Obama's Pre-crime indefinite preventive detention for future crimes

[Red1966]

House-poor eh? All too common.

 

[canndo]

A "same standard" that forces them to violate their religious beliefs. The label you put on it doesn't define it. Suppose he required all businesses to have an alter to Baal in their premises? That would fall under your "same standard".


A particular religion owns and operates a gold mine. The religion believes that God gave us the earth to use and abuse as man wishes (dominion). That religion believes that it is perfectly ok to put large amounts of mercury in their effluent. You think that government stopping them from poisoning rivers is violating their religious freedoms? Before you cry unfair comparison, dominionists do not believe that we must care for our planet. This is the same as your claim. So long as religion does not involve itself in commerce, they may act and preach as they see fit. When they do operate a business, they must adhere to the same regulations as anyone else.



What Bush did doesn't absolve Obama's actions. Plus, he did campaign against that exact same issue. Allowing the Black Panthers to inhibit voters from voting is not only failing to protect those rights, as required by his Oath of Office, but encourages more of it.

That may be so, it is far fetched to claim that because a violator is not punished in the way you believe he should be, then government is removing your rights. I have not seen you weigh in on the voter ID and voter supression threads - are these violations of our rights as well?



If "stealing medicare funds", is "Romney's lies", why has Obama yet to deny it? It's in the Obamacare bill, if you want to wade thru it. I could add right to life, also. The Obamacare bill includes a provision for "cost containment boards", the "death panels" liberals deny are there. If they can deny you life saving or extending medical care because it cost too much in their opinion, they have participated in your death or incapacitation.

I don't know why Obama is not "denying it". I do know that the money is taken from waste, abuse, and previous agreements with Health insurance companies who were willing to forgo certain enhancements for the chance at having a much larger pool. The money is not taken from individuals. I have read H.R. 3200. There are no death panels in the legislation. the only way you can show that there are is to take passages completely out of context and then interpret what is said to mean such. The right's PR campaign, memes and viral e-mails have done their job. Everyone claims to know what is in the law but no one is willing to "wade through it". Finally, we have example after example of Health insurance companies denying coverage yet for some reason this is ok, but government's doing the same thing (if indeed they do) is vile.

Why is that?

 

[canndo]

Bush has nothing at all to do with what Obama`s done. Obama`s a big boy, he can own his own actions. And his actions indicate an authoritarian fascist.

In essence no, he is autonomous and can opt to ignore the actions of previous presidents. What I wonder is why this president's actions are taken to task when the last one's identical actions were not.

Why is that? Do you even know the names of the citizens Bush put in prison and deprived of their constitutional right to due process and their privelege of Habeus corpus?

 

[Dr Kynes]

keep on believing what they tell you, amazing you have made a rant without using the word savage or marxist in it, congrats.

and instead i should believe what you and rachel maddow tells me? i think not, both those sources are unreliable.

those prisoners are individuals who took up arms or hid weapon caches in their houses, or aided and abetted saboteurs. you have once again refrained from answering a rational argument with evidence and sources (the geneva convention no less!) to support a claim, and instead attacked the opponent personally.

i have extremely strong views on the evils of marxism and primitivism, and savagery. i do not dispute that. these trends are increasing worldwide in every corner of the world from chechnya to xinghai provence, and from yemen to the mexico. socialism, radical primitivism (mainly in the form of mohammedanism) and savagery have become the "new normal" throughout africa,, most of central and western asia, all of asia minor, and a large swath of central and south america, as well as the indochina aand the archipelagos of oceana.

i do not "respect" these attitudesand ddo not feel guilty for imposing my own "cultural bias" on these foreign "cultures" and their shenanigans. i guess i9m just nbo post-modern enough for you. too bad.

 

[Red1966]

Quote Originally Posted by Red1966 View Post A "same standard" that forces them to violate their religious beliefs. The label you put on it doesn't define it. Suppose he required all businesses to have an alter to Baal in their premises? That would fall under your "same standard". ...................... A particular religion owns and operates a gold mine. The religion believes that God gave us the earth to use and abuse as man wishes (dominion). That religion believes that it is perfectly ok to put large amounts of mercury in their effluent. You think that government stopping them from poisoning rivers is violating their religious freedoms? Before you cry unfair comparison, dominionists do not believe that we must care for our planet. This is the same as your claim. So long as religion does not involve itself in commerce, they may act and preach as they see fit. When they do operate a business, they must adhere to the same regulations as anyone else........................... What Bush did doesn't absolve Obama's actions. Plus, he did campaign against that exact same issue. Allowing the Black Panthers to inhibit voters from voting is not only failing to protect those rights, as required by his Oath of Office, but encourages more of it. That may be so, it is far fetched to claim that because a violator is not punished in the way you believe he should be, then government is removing your rights. I have not seen you weigh in on the voter ID and voter supression threads - are these violations of our rights as well? ................... If "stealing medicare funds", is "Romney's lies", why has Obama yet to deny it? It's in the Obamacare bill, if you want to wade thru it. I could add right to life, also. The Obamacare bill includes a provision for "cost containment boards", the "death panels" liberals deny are there. If they can deny you life saving or extending medical care because it cost too much in their opinion, they have participated in your death or incapacitation.

I don't know why Obama is not "denying it". I do know that the money is taken from waste, abuse, and previous agreements with Health insurance companies who were willing to forgo certain enhancements for the chance at having a much larger pool. The money is not taken from individuals. I have read H.R. 3200. There are no death panels in the legislation. the only way you can show that there are is to take passages completely out of context and then interpret what is said to mean such. The right's PR campaign, memes and viral e-mails have done their job. Everyone claims to know what is in the law but no one is willing to "wade through it". Finally, we have example after example of Health insurance companies denying coverage yet for some reason this is ok, but government's doing the same thing (if indeed they do) is vile. Why is that?

No religion has the right to harm others. Preventing harm is not the same as forcing action. Failing to protect my rights from your supporters is most definitely denying that right. Not far fetched at all. Voter ID requirements are Constitutional according to SCOTUS, and protect my rights. His not denying it because he can't. The bill does little or nothing to prevent waste and fraud. It actually preserves and extends overpriced drugs. Whether the money is taken from everybody or individuals is irrelevant. The bill specifically authorizes transferring funds from Medicare to Obamacare. No, the "death panels" are not called identified as such, but a "cost containment panel" is exactly just such a thing. What the insurance companies do is actionable in court, if you actually paid for that particular coverage. Nor does it justify or excuse the actions of the government. Putting your argument in the middle of my quoted post makes it difficult to reply.

 

[Dr Kynes]

What rights has he removed from you?

the same rights you claim bush and cheney removed,, plus the right to not have too pay an insurance company for the privilege of staying out of prison for violating the individual mandate, the right to decline to purchase services that obama deems good and needful even if you the purchaser (under threat) do not value this service (contraceptive mandate) the right to excercise the rights protected by my state constitution to use medicinal cannabis with the recommendation of my physician (which is somehow different from abortion rights, somehow...) the right to petition my state for changes in state law that i feel are needful, and when such laws are passed the federal mommy state will descend on us like rabid wolverines for daring to say NO to federal mandates and prohibitions. the right of a state to enforce federal law because obama thinks we need more illegal immigrants in arizona and california.

these are things he has demaanded and acheived. these affect me every fucking day. the rights you lefties claim bush "stole" (illegal wiretaps,, indefinate detention of unconvicted accused terrorists,, terrorist suspects being held incommunicado,, and denied their lawyers,, etc...) do not effect americans they are only effective against terrorists, foreign nationals,, ex-patriots who made war on the us, etc.

 

[dtp5150]

keynes, can u provide one evidence of proof why anybody should ever listen to you?

basically, im asking you to provide an example of your most credible post, if it is possible

if u are a factual person, id love to hear about. i just dont have faith

 

[Dr Kynes]

A "same standard" that forces them to violate their religious beliefs. The label you put on it doesn't define it. Suppose he required all businesses to have an alter to Baal in their premises? That would fall under your "same standard".

You DARE invoke the name of Mighty Bhaal, The Lord of Murder? What religion will you not defame with your slanderous lies! Who is next? Apophis, The Serpent of the Night? Morrigan, The Bitch Queen, Chooser of the Slain? Poppa Nurgle, Lord of Pestilence and Decay??

Damn you infidel! your blood shall fill the fountains of Bhaal's palace! Your skull shall adorn his throne! Your soul shall twist in agonizing torment for all eternity as his handmaidens wind your entrails into macrame handicrafts for the amusement of small children, who are also damned...

 

[dtp5150]

You DARE invoke the name of Mighty Bhaal, The Lord of Murder? What religion will you not defame with your slanderous lies! Who is next? Apophis, The Serpent of the Night? Morrigan, The Bitch Queen, Chooser of the Slain? Poppa Nurgle, Lord of Pestilence and Decay??

Damn you infidel! you blood shall fill the fountains of Bhaal's palace! Your skull shall adorn his throne! Your soul shall twist in agonizing torment for all eternity as his handmaidens wind your entrails into macrame handicrafts for the amusement of small children, who are also damned...

]

shut up, read a book, get a "degree", etc

 

[Red1966]

In essence no, he is autonomous and can opt to ignore the actions of previous presidents. What I wonder is why this president's actions are taken to task when the last one's identical actions were not. Why is that? Do you even know the names of the citizens Bush put in prison and deprived of their constitutional right to due process and their privelege of Habeus corpus?

Bush's actions were most certainly were taken to task. Don't you have a TV, internet access, or radio?

 

[canndo]

No religion has the right to harm others. Preventing harm is not the same as forcing action. Failing to protect my rights from your supporters is most definitely denying that right. Not far fetched at all. Voter ID requirements are Constitutional according to SCOTUS, and protect my rights. His not denying it because he can't. The bill does little or nothing to prevent waste and fraud. It actually preserves and extends overpriced drugs. Whether the money is taken from everybody or individuals is irrelevant. The bill specifically authorizes transferring funds from Medicare to Obamacare. No, the "death panels" are not called identified as such, but a "cost containment panel" is exactly just such a thing. What the insurance companies do is actionable in court, if you actually paid for that particular coverage. Nor does it justify or excuse the actions of the government. Putting your argument in the middle of my quoted post makes it difficult to reply.

Has a religion the "right" to insist that life saving treatment not be given a child where that treatment is not religiously acceptable? Transfusions or antibiotics for example?

Again, we are not talking about the right to religious freedom but impinging that supposed freedom on commerce. If all busiesses are required to do a thing but those businesses that are owned by a religion are not by virtue of their religion, the plaing field is tilted. Insisting upon religious freedom is a ruse. If a religion does not believe in birth control then it has every right to preach to it's adherents that they are not to use birth control

Yes, according to SCOTUS, currently requiring voter ID is not an undue burden upon the voter. I do not believe the ruling indicated that voter ID protected the voter's rights.

Where the money comes from and where it goes is relevent indeed. If medicare money goes to medicare recipients or providers for service, it is far different than if it is "redistributed" to certain classes of tax payers disproportionately.

No matter what one calls "death panels", the provision you refer to has nothing to do with anything except payment to doctors who provide end of life counciling - in short, giving the patient an appraisal of his situation and requesting guidence from the patient - that is (or was) in the law.

Your "actionable within the law - is disengenuous if you know those laws. Firstly, most insurance companies demand that binding arbitration be used to the exclusion of traditional courts and juries. Secondly, insurance companies establish a variety of technical reasons by which they can limit payment for care including yearly or lifetime spending caps, caps that the affordable health care law does away with.

I agree it is difficult to deal with arguments in the middle of quotes.

I am having a problem with my PDF reader and so I cannot give you quotations from the law and must work from memory (it was some time ago) but I do not remember anything akin to what you describe as a "cost containment panel" unless it is a yearly review of costs incurred by various factions of the government. I do not recall anything providing for individual assessments of costs of caring for patients.

 

[Dr Kynes]

keynes, can u provide one evidence of proof why anybody should ever listen to you?

basically, im asking you to provide an example of your most credible post, if it is possible

if u are a factual person, id love to hear about. i just dont have faith

all my posts are factual, and all are backed up by truth, you may disbelieve, and unlike mohmmedans i shall NOT have made for you rainments of fire or have the flesh stripped from you only to be regrown by mighty allah, so that it may be stripped from you again, in his mercy

i will say however, being called a "non- factual person" by you is high praise. when a deceiver calls another person deceptive it generally informs the wise man as to the nature of the truth. so thanks for the props homey!

 

[canndo]

Bush's actions were most certainly were taken to task. Don't you have a TV, internet access, or radio?

If this is so, and you agreed then with what was taken to task, can you give me the number of known citizens deprived of their due process rights under the Bush administration?

 

[Dr Kynes]

]

shut up, read a book, get a "degree", etc

I done read a lotta books, and got a few more on my list to go. right now im in the middle of the Malleus Malefacarum, so eat a sack of sweaty cocks, with horseradish dressing.

 

[canndo]

the same rights you claim bush and cheney removed,, plus the right to not have too pay an insurance company for the privilege of staying out of prison for violating the individual mandate, the right to decline to purchase services that obama deems good and needful even if you the purchaser (under threat) do not value this service (contraceptive mandate) the right to excercise the rights protected by my state constitution to use medicinal cannabis with the recommendation of my physician (which is somehow different from abortion rights, somehow...) the right to petition my state for changes in state law that i feel are needful, and when such laws are passed the federal mommy state will descend on us like rabid wolverines for daring to say NO to federal mandates and prohibitions. the right of a state to enforce federal law because obama thinks we need more illegal immigrants in arizona and california.

these are things he has demaanded and acheived. these affect me every fucking day. the rights you lefties claim bush "stole" (illegal wiretaps,, indefinate detention of unconvicted accused terrorists,, terrorist suspects being held incommunicado,, and denied their lawyers,, etc...) do not effect americans they are only effective against terrorists, foreign nationals,, ex-patriots who made war on the us, etc.

I'm sorry doc, where is this "right to not have to pay an insurance company for the privilege of staying out of prison"?
You do indeed have the "right" to decline to purchase what obama deems good and needful.

You never had the righth to use medicinal cannabis. I see no right to be free from rabid wolverines anywhere in the Constitution. Is it perhaps a right eminating from a penumbra?

 

[ginwilly]

I have read H.R. 3200. There are no death panels in the legislation. the only way you can show that there are is to take passages completely out of context and then interpret what is said to mean such.
but government's doing the same thing (if indeed they do) is vile.

Why is that?

wow you've read the bill? I get payed to know what's in it and haven't even come close. By our estimation once these 2700 pages are done referencing article such and such and provision X the total amount of reading is in the 10's of thousands.

The reason you can't find anything about death panels is owed entirely to that loon Palin. There was a provision before final passage involving a committee (panel) to discuss, plan, and implement care for end of life (death). It was a stretch to go from end of life committee to death panel sure, but Hospice and palliative care already does this. This was put in so it could be centrally planned and regulated how an individual receives this care and how much they receive instead of those dirty doctors and stupid patients. It was taken out when Palin made her claim, because it had no chance of passing with that in it.

The government is notorious for stopping what they call maintenance. If you have a condition that doesn't improve you no can longer receive care for it unless it exacerbates. They refer to these conditions as "chronic", not pre-existing so they can say it's not the same thing.

Govangelicals are cute.

 

[Red1966]

If this is so, and you agreed then with what was taken to task, can you give me the number of known citizens deprived of their due process rights under the Bush administration?

I didn't bring it up, you did. Why should I do your research?

 

[Dr Kynes]

I'm sorry doc, where is this "right to not have to pay an insurance company for the privilege of staying out of prison"?
You do indeed have the "right" to decline to purchase what obama deems good and needful.

You never had the right to use medicinal cannabis. I see no right to be free from rabid wolverines anywhere in the Constitution. Is it perhaps a right emanating from a penumbra?

if i decline to bow toi the mandate of obamacare and refuse to submit to his blandishments i will be sent to prison for my impertinence. this is a simple fact,, despite the lies and twisted logic of supporters. if a government agency insists you owe them money they will get it,, by garnishment or by imprisoning you until you submit. it is the unsubtle use of naked coercion that makes obamacare immoral,, but the abuse of the "commerce clause" to force me to buy shit from an insurance company is unconstitutional,, as that power is vested in the congress by no part of the constitution.

i do in fact under california law have the right an privilege of using cannabis by virtue of prop 215, SB 420, and subsequent state and local laws. prop 215 is couched in the wording of RIGHTS specifically to emphasize that this is a reclaiming of natural rights presumed protected by the constitution as the power to regulate cannabis (or in fact any intra-state commerce) was never granted to the congress,, and thus is reserved to the states and the people (read the tenth amendment for more information).

eric "cockbreath" holder has in fact descended on California dispensaries, growers and patients and uses the blunt instrument of federal power to bludgeon them into submission. like a rabid wolverine he tears and rips at the soft underbelly of the dispensaries, growers and patients by threatening to seize their homes, property, their landlord's property,, and their personal finances under the controlled substances act. he is a cowardly fool who has thus far declined to prosecute anyone in california instead he stages raids, seizes cannabis and money, seizes property, and then says "fuck you im a dragon" as he walks away with their houses cars and life savings.

this is hardly drawn from a shadow, but mad props for taking it to the greek! you like greek dont you... sweaty hairy muscular greeks. their bodies glistening with rich emollients and feta cheese... wrestling naked on a bed of lettuce olives and thinly sliced onions...

great now i feel gay, and slightly hungry.

 

[cannabineer]

The answer to both conditions is ... meat. cn

 

[Red1966]

Has a religion the "right" to insist that life saving treatment not be given a child where that treatment is not religiously acceptable? Transfusions or antibiotics for example? Again, we are not talking about the right to religious freedom but impinging that supposed freedom on commerce. If all busiesses are required to do a thing but those businesses that are owned by a religion are not by virtue of their religion, the plaing field is tilted. Insisting upon religious freedom is a ruse. If a religion does not believe in birth control then it has every right to preach to it's adherents that they are not to use birth control Yes, according to SCOTUS, currently requiring voter ID is not an undue burden upon the voter. I do not believe the ruling indicated that voter ID protected the voter's rights. Where the money comes from and where it goes is relevent indeed. If medicare money goes to medicare recipients or providers for service, it is far different than if it is "redistributed" to certain classes of tax payers disproportionately. No matter what one calls "death panels", the provision you refer to has nothing to do with anything except payment to doctors who provide end of life counciling - in short, giving the patient an appraisal of his situation and requesting guidence from the patient - that is (or was) in the law. Your "actionable within the law - is disengenuous if you know those laws. Firstly, most insurance companies demand that binding arbitration be used to the exclusion of traditional courts and juries. Secondly, insurance companies establish a variety of technical reasons by which they can limit payment for care including yearly or lifetime spending caps, caps that the affordable health care law does away with. I agree it is difficult to deal with arguments in the middle of quotes. I am having a problem with my PDF reader and so I cannot give you quotations from the law and must work from memory (it was some time ago) but I do not remember anything akin to what you describe as a "cost containment panel" unless it is a yearly review of costs incurred by various factions of the government. I do not recall anything providing for individual assessments of costs of caring for patients.

1) No, of course not, although courts have disagreed. 2)"Commerce" is misdirection. Would you have Catholic hospitals shut down rather than violate their beliefs? That would be at least a third of US hospitals. Not a ruse, that's like saying you're wrong because you're wrong, doesn't prove anything. 3)Preventing the ballot box from being packed with illegal votes certainly protects my right to vote. 3) Not sure what you're trying to say. 4)Treatment is already being denied by these panels. Certain cancer treatments for women, no treatment but painkillers is allowed for treatment of prostrate cancer. You can bet exceptions will be allowed for politicians, tho. Congress gets their own "special" insurance plan 5)You're assuming the arbitration is slanted in favor of the insurance companies. Also, new legislation has overruled the validity of those clauses. You can purchase insurance with no caps, cost more, tho. The affordable health care law institutes it's own spending caps. Private insurance companies is starting to get off-topic.