Support NeoGAF

[User 406]

I never said that, I said people would be affected negatively.

Yes, and I'd rather have the one that's far less severe.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

WTF is this arkansas?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...n-youll-need-to-agree-its-not-an-entitlement/

The Arkansas state legislature has officially passed legislation to use Medicaid expansion dollars to buy private insurance for some 250,000 state residents.'


The bill used to do so contains one of the more unusual provisions I’ve ever seen in health-care legislation. It requires those enrolling in the Medicaid expansion to acknowledge that they’re not enrolling in an entitlement program. The relevant section:
(i) An eligible individual enrolled in the program shall affirmatively acknowledge that:
(1) The program is not a perpetual federal or state right or a guaranteed entitlement;
(2) The program is subject to cancellation upon appropriate notice; and
(3) The program is not an entitlement program.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

WTF is this arkansas?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...n-youll-need-to-agree-its-not-an-entitlement/

States that aren't accepting the Medicaid expansion are passing legislation to do this. Missouri is likely to do it too, Governor Nixon wants it but the state legislature doesn't. I'm sure Arkansas is the same - Governor Beebe probably wants it but the state legislature won't pass it. So this is a compromise so the dollars that Arkansans paid in federal tax dollars don't go to other states

 

[Jooney]

Really? Video Games? The rest of it sounds fine, but that whole section is just dumb.

Really? I disagree. There is a ratings system for a reason. Use it. Kids shouldn't be able to walk into a retailer and purchase a mature or adult rated game without adult consent. That's common sense. I also think if a retailer gets caught selling a rated game to a minor they should be penalised.

 

[Piecake]

States that aren't accepting the Medicaid expansion are passing legislation to do this. Missouri is likely to do it too, Governor Nixon wants it but the state legislature doesn't. I'm sure Arkansas is the same - Governor Beebe probably wants it but the state legislature won't pass it. So this is a compromise so the dollars that Arkansans paid in federal tax dollars don't go to other states

Does Arkansas get more money thanks to private insurance costing more than medicare, or are they going to have to make up the difference?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Really? I disagree. There is a ratings system for a reason. Use it. Kids shouldn't be able to walk into a retailer and purchase a mature or adult rated game without adult consent. That's common sense. I also think if a retailer gets caught selling a rated game to a minor they should be penalised.

1st amendment.

you can't enforce a ban for minors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association

States that aren't accepting the Medicaid expansion are passing legislation to do this. Missouri is likely to do it too, Governor Nixon wants it but the state legislature doesn't. I'm sure Arkansas is the same - Governor Beebe probably wants it but the state legislature won't pass it. So this is a compromise so the dollars that Arkansans paid in federal tax dollars don't go to other states

I was referring more to the oath you have to take. Creepy

 

[Link]

1st amendment.

you can't enforce a ban for minors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association

Gotta say, I completely disagree with that.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Gotta say, I completely disagree with that.

How? Its a de facto ban on kids being able to enjoy someone's speech. And there is no governmental interest in banning it. (where is the evidence it stops violence?)

Also there is already a voluntary ban in place.

I have no problem with the first part of christie's plan, but any kind of ban is too far IMO

 

[Mario]

1st amendment.

you can't enforce a ban for minors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association

Does that apply to other media such as hardcore pornography?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Does that apply to other media such as hardcore pornography?

pornography is obscenity, they can ban it for anyone constitutionally I think. Violence doesn't fall under that.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

pornography is obscenity, they can ban it for anyone constitutionally I think. Violence doesn't fall under that.

I.. I don't think that's the case?

Why wouldn't pornography be protected under "free speech"? Genuinely curious.

 

[Link]

pornography is obscenity, they can ban it for anyone constitutionally I think. Violence doesn't fall under that.

This just further perpetuates how concerned this country seems to be with shielding us from sex, but could care less about violence. If something is intended for mature audiences, I think that should be enforced, whatever the content.

I've never agreed that refusing to sell content to children that is not meant for them goes against the first amendment.

 

[Mario]

pornography is obscenity, they can ban it for anyone constitutionally I think. Violence doesn't fall under that.

Got it.

So what is the status of the enforceability of movie theatre age restrictions for mature content which is violent but not sexually explicit?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I.. I don't think that's the case?

Why wouldn't pornography be protected under "free speech"? Genuinely curious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

This just further perpetuates how concerned this country seems to be with shielding us from sex, but could care less about violence. If something is intended for mature audiences, I think that should be enforced, whatever the content.

I've never agreed that refusing to sell content to children that is not meant for them goes against the first amendment.

Refusing to sell it is fine. I don't have a problem with gamestop preventing someone from buying something. Its that there should be no law against a store owner, if he wants from selling halo to a 16 year old.

And to your question about sex, I think the court has a hard time finding an artistic merit in pure sex, while its easy to find in violent movies. that ruling allows the government to ban certain violence if it has no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

I think people are thinking the court says people can ban any nudity. This isn't true, they can't ban a movie that has sex if they can find literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Which leads people to the "i know it when I see it"

 

[PhoenixDark]

McCain and Graham are reminding us how idiotic they are, again. The terrorist is a US citizen and has US rights. He is not an enemy combatant, in fact if he was what state is he representing? What organization?

It will be hilarious watching the TEH CONSTITUTION crowd throw a fit over this. The same people who cheered Rand Paul's filibuster will demand a US citizen be stripped of his constitutional protections, because he's a Muslim.

 

[Link]

Refusing to sell it is fine. I don't have a problem with gamestop preventing someone from buying something. Its that there should be no law against a store owner, if he wants from selling halo to a 16 year old.

Right, I'm on the other side about this. I think there should be a law against it. The ratings system is in place for a reason, and I don't think it should be ok for some retail clerk to sell Halo to a 16 year old. If the kid's parent is ok with it, they can always buy it for/with them.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

McCain and Graham are reminding us how idiotic they are, again. The terrorist is a US citizen and has US rights. He is not an enemy combatant, in fact if he was what state is he representing? What organization?

It will be hilarious watching the TEH CONSTITUTION crowd throw a fit over this. The same people who cheered Rand Paul's filibuster will demand a US citizen be stripped of his constitutional protections, because he's a Muslim.

Its scary because so many people jump into the fear mongering because "terrorism" like its some "supercrime"

I'm actually thankful many of the newer GOP senators like Rubio and Paul are keeping their mouth shut. Gives me hope (at least for now).

 

[smokeandmirrors]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

I see. Thanks! I had no idea.

 

[B-Dubs]

McCain and Graham are reminding us how idiotic they are, again. The terrorist is a US citizen and has US rights. He is not an enemy combatant, in fact if he was what state is he representing? What organization?

It will be hilarious watching the TEH CONSTITUTION crowd throw a fit over this. The same people who cheered Rand Paul's filibuster will demand a US citizen be stripped of his constitutional protections, because he's a Muslim.

What else is new? I hope he gets tried in a courthouse in Boston and we all realize that terrorists aren't actual super villains.

 

[pigeon]

Does Arkansas get more money thanks to private insurance costing more than medicare, or are they going to have to make up the difference?

They won't get any money unless they can present and implement a reasonable plan to cover the same people at "comparable" cost with the same cost-sharing. That's why some other states that have filed for it have been shot down.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Why the hell no Miranda rights. That makes zero sense to me.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Why the hell no Miranda rights. That makes zero sense to me.

Their argument is that they needed to determine whether there were unaccounted bombs and whether there were other accomplices...but at the Boston press conference they stressed the threat was over, and all bombs were accounted for. So if there's no public threat, which there doesn't seem to be, I don't get it either.

 

[thcsquad]

McCain and Graham are reminding us how idiotic they are, again. The terrorist is a US citizen and has US rights. He is not an enemy combatant, in fact if he was what state is he representing? What organization?

It will be hilarious watching the TEH CONSTITUTION crowd throw a fit over this. The same people who cheered Rand Paul's filibuster will demand a US citizen be stripped of his constitutional protections, because he's a Muslim.

This isn't true. McCain and Graham are the ones who ridiculed Paul's filibuster. And while I think Paul is batshit insane, I would be shocked if he changed his opinion for these guys. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up with some kind words for the administration if it ends up getting handled as a regular trial.

There are some people who will be hypocritical, I guess. The people inbetween McCain and Paul who latched onto Paul's filibuster nonsense but are far from idealogically pure libertarians.

 

[Clevinger]

This isn't true. McCain and Graham are the ones who ridiculed Paul's filibuster. And while I think Paul is batshit insane, I would be shocked if he changed his opinion for these guys. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up with some kind words for the administration if it ends up getting handled as a regular trial.

There are some people who will be hypocritical, I guess. The people inbetween McCain and Paul who latched onto Paul's filibuster nonsense but are far from idealogically pure libertarians.

I think he means the Tea Partiers, not necessarily politicians (though Ted Cruz is absolutely this kind of Tea Partier), who cheered on Paul not because they cared about what he was talking about, but because his filibuster was sticking it to Obama. They'll latch onto anything anti-Obama.

 

[pigeon]

If you lower the amount of crack needed then fewer people will be subject to the mandatory minimum. If you increase the amount of powdered then more people will meet that same mandatory minimum. So the former will have less people getting an insane number of years for possession and the latter will have more.

I think you made a typo -- lowering the minimum amount of powdered cocaine will mean more people meeting the bar and raising the minimum amount of crack will mean more less people, not the other way around. But otherwise, yes, this is my reasoning. If the bill raises the crack requirement to 2.5 kilos, then it's a good (if surprising) change that will more or less eliminate people getting mandatory sentences for crack possession. If it lowers the powdered cocaine requirement to 600 grams or so, it's going to mean more people getting mandatory sentences, although on the positive side they will mostly be white guys.

 

[B-Dubs]

I think you made a typo -- lowering the minimum amount of powdered cocaine will mean more people meeting the bar and raising the minimum amount of crack will mean more less people, not the other way around. But otherwise, yes, this is my reasoning. If the bill raises the crack requirement to 2.5 kilos, then it's a good (if surprising) change that will more or less eliminate people getting mandatory sentences for crack possession. If it lowers the powdered cocaine requirement to 600 grams or so, it's going to mean more people getting mandatory sentences, although on the positive side they will mostly be white guys.

Ah you're right, I did. I can't believe I did that.

 

[thcsquad]

I think he means the Tea Partiers, not necessarily politicians (though Ted Cruz is absolutely this kind of Tea Partier), who cheered on Paul not because they cared about what he was talking about, but because his filibuster was sticking it to Obama. They'll latch onto anything anti-Obama.

Yeah, there will be a lot of idiocy on Facebook feeds. But a lot of those people are sticking to crazy conspiracy theories, that these dudes were patsies for some government organization. Crying for indefinite detention for these guys as genuine terrorists implies some belief in the reality of the situation that a lot of the Tea Partiers don't have.

I'm more concerned with what actual politicians do, and I think and hope that the intersection of "cheered Paul's filibuster" and "wants to treat the suspect #2 as an enemy combatant" in our elected federal government will be minute to nonexistent.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I think he means the Tea Partiers, not necessarily politicians (though Ted Cruz is absolutely this kind of Tea Partier), who cheered on Paul not because they cared about what he was talking about, but because his filibuster was sticking it to Obama. They'll latch onto anything anti-Obama.

This. Paul's filibuster was cheered by people who have argued against any legal restraint on US security policy for years (specifically 2001-2009). Paul himself might end up on the right side of this, but I guarantee most far right constitution republicans won't.

McCain and Graham are a different story. I'm just fucking glad it's not President McCain and Attorney General Graham.

 

[speculawyer]

This. Paul's filibuster was cheered by people who have argued against any legal restraint on US security policy for years (specifically 2001-2009). Paul himself might end up on the right side of this, but I guarantee most far right constitution republicans won't.

McCain and Graham are a different story. I'm just fucking glad it's not President McCain and Attorney General Graham.

Man, that was such a bullet dodge. He wanted to start a war with Russia! He'd have us bombing Iran already.

 

[Link]

McCain and Graham are a different story. I'm just fucking glad it's not President McCain and Attorney General Graham.

Don't forget Vice President Palin.

 

[Dan]

Their argument is that they needed to determine whether there were unaccounted bombs and whether there were other accomplices...but at the Boston press conference they stressed the threat was over, and all bombs were accounted for. So if there's no public threat, which there doesn't seem to be, I don't get it either.

I can be swayed into allowing a brief period without Miranda rights, to try and get information about immediate threats, but at this point he should be treated like any other criminal. That time has passed. I'm definitely dismayed that the public safety exception is apparently still in effect.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Man, that was such a bullet dodge. He wanted to start a war with Russia! He'd have us bombing Iran already.

Considering the bullshit Obama has dealt with, I think he'd have died from the stress, honestly.

Then we'd be stuck with....*shudder*

 

[B-Dubs]

Considering the bullshit Obama has dealt with, I think he'd have died from the stress, honestly.

Then we'd be stuck with....*shudder*

Don't even joke about that.

 

[Gotchaye]

I'm confused by what's meant by not allowing the guy Miranda rights. I had thought the point of Mirandizing a suspect was to make subsequent statements admissible as evidence against the suspect. But do police really need much from the guy to put him away? If there are public safety concerns, interrogate him immediately with the understanding that what he's saying isn't admissible as evidence against him. Surely you're even more likely to get critical information if the suspect knows you won't turn around and punish him for telling you. What's the problem?

 

[Frank the Great]

I'm confused by what's meant by not allowing the guy Miranda rights. I had thought the point of Mirandizing a suspect was to make subsequent statements admissible as evidence against the suspect. But do police really need much from the guy to put him away? If there are public safety concerns, interrogate him immediately with the understanding that what he's saying isn't admissible as evidence against him. Surely you're even more likely to get critical information if the suspect knows you won't turn around and punish him for telling you. What's the problem?

like you said, failing to mirandize someone is not in itself a violation of the constitution. it is just a procedural safeguard to ensure that any subsequent statements will be admissible in court.

the thing is, i think people are being even bigger cunts than you imagined, when arguing that he should have no miranda rights. i think what they really mean is that not only do they not want him to be read his miranda rights, they don't want him to be entitled to the underlying constitutional rights that miranda is intended to protect. in other words, they think that the right to counsel, to remain silent, and to avoid self-incrimination should not apply to the guy at all, "just because" he is a bad man.

which is utter nonsense and would, ironically, force a court to throw out any evidence obtained during the interrogations if the prosecutors abused those rights.

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm confused by what's meant by not allowing the guy Miranda rights. I had thought the point of Mirandizing a suspect was to make subsequent statements admissible as evidence against the suspect. But do police really need much from the guy to put him away? If there are public safety concerns, interrogate him immediately with the understanding that what he's saying isn't admissible as evidence against him. Surely you're even more likely to get critical information if the suspect knows you won't turn around and punish him for telling you. What's the problem?

It's more to inform him of his rights and if they get anything from him they can't use it in court. So if he tells them about an accomplice then they can't try that accomplice using the info from him. To be honest none of this matters at the moment since he's in serious but stable condition and is unable to communicate yet. So they can't mirandize him yet anyway.

 

[Tamanon]

Also, isn't there a 48 hour window to begin with for the emergency circumstances? With him injured, it all seems like handwringing that won't matter in the end as he's Miranda'd.

 

[B-Dubs]

Also, isn't there a 48 hour window to begin with for the emergency circumstances? With him injured, it all seems like handwringing that won't matter in the end as he's Miranda'd.

Well you have to be awake to get miranda'd anyway, they can't just KO you and read you your rights. I'm pretty sure that doesn't count.

 

[Gotchaye]

It's more to inform him of his rights and if they get anything from him they can't use it in court. So if he tells them about an accomplice then they can't try that accomplice using the info from him. To be honest none of this matters at the moment since he's in serious but stable condition and is unable to communicate yet. So they can't mirandize him yet anyway.

But is it true that if you don't Mirandize a suspect you can't use anything he says in court against anyone? The Constitution doesn't include a right to not incriminate someone else.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Don't forget Vice President Palin.

She would have quit after two years.

 

[TacticalFox88]

She would have quit after two years.

And hilariously (or terrifyingly depending), technically speaking, you literally CANNOT fire the VP...period.

No matter what.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But is it true that if you don't Mirandize a suspect you can't use anything he says in court against anyone? The Constitution doesn't include a right to not incriminate someone else.

Thats an interesting question.

 

[Chichikov]

And hilariously (or terrifyingly depending), technically speaking, you literally CANNOT fire the VP...period.

No matter what.

VP can be impeached just like a president.
Spiro Agnew would've probably been impeached if he didn't resigned.

 

[GTI Guy]

Thanks Obama

 

[PhoenixDark]

Thanks Obama

Seriously?

 

[zero_suit]

Thanks Obama

The hell?

 

[StopMakingSense]

The hell?

/ArmedMommy

 

[B-Dubs]

But is it true that if you don't Mirandize a suspect you can't use anything he says in court against anyone? The Constitution doesn't include a right to not incriminate someone else.

Thats an interesting question.

If I remember right it would be inadmissible since he would be implicating himself by admitting he had help (or whatever, it's been awhile since I took that law class). I tried looking but I couldn't find anything about it, we need to find a lawyer or something because this is a good question.

 

[speculawyer]

But is it true that if you don't Mirandize a suspect you can't use anything he says in court against anyone? The Constitution doesn't include a right to not incriminate someone else.

There are all sorts of loopholes to Miranda as is.

But the case you mention would probably have more problems with hearsay rules than Miranda.

 

[speculawyer]

Thanks Obama

Yeah, I google 'michelle obama visits person of interest' and that story is in all the usual right-wing blogs. Such a desire to hate.

Michelle Obama visited many victims but we don't know who she did or did not visit as they were closed off from the press. A Saudi newspaper reported that the Saudi was visited but that has not been confirmed.

So what if she did visit him? He didn't commit the crime. Is she supposed to avoid him because he is Saudi? And do they really want to smear Obama for being close to Saudis? George Bush was so intertwined with the Saudis that they called one of the Saudis Bandar Bush.