Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants

[stephkyle7]

I am for universal health insurance but against universal health care. We need universal health insurance because we as a society have decided (rightly) that we won't let someone die for lack of access to healthcare. Healthcare workers as government employees is a terrible idea. This will keep people out of healthcare, stifle innovation and increase the size of the government.

I personally disagree with that assessment.
Inovation doesnt care where revenue is generated,that assumption is based on improvements of comfort technology, not life/death.

Medicare and medicaid increased innovation and life expectancies.
Increasing the "size" of government agencies isnt always the root of a problem, we are spending the money anyways, it is just more narrowly focused now, then it would be in a socialized system.
I absolutely love my VA services.
Ive had Kaiser before and othe ppos.
I prefer GREATLY the VA system.

[GasMan]

Medicare and Medicaid don't deliver healthcare so the only way they have increased innovation is through an increase in the number of people in the private healthcare system.

Innovation requires investment and risk. Someone has to take the risk and invest the time and energy to improve on the current model and that person cares where revenue is generated.

[stephkyle7]

the programs delivered a guarenteed revenue stream to justify the risk.
Until government susidized health care,people died of simple and common ailments because the return on investment was not guarenteed.
going back through our history and the advent of cures to disease, it is only when epidemic proportions are neared that the private sector responds to prospect of profits.
By taxing and creating a government guarenteed payment system...almost all diseases became viable profit gerneraters for investment through the private sector.

That being said, I would still prefer socialized health care.
The introdcution of socialized programs has not been the death knell for private medicine in any other country.
people with money will always be willing to pay for something more then what common folk get.

[Patsfan56]

WTF does any of all of this have to do with emails, warrants, or government intrusion into our email privacy?

This thread should be retitled "random ****"

[stephkyle7]

LOL
I was comparing Government overreach to corporate overreach and the odd way conservatives paint a 'scary" picture of one while allowing the other a pass....

[Patsfan56]

LOL
I was comparing Government overreach to corporate overreach and the odd way conservatives paint a 'scary" picture of one while allowing the other a pass....

I wasn't singling you out but most recent posts.

[The Schmooze]

You cant...I Think thats what I started out saying(lol).
My point is ,criminal acts of every sort are easiliy categorized by probabilities.

Terrorism, is similar to theft in that one of the primary determinants is opportunity.

how much of that opportunity has been taken away?IDK, Im just pretty confident that due to the nature of the perpetrators, there are groups waiting for a more laxed stance.

Apologies as I totally misread your post for some reason

[Labgrownmangoat]

There is a long and sordid history of governments, including our own, using private information for illegitimate purposes. There is every reason to think that if we allow unfettered access to our private papers, it will happen again and again. That is why we have a 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures in the first place. The Founders were right on this one. We ignore their wisdom at our own peril.

Sorry if I interrupted a thread about Medicaid or something. . .

[stephkyle7]

I respectfully disagree.
While history does indeed show us what unfettered authority can lead to,
I feel that the true doctrine is "rules are made to be broken".
Now that is a ineloquent way to state my premise, but it is acurate nevertheless.
The laws are a general guidline, the government routinely breaks the rules, depending on what they find or discover will determine the consequence that is applied to their action, if they find a Nuke primed under Cowboys stadium...I dont think anyone is going to pitch a fit over private emails...If they bring down a political oponent, or scuttle a questionable buisness practice, or stop a drug deal....I think its all over the news.

We apply judgement to when and how we follow laws.
I think that surmises my point most acurately.

[Labgrownmangoat]

I respectfully disagree.
While history does indeed show us what unfettered authority can lead to,
I feel that the true doctrine is "rules are made to be broken".
Now that is a ineloquent way to state my premise, but it is acurate nevertheless.
The laws are a general guidline, the government routinely breaks the rules, depending on what they find or discover will determine the consequence that is applied to their action, if they find a Nuke primed under Cowboys stadium...I dont think anyone is going to pitch a fit over private emails...If they bring down a political oponent, or scuttle a questionable buisness practice, or stop a drug deal....I think its all over the news.

We apply judgement to when and how we follow laws.
I think that surmises my point most acurately.

Shorter version: X will break the rules anyway so we shouldn't have any rules.

This is a poor argument in almost every context. Should we do away with the warrant requirement altogether because there are violations of it, too?

[stephkyle7]

you are extrapolating an opinion that I didnt assert.

We must have the rules, we must have the laws.But they are malleable, and need to be.
this notion of Black and white adherence is unhelpful and not really the way of things.
we are treated like children, becasue we often behave like children.

The appearance of prejudical application of law is masked as well as possible ,but it is a reality and one we should not pretend does not exist.
The people in here that espouse a rigid view of right and wrong IMO are conditioned by a lifetime of doctrine.
There are times when rules must be bent or broken.

[Labgrownmangoat]

you are extrapolating an opinion that I didnt assert.

We must have the rules, we must have the laws.But they are malleable, and need to be.
this notion of Black and white adherence is unhelpful and not really the way of things.
we are treated like children, becasue we often behave like children.

Laws are not meant to be malleable. They are mean to be concrete. Why? Because one of the bases for a society based on law is predictability. Having a written set of laws lets people find out in advance if society will punish them for a given behavior. Thus we completely disagree when you say that laws are not designed for black and white compliance -- they absolutely are designed for that, and it's a feature not a bug.

The appearance of prejudical application of law is masked as well as possible ,but it is a reality and one we should not pretend does not exist.
The people in here that espouse a rigid view of right and wrong IMO are conditioned by a lifetime of doctrine.
There are times when rules must be bent or broken.

So the government should just secretly break the law on surveilling its citizens, and we should chuck checks and balances out the window? There may be times when rules should be broken. This is not one of them. The power of information is vast and frankly terrifying in the wrong hands. Any individual can be destroyed given the right information about them.

Your argument contains a premise that I explicitly reject. The premise is that our privacy/security interests are best served by trusting the government to act in our interests without any insurance that it will do so. Trust is anathema to our form of government, and it should remain that way.

[stephkyle7]

and it is my contention, that the BIG BROTHER state has been in effect for twenty years at least already, and we havent had the calamitous collapse of freedom that was predicted, they KNOW what they can get away with and they walk a fine line,

Wives SHOULDNT check up on their spouses, but they do...and they ignore the cigarette, you sneaked, or the strip club reciept she found, or the junk food, or hangin with a buddy when you were supposed to be working...all of those go unanswered, but then, a napkin from a hotel? NOW, privacy issues go out the window.

Parents check up on thier teenagers, reaqd their diaries, check what websites they are hangin on, find their dirty mags under the bed, most of that goes unanswered, but a pack of roling papers in your jacket?...now we need to talk.
Government has been doing the same thing for years.
And laws have been approached with the same attitude since forever.
There are two sets of application, and depending on the circumstances is when who gets what is determined.

This is the way of things, not my choice.
I didnt let scooter libby off.
I didnt let The Bush administration get away with war crimes.
I didnt let Reagan sell guns to drug dealers.
I didnt forgive and forget the bankers for their fraud.
I didnt let Lindsay Lohan break the law 5000 times and has yet to pay any significant punishment.
I dont put inner city black kids in jail on a felony charge for possesion for having .006 of a gram(about the size of 5 or 6 grains of sand)of crack, while letting a white business man have probation for a couple of grams of powder.

laws are malleabe, but are presented as rigid so as to obtain compliance and Order.

[Labgrownmangoat]

and it is my contention, that the BIG BROTHER state has been in effect for twenty years at least already, and we havent had the calamitous collapse of freedom that was predicted, they KNOW what they can get away with and they walk a fine line,

Wives SHOULDNT check up on their spouses, but they do...and they ignore the cigarette, you sneaked, or the strip club reciept she found, or the junk food, or hangin with a buddy when you were supposed to be working...all of those go unanswered, but then, a napkin from a hotel? NOW, privacy issues go out the window.

Parents check up on thier teenagers, reaqd their diaries, check what websites they are hangin on, find their dirty mags under the bed, most of that goes unanswered, but a pack of roling papers in your jacket?...now we need to talk.
Government has been doing the same thing for years.
And laws have been approached with the same attitude since forever.
There are two sets of application, and depending on the circumstances is when who gets what is determined.

This is the way of things, not my choice.
I didnt let scooter libby off.
I didnt let The Bush administration get away with war crimes.
I didnt let Reagan sell guns to drug dealers.
I didnt forgive and forget the bankers for their fraud.
I didnt let Lindsay Lohan break the law 5000 times and has yet to pay any significant punishment.
I dont put inner city black kids in jail on a felony charge for possesion for having .006 of a gram(about the size of 5 or 6 grains of sand)of crack, while letting a white business man have probation for a couple of grams of powder.

laws are malleabe, but are presented as rigid so as to obtain compliance and Order.

Shorter, more coherent version: the government has been violating the 4th Amendment for a while, so we should encourage them to do so more often because society hasn't collapsed yet. If you don't like my summaries, write your own at the beginning of your posts, like a thesis statement.

I also reject this argument. I'll reiterate that we have these rules for a reason, and that history is rife with abuses that take place when they are ignored. Our government has illegally collected private information and illegitimately used it to blackmail or pressure people in the past -- MLK Jr. is but one of many examples. Without pushback against surveillance abuses, this will happen again, and more and more often.

[stephkyle7]

Corporations do it too, and again you assert opinions that I have not expressed as mine.
I never said we should encourage them to do anything.To suggest such a thing is really childish and confrontational.
I am stating an observation.
My insistence that we are somewhat helpless to stop them is born out by the consistent nature by which they operate.Any wrong doings are forgiven by the next administration and so on and so on.
Any corporate malfiesance is similarly negotiated outside the scope of the laws to mitigate the damage to the power brokers.

I choose not to charge at windmills,weve managed with these psuedo laws for about 100 years now and while justice is not always done,and rules arent always followed,it has worked to my satisfaction.