Bleuwulf wrote:to be fair,you're long winded posts are a bit of a joke (no offense)
The long posts aren't for people like you. They're for literate people who actually know things.Bleuwulf wrote:I mean you seem like your getting almost excited at the fact they're supposedly "investigating" the new president this is so commonplace it wouldn't even merit news
There is nothing commonplace about any of this.
cyko wrote:I don't know if someone has already asked that before, but why in hell, are politicians spied out in your country, without initially suspicion?
That's the whole point. The FBI has proof of initial suspicion. They wouldn't have even started an investigation back in July if they didn't have initial suspicion and now as of yesterday, they have evidence of coordination good enough to go in front of a Grand Jury.
TotalyMeow wrote:Claeyt wrote:It is not illegal for for their names to be left in for a host of reasons.
You are very much incorrect. There needs to be strong prior evidence of illegal activities before any American citizen is legally allowed to be wiretapped and that includes incidental events where someone else was the subject of the tap. And so far, no evidence of wrongdoing has been found even now to justify having exposed those people's names.
That's not true at all. Nunes himself said today that there was no illegality to their names being unmasked. That means either:
1. There is a FISA warrant on one of the foreign contacts trump's associates called and naming the associate is essential to understanding the evidence.
2. There is an FBI warrant on one or more of trump's associates and the names of other associates relate to the FBI investigation.
or
3. The trump associates were caught on a FISA warrant and then one of the 250 people in the FBI and NSA allowed to unmask an American applied to the FISA court and gave a reason to unmask them for the counter intelligence investigation.
Nunes has rolled back what he said yesterday and is now saying that nothing happened that was illegal or improper in any way.
Bleuwulf wrote:I mean you seem like your getting almost excited at the fact theyre supposedly "investigating" the new president.
TotalyMeow wrote:Oh, he's extremely excited about this. He and many like him want to see Trump fail at any cost and will celebrate in the streets when he is no longer president, just because in the echo chambers of the places he frequents they really have convinced themselves that Trump is an incarnate of evil. There have even been a few people in the media outright declaring in their twitter feeds the someone should assassinate him.
If trump is impeached I will give everyone a hat and hold a dance party in the Providence town square. I don't know what you mean by where I frequent but I'm on here a lot and it's not much of a liberal echo chamber.
TotalyMeow wrote:Letting the market control healthcare would actually be the best thing for us if we can get back to that nearly forgotten state of affairs. There are two reason why this is true. First, when the government controls prices, things get more expensive rather than less. The sorry state of our utilities and many of our schools, which are government controlled, is fair proof of that. With a free market, people are free to compete and encouraged to innovate in order to get more custom and that results in lowered prices and better service for everyone. Hell, just being able to cut out the insurance companies, who overall are just draining money from the system, would benefit prices. The second reason is that when the government is telling doctors how much they can charge for a service, it's not a big step away from telling them when and where they can work and that is far too much like slavery. Don't say it can't happen, I've heard that it already is happening in some European countries.
Our healthcare, our schools and our utility companies (electricity, gas, water, sewage) have never NOT been partially run by the government in the entire history of the United States. There is zero history of market controlled healthcare or education in this country.
Some of the first acts of Congress were to get socialized hospital service for commercial and navy sailor's and their families and for veterans in 1798. This was for merchant seamen and not just for veterans. Public Hospitals owned by municipalities and universities were the norm for large scale healthcare in this country for generations. Non-profit healthcare such as the Mayo Clinic and Public-Private tax exempt entities such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield and medical care centers run by the Catholic church and other religious groups followed the city run hospitals in size and number well into the 50's. Private, for profit, healthcare is a very new thing and has been driven by the rise in HMO's and Corporate Medical Groups. Private for profit
healthcare is actually a very limited amount of the market. Private for profit
insurance plans on the other hand are the norm now and they are the ones setting costs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Hospital_ServicePublic schooling is older than private schooling in the United States and the vast majority of education in the U.S. has been local public schooling throughout it's history. The American myth of the one-room school house is that of a town coming together and taxing local people and businesses to build an education center for the children of the town. It has never had anything to do with profit or market forces. The very first and oldest school in the United States, Boston Latin is also government run and has been since
1635 and was funded by the rental of town owned land. Eventually it changed to local tax funding like other tax funded schools that grew up in other towns around the colony. There has always been mostly government run schools run by individual districts throughout the country. Private schools never compared to the amount of local elementary one room school houses. To say that they should not now be government run is silly and it's wrong to say that all of our schools are poorly run or bad for students. Broken schools are localized to impoverished areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Latin_SchoolOur utility companies, although not run by the government are partially owned and helped by our municipalities and local governments up to the State level. Ever since Edison built the first power plant in the middle of New York, municipalities have regulated and worked hand in hand with utilities. Other utilities such as water and sewage have been a mix of private and public in the past but the mismanagement of those private ventures led to the takeover of the water systems of the country by the municipalities or collection of municipalities working in conjunction with each other. Those systems are not broken and calling for their privatization is calling for the end of local control in favor of corporate control. All you have to look at are Enron, Kansas, the Illinois Tollway and Russia to see what happens when you massively privatize utilities for the profit of the few over the welfare of the many.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Street_StationEuropean doctors and nurses (and policeman and firefighters for that matter) in most Western European countries are government employees and like all government employees they are hired to work where they are needed. Usually it works just like here, veteran teachers get to choose where they want to transfer to while new teachers are hired and sent to smaller places that are less desirable until a spot opens up where they want to live. The same thing happens in school districts here. Government employee doctors and nurses are payed the same if they are in the country versus the city with slight difference for expense to live in the city. Why is this a bad thing? This happens all the time with State employed DNR, Police, Parks and other jobs within the State governments of the United States. They don't get to just go where they want, they're hired to an area where they are needed and can transfer if there are openings in other cities they'd rather live in.