatoes.
 
Ockham said:
It's irrelevant to this discussion.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kal'Stang said:
But I'm quite sure they would allow those with pre-existing conditions. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing their best to drop them like hot potatoes.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they would, just as they're willing to allow seniors to opt into Medicare and out of the private sector. Let's give all of the most expensive demographic to the government. That will improve the bottom line.

We should all be on Medicare, or at least have that option.
 
Catawba said:
Yeah, I knew 30 years of tax cuts to the rich and unfunded wars were going to come back to bite us. What does that have to do with SS? SS has not added a single dime to our debt.
Click to expand...

Like another, what a waste of time to try and discuss anything with you.
 
1Perry said:
Like another, what a waste of time to try and discuss anything with you.
Click to expand...

You tell me what debt SS has created, if you can?
 
Ockham said:
Hardly... the atomic bomb? Really?? :lamo
Click to expand...
You are under the impression that the Manhattan Project was run by Wal-Mart?
confuse.gif



Ockham said:
You don't seem to get it... when the Government steps in and manages something - it's a failure.

1. Postal System
2. Amtrak
3. Obama Care (see previous post) which will eventually bankrupt the country
4. The entire K-12 U.S. Educational system
5. Energy Grid
6. Roads and Bridges which were created but cannot be repaired
7. Medicare overspending for drugs
8. Freddie and Fannie
Click to expand...
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).

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).

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.

Ockham said:
And since you'd like to go all the way back to the Hoover Dam, let's throw in

9. Vietnam
10. Bay of Pigs
11. The Military Industrial Complex
12. U.S. Federal Reserve (including QE1 and QE2)
13. The INS

Now don't you feel foolish parroting moronic liberal talking points from MSNBC?
Click to expand...
Yet you claimed the military was the bright shiny nugget of governmental stewardship. Nope, I'm not the one feeling foolish....

Ockham said:
[...] The Governments track record of managing ANYTHING other than the military (and even that is suspect economically) [...]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
Now don't you feel foolish parroting moronic liberal talking points from MSNBC?
Click to expand...

So you made a list of government failures (not that they're all failures, but whatever). Wow. Government fails sometimes. So does everyone. The private sector fails massively sometimes. You want a list of all the bankruptcies, idiotic decisions and scandals from the private sector lately? That would be just as stupid as your list - and it would be even bigger too.

Knock it off and join reality.
 
Karl said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's the pattern - right wingers starve and obstruct government, then blame government for the failure. Same with the Postal Service.

Yet you claimed the military was the bright shiny nugget of governmental stewardship. Nope, I'm not the one feeling foolish....
Click to expand...

Oops.
 
Oh, also, if the Bay of Pigs is a failure for our government, doesn't that make it a shining success for the government of Cuba? The communist government of Cuba? He got greedy with his list.
 
misterman said:
Stop right there.

No, they don't all get treated, or treated well.
Click to expand...
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.

misterman said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're 3 for 3 on irrelevant... want to continue and go for 4 for 4 or more?
 
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Can someone explain to me how this thread went from the NDAA 2012 to talking about healthcare?
 
Karl said:
You are under the impression that the Manhattan Project was run by Wal-Mart?
confuse.gif
Click to expand...
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.


Karl said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.

Karl said:
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).
Click to expand...
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?

Karl said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!


Karl said:
Yet you claimed the military was the bright shiny nugget of governmental stewardship. Nope, I'm not the one feeling foolish....
Click to expand...
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. :coffeepap:
 
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.
 
Mustachio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
Click to expand...

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?
 
Dittohead not! said:
The wording in the final bill, after much quibbling, is as follows: [....]
Click to expand...
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)
Click to expand...
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)
Click to expand...
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom