|
|
Post by No. 1 son on Oct 29, 2019 6:55:19 GMT -5
the enemy is always morphing to suit needs. Mr Barr has been busy. “Be careful hunting monsters, lest you become one yourself, for when you stare into the Abyss, the Abyss also stares into you.” --Nietzsche. |
|
|
|
Post by minx on Oct 29, 2019 8:32:29 GMT -5
Have no fear - when they come after you they'll also grab anyone who might speak out on your behalf so you're not alone at Gitmo....
|
|
|
|
Post by No. 1 son on Oct 29, 2019 9:13:01 GMT -5
Or you, for that matter. The fisa court abuse report is overdue for release, it was supposed to be released last month. Maybe that will shed some light on what we are trying to accomplish.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Oct 29, 2019 9:19:59 GMT -5
Inconceivable that the true Overlords permit such a base, low-ingenuity approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Oct 29, 2019 10:30:29 GMT -5
I'm not exactly sure what it is you want. Waiting for a violent crime to be committed, by someone known to be prone to it, before taking any action is an exercise in futility. On the flip side, arresting children and sending them to special doctors and schools for pointing a finger gun at someone on the playground is equally absurd. Can't there a balance between civil liberties and oversight? Can't we allow for common sense, emotionless, conspiracy-less approaches to public safety before, during, and after the fact?
|
|
|
|
Post by No. 1 son on Oct 29, 2019 10:50:07 GMT -5
Can't we allow for common sense, emotionless, conspiracy-less approaches to public safety before, during, and after the fact? Perhaps, do you think this can be done without over reach? What's common sense to one may not be common sense to another. I wish that were the case, and this could be used wisely, but am not as sure as you are. Do you think discussion is unnecessary and harmful? |
|
|
|
Post by sipowitz86 on Oct 29, 2019 10:56:53 GMT -5
Well, we could do without all the thought crime stuff if we'd just simply get rid of most of the murder toys that every other country has done to great effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Oct 29, 2019 11:02:45 GMT -5
do you think this can be done without over reach? Yes. But would you have been okay with over reach leading up to 9/11. In my OPINION on 9/12 it was too late for any kind of reach. What's common sense to one may not be common sense to another. I wish that were the case, and this could be used wisely, but am not as sure as you are. True. However, I think the word "common" extends a bit wider than you give credit. Surety is not what I'm exercising. It's more of an expectation. Do you think discussion is unnecessary and harmful? Is that an implication of something on my part? I certainly don't see where I've led you to believe I would suggest any such ideas. (See, I can be sensitivetesty too!) |
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Oct 29, 2019 11:06:40 GMT -5
Well, we could do without all the thought crime stuff if we'd just simply get rid of most of the murder toys that every other country has done to great effect. Fortunately or unfortunately, whichever way you want to see it, those other countries don't have our Constitution and a 2nd Amendment to fight over. And for the record, after witnessing the past 3 years as well as looking at the next several, I'm more heavily on the side of the former than ever. |
|
|
|
Post by No. 1 son on Oct 29, 2019 11:08:25 GMT -5
When people label any thinking conspiracy thoughts, that is usually a dismissal of further discussion. We want the same thing here, safety and security, but I don't believe this is the way to do it. The end justifying the means has led us down a bad path.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Oct 29, 2019 11:15:38 GMT -5
So you're allowed to read my mind but I'm not allowed to read yours. Sounds fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by No. 1 son on Oct 29, 2019 11:37:36 GMT -5
Can't we allow for common sense, emotionless, conspiracy-less approaches to public safety before, during, and after the fact? Just my intepreration of what you said. I can't think of what a conspiracy-less approach might look like. It would have to involve some transparency and real oversight and budget controls from congress, input from the people based on facts and performance and that's never going to happen. Once you empower the people who really aren't in touch with us anymore, it can never be corrected. You have no need to read my mind, I will tell you how I feel. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Oct 29, 2019 11:56:27 GMT -5
as long as that is afforded mutual courtesy it sounds good to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by sipowitz86 on Oct 29, 2019 12:06:49 GMT -5
I think you two should shoot it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Oct 29, 2019 12:28:16 GMT -5
I don't know what else you expected, Larry. Candidate Trump talked admiringly about stop and frisk, and told us all he would confiscate. I pointed it out at the time. This is what y'all voted for, thank you for your interest in the electoral process.
PS Just shocking that the Trumpco Admin doesn't protect individual rights. Nobody could've predicted blah blah blah.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Oct 29, 2019 12:32:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Oct 29, 2019 13:15:47 GMT -5
I think you two should shoot it out. As long as it's shots of tequila, I'm down. |
|
|
|
Post by minx on Oct 29, 2019 14:51:11 GMT -5
Does it really matter in the end? All too many people are willing to give up freedom because *they* would never be affected by these laws and restrictions.
After all, their kid would never shoot up a school, because they are good parents. And their kid would never become an addict, or abuse their spouse/kids. They were raised right!
And if any of the above happens, it's not their fault because they did their best and we should have sympathy for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by No. 1 son on Oct 29, 2019 15:45:38 GMT -5
Well let me ask you this, Minx: Is there anything you would not cede to an authority in return for a promise of total safety and/or perceived benefits? Not safety, mind you, just the promise of safety. Any rights and freedoms that we give up today will not even be remembered or for that as well, missed by our grandkids. They will be gone nevertheless, and the history will be adjusted to reflect that. I think I understand what you are saying, that people assume that they will not be adversely affected by more surveillance and the resultant corrective action. Is that about right? They may want to reconsider this.
|
|
|
|
Post by minx on Oct 29, 2019 16:24:00 GMT -5
Oh, they definitely should think twice - look at what happened with the Patriot Act.
My kids have never know a time when the TSA didn't exist as a quick example. And when you don't know about a thing, how can you miss it?
It's like what you tell people when they implement a new computer system - don't hand out permissions like cookies. It's easier to give a person something shiny later, than to take it away.
And many people will do anything for the illusion of safety - Beto can say "We're coming for your AR-15s", but exactly HOW will we do that? It's not like there are 10 sitting out there with everyone knowing who owns each one.
And while mass shootings make the news, the majority of gun deaths come from one on one violence.
Take domestic violence as an example. Study after study has shown that when there is a gun in the house, the likelihood of murder occurring dramatically increases. Red Flag laws are all well and good, but it's hard enough as it is to get police and the courts to take domestic violence seriously. So are we now to expect that the police will run out immediately, confront a man (because the majority of domestic violence is committed by men) who is armed, and pissed off? Especially when the attitude is that the woman is going to 'take him back' anyway?
Women have been 'promised' that if they only press charges or go get a restraining order that they'll be safe, only to see their abusers post bond less than 24 hours after their arrest, or find that the police pretty much ignore violations of the restraining order. Then we wonder why abuse victims are so reluctant to press charges.
|
|
|
|
Post by No. 1 son on Oct 29, 2019 16:31:14 GMT -5
I am just reluctant, especially when emotions take the place of reasoning. Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.
Let us pray
Dear little 5 pound 7 ounce Baby Trump, with your little fistes holding your little preschool trust fund, in your tiny golden shit stained diaper, and your precious combover just starting, lead us to that Big Deal so that we can live bigly. Aman.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Oct 29, 2019 16:57:51 GMT -5
Wrong. The correct answer was "but look what she was wearing".
PS The majority of American gun deaths are suicides.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Oct 29, 2019 17:08:20 GMT -5
So are drug overdoses. And look at the massive effort, ahem, bipartisan effort, to restrict and remove them from the hands of even those who cannot live normal lives without them, recover from injuries, surgeries, etc., and never have been and never will be addicts or use them irresponsibly.
I don't hear a whole lot of jabber about that from either side. Least of all from the ones that are concerned about over reach.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Oct 29, 2019 18:48:59 GMT -5
In re overdue FISA court report, that's the DOJ IG, right? You know this administration has interfered with IG already, right? I'm sure Barr will audit it pre-release, like with the Mueller report, to make sure it says the right things. No collusion, exoneration!
|
|
|
|
Post by minx on Oct 30, 2019 8:50:34 GMT -5
Oh John, I totally agree.
You have doctors who were literal pill mills - ordering so many drugs that each resident of the town they were in would not only have a lifetime supply, but would be able to pass down a lifetime supply to their great-great grandchildren. And while those doctors are being prosecuted (justifiably so), I have read very little about the salespeople or the drug companies joining them in their snug little cells.
And despite the misuse, these drugs were actually developed for a reason, and there are people out there who can live somewhat of a normal life because of them.
I would start with an overall triage
1) People who have a legal prescription that gets refilled every month
--When was the last time this person had a full medical exam?
--How long have they been on the dosage they are currently taking?
--Are they taking the medication as prescribed?
--Are they functional on this dosage cognitively?
--Do they have a terminal condition? (if yes, then they absolutely stay at the dosage they are on)
Assuming they 'pass' the above, then leave things be. Make a requirement that they need to see the prescribing doctor quarterly for a full assessment to verify that they are still taking the drug as prescribed and that it is not interfering with their activities of daily living.
2) People who have never had a prescription but who are in pain
--Why do they need this medication?
--What alternatives have been tried first?
--Does this person have a history of any type of addiction?
--What is the lowest dosage and shortest term that this can be prescribed for and still be effective?
--What prescriptions has this patient had filled in the last 6 months?
And yeah, it's nanny state overreach, but every time someone fills a prescription for opoiods, we're going to have to have it registered so that people can't 'doctor shop' and get a prescription for doctor A, then go to doctor B in the next town to get more in a week. And that totally and completely sucks.
But you know what's really pissing me off right now? All the states suing the drug manufacturers. Don't get me wrong - those shits need to pay to clean up the mess they made. But the feds are the ones who should be suing, and the settlement money should be distributed to the states who are being devastated by this. Places like WVa sued early (they understood what they were looking at), and settled for under 10 million - now other states are getting in the 100 million mark - that money should be shared equally so that every state who has been blown away by this can set up programs and treatments for the victims.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Oct 30, 2019 13:12:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Oct 30, 2019 13:20:57 GMT -5
Actually, I'm quite sure this doesn't or won't sit well with him. His record of opposing these types of things are pretty consistent and mostly aligned with ours.
Of course a more militarized police force just means adding a beat to the music that's been speeding up for decades or more.
|
|
