Y2HH

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 5, 2012 -> 01:29 PM) Biden's a better debater than even Obama, if he steers away too much from policy-wonk/procedural/technical language. Rubio's already having his bio attacked, in terms of his story of the family fleeing Cuba under Castro when it actually happened well before he came into power. That's why they're already trying to hurry to release his biography as early as possible. With his lack of experience, there will be a ton of pundits saying it's a naked play to get back in the race with Hispanic voters. My actual concern on the Romney side will be that people realize he would (eventually) be a much more charismatic and interesting president than Romney can/will ever be, so bringing him onto the ticket would not be unlike the Palin/McCain scenario, with 1/3rd of the speculation being about 2016 and how Rubio will be one of the leading candidates, rather than the top line presidential candidate. But a ton of things can change with the economy and world events between now and November, still 7 months, more or less. Jindal's still too wounded from his national exposure giving the Republican response a year or so, Daniels might be the best pick, Christie's too bellicose and polarizing, Ryan's still too obscure, it's too early for another Bush on the ticket, it's going to be hard to find the right choice just like 4 years ago. A lot of GOPers are expecting defeat at this point, so there's going to be a lot of enlightened "self-interest" out there in terms of the benefits versus the negatives of being on the losing side of a presidential election, even as the VP candidate. It hasn't been the best move for Gore (well, that's another story), Kemp, Lieberman, Edwards or Palin in terms of a way forward to the presidency. Bold: No, he isn't...not in any circumstance, not ever. Obama is a heavyweight debater and orator, in the same division of the likes of Reagan. Biden, meanwhile, belongs in Dan Quayle's division.

You're all just jumping the shark now. Time to move on to more worthwhile conversations.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 5, 2012 -> 10:36 AM) The laws are meant to restrict everyone not just criminals. Gun control isnt just about criminals, its about kids who get their hands on their parents guns and shoot themselves accidentally, its about untrained civilians using weapons on the street and harming another innocent, its about whether as a society guns are necessary to protect ourselves from common criminals. Some of us have a fundamental difference of opinion on guns and society. I do not read the 2nd Amendment the same way it is currently interpreted, but, that does not change my core belief. They're meant to restrict everyone, but in effect, they only restrict those that follow the law (aka the law abiding citizen)...and that's what Tex is saying...that's what I'm saying...that's what most people are saying. It defangs the lawful while arming the unlawful. And yes, while it's about all of those things...the damn things exist...they're not going to "unexist" now. Gun laws, as they are today, are as failed as the war on drugs...but of course those who believe in the war on drugs disagree...just as those that believe in gun laws working would disagree. And round and round we go...and in the mean time nothing gets fixed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 5, 2012 -> 08:41 AM) Yeah, that would be ideal. My sarcastic impression of Dr. House aside, what law?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 5, 2012 -> 08:30 AM) People are talking about it, but they give appropriate respect to the position that "everyone in Florida is safer when vigilantes can drive around starting fights and shooting people, because then we avoid Katrina again!". They don't ridicule the position like you're doing with Jackson and Sharpton, they treat it with respect and then pass laws making it ok. Like I said, idiots on both ends of the crazy spectrum. Believe me, there are just as many people that ridicule Sharpton/Jackson as there are that ridicule the gun crazies. I'm not an anti-gun person...I have a FOID card, I've been trained to properly fire guns...but I don't own one, and really don't care for them. The issue with guns is they exist...they've been invented...and you cant uninvent them with laws. If we could, Chicago would have no gun hand gun crime right now...being we have some of the strictest gun laws in country, but that doesn't seem to be doing much. Same goes for "drug war" laws...a lot of good they've done, aside from creating a lucrative and lethal black market for cartels, gangs and dealers.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 5, 2012 -> 08:31 AM) As soon as we pass the law we should have passed 8 years ago, then we will. What law? You want to outlaw global warming climate change?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2012 -> 04:17 PM) http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/02/17/...great-delusion/ 16 guys said something in a WSJ editorial, Balta. Refute that. You guys still having this same conversation from 3 years ago? Move on already. Seriously.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 5, 2012 -> 08:21 AM) But no one is saying anything like this about, for example, the people who successfully pushed for expansion of Florida's gun laws. Those laws are insane, but people stopped paying attention to how insane it is to have people riding around in their trucks armed to the teeth starting fights (and dealing with the black suspicious looking people appropriately). First, don't do that. Black people carry guns, and use them, too...the way you framed that, you're making gun carrying a race thing...and it has nothing to do with race. This is a rather shallow mindset. Second, you just said no one is saying anything like this about, for example, gun carry laws...directly after you say something about it. So obviously, people are. If people weren't talking about the FL gun laws combined with their SYG rules...we wouldn't be having this conversation now. So, they kind of ARE talking about exactly that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 5, 2012 -> 07:57 AM) And people on the opposite side of the spectrum refuse to acknowledge that race might be a real, major issue, both here and in a lot of other places in the country. It might be IS a real, major issue, but when the loudest voices are also the most obnoxious, the only message that gets across is that of the nut jobs on the both ends of the spectrum. It's no different than listening to radical religious nuts, like the Westburo Baptists (unless I'm confusing them, and if so I apologize). They undermine the very thing they're attempting to fight for because of their lunacy. Sharpton and Jackson are nothing more than opportunists. They think their the next Malcom X's or King Jr's, but they're not...if anything, they are Malcom X BEFORE his awakening.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 4, 2012 -> 01:56 PM) If you were to make that happen...there would be no need for any other change to Social Security's funding. Ever. If you made that change now, the Trust Fund would decline a little for the next decade and that would be it, it would be solvent forever. And at that point, the trust fund ought to actually shrink quite a bit because there'd be no need to have such a large stockpile of bonds sitting in the hands of OASDI. There were other changes to the fund over the years that it wasn't truly meant to cover. It was supposed to be a fund people paid into, and then collected out of in the future, designed as the ultimate final safety net. The issue is it also became something of an "insurance program" over the years, for example, you dying before you were able to collect, and it paying out to your children until they're 18...even if it overdraws how much you ever contributed. That's a form of life insurance...and it wasn't intended to cover things to that extent, such as it is.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 4, 2012 -> 12:43 PM) If you bothered to read my post, you'd see I was actually calling for the opposite - keeping tax rates low for lower incomes, raising them for upper incomes, and lowering them for business on the hiring side. Also, the entire idea of Social Security is a trust fund for the American people. You WANT a surplus in there, enough so to cover forseeable contingencies. This is well said. The SS fund isn't the governments money, and thus it's not the governments money to borrow and do with what they will. It's not a fund designed or meant to be filled with risky IOU's that may never materialize, for example, "Green Investments", or stock certificates. It's the peoples money that the government has agreed to "safeguard" as a future social safety net, which is self funding. The governments job is nothing more than to defend the money, while investing it in, and limited too, government backed securities. These investments will never give you stock market returns, but they will also never "disappear" so long as the US Government doesn't "disappear". It's meant to be invested in ultra safe ultra conservative US govt instruments, NOT stocks, not oil, not real estate, etc...

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 03:32 PM) I am using my iPad2 more and more for stuff besides light websurfing and games. I am still bothered that there is no flash support. It makes posting here a pain. I do like it for taking notes at meetings. I use an external keyboard. The faster boot time and easy email function are winners. What does flash support have to do with posting here? And mobile flash is dead...Adobe killed support for it. So expect fewer and fewer things to bother supporting it, such as they already are.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 02:51 PM) Weighing in here with my experiences... Once upon a time, I was a state prosecutor in Arizona. I requested dozens of bench warrants. I also worked with a wide array of officers. Most of them were great, some were not (see the officer that stood up under cross examination and accused the defense attorney of committing perjury - that was awesome). Both those topics have been discussed in this thread, but I don't think they are particularly relevant to this holding. The issue before the SCOTUS seems to be whether it is reasonable policy to require everyone entering a jail facility to be strip searched (and note, there is a difference between jail and prison if we are discussing semantcs). The issue is not whether officers should follow policy (they should). Nor is it whether some people will try to bring in contraband in cavities (they will - though Breyer is probably right that that generally occurs infrequently). Cavity searches are extremely invasive. I tend to think that such an invasive procedure should be reserved for situations where there is a reasonable suspicion of contraband (known gang member, metal detector picks something up and you can't find it, I would even concede that a jail with a massive contraband problem might have reasonable suspicion to strip search everyone), rather than as a policy for everyone. I would wager that in most jails, the vast majority of those arrested aren't smuggling contraband. I haven't read the opinion, so I'm not sure how far reaching this holding actually might be, but when there are 5-4 opinions on criminal procedures, I tend to come down on the side of the liberal judges... Well you are obviously more qualified than any of us...elaborate more.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 02:15 PM) Not really. Yes, really.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) Yup. That's what the entire city is like. New York is the greatest city on earth. You could live your entire life there and not experience all it has to offer I'm sure New York itself is great, but the people are crap, thus the city is crap. And you could apply that line of logic you just used to every city/location on the planet. There are small towns you could live in your entire life and still not experience all the town of 6 has to offer. I hate when people use this line.

NY sucks dick. Full of assholes. I mean FULL of assholes. Everyone is ignorant a rude as hell. I'd take any other big city over that s***pile. Edit: Opened my tackle box and trying out a new lure.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:56 PM) I understand that you are saying the issuance of a warrant is a serious event. I guess what I'm failing to understand is why this would matter. I couldn't tell you this. But it matters. It's like when a superior asks me to do something that really doesn't need to be done...but they want it done anyway...only to a different degree, since they're working for the government. They're working under a lot of rules you and I are do not...and I do not know all of these rules, or the reasons for these rules.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:52 PM) I have no idea what point this is addressing. Mandatory strip searches are not seen as a necessary policy by many people in the field of corrections. But this prison, in specific, finds it necessary. Why? I do not know...but they do. What would you like me to do about it?! It's their rules, not mine...not the federal governments.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:51 PM) What am I not understanding? That you want to define the issuance of a warrant as a non-minor event and completely decouple the seriousness of the actual offense? Ok, what difference does that make? You're still being arrested and detained and perhaps charged with a minor offense. There is simply no way I can explain it to you, then. If a warrant is issued for your arrest, regardless of how minor the underlying reason was, it's not minor...you're getting arrested because a judge REQUESTED you be arrested. The issuance of the judges order to arrest said person is NOT minor, even if the reason for it is. I honestly don't know how else I can explain this to you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) There are numerous federal agencies such as ICE and the Bureau of Indian Affairs that follow this policy. The ACA does not recommend mandatory searches at any level, and the federal policies were developed based on this recommendation. You mean the same federal agency that falls under the awesome and extended Patriot Act laws? Seems to me that if they feel like ignoring those "rules", they can...and do.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:45 PM) Then you've just defined every warrant as a major offense. That's ridiculous on its face, and it is not at all how the language is used throughout the briefs and rulings. No, I didn't. You're simply not understanding how the system works. The reason for the warrant may be minor, but the issuance of the warrant is NOT. I don't know how else to explain this to a person that doesn't want to understand... I know you're smart enough to understand, but you're not understanding on purpose because you disagree with it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) Why does the main correctional association and every federal agency as well as numerous state and local agencies disagree that mandatory strip searches are necessary? For one, and from what I know, though I could be wrong...you're never arrested and processed into a federal prison. You only go there after convicted. You're put in a local holding cell or a state temporary hold, such as Cook County Jail. There, you'd await trail, and then be moved into a bigger state prison or federal penitentiary.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) I do not assume that, but focusing on whether or not the warrant was valid is completely irrelevant to what this ruling was about. Yes, you are correct in saying that, had there not been an error, he would not have been detained. However, the constitutional claims in this suit are not dependent on the legality of the arrest and detention and would apply equally to someone arrested for actually not paying a fine. The error that lead to the warrant is simply not relevant to whether a policy of strip searching every detainee is constitutional. The reason for the warrant was minor--an unpaid fine. He was arrested for a minor offense and, due to the policies at the jails, was strip searched. "Minor offense" is being used in a specific way in this case repeatedly in the court documents. You cannot just redefine any arrest warrant as not a minor offense. The offense underlying the warrant may be minor, but the warrant itself is not "minor", or they wouldn't issue it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:36 PM) I'm sorry, but 1) my cousin is a police officer and they let people walk for things all the time, certainly without losing their jobs, and the reason they do it is for liability purposes; and 2) having a warrant out for your arrest is not like having an outstanding parking ticket. People are usually pretty aware of why they have them and what they are for. Now notice I didn't have any qualms with the man being arrested. But I've been arrested and jailed before and they certainly didn't strip search me. Whether you choose to believe it or not, there are places you can safely hold people without subjecting them to incredibly humiliating strip searches. Are you honestly going to claim that EVERY person that gets arrested needs to go through the strip search process? And enough with the "Really. I mean, really" incredulous nonsense already. I'm sorry but 1) No, they don't let people with active warrants out for their arrest walk. Letting people walk on minor offenses and letting someone walk with an active warrant out for their arrest are NOT the same. You're basically saying your cousin lets people with warrants out for their arrest walk all the time? He's a liar...or you're a liar. So take it back now. And for the bold part: I never said that. Every person that gets arrested and put in a community holding facility, yes, for obvious reasons. But every person that gets arrested? No. Again, it depends on the facility you are being put into. They all have their own rules for very good reasons.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:28 PM) But no one here is arguing that so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. That the warrant was illegitimate makes this ruling even more absurd, but even if it wasn't due to a computer error, we'd still have someone detained for a minor offense being subjected to multiple strip searches. That is what is at issue in this case, not wrongful arrest. If the warrant didn't exist, he wouldn't have been arrested, nor strip searched. You assume he still would have been...people don't get arrested and strip searched for minor offenses. Having a warrant out for your arrest...is NOT minor, just FYI.