Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
RE Planes: Okay, fair enough. Now back to US Politics.
![]()
Nice idea, but then we'd have to deal with the good possibility of the situation creating some trigger-happy paranoiacs who could easily snap from their... well, paranoia.
edited 6th Mar '13 3:30:41 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.![]()
![]()
Same sort of thinking with everything else. Those who want a battle axe will take one, and those who just don't want one will not take one, while others will think that no one should have a battle axe and want to take them away from those who do.
Yes, like guns.
edited 6th Mar '13 3:35:11 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Homeland Security Approves Their Right To Search and Seize Your Electronics Without Suspicion
Does anybody else know about this?
Yes, definitely so.
The fourth amendment is supposed to protect against government harassment. If you're interrogated and your information was seized, and later released, is that a good thing? Do you get paid for your cooperation, or credited? No. Despite not being punished and turned criminal, you're still at a loss. Fourth (and fifth) amendments are there for that reason.
In any case, the Homeland Security isn't the arbiter of this right. It's the judiciary.
Would it require a new amendment to officially add "data" to the list in the Fourth Amendment's actual document, or does a judicial ruling by SCOTUS suffice?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
All that would be needed is for SCOTUS to say that the data in your hard drive(or any electronic data of yours that couldn't "reasonably" be obtained by someone else), falls under the "effects" category of the 4th amendment...
But that may never happen(though, more likely, it'd happen years after present if the current cases before them don't change anything)... Congress adding "data" to the 4th Amendment would guarantee it applied... But that's probably less likely to happen that a SCOTUS ruling.
With regards to cloud storage, it's definitely not covered by the 4th amendment: there was a story recently about a Catholic deacon being arrested after Verison found child porn on his cloud backup they hosted
.
The article itself (which was posted by a tech news site, after all) is fairly technical, but they do briefly mention 4th amendment issues.
edited 6th Mar '13 7:03:30 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I don't necessarily agree. Just because you have someone else store your data doesn't make it not your data. The nature of the online world means that physical possession is no longer the sole consideration for 4th amendment rights. Aren't police not permitted to wantonly search a post office box, or a security deposit box, or a car, without a warrant or at least probable cause? Same thing applies.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"House passes bill to avert government shutdown in March
Senator Graham (R-SC) introduces gun background check bill with NRA backing
edited 6th Mar '13 7:56:02 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016The reduction in payments to drug companies is desirable in that it also helps cut healthcare costs. The other stuff... I think Obama is doing another one of his baited offers. If the Republicans take it, they'll have to concede tax increases, which they won't ever do. It's a dangerous game to play but it's the only one he has right now. Or so he probably thinks.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"How? Who's going to vote for it — Democrats in the Senate certainly won't. And Republicans have already made it plainly clear that they will not support anything that Obama offers, even if it's exactly what they asked for.
In a hypothetical world where Republican politicians were willing to come to the table and offer a genuine compromise position in return, then Obama's willingness to strike a bargain might get something accomplished. As it is, it just shows off their intransigence.
edited 6th Mar '13 8:10:52 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Can't even if he wanted to. The Democrats in both houses of Congress pointed out that such cuts to federal healthcare would delay the implementation of the ACA, also know as "the thing that's going to determine whether or not most of us get reelected over the next 20 years". Both sides know that the more the U.S. electorate gets used to the ACA, the more comfortable they will be with its provisions and the more open they might be to further healthcare reform. The Democrats know the Republicans know this and hate that fact. Obama could want to cut government more than Grover Norquist; it won't matter, because Reid won't let that shit fly. I've my differences with Reid, but he's too canny to commit suicide by surrender as many in his party have attempted before.
edited 6th Mar '13 8:10:57 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Is there anything else besides healthcare that's there to cut? I don't know why we keep rolling back to this (and to defense spending).
Because Democrats are much closer to Republicans on foreign policy and national security than on domestic socioeconomics. I'll leave the extrajudicial killings topic at that.
edited 6th Mar '13 8:14:43 PM by Trivialis
Democrats bow their heads on extrajudicial killings because it's Obama that's doing it. Remember how up in arms they were about the Patriot Act? Not a peep when Obama renewed it.
I'm expecting the same Groupthink to come into play when they cut Medicare, Medicaid and/or Social Security.
edited 6th Mar '13 8:19:11 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.The sad fact is that voters care less about the power of the government to kill brown people with funny names than they care about their own healthcare. As such, one problem is an electoral threat to congressional Democrats and the other is not. That more or less decides which problem gets addressed.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

I wonder if everyone would feel more secure if they just handed out battleaxes at the gate...