QuoteBlogger's Case Could Test the Limits of Political Speech
New Jersey Man Was Arrested After Writing That 3 Judges 'Deserve to Be Killed'
CHICAGO -- Internet radio host Hal Turner disliked how three federal judges rejected the National Rifle Association's attempt to overturn a pair of handgun bans.
"Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed," Turner wrote on his blog on June 2, according to the FBI. "Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions."
The next day, Turner posted photographs of the appellate judges and a map showing the Chicago courthouse where they work, noting the placement of "anti-truck bomb barriers." When an FBI agent appeared at the door of his New Jersey home, Turner said he meant no harm.
He is now behind bars awaiting trial, accused of threatening the judges and deemed by a U.S. magistrate as too dangerous to be free.
Turner's case is likely to test the limits of political speech at a time when incendiary talk is proliferating on broadcast outlets and the Internet, from the microphones of well-known commentators to the keyboards of anonymous netizens. President Obama has been depicted as a Nazi and slain Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller as "Tiller the killer." On guns and abortion, war and torture, taxes and now health care, the commentary feeds off pools of anger that ebb and flow with the zeitgeist.
Mark Potok, an editor at the Southern Poverty Law Center who tracks extremists and hate speech, says he thinks "political speech has gotten rougher in the last six months."
While federal authorities moved swiftly to stop Turner, scholars note that the line between free speech and criminality is a fine one.
Turner's attorney said the prosecutors overreacted.
"He gave an opinion. He did not say go out and kill," defense attorney Michael Orozco said last week after unsuccessfully seeking bail. "This is political hyperbole, nothing more. He's a shock jock."
That is not how U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald and his prosecutors see the case. They charged Turner, a blogger admired by white supremacists, with threatening the lives of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit: Frank Easterbrook, Richard Posner and William Bauer.
Threats against federal judges are taken particularly seriously here: The husband and mother of U.S. District Judge Joan H. Lefkow were slain in February 2005 by a disgruntled plaintiff. He hid in a closet in Lefkow's home, waiting for the judge to return home, but her husband found him first.
Turner, 47, was first charged in June by Connecticut's Capitol Police with inciting injury after he urged residents to "take up arms" against two state legislators and an ethics official when the lawmakers introduced a bill to give lay members of Roman Catholic churches more control over their parishes' finances.
Later that month, federal authorities filed charges in the Chicago case.
Writing on his blog, which has since been taken down, Turner disputed a June 2 ruling by the three judges, who said a federal district judge had properly dismissed the NRA's lawsuit to overturn handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. It was a Supreme Court matter, the judges said.
Turner called the judges -- including Posner and Easterbrook, two of the nation's most prominent conservative jurists -- "unpatriotic, deceitful scum." He said the only thing standing in the way of the judges and "the government" achieving ultimate power "is the fact that We The People have guns. Now, that is very much in jeopardy."
Quoting Thomas Jefferson, Turner said, "The tree of liberty must be replenished from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots." He added his own words: "It is time to replenish the tree!"
Timothy McVeigh, who detonated the Oklahoma City bomb that killed 168 people in 1995, was wearing a T-shirt with Jefferson's words when he was arrested. Last week, a pistol-carrying protester outside an Obama town hall meeting in New Hampshire carried a sign that said, "It is time to water the tree of liberty."
On his blog, Turner cited another 7th Circuit ruling against white supremacist Matthew Hale, who once called for Lefkow's assassination. Turner also mentioned the Lefkow murders, although they were unrelated to the Hale case.
"Apparently, the 7th U.S. Circuit court didn't get the hint after those killings. It appears another lesson is needed," Turner wrote. "These judges deserve to be made such an example of as to send a message to the entire judiciary: Obey the Constitution or die."
Turner, who authorities said had three semiautomatic handguns, a shotgun and 350 rounds of ammunition in his North Bergen, N.J., home when the FBI arrested him, worked at times as an FBI informant. Although Fitzgerald's office says he provided occasional information on right-wing extremists, Orozco said he was recruited as an "agent provocateur" to get leftists to act in public against him and reveal themselves to the FBI.
First Amendment scholar Martin H. Redish said much of what Turner wrote is protected by the Constitution, including his declarations that the judges should be eliminated. But he said Turner probably crossed a line when he printed information about the judges, their office locations and the courthouse.
"I would give very strong odds on a thousand bucks that once he said that stuff, it takes it out of any kind of hyperbole range," said Redish, a professor at Northwestern University Law School. "I just don't see him being protected."
Michael Harrison, a former talk radio host and publisher of Talkers magazine, says examples of incitement to violence are rare. He termed them "random." As he surveys the landscape, he said, "It's easy to take a look at this and say, 'Is this some kind of trend?' No, it isn't.
"I remember plenty of people comparing George W. Bush to a Nazi, to a fascist. Of course there are suggestible people and there are mentally ill people who can react to anything. But what are you going to do -- stop political discussion, stop criticism, stop free speech?"
James W. von Brunn, who killed a guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in June, had a history of hateful writings about religious and ethnic minorities and a felony conviction for attacking the Federal Reserve headquarters. But he was not the subject of a criminal investigation before the shooting.
"Law enforcement's challenge every day is to balance the civil liberties of the United States citizen against the need to investigate activities that might lead to criminal conduct," Joseph Persichini Jr., chief of the FBI's Washington field office, told reporters. "No matter how offensive to some, we are keenly aware expressing views is not a crime and the protection afforded under the Constitution cannot be compromised."
Yet all speech is not alike, Potok said. Just as the disruptions directed at Democratic town hall meetings on health care are spawning a debate about the contours of civil discourse, the sometimes bitter skirmishes on the airwaves and the Web raise questions about where such talk can lead.
Some conservative commentators "really are provocateurs," Potok maintained. "They have specialized for years now in pushing the First Amendment to its limits, and they've gotten very good at it."
The guy deserves to go to jail just for this:
Quotethe only thing standing in the way of the judges and "the government" achieving ultimate power "is the fact that We The People have guns. Now, that is very much in jeopardy.
I hate that stupid shit.
He can't blog about it jail but perhaps he can write about it with pen and paper. He can call it "The Turner Diaries".
Saying "you should be killed" is hyperbole, if a poor choice of words. Telling unpredictable listeners someone should be killed, and then providing logistics of an attempt sounds like pretty damning evidence towards mens rea.
He should be killed!
Oh, wait. Doh.
Guy sounds gay.
Does anyone else think that some of the reason for the recent outburst of blogs testing limits of free speech is that people who run them (in addition to being retards just for having a blog) tend to confuse their nature?
It seems to me that people treat blogs like they would treat an anonymous internet forum due to the superficial similarity (both are on the internet), whereas the level of "personal responsibility" is much higher on a blog, since they are usually posted under real name etc.
So I suspect that the guy wouldn't say that stuff on the air in his radio show, but posted it on the blog, because he confused its nature.
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 07:13:42 AM
I hate that stupid american shit.
There, I corrected it for you. I don't think anywhere else is armed violence so mythologized as it is in the States. And that absurd paranoia about the state and government... :rolleyes:
G.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2009, 10:00:49 AM
Does anyone else think that some of the reason for the recent outburst of blogs testing limits of free speech is that people who run them (in addition to being retards just for having a blog) tend to confuse their nature?
It seems to me that people treat blogs like they would treat an anonymous internet forum due to the superficial similarity (both are on the internet), whereas the level of "personal responsibility" is much higher on a blog, since they are usually posted under real name etc.
So I suspect that the guy wouldn't say that stuff on the air in his radio show, but posted it on the blog, because he confused its nature.
Perception of anonymity is higher on an Internet forum, but to law enforcement, there's no such thing as Internet anonymity. All it takes is a subpoena to get a poster's email address, a subpoena to get IP traffic to and from the email provider, and a subpoena to the internet service provider to obain the address associated with an IP address and/or MAC address.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 16, 2009, 10:19:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2009, 10:00:49 AM
Does anyone else think that some of the reason for the recent outburst of blogs testing limits of free speech is that people who run them (in addition to being retards just for having a blog) tend to confuse their nature?
It seems to me that people treat blogs like they would treat an anonymous internet forum due to the superficial similarity (both are on the internet), whereas the level of "personal responsibility" is much higher on a blog, since they are usually posted under real name etc.
So I suspect that the guy wouldn't say that stuff on the air in his radio show, but posted it on the blog, because he confused its nature.
Perception of anonymity is higher on an Internet forum, but to law enforcement, there's no such thing as Internet anonymity. All it takes is a subpoena to get a poster's email address, a subpoena to get IP traffic to and from the email provider, and a subpoena to the internet service provider to obain the address associated with an IP address and/or MAC address.
Yeah, I know, but I think people got used to saying stupid shit on "anonymous" internet forums (vide: Languish), that they would never say in real life.
Now, I think they are carrying over this sentiment to blogs.
Quotebut I think people got used to saying stupid shit on "anonymous" internet forums (vide: Languish)
I tell wild stories about how I invented the question mark in real life too.
Quote from: Grallon on August 16, 2009, 10:18:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 07:13:42 AM
I hate that stupid american shit.
There, I corrected it for you. I don't think anywhere else is armed violence so mythologized as it is in the States. And that absurd paranoia about the state and government... :rolleyes:
There are places where armed violence against the state can be successful. The US isn't one of them.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2009, 10:21:25 AM
Yeah, I know, but I think people got used to saying stupid shit on "anonymous" internet forums (vide: Languish), that they would never say in real life.
Now, I think they are carrying over this sentiment to blogs.
Definitely, but the flaw is in believing in anonymity on the Internet in the first place.
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 10:29:21 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 16, 2009, 10:18:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 07:13:42 AM
I hate that stupid american shit.
There, I corrected it for you. I don't think anywhere else is armed violence so mythologized as it is in the States. And that absurd paranoia about the state and government... :rolleyes:
There are places where armed violence against the state can be successful. The US isn't one of them.
Still it's a bit of a tricky question - one of those "know them when I see them". I guess as a rule of thumb, a democracy with protections for minority is not a good place for an armed violence, though.
The line between free speech and unlawful incitement can be blurry, but this conduct seems pretty safely on the unlawful side of that line.
Also if I had to rank a list of people as to most likely to be threatened by a deranged right wing blogger, it would take a very long list before Judge Easterbrook got added.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 17, 2009, 09:13:56 AM
The line between free speech and unlawful incitement can be blurry, but this conduct seems pretty safely on the unlawful side of that line.
I agree. Why is that though? Is it just the threat or more the map? Or is incitement like porn?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 09:19:53 AM
I agree. Why is that though? Is it just the threat or more the map? Or is incitement like porn?
The map. The map shows consideration and pretty much discounts the possibility that it was an insult in the heat of the moment.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 09:19:53 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 17, 2009, 09:13:56 AM
The line between free speech and unlawful incitement can be blurry, but this conduct seems pretty safely on the unlawful side of that line.
I agree. Why is that though? Is it just the threat or more the map? Or is incitement like porn?
The threat is concrete, detailed, targeted at particular individuals, and provides specific directions for the commission of illegal acts.
A while ago, I think the 70s or 80s, the KKK (a certain branch, I think in one state mainly) was hit hard, several of its leaders tried and found guilty, for incitements to violence in its literature where others acted on the message. I'm not sure of the details, but the court found that the KKK had responsibility since others acted on their words; something like that. Then it also turned out that the mother/family of a murdered young black man got the properties and cash settlements from the KKK in lawsuit.
I blame repressed homosexual urges. He should just come out.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 17, 2009, 09:43:39 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 09:19:53 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 17, 2009, 09:13:56 AM
The line between free speech and unlawful incitement can be blurry, but this conduct seems pretty safely on the unlawful side of that line.
I agree. Why is that though? Is it just the threat or more the map? Or is incitement like porn?
The threat is concrete, detailed, targeted at particular individuals, and provides specific directions for the commission of illegal acts.
yeah see that's what I was thinking... it's crossing a pretty easy to see line. Anyone with an IQ higher than 80 ought to be able to see that. So most of the blogosphere would take it seriously I guess.
Quote from: Grallon on August 16, 2009, 10:18:31 AM
There, I corrected it for you. I don't think anywhere else is armed violence so mythologized as it is in the States. And that absurd paranoia about the state and government... :rolleyes:
G.
Stop reading Pravda, kthx?
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2009, 11:47:02 AM
Stop reading Pravda, kthx?
We can't, Cuba needs toilet paper.
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2009, 11:47:02 AM
Stop reading Pravda, kthx?
I don't know, I think Grallon's right to some extent. The US has glorified individual violence and, in a different way, revolt against the state over its history. Those are part of its national myths. I think it's like saying that someone observing that France has glorified revolution and street violence should stop reading the National Review. I think it's true.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 12:09:41 PM
I don't know, I think Grallon's right to some extent. The US has glorified individual violence and, in a different way, revolt against the state over its history. Those are part of its national myths. I think it's like saying that someone observing that France has glorified revolution and street violence should stop reading the National Review. I think it's true.
True. I've weekly meetings with a pro-anarchy group based in Palo Alto. We're considering a move on the SF Armory.
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2009, 12:14:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 12:09:41 PM
I don't know, I think Grallon's right to some extent. The US has glorified individual violence and, in a different way, revolt against the state over its history. Those are part of its national myths. I think it's like saying that someone observing that France has glorified revolution and street violence should stop reading the National Review. I think it's true.
True. I've weekly meetings with a pro-anarchy group based in Palo Alto. We're considering a move on the SF Armory.
Organized anachists?
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2009, 12:15:13 PM
Organized anachists?
Oh not really. Several of us want to start up Helter Skelter in Los Angeles, few want to beat up cops in Oakland and a few just want to go chill at Burning Man. :Embarrass:
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2009, 12:14:04 PM
True. I've weekly meetings with a pro-anarchy group based in Palo Alto. We're considering a move on the SF Armory.
A national myth and the glorification of specific aspects of history doesn't mean that you've organised groups running round trying to re-enact it. I'm saying the Jacobins are part of the soul of France not that they're still meeting in an old Monastery. Similarly I think the US's national myth has a glorification of the individual/individualism as a shaping force in history and in revolt against the state, not that you go to meet pro-anarchy groups.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 12:21:43 PM
A national myth and the glorification of specific aspects of history doesn't mean that you've organised groups running round trying to re-enact it. I'm saying the Jacobins are part of the soul of France not that they're still meeting in an old Monastery. Similarly I think the US's national myth has a glorification of the individual/individualism as a shaping force in history and in revolt against the state, not that you go to meet pro-anarchy groups.
What effect would you say that this myth has?
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2009, 12:15:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2009, 12:14:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 12:09:41 PM
I don't know, I think Grallon's right to some extent. The US has glorified individual violence and, in a different way, revolt against the state over its history. Those are part of its national myths. I think it's like saying that someone observing that France has glorified revolution and street violence should stop reading the National Review. I think it's true.
True. I've weekly meetings with a pro-anarchy group based in Palo Alto. We're considering a move on the SF Armory.
Organized anachists?
Spanish Civil War veterens, maybe? :D
Quote from: dps on August 17, 2009, 12:59:27 PM
Spanish Civil War veterens, maybe? :D
Arachosyndicalism always felt a bit selfcontradictory to me.
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2009, 01:03:41 PM
Quote from: dps on August 17, 2009, 12:59:27 PM
Spanish Civil War veterens, maybe? :D
Arachosyndicalism always felt a bit selfcontradictory to me.
It's like a hive mentality.
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2009, 12:31:32 PM
What effect would you say that this myth has?
Hollywood :P
What's the effect of the myth in France? I don't think myths have much effect most of the time.
Question: Can a person be charged with inciting a crime if said crime was never committed or attempted?
I think the answer is yes, but it seems like there would be something fundamentally wrong with that.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 17, 2009, 02:50:29 PM
Question: Can a person be charged with inciting a crime if said crime was never committed or attempted?
I think the answer is yes, but it seems like there would be something fundamentally wrong with that.
I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with it. It seems equivalent to threatening to murder someone, without doing it. Threats alone can terrorize someone. In fact, having a blueprint to your murder be posted on the Internet would strike me as a hell of a lot more terrorizing than a threat from one individual.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 02:40:33 PM
Hollywood :P
What's the effect of the myth in France? I don't think myths have much effect most of the time.
Then I fail to see the relevance of the "observation."
Quote from: DGuller on August 17, 2009, 02:58:03 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 17, 2009, 02:50:29 PM
Question: Can a person be charged with inciting a crime if said crime was never committed or attempted?
I think the answer is yes, but it seems like there would be something fundamentally wrong with that.
I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with it. It seems equivalent to threatening to murder someone, without doing it. Threats alone can terrorize someone. In fact, having a blueprint to your murder be posted on the Internet would strike me as a hell of a lot more terrorizing than a threat from one individual.
True, but there got to be some sort of threshold to cross. I mean what about more minor crimes? Consider the following hypothetical conversation on the interpipes:
Quote
Fireblade: Jaron, you should stop paying your taxes, man. It's not right.
Jaron: FB, that's crazy-talk. I don't think I'll be participating in your not paying taxes plan. You're all kooky and shit.
In this instance, is Fireblade guilty of inciting tax evasion?
How about this:
Quote
Fireblade: Jaron, you should stop paying your taxes, man. It's not right.
Jaron: I'll think about it.
You don't know if Jaron decided to go along with it! OMG!
Or this:
Quote
Fireblade: All you niggaz need to stop paying your taxes until Barack legalizes weed!
Maybe everyone stops paying. Maybe one or two. How many counts of inciting tax evasion should Fireblade be charged with?
Thanks, Mart, but wouldn't a more analogous situation be one where Fireblade encourages us to not pay taxes and tells us how to stash our money outside of the country/get paid under the table?
It seems like the threshold is probable intent. Conspiracy involves planning for the crime, but doesn't seem to require that the crime is actually committed.
Hey! It's the best I can do half paying attention to the meeting I'm in. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 17, 2009, 02:50:29 PM
Question: Can a person be charged with inciting a crime if said crime was never committed or attempted?
I think the answer is yes, but it seems like there would be something fundamentally wrong with that.
Answer: yes.
The reason is very practical - you want the police to be able to stop crimes before they happen (and be able to arrest and charge accordingly) - not wait until after the criminal commits the deed.
Quote from: Barrister on August 17, 2009, 04:36:25 PMyou want the police to be able to stop crimes before they happen
As a general rule, I do not want this. Only in certain circumstances. Like blowing up a courthouse. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 17, 2009, 02:50:29 PM
Question: Can a person be charged with inciting a crime if said crime was never committed or attempted?
I think the answer is yes, but it seems like there would be something fundamentally wrong with that.
Conspiracy requires only an agreement to do something illegal and an overt act in furtherance of the agreement which act in itself can be wholly lawful. So this is not that unusual concept.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 17, 2009, 04:28:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 17, 2009, 02:58:03 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 17, 2009, 02:50:29 PM
Question: Can a person be charged with inciting a crime if said crime was never committed or attempted?
I think the answer is yes, but it seems like there would be something fundamentally wrong with that.
I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with it. It seems equivalent to threatening to murder someone, without doing it. Threats alone can terrorize someone. In fact, having a blueprint to your murder be posted on the Internet would strike me as a hell of a lot more terrorizing than a threat from one individual.
True, but there got to be some sort of threshold to cross. I mean what about more minor crimes? Consider the following hypothetical conversation on the interpipes:
Quote
Fireblade: Jaron, you should stop paying your taxes, man. It's not right.
Jaron: FB, that's crazy-talk. I don't think I'll be participating in your not paying taxes plan. You're all kooky and shit.
In this instance, is Fireblade guilty of inciting tax evasion?
How about this:
Quote
Fireblade: Jaron, you should stop paying your taxes, man. It's not right.
Jaron: I'll think about it.
You don't know if Jaron decided to go along with it! OMG!
Or this:
Quote
Fireblade: All you niggaz need to stop paying your taxes until Barack legalizes weed!
Maybe everyone stops paying. Maybe one or two. How many counts of inciting tax evasion should Fireblade be charged with?
That's why we criminalize "incitement to violence" but not, say, "incitement to jaywalking".
As a rule, we criminalize "aiding and abetting" and a conspiracy to commit a crime, but not a mere incitement, unless the crime to which the incitement is being made is serious enough to warrant this.
Where's Hans? He should be out defending this guy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 12:09:41 PM
I don't know, I think Grallon's right to some extent. The US has glorified individual violence and, in a different way, revolt against the state over its history.
Glorified it more than any other place on earth? I think not.
Quote from: grumbler on August 17, 2009, 06:50:08 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 12:09:41 PM
I don't know, I think Grallon's right to some extent. The US has glorified individual violence and, in a different way, revolt against the state over its history.
Glorified it more than any other place on earth? I think not.
Individual or mass violence? I don't know.
Individual violence I can see; revolt against the state is nutty talk.
Quote from: grumbler on August 17, 2009, 06:50:08 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 12:09:41 PM
I don't know, I think Grallon's right to some extent. The US has glorified individual violence and, in a different way, revolt against the state over its history.
Glorified it more than any other place on earth? I think not.
I didn't say glorified more than any other place on earth :mellow:
QuoteIndividual violence I can see; revolt against the state is nutty talk.
I think you're right. The more I think about it Americans seem to me to have a strange relationship with their government, but you're right it's not to do with revolt.
What I find ironic is that US is prosperous due to its high quality of governance, and yet a large chunk of its population holds it responsible for any and all problems.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 07:20:24 PM
I didn't say glorified more than any other place on earth :mellow:
You should know by now that grumbler is nothing but semantics ;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 07:20:24 PM
QuoteIndividual violence I can see; revolt against the state is nutty talk.
I think you're right. The more I think about it Americans seem to me to have a strange relationship with their government, but you're right it's not to do with revolt.
A special relationship yes, just listen to the 'death tribunal' nonsense - and witness the numbers of those who are ready and willing to lap up that shit...
Deep mistrust, not altogether unfounded, one only has to look at the curtailing of civil liberties during the Cheney administration; but hearing and reading about the goings on of some of those 'conservatives' you'd think the government was out to get the citizenry every step of the way.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 17, 2009, 07:26:40 PM
A special relationship yes, just listen to the 'death tribunal' nonsense - and witness the numbers of those who are ready and willing to lap up that shit...
Deep mistrust, not altogether unfounded, one only has to look at the curtailing of civil liberties during the Cheney administration; but hearing and reading about the goings on of some of those 'conservatives' you'd think the government was out to get the citizenry every step of the way.
This is what I find weird. I read it expressed better somewhere else recently, but I can't remember where. It was basically in response to a liberal writer saying how ridiculous the fears of government healthcare were because the US government wouldn't and perhaps couldn't do anything really dangerous with those powers.
The writer pointed out that the people who think that often also think that the same government spent much of the 8 years renditioning, torturing and hiding people away in secret prisons around the world with no civil liberties. Conversely a lot of the people who currently suspect Obama's a closet Muslim, wasn't born in this country or wants death panels were the same people who spent the last 8 years arguing for a very strong xecutive with a strong set of accompanying privileges. That's an odd relationship.
I mean it's different from the British hypocrisy - which is that government should do more or less everything, but it shouldn't cost much and it shouldn't be in our areas.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 07:36:54 PM
The writer pointed out that the people who think that often also think that the same government spent much of the 8 years renditioning, torturing and hiding people away in secret prisons around the world with no civil liberties. Conversely a lot of the people who currently suspect Obama's a closet Muslim, wasn't born in this country or wants death panels were the same people who spent the last 8 years arguing for a very strong xecutive with a strong set of accompanying privileges. That's an odd relationship.
Not necessarily. Torture et al affected "them" and provided "us" with security (or at worst case nothing). Note the completely different treatment that was meted out to US citizen detainees. Reforming health care affects "us."
Generally agree with Grallon about the paranoid streak though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2009, 07:55:21 PMor at worst case nothing
At worst you mean if all the worst allegations were true?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 08:13:09 PM
At worst you mean if all the worst allegations were true?
At worst case if all of Cheney's claims are false.
The Cheney Administration. ^_^
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2009, 08:16:49 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 08:13:09 PM
At worst you mean if all the worst allegations were true?
At worst case if all of Cheney's claims are false.
Okay, and you think that costs nothing? Or just nothing tangible?
What we seem to be skirting around is that there's a culture of "personal success" that seems to have had its lines blurred with greed and self-centrism somewhere along the way among the ultra-conservatives: there's a large group which seems to have come into play where detainees' rights are perceived to be in conflict with their own "rights" to safety and security.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 07:20:24 PM
I didn't say glorified more than any other place on earth :mellow:
No, Grallon did: "I don't think anywhere else is armed violence so mythologized as it is in the States," and you agreed with him "to some extent." I was simply pointing out that the statement you were "to some extent" defending was hyperbole. I wasn't saying that you were completely wrong.
Quote from: Grallon on August 17, 2009, 07:26:40 PM
You should know by now that grumbler is nothing but semantics ;)
Yes, i am nothing but the meaning of words, and you are nothiing but the utterance of hyperbole.
QuoteA special relationship yes, just listen to the 'death tribunal' nonsense - and witness the numbers of those who are ready and willing to lap up that shit...
I googled "death tribunal" and found the top hits were:
#
PETROGRAD A HORROR CITY.; Many Priests Victims of the Russian ...
Many Priests Victims of the Russian Death Tribunal. (ITON, Dec. 12. -- Violent methods are being used by the charged with combating tho revolt against the ...
query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res... - Similar
#
Bloody Sunday inquiry: Soldiers 'face risk of death' Tribunal ...
Bloody Sunday inquiry: Soldiers 'face risk of death' Tribunal accused of 'deliberate' exposure.(News) ... find The News Letter (Belfast, Northern Ireland) ...
www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-60194812.html - Cached - Similar
#
A SECRET DEATH - IDKFA Video by Tribunal Records (FREE MUSIC ...
Jan 27, 2009 ... Keyword Tags: A, SECRET, DEATH, TRIBUNAL, ISIS, CONVERGE, CULT, OF, LUNA. Total Plays: 494. Added: Jan 27, 2009. Comments: 0 ...
vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual... - Cached - Similar
#
UN starts work on Hariri death tribunal. 12/06/2007. ABC News Online
The United Nations has begun work on a special court to try the suspected killers of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik al-Hariri even though a divided ...
www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1948696.htm - Cached - Similar
#
Syria Says It May Not Participate in Hariri Death Tribunal - World ...
Syria Says It May Not Participate in Hariri Death Tribunal Fox News.
www.f-bodyhideout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24793 - Cached - SimilarTo which of these are you referring (assuming you are not just engaging in more hyperbolic bombast)?
QuoteDeep mistrust, not altogether unfounded, one only has to look at the curtailing of civil liberties during the Cheney administration; but hearing and reading about the goings on of some of those 'conservatives' you'd think the government was out to get the citizenry every step of the way.
Ah, the :tinfoil: hyperbole about the "Cheney Administration."
You show
every symptom of the "americans" you affect to despise. :lol:
Try googling "death panel" instead.
Quote from: grumbler on August 17, 2009, 10:12:31 PM
I googled "death tribunal" and found the top hits were:
...
To which of these are you referring (assuming you are not just engaging in more hyperbolic bombast)?
Grallon got the phrase used in American political discourse wrong, it's 'death panel'.
First page of Google:
Quote#
News results for death panel
Examiner.com "Death Panels." A most excellent term. - 5 hours ago
By Roger Ebert on August 17, 2009 12:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) "Death panels" is such an excellent term. You know exactly what it means, ...
Chicago Sun-Times - 64 related articles »
A death panel for disinformation - Kansas City Star - 503 related articles »
Why the "death panel" claim is working - Atlantic Online - 6 related articles »
#
FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill - Yahoo! News
Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a.
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/.../us_health_care_end_of_life_q_a - Cached - Similar
#
Palin stands by 'death panel' claim on health bill - Yahoo! News
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin refused to retreat from her debunked claim that a proposed health care overhaul would create.
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/.../ap.../us_health_care_end_of_life - Cached - Similar
Show more results from news.yahoo.com
#
Sarah Palin: Concerning the "Death Panels" | Facebook
12 Aug 2009 ... Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them. People use Facebook to keep ...
www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434 - Cached - Similar
#
Sarah Palin: Statement on the Current Health Care Debate | Facebook
7 Aug 2009 ... in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, ...
www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434 - Cached - Similar
Show more results from www.facebook.com
#
The Reaction: "Death Panel"
First appointment to Death Panel. See: http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/paula-abdul-named-to-obama-death-panel/. By Anonymous ...
the-reaction.blogspot.com/2009/08/death-panel.html - Cached - Similar
#
Death Panel - Schott's Vocab Blog - NYTimes.com
10 Aug 2009 ... Sarah Palin's uncompromising description of the bureaucrats she claims will ration treatment under Barack Obama's health care plan.
schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/death-panel/ - Cached - Similar
#
Palin stands by 'death panel' claim - Health care- msnbc.com
14 Aug 2009 ... Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin refused to retreat Thursday from her argument that a proposed health care overhaul would create "death panels ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32403916/ns/politics-capitol_hill/ - Cached - Similar
#
No 'death panel' in health care bill - More politics- msnbc.com
10 Aug 2009 ... Critics who say the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel" are wrong.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32364264/ns/politics-more_politics/ - Cached - Similar
Show more results from www.msnbc.msn.com
#
Palin: Obama "Death Panel" Could Kill My Down Syndrome Baby
Sarah Palin (R-AK) made a dire statement about health care reform -- that it could result in an Obama-created "death panel" killing her infant son with Down ...
digg.com/.../Palin_Obama_Death_Panel_Could_Kill_My_Down_Syndrome_Baby - Cached - Similar
#
The Associated Press: GOP govs sidestep Palin 'death panel' comments
No such "death panel" has been proposed. A provision in the plan passed by a House committee last month would allow Medicare to reimburse seniors who seek ...
www.google.com/.../ALeqM5h3A4LO8eI9ioHm4L9zs2Dh_PoN5wD9A097C00 - Similar
#
Blog posts about death panel
Palin: Obama's "Death Panel" Could Kill My Down Syndrome Baby | TPMDC - TPM Election Central - 7 Aug 2009
Howard Dean: The Media's Treatment of Palin's Outrageous "Death ... - Sarah Palin on The Huffington Post - 10 Aug 2009
Grassley Endorses "Death Panel" Rumor: "You Have Every Right To Fear" - The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com - 5 days ago
Skipping back a few pages at a time the first non-healthcare thing I found was on page 50:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=death+panel&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
Quote from: grumbler on August 17, 2009, 10:05:42 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 07:20:24 PM
I didn't say glorified more than any other place on earth :mellow:
No, Grallon did: "I don't think anywhere else is armed violence so mythologized as it is in the States," and you agreed with him "to some extent." I was simply pointing out that the statement you were "to some extent" defending was hyperbole. I wasn't saying that you were completely wrong.
I think Grallon and I disagree about the extent of the American glorification which is why I only agree with him to some extent :p
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 17, 2009, 08:53:47 PM
What we seem to be skirting around is that there's a culture of "personal success" that seems to have had its lines blurred with greed and self-centrism somewhere along the way among the ultra-conservatives: there's a large group which seems to have come into play where detainees' rights are perceived to be in conflict with their own "rights" to safety and security.
I'm not sure the people who supported the treatment of the detainees thought about it this clearly. Most of them (including many on these boards) simply dismissed the issue of ignoring human rights as "part of the way things are in this new, never-before-seen world of the War on Terror." Basically, it wasn't 'these people have lost their rights because of X," it was "they are terrorists and so never had any rights after they became terrorists."
Not even the fact that there was no evidence of terrorism against most of them bothered many people - they simply assumed they were terrorists even sans evidence, else why would they be at Gitmo to begin with?
And, Yi, the treatment was only different for US citizen detainees because the courts so ordered it. Bush claimed that he had the power to detain US citizens indefinitely without trial, just as he could foreigners - even US citizens arrested in the US.
Quote from: grumbler on August 17, 2009, 10:05:42 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 07:20:24 PM
I didn't say glorified more than any other place on earth :mellow:
No, Grallon did: "I don't think anywhere else is armed violence so mythologized as it is in the States," and you agreed with him "to some extent." I was simply pointing out that the statement you were "to some extent" defending was hyperbole. I wasn't saying that you were completely wrong.
Why are you arguing with Grallon?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 10:16:58 PM
Grallon got the phrase used in American political discourse wrong, it's 'death panel'.
First page of Google:
(snip)
Ah. I don't follow the Palinisms so wasn't up on this one. So, Grallon is a fan of hers, or an unfan? That wasn't clear.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2009, 10:36:49 PM
Why are you arguing with Grallon?
I am having a discussion with Sheilbh. Look at the text you quoted - that's Sheilbh and I you are quoting, not Grallon and I.
I have discussions with Sheilbh because I think he is a pretty discerning commentator, and what he says often makes me think and wonder, which produces a response from me.
Quote from: grumbler on August 17, 2009, 10:20:05 PM
I'm not sure the people who supported the treatment of the detainees thought about it this clearly. Most of them (including many on these boards) simply dismissed the issue of ignoring human rights as "part of the way things are in this new, never-before-seen world of the War on Terror." Basically, it wasn't 'these people have lost their rights because of X," it was "they are terrorists and so never had any rights after they became terrorists."
Not even the fact that there was no evidence of terrorism against most of them bothered many people - they simply assumed they were terrorists even sans evidence, else why would they be at Gitmo to begin with?
And, Yi, the treatment was only different for US citizen detainees because the courts so ordered it. Bush claimed that he had the power to detain US citizens indefinitely without trial, just as he could foreigners - even US citizens arrested in the US.
There's radical fringe on both sides. I was speaking more of the ones who think than the ultra-right whackos like my grandmother who think everyone that is of arabic or hispanic descent is here illegally.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 17, 2009, 10:46:52 PM
There's radical fringe on both sides. I was speaking more of the ones who think than the ultra-right whackos like my grandmother who think everyone that is of arabic or hispanic descent is here illegally.
I am not talking about a radical fringe. I am talking about people who are quite moderate on this board. There was a pretty long period when only I and JR (with some occasional help) took the position that what Bush was doing was unconstitutional (though maybe Ideologue was in that camp as well).
I was pretty astonished. I couldn't believe so many people here simply accepted Bush's claims uncritically.
Quote from: grumbler on August 17, 2009, 11:34:39 PM
I couldn't believe so many people here simply accepted Bush's claims uncritically.
I still don't feel bad about that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 12:21:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2009, 12:14:04 PM
True. I've weekly meetings with a pro-anarchy group based in Palo Alto. We're considering a move on the SF Armory.
A national myth and the glorification of specific aspects of history doesn't mean that you've organised groups running round trying to re-enact it. I'm saying the Jacobins are part of the soul of France not that they're still meeting in an old Monastery. Similarly I think the US's national myth has a glorification of the individual/individualism as a shaping force in history and in revolt against the state, not that you go to meet pro-anarchy groups.
It's garbon, babe. He's not really looking to have a serious discussion. On anything. Ever.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 18, 2009, 12:42:56 AM
It's garbon, babe. He's not really looking to have a serious discussion. On anything. Ever.
One of his most endearing traits. :cool:
Quote from: Zoupa on August 18, 2009, 12:42:56 AM
It's garbon, babe. He's not really looking to have a serious discussion. On anything. Ever.
Nah, you just gotta give me an interesting topic*. Not some bullshit about how Grallon has America pegged.
*For instance, race and its non-existence or gender roles. :)
I'm adding Minority Report to my Netflix queue. I've never seen it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 18, 2009, 02:15:46 PM
I'm adding Minority Report to my Netflix queue. I've never seen it.
Okay movie. it was before Tom Cruise and Colin Ferrell turned into douchebags.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 18, 2009, 04:00:36 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 18, 2009, 02:15:46 PM
I'm adding Minority Report to my Netflix queue. I've never seen it.
Okay movie. it was before Tom Cruise and Colin Ferrell turned into douchebags.
I didn't know it was made in the early 80s. :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on August 18, 2009, 04:24:51 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 18, 2009, 04:00:36 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 18, 2009, 02:15:46 PM
I'm adding Minority Report to my Netflix queue. I've never seen it.
Okay movie. it was before Tom Cruise and Colin Ferrell turned into douchebags.
I didn't know it was made in the early 80s. :huh:
The Cruise douche bag transformation was somewhat later. If any moment captured his doucheization, it'd be his Oprah-on-couch screaming.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.celebrific.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2006%2F11%2Ftom-cruise-oprah-not-invited-to-katie-holmes-wedding-11-14-2006.gif&hash=ca4c2323887527a817e09601a86b0450fbf477fe)
Okaaay. Now there's this.
Quote
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - A New Jersey blogger facing charges in two states for allegedly making threats against lawmakers and judges was trained by the FBI on how to be deliberately provocative, his attorney said Tuesday.
Hal Turner worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an "agent provocateur" and was taught by the agency "what he could say that wouldn't be crossing the line," defense attorney Michael Orozco said.
"His job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner which would lead to their arrest," Orozco said.
Prosecutors have acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on radical right-wing organizations, but the defense has said Turner was not working for the FBI when he allegedly made threats against Connecticut legislators and wrote that three federal judges in Illinois deserved to die.
"But if you compare anything that he did say when he was operating, there was no difference. No difference whatsoever," Orozco said.
Special Agent Ross Rice, a spokesman for the FBI in Chicago, said he would not comment on or even confirm Turner's relationship with the FBI.
Orozco spoke to reporters after a court hearing in Hartford on Tuesday. Turner, 47, of North Bergen, N.J., did not appear, because he is in federal custody in Illinois. His arraignment on the Connecticut charges was rescheduled to Oct. 19.
In June, Turner urged his readers to "take up arms" against Connecticut lawmakers and suggested government officials should "obey the Constitution or die," because he was angry over legislation—later withdrawn—that would have given lay members of Roman Catholic churches more control over their parish's finances.
He wrote in Internet postings the same month that the Illinois federal appeals judges "deserve to be killed" because they issued a ruling that upheld ordinances in Chicago and suburban Oak Park banning handguns. He included their photos and the room numbers of their chambers at the courthouse.
Orozco officially joined Turner's defense team in the Connecticut case on Tuesday, with approval from Superior Court Judge David Gold. Orozco said his Newark, N.J.-based firm has been representing Turner for the past five years, including during his FBI informant years.
Turner's Connecticut attorney, Matthew R. Potter, said it's too early to tell which trial will move forward first. Orozco said he plans First Amendment defenses in both cases.
Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago, said the office would not comment on Orozco's statements.
This story's incredible :mellow:
The NSA turned me into an asshole.
Quote from: grumbler on August 17, 2009, 11:34:39 PM
I am not talking about a radical fringe. I am talking about people who are quite moderate on this board. There was a pretty long period when only I and JR (with some occasional help) took the position that what Bush was doing was unconstitutional (though maybe Ideologue was in that camp as well).
I was pretty astonished. I couldn't believe so many people here simply accepted Bush's claims uncritically.
Vocally, at least. I'm pretty sure I never claimed that Bush's actions affecting detainees were legal. :blink:
Anyway, basing any definite of "moderate" on posts here? Dabbling in a bit of Marti-quality analogy, are we? I mean, here, "moderate" is those of us who don't burn effigies of either Barack Obama and Joe Biden or Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. ;)
So, since the guy was an agent provocateur and was trained what to say without crossing the line, he couldn't possibly have acted improperly and said something that crossed the line?
I predict: First Amendment defense epic fail.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 18, 2009, 10:14:03 PM
Anyway, basing any definite of "moderate" on posts here? Dabbling in a bit of Marti-quality analogy, are we? I mean, here, "moderate" is those of us who don't burn effigies of either Barack Obama and Joe Biden or Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. ;)
I'm a moderate. :mellow:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 18, 2009, 10:25:12 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 18, 2009, 10:14:03 PM
Anyway, basing any definite of "moderate" on posts here? Dabbling in a bit of Marti-quality analogy, are we? I mean, here, "moderate" is those of us who don't burn effigies of either Barack Obama and Joe Biden or Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. ;)
I'm a moderate. :mellow:
Humor. Wink smiley. Laugh.
If true, the level of stupidity that must exist within the FBI boggles the mind.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2009, 10:00:24 AM
If true, the level of stupidity that must exist within the FBI boggles the mind.
I'm not sure if I buy this.
The notion that FBI has agents provocateurs is beyond idiotic. Anyone who makes such stuff up should be killed. Who's with me?
John Stewart made an interesting "freedom of expression"point last night. At a recent AZ speech Obama made on death panels(sic) etc... there were several dudes with loaded automatic weapons there protesting. Nothing happened to these guys. no big deal apparently.
Yet when Bush was stumping Iraq invasions etc and people wore crappily made anti-Bush t-shirts, they were arrested. t-shirts are more dangerous than assault rifles? America is so diverse. :p
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 20, 2009, 12:08:07 PM
John Stewart made an interesting "freedom of expression"point last night. At a recent AZ speech Obama made on death panels(sic) etc... there were several dudes with loaded automatic weapons there protesting. Nothing happened to these guys. no big deal apparently.
Yet when Bush was stumping Iraq invasions etc and people wore crappily made anti-Bush t-shirts, they were arrested. t-shirts are more dangerous than assault rifles? America is so diverse. :p
Sounds like bullshit. John Stewart is a nebbish.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 12:15:23 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 20, 2009, 12:08:07 PM
John Stewart made an interesting "freedom of expression"point last night. At a recent AZ speech Obama made on death panels(sic) etc... there were several dudes with loaded automatic weapons there protesting. Nothing happened to these guys. no big deal apparently.
Yet when Bush was stumping Iraq invasions etc and people wore crappily made anti-Bush t-shirts, they were arrested. t-shirts are more dangerous than assault rifles? America is so diverse. :p
Sounds like bullshit. John Stewart is a nebbish.
um no there was CNN footage of both incidents. The anti Bush thing was in NH. Back when people got arrested for wearing protest tees in malls. late Kapland/early migration to Languish from KAPland era.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 20, 2009, 12:17:18 PM
um no there was CNN footage of both incidents. The anti Bush thing was in NH. Back when people got arrested for wearing protest tees in malls. late Kapland/early migration to Languish from KAPland era.
They were arrested by law enforcement and charged with the crime of wearing protest tees?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 12:19:51 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 20, 2009, 12:17:18 PM
um no there was CNN footage of both incidents. The anti Bush thing was in NH. Back when people got arrested for wearing protest tees in malls. late Kapland/early migration to Languish from KAPland era.
They were arrested by law enforcement and charged with the crime of wearing protest tees?
they were detained by police then let go iirc... but simply for wearing protest t-shirts... back in the hardcore with us or against us days. there were a lot of those stories on the news then.
fuck i hate this new quoting system.
I don't remember a single one of them. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 12:23:20 PM
I don't remember a single one of them. :huh:
I recall several.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 20, 2009, 12:23:53 PM
I recall several.
I recall a few instances of people being escorted from Bush public appearances. I don't recall any cases of people being arrested for wearing t-shirts in public.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 12:23:20 PM
I don't remember a single one of them. :huh:
You have this problem alot I've noticed.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2009, 12:41:36 PM
You have this problem alot I've noticed.
I noticed you ran away from the discussion on death panels crying like a school girl.
I can't even remember what I ate for lunch last week.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 12:27:37 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 20, 2009, 12:23:53 PM
I recall several.
I recall a few instances of people being escorted from Bush public appearances. I don't recall any cases of people being arrested for wearing t-shirts in public.
"The federal government has agreed to pay $80,000 to a Texas couple arrested and charged with trespassing in 2004 after they refused to cover up homemade T-shirts with anti-Bush slogans."
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18932
The more I forget, the happier I am.
It is the best way to face a new semester of 18 year old freshmen.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 12:46:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2009, 12:41:36 PM
You have this problem alot I've noticed.
I noticed you ran away from the discussion on death panels crying like a school girl.
I was a little disgusted with you but other people made my point so I didn't need to follow up on it.
Quote from: PDH on August 20, 2009, 01:12:02 PM
The more I forget, the happier I am.
It is the best way to face a new semester of 18 year old freshmen.
As in 'forgetting that professional ethics forbids extrorting sex from sweet young students in exchange for good grades'? :D
a cursory search of headlines reveals that people have been arrested for
anti-Bush shirts
anti-Obama shirts
McCain shirts
Niggers with Attitude shirts
Naked Posh Spice shirts
Hemp shirts
US Flag shirts
Blasphemy shirts
Police shirts
toy robot shirts
Peace logo shirts
and so on.
my conclusion: some people really hate t-shirts
Quote from: saskganesh on August 20, 2009, 02:21:01 PM
a cursory search of headlines reveals that people have been arrested for
anti-Bush shirts
anti-Obama shirts
McCain shirts
Niggers with Attitude shirts
Naked Posh Spice shirts
Hemp shirts
US Flag shirts
Blasphemy shirts
Police shirts
toy robot shirts
Peace logo shirts
and so on.
my conclusion: some people really hate t-shirts
CafePress should be banned.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 20, 2009, 02:21:01 PM
my conclusion: some people really hate t-shirts
I think it is safer to just not wear a shirt.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2009, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on August 20, 2009, 02:21:01 PM
my conclusion: some people really hate t-shirts
I think it is safer to just not wear a shirt.
think of the children!!!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmitchieville.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F03%2Felvis4.jpg&hash=45e91d907feb967831dfa3c5e5e5519317ebdad4)
hey, this gentleman has sideburns just like Yi.:)
My eyes!!!! :bleeding:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2009, 02:12:58 PM
I was a little disgusted with you but other people made my point so I didn't need to follow up on it.
Not even close. The two people that responded made the argument that what Obama was talking about had zero chance of being enacted so we shouldn't worry about it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 03:00:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2009, 02:12:58 PM
I was a little disgusted with you but other people made my point so I didn't need to follow up on it.
Not even close. The two people that responded made the argument that what Obama was talking about had zero chance of being enacted so we shouldn't worry about it.
Are you telling me that you believe in this conspiracy then?
Sask needs to have his post deleted and get a warning.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2009, 04:24:52 PM
Sask needs to have his post deleted and get a warning.
It definitely wasn't SFW. A little warning would've been courteous.
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2009, 04:24:23 PM
Are you telling me that you believe in this conspiracy then?
If "this conspiracy" is that Obama's April interview with the New York Times contained a whiff of death panels, then yes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 04:28:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2009, 04:24:23 PM
Are you telling me that you believe in this conspiracy then?
If "this conspiracy" is that Obama's April interview with the New York Times contained a whiff of death panels, then yes.
Do you think it's a serious issue in the bills that are being debated?
QuoteThe two people that responded made the argument that what Obama was talking about had zero chance of being enacted so we shouldn't worry about it.
What do you mean? Death panels aren't, so far as I'm aware, in any of the major proposals for healthcare reform. Maybe they should be, it could deal with pension costs too.
What do you worry will be enacted?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 02:15:51 AM
Do you think it's a serious issue in the bills that are being debated?
No.
QuoteWhat do you mean? Death panels aren't, so far as I'm aware, in any of the major proposals for healthcare reform. Maybe they should be, it could deal with pension costs too.
What I meant in the part that you quoted is that Razzberry's assertion that other posters made his point for him is untrue.
In the April interview Obama raised the idea of creating a commission to begin the "difficult democratic conversation" of pulling the plug on grandpa to save money. This proposal got watered down to the totally innocuous provision of having a doctor discuss options with a terminal patient. So the town hall screamers have it wrong in that (a) it's not in the current bills, and (b) it was a death commission to look at all seniors as opposed to death panels looking at people on a case by case basis. But there claim was not created out of whole cloth. And there's also the issue of knowing whether or not the process has been frozen at this point so that only the provisions contained in one the various House and Senate versions are up for consideration. Certainly no one that I have heard has made this principle explicit.
QuoteWhat do you worry will be enacted?
Unfunded spending that packs on to the deficit.
Employer mandates that hammer unemployment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 09:23:18 AM
Unfunded spending that packs on to the deficit.
Employer mandates that hammer unemployment.
I understand those concerns. The problem is that no matter what the outcome health care will still be an enormous anchor around the neck of the economy.
Which is not to say that the government could not make the situation far worse.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 09:23:18 AMAnd there's also the issue of knowing whether or not the process has been frozen at this point so that only the provisions contained in one the various House and Senate versions are up for consideration. Certainly no one that I have heard has made this principle explicit.
I believe Rahm has said that it's all about the Senate Finance Committee now. From what I understand that bill is still significantly to the left of what Obama had in his plan. What's interesting is that because of the Congress the argument over policy is significantly to the left of what Obama initially suggested, while because of the media/town halls the argument in the press is significantly to the right of what's actually happening. It's very odd.
QuoteUnfunded spending that packs on to the deficit.
That's a threat. The deficit's a problem, for sure but I think it's one that should be left until the economy's showing real sustainable signs of recovery.
The problem with the deficit is that everyone talks about how they want to find savings and so on in 'non-defence discretionary spending'. Now by my back of an envelope sums if you were to try and cut the deficit from 'non-defence discretionary spending' then even if you eliminated all other government spending you would still have a deficit.
There needs to be some sort of deal that allows reform of things like social security and medicare and that allows for a rational debate on the DoD budget. I don't think a political discourse that sees claims as outlandish as mandatory government 'death panels' is one that can actually deal with that.
QuoteEmployer mandates that hammer unemployment.
I think there should be a minimum provision offered and a cap on the amount it can cost (I believe it's what they have in the Netherlands for example) and I think the public plan is to some extent a way around this. It should be said that already the cost of healthcare on companies in the US is roughly equivalent to the cost of holidays, working-hour legislation and something else in Europe.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 04:28:58 PM
If "this conspiracy" is that Obama's April interview with the New York Times contained a whiff of death panels, then yes.
I call bullshit. The NYT interview was about paying for a hip replacement for a terminally ill patient, not pulling the plug. And even then it was clear that the option would be open to pay out-of-pocket.
this is scaremongering pure and simple, and the people peddling it make the "Bush lied, people died" folks look like Aristotle in comparison.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 21, 2009, 12:45:49 PM
I call bullshit. The NYT interview was about paying for a hip replacement for a terminally ill patient, not pulling the plug. And even then it was clear that the option would be open to pay out-of-pocket.
this is scaremongering pure and simple, and the people peddling it make the "Bush lied, people died" folks look like Aristotle in comparison.
I can't find the article right now but I'm pretty sure Obama's comments weren't prompted by a question regarding his thoughts on hip replacements for terminally ill patients.
Found it!
QuoteObama: And I feel that, given the nature of the costs and the mass of regulations and red tape that patients must go through, the basic solution is that ALL ELDERLY WHITE REPUBLICANS WILL BE ORDERED TO DEATH CAMPS BY PANELS OF LEFT-WING UNIVERSITY TYPES WITH SANDALS AND TIE-DYED TSHIRTS, and I can't settle for anything less.
If true, that sounds pretty damning.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 21, 2009, 12:45:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 04:28:58 PM
If "this conspiracy" is that Obama's April interview with the New York Times contained a whiff of death panels, then yes.
I call bullshit. The NYT interview was about paying for a hip replacement for a terminally ill patient, not pulling the plug. And even then it was clear that the option would be open to pay out-of-pocket.
this is scaremongering pure and simple, and the people peddling it make the "Bush lied, people died" folks look like Aristotle in comparison.
Agree with everything but the idea that this is somehow more reprehensible than the left doing precisely the same thing about a different subject.
QuoteI mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think it has to be able to give you some guidance.
OK, here it is.
JR: it's very possible Square Head stripped out some very important context, but by the same token hip replacements don't equal 80% of health care.
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 01:20:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 21, 2009, 12:45:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 04:28:58 PM
If "this conspiracy" is that Obama's April interview with the New York Times contained a whiff of death panels, then yes.
I call bullshit. The NYT interview was about paying for a hip replacement for a terminally ill patient, not pulling the plug. And even then it was clear that the option would be open to pay out-of-pocket.
this is scaremongering pure and simple, and the people peddling it make the "Bush lied, people died" folks look like Aristotle in comparison.
Agree with everything but the idea that this is somehow more reprehensible than the left doing precisely the same thing about a different subject.
But they do it too!!!! Somewhere sometime.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 01:53:23 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 01:20:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 21, 2009, 12:45:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 04:28:58 PM
If "this conspiracy" is that Obama's April interview with the New York Times contained a whiff of death panels, then yes.
I call bullshit. The NYT interview was about paying for a hip replacement for a terminally ill patient, not pulling the plug. And even then it was clear that the option would be open to pay out-of-pocket.
this is scaremongering pure and simple, and the people peddling it make the "Bush lied, people died" folks look like Aristotle in comparison.
Agree with everything but the idea that this is somehow more reprehensible than the left doing precisely the same thing about a different subject.
But they do it too!!!! Somewhere sometime.
See bold for context.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 20, 2009, 12:21:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 12:19:51 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 20, 2009, 12:17:18 PM
um no there was CNN footage of both incidents. The anti Bush thing was in NH. Back when people got arrested for wearing protest tees in malls. late Kapland/early migration to Languish from KAPland era.
They were arrested by law enforcement and charged with the crime of wearing protest tees?
they were detained by police then let go iirc... but simply for wearing protest t-shirts... back in the hardcore with us or against us days. there were a lot of those stories on the news then.
fuck i hate this new quoting system.
They should have been executed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 01:47:40 PM
QuoteI mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think it has to be able to give you some guidance.
OK, here it is.
JR: it's very possible Square Head stripped out some very important context, but by the same token hip replacements don't equal 80% of health care.
yes he stripped out the context. Like the comment that immediately preceded the question and answer:
QuoteI mean, I've told this story, maybe not publicly, but when my grandmother got very ill during the campaign, she got cancer; it was determined to be terminal. And about two or three weeks after her diagnosis she fell, broke her hip. It was determined that she might have had a mild stroke, which is what had precipitated the fall.
So now she's in the hospital, and the doctor says, Look, you've got about — maybe you have three months, maybe you have six months, maybe you have nine months to live. Because of the weakness of your heart, if you have an operation on your hip there are certain risks that — you know, your heart can't take it. On the other hand, if you just sit there with your hip like this, you're just going to waste away and your quality of life will be terrible.
And she elected to get the hip replacement and was fine for about two weeks after the hip replacement, and then suddenly just — you know, things fell apart.
I don't know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she's my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn't have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.
LEONHARDT: And it's going to be hard for people who don't have the option of paying for it
THE PRESIDENT: So that's where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that's also a huge driver of cost, right?
Your quoted portion immediately follows.
So the context is discussing the extent of *public* funding for palliative end-of-life care (not pulling plugs), as exemplified by Obama's description of his terminal grandmother's hip replacement.
What really adds on to the sheer level of insanity and rank stupidity is that so many of the nutcases running around screaming about death panels also claim they want to get the government out of health care altogether. So they would avoid having the "conversation" about exactly how much care the public fisc should provide for grandma's health care by providing none at all . . .
I support Obama in his struggle to find a final solution to the health care question that will last for a thousand years, and promise its users the extermination of dues.
Quote from: Warspite on August 24, 2009, 04:07:13 PM
I support Obama in his struggle to find a final solution to the health care question that will last for a thousand years, and promise its users the extermination of dues.
LOL you do not realize it, but you have inadvertently made Obama remind us of Hitler.
Quote from: Warspite on August 24, 2009, 04:07:13 PM
I support Obama in his struggle to find a final solution to the health care question that will last for a thousand years, and promise its users the extermination of dues.
:lol: Genius.
Joan: the extra context doesn't change much. Obama tried to raise the issue of reducing spending on terminally ill patients. He did it in a very opaque manner, and he proposed that other people initiate the discussion instead of himself, but the fact remains that he raised it.
The original death panel lady (Betsy Something) was on Jon Stewart the other night. She claims that everybody is looking at the wrong section of the House bill, the part that talks about physician consultations, whereas the part they should be looking at is about some Medicare doctor rating (which determines their Medicare reimbursement rate) and which under the House bill would be determined in (admitedly minor) part by how many of their patients sign living wills and how many of those who do "adhere to their living wills."
Also read an article by Joe Klein the Democratic Whore in which he says the effect of all the town hall ranting will probably be to kill the living will consultation provision. Not kill the whole process, just kill the provision. Which is unfortunate, since I'd be perfectly happy if we threw grandpa and grandma under the bus.
So in short:
Health reform will pass.
The death panelists are nutty, but not as nutty as they're being made out to be.
Republican politicians have not covered themselves in glory, but they're mostly hemming and hawing (except Caribou Barbie) as opposed to screaming and dancing about death panels.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 24, 2009, 05:03:23 PM
Joan: the extra context doesn't change much. Obama tried to raise the issue of reducing spending on terminally ill patients. He did it in a very opaque manner, and he proposed that other people initiate the discussion instead of himself, but the fact remains that he raised it.
I have to disagree. There is nothing opaque about it, other than it is an interview format so it isn't in the form of short bullet points. But it is perfectly clear he is not talking about removing the right of private persons to pay for whatever care they want. And it is also clear in context that he wasn't talking about controlling spending by pulling the plug on unwilling patients.
QuoteThe original death panel lady (Betsy Something) was on Jon Stewart the other night. She claims that everybody is looking at the wrong section of the House bill, the part that talks about physician consultations, whereas the part they should be looking at is about some Medicare doctor rating (which determines their Medicare reimbursement rate) and which under the House bill would be determined in (admitedly minor) part by how many of their patients sign living wills and how many of those who do "adhere to their living wills."
If so, that is even more stupid than the other position.
First, because one of the options in a living will is to insist on all possible treatment.
Second, because my understanding of the provision in question is that it relates to collecting and reporting data; not to achievement of specific outcomes.
QuoteRepublican politicians have not covered themselves in glory, but they're mostly hemming and hawing (except Caribou Barbie) as opposed to screaming and dancing about death panels.
They certainly haven't made any case why they are more fit to lead than the Congressional democrats, which you wouldn't think would be that tough a standard.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 24, 2009, 05:28:45 PM
I have to disagree. There is nothing opaque about it, other than it is an interview format so it isn't in the form of short bullet points. But it is perfectly clear he is not talking about removing the right of private persons to pay for whatever care they want. And it is also clear in context that he wasn't talking about controlling spending by pulling the plug on unwilling patients.
Agreed. He's talking about cutting off government spending on patients. Their willingness is not alluded to.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 24, 2009, 05:03:23 PM
The death panelists are nutty, but not as nutty as they're being made out to be.
They believe that the President and Democrats in Congress want to have mandatory euthanasia for elderly people and presumably the severely disabled. They think that, somehow, this passed the House without anyone noticing the mandatory, government run euthanasia program because no-one mentioned it. What's more the Mainstream Media, abandoned their duty to hold Democrats to account again, and didn't notice the mandatory euthanasia provision. Without Sarah Palin and Betsy McCaughey alerting the world to this provision it would have just snuck in there. And in a few years it would be goodnight Vienna for nana.
How much nuttier can you get?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2009, 05:19:34 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 24, 2009, 05:03:23 PM
The death panelists are nutty, but not as nutty as they're being made out to be.
How much nuttier can you get?
You forget the alternative. That they are no nutty but merely dishonest, and know perfectly well that the crazy things they are saying are false.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2009, 05:19:34 AM
They believe that the President and Democrats in Congress want to have mandatory euthanasia for elderly people and presumably the severely disabled. They think that, somehow, this passed the House without anyone noticing the mandatory, government run euthanasia program because no-one mentioned it. What's more the Mainstream Media, abandoned their duty to hold Democrats to account again, and didn't notice the mandatory euthanasia provision. Without Sarah Palin and Betsy McCaughey alerting the world to this provision it would have just snuck in there. And in a few years it would be goodnight Vienna for nana.
How much nuttier can you get?
Are you sure you're not confusing PDH's post with reality? His was a spoof you know.
It's possible some of the town hall ranters are talking about jack booted government grandpa killing squads, I don't know. I've only ever seen the back of their heads at the microphone. The only direct quote I've heard is from Palin, who said she doesn't want the government deciding if her Down's Syndrome baby lives or dies. Which, like I said, is nutty but not that nutty.
BTW, how're those no blood for oil quotes coming? I don't think you're going to find anything.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 25, 2009, 05:59:12 AM
It's possible some of the town hall ranters are talking about jack booted government grandpa killing squads, I don't know. I've only ever seen the back of their heads at the microphone. The only direct quote I've heard is from Palin, who said she doesn't want the government deciding if her Down's Syndrome baby lives or dies. Which, like I said, is nutty but not that nutty.
'The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.'
She added that 'unproductive' members of society would have whether or not they received healthcare judged by government bureaucrats and said that it was 'misleading' for the President to claim that the end of life counselling was 'entirely voluntary'.
QuoteBTW, how're those no blood for oil quotes coming? I don't think you're going to find anything.
I can't find anything about the early protests. But it's difficult to search for generic Democrats. The best I've got is a number of Democrats condemning the General Betray Us ad.
Edit: I've also got Democrat politicians supporting the opposite policy, such as Joe Biden or Clinton, which isn't the same as condemning but would be like a Republican politician not discussing 'death panels' but supporting healthcare reform anyway. That would seem like possibly the Olympia Snowe route.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2009, 06:05:21 AM
'The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.'
She added that 'unproductive' members of society would have whether or not they received healthcare judged by government bureaucrats and said that it was 'misleading' for the President to claim that the end of life counselling was 'entirely voluntary'.
Right. That's talking about funding, not euthenasia.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 25, 2009, 06:20:00 AM
Right. That's talking about funding, not euthenasia.
Well I think the name 'death panel' that she gives it is, at least, a bit incendiary. Do you think a mandatory 'death panel' that decides medical funding necessary for someone to live on the subjective basis of their productivity to society is really addressing legitimate concerns about what gets funded in a government healthcare plan? I mean to me it sounds like a dystopic nightmare of mandatory euthanasia panels, in which the government will withhold care from those who aren't productive, but I'm susceptible to words like 'evil' and 'downright Orwellian'.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2009, 06:24:51 AM
Well I think the name 'death panel' that she gives it is, at least, a bit incendiary. Do you think a mandatory 'death panel' that decides medical funding necessary for someone to live on the subjective basis of their productivity to society is really addressing legitimate concerns about what gets funded in a government healthcare plan? I mean to me it sounds like a dystopic nightmare of mandatory euthanasia panels, in which the government will withhold care from those who aren't productive, but I'm susceptible to words like 'evil' and 'downright Orwellian'.
More than a bit incendiary. I called them nutty, didn't I? My point is the Democrats are trying to paint the picture that the ranters have created their death panels out of whole cloth, whereas that's not entirely true.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 25, 2009, 06:36:48 AM
More than a bit incendiary. I called them nutty, didn't I? My point is the Democrats are trying to paint the picture that the ranters have created their death panels out of whole cloth, whereas that's not entirely true.
No, you're right there was voluntary end of life counselling offered in the House version (and I think the two Senate ones on offer) of the bill. The section to do that is largely based on a bill Johnny Isakson's been trying to pass for years (to offer it on Medicare) because it's a pet issue of his. That part of the bill's since been removed.
It's a lie that bears no recognition to the actual politics of the healthcare bills offered and that requires that you assume the worst of your opponents.
I also think there's a real rational debate to be had about costs in healthcare. I think all chances for that debate are dead now.
Edit: It's worth saying Isakson opposes the healthcare bill and says his views on end-of-life counselling are nothing like what the House passed. Which, to my understanding, isn't wholly the case but it's fair enough.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 25, 2009, 06:36:48 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2009, 06:24:51 AM
Well I think the name 'death panel' that she gives it is, at least, a bit incendiary. Do you think a mandatory 'death panel' that decides medical funding necessary for someone to live on the subjective basis of their productivity to society is really addressing legitimate concerns about what gets funded in a government healthcare plan? I mean to me it sounds like a dystopic nightmare of mandatory euthanasia panels, in which the government will withhold care from those who aren't productive, but I'm susceptible to words like 'evil' and 'downright Orwellian'.
More than a bit incendiary. I called them nutty, didn't I? My point is the Democrats are trying to paint the picture that the ranters have created their death panels out of whole cloth, whereas that's not entirely true.
Well, presenting a voluntary counseling as a "mandatory euthanasia" death panel pretty much counts as "out of whole cloth" in my book.
It's as if he wanted to start a public works programme and they painted it as reintroduction of slavery.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2009, 07:09:16 AM
Well, presenting a voluntary counseling as a "mandatory euthanasia" death panel pretty much counts as "out of whole cloth" in my book.
It's as if he wanted to start a public works programme and they painted it as reintroduction of slavery.
Sure would. Who said mandatory euthenasia?
p.s. You also left out Obama's "difficult democratic conversation."
Wait, mine wasn't a real quote?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 25, 2009, 07:29:15 AM
p.s. You also left out Obama's "difficult democratic conversation."
I think Palin's line far more strongly indicates mandatory euthanasia than Obama's line suggests 'death panels'.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2009, 08:00:35 AM
I think Palin's line far more strongly indicates mandatory euthanasia than Obama's line suggests 'death panels'.
Agreed. But the cloth is not whole.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 24, 2009, 05:03:23 PM
The original death panel lady (Betsy Something) was on Jon Stewart the other night. She claims that everybody is looking at the wrong section of the House bill, the part that talks about physician consultations, whereas the part they should be looking at is about some Medicare doctor rating (which determines their Medicare reimbursement rate) and which under the House bill would be determined in (admitedly minor) part by how many of their patients sign living wills and how many of those who do "adhere to their living wills."
I've just read something that made me think of this. Apparently doctors are paid, for Medicare, by test and treatment. Do you think that's what she means by 'Medicare doctor rating'? Is it simply something doctors would get paid for?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 07, 2009, 09:41:25 PM
I've just read something that made me think of this. Apparently doctors are paid, for Medicare, by test and treatment. Do you think that's what she means by 'Medicare doctor rating'? Is it simply something doctors would get paid for?
I can't say you're absolutely wrong but it sure would be a strange use of the English language.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 25, 2009, 08:04:14 AM
Agreed. But the cloth is not whole.
You are making very fine distinctions on behalf of people who do not recognize fine distinctions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 25, 2009, 06:20:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 25, 2009, 06:05:21 AM
'The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.'
She added that 'unproductive' members of society would have whether or not they received healthcare judged by government bureaucrats and said that it was 'misleading' for the President to claim that the end of life counselling was 'entirely voluntary'.
Right. That's talking about funding, not euthenasia.
but she is against funding altogether.
So under this interpretation, what she is really for is a "death panel" that turns down everyone.
You can parse language all you want, but the fact remains that her position is dishonest and deliberately incendiary.
Free speech is an illusion. Try yelling "fire" in a burning theatre.
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2009, 12:28:02 PM
Free speech is an illusion. Try yelling "fire" in a burning theatre.
All the flames and smoke choke you and drown out your voice. No freedom of speech at all :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2009, 06:22:00 AM
I can't say you're absolutely wrong but it sure would be a strange use of the English language.
Well Betsy McCaughey has a history of lying about various healthcare laws. She first spoke about the current proposal about that the office of the national healthcare IT coordinator (or something similar) that was first created by Bush in 2005 and has their role strengthened in the house bill. Now the role was actually to try and provide some general guidelines on updating IT in healthcare, so doctors can more easily share information. It's designed to try and find best practice if you will. It also measure comparative effectiveness - such as the government already does for education, airlines and just about everything else.
The problem is Betsy McCaughey suggested that the position was a new bureaucracy (it wasn't, it was created in 2005 and its role is only strengthened) and that what it does is watch what drugs, treatments and tests doctors are prescribing. That doctors can then be penalised by the Federal government. McCaughey didn't really explain how or what they'd be penalised for but that it would largely be at the discretion of the HUD Secretary.
I'll be honest. I don't trust anything she says on healthcare, because she made a series of claims about Hilarycare in the nineties that weren't true, the claim about IT thing turned out to be not true and I think the same about what she's saying about this.
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2009, 12:28:02 PM
Free speech is an illusion. Try yelling "fire" in a burning theatre.
:lol:
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2009, 12:28:02 PM
Free speech is an illusion. Try yelling "fire" in a burning theatre.
One man's freedom of expression is another man's arson. :(
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2009, 09:57:34 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 25, 2009, 08:04:14 AM
Agreed. But the cloth is not whole.
You are making very fine distinctions on behalf of people who do not recognize fine distinctions.
And not a particularly noteworthy one. It's like saying Jews killing Christian kids to put in their matzoh isn't from whole cloth. Jews do eat Matzoh.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2009, 05:15:36 PM
And not a particularly noteworthy one. It's like saying Jews killing Christian kids to put in their matzoh isn't from whole cloth. Jews do eat Matzoh.
No, it's like saying Jews kill Christian kids to put into their matzoh after an Elder of Zion started a difficult democratic conversation about insufficient iron in the Jewish diet and overpopulation in predominantly Christian areas.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2009, 05:50:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2009, 05:15:36 PM
And not a particularly noteworthy one. It's like saying Jews killing Christian kids to put in their matzoh isn't from whole cloth. Jews do eat Matzoh.
No, it's like saying Jews kill Christian kids to put into their matzoh after an Elder of Zion started a difficult democratic conversation about insufficient iron in the Jewish diet and overpopulation in predominantly Christian areas.
You suck at analogies.
Martinus, stop using other people's accounts and debating with yourself.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2009, 05:50:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2009, 05:15:36 PM
And not a particularly noteworthy one. It's like saying Jews killing Christian kids to put in their matzoh isn't from whole cloth. Jews do eat Matzoh.
No, it's like saying Jews kill Christian kids to put into their matzoh after an Elder of Zion started a difficult democratic conversation about insufficient iron in the Jewish diet and overpopulation in predominantly Christian areas.
You're both like Martinus without the gay :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 06:17:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2009, 05:50:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2009, 05:15:36 PM
And not a particularly noteworthy one. It's like saying Jews killing Christian kids to put in their matzoh isn't from whole cloth. Jews do eat Matzoh.
No, it's like saying Jews kill Christian kids to put into their matzoh after an Elder of Zion started a difficult democratic conversation about insufficient iron in the Jewish diet and overpopulation in predominantly Christian areas.
You're both like Martinus without the gay :mellow:
That really hurt.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2009, 06:23:55 PM
That really hurt.
Are you gay? I just assume people aren't until they state otherwise. Or flirt with other guys, like Siege does.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 08, 2009, 08:16:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2009, 06:23:55 PM
That really hurt.
Are you gay? I just assume people aren't until they state otherwise. Or flirt with other guys, like Siege does.
And this from my best friend! :(
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2009, 08:32:40 PM
And this from my best friend! :(
:huh:
But the statement that you said hurt was "You're like Martinus without the gay?"
Or did you mean it was the Marty part that hurt? Ah ok. :face:
Two trials, two hung juries, two mistrials. This even after Judge Easterbrook gave Turner's defense lawyer a free instructional clinic on constitutional incorporation at the last three-ring circus federal criminal trial.
Fitzgerald is unmoved and is now revving up for trial #3.
Say this for the man, he is persistent.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2010, 01:01:29 PM
Two trials, two hung juries, two mistrials. This even after Judge Easterbrook gave Turner's defense lawyer a free instructional clinic on constitutional incorporation at the last three-ring circus federal criminal trial.
Fitzgerald is unmoved and is now revving up for trial #3.
Say this for the man, he is persistent.
Of course he is; he's got our tax dollars as a budget. <_<
Second necromantic revival on this one.
Turner's appeal was convicted on trial #3 and his appeal was denied by the Second Circuit last week, in a 2-1 panel opinion.
To save the trouble of reading the earlier stuff, this is a case about an "internet radio host", who, in his anger about a ruling in a gun rights case, wrote a blog post naming the 3 senior federal judges who made the ruling, and said they deserved to be killed, and went on with rants in a similar vein. THe next day he posted their office locations and a map of the anti-truck barriers around the building.
Patrick Fitzgerald, of Scooter Libby trial fame, prosecuted Turner 3 times, ploughing through 2 hung juries, before finally securing a conviction for threatening to kill a federal judge.
As a matter of abstract justice, it is hard to feel sorry for a genuine scumbag like Turner doing 33 months of federal time. But of course the whole point of free speech rights is they protect everyone, even assholes.
The appeals court opinion is here and the short dissent by Judge Pooler is worth a look: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1635862.html
She argues that the majority confuses the distinction between "true threat" and "incitement". A "threat" (according to Pooler) is not general advocacy of the use of force but a communication directed to the victim (not third parties) that coveys danger from the speaker. I.e. "I'm gonna git you sucka" is a threat, though perhaps a vague one. Whereas "who will rid me of this troublesome priest" is incitement, not threat. The distinction matters because although it is possible to charge someone criminally for incitement, Turner was not convicted under such a law, and because there are some differences between the constitutional limitations to threats and words of incitement.
I can see an argument for either one of that. Obviously it could be an incitement, if the asshole really did try to get those three particular judges killed. However, I can also see this being a case where the intended audience of such incitement are the judges themselves, just to make them squirm.
From the other thread, we already know the limits of free speech in Texas - anything that some person on the internet thinks is a "threat". :D
I'm a pretty die hard defender of free speech, but posting that map takes it over the line.
EDIT: Although I agree that it seems to be incitement rather than a threat.
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 07:13:42 AM
The guy deserves to go to jail just for this:
Quotethe only thing standing in the way of the judges and "the government" achieving ultimate power "is the fact that We The People have guns. Now, that is very much in jeopardy.
I hate that stupid shit.
It's a lot less plausible in a world with MBTs and airpower and, yes, dreadnoughts, or even an organized standing military, isn't it? The CSA had millions of guns, and thousands of gun manufactories, yet were pretty helpless to stop the Union achieving ultimate power over them.
The thing standing in the way of "the government" achieving ultimate power is the military's likely unwillingness to carry out unconstitutional action. If that didn't exist, Obama could dissolve Congress in an instant. But it's important to yahoos' worldviews that they are the ones holding the line, and not to consider that if a coup d'etat reached the line they're holding, it is far, far too late.
Nevermind, I didn't realize this thread was four years old. What the fuck, whoever? Edit: fair enough, Joan.
Anyway, Eurofascism triumphs again.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2013, 07:57:58 PM
Nevermind, I didn't realize this thread was four years old. What the fuck, whoever?
Joan kinda clearly said why when he posted an update regarding this guy.
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2013, 07:59:08 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2013, 07:57:58 PM
Nevermind, I didn't realize this thread was four years old. What the fuck, whoever?
Joan kinda clearly said why when he posted an update regarding this guy.
WELL NOW I KNOW AND KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT_MoCj0QW3aqGy5JJRUrF9nrrmnajNvuC-wPNr38Ya7rruTwvVpL2VHiOZ)
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2013, 07:57:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 07:13:42 AM
The guy deserves to go to jail just for this:
Quotethe only thing standing in the way of the judges and "the government" achieving ultimate power "is the fact that We The People have guns. Now, that is very much in jeopardy.
I hate that stupid shit.
It's a lot less plausible in a world with MBTs and airpower and, yes, dreadnoughts, or even an organized standing military, isn't it? The CSA had millions of guns, and thousands of gun manufactories, yet were pretty helpless to stop the Union achieving ultimate power over them.
The thing standing in the way of "the government" achieving ultimate power is the military's likely unwillingness to carry out unconstitutional action. If that didn't exist, Obama could dissolve Congress in an instant. But it's important to yahoos' worldviews that they are the ones holding the line, and not to consider that if a coup d'etat reached the line they're holding, it is far, far too late.
Yeah, I always chuckle at that one. People thinking that their private firearms and gun clubs would intimidate either the government or a possible foreign invader. That was probably never true. The Revolutionary war, the war of 1812 and the Civil war demonstrated time and time again: Militias suck. And the gulf has gotten even wider. Much better armed, trained, and organized militias in Iraq failed time and time again to stop the army.
MAH FREEDUM
I shouldn't walk off half way through a post, then come back and finish it. That way I don't use the same phrase twice like that.
Just saw an article in the NY Law Journal that examined every federal criminal conviction in the last 13 years that was appealed to the Second Circuit (the court that covers NY, Connecticut and Vermont). They found that the average reversal rate is a little under 4 percent. But the more interesting part of the article is that it revealed very wide divergences in reversal rates among the judges.
So of course I checked to see the historical reversal rates of the judges on the Turner case panel.
Judge Cogan wasn't on the list since he is a district (trial) court judge sitting specially by designation.
Judge Livingston, who voted to affirm the conviction, has a reversal rate of 0.8%, the second lowest on the Court.
Judge Pooler, who voted to reverse, has a reversal rate of 4.6%, the sixth highest.