Local: Ashburn, VA Change
 

Comments

Posts 701 to 720 of 1153


eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>Even so, killing without legal justification isnÂ’t a right. If that fool really believes murder is exercising our second amendment right thereÂ’s no point in debating someone that ignorant.


Yeah, I'm becoming bored dealing with him. He never shuts up even when he's been proven wrong. He has recently tried a couple of new tactics, which I admit to suggesting, but they were easy enough to figure out as well.
He tried the sympathy tact, and the "all bull aside" tact.

I think I'm going to move on to a less troll infested thread.

38 Special wrote:
<quoted text>Christian, right wing, gay bashing, don't tax the rich, give me more guns, red neck southern yahoo apparently....


Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, it was.
You two queers get married yet????????

Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure who you are posting to.
But my answer would be this: Congress and the President are separate entities from the SCOTUS. Same for other government positions. Just because SCOTUS told the government they couldn't do something, doesn't mean the government isn't going to stop trying.
What happens when SC Justices retire or pass away and are replaced by more Obama appointees? With a more liberal SCOTUS, we could see a lot of unconstitutional laws stand.


have you ever wondered why there are 9 justices ??

and I do believe a president has a limitation of appointees and remember they have to be approved by Congress

but we don't live in a dictatorship ... may seem that way but we don't ... proof Prohibition was enacted and repealed

just found it one president can appoint two per term... so now you know why 9

........Obama will have the chance to appoint two in his first term and two more in his second term if he is reelected. B. Supreme Court justices serve lifetime

Prep-for-Dep wrote:
We will see. Government decisions make no sense to me. The major that shot up the military base was shot and would have died if not given medical attention quickly. My thoughts at the time were, let the bastard die. Save the tax dollars. But, what did they do? Save his life at taxpayer expense. Continue medical care at taxpayer expense, house him at taxpayer expense. Try him at taxpayer expense. sentence him to death, at taxpayer expense. Incarcerate him in the meantime at taxpayer expense.


Because we have, in this country, guaranteed by the Constitution, this thing called DUE PROCESS, which is one of the cornerstones of American jurisprudence. There is also the question of PRESUMED INNOCENT which is addressed by 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments and Coffin v. United States. There is more to life than money. Would you tear down the Constitution to save money? If the U.S. abandons the basics of the Constitution, how does that make us any different than some banana republic? Letting a patient, any patient die, would go against a physicians ethics. A physician who intentionally fails to save a patient's life when able to do so may be guilty of some form of culpable homicide. That's the law.

Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we have, in this country, guaranteed by the Constitution, this thing called DUE PROCESS, which is one of the cornerstones of American jurisprudence. There is also the question of PRESUMED INNOCENT which is addressed by 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments and Coffin v. United States. There is more to life than money. Would you tear down the Constitution to save money? If the U.S. abandons the basics of the Constitution, how does that make us any different than some banana republic? Letting a patient, any patient die, would go against a physicians ethics. A physician who intentionally fails to save a patient's life when able to do so may be guilty of some form of culpable homicide. That's the law.


Great post!!!

No one should be a combination of police officer, judge and jury, all in the name of the all mighty dollar.......

Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I'm becoming bored dealing with him. He never shuts up even when he's been proven wrong. He has recently tried a couple of new tactics, which I admit to suggesting, but they were easy enough to figure out as well.
He tried the sympathy tact, and the "all bull aside" tact.
I think I'm going to move on to a less troll infested thread.


hell simple .... SIMPLE ......don't respond , but you just learned about some of the supreme court..

Tiger Lilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post!!!
No one should be a combination of police officer, judge and jury, all in the name of the all mighty dollar.......


Unless your name is Sylvester Stallone, Mr. "I am the law."

:o)

milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless your name is Sylvester Stallone, Mr. "I am the law."
:o)
Judge Dredd? That was a pretty crappy movie. I wonder if there'll be a Rambo XII?

yes , mission: moon , we believe there is a man

milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless your name is Sylvester Stallone, Mr. "I am the law."
:o)


Well, of course, we have to make exceptions for all our movie action heros....

Go Ahead Make My Day

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

7171

Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
The comfort and aid is not in the constitution. Without that, there wouldn't have been the required trial.


hummmmmmmmm perhaps slick you read that here 1st...

tallyho

“ SEMPER FI”

Since: Jan 08

46,711
[Has been crowned Reigning Champ] [Really knows how to score] [Early adopter]

JE T'AIME

Reply »
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#745
7 hrs ago

United States Constitution says absolutely nothing about medical treatment.

however..... the right to refuse medical treatment is universally recognized as a fundamental principle of liberty

tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
hummmmmmmmm perhaps slick you read that here 1st...
tallyho
“ SEMPER FI”
Since: Jan 08
46,711
[Has been crowned Reigning Champ] [Really knows how to score] [Early adopter]
JE T'AIME
Reply »
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#745
7 hrs ago
United States Constitution says absolutely nothing about medical treatment.
however..... the right to refuse medical treatment is universally recognized as a fundamental principle of liberty


"however..... the right to refuse medical treatment is universally recognized as a fundamental principle of liberty"

ROFLMAO! THIS IS BS! This "right" that is being talked about is the RIGHT OF THE PATIENT TO REFUSE TREATMENT...NOT A DOCTOR.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...

(Pssst... your totalitarian fascism is showing) Have you not heard of EMTALA?

"In 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act
(EMTALA) was enacted as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985....

"If a hospital determines that the person has an emergency medical condition, it must provide treatment to stabilize the condition or provide for an appropriate transfer to another facility." **

http://www.emtala.com/062001.pdf

**Regardless of status or ability to pay.

Doh....BUSTED AGAIN

Tiger Lilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post!!!
No one should be a combination of police officer, judge and jury, all in the name of the all mighty dollar.......
I tried to tell him that but, he insisted on a yes or no answer. I guess he thought this was my first gunfight...

dear Topixs, thank you for the creation of icons

they are a great barometer how bad you are getting to someone .....

keep up the good work ,[ mod5# ] thanks

Sam wrote:
<quoted text>Judge Dredd? That was a pretty crappy movie. I wonder if there'll be a Rambo XII?


Rob Schieder (sp?) was funny as hell in that movie.

Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>I tried to tell him that but, he insisted on a yes or no answer. I guess he thought this was my first gunfight...

Yes or no answer, this is not a court of law where that is all you are allowed.
It is simply amazing how some here think they can tell us how to post and what to post and even demand that we answer them.

Others tell us to mind our own business even though it's a public form with a reply button on each post.

Still others tell us we are here 24/7/365 when that is not possible for anyone to do even if they wished to do so. Then if we are not around to answer them right away they say we are hiding and afraid to answer them.

I must ask the age old question, are we having fun yet???

;)

tallyho wrote:
dear Topixs, thank you for the creation of icons
they are a great barometer how bad you are getting to someone .....
keep up the good work ,[ mod5# ] thanks


ROFLMAO! Like everyone posting on these threads don't know that YOU'RE the one changing the "judge its"! What a sorry ploy! It is indicative or your thievery, lying, plagiarizing and stalking. "Judge it's" are a barometer of your dishonesty and mental illness. Seek help for that intrarectalcranialitis you seem to be suffering from.

nice to see the constitution is being upheld..

Two boys, ages 7 and 11, are accused of trying to rob a woman with a loaded gun, police said Sunday.

The boys tried to carjack a 22-year-old woman who was in her family's truck waiting for her parents in a church parking lot, Portland police said in a statement.

Nancy Botwin wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO! Like everyone posting on these threads don't know that YOU'RE the one changing the "judge its"! What a sorry ploy! It is indicative or your thievery, lying, plagiarizing and stalking. "Judge it's" are a barometer of your dishonesty and mental illness. Seek help for that intrarectalcranialitis you seem to be suffering from.


you can't judge yourself and I have only one account and you have how many.....
Posts 701 to 720 of 1153

Add your Comments

You'll need JavaScript enabled to post comments

By clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read our Terms of Service. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator.