Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kid is within his constituional rights, but it's dad that the liberal educational system have created an environment in which students don't want to pledge allegiance to their country. It's the whole "diss America" trend that's going around.

Maybe not so much the liberal education system as the fact that police are shooting kids without facing any consequences. Just sayin'.

And, just maybe, it's a response to all these people who claim to love America, love the flag, love the anthem, love the Constitution, etc. but who seem to have such a poor grasp of what those things actually mean.

Those who blindly stand up for the flag and and the anthem will say, "The Muslims/Russians/villain du jour HATE our FREEDOM" while simultaneously:

- applauding (and electing) religious zealots like Roy Moore (and Mike Pence) who treat religion in America the way AT&T used to sell phones ("You can have any color as long as it's black, and you can be any religion you want, as long as it's the right kind of Christian"),

- endorsing policies that are explicitly designed to be racist (like the Republican supported voter ID laws, particularly the ones in Texas and NC),

- endorsing policies that are explicitly sexist ("You want our company to provide you with health insurance that covers birth control? You SLUT! Don't you know God hates sinners like you? God wants us to be fruitful and multiply - that's why our insurance covers my Viagra!")

- endorsing policies that are explicitly discriminatory towards homosexuals and those who live alternative lifestyles ("Gay marriage threatens the foundations of our society!" "Gay marriage is a threat to my marriage!" "The Bible says we should hate gays!")

at the same time the Internet is letting people get information about how things are done in other countries as it relates to education, the environment, gun control, health care, social safety nets, etc., and they look at the US and say, "Hmm...Perhaps we may not be as exceptional as these people keep claiming."

Maybe you shouldn't bemoan the "diss America" trend, but, instead, ask why people would be "dissing America." Their reasons for doing so might enlighten you.

Is that an offset garage door next to the main garage door?

There should be (and is not allowed to be) any religious test for a judge or any other political office.

The issue Feinstein and others have to deal with is the fact that candidates for judicial positions refuse to make any statements about their beliefs on issues. Because of that, lawmakers have to rely on previous decisions, statements, etc. to try to figure out what that person is likely to do as a judge and if they have a bias towards any particular position or "side."

In this case, the questions about being an "orthodox Catholic" and "Catholic dogma" are attempting to get at Ms. Barrett's position on abortion and other "life" issues.

That's not being biased against Catholics, that's trying to evaluate whether a potential Federal judge is capable of separating his/her religious beliefs from the job of being a judge.

If I were a candidate for such a position, it would be reasonable for lawmakers to ask whether I can separate my atheism from my job as a judge, as well.

If I had a million dollars (if I had a million dollars)
Well I'd buy you a house (I would buy you a house)
And if I had a million dollars (if I had a million dollars)
I'd buy you furniture for your house (maybe a nice chesterfield or an ottoman)
And if I had a million dollars (if I had a million dollars)
I'd buy you a k-car (a nice reliant automobile)

And if I had a million dollars I'd buy your love
If I had a million dollars I'd build a tree fort in our yard
If I had a million dollars you could help, it wouldn't be that hard
If I had a million dollars maybe we could put a little tiny refrigerator in there somewhere
(You know we could just go up the and hang out)
(Like open the fridge and stuff and, girl, there'd be foods laid out for us)
(With little pre-wrapped sausages and things, hmm)
(They have pre-wrapped sausages but they don't have pre-wrapped bacon)
(Can you blame them? Yeah)

If I had a million dollars (if I had a million dollars)
I'd buy you a fur coat (but not a real fur coat that's cruel)
And if I had a million dollars (if I had a million dollars)
Well I'd buy you an exotic pet (yep, like a llama or an emu)
And if I had a million dollars (if I had a million dollars)
Well I'd buy you John Merrick's remains (all them crazy elephant bones)

And if I had a million dollars I'd buy your love
If I had a million dollars we wouldn't have to walk to the store
If I had a million dollars we'd take a limousine 'cause it costs more
If I had a million dollars we wouldn't have to eat Kraft dinner
(But we would eat Kraft dinner)
(Of course we would, we'd just eat more)
(And buy really expensive ketchups with it)
(That's right, all the fanciest dijon ketchups, hmm)

If I had a million dollars (if I had a million dollars)
Well I'd buy you a green dress (but not a real green dress, that's cruel)
And if I had a million dollars (if I had a million dollars)
Well I'd buy you some art (a Picasso or a Garfunkel)
If I had a million dollars (if I had a million dollars)
Well I'd buy you a monkey (haven't you always wanted a monkey?!)

If I had a million dollars I'd buy your love
If I had a million dollars, if I had a million dollars
If I had a million dollars, if I had a million dollars
If I had a million dollars, if I had a million dollars
I'd be rich

Anonymous wrote:Are we trying to be racist here?

Not at all! To paraphrase certain conservative pundits, "I'm just asking a question!" regarding the way the President reacts to situations that seem similar, but must have some subtle difference to them since the President handles them differently.

So, Tom Brady refuses to go to the White House with his team, Trump says nothing.

Steph Curry refuses to go to the White House and Trump rescinds the invitation to the whole team and chastises Curry via Twitter.

Miss Texas criticizes Trump's response to Charlottesville, Trump says nothing.

Jamele Hill criticizes Trump and gets blasted, including having the White House Press Secretary suggest that such criticism merits Jamele Hill being fired.

Three CEOs resign from Trump's American Manufacturing Council following Trump's tepid response to Charlottesville:

Intel's Brian Krzanich

Under Armour's Kevin Plank and

Merck's Kenneth Frazier

Trump says nothing about Kraznich and Plank, but Tweets "Now that Ken Frazier of Merck Pharma has resigned from President's Manufacturing Council,he will have more time to LOWER RIPOFF DRUG PRICES!"

Then, of course, there's these guys whose protest, which included the vehicular homicide of an innocent counter protester, included some "very good people,"

and then there's these guys who, according to the President, are "sons of bitches" who should be fired.

I know there must be a pattern here....

The day before the new, Republican controlled Congress starts, Republicans have voted, in a surprise move to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics.

The OCE was set up after numerous Congressional scandals where it was felt that the fox guarding the henhouse approach of having the House Ethics Committee investigate their own was too lax.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/with-no-warning-house-republicans-vote-to-hobble-independent-ethics-office.html

I guess this is a demonstration of the same zealousness with which they will address conflicts of interest in the Executive Branch.

Ah, just like the Republicans ensured that Obama was a 1-term president?

You're attempting to conflate registration fraud with the in-person voter fraud all of these voter ID laws are supposed to prevent.

There has been almost zero evidence of in person voter fraud (for example, in Texas over 8 years and something like 40,000,000 votes cast, they found one instance where some poor kid went to vote and ended up voting in his deceased fathers name because the father hadn't been removed from the rolls and they had the same name).

Voter ID laws have had a bad couple of months, as they keep getting blocked by courts for being discriminatory (just as their authors intended them to be).

Non-citizens are not eligible to vote, and most (if not all) registration forms explicitly ask if the person filling out the form is a citizen.

Yes, they could lie.

Then what's next is a security cost/benefit analysis. Is the harm being or potentially being caused sufficient that additional security measures are necessary, and is the risk/harm reduction provided by such security measures worth the cost of/burden imposed by such security measures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Easy: Show a picture ID to vote. Get caught screwing with the integrity of the vote through illegal means, go to jail for several years.

As has been explained numerous times on these boards and by numerous judges, even those who support these laws can't find examples of it actually being done, and attempting to use in person voter fraud to actually influence an election is virtually impossible.

However, there are numerous examples of voter ID laws actually preventing legitimate voters from voting, imposing significant costs on poor and minority voters in the manner of a poll tax, and even actually being specifically designed by Republicans to disenfranchise minority voters.

Yes, and if you believe that, you're nuts. It's no poll tax, although you leftists love taxes, so you should like it in your own mindset.

If the Constitution states you shall be 18 and a citizen to vote, then one can't determine that status without a government photo ID. It's common sense. Taking someone's word for it doesn't work, unless you're in donkeyland. //rolleyes//

The person was just caught registering 19 people. I don't think he was doing it to get free meals at Burger King, so don't tell us it doesn't happen.
You are attempting to disenfranchise legitimate voters by trying to water down decisions of legitimate voters with people who should not be voting according to the laws on the books. It's as simple as that.

And, without any actual evidence of in person voter fraud (not registration fraud, as was the case here), Republicans are passing laws that result in the actual disenfranchisement of legitimate voters.

Let's look at in-person voter fraud and how it might work.

Under the current system, when I go to the polls I give them my name and they check it off the list of registered voters. If I am impersonating someone, then when I go to the polls I need to know that it is someone who hasn't voted (including voting early), because otherwise the poll worker will say, "Hey, you already voted!" and all I can say is, "Ummm, yeah, I guess I forgot." and slink away.

Or, if someone has voted in my place, when I arrive I will say, "Hey, I didn't vote yet!" and if I make a stink about it - whether or not I have a photo ID - the election monitors will know that there is an issue.

So that's one vote, and to even achieve that level of fraud you have to:

a) Have someone willing to commit a felony
b) Have confidence that you won't get caught and
c) Believe that you can make sufficient difference in a close enough election that the risk of getting caught will be worth it AND that the candidate(s) you're trying to elect will do what you want them to without knowing about your fraud.

Even county and city elections, let alone state and Federal elections are generally decided by more than a handful of votes.

So, for in-person voter fraud (the kind that would be prevented by a photo ID requirement) to have any effect, you must have a conspiracy of sufficient size that the number of fraudulent votes cast will almost certainly overwhelm the anticipated margin of defeat - which would mean at least hundreds, probably thousands or more fraudulent votes - because you can't count on winning by a tiny margin.

To achieve that level of fraud, you would have to have a pretty significant conspiracy, the kind that is very difficult to achieve because, as Benjamin Franklin said, "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."

This is why no one has actually been able to present evidence of in-person voter fraud when these laws have been challenged in court. In Pennsylvania, for example, the state stipulated (i.e., admitted) to the fact that they had no actual evidence of in-person voter fraud. Also:

- A five-year investigation by the Bush administration completed in 2007 ‘turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections.’ (See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=all)

- As reported by the Houston Chronicle, 12 years of ongoing investigations by the Attorney General in Texas "have uncovered a grand total of two cases that would have been stopped by the state's voter ID law. That's no misprint; he's found two. If ever there was a solution in search of a problem, the crusading AG has found it. Meanwhile, some 800,000 of our fellow Texans, most of them either minorities or the elderly or both, lack the appropriate state-issued ID to vote."

- When reviewing the Wisconsin voter ID law, noted conservative Judge Richard Posner had this to say, "As there is no evidence that voter-impersonation fraud is a problem, how can the fact that a legislature says it's a problem turn it into one? If the Wisconsin legislature says witches are a problem, shall Wisconsin courts be permitted to conduct witch trials?" ... and "There is no evidence that Wisconsin's voter rolls are inflated and there is compelling evidence that voter-impersonation fraud is essentially nonexistent in Wisconsin." ... and "There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."

But why are so many Republican dominated legislatures enacting them if there's no evidence of an actual in-person voter ID fraud problem? When a Federal judge in Texas blocked that state's voter ID law she held, among other things, that it was an “unconstitutional poll tax” intended to discriminate against Hispanic and African-American citizens that created “an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote,” and she concluded that the sponsors of the measure in the Texas legislature “were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate.”

Then there's the North Carolina case, where the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the data examined by the NC legislature in drafting the voter ID provision "showed that African-Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. ... The legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African-Americans (and) retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess."

You seem to be dismissive of the cost impact on people who would have to get IDs under these laws. This article from the Guardian goes into how individuals who should legitimately be permitted to vote are being blocked by the cost of getting the required ID, and there are estimated to be about 600,000 people in Texas who fall into this category. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/27/texas-vote-id-proof-certificate-minority-law And there are similar numbers of potentially affected voters in other states where these laws are being passed.

As far as actual dead people are concerned, as was the case here, the easiest way to use those dead people to commit voter fraud is via absentee ballots, rather than in person voter fraud. To do it in person you would have to go vote a dozen times. Using absentee ballots would be a lot easier, especially since Republican legislatures eager to pass voter ID laws typically haven't done anything about absentee ballot fraud.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Jew and I can tell you historically I would bet Christians have engaged in more terrorism in the name of religion (certainly against Jews) than any other religion.

To me it doesn't really make sense however to blame a religion for terrorism-- it will at most be an excuse not a reason.

stop feeling sorry for yourself. You were never a slave in America like the blacks, you were not robbed of your land like the native Americans. You live in an expensive area and send your kid to a private school and shop at wholefoods

If you like, you can try living among the muslims or communists or someone else

I think you might want to look at some of the history of how Jews have been treated throughout history. The last 65-70 years have been something of an anomaly.

Historically, their land and wealth were frequently stolen, they were considered a despised segment of society, they were subject to religious persecution, pogroms and genocide.

Anonymous wrote:As a conservative we need more police with better equipment. The only way to deal with a problem like Ferguson is with a strong show of force and a lot more arrest.

I call troll on this one.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Jew and I can tell you historically I would bet Christians have engaged in more terrorism in the name of religion (certainly against Jews) than any other religion.

To me it doesn't really make sense however to blame a religion for terrorism-- it will at most be an excuse not a reason.

"Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion. "
- Steven Weinberg

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People saying the American public is uneducated etc etc. No idea if it's true but even if it is, it doesn't matter. We live in a democracy (OK, fine, technically a constitutional republic but for the purposes of this discussion, the difference is not relevant). Unless what the public wants infringes on a constitutional right, what public wants should trump, whether that decision is based on awesome reasoning or blind panic. And as far as I know, the right of individuals who are neither American citizens nor permanent residents to come to the US any time they want is not a constitutional right.

In fact, unlike members of the EU countries, they have to get a visa to come here - there is no automatic entry right and visa can be denied for whatever reason and good luck appealing.

So if the majority of Americans really do want travel bans (if the poll is accurate), guess what - I think travel bans should be put in place, provided there are special provisions to deal with US citizens and permanent residents who obviously have a different degree of constitutional protection than a Liberian national who wants to come here on a tourist visa.

Actually, the distinction between a pure democracy and a constitutional republic are very relevant for the purposes of this discussion. The Constitution and our system of governance is set up in many ways precisely because those who wrote the Constitution recognized that the will of the people is not always correct. The checks and balances in our system serve as checks on the various branches of government, but also serve as a check on ill-considered actions by the majority of the population.

People are really bad at evaluating risk. When the media is constantly screaming about EBOLA! it causes people to disproportionately weight the risk of the disease in relation to other risks. Those who want travel bans are thinking one thing - keep people with ebola away. Which a reasonable desire. The question is whether those people are accurately evaluating the costs necessary to implement a travel ban. It sounds like a really easy thing - no one from the three infected countries gets to fly out.

So how do you do it?

Do you completely shut down all outgoing flights from those countries? That would devastate their economies at a time when they need the most help, and it would push people to use simply go to the closest airport in a neighboring country via rail/car or to use smaller, private planes via less regulated airfields. It would be virtually impossible, not to mention prohibitively expensive to attempt to seal the borders of those countries.

Do you quarantine people for the 21 day incubation period before you allow them to fly? How do you keep them isolated for those 21 days? That's a tremendous cost and the facilities don't currently exist for housing and feeding such a population.

Do you test them for ebola? According to this article (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/06/how-do-doctors-test-for-ebola/):

A number of tests can be used to diagnose Ebola within a few days of the onset of symptoms, which can detect the virus's genetic material or the presence of antibodies against the pathogen.

The most accurate of these is likely the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, a technique that looks for genetic material from the virus and creates enough copies of it that it can be detected, Hirsch said. "PCR is a really definitive test," Hirsch said. It can pick up very small amounts of the virus.

However, this test can be negative during the first three days an infected person has symptoms, said Dr. Sandro Cinti, an infectious-disease specialist at the University of Michigan Hospital System/Ann Arbor VA Health System.

"Somebody could be in the hospital for three to five days before a diagnosis [of Ebola] is confirmed," Cinti told Live Science. "The important thing is keeping the patient isolated until you can get to a diagnosis." Meanwhile, doctors will be running tests to rule out other diseases, such as malaria, which can be detected more quickly than Ebola, he said.

So the test doesn't help until they have symptoms, and even then it takes 3-5 days.

So, if someone comes to the airport with symptoms, you could isolate them for 3-5 days. But, again, you have the quarantine issue.

None of this helps if the person is asymptomatic when they arrive at the airport. Even if you ask someone if they've been exposed, they could lie, as the Texas victim supposedly did.

On top of that, even if you try to impose a quarantine at the airports in the affected countries, the police/army forces in those countries are not known for their scrupulous observance of legal and ethical rules.

When you put all this together, travel bans are unlikely to be successful.

To paraphrase someone, this is all nonsense on stilts.

Easy to dismiss an argument without providing any counter or evidence to the contrary. A lot harder to point out where I'm wrong. Feel free to do so and I'm happy to have a discussion about it.

Anonymous wrote:People saying the American public is uneducated etc etc. No idea if it's true but even if it is, it doesn't matter. We live in a democracy (OK, fine, technically a constitutional republic but for the purposes of this discussion, the difference is not relevant). Unless what the public wants infringes on a constitutional right, what public wants should trump, whether that decision is based on awesome reasoning or blind panic. And as far as I know, the right of individuals who are neither American citizens nor permanent residents to come to the US any time they want is not a constitutional right.

In fact, unlike members of the EU countries, they have to get a visa to come here - there is no automatic entry right and visa can be denied for whatever reason and good luck appealing.

So if the majority of Americans really do want travel bans (if the poll is accurate), guess what - I think travel bans should be put in place, provided there are special provisions to deal with US citizens and permanent residents who obviously have a different degree of constitutional protection than a Liberian national who wants to come here on a tourist visa.

Actually, the distinction between a pure democracy and a constitutional republic are very relevant for the purposes of this discussion. The Constitution and our system of governance is set up in many ways precisely because those who wrote the Constitution recognized that the will of the people is not always correct. The checks and balances in our system serve as checks on the various branches of government, but also serve as a check on ill-considered actions by the majority of the population.

People are really bad at evaluating risk. When the media is constantly screaming about EBOLA! it causes people to disproportionately weight the risk of the disease in relation to other risks. Those who want travel bans are thinking one thing - keep people with ebola away. Which a reasonable desire. The question is whether those people are accurately evaluating the costs necessary to implement a travel ban. It sounds like a really easy thing - no one from the three infected countries gets to fly out.

So how do you do it?

Do you completely shut down all outgoing flights from those countries? That would devastate their economies at a time when they need the most help, and it would push people to use simply go to the closest airport in a neighboring country via rail/car or to use smaller, private planes via less regulated airfields. It would be virtually impossible, not to mention prohibitively expensive to attempt to seal the borders of those countries.

Do you quarantine people for the 21 day incubation period before you allow them to fly? How do you keep them isolated for those 21 days? That's a tremendous cost and the facilities don't currently exist for housing and feeding such a population.

Do you test them for ebola? According to this article (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/06/how-do-doctors-test-for-ebola/):

A number of tests can be used to diagnose Ebola within a few days of the onset of symptoms, which can detect the virus's genetic material or the presence of antibodies against the pathogen.

The most accurate of these is likely the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, a technique that looks for genetic material from the virus and creates enough copies of it that it can be detected, Hirsch said. "PCR is a really definitive test," Hirsch said. It can pick up very small amounts of the virus.

However, this test can be negative during the first three days an infected person has symptoms, said Dr. Sandro Cinti, an infectious-disease specialist at the University of Michigan Hospital System/Ann Arbor VA Health System.

"Somebody could be in the hospital for three to five days before a diagnosis [of Ebola] is confirmed," Cinti told Live Science. "The important thing is keeping the patient isolated until you can get to a diagnosis." Meanwhile, doctors will be running tests to rule out other diseases, such as malaria, which can be detected more quickly than Ebola, he said.

So the test doesn't help until they have symptoms, and even then it takes 3-5 days.

So, if someone comes to the airport with symptoms, you could isolate them for 3-5 days. But, again, you have the quarantine issue.

None of this helps if the person is asymptomatic when they arrive at the airport. Even if you ask someone if they've been exposed, they could lie, as the Texas victim supposedly did.

On top of that, even if you try to impose a quarantine at the airports in the affected countries, the police/army forces in those countries are not known for their scrupulous observance of legal and ethical rules.

When you put all this together, travel bans are unlikely to be successful.