So, you're in favor of "2nd Amendment remedies" for 1st Amendment practitioners.
Printable View
So, you're in favor of "2nd Amendment remedies" for 1st Amendment practitioners.
I wonder if any post in history has been so wrong yet so tempting to agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiz
It's like the forbidden fruit of posts:shifty:
Well put.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateI wonder if any post in history has been so wrong yet so tempting to agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiz
It's like the forbidden fruit of posts:shifty:
The Westboro Baptist Church and Glenn Beck are the price we pay for Wikileaks.
Now that the dust has settled on this, and it is quite obvious that the shooter was not a tea party member, didn't listen to talk radio, didn't watch Fox News, and couldn't care less about Palin, I think it is also quite obvious that the "mainstream" media (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC) is biased against conservatives. They all jumped to the conclusion that this shooter was motivated by talk radio, Fox News, and Palin, when in reality, it had nothing to do with it. And yet still many of them are saying how we must be more civil in our discourse, even in light of the fact that it had nothing to do with it at all. American political discourse has always been adversarial. It is what our system is built upon. We discuss things and argue with each other and eventually the ones who get the most votes win the discussion. What's funny is how the liberals are crying about civility now that they lost control of congress, but when they were attacking President Bush in 2006, they didn't care about being civil-- they were quite vicious with their personal attacks of him. That's politics. It's not nice. It never has been, nor should it ever be.
Another thing it shows me is the huge divide in thinking between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe in individual freedoms and rights and responsibilities. Loughner is individually responsible for what happened. It was his fault. He should be punished with the death penalty for what he did. Yes, he was insane, but in my opinion, anyone who kills a human being (unless it is in self-defense) is insane. So, he still needs to be punished for what he did. But no one else is responsible for what he did.
The liberals on the other hand believe in socialism and collective guilt and group responsibility, and because of the action of one crazy person, everyone's freedoms should be reduced. Ridiculous!
As for gun control, if Pima County Sheriff Doofy had done his job, Loughner would have never had the chance to get his hands on a gun like that legally.
Gun control does one thing-- it keeps law abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves from criminals. Criminals are still going to get guns, because they don't care about the law and they aren't going to follow it anyways. So, in the end, the criminals will be the only ones with guns if gun control is carried to its extreme end.
Gun control has already been carried to it's extreme end...we don't have any.
I'm not sure you know what gun control is, other than repeating standard talking points (did you sit on a pirates shoulder in a previous life).Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
You managed to be both for and against gun control in a single post
Apropos to nothing, When the sheriff, who is now vilified, made those comments he made no mention of the vitriol coming for any particular side. Why do you suppose certain people decided he was talking about them? Note they didn't deny their rhetoric is vitriolic, they simply denied that it could rouse tensions.
It is nice to hear them finally talk about problems being squarely on the individual and not outside influences. Kind of legitimizes their arguments that porn causes rape, exposure to homosexuals turns you gay and getting a cervical cancer vaccine causes sexual promiscuity.
More civility from the Left:
"Congressman Fails Civility Test by Comparing Republicans to Nazis
Ah, our new, super-civil politics. No longer will cross-hairs be threateningly wielded or presidents' birth certificates be questioned. Rejoice! Our national discourse now rises to the level of fragrant poetry. Except when a Democratic congressman compares Republicans to Nazis.
Because of the shooting in Arizona, all politicians from now on are supposed to conduct themselves with grace and dignity, as if swathed in white robes, roaming the ancient Athenian forum itself. Except here's the beginning of the New York Times' account of Wednesday's fake vote to repeal Obama's health care bill:
the floor fight over the bill to repeal the health care overhaul - predetermined both to pass the House and ultimately fail to become law - by and large demonstrated the ability of Republicans and Democrats to debate a public policy matter civilly.
The exceptions and the more openly provocative statements came mostly from the Democratic side. Late Tuesday night, Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee, denounced Republican talking points on the law as akin to Nazi propaganda.
"They say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels," Mr. Cohen said. "You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie and eventually, people believe it.
Rep. Steve Cohen! Did you not get the memo? Ixnay on the oebbels-gay.
To be fair, the heated rhetoric trip is a hard one to kick. We would suggest Cohen ease off it slowly, lest he relapse. Maybe instead of Nazi analogies, try comparing your opponents to less-evil entities, like Sudoku enthusiasts. Or just take it out on your dog; chase it around the yard calling it Stalin."
Listen to what his friend had to say...
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...106.guest.html
Make up your mind.
One post you're saying that incivility is just business as usual in politics, the next you're castigating a Democrat for it.
If you're going to import all your opinions from talk radio, try to at least keep them consistent, please.
Have you noticed in this entire post not once is there any denial to the accusation of lying?Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
Smoke and mirrors :whistling
Hey 9.
Agree with this proposed bill or disagree?
This is the actual bill http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sectio...5&Session=2011Quote:
Florida Bill Would Bar Doctors From Asking Patient or Family About Guns in Home
Fla. State Rep. Jason Brodeur has introduced H.B. 155, which provides:
1)(a) A verbal or written inquiry by a public or private physician, nurse, or other medical staff person regarding the ownership of a firearm by a patient or the family of a patient or the presence of a firearm in a private home or other domicile of a patient or the family of a patient violates the privacy of the patient or the patient's family members, respectively.
(b) A public or private physician, nurse, or other medical staff person may not condition receipt of medical treatment or medical care on a person's willingness or refusal to disclose personal and private information unrelated to medical treatment in violation of an individual's privacy as specified in this section.
(c) A public or private physician, nurse, or other medical staff person may not enter any intentionally, accidentally, or inadvertently disclosed information concerning firearms into any record, whether written or electronic, or disclose such 43 information to any other source.
A violation would be a third degree felony and could be punished with a fine “of not more than $5 million if the court determines that the person knew or reasonably should have known that the conduct was unlawful.” As the Palm Beach Post reports, the NRA has identified the bill a priority item on its agenda for this Florida legislative session.
I'll bet on his answer.
Spoiler: ShowOf course, he supports this completely.
What the hell do I care about Florida?
The question isn't about the state, it's about laws relating to gun ownership and whether a doctor should be fined and risk years in jail for inquiring if a patient owns a gun or if someone in his abode owns one.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
If it helps, hypothetically, imagine the law is being introduced in AZ
I'll allow you time to hunt the blogs for an opinion of your own ;)
It does not apply to Arizona. It is common knowledge that everyone there has a gun and is willing to use it at the slightest provocation.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateThe question isn't about the state, it's about laws relating to gun ownership and whether a doctor should be fined and risk years in jail for inquiring if a patient owns a gun or if someone in his abode owns one.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
If it helps, hypothetically, imagine the law is being introduced in AZ
I'll allow you time to hunt the blogs for an opinion of your own ;)
I have relatives there. One of them is a volunteer on the night 'border shoots', the prey being illegal immigrants.
Ah, a sportsman.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Some states take littering more seriously than others, apparently.
You have relatives here?! What part of the state?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabIt does not apply to Arizona. It is common knowledge that everyone there has a gun and is willing to use it at the slightest provocation.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
I have relatives there. One of them is a volunteer on the night 'border shoots', the prey being illegal immigrants.
A verbal or written inquiry by a public or private physician, nurse, or other medical staff person regarding the ownership of a firearm by a patient or the family of a patient or the presence of a firearm in a private home or other domicile of a patient or the family of a patient violates the privacy of the patient or the patient's family members, respectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateThe question isn't about the state, it's about laws relating to gun ownership and whether a doctor should be fined and risk years in jail for inquiring if a patient owns a gun or if someone in his abode owns one.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
If it helps, hypothetically, imagine the law is being introduced in AZ
I'll allow you time to hunt the blogs for an opinion of your own ;)
I have a problem with the word "private". If it is a private physician, the law should not apply to him. He should be able to run his business [medical office] as he wants to.
Can you tell me what reason a private doctor would need to inquire about firearms that wouldn't apply to a public doctor?Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
[QUOTE=999969999;3551534]A verbal or written inquiry by a public or private physician, nurse, or other medical staff person regarding the ownership of a firearm by a patient or the family of a patient or the presence of a firearm in a private home or other domicile of a patient or the family of a patient violates the privacy of the patient or the patient's family members, respectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
I have a problem with the word "private". If it is a private physician, the law should not apply to him. He should be able to run his business [medical office] as he wants to.[/QUOTE]
I hope you are joking on this. Would you be happy with doctors operating on people with no strict guidelines from a governing authority? Or are you thinking it would be O.K. to 'get a kidney' by whatever means because a private doctor will transplant it with no questions asked? Without control we would end with frankensteins all over the world.
:blink::blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
Just make sure your don gets a taste.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
:shuriken:
Edit: In this utopia, is a private physician still bound by oath, or might that be disregarded too?
Well, by private I mean this... my family has catastrophic health insurance coverage for every member of the family with a very high deductible. We have yet to use it, but it is there just in case.
Instead we use a private doctor in nearby Pinetop-Show Low, Arizona, who does not accept any health insurance at all. We pay the entire amount for every doctor's visit and everything including prescriptions, etc. Insurance doesn't pay any of it. What's cool about him is he makes house calls to us in Eagar whenever we ask him. We pay dearly for this, but it is worth it to not have to put up with going into a waiting room with a bunch of other sick people.
And because he does not accept any health insurance-- including government forms of insurance-- he doesn't have to comply with some of the health insurance regulations that apply to other doctors. And because payment is due immediately, he doesn't have to have any part of his office devoted to billing insurance companies. He saves a lot of money right there. I won't say he's cheaper than other doctors, because he's not. But he is one of the best doctors in this area, and we are willing to pay for his premium services.
If we ever got a serious illness, then we would have to be referred to a different doctor and start using the catastrophic health insurance from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. I hope we never have to use it.
I note, as is often the case, you are not answering the question about the gun control proposal and doctors. You made a distinction between private and public doctors but no reason why.
It does relate to something you wrote in one of your earlier posts regarding the shooter owning a gun legally.