Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Constitution Free Zone
Any one living there? Scary stuff.
I just learned about it. |
#2
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#4
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- łStatistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.˛ ‹ Aaron Levenstein |
#6
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#11
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- łStatistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.˛ ‹ Aaron Levenstein |
#12
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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? -- łStatistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.˛ ‹ Aaron Levenstein |
#13
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#16
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Blow up the US constitution | Home Repair | |||
OT Happy Constitution Day | Home Repair | |||
The Constitution Repealed in Ten States | Metalworking | |||
CNCing a new case for the Constitution | Metalworking | |||
thermostat compatibility for 2 zone hot water heating w/o zone valves | Home Ownership |