The Swamp

National security reasons, I am sure.

IRS claims it can read your e-mail without a warrant

The ACLU has obtained internal IRS documents that say Americans enjoy "generally no privacy" in their e-mail messages, Facebook chats, and other electronic communications.

If you thought expanded surveillance powers in the hands of a 'good' president would be used only for your security, well, you lose.

And if you think, 'well, I don't cheat on my taxes, so this doesn't bother me', you reduce me to out-loud laughter.

Yeah but now terrorists won't use Facebook, so we have that going for us!

howard wrote:National security reasons, I am sure.

IRS claims it can read your e-mail without a warrant

The ACLU has obtained internal IRS documents that say Americans enjoy "generally no privacy" in their e-mail messages, Facebook chats, and other electronic communications.

If you thought expanded surveillance powers in the hands of a 'good' president would be used only for your security, well, you lose.

And if you think, 'well, I don't cheat on my taxes, so this doesn't bother me', you reduce me to out-loud laughter.

I'm glad that the courts finally appear to be waking up to the fact that e-mail really should be private, and treated just like mail when it comes to search and seizure law. I'm sure it's because e-mail has become prevalent enough for even old white judges to use - and you know they are using e-mail to arrange affairs with their mistresses. Those judges are starting to realize how bad it would be if there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mails.

Steve of phpBB wrote:I'm sure it's because e-mail has become prevalent enough for even old white judges to use…

Great point. Hadn't thought of that.

Hodor

howard wrote:Obama Justice Department serves Oregon officials with warrant seeking the identities of the state’s medical cannabis patients

Huh. I guess they've solved all the other crimes, then?

Obama, Guantánamo, and the enduring national shame

Op ed in the times by an immate. Hunger strikes, violence, and more torture, four years later. Nigga should've closed it like he promised.

howard wrote:Nigga should've closed it like he promised.

Yeah, that's hard to do when the Senate votes 90-8 to make it illegal to close it like he promised.

90 fucking Senators voted to make it illegal to close Guantanamo.

Steve of phpBB wrote:

howard wrote:Nigga should've closed it like he promised.

Yeah, that's hard to do when the Senate votes 90-8 to make it illegal to close it like he promised.

90 fucking Senators voted to make it illegal to close Guantanamo.

Then grow a pair and do it anyway. It's a military prison, right? He's the CIC. I have a hard time believing Reagan, FDR or Eisenhower would have folded that way. You can be damn sure Thatcher wouldn't have.

Shirley wrote:

Steve of phpBB wrote:

howard wrote:Nigga should've closed it like he promised.

Yeah, that's hard to do when the Senate votes 90-8 to make it illegal to close it like he promised.

90 fucking Senators voted to make it illegal to close Guantanamo.

Then grow a pair and do it anyway. It's a military prison, right? He's the CIC. I have a hard time believing Reagan, FDR or Eisenhower would have folded that way. You can be damn sure Thatcher wouldn't have.

How do you grow a pair and do it anyway, when Congress votes to make it illegal?

He is the Commander in Chief, but Congress controls the purse strings and Congress gets to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.

That argument is basically the argument relied on by John Yoo and others to justify warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA, detentions in violation of federal law, etc. I thought we didn't like that argument.

Edit: And you are definitely right, Reagan would not have folded like that. That was Iran-Contra.

Congress has to declare war too, but that hardly seems to matter anymore.

I really don't think you can compare closing a prison to illegally funding a civil war by selling arms to our sworn enemies while simultaneously negotiating with them to keep our hostages until the day you want them released. I'll give Reagan this - he had an enormous pair.

Steve of phpBB wrote:90 fucking Senators voted to make it illegal to close Guantanamo.

Looks like I am succeeding in my plan. To rhetorically drag you down to my level (the gutter), where (finally) I might have an edge.

Shit, you can probably out-cuss me too.

howard wrote:U.S. takes step toward possible military intervention in Syria
The Pentagon is sending about 200 troops to Jordan to help deliver aid to refugees and to plan for possible military action, including a rapid buildup of forces.

It's okay, they're just "advisers."

And, 200 is a small number.

(Compared to the 3000 or so that are already there 'unofficially'. That is based on one of my rumor sites. Who knows?)

Pretty sure that rumor is true or true enough.

When making contact with sponsor over in Germany they were working many, many extended hours for reasons they couldn't tell me about. Fairly certain something is going on myself. I'll probably be walking into a shitstorm working at HQ USAFE.

Told ya, bitches.

Baucus warns of 'huge train wreck' enacting ObamaCare provisions

The news is the source. Senior Dem, one of the (nominal) authors of the bill. Nice metaphor though (train wreck).

I'm not pro-whatever this stupid bill is, but....a warning from some guy, citing the ol' anecdotal talks with small businesses, carries no weight to me. Even if it's one of the dudes who wrote it.

Like I said, the news is the source. Senator Max Baucus is not just one guy; that public forum of the senate finance committee is substantial.

This is a well-connected rat covering his ass, so he can point at this and say, 'hey, I tried to warn them of the coming disaster'. Even a corrupt jackass politician occasionally stumbles on uttering something truthful, if only to burnish his own reputation.

(Just my dumb opinion; and clearly I am biased in expecting this to be a full-on clusterfuck. I'm sure there are plenty of other well-connected congresscritters who are publically voicing confidence Obamacare will be great.)

howard wrote:Like I said, the news is the source. Senator Max Baucus is not just one guy; that public forum of the senate finance committee is substantial.

This is a well-connected rat covering his ass, so he can point at this and say, 'hey, I tried to warn them of the coming disaster'. Even a corrupt jackass politician occasionally stumbles on uttering something truthful, if only to burnish his own reputation.

(Just my dumb opinion; and clearly I am biased in expecting this to be a full-on clusterfuck. I'm sure there are plenty of other well-connected congresscritters who are publically voicing confidence Obamacare will be great.)

I agree with the article in that, dude's from Montana, Montana hates Obamacare, and dude has to look strong in criticizing it.

I wish there were a database of even in-the-know similar "warnings" from politicians, like the dude who said that allowing people to record on cassettes was going to prevent companies from producing new music.

Icepenis wrote:I wish there were a database of even in-the-know similar "warnings" from politicians…

It would be nice, people aren't much interested in actual facts of record. Feelings are so much more satisfying and comfortable.

howard wrote:

Icepenis wrote:I wish there were a database of even in-the-know similar "warnings" from politicians…

It would be nice, people aren't much interested in actual facts of record. Feelings are so much more satisfying and comfortable.

Facts don't make my soul glow, Dr. Izzaych! I need to feel it!

Baucus is a pretty big deal on this.

I have no doubt that things like the exchanges are going to be a clusterfuck. It is a big, complex, new program, which is bad enough. And you have governments in many states determined to see them
fail.

Unfortunately, the only alternative to this train wreck was continuation of the status quo train wreck. Single payer wasn't going to happen, and a national health service is even more fanciful.

The ban on pre-existing condition exclusions will be easier to implement because it doesn't require new agencies. And they already did that kind of thing once, in the 1996 HIPAA law, which barred insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions if people had continuous insurance with other insurers. The insurers complied then, there is no reason to think they will get away without complying now.

Seriously, and I am not trying to be argumentative or snarky. I see this legislation as a massive continuation of the status quo train wreck.

The pre-existing condition is where the rubber meets the road. Both a huge opportunity for improvement, and a huge risk for shit getting worse (you can have the coverage, but it will cost you more than you can afford).

Trust me, if the pre-existing condition aspect of the new law results in a positive departure from the status-quo path, I will trumpet that success loudly. I do not expect it, but I will welcome it.

howard wrote:Seriously, and I am not trying to be argumentative or snarky. I see this legislation as a massive continuation of the status quo train wreck.

The pre-existing condition is where the rubber meets the road. Both a huge opportunity for improvement, and a huge risk for shit getting worse (you can have the coverage, but it will cost you more than you can afford).

Trust me, if the pre-existing condition aspect of the new law results in a positive departure from the status-quo path, I will trumpet that success loudly. I do not expect it, but I will welcome it.

Yeah, that could certainly be a mess, too. I do think the community rating will make it so insurance is not that much more expensive for the people who need it most. Young single dudes will see the biggest increases, but they are young, and single, and getting laid, so fuck them anyway.

If nothing else, the fact that the feds will send more money to Medicaid - at least in the non-racist states - will change the status quo for millions of people. And I know that it won't be easy for them to get treatment on Medicaid, because there will be a big increase in the number of patients and not necessarily a big increase in the number of doctors, nurses, and clinics. But still, I think they will be better off with Medicaid coverage than no coverage at all.

My bike wreck would have bankrupted most people if they did not have insurance. Obamacare will at least do something to make that less likely.

Steve of phpBB wrote:Young single dudes will see the biggest increases, but they are young, and single, and getting laid, so fuck them anyway.

There's some common ground. Shit, you're giving my brain a workout today.

I agree some people are gonna derive some benefit, no doubt. As I said at the time, is is the most expensive, least efficient possible mechanism to deliver much of that benefit, while enriching private parties along the way (but, that is what government does).

The financial and economic realities are gonna doom 1) the entire health care system, and/or 2) the government's borrowing and printing regime. These will trump whatever persists of Obamacare; what difference that law when Medicare completely fails? what difference to provide these citizens with government funded private insurance while cutting the benefits of those citizens over there on Medicare?

Specifically, I do not see any way the government can afford Obamacare; generally the whole magilla is too fragile to last long enough for Obamacare to actually exert any positive effect. The status quo was and is not just evil and unfair; it is utterly unsustainable. Failure to alter that status quo is the true failure, regardless on where you levy blame.

As a professional, be assured this failure path is way closer than you probably think. I am due to be on Medicare in 9 years; there is no way I expect Medicare to meet my medical needs. It is just not possible, no matter how much you print and tax.

Steve of phpBB wrote:Young single dudes will see the biggest increases, but they are young, and single, and getting laid, so fuck them anyway.

2 out of 3 ain't bad, Meatloaf.

Johnnie wrote:

Steve of phpBB wrote:Young single dudes will see the biggest increases, but they are young, and single, and getting laid, so fuck them anyway.

2 out of 3 ain't bad, Meatloaf.

Congrats on getting laid, Johnnie.

Because I know you're not that young anymore.

Steve of phpBB wrote:

Johnnie wrote:

Steve of phpBB wrote:Young single dudes will see the biggest increases, but they are young, and single, and getting laid, so fuck them anyway.

2 out of 3 ain't bad, Meatloaf.

Congrats on getting laid, Johnnie.

Because I know you're not that young anymore.

:-/

1 out of three is bad, Not Meatloaf.

.....aaaaaaand Assad has used chemical weapons in Syria.

This situation is going to make my Germany assignment pretty bad, I'm thinking. Ick.

Johnnie wrote:.....aaaaaaand Assad has used chemical weapons in Syria.

This situation is going to make my Germany assignment pretty bad, I'm thinking. Ick.

Vet your source. From what I've read, there's a lot of Saddam used WMD chatter about this report.

govmentchedda wrote:

Johnnie wrote:.....aaaaaaand Assad has used chemical weapons in Syria.

This situation is going to make my Germany assignment pretty bad, I'm thinking. Ick.

Vet your source. From what I've read, there's a lot of Saddam used WMD chatter about this report.

They (supposedly) used the same weapons Saddam (actually) used against his own people!

Hey Howard,

How did you feel about the reported optho walkout on the O-care session in SF?

My wife works in ophthamology, and is very pessimistic about the ramifications of the healthcare "reform".

I know nothing about the optho conference. One of my best friends is an optho out there, I'll ask him.

The irony of Syria, is Barry basically said if Assad uses chem weapons, we will intervene. Assad did; but Barry doesn't want to go to war.

I fucking love it.

Billionaire Bankster Penny Pritzker Breaks into Obama's Cabinet

I swear, this is just like the 80s, when hopeless fans of Reagan so easily ignored the obvious proof that he was not what they seriously believed he was. People suffer the exact same flaws of thinking and judgment, regardless of their politics.

Obama Did It for the Money

“There is a huge unresolved set of issues in the Democratic Party between people of wealth and people who work,” noted Andy Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union, which attempts to organize the miserably paid workers that produced Pritzker’s wealth. “Penny is a living example of that issue.”

US officials blocked rescue effort while Benghazi burned, Congress told
Diplomat Gregory Hicks accuses State Department of cover-up in evidence that may yet hurt Hillary Clinton's White House bid

I could give two fucks about how this shameful episode affects Hillary's shot. The politics that guided the disgraceful behavior of our high officials cost lives of good people for no good goddamned reason.

Oh, wait. I forgot. "What difference does it make?"

You know how much I hate to have to say 'I told you so'. I only want folks to recall how obvious this lie was immediately, literally to anyone watching the news reports within a few hours of the attack. A stupid, transparent, lame lie, in the heat of an election campaign. Oh, that covered up suppression of rescue attempts that may have saved lives that were lost.

Serves the fucking liars right, whatever they get. Which will probably be nothing, thanks in part to their partisan defenders.

I.R.S. Apologizes to Tea Party Groups Over Audits of Applications for Tax Exemption

Apologize my fucking ass. Of course, this was vehemently denied when the accusation was first made. There should be indictments not fucking apologies. But, of course, no one will face trial much less go to jail.

This is the perfect bookend to the White House coordinated nationwide suppression of the Occupy movement. There is a difference between Obama and Nixon--Dick famously went out to talk with the college kids protesting the war, instead of sending bulldozers to clear them out.