LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   All Hank, all the time. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=734)

Hank Chinaski 05-08-2006 10:14 PM

Hello, bilmore
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It's the same price when "2 bacons" is more like "4 bacons." The price does not vary.

Are you saying you want the gov't to get less for its money? Because I maybe could get behind the $5,000 toilet seat thing.
the "country" can get by on two bacons- but if it comes to expect 4, then it can get an entitlement mindset, I say to you ms. fringey, let us not fear the inevitable chill and storms of autumn and winter, instead, let us anticipate the rapid growth of
springtime, let us await the rewards of summer. As in a garden
of the earth, let us learn to accept and appreciate the times
when the trees are bare as well as the times when we pick the fruit.

i mean how can you argue that un-needed, indeed unordered, bacon is not the full equivalent of "pork" in a spending bill?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 05-09-2006 12:24 PM

Hello, bilmore
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ironweed
If you're a player in an industry with concerns that can be addressed by the chairman of a certain committee are you going to not take him for a ride on the helicopter, champagne blow and hos just because he's going to be gone in six or eight years?
Or you'll wine and dine the staff.

On speech/money, I've never understood how money equals speech under the first amendment, but I'm no con. law scholar.

futbol fan 05-09-2006 12:55 PM

Hello, bilmore
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Or you'll wine and dine the staff.

On speech/money, I've never understood how money equals speech under the first amendment, but I'm no con. law scholar.
Good call on the staff - they like hookers and blow as much as anyone and will probably appreciate it more, being young and probably somewhat less liquid. Staffers everywhere salute you.

Gattigap 05-09-2006 12:59 PM

Hello, bilmore
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ironweed
probably somewhat less liquid.
Especially after the Flower-esque voluminous ejaculations.

futbol fan 05-09-2006 01:03 PM

Hello, bilmore
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Especially after the Flower-esque voluminous ejaculations.
Who would have thought that dry wit could be a symptom of chronic, voluminous-ejaculation-related dehydration? He is in our prayers.

Pretty Little Flower 05-09-2006 01:18 PM

Hello, bilmore
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ironweed
Who would have thought that dry wit could be a symptom of chronic, voluminous-ejaculation-related dehydration? He is in our prayers.
I never come here, and then I hit the wrong link and come here by mistake and you guys are talking about me. Is it a coincidence or are you guys always talking about me over here? It is hard to understand why, given that I am completely apolitical.

Gattigap 05-09-2006 01:26 PM

Hello, bilmore
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I never come here, and then I hit the wrong link and come here by mistake and you guys are talking about me. Is it a coincidence or are you guys always talking about me over here? It is hard to understand why, given that I am completely apolitical.
You can't fool us. You are so totally browsing the PB each hour on the hour, deciphering Hank posts and waiting breathlessly to see what part of the world Spanky wants to annex next. Despite your claimed disinterest on what happens here, you are biding your time about posting here, while putting the finishing touches on Volume 3 of your polemic, "Flower's Rules on Drug Usage: How Both Political Parties Got it Horribly Wrong" and waiting for the right moment to pounce.

futbol fan 05-09-2006 01:28 PM

Hello, bilmore
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I never come here, and then I hit the wrong link and come here by mistake and you guys are talking about me. Is it a coincidence or are you guys always talking about me over here? It is hard to understand why, given that I am completely apolitical.
I thought my expression of heartfelt concern might make you uncomfortable if posted on a board you actually read. But the sad irony of the whole matter is that you will never read this explanation. Unless you hit the wrong link again, someday.

Secret_Agent_Man 05-09-2006 03:40 PM

Big thrills
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Are you sure he wasn't just being stupid again? He does that sometimes, remember?
BUSH LIED! FISH DIED!

Secret_Agent_Man 05-09-2006 03:44 PM

Hello, bilmore
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Um, Bill Clinton? Or George H.W. Bush?
Psst --

By that he means folks who will actually raise taxes and/or moderate spending as needed to balance the budget (or at least reduce the deficits).

I don't think Bush is stupid, so I think he is rather cynical in his quest for political advantage by pushing for large, permanent tax cuts combined with big spending increases.

S_A_M

Replaced_Texan 05-09-2006 04:34 PM

Autistic boy recruited to US Army as Cavalry Scout

and

Clinton Deploys Very Special Forces To Iraq

Only one of these is an Onion article.

ETA: Yes, this is a recruiting problem in general, not a Bush administration problem in particular (though the number of complaints have reached record highs under the Bush administration's watch). Still, it's bothersome that the push for recruitment means that the recruiters will go after wholely unsuitable people.

taxwonk 05-09-2006 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Autistic boy recruited to US Army as Cavalry Scout

and

Clinton Deploys Very Special Forces To Iraq

Only one of these is an Onion article.

ETA: Yes, this is a recruiting problem in general, not a Bush administration problem in particular (though the number of complaints have reached record highs under the Bush administration's watch). Still, it's bothersome that the push for recruitment means that the recruiters will go after wholely unsuitable people.
I'm not sure which is the bigger problem, the fact that the Army recvruiters tried to take an autistic child, or the fact that he passed the entrance exam.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 05-09-2006 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Autistic boy recruited to US Army as Cavalry Scout

and

Clinton Deploys Very Special Forces To Iraq

Only one of these is an Onion article.

ETA: Yes, this is a recruiting problem in general, not a Bush administration problem in particular (though the number of complaints have reached record highs under the Bush administration's watch). Still, it's bothersome that the push for recruitment means that the recruiters will go after wholely unsuitable people.
Don't tell Bilmore. He'd be thrilled to get what he calls the "halt" out of the schools by sending them to Iraq.

Replaced_Texan 05-09-2006 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm not sure which is the bigger problem, the fact that the Army recvruiters tried to take an autistic child, or the fact that he passed the entrance exam.
I'm not necessarily surprised that he passed the exam. I mean, Temple Grandin has a Ph.D. in Animal Science* and this kid sounds like his autism is not as severe as hers.

*I read her book Animals in Translation about a month ago, which I highly recommend to everyone.**

**Except maybe Hank. There is some discussion of evolution in there that he may not like.

Replaced_Texan 05-09-2006 05:06 PM

Oh, and this pisses me off.

I'm sure you all are shocked.

grumble grumble grumble the reason the panel wasn't ideologically balanced is because public health as a discipline is not ideologically balanced grumble grumble grumble this is almost as bad as joe barton's letters to those scientists who had the audacity to study global warming and come to conclusions he didn't like grumble grumble

ltl/fb 05-09-2006 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Oh, and this pisses me off.

I'm sure you all are shocked.

grumble grumble grumble the reason the panel wasn't ideologically balanced is because public health as a discipline is not ideologically balanced grumble grumble grumble this is almost as bad as joe barton's letters to those scientists who had the audacity to study global warming and come to conclusions he didn't like grumble grumble
Your link is broken.

You may already have seen this -- I found it sort of interesting. I have not been following the Association Health Plan stuff closely, though.

http://www.actuary.org/pdf/health/enzi_may06.pdf

Replaced_Texan 05-09-2006 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Your link is broken.

You may already have seen this -- I found it sort of interesting. I have not been following the Association Health Plan stuff closely, though.

http://www.actuary.org/pdf/health/enzi_may06.pdf
Link fixed.

I've tried, with very little success to put together small health plans for artists. I'm really interested in this sort of thing, and I understand that the objection is to eroding state insurance laws.

Replaced_Texan 05-09-2006 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Oh, and this pisses me off.

I'm sure you all are shocked.

grumble grumble grumble the reason the panel wasn't ideologically balanced is because public health as a discipline is not ideologically balanced grumble grumble grumble this is almost as bad as joe barton's letters to those scientists who had the audacity to study global warming and come to conclusions he didn't like grumble grumble
And this scares the shit out of me:
Quote:

"We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."

ltl/fb 05-09-2006 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Link fixed.

I've tried, with very little success to put together small health plans for artists. I'm really interested in this sort of thing, and I understand that the objection is to eroding state insurance laws.
Yes, though, it seems like it might be nice to have a single set of laws. It's SOOOOO regulated, and with the ERISA preemption and prevalence of self-insured plans among larger employers, what proportion of health coverage is actually affected by the state regulation? But then, I don't think I've actually ever had health coverage that was regulated at the state level, so maybe I don't know what I'm missing.

Hank Chinaski 05-09-2006 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yes, though, it seems like it might be nice to have a single set of laws. It's SOOOOO regulated, and with the ERISA preemption and prevalence of self-insured plans among larger employers, what proportion of health coverage is actually affected by the state regulation? But then, I don't think I've actually ever had health coverage that was regulated at the state level, so maybe I don't know what I'm missing.
In 1995, the Washington legislature effected sweeping changes to the state' s regulation of health insurance, and the Alternative Provider Statute (the "Act" ) is one part of that reform. The Act itself is relatively short:


Every health plan delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed by a health carrier on and after January 1, 1996, shall:
  • (1) Permit every category of health care provider to provide health services or care for conditions included in the basic health plan services to the extent that:

    (a) The provision of such health services or care is within the health care providers' permitted scope of practice; and

    (b) The providers agree to abide by standards related to:

    (i) Provision, utilization review, and cost containment of health services;

    (ii) Management and administrative procedures; and

    (iii) Provision of cost-effective and clinically efficacious health services.
RCW 48.43.045(1).

The terms used in the Act are mostly defined in RCW 48.43.005 ("Definitions" ). In particular, a "health carrier" or "carrier" means a disability insurer, a health care service contractor, or a health maintenance organization. RCW 48.43.005(8). And a "health plan" or "health benefit plan" means "any policy, contract, or agreement offered by a health carrier to provide, arrange, reimburse, or pay for health care service," subject to a few exceptions. RCW 48.43.005(9). "Provider" is undefined in the statute, but refers to a doctor, dentist, acupuncturist, or other health care provider.

Thus, the Act forces every carrier (HMOs, disability insurers) to allow every insured to choose from an expanded list of providers (acupuncturists, massage therapists) for medical conditions covered by the insured' s policy. The Act does not force any carrier to contract with any particular provider (e.g., John Smith, M.D.) but merely forbids a carrier from excluding an entire category of licensed providers (e.g., all chiropractors or all naturopaths) from its policy.

a collection of HMOs and HCSCs, sought a declaratory judgment that the Act is preempted by ERISA and an injunction against its further enforcement. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled for the plaintiffs, finding that the Act "relates to" an employee benefit plan under ERISA, and that it is not saved as a regulation of insurance. Washington Physicians Serv. Ass' n v. Gregoire, 967 F.Supp. 424, 427-31 (W.D. Wash. 1997). The state appealed and the case was reversed.


They held ERISA provides for the federal regulation of employee welfare benefit plans. New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 650-51 (1995). To ensure that such regulation would remain "exclusively a federal concern," Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U.S. 504, 523 (1981), Congress enacted a broad preemption provision, which states that ERISA "shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan . . . ." 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). An exception is contained in 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(2)(A): "[N]othing in this subchapter shall be construed to exempt or relieve any person from any law of any State which regulates insurance, banking, or securities."

Thus, an ERISA inquiry is a two-step process. a court first asks whether the Act "relates to" an employee benefit plan; and if it does, it then decides whether it is exempted from preemption by the savings clause in § 1144(b)(2)(A). The court concluded that the Act escapes ERISA preemption at the first step, but since it also thinks it would be saved as a regulation of insurance, it explains the second step as well.

ltl/fb 05-09-2006 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
In 1995, the Washington legislature effected sweeping changes to the state' s regulation of health insurance, and the Alternative Provider Statute (the "Act" ) is one part of that reform. The Act itself is relatively short:


Every health plan delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed by a health carrier on and after January 1, 1996, shall:
  • (1) Permit every category of health care provider to provide health services or care for conditions included in the basic health plan services to the extent that:

    (a) The provision of such health services or care is within the health care providers' permitted scope of practice; and

    (b) The providers agree to abide by standards related to:

    (i) Provision, utilization review, and cost containment of health services;

    (ii) Management and administrative procedures; and

    (iii) Provision of cost-effective and clinically efficacious health services.
RCW 48.43.045(1).

The terms used in the Act are mostly defined in RCW 48.43.005 ("Definitions" ). In particular, a "health carrier" or "carrier" means a disability insurer, a health care service contractor, or a health maintenance organization. RCW 48.43.005(8). And a "health plan" or "health benefit plan" means "any policy, contract, or agreement offered by a health carrier to provide, arrange, reimburse, or pay for health care service," subject to a few exceptions. RCW 48.43.005(9). "Provider" is undefined in the statute, but refers to a doctor, dentist, acupuncturist, or other health care provider.

Thus, the Act forces every carrier (HMOs, disability insurers) to allow every insured to choose from an expanded list of providers (acupuncturists, massage therapists) for medical conditions covered by the insured' s policy. The Act does not force any carrier to contract with any particular provider (e.g., John Smith, M.D.) but merely forbids a carrier from excluding an entire category of licensed providers (e.g., all chiropractors or all naturopaths) from its policy.

a collection of HMOs and HCSCs, sought a declaratory judgment that the Act is preempted by ERISA and an injunction against its further enforcement. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled for the plaintiffs, finding that the Act "relates to" an employee benefit plan under ERISA, and that it is not saved as a regulation of insurance. Washington Physicians Serv. Ass' n v. Gregoire, 967 F.Supp. 424, 427-31 (W.D. Wash. 1997). The state appealed and the case was reversed.


They held ERISA provides for the federal regulation of employee welfare benefit plans. New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 650-51 (1995). To ensure that such regulation would remain "exclusively a federal concern," Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U.S. 504, 523 (1981), Congress enacted a broad preemption provision, which states that ERISA "shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan . . . ." 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). An exception is contained in 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(2)(A): "[N]othing in this subchapter shall be construed to exempt or relieve any person from any law of any State which regulates insurance, banking, or securities."

Thus, an ERISA inquiry is a two-step process. a court first asks whether the Act "relates to" an employee benefit plan; and if it does, it then decides whether it is exempted from preemption by the savings clause in § 1144(b)(2)(A). The court concluded that the Act escapes ERISA preemption at the first step, but since it also thinks it would be saved as a regulation of insurance, it explains the second step as well.
Duh.

Hank Chinaski 05-09-2006 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Duh.
well there are people reading this board who don't know all that- if you are going to post on ERISa (and I hope you continue to do so because you make some cogent points) then you should provide this type background info

ltl/fb 05-09-2006 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
well there are people reading this board who don't know all that- if you are going to post on ERISa (and I hope you continue to do so because you make some cogent points) then you should provide this type background info
That "background" info doesn't make sense to people without any background.

Hank Chinaski 05-09-2006 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
That "background" info doesn't make sense to people without any background.
physician heal thyself! Who decides how many rashers of bacon come with an order for 2? Does it increase with how low cut your blouse is?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 05-10-2006 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
physician heal thyself! Who decides how many rashers of bacon come with an order for 2? Does it increase with how low cut your blouse is?
You two should just get a room already.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 05-10-2006 01:32 PM

Show me the money
 
So, Judge Lutting resigns to become GC at Boeing.

Query--when was the last time a court of appeals judge resigned for a private sector position? Or at least the last time a prominent one did? Starr went to be SG. Most of them resign when they get old. I do remember a couple of SF (NDCal) district judges doing so in the 90s.

taxwonk 05-10-2006 02:44 PM

Show me the money
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, Judge Lutting resigns to become GC at Boeing.

Query--when was the last time a court of appeals judge resigned for a private sector position? Or at least the last time a prominent one did? Starr went to be SG. Most of them resign when they get old. I do remember a couple of SF (NDCal) district judges doing so in the 90s.
The most telling sentence in the article was: "Noone can or should plan a career around being a Supreme Court justice." He probably felt he'd been passed over for what would be his best shot and decided to take the cash.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 05-10-2006 02:58 PM

Show me the money
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
The most telling sentence in the article was: "Noone can or should plan a career around being a Supreme Court justice." He probably felt he'd been passed over for what would be his best shot and decided to take the cash.
Well, I think he's probably right. Clearly Bush wasn't going to appoint him, although it's always possible down the line with another R. It's not like his backer was Bush. His backers were a cabal of conservatives who will remain around.

Another nugget that was added to the article since I posted the link:

"Luttig said his criticism of the administration "had nothing whatsoever to do with this [Padilla] decision, which is more far-reaching than any particular case."

It's phrased a bit awkwardly, but I think the "which" refers back to his critiscism of the adminstration, which is another, perhaps even more interesting reason for resigning. If I read it correctly, and it's an accurate quote, that may be an even stronger statement than Robertson's resigntion from the FISA court after the revelation of the NSA wiretaps.

ETA: It does open up a seat for Kavanagh on the 4th circuit. My recollection is he was originally nominated to the 4th, for a "Maryland" seat (i.e., the space was a maryland-based 4th cir. judge). The maryland senators blocked it on that ground, so he was nominated to the DC Circuit instead. I suspect if he gets nominated to the 4th circuit to replace luttig, it would be pretty hard to argue that Bush is making that court more conservative.

SlaveNoMore 05-10-2006 03:48 PM

Show me the money
 
Quote:

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, Judge Lutting resigns to become GC at Boeing.

Query--when was the last time a court of appeals judge resigned for a private sector position? Or at least the last time a prominent one did? Starr went to be SG. Most of them resign when they get old. I do remember a couple of SF (NDCal) district judges doing so in the 90s.
Country's loss - Boeing's gain.

sebastian_dangerfield 05-10-2006 03:53 PM

Show me the money
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Country's loss - Boeing's gain.
Jesus, man, do you masturbate to this guy's rulings? He's a smart guy, but I don't have a titanium hard on for him. And he doesn't strike me as a cat I'd like to have a drink with...

sebastian_dangerfield 05-10-2006 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
And this scares the shit out of me:
Oh, those twisted fucks have as much traction in the political sphere as the fucking Moonies. That's just the Times doing its ususal "sccare the piss out of liberals" piece.

But it is a very funny article.

SlaveNoMore 05-10-2006 06:04 PM

Show me the money
 
Quote:

sebastian_dangerfield
And he doesn't strike me as a cat I'd like to have a drink with...
Please.

I save my drinking for Antonin "Vaffanculo!" Scalia and Dick "Go fuck yourself" Cheney.

futbol fan 05-10-2006 07:20 PM

Show me the money
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I save my drinking for Antonin "Vaffanculo!" Scalia and Dick "Go fuck yourself" Cheney.
And the occasional tourists from Mexico City. Ay chihuahua!

Sexual Harassment Panda 05-11-2006 04:43 AM

European Nonvacation
 
Some thoughts, collected over the years as I traverse the continent at the bidding of my corporate masters:

1. Le Meridien hotels - huge flat screen TV, hard beds, big clean rooms, fluffy towels, great spas, every inroom amenity I can think of. Dorint hotels - not so much.

2. Swiss women - hugely underrated. Italian women - hugely overrated. Swedish/Danish/Norwegian women - tear up the return ticket.

3. Love the trams. I don't know why, but I do.

4. California wine is great. But European wines (esp. Italian) just ooze centuries of tradition and history and lore. I swear they put them in the wines. Or maybe it was the settings.

5. They just don't build buildings like they used to. Churches, town halls, opera houses, memorials...

6. They have this World Cup thingy coming up - in Germany it's the rage. Anyone know anything about it?

Hank Chinaski 05-11-2006 10:38 AM

Ironhead, what's up when the prospectus is done? "I'm going to Great Satan Park!"
 
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/N...930302,00.html

So Ty and Iron-poor and them can finally get their kids the unbiased look at the US' evils that simply isn't available in berkeley.
  • 'Great Satan Park' planned

    Tehran - The former US embassy in Tehran could soon see a new chapter in its troubled history, with a top Iranian commander calling for the downtown compound to be turned into a "Great Satan Park".

    "We would be able to nicely show off the American crimes to citizens strolling in the park," General Mir-Faisal Bagherzadeh told the official news agency IRNA.

    "The former American Den of Spies should become the park of Great Satan," said the general, who heads the Sacred Defence Foundation - an influential propaganda body set up to commemorate the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 05-11-2006 12:07 PM

NSA
 
So, should I go out and buy prepaid cellphones for my entire family so I can talk anonymously with them?

Big Brother, indeed.

Gattigap 05-11-2006 12:11 PM

NSA
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, should I go out and buy prepaid cellphones for my entire family so I can talk anonymously with them?

Big Brother, indeed.
S'matter, you lefty? Got anything to hide?

Americans don't care. We don't care. The Administration will do what it thinks necessary to maximize security against the terrorist horde. If it's not "permitted" by "laws" protecting "civil liberties" of Americans, well, then so be it.

And Americans will applaud.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 05-11-2006 12:17 PM

NSA
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
S'matter, you lefty? Got anything to hide?

Americans don't care. We don't care. The Administration will do what it thinks necessary to maximize security against the terrorist horde. If it's not "permitted" by "laws" protecting "civil liberties" of Americans, well, then so be it.

And Americans will applaud.
I watched an old episode of Miami Vice a couple of weeks ago. (they're being rerun on TVLand). The basic plot was that some IRA guy was trying to buy arms in Miami, and someone from Scotland Yard was pursuing him with the help of Crockett and Tubbs.

At some point, the Yard guy says "why don't we just go bring him in--we know he's bad" And Crockett responds "that's not the way we do things in America". And the Yard guy responds back "well, see how America feels when women and children are getting blown up on the streets and in shopping malls."

Anyway, I digress. But it was prescient in 1986.

taxwonk 05-11-2006 01:17 PM

NSA
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I watched an old episode of Miami Vice a couple of weeks ago. (they're being rerun on TVLand). The basic plot was that some IRA guy was trying to buy arms in Miami, and someone from Scotland Yard was pursuing him with the help of Crockett and Tubbs.

At some point, the Yard guy says "why don't we just go bring him in--we know he's bad" And Crockett responds "that's not the way we do things in America". And the Yard guy responds back "well, see how America feels when women and children are getting blown up on the streets and in shopping malls."

Anyway, I digress. But it was prescient in 1986.
I still feel that's not the way we do things in America.

ltl/fb 05-11-2006 01:30 PM

NSA
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I watched an old episode of Miami Vice a couple of weeks ago. (they're being rerun on TVLand). The basic plot was that some IRA guy was trying to buy arms in Miami, and someone from Scotland Yard was pursuing him with the help of Crockett and Tubbs.

At some point, the Yard guy says "why don't we just go bring him in--we know he's bad" And Crockett responds "that's not the way we do things in America". And the Yard guy responds back "well, see how America feels when women and children are getting blown up on the streets and in shopping malls."

Anyway, I digress. But it was prescient in 1986.
I think I will inform on people I don't like so that the police can pick them up in secret and ship them off to, uh, whatever the American equivalent of Siberia is. We need some corrective labor camps here for people like that reporter who clearly are on the side of the terrorists. Anyway, our dear Druzhkov has said that despite the fact that "document[ing] who talks to whom* in personal and business calls, whether local or long distance, by tracking which numbers are called," is not "mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans."

*tens of millions of whos and whoms

ETA is the language I italicized a Rush quote?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:31 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com