Constitution Free Zone
 

Any one living there? Scary stuff.
I just learned about it.

Constitution Free Zone
 

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:36:29 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Any one living there? Scary stuff.
I just learned about it.


The entire UK is a constitution free zone.

Constitution Free Zone
 

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:16:51 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...
Any one living there? Scary stuff.
I just learned about it.

I think I read that 66% of Americans live in these zones:

https://www.aclu.org/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

This is a vestige of the paranoia of 9/11 and will likely be headed to the
Supreme Court for final adjudication. The Fourth Amendment guards against
unreasonable search and seizure but historically that protection weakens
when leaving or entering the country. I believe the adminstration contends
that "border" extends 100 miles inland, but I don't see the Supreme Court
supporting that contention.


You are a lot more optimistic then I am. I expect they will support
it under the claim that the searches are minimally intrusive. Is it
any different then the DUI checkpoints which they support?

Constitution Free Zone
 

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:16:51 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...
Any one living there? Scary stuff.
I just learned about it.

I think I read that 66% of Americans live in these zones:

https://www.aclu.org/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

This is a vestige of the paranoia of 9/11 and will likely be headed to
the
Supreme Court for final adjudication. The Fourth Amendment guards
against
unreasonable search and seizure but historically that protection weakens
when leaving or entering the country. I believe the adminstration
contends
that "border" extends 100 miles inland, but I don't see the Supreme Court
supporting that contention.


You are a lot more optimistic then I am. I expect they will support
it under the claim that the searches are minimally intrusive. Is it
any different then the DUI checkpoints which they support?

That's a good point. Searching everyone is OK but just a few people not OK.
I've got to say, I think that's up there with "money = speech" and
"companies can have religious feelings, too!" Try paying the night shift at
the local beer bottling plant with a speech instead of money and you'll see
how out of bounds that decision was. (-:

I believe the drunk driver "mass searches" will eventually be invalidated
because the same intrusion occurs whether singly or in groups. It's part of
the overreaction to the drunk driving problem - a solution that's really
unconstitutional justified by saving the lives of the young'uns.

The checkpoint searches are nowhere near as good as cops just sitting
outside a bar at closing time looking for stumbling drunkards heading toward
their cars. But bar owners continually protest cops "sitting" on their
establishments and so checkpoints were born. Better to break the
Constitution. (-: sarcasm alert

--
Bobby G.

Constitution Free Zone
 

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"companies can have religious feelings, too!"

Which, as you well know, is not remotely what was said. But hey let's
have a fact free zone here, too.
The court said that the OWNERS of a very few closely held
companies can have religious feelings that, because so few own it, can
be shown in their company.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

Constitution Free Zone
 

DUIs will largely end, wetherits from drinking, drug use, or other impariment soon:)

Equip all new vehicles with GPS and driver monitor

your vehicle will watch how your driving and call the police on you

Constitution Free Zone
 

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 08:05:41 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"companies can have religious feelings, too!"

Which, as you well know, is not remotely what was said. But hey let's
have a fact free zone here, too.
The court said that the OWNERS of a very few closely held
companies can have religious feelings that, because so few own it, can
be shown in their company.


How many (or few) owners does it take for the ruling to apply? If
it's mom and pop I guess that makes discrimination ok but what if
it's Mom and her third cousin plus a step daughter and one's catholic,
one's Lutheran and one's Hindu?

It was truly one of the stupidest SC rulings in a long time.

Constitution Free Zone
 

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:



How many (or few) owners does it take for the ruling to apply? If
it's mom and pop I guess that makes discrimination ok but what if
it's Mom and her third cousin plus a step daughter and one's catholic,
one's Lutheran and one's Hindu?
I wasn't able to get a real clear idea of that in that the opinion
just said "closely held". That is defined by theIRS as having at least
50% of the value of the stock held 5 or fewer (as with everything else
government related there are some other things that apply, but that
answers your questions. Since the Court did not suggest another
definition, I would suspect that one would be operative.
As for the other, that would be corporate decision so 50% of
voting shares, however that works out. If Dad owns enough shares he can
tell Mom, third cousin and the step daughter to get bent. Just like he
could have on any other corporate governance issue.


--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

Constitution Free Zone
 

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 6:52:21 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:16:51 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...
Any one living there? Scary stuff.
I just learned about it.

I think I read that 66% of Americans live in these zones:

https://www.aclu.org/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

This is a vestige of the paranoia of 9/11 and will likely be headed to
the
Supreme Court for final adjudication. The Fourth Amendment guards
against
unreasonable search and seizure but historically that protection weakens
when leaving or entering the country. I believe the adminstration
contends
that "border" extends 100 miles inland, but I don't see the Supreme Court
supporting that contention.


You are a lot more optimistic then I am. I expect they will support
it under the claim that the searches are minimally intrusive. Is it
any different then the DUI checkpoints which they support?

That's a good point. Searching everyone is OK but just a few people not OK.
I've got to say, I think that's up there with "money = speech" and
"companies can have religious feelings, too!" Try paying the night shift at
the local beer bottling plant with a speech instead of money and you'll see
how out of bounds that decision was. (-:

I believe the drunk driver "mass searches" will eventually be invalidated
because the same intrusion occurs whether singly or in groups. It's part of
the overreaction to the drunk driving problem - a solution that's really
unconstitutional justified by saving the lives of the young'uns.

The checkpoint searches are nowhere near as good as cops just sitting
outside a bar at closing time looking for stumbling drunkards heading toward
their cars. But bar owners continually protest cops "sitting" on their
establishments and so checkpoints were born. Better to break the
Constitution. (-: sarcasm alert

--
Bobby G.

I read a story somewhere about a cop who was hanging around in the area of a lounge where the folks were gaming him. At closing time, one guy who wasn't drunk would stagger around the parking so the cop would see him and finally get in his car, pull out of the parking lot with the cop following him. When the other patrons saw the cop drive away after the guy, they all jumped in their cars and left. The sober guy got pulled over and passed every sobriety test and was allowed to go on his way. I don't know if I wrote it exactly as it was or if the tale is apocryphal but I thought it was funny. ( ͡ᵔ ͜ʖ ͡ᵔ )

[8~{} Uncle Sober Monster

Constitution Free Zone
 

On 8/1/2015 10:40 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 6:52:21 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:16:51 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...
Any one living there? Scary stuff.
I just learned about it.

I think I read that 66% of Americans live in these zones:

https://www.aclu.org/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

This is a vestige of the paranoia of 9/11 and will likely be headed to
the
Supreme Court for final adjudication. The Fourth Amendment guards
against
unreasonable search and seizure but historically that protection weakens
when leaving or entering the country. I believe the adminstration
contends
that "border" extends 100 miles inland, but I don't see the Supreme Court
supporting that contention.


You are a lot more optimistic then I am. I expect they will support
it under the claim that the searches are minimally intrusive. Is it
any different then the DUI checkpoints which they support?

That's a good point. Searching everyone is OK but just a few people not OK.
I've got to say, I think that's up there with "money = speech" and
"companies can have religious feelings, too!" Try paying the night shift at
the local beer bottling plant with a speech instead of money and you'll see
how out of bounds that decision was. (-:

I believe the drunk driver "mass searches" will eventually be invalidated
because the same intrusion occurs whether singly or in groups. It's part of
the overreaction to the drunk driving problem - a solution that's really
unconstitutional justified by saving the lives of the young'uns.

The checkpoint searches are nowhere near as good as cops just sitting
outside a bar at closing time looking for stumbling drunkards heading toward
their cars. But bar owners continually protest cops "sitting" on their
establishments and so checkpoints were born. Better to break the
Constitution. (-: sarcasm alert

--
Bobby G.

I read a story somewhere about a cop who was hanging around in the area of a lounge where the folks were gaming him. At closing time, one guy who wasn't drunk would stagger around the parking so the cop would see him and finally get in his car, pull out of the parking lot with the cop following him. When the other patrons saw the cop drive away after the guy, they all jumped in their cars and left. The sober guy got pulled over and passed every sobriety test and was allowed to go on his way. I don't know if I wrote it exactly as it was or if the tale is apocryphal but I thought it was funny. ( ͡ᵔ ͜ʖ ͡ᵔ )

[8~{} Uncle Sober Monster


He was the designated decoy!

--
Maggie

Constitution Free Zone
 

In article ,
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:



Employers paying for employees' health insurance is an accident of US
history, and the consequences are becoming apparent. Another unfortunate
consequence is that far too many people don't realize just how expensive
US health care is, because they don't see the insurance bill.

I do like point out that the system as we have it today is a direct
result of the government taking the easy way out and pretending
something was something that it wasn't.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

Constitution Free Zone
 

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

My hope is the cluster-fu& system we have now eventually moves to one payer
like Medicare because that would cost the taxpayers the least in the long
run. I also believe (and realize it could never be implemented) people who
want that basic level of care free have to have been vets or people who
served in some sort of program like the Peace Corp or at the very least,
sweeping streets for one or two years. The Israelis have a national service
requirement and it seems to have served them well.


Serious question. Do you know any stats that compare MCare with the
other governmental systems or even with the private systems. I haven't
seen any stats showing that Mcare is inherently better than the
non-governmental when it comes to expenses, %of GDP used, etc., etc.

Although I will admit I have looked around too much since the late 1990s/


It's a bad idea to give people something for nothing and that's
unfortunately what we're doing.
Yeah and Mcare takes care of that?
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

Constitution Free Zone
 

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

DUIs will largely end, wetherits from drinking, drug use, or other
impariment soon:)

Equip all new vehicles with GPS and driver monitor

your vehicle will watch how your driving and call the police on you


Dear recruits,
The above is a demo of how americans got their name, Stoopid.

Constitution Free Zone
 

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

DUIs will largely end, wetherits from drinking, drug use, or other
impariment soon:)

Equip all new vehicles with GPS and driver monitor

your vehicle will watch how your driving and call the police on you


That's most unlikely, though the fact you obviously support such a
"watchdog" device speaks volumes about you and your philosophy of government
intervention into private lives, you arsehole.

Constitution Free Zone
 

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" wrote:
stuff snipped

I haven't seen any stats showing that Mcare is inherently better than
the non-governmental when it comes to expenses, %of GDP used,
etc., etc.

I don't think such stats exist because the systems are too different.

That was my thought, too, but I had to ask.

The problem is that advocates for any side of an issue can construct
reasonable sounding hypotheses that break down under even moderate scrutiny.
Hell, even the most neutral of analysts has to start making assumptions
about what various stats even mean and whether they were properly collected.
From my experience in MilMed the likelihood of health and health spending
data being accurately collected at the data input level is very, very low.
I always look at the coding sheet at each visit to the MDs and the same
procedures can be coded very differently depending on who's doing the
classifying. In fact my wife suspects a little bit of upcoding going on. I
suspect it's in the billion$. I guess I should look it up:

In 2013, that monetary loss in Medicare FFS is estimated at $33.2 billion
(a rate of 9.3 percent), in addition to almost $7 billion in Medicare
Advantage, $1.4 billion in the Part D drug program and $13.5 billion in
Medicaid, totalling some $50 billion.

http://www.healthcarepayernews.com/c...ates-grew-2013

Oy!

--
Bobby G.
Don't just TALK about bikinis:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...UTF-8&tbm=isch

(Question for PC geeks - how can you make the URL for the above search as
compact as possible? - I've already removed some junk from the original but
in the old days you could just write www.google.images/whatever and now the
URLS are so long AIEO chokes on them and yes, Tiny URL, etc. - I still
prefer to quote a straight-up URL)

Constitution Free Zone
 

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 11:20:51 AM UTC-4, Edmund J. Burke wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message
...

DUIs will largely end, wetherits from drinking, drug use, or other
impariment soon:)

Equip all new vehicles with GPS and driver monitor

your vehicle will watch how your driving and call the police on you


Dear recruits,
The above is a demo of how americans got their name, Stoopid.


so what is wrong with a system that ultimately prevents impaired driving? for any cause?