Lucky...

Asking a question of a person's citizenship as if to qualify them to be fit to answer the question is an ad hominem to people able to sniff out the real intent behind it.

Nothing like China, the biggest creditor nation. I'm no expert on current Communist nations, sounds right. OK, so you're guessing on a downfall. Most nations do cycle, we had our day in the 40's to the 60's, maybe 70's, then we took a shit. China was pathetic then and now they run the SOB. Right now China is exemplifying teh best economic model as a government by exploiting their people for the good of teh government (Communism). America has the elite exploiting the people for the benefit of the rich, themselves (Capitalism). Guess which works the best from a removed perspective? The biggest creditor vs the biggest debtor, gross not per capita. Right, Chinese Communism establishes the means of production to benefit the state, not the people. American Capitalism establishes the means of production by the market, which is manipulated by the elite for the benefit of the elite. Communism and Capitalism have things in common, they both utilize utilitarian ideology to justify their actions. Sometimes the extreme opposites reach around and touch on the backside and share ideologies. OK, they still employ largely Communist protocol, esp outside of Bejing. Low wages and authoritarian control accomplish this. They have a fierce manufacturing base, needless to say. It won't be successful if it starts. Due to our elite, whom which the government entrusted to keep manufacturing here, who outed much of our manufacturing, coupled with uber-low taxes allowing these same elite to maintain their money w/o circulating it, we've become a divided nation, divided by class. Reeled in? Oh, more tax cuts, my friends? Jebus, tax cuts got us here and you guys think they'll save us. Look at history, hell, Eisenhower left taxes at 91% his entire terms and the debt fell a couple years. Look at that fascist pig, he chopped them to barely above Great Depression numbers and look what happened.

No, people getting HC will no longer be criminals and doctors won't have the ability to commit fraud as they will be employees of the gov. Well, I don't, which is why I refuse to elect Republicans. Sure, there will be different kinds of fraud with a different system, but the system we now have is gov vs the private providers, I want the providers and the gov on teh same side; fraud will be easier to detect. I dunno, I was in the military and have worked for several military contractors on military aircraft. I deal with the FAA on occassion too. It's funny to have a kid, by your pic, try to challenge my experience when I was in and out of the military before you were born. I understand, a kid screaming for respect. Like the rest of us, you'll have to bide your time. What services? What? Who's getting more money? The system will have more money, it willbe more distributed and HC professional's pay will likely fall a bit.

Oh please, what is so fucking difficult? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise Diablopilot asked, "John, are you a citizen of the US?" This was supposed to somehow influence the merits of the argument based upon whether Kallend is or is not a citizen, or, even if it was a rhetorical question. John's citizenship is irrelevant to the point. Andy immediatley made this point, I was thinking it as I read Diablopilot ask. If you need further clarification, I would be glad to help.

I can't understand why the Republicans have such a problem with dirtbags having rights.

They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Close but not quite. A suspect only has to be mirandized if (A) they are in custody and (B) the police want to ask them questions about the crime. Anything the dirtbag says can still be submited into evidence even if he was not Mirandized as long as it was said (1) before he was in custody or (2) the police do not ask question to bring about incriminating statments. I didn't say anything to the contrary. Mine was a brief statement about Miranda; if it is required and not given, you can still arrest, you just can't admit any answers to questions. >>>>>>>>> A suspect only has to be mirandized if (A) they are in custody and... A reasonable person must feel detained (JUS 101) >>>>>>>>>(B) the police want to ask them questions about the crime. And still, the suspect doesn't have to be Mirandized, as you said they must before arrest. As I replied to you before, they can still be arrested, it's just that answers to police questions cannot be admitted. >>>>>>>>Anything the dirtbag says... Why even have a trial, you've already convicted him. Hey, here's a dirtbag murderer who spent 10 years in prison, 3 of which on DR after 2 trials: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/raykrone.html He was/is a good guy, a veteran, no prior arrests, etc. But a dirtbag to you. Good thing we have guys like you keeping us safe, deciding who's a dirtbag and who's a good guy. >>>>>>>>>Anything the dirtbag says can still be submited into evidence even if he was not Mirandized as long as it was said (1) before he was in custody or (2) the police do not ask question to bring about incriminating statments. Sure, and it goes much deeper, as with inevitable discovery and others. You made a simple statement that you must Mirandize a suspect before arrest, I simply stated that you do not, but what you were getting at is this concept of downplaying the contact and keeping the suspect off guard by not arresting him/her. We covered all kinds of cases such as Escobedo vs Illinois where the cops shuttled the suspect around the huge police complex in an attempt to delay the suspect and lawyer from finding each other and hope the suspect would talk.

They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence. Correct. If there's no incriminatory statement, or if a conviction is not based (at all) on one, then Miranda rights are irrelevant. Right, excluding inevitabld discovery and the sort. Miranda was still convicted even tho some statements were excluded; Miranda is overblown in most cases, often there is enough other evidence.

Oh yea, it's an ad hominem. I guess it was Kallend who was asking for the source.

Of course! I believe police are allowed to lie to and trick the suspect in order to get information including confessions. Yes, they can lie, they can't promise things.

They don't have to be, they only have to be Mirandized if the cops/prodsecutor wants to admit evidence.

The SCOTUS will usually submit a "bright-line rule" with these decisions, so as to give layman interpretation. I think the former bright-linr rule was that if the suspect/detainee asks for a lawyer, all questioning must then stop or be inadmissable. Does the new decison chamge/modify that?

Relevance to this thread? Protective much? What are you, in the 8th grade? What are you, the playground bully bodyguard? Why is it pullign teeth to ask a conservative to post a source as they post data? This occurred yesterday in another thread, then as with this one, another conservative ran in for misdirection.

If that's a "fact" then you should easily be able to back that up with a link to it. Can you please show me that? I don't have the link but it came from a source that I've found reputable in the past. But agree, it still would be nice to have the actual link. Well then, I think you're going to have to start questioning the reputation of the source. In 2008, there were 147,684 births in Los Angeles. Of those, 92,643 where to hispanics. That's 62.73%. Now, unless you assume every single one of those was to an illegal immigrant mother, the number you've provided isn't even close. Source: http://www.applications.dhs.ca.gov/vsq/screen_Race_birtha.asp?cnty_cd=19&YEAR_DATA=2008&Criteria=&Res_occ=Residence&Birth_Death=Birth&Stats=2 What? Aren't all Mexicans illegals?

So no source. I see your assertions are as reliable as always. and another thread completely devolved. NEXT! How dare I ask for a source when someone posts data.

So you want to be an isolationist country? Yeah, that'll do... At least we have 1 honest person here.

You guys have a real hard time with critical thinking, huh? Show where I've ever advocated China as a greta nation, a kind nation, a fair to its people nation. I realize this, "all good or all bad" mentality, once assumed, is impossible to shake. China sucks but has the most efficient government from a governmental position.

Unless he gets in a pinch, then it's, "Gubbment, help me." and why not? he's paying taxes to that government right now isn't he? See, I love this. I worked for this old guy who was/is a tea bagger and he hates socialism and all it stands for. Of course I could shut him up by tellingg him the way it is: He's a socialist who hates socialism, unless it's for the people who deserve it (according to him). He's colleccting social security an getting Medicare, yet he hates the idea of any kind of socialized medicine, even the innocuous BS that takes eefect in 2914. He's 67 and won't have to bear the burden of any of whatever the sky-is-falling crowd tryies to convice us of anyway. Many, many socialists vote Republican and receive SS cause they deserve it.

Man, epic fail by Lucky. United States GDP: $ 14,260,000,000,000 2009 est. China $ 8,789,000,000,000 2009 est. US Population 310M (July 2010 Est) China Population 1330M (July 2010 Est) Don't even have to do the math. China has an extra BILLION people and still trails substantially. So efficiency isn't the word you're looking for. What China has is cheap labor, therefore it exports manufactured goods. Also has no Clean Air Act, so it is able to efficiently pollute the skies with coal dust. I didn't sat China was the best EPA country, has the best standard of living (I even talked of oppression), or GDP per capita. Try to read again; CHINA HAS THE MOST EFFICIENT SYSTEM IN THAT THEY ARE THE BIGGEST CREDITOR, WE ARE THE BIGGEST DEBTOR. I would never advocate Chinese Communism from an economic aspect or social aspect as one I would want to live in, but it's hard to twist the numbers into making us think Chinese Communism isn't an efficient system from a governmental aspect.

Unless he gets in a pinch, then it's, "Gubbment, help me."

And China will be laughing. Seems that Communism is the most effective form of government from a fiscal stance. I guess when you oppress the people gov does well. When you allow for the elite to run things, the elite does well. This isn't really hard to understand; whomever is in power succeeds. One of the most obtuse comments I've seen in a while. Well done. You like to cite "fascism" so often in your posts, well PRC is a perfect example, coupled with a single-party authoritarian system where human rights, the environment and the rule of law are easily melted away. I'm glad you're such a fan of China. When are you moving? America's is neo-fascism, China's more conventional Fascism with totalitarianism. Funny how theirs provides HC and ours does not. I guess when you spend 8 times what China does, that makes the diff. None the less, Chinese Communism is the most profitable system in the world as I know it. Maybe Taiwan is more efficient. American Capitalism is a bust, I see you keep thinking it's great and if we could only spend less on social svs and yet more on the military it wouldbe better, right? Let's see, we already spend more than double on HHS and Social Security than we do on defense...that doesn't include DoL or DoEd....add in stimulus and omnibus, we're somewhere around 4x ...you have your wish and we haven't even factored the healthcare reform bill. Really... And we have such an efficient system? If we quit fighting it and went to single payer there would be less waste and fraud. Doctors would be gov employed and therefore would have no reason to corrupt, fraud, steal, collude, etc. The system now is gov-paid via medicare for private svs, so fraud is aplenty.

Having a hard time staying on track? Just like you tried to sell us BS about nominla GDP when that is obscure, GDP is measured in and refered to as Real GDP. And that is in accord with this issue. This is all I changed: Tax receipts may have trippled, just as they are increasing now after your hero left this mess and Obama has started to bring it around,... If I didn't add that it could be infered that I was saying that revs were now trippling, that is all I changed. Nice try tho. Yes, lets. Which are you talking about? http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php Taxes dropped from 94% to 82% top marginal rate, which is negligible. And considering gov war spending was way down, taxes were relatively higher, but in all reality, unchanged. Then they went back up to 91% under Truman and stayed that way thru Eisenhower. And to say that lowering taxes helped, look at the series of recessions post WWII: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States HArd to make an argument that lowering taxes from 94% to 82% TMB when there is also a simultaneous series of recessions. Oh and under Eisenhower, the debt dropped a few years during his 8 years of presidency with 91% TMB. That's his opinion based on an old assertion by probably a disgruntled cabinet member, but the data shows otherwise; unemployment fell dramatically and GDP rose astoundingly. Kinda looks stupid when data refutes his assertion. Well you can take his opinion, but when he says that employment didn't change and unemp changed from 25% to 18% then I see his opinion is BS. The facts and data thing gets ya every time, huh Mike? So no source. I see your assertions are as reliable as always.

And China will be laughing. Seems that Communism is the most effective form of government from a fiscal stance. I guess when you oppress the people gov does well. When you allow for the elite to run things, the elite does well. This isn't really hard to understand; whomever is in power succeeds. One of the most obtuse comments I've seen in a while. Well done. You like to cite "fascism" so often in your posts, well PRC is a perfect example, coupled with a single-party authoritarian system where human rights, the environment and the rule of law are easily melted away. I'm glad you're such a fan of China. When are you moving? America's is neo-fascism, China's more conventional Fascism with totalitarianism. Funny how theirs provides HC and ours does not. I guess when you spend 8 times what China does, that makes the diff. None the less, Chinese Communism is the most profitable system in the world as I know it. Maybe Taiwan is more efficient. American Capitalism is a bust, I see you keep thinking it's great and if we could only spend less on social svs and yet more on the military it wouldbe better, right?

So you want to be an isolationist country?

And China will be laughing. Seems that Communism is the most effective form of government from a fiscal stance. I guess when you oppress the people gov does well. When you allow for the elite to run things, the elite does well. This isn't really hard to understand; whomever is in power succeeds.

Having a hard time staying on track? Just like you tried to sell us BS about nominla GDP when that is obscure, GDP is measured in and refered to as Real GDP. And that is in accord with this issue. Now, if you're done looking foolish, trying to misdirect, etc, then let's talk tax increases and tax revenues. Yes, when faced with total economic collapse, you have to deficit spend or tax-n-spend, but either way you better spend or the whole mess will run down the toilet. Now I know you're from teh school of, "let it fix itself" but other than the uber-short recession of 1920 that has never worked, at least since. So if you're done living 90 years ago, shall we talk even semi-contemporary? I realize your cite wrote, "...with employment moving back to 1931 levels." But unemployemtn, basically the same thing, was not at 25% but at 18% or so. Guess what pulled it out then? Oh yea, more gov spending called WWII WAR SPENDING. So tax increases / New Deals got us to 1937, the recession, then military war spending got us out and all the while the debt didn't reallt take a huge hit, as politicians weren't so afraid that they wouldn't raise taxes, as they are now. http://www.ingrimayne.com/econ/EconomicCatastrophe/GreatDepression.html Just curious, what did you expecct from FDR then, a 2-week turnarond like you do now? As I thought, Republicans ruin it in years, the same expects an immediate fix. That's his opinion based on an old assertion by probably a disgruntled cabinet member, but the data shows otherwise; unemployment fell dramatically and GDP rose astoundingly. Kinda looks stupid when data refutes his assertion. Oh, and Mike, nice to see you haven't changed a bit, a partisan quote from who knws where with no website/bibliography. In school you'd be failed, but I don't think you need to worry about that.