GeorgiaDon

Thanks for the link. If you read it closely you would see that it completely supports everything that I said. You will recall that the discussion concerned the following amendment to the Constitution: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." From the link you provided: 1st Amendment: The Court held in Bridges that“freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country. 4th Amendment: Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to non-citizens in the United States. 5th Amendment: Justice Harold Burton, delivering the Court’s eight-to-one decision in Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding stated that it is “well established that if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and remains physically present there, he is a person within the protection of the Fifth Amendment.” Furthermore, “he may not be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law.” So non-citizens are, according to the Supreme Court, entitled to freedom of speech (1st), protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (4th), and due process of law (5th), exactly as I said. The article did not discuss other provisions of the Bill of Rights, but they are also not relevant to the Amendment we were discussing. At least some provisions, such as the 2nd amendment, do not apply to non-citizens, but I didn't claim that they did. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The link in the OP says nothing about auto body shops. It refers to contractors who are doing renovations on houses constructed before 1978, when lead-based paint was widely used (it was taken off the market after 1978). The rules require contractors who are sanding lead-based paint to contain the dust and to clean up properly, so that workers and others are not exposed to hazardous levels of lead. I can't see how that is so unreasonable. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

From the link you posted: All contractors should follow these three simple procedures: * Contain the work area. * Minimize dust. * Clean up thoroughly. Wow, isn't that outrageous! Fucking power-grabbing liberals! (/sarcasm) Are you really unaware of the health effects of lead exposure? Do you have any idea why leaded gas was banned throughout the world? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Once again, it is you who are having trouble with comprehension. Let's spell it out in small bits for you. The first sentence defines citizens: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. " The first part of the second sentence defines some rights of citizens: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." The next two phrases of the second sentence refer to persons: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..." and "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Had the writers intended for the latter two phrases to apply only to citizens, they would obviously have used the word "citizen", as they explicitly did in the first part of sentence two. Since they instead used the word "person" (which is not synonymous with "citizen", as was defined in the first sentence), they obviously intended that the protections described should apply to all persons within the jurisdiction of the States, not just to citizens. Got it now? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So is NASA also part of the "global conspiracy" as well? NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I hope you have an excellent birthday. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Bill Cole knows. But he's not sayin'. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And you, of course, will be the one defining what is "right". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm so sorry to hear of this. You and your family will be in my thoughts. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

"So long, and thanks for all the fish!" Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That is not always the case however. Here in Athens GA it is illegal to keep an unlicensed vehicle on your private property for more than 30 days. An ordinance no doubt inspired by the redneck tendency to display collections of junk cars and washing machines on the front lawn. Here is the ordinance (my underlining to make the relevant bit obvious): "Junk Vehicles (Section 3-9-2 & Section 3-5-8) Junk vehicles may not be parked, stored, or left on private property for more than 30 days or on public property for more than 3 days. A junk vehicle is any vehicle that does not have a current license plate lawfully displayed, or is not fully operational, or is wrecked, dismantled, abandoned, or discarded." Ordinances are found at this site: http://athensclarkecounty.com/documents/pdf/pio/atoz_guide.pdf The relevant passage is on page 11. Note this is not a state-wide law, but there are certainly places where a privately owned vehicle must be licensed (and therefor insured) even if you do not drive it on the public roadways. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Merry Christmas to all, and best wishes for a safe, productive, happy, and jump-filled 2010. And, an extra "vibe" for those who are far from their families this holiday season. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I think it goes beyond that even. Many religions don't allow birth control. the "quiverfull" sect has the deliberate strategy of churning out as many kids as possible, on the theory that in just a few generations they will outnumber the rest of us or at least have enough of a voting block to be able to "turn this country back to God". At least that was the very clear explanation I heard one of the quiverfull members give when they were interviewed on TV. All these kids are to be "arrows in God's quiver". So the plan is to breed a voting block to turn the US into a right-wing Christian theocracy. Which is kind of scary, I think. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You need to work on your reading skills. From the article (most relevant part underlined so you won't overlook it again): "I’m no expert here, but you’re confident that it’s the skin tone that changes “representativeness” in the eyes of the voter, as opposed to something else about the photographs—like pose, or background, or facial expression? That’s a great question. What we did was essentially take three different photos with three different poses, and created for each photo a lightened and a darkened version. And then we randomly selected the combination of pose and skin tone that we showed each participant. " Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How about if the crime is intended to "send a message" to a target group. For example, a victim is killed and that killing is accompanied either explicitly or by strong implication with the message "the rest of you [insert ethnic/sexual orientation/religious group of choice] better get out of town or you'll be next. Is that not different from the typical robbery gone bad type murder? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So why did you bother to post this? Were you aware it pertained to a bill that was proposed and then died years ago under the Bush administration? If you were, then you were obviously just trying to stir up shit and get people mad at the current political leadership. If you were not, then you (once again) got taken in by jumping on anything that reinforces your ODS. Can you offer any legitimate reason why you would post about an incendiary story of a bill that died years ago, under the previous administration, without bothering to "comment" that it was ancient history? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

In Georgia tort reform (actually just capping malpractice awards) also has not lowered malpractice premiums, and as a side effect has made it much more difficult for people who really have been harmed by medical malpractice to obtain any compensation. The reason for this should have been obvious to legislators from the beginning. The maximum award for "pain and suffering" is capped at $150,000, and you can also claim actual economic damages, which mostly includes lost earning potential if you are disabled, and the the actual future cost of medical care to treat the injury caused by the malpractice. At the same time the credentials required for the expert witnesses has been tightened a lot, so now these witnesses must be doctors who are currently practicing medicine (seeing patients) in the specialty they are testifying about. On the face of it those reforms seem reasonable. However, legal fees to sue, including the lawyer's payday and the cost of discovery and expert witnesses (now much higher as they have to be leading specialists) must be recovered from the "pain and suffering" (capped at $150,000) and "loss of income" part of the award, and the lawyers can't take all of that. So, the "loss of future income" part has to be quite large if the lawyer is to get anything after paying for the expert witnesses, court costs, etc. The lost future income is calculated based on the patients income at the time of the injury, and so the only patients who are worth representing are the ones with an income in the top 20% or so, especially if they are older (so not many years of income earning left before retirement). If you earn less than $75,000/yr the award will likely not be enough to cover legal costs. Even if the surgeon shows up drunk and cuts off an arm instead of a leg you'll be SOL if you're working a minimum wage job. That surely wasn't the intent of the "tort reform", but that's how it's worked out. On the other hand, malpractice premiums have continued to rise and some medical specialties (obstetrics for example) are still losing practitioners. The only ones to benefit have been the insurance companies, who now enjoy higher profits. IMHO, tort reform should consist of requiring proof of actual malpractice, instead of just a less-than-perfect outcome. Probably those cases need to be decided by a judge with a high degree of medical knowledge, and not a jury who knows nothing about medicine, but that would require amending the state constitution. Awards should include legal costs. Ideally most cases would be settled by arbitration without having to go to court, which would minimize legal and third-party expenses. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

All of those things are true. The question is whether those things are or are not worse than the alternative. If you stand aside and do nothing to prevent the auto manufacturers to go under, you run the risk that they will take down with them (at least in some states) so much of the economy that it would take decades at a minimum for those parts of the country to recover. Along with GM etc, most of the parts manufacturers would likely go under, along with much of the service industry (restaurants, retail stores, etc) who would no longer have a sufficient customer base (people with jobs who can buy your products) to sustain them. Between houses going into foreclosure and businesses going bankrupt, there would no longer be a tax base to maintain essential services. Once the industry, police, firefighters, and schools are gone, what is left to rebuild from? That's the risk on one side. On the other hand, propping up the auto industry runs the risk of encouraging them to keep on with a business model with a track record of failure. Which is the worse risk? It's easy for us here in Speakers Corner to pontificate, because ultimately nothing we say will have any real-world consequences. If you're the guy who has to make real decisions that turn those risks into reality, with real consequences for real people, I bet it looks a lot different. It's hard for me to imagine that doing nothing is a viable political option. Didn't we have an election over just that issue? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Edunds analysis misses the point. Of course all of those "clunkers" would have eventually been sold/traded in/scrapped, and the owners would have bought something new or at least newer, but that would have been spread over many years. The point of the program was to get people to do it now, instead of in a few years, and replace the clunker with a newly manufactured vehicle instead of a not-quite-so-clunkerish used vehicle, thereby providing an immediate boost to the auto manufacturers. As an additional secondary benefit, gas-guzzlers were replaced with at least somewhat more fuel-efficient vehicles. Both those goals were realized. Whether or not the benefits were worth the cost is something individual people will decide depending on their politics I suppose. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You've got me confused with georgerussia. Still, wouldn't it have been better if you had explained to him that you don't necessarily support everything Bush initiated, instead of "talking down" to him and just saying "wrong answer"? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Wrong answer. Go try again. Sound familiar? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So, we should just wait around for "private industry' to fix things? They've had 60+ years (since the end of WWII when private health insurance became common) to deal with the problems and they've shown no inclination to do so. Why should they? They're very very profitable as things are, that's all they care about. It's not their problem that people with pre-existing conditions can't get coverage and are being bankrupted at record rates by medical bills. If it were up to the insurance companies they'd be happy to carry on forever collecting premiums from healthy people and purging sick people from their rolls. So if the private companies won't do it, and in your opinion government should have nothing to do with it, then who do you suggest should step to the plate? In the last decade premiums, even for people on group plans, have more than doubled while incomes have remained flat or even fallen for many people. Do you really believe the gov't engineered that just so they would have an excuse to take over health insurance? You expect people who are trying to have a serious discussion about a real issue to just keep changing their mind at random until they happen to come up with some piece of crap that you'd be happy with? Why don't you try to change people's mind by offering compelling, logical, fact-based arguments instead of ODS-based drivel? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well for one thing they could have accessed the value of those assets only by selling them. Yay we just got our own country! But wait, to run it we've got to sell it to get some money! Maybe the Canadians would have bought it (but of course Canada was still British then). It doesn't get more coercive than to tie BIG fees like that to childbearing. What will you do with people who get pregnant and don't have a couple of hundred grand on hand to cough up? Throw them out of the country? Who's going to make that happen? Or would you force them to have an abortion? Your country doesn't feel very free to me, unless you happen to be quite rich. Anyway what's with the up-front fee for everything? We had this discussion before wrt the military, you suggested that everyone pay the entirety of their lifetime share of supporting the military at their 18th birthday. The alternative was to pay it off in military service, which of course would mean some years of unpaid indentured servitude to the military (because if they paid you to serve, you wouldn't really be paying into the system, you'd be taking out of it). So again the wealthy get to fork over some money and get on with their lives, and the not-so wealthy have to do the grunt work. What is so wrong about paying one's share of the cost of running whatever government we as a society decide is needed on the installment plan, i.e. TAXES? If you don't want to pay your share you can always leave, which is exactly the same choice as you would give people except that you would not allow them to pay it off over time. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How is that different from a tax? And how is THAT different from a tax? Of course, real people will have to manage real investments and keep real books on those accounts. So you've just re-invented a government bureaucracy. Congratulations! Really Tom, how could any group of people at the time they found a country anticipate all the future financial costs of administering even a minimalist government, and somehow find enough money to set aside to generate a perpetual endowment to meet all those needs? When has that ever been done? In the case of the US, it took a war to gain independence; on top of that they were supposed to find a few trillion $$ to do what, invest in Loyd's of London??? Anyway why should they? We all derive a benefit from having violent criminals put away where they can't threaten us. We all derive a benefit from a system that punishes fraudsters and thieves. Why shouldn't we pay for that benefit? Why should victims be victimized twice, once when they are robbed and again if they want the perpetrator brought to justice? And talk about redistribution of wealth, you want that our ancestors should have paid to the bone so you can get a free ride now? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

While I don't have a problem with requiring photo ID when registering for gov't benefits, I think people should be realistic in their expectations of what ID will be able to do wrt reducing fraud. My understanding is that the biggest share of Medicare/Medicaid fraud is businesses billing for devices or services that are in fact not provided. A while ago one of the news shows (60 minutes maybe) did an expose' in south Florida where they went around to the billing offices of the businesses that had the highest rate of billing Medicare/Medicaid, and they found that about 30% of those businesses are just post office boxes or a dummy office with no staff. They actually are completely fraudulent, they in fact have no patients and sell no devices. Photo ID will do nothing to cut down on that, it will take gov't inspectors to go around and verify on the ground that those businesses exist and are really doing what they are billing the taxpayers for. Unfortunately the prevailing philosophy for the last decade has been to "get regulators off the backs of business", which means cutting the staff needed to do the inspections. AFAIK, the currently proposed bills do nothing to remedy this situation, but I haven't read them in their entirety and I might have missed it. Of course, if you set up a situation where there's lots of money to be made, very little chance of getting caught, and even less chance of prosecution or serious penalties, enterprising "businessmen" will step up to the plate. Some $$ invested in enforcement and prosecution, and some stiff jail time, would pay big dividends in reducing fraud. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)