 |
Throw in the entire hospital medical staff, and I'm right there with you. (I was in the hospital three times between 09/01/09 and 12/18/09, so sit down with snacks and a stiff drink while I tell you all about it.)Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
I forgot about them my cousin is a RN and the stories she tells are just wrong. She doesn't use a names in her story but that doesn't make it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
In each patient's room there is a medical-staff-use-only (I wasn't allowed to check my email) computer that contains any patient's "chart."Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
Hello Cats:Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
Although the word "privacy" isn't used, the Fourth Amendment says, "The right of the people to be SECURE in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Now, I don't know how YOU interpret that amendment, but I think it says your papers and stuff shall remain PRIVATE, unless there's probable cause that something untoward is going on. In fact, I don't see how it could be clearer... I even say that, knowing that some people (smoothy and maybe even yourself) have a TOTALLY different viewpoint about what the words mean.
excon
Can't you people be happy with any President you get? I rather like him. We don't like Stephen Harper, but we got to live with him for now.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Tick
We aren't talking about Insurance companies... we are talking Government Bureaucrats. Who coincidently are also the prosecution for the state. Exactly what will prevent them from using that confidential information against anyone running against them... YOu do remember Filegate... Where Hillary Clinton had political files created to smear the opposition... then was in contempt of court for 9 months refusing to produce them... and of course Janet Reno would not throw a fellow democrat in jail... incidently those files miraculously appeared in the White house residence... one of the most tightly controlled places in the USA... and nobody knew how they got there? Yeah right... they knew Hillary had them, nobody could have possible planted them yet nothing was ever done.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
I'm not excusing insurance people from doing that... but at least those records stayed in that office. The contents weren't used to smear or blackmail patients. That's exactly what Politicians with access to records WILL do.
Also... Why are Obamas College transcripts such a national secret... yet my medical records (along with everyone else's ) has every bit of information any identity thief in the world drools over having acess too. And you trust people in the civil service to keep it secret.
And when it gets out... who do you sue for the privacy breach. How do you find out who did it when its acessible from literally most of the federal government? Ever try to sue the Federal Government? Good luck if you aren't Bill Gates.
Who pays you for the grief and loss WHEN your identity is stolen as a result. And I do know people that this has happened to... you can't imagine what they go through and what it costs if you didn't know a victim.
Hope you are happy paying higher taxes to provide healthcare to illegals, Viagra to sex offenders and rapists, because you will be.
Are insurance companies perfect? Nope... but they go out of business if they screw up bad enough... not so with the feds... they need more money... they raise your taxes... you have no alternative. And unless you are connected the IRS takes everything and sends you to Jail. Unless you are Tim Geitner, or Charles Rangle as two examples.
Ever deal with the INS? Let me tell you, the Post office wins the award for best Costomer service and efficiency compaired to them. The INS is staffed with idiots, and lazy people, none of which have a clue as to what their job is.
Dealt with three INS offices in 2 states... for 2 straight years... didn't meet one person with the brains to tie their own shoes at any of them.
But they know how to take your money... not how to give you the right forms after spending 4 hours in line and 45 minutes talking with them... but they know how to take and cash that check.
Where will the savings be... the IRS is hiring 16,000 new workers to make sure everyone complies with the latest extortion scheme.
That's 16,000 salaries, 16,000 pensions, 16,000 benefit packages... and not a single thing toi do with health care.
Plus... how many of you that want this Government health care have ever been overseas to live nad work and not on vacation only... has ever been in a hospital in Europe, has known many people that have been... or knows many who have died in them and known their families were blocked from sueing for malpractice, no matter how obvious it was?
See... I do.. European hospitals scare the hell out of me... I've known far too many people die there or come out worse than they went in... and I know at least 4 of them were OBVIOUS malpractice.
I've been a patient in American hospitals several times and they are far better. That WILL change. They WILL keep score and use that to determine if you get treatment or not... thats what Obama politicians do.
Now give that to every politician with an axe to grind... or who wants to forward all the personal information to an identity thief...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
He is better than Pol Pot... but then... give him time... he hasn't set up the gulags like Stalin did to send people that disagreed with him... YET.Quote:
Originally Posted by tickle
He crys like a damn 2nd crade school kid whining that the mean kid over there won't agree with me... waaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Yeah that's real mature and presidential. I keep waiting for him to burp then lift his leg and fart for an encore at his next speech.
I have a 6 year old nephew that exhibits more maturity than Obama. He doesn't cry and complain everyone doesn't agree with him like Obama has been doing.
Um... that doesn't apply outside of the USA... and calls to overseas ARE open to evesdropping. DO you honestly believe any call YOU make overseas isn't intercepted by other countries? Or do you only worry that OUR people might catch a terrorist before he can act? That's taken place since Jimmy Carter was in Office. Or does it only matter that a REPUBLICAN president can't do it but its OK for DEMOCRAT presidents to do it... Still waiting for you to chastise Obama for doing it... Or Bill CLinton for Doing it... or Jimmy Carter for Doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I've known for decades... anything said over the phone or via computer is open to interception... and you have to behave accordingly.
Its common knowledge and searchible they did it as well. YOU do know Bush has been out of office for 15 months now... Obams has been doing it the last 15 months... He will be doing it for almost 3 more years before he is replaced... so why is it OK for him to do it... why does HE need acess to everyone's medical records too? Bush didn't want or need that... but Obama does. Say, have the FBI evesdrop on anyone ever treated for drug addiction, etc... Have the IRS whatch them closer etc...
Why does the Government want or NEED this info... it can't possibly be for anything good.
An aside observation.
To all you left wingers. LOSE the tea bagger thing.
That is as offensive to our side as it would be to your side for us to refer to you as queers.
Let's keep the disagreements agreeable.
As to the OP.
I can't say what change every conservative thought Obama would bring.
As far as I am concerned, he is proceeding pretty much as I expected.
You mean, you got fooled?
Tick it is something that ingrained into the American culture. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tickle
I know what you mean... he's doing exactly what I expected... giving the sun and moon to the lazy... and expecting those who earn it to hand it over or else.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
He did say he wanted to Redistribute the wealth. After all, the Welfare queen in the housing projects who is on crack and averages one new baby a year by different men deserves the same amount of money a woman who got her PHD and works her butt off 12 hours a day has.
He told Joe The Plumber that on public TV remember?
I can say a thing or two about Canadian hypocrisy (well one thing here anyway)... recently Ann Coulter was accused of violating Canadian hate laws at a university (London, Ontario)... and was attacked and called names by idiots in Canada which somehow they don't think what THEY did is hate speech...Quote:
Originally Posted by Stringer
Really... Liberals can bash whomever they want, they get violent, rude and threatening... but that not hate speech... yet let a conservative say something that isn't lovey dovey and suddenly its hate speech.
Now I will openly admit... not all Canadians are like that. Thank god... I've visited Canada... its generally mostly nice people, (where I went anyway), and most Canadians I know are nice, (I have IN-Laws in Canada) but the universities there (much like they are here) are full of rude jerks that think the rules apply to everyone but them.
And Odd that the WONDERFUL Canadian health system which the left here thinks is so wonderful (but have never seen first hand)... wasn't good enough for the Canadian Premier who flew to Florida recently for surgery... or the thousands of Canadians that head south to pay cash for procedures they can't get in Canada without a long wait.
We don't wait months for procedures here... if you need something NOW... you get it NOW. Before you die from it. Nor do we have rationing like Canada, The UK or Europe.
Well we didn't before anyway... thats about to come to an end... Obama doesn't think its fair we have something better than someone else... so he is set on ruining it for everyone.
Everyone BUT himself... or Congress... who not surprisingly exempted themselves from this WONDERFUL system they are dead set of ramming down our throats by force...
If it was so freaking good... why did they exempt themselves. They REFUSE to answer THAT question... I'd rather have Congresses health care plan... they can take this one.
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Again, you are misinformed. If an American is on ONE end of the conversation, and the call emanates from the US, the Constitution applies.
You don't have constitutional rights because of WHERE you call, or don't call. You have constitutional rights, because the Constitution says you do. I don't know why you'd think YOUR Fourth Amendment rights go away because of WHERE you call. You should read the Fourth Amendment again. I posted it in its entirety. It's pretty absolute, in my view. It says NOTHING about any exceptions. It is NOT a guideline. As you said earlier. It means what it says and it says what it means.
I say again, you cannot successfully argue constitutional law with me. I DO agree with you though, that our "papers and effects" are being searched every day. You say it's constitutional (even though you read the words). I say it's not.
excon
WRONG...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
If you called me... for example I can legally record our phone call and there is nothing you can do about it even if you don't like it. Doesn't matter if Your state permits it or not without consent.
Because Part of that call resides in a place that only requires one party to be aware of it.
International calls do not enjoy the same status as domestic calls do... and that's been upheld by the courts for decades.
It all falls back to common sense... you don't say what you don't want heard in any place or location... At the mall, on the phone... on the street corner. You might have the expectation of privacy IN your house... but you see... those wires LEAVE your house... and placing a bug on your handset... or a central office... are Not legally the same thing. Because you don't own or even rent the lines this transpires upon. They are the property of the Telco companies. Your physical PHONE is your property... but once that line hits the street... its ours.
Example... don't pay your bill... we don't NEED court appoval to cut off your service unlike a renter in a residence. A few key strokes and your portion of the circuit ceases to connect to anything else immediately. Nobody even has to show up at your house to do it.
THey aren't watching what YOU do... they are monitoring what going to and coming from the other end... which is NOT protected.
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Again, you are misinformed.
The Constitution doesn't protect you from what private people can do. It protects you from what the GOVERNMENT can do. I say again, you cannot successfully argue constitutional law with me.
As a matter of fact, your lack of constitutional scholarship is becoming more and more evident. It's a simple document. It's as clear as a bell. The amendments are short and concise. It means what it says, and it says what it means. The federal government may NOT search you without first obtaining a warrant that is only issued after sworn testimony in front of a judge, that something untoward is going on.
THAT'S what the words say.
excon
Ex one problem with Wiiki... or perhaps I didn't see it as I normally don't use them as a primary source...
An appelate court already ruled that the Bush adm did not excede it's constitutional authority when conducting it's surveillance program.
Intelligence Court Releases Ruling in Favor of Warrantless Wiretapping - washingtonpost.com
I've read the constitution... English is my first language.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Just because YOU wish it said something else... doesn't change what it says.
I'm not a constitutional scholar... and I admit it... but neither are you.
There is a danger in twisting the words... you start to believe what you want... lots of people been convicted of crimes they honestly believed were not crimes for example.
After Washington read the Declaration of Independence to the troops they celebrated by bringing down a statue of King George III and melting it down to make bullets. They said they'd return them to the King "one soldier at a time" .Quote:
Originally Posted by Stringer
Since then we have pretty much followed the template of extreme mistrust of central authority .Presidents being the closest we have to putting a face on it usually get the brunt of it.
Which court case said that conversations placed over public carriers are the property or effects of one of the individuals?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Off topic, but what does your Constitutional expertise make of gun control laws?
Hello again, Cats:Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
In fact, I don't know. But, if you accept the premise that the government DOES need a search warrant in order to wire tap you, and you'd have to be blind NOT to accept that premise, then it follows that there ARE, indeed, court cases that state exactly that.
Your off topic answer: I don't know what part of my previous answers are confusing to you. The Constitution is NOT a guideline. It's the LAW. The amendments are clear and concise. They say what they mean, and they mean what they say. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed." The meaning is as clear as a bell.
excon
PS> You thought I was going to say something else, didn't you? I keep on telling smoothy that it's not a matter of what I WANT. It's a matter of what's LAW.
I did wonder. Some others on your side of most of these discussions I think hold different opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Back on topic, does the fact of warrants for some wiretaps make the process illegal or are the warrants just to make them presentable as evidence? The point still stands that wiretaps have been around almost as long as wires, so which President takes the blame - Lincoln? Johnson? Grant?
Hello again, Cats:Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
Warrants are fine. Bush didn't use 'em. He just threw the Constitution into the trash instead.
excon
See#178
What Cats is referring to is Lincoln's penchat for tapping directly into the telegraph wires.
President's have exerted CIC powers during wartime to conduct intelligence surveillance against the enemy and the courts have consistently confirmed that authority.
Bush's authoirty was further confirmed in the authorization act passed overwhelmingly by Congress after 9-11(the constitutional eqivalent of a declaration of war).
Quote:
A special federal appeals court yesterday released a rare declassified opinion that backed the government's authority to intercept international phone conversations and e-mails from U.S. soil without a judicial warrant, even those involving Americans, if a significant purpose is to collect foreign intelligence. The ruling, which was issued in August but not made public until now, responded to an unnamed telecommunications firm's complaint that the Bush administration in 2007 improperly demanded information on its clients, violating constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The company complied with the demand while the case was pending.
In its opinion, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ruled that national security interests outweighed the privacy rights of those targeted, affirming what amounts to a constitutional exception for matters involving government interests "of the highest order of magnitude."
The opinion, written by the court's chief judge, Bruce M. Selya, was extraordinary in several respects: It was partly redacted, and it referred to court pleadings that remain sealed. The ruling also hinged partly on a detailed, secret account by the government to the court of its surveillance procedures in 2007.
The judges, who are assigned to the court by the chief justice of the United States, concluded that the government's protections and restrictions included in the 2007 procedures were appropriate. "Our decision recognizes that where the government has instituted several layers of serviceable safeguards to protect individuals against unwarranted harms and to minimize incidental intrusions, its efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts," Selya wrote in the 29-page opinion.
He added that requiring a warrant in such cases would probably "hinder the government's ability to collect time-sensitive information and, thus, would impede the vital national security interests that are at stake."
A Justice Department statement about the ruling called it "important" because it upheld the legality of Bush administration surveillance directives in 2007.
But independent experts said it is unclear whether the ruling would have a broader effect. The case involved the Protect America Act, a surveillance law that Congress has since altered. The court also declared that its review addressed only how the law was applied in 2007, not its underlying constitutionality.
Since then, Congress has approved new foreign intelligence surveillance legislation. It does not require, for example, that agencies have "probable cause" to believe that the person being targeted is a foreign agent, but instead allows more wide-ranging surveillance. It also does not limit the intelligence-gathering to a 90-day period, as previously required.
Jameel Jaffer, head of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project, said the appellate court was "wrong to hold that the warrant requirement does not apply to foreign intelligence investigations." But he said its relevance to controversial Bush administration domestic surveillance between 2001 and 2005 is unclear, because so little is known about the nature of those efforts or the Justice Department's underlying legal justifications for them.
"We still don't know what those actions were" and whether they would also have met the court's approval, said Jaffer, who is challenging the constitutionality of the new surveillance law before a New York federal district court.
In this case, the company protested the government's demand for information and initially refused to comply. The Bush administration took the case to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, where U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton upheld the government's position in a secret ruling. The firm began to comply "under threat of civil contempt," the ruling released yesterday said.
In its appeal, the firm disputed the existence of an exemption to the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search for foreign intelligence surveillance. The company said that even if an exemption did exist, the government's demands were "unreasonable" because collecting such information for foreign intelligence may merely be a "significant" purpose under the law, rather than its "primary" purpose.
The appeals court struck down both arguments. The Supreme Court has recognized other exemptions, the ruling said, citing drug testing without warrants of high school athletes and railroad workers and frisking without warrants of those stopped by police for investigations. Selya also cited as precedent for the panel's conclusion a 1926 ruling by the Supreme Court that government officers should be regarded by the courts as acting properly in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.
The ruling by the appellate court was only the second to be published. The panel was created in 1978 but did not meet to consider any case until 2002. In that decision, it rebuffed demands by the lower surveillance court to impose restrictions on some FBI wiretaps, ruling that the constraints were not required by the Constitution.
Yesterday's ruling can be appealed only to the Supreme Court.
My problem with your argument is your insistence that this is a recent phenomenon. Lincoln didn't use warrants, nor did Grant, Roosevelt (either of them), Eisenhower, Truman, Carter, or Clinton.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Edit: I'm not sure about Hoover or Reagan, their intelligence people knew how to keep their mouths shut.
Hello again, Cats:Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
My problem with YOUR argument is that you seem to think there are exceptions to the Constitution when some OTHER president did it first. Should I repeat my, it means what it says, mantra?
THIS discussion emanated from smoothy making wild accusations about the unconstitutionality of the Obama administration. Since he's a tea bagging, birther, right winger type, I suggested that he didn't complain when Bush was violating the Constitution. Then, he looked at me in wide eyed wonderment, and asked how his fearless leader did that? So, I proceeded to tell him. Therefore, Bush IS germane to this conversation...
But, from my point of view, it's not really the ONE violation that makes him the worst president in history. It's his violation of, oh I don't know, four or five constitutional amendments. It's the total of his blatant disregard for our laws that pisses me off. I enumerated them earlier in this thread. I'm not going to do it again, unless you insist.
Suffice to say, the amendments he broke had to do with his prosecution, or ATTEMPTED prosecution of the war detainees. You, my friend Cats, believe that the ends justified the means with THOSE guys, and you and my other friend, smoothy, are HAPPY with the outcomes... So, the fact that our laws were broken because you perceive that a greater good ensued, makes it OK to fudge those laws... May I remind you of smoothy's "guideline" speech? Then you have the gall to argue with me, that what Bush did really didn't violate the Constitution, and you've got all your little lawyers, like John Yoo, who said it's OK... But, it's not OK.
The Constitution is NOT a guideline. It's the law.. By the way, if the Constitution isn't the final say, which document are you looking at? Or, are you guys just making it up as you go along?
excon
Just to give you an answer it's the arm of the government ( FCC ) that controls communication. They are the ones with the laws controlling what can and can not be done with electronic transmissions. In some instances like mobile phones it was ruled that they could be listened to but they couldn't be discussed or divulged by private citizens. As far as needing warrants for wire taps they are still needed. Even when they were listening if it crossed a line then a warrat would have to be issued.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again,
The above post (actually TWO above) and the arguments contained therein, are a DIRECT result of president Obama, saying he'd rather look forward than backward. By NOT prosecuting Vice and Bush for war crimes, he leaves the door open for revisionist history like the discussion we've been having.
You righty's should LOVE Obama for letting them off the hook. In fact, Obama embraces MOST of the Bush detention policies. Me? I believe it's a clear and utter failure on Obama's part.
A trial would clear up a lot the gobbeldygook people like smoothy, and yourself perhaps, have about the Constitution.
excon
The entire debate here, in the media, and in the courts is an example of Americans being too nice. Instead of treating the detainees according to the ILOAC (International Law On Armed Conflict) and shooting them on the battlefield, we set them up in barracks in one of the most beautiful places on earth to keep them from fighting. Stupid us.
Hello again, Cats:Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
I agree about the stupid... I even agree about shooting the bastards on the field of war - if that's where we found 'em. But, that's not where most of the detainees came from. The were caught by Arab militias, and/or snitched on by pissed off people. In fact, of the 600 "worst of the worst", as Vice called them, over 400 of them have been released because they didn't DO anything.
Now, you don't advocate shooting somebody because somebody else says they're a terrorist, do you? So, what do we DO with those people?
I wish I was a righty. Life is much simpler for you guys.
excon
PS> Jail ain't beautiful no matter WHERE it's located.
Uh, don't pay for them in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
In view of what this pres is doing I submit the following as a MUST READ.
The Law, by Frederic Bastiat
This doesn't show as a link, so you will have to paste it, I guess.
It is a short book, but most illuminating.
Religious mumbo-jumbo. Keep it to yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
I've read many books and textbooks. This one makes absolutely no sense at all. He wanders all over the place and throws in a big (or archaic) word every now and then to make the reader think he is saying something important.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
I'm afraid I have to semi-agree with Wondergirl, Gal. It's actually better written/translated than most French Revolutionary period literature that I've read, but it's more philosophy than politics. I'm almost certain any parallels between America's slow slide into Socialism and the French plunge of the 19th Century will be ignored or incomprehensible to our current crop of legislators.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
The thrust of the argument is that government is supposed to protect citizens from plunder of their natural rights. (So far, so good?)
When the government begins to bring equality to the people, it then begins to plunder the people by the laws that it passes.
One group must be plundered for the benefit of another group to bring about the equality that seems to be so prized.
If you actually read the book, I don't see how you can say it has no correlation to what has been happening in this country for a very long time.
Like I said earlier, he wanders all over the place, but never comes to a conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
How would the people achieve equality otherwise? Would they bring it about on their own, by themselves?Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
There is no guarantee of equality of outcome. It's Pursuit of happiness.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:54 PM. |