Whatever happened to that darned old 4th amendment?
- 主题发起人 ArabArcher35
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
italiano
Grandmaster Knight
scootar 说:
I think it is that natural over time, 9/11 will become less about the event and more about the consequences. How many people think about Pearl Harbour as a loss of life versus the beginning of the war in the Pacific? It slowly becomes a piece of history, and less something we experienced (apart from those who may have had some personal ties). As a non-American, I think of 9/11 as the catalyst for the US's most recent aggression.
As for Bush, I'll miss him. Obama will be worse, most people just won't realise it since his damage will be economic and hidden, rather than invading two other nations.
If Obama adds more to the debt than Bush, I will eat my shirt. Not just my normal shirt, my fencing jacket. It's practically yellow with sweat now, and it's made of thick, heavy cotton. I'll eat that if Obama adds HALF as much as Bush. Hell, a QUARTER. Thing is, you can't get much worse than the economic trainwreck that was Bush.
Mage246
Er... it's virtually guaranteed that Obama will end up spending more, unless he pares back his health care and other promises to almost nothing. And even then, he still probably will, since the conventional way to get out of a recession is deficit spending.
Yep, and if current predictions are correct, this recession is predicted to last about two years or so. The major bailout plan went out under Bush. I doubt there will be another hard shock to the market like the one earlier the year, and so more bailouts will be most likely of a smaller scale. Further, The debt is near 11 trillion, correct? That means that Obama will have to maintain a deficit of about 1.25 trillion/year to match Bush. I'm not saying that Obama will make America a bastion of money, but will he be as bad as Bush? **** no!Mage246 说:
Mage246
Are you working off of a percentage basis? It would be more reasonable to compare the two on a dollar--to-dollar basis. As it is, the deficit for this year is projected to exceed $1 trillion, and Obama hasn't even technically become President yet.
Aww, c'mon GC... you can't attribute the deficit, or the present economic circumstances singularly to Bush, nor more than you can credit him with dorpping oil down under $35 a barrell.
Sure, Bush signs a budget, that congress pretty much owns. So the deficit issue really originates in congress - if anything, from a conservative position, Bush didn't do a president's job by vetoing it and screaming it was a bad deal. Instead, he compromised - pretty much like every president before him. And 'Bama will be no different.
Present financial failures fall squarely on all the western governments, following US principles, in managing debt and taxation. The same companies that failed so badly and are receiving bailouts were the best contributors to the guys that passed and enforced laws that used to limit the abuses of debt management and lending that triggered the most recent panic. It's been happening since at least the 1960's - and it ain't a badge only a republican or democrat, or any singular president, can wear alone.
As far as Obama 'spending' less, or creating less debt per year - how can you calculate? I bet Obama will spend as much - and probably more - since he's going to have to not only maintain all these failed government (not singularly Bush) spending committments, but he's going to create his own. If the cost of the inaugeration is any indicator of O's fiscal responsibility, we're gonna be in for it.
Funny. The liberals *****ed and moaned and belittle Bush for his innaugeration costs, but cant muster up enough indignation about O's, which will be about 40% more. Hypocritical, wouldn't you say? And don't even start on the carbon footprint for the 'Greenest' president in history. And, boy... love that treasury pick... can't manage his own tax requirements, but he's gonna manage mine.
At least the big O will be saving money on Iraq - since it never fell into chaos, civil war, and the abyss... so less money will be spent on a nation that - dare you disagree? - is awfully successfull compared to all the claims of the 'experts'.
If you're gonna make an issue on debt, know that percentage of GDP is a better indicator than measuring dollars - since a dollars value seems to be always depreciating. Eleven trillion in 2009 would be 5.5 trillion on 1997 which would be 2.25 trillion in 1987 and equal to 1.1 trillion in 1977... so, in one sense, the debt has not climbed significantly in dollars. Deduct the cost of the bailout, and the costs of the conflicts and war related humanitarian aid, and it hasn't climbed at all relating to dollars.
Public debt, though, has doubled in 30 years'ish - that's the big deal. Spending out the ass, and selling bonds, securities, T-Bills and the like. That's the problem - spending beyond tax collections and compensating by selling unprotected financial paper. But Obama's not gonna end that policy. It's what's keeping this liberalized government liquid.
So, GC - don't be talking silly. Even if you believe Bush is a lying, water-boarding, unedjumakated, teetotaling Bastard - the things you claim are nowhere near all his fault. maw
Sure, Bush signs a budget, that congress pretty much owns. So the deficit issue really originates in congress - if anything, from a conservative position, Bush didn't do a president's job by vetoing it and screaming it was a bad deal. Instead, he compromised - pretty much like every president before him. And 'Bama will be no different.
Present financial failures fall squarely on all the western governments, following US principles, in managing debt and taxation. The same companies that failed so badly and are receiving bailouts were the best contributors to the guys that passed and enforced laws that used to limit the abuses of debt management and lending that triggered the most recent panic. It's been happening since at least the 1960's - and it ain't a badge only a republican or democrat, or any singular president, can wear alone.
As far as Obama 'spending' less, or creating less debt per year - how can you calculate? I bet Obama will spend as much - and probably more - since he's going to have to not only maintain all these failed government (not singularly Bush) spending committments, but he's going to create his own. If the cost of the inaugeration is any indicator of O's fiscal responsibility, we're gonna be in for it.
Funny. The liberals *****ed and moaned and belittle Bush for his innaugeration costs, but cant muster up enough indignation about O's, which will be about 40% more. Hypocritical, wouldn't you say? And don't even start on the carbon footprint for the 'Greenest' president in history. And, boy... love that treasury pick... can't manage his own tax requirements, but he's gonna manage mine.
At least the big O will be saving money on Iraq - since it never fell into chaos, civil war, and the abyss... so less money will be spent on a nation that - dare you disagree? - is awfully successfull compared to all the claims of the 'experts'.
If you're gonna make an issue on debt, know that percentage of GDP is a better indicator than measuring dollars - since a dollars value seems to be always depreciating. Eleven trillion in 2009 would be 5.5 trillion on 1997 which would be 2.25 trillion in 1987 and equal to 1.1 trillion in 1977... so, in one sense, the debt has not climbed significantly in dollars. Deduct the cost of the bailout, and the costs of the conflicts and war related humanitarian aid, and it hasn't climbed at all relating to dollars.
Public debt, though, has doubled in 30 years'ish - that's the big deal. Spending out the ass, and selling bonds, securities, T-Bills and the like. That's the problem - spending beyond tax collections and compensating by selling unprotected financial paper. But Obama's not gonna end that policy. It's what's keeping this liberalized government liquid.
So, GC - don't be talking silly. Even if you believe Bush is a lying, water-boarding, unedjumakated, teetotaling Bastard - the things you claim are nowhere near all his fault. maw
Sure, the debt would have been less of a debt 50 years go, but our buddy Bill left office with a surplus of 12 billion, wasn't it? So your word twisting hasn't really proved anything.
Anyways, when I refer to Bush, I mean the Bush administration. Hell, I could've said republicans. It doesn't matter, they're all the same to me.
Anyways, when I refer to Bush, I mean the Bush administration. Hell, I could've said republicans. It doesn't matter, they're all the same to me.
You could easily have said, and more accurately, that when a Republican congress was in power, that spending matched collections from 1997 to 2000.
And I didn't twist words - I described, accurately, what two perspectives were on debt (dollar count verses GDP) and why I thought counting dollars was not accurate.
And I think although I haven't proved anything, my observations on President-Elect Obama are spot on, and are more accurate than an uninformed position ignorant of government financial political history in the United States. maw
And I didn't twist words - I described, accurately, what two perspectives were on debt (dollar count verses GDP) and why I thought counting dollars was not accurate.
And I think although I haven't proved anything, my observations on President-Elect Obama are spot on, and are more accurate than an uninformed position ignorant of government financial political history in the United States. maw
Mage246
No, in this case a percentage wouldn't be accurate. For example:
(fake numbers following)
If the deficit starts at $10 trillion, and Bush raises it by 20% ($2 trillion) to $12 trillion, then for Obama to raise it by the same percentage he has to raise it by $2.4 trillion, a full 20% more than Bush. Now, considering how Bush's term was *known* for an abnormally high increase in debt, requiring Obama to raise it 20% more than he did just to be seen as the same as him is not realistic. When you deal with large increases in debt in a short period of time, working on a percentage basis doesn't make sense. If you really want to compare the two, you should do so on a dollar-to-dollar basis, adjusting for inflation.
(fake numbers following)
If the deficit starts at $10 trillion, and Bush raises it by 20% ($2 trillion) to $12 trillion, then for Obama to raise it by the same percentage he has to raise it by $2.4 trillion, a full 20% more than Bush. Now, considering how Bush's term was *known* for an abnormally high increase in debt, requiring Obama to raise it 20% more than he did just to be seen as the same as him is not realistic. When you deal with large increases in debt in a short period of time, working on a percentage basis doesn't make sense. If you really want to compare the two, you should do so on a dollar-to-dollar basis, adjusting for inflation.
Sure. What I said, and you said again. When it comes to comparing two presidents. And actually, O would have to do even more since the dollar will depreciate at least 2% each year. But that defict increase is over an 8 year period... so shortfall would be around 330Bn a year. In adjusted dollars, thats a stable increase overn 40 years, less three years of republican congress at the end of Clinton's administration.
I addressed debt overall, pretty much looking at the changes made by the Fed in 1968, and how the total debt dollar-value wise hasn't changed a great deal over the long term, regardless of administration or congress.
But i know public debt went from 31% in 1969 to over 70% of the yearly gross domestic product. That's where I think a problem arises. It basically has climbed 3/4% gross a year... more like 2.5% if you didn't account for economic growth, and in line over the same 40 year period with that evil thing called inflation.
Think there's a correlation? Yep: Selling government financial paper creates public debt and devaluates the dollar. Who creates debt? Congress. Who approves it? The president. Unique? Nope. Wrong way of doing things? Youuuuu betcha.
Wanna fix US debt? Stop selling that paper, and let people invest in dollars. And don't spend more money than collected the year before in taxes. iIn 20 years public debt would be down, maybe to zero. And all spending capped, regardless of who was in charge and large.
Spending which wasn't all created by a single president, or a congress. So blaming Bush for... what? Fighting two wars? Sorry he couldn't do it for free - but deduct those war related costs, and the debt grew as it did every year - because congress, not the president, really creates debt. Or, as GC pointed out during President Clinton's administration, congress could stabilize debt (remember contract with america?). What I believe is that as much debt will be added under the O admin as the W admin - since a pres has little impact on spending. Since it'll be a more liberal congress, and what with the financial bailouts going on, there is a good chance it'll be a higher percentage. We'll see.
Anyhow, its off topic - and if its a big deal, someone open a thread on it. The subject was - 4th amendment rights and some exaggerated statement it was being abridged. Due to the USSC ruling. maw
I addressed debt overall, pretty much looking at the changes made by the Fed in 1968, and how the total debt dollar-value wise hasn't changed a great deal over the long term, regardless of administration or congress.
But i know public debt went from 31% in 1969 to over 70% of the yearly gross domestic product. That's where I think a problem arises. It basically has climbed 3/4% gross a year... more like 2.5% if you didn't account for economic growth, and in line over the same 40 year period with that evil thing called inflation.
Think there's a correlation? Yep: Selling government financial paper creates public debt and devaluates the dollar. Who creates debt? Congress. Who approves it? The president. Unique? Nope. Wrong way of doing things? Youuuuu betcha.
Wanna fix US debt? Stop selling that paper, and let people invest in dollars. And don't spend more money than collected the year before in taxes. iIn 20 years public debt would be down, maybe to zero. And all spending capped, regardless of who was in charge and large.
Spending which wasn't all created by a single president, or a congress. So blaming Bush for... what? Fighting two wars? Sorry he couldn't do it for free - but deduct those war related costs, and the debt grew as it did every year - because congress, not the president, really creates debt. Or, as GC pointed out during President Clinton's administration, congress could stabilize debt (remember contract with america?). What I believe is that as much debt will be added under the O admin as the W admin - since a pres has little impact on spending. Since it'll be a more liberal congress, and what with the financial bailouts going on, there is a good chance it'll be a higher percentage. We'll see.
Anyhow, its off topic - and if its a big deal, someone open a thread on it. The subject was - 4th amendment rights and some exaggerated statement it was being abridged. Due to the USSC ruling. maw
ArabArcher35 说:
I think it's great. Someone who commits a crime is guilt, and should be ****ed to the fullest extent of the law. If a cop stops to help a car broken down on the road, and opens the trunk without asking, and finds the dead body of a child, the criminal should get charged in every way.
Punishment for a crime is because a crime is committed, not because it was found out about in a "legal" way. If you did it, **** you. Victims of an illegal search, who have done nothing wrong and have nothing illegal on-hand, have lost nothing outside of the time lost to perform the search. Criminals who are victims of an illegal search where illegal items or evidence of crimes are found, should look at it as "you did it, so **** you".
scootar
Squire
I agree that 9/11 was a catalyst in spurring war birds, but that spurring is just starting to subside. 9/11 was still used by the bush administration when Obama's election was on the horizon.Zaro 说:
As for Obama, the verdict is still out on him. However I don't like the trend I'm seeing with the stimulus packages. We haven't used that much money in the past to boost the economy and he doesn't realize some CEOs are corrupt. The ones that aren't take advice from a bunch of yes-men.
Punishment is still carried out. The idea that the police have to ignore the thirty corpses in your flat because they're searching on a firearms warrant is bull**** in the first place.HardCode 说:
If further illegal activity is discovered during a search it simply requires the police file another warrant in order to search and sieze in relation to the newly discovered crime. In fact, such evidence provides a basis to apply for an extension of the detention without charge period (although moot if they charge you with the initial crime).
The idea is to enforce due course and procedure, which needless to say normally occurs for a reason. In this case, it minimises possible malpractice (harassment, planting evidence etc) on the side of the police and ensures a fair trial by making the (potential) charges against you a matter of record. The state cannot charge you with a firearms offence and then make you stand trial for rape, nor can they begin including evidence without allowing both the prosecution and defence a chance to examine it.
Sir Saladin
Count
I didn't like it many years ago when a cop was sticking his fingers in my pants pockets and digging my stuff out, that's not just rude it is almost perverted I mean I didn't even know the guy. I wasn't even accused of a crime I was just hanging out with a couple of friends on a small bridge, with the Patriot Act the retired Alderman across the street that we didn't know about could have called the police and said we looked like terrorists instead of pot smokers because we probably did and we could have been arrested without being told why and whisked off to Cuba for some stress position/sleep deprivation aggressive interrogation or whatever the new word for torture is these days and I would have confessed to anything that they wanted me to because of my irrational fears of drowning and electrical burns. Maw will scoff at this scenario thinking that the inherent goodness of America won't allow such abuses but I argue that people are basically mean and stupid no matter where they live and that is why the Bill of Rights was written and made into law.
I'll agree with Sal that people are stupid, and mean. Too often.
I'll also second the Patriot Act criticism, and reinforce by saying that it was both unnessessary and poorly written.
However, I've yet to be aware of any real scenario you describe - an innocent being whisked off to an internment camp, or 'tortured' because someone thought they might possibly perhaps could-have-been considering acting something like a potentoial terrorist. So far, only the baddest of the bad jihadist badassess get that vacation in the sun, ones caught withtheir hands in motion. And it's pretty much established that there just aren't enough beds at Gitmo to detain all those subversive pot smokers.
You could argue any kind of detention is torture, and disrupting someone from their intent to be free to do whatever can provoke anguish. If you use the Geneva definition, though - sleep deprivation, stress position application, and waterboarding don't meet that standard. Those things would be in violation of most state application of criminal interrogation. though cops have been know to turn the heat way, way down in jail cells, and not allow anyone to watch cable.
Dennis Miller said recently, much better than me: "Something that takes somebody who's willing to strap a bomb on and yet freaks them out to the point where they'll tell you where the next bomb is by pouring water down their nose and they don't even die, I think, wow, this is heaven-sent."
However, I'm thinking the fuzzy way the Patriot Act is written is going to cause some severe conflict with the Bill of Rights eventually. Law Enforcement is not National Security, and functions much closer to the citizenry than a fed agency like the DIA, CIA, NSA, or FBI, so stretching a poor application of police skills into the use of the scary old Patriot Act is a reach.
They really don't want any dopers like you at Gitmo. They annoy the jihadists. maw
I'll also second the Patriot Act criticism, and reinforce by saying that it was both unnessessary and poorly written.
However, I've yet to be aware of any real scenario you describe - an innocent being whisked off to an internment camp, or 'tortured' because someone thought they might possibly perhaps could-have-been considering acting something like a potentoial terrorist. So far, only the baddest of the bad jihadist badassess get that vacation in the sun, ones caught withtheir hands in motion. And it's pretty much established that there just aren't enough beds at Gitmo to detain all those subversive pot smokers.
You could argue any kind of detention is torture, and disrupting someone from their intent to be free to do whatever can provoke anguish. If you use the Geneva definition, though - sleep deprivation, stress position application, and waterboarding don't meet that standard. Those things would be in violation of most state application of criminal interrogation. though cops have been know to turn the heat way, way down in jail cells, and not allow anyone to watch cable.
Dennis Miller said recently, much better than me: "Something that takes somebody who's willing to strap a bomb on and yet freaks them out to the point where they'll tell you where the next bomb is by pouring water down their nose and they don't even die, I think, wow, this is heaven-sent."
However, I'm thinking the fuzzy way the Patriot Act is written is going to cause some severe conflict with the Bill of Rights eventually. Law Enforcement is not National Security, and functions much closer to the citizenry than a fed agency like the DIA, CIA, NSA, or FBI, so stretching a poor application of police skills into the use of the scary old Patriot Act is a reach.
They really don't want any dopers like you at Gitmo. They annoy the jihadists. maw
