I'm off te exercise my 2nd Amendment Right!

[quilterqueen]

Hey tallyho - "there are none so blind as those who refuse to see." You'd be better off banging your head against a brick wall.
In some people's minds the weapon is at fault, not the person holding it. They think that if there were no guns, less people would die. They don't add in that when someone wants to kill - they use whatever is convenient.

[eternal cynic]

Nancy Botwin wrote:

<quoted text>
"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

Regardless of ability to pay. Very true. But, if a physician is simply nearby they are not required to intervene. That’s what we were discussing in the Fort Hood scenario. Realty is you nor I know if there was a physician present.

It was stated it would have been better to simply not treat Hassan’s injuries. I concur. Would that be moral? Probably not. Given his injuries a small delay probably would have been fatal. Even immediate response using the technology of even 30 years ago he probably wouldn’t have survived.

Often laws and morality are not tied to each other. Just because something is immoral doesn’t mean it should be illegal. And, back to your initial comment on this it certainly wouldn’t be a violation of his due process rights.

[eternal cynic]

tallyho wrote:

INFO: Nancy Botwin, TV’s worst mom?- Salon.com
Tuesday, Jul 19, 2011 7:45 PM UTC Nancy Botwin, TV’s worst mom? In Season 7, we're less inclined to believe that the "Weeds
you are welcome ...

Tell me you don’t honestly believe what happens on some idiotic television show is important. I’ll watch the news, I’ll watch a ball game, I’ll even watch some non-fictional documentary programming. Just finished with “The Men Who Built America”. Interesting piece http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-am... Wish I had started it sooner, sat on my DVR for a month or so. I seldom watch the television.

I will not watch mindless fictional programming on television.

[eternal cynic]

Tiger Lilly wrote:

<quoted text>
And that is one reason I often don't post on threads like this one. It's not that can't provide the links but I would much rather post some YouTube tune and just have fun.
Also you can provide the most well thought out post and some poster will pick out a typo or go after just a couple of the posted words or make up some lie about a persons RW life.
Cricket sounds, wonder what happened to Slack......

Normally I don’t bother with offbeat. Seldom is there a serious discussion. I believe the Second Amendment is worthy of serious discussion.

There's nothing wrong with having some fun. There's also a time for serious discussion.

[Ferrerman]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Regardless of ability to pay. Very true. But, if a physician is simply nearby they are not required to intervene. That’s what we were discussing in the Fort Hood scenario. Realty is you nor I know if there was a physician present.
It was stated it would have been better to simply not treat Hassan’s injuries. I concur. Would that be moral? Probably not. Given his injuries a small delay probably would have been fatal. Even immediate response using the technology of even 30 years ago he probably wouldn’t have survived.
Often laws and morality are not tied to each other. Just because something is immoral doesn’t mean it should be illegal. And, back to your initial comment on this it certainly wouldn’t be a violation of his due process rights.

Please don't take this the wrong way but, urineidiot.

[eternal cynic]

tallyho wrote:

huuuuuuuuuuum wonder where 749# went??
poof

It's right here

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Making up stories again? Even if your spew is true, I don’t care. It doesn’t excuse your childish behavior.
I never attacked your mother. I simply said “Why not? It degraded you, not me”.
Report me, I don’t care. I’ve had a few posts removed over the years. They were far more aggressive than what was posted in this thread. I’m still here.
Someone on this thread was saying you claimed to be a marine. Really? I’ve never met a whiney marine.

Still doesn't excuse your childish behavior.

[tallyho]

now you are missing a post you dared me to get pulled , poof it is gone ,

the rest of your post is just that crap you are pissed... guess what ha ha ha

[eternal cynic]

Ferrerman wrote:

<quoted text>Please don't take this the wrong way but, urineidiot.

Nothing you say annoys me. I’ve encountered you in other threads. What you say is meaningless.

[tallyho]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Has there always been nine justices?
There is no limitation on how many replacements the president can nominate.
The sad part, the “facts” you attempt to spew about the US Constitution are easily referenced.
US Constitution Article II Section 2 see http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/artic...
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,*****judges of the Supreme Court*****, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law:****but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper****, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

no there wasn't always nine

read : judges of the Supreme Court*****, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law:****

2 per term , per term so the president can really get 4 in total... so there for nine justices now

[eternal cynic]

tallyho wrote:

now you are missing a post you dared me to get pulled , poof it is gone ,
the rest of your post is just that crap you are pissed... guess what ha ha ha

I really don’t care. It further illustrates how childish you are.

Why would I be pissed at you? Do you really think I take anything you post seriously?

[tallyho]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell me you don’t honestly believe what happens on some idiotic television show is important. I’ll watch the news, I’ll watch a ball game, I’ll even watch some non-fictional documentary programming. Just finished with “The Men Who Built America”. Interesting piece http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-am... Wish I had started it sooner, sat on my DVR for a month or so. I seldom watch the television.
I will not watch mindless fictional programming on television.

please read , I don't watch that crap , just used the definition of the character , you know of which you lack

[tallyho]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
It's right here
<quoted text>
Still doesn't excuse your childish behavior.

are you missing a thread , your icons/and senseless comments for the most part aren't childish . and your very presence here now suggest your schoolyard attitude

[eternal cynic]

tallyho wrote:

<quoted text>
no there wasn't always nine
read : judges of the Supreme Court*****, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law:****
2 per term , per term so the president can really get 4 in total... so there for nine justices now

If all 9 died or resigned the president would be within his constitutional duties to nominate 9 more. I give you the relevant portion of the US Constitution. I give you a link to the full constitution completely annotated for your reading pleasure and still you can’t grasp the meaning.

Where do you see 2? Article II or Section 2? Wow. You’re amazing.

Why are there nine? Several reasons come to mind. First and odd number may have been chosen to prevent a tie. Second, the more justices there are the less likely a sitting president can achieve undue influence on the court. Since they’re all lifetime appointments one would expect very little change during a sitting presidents two terms.

1789 6
1801 5
1802 6
1807 7
1837 9
1863 10
1866 7
1867 8
1869 9

Congress controls the number of justices. Congress has changed the number to prevent a sitting president to appoint justices, as in the case of Andrew Johnson. Recall Andrew Johnson was impeached.

[tallyho]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
If all 9 died or resigned the president would be within his constitutional duties to nominate 9 more. I give you the relevant portion of the US Constitution. I give you a link to the full constitution completely annotated for your reading pleasure and still you can’t grasp the meaning.
Where do you see 2? Article II or Section 2? Wow. You’re amazing.
Why are there nine? Several reasons come to mind. First and odd number may have been chosen to prevent a tie. Second, the more justices there are the less likely a sitting president can achieve undue influence on the court. Since they’re all lifetime appointments one would expect very little change during a sitting presidents two terms.
1789 6
1801 5
1802 6
1807 7
1837 9
1863 10
1866 7
1867 8
1869 9
Congress controls the number of justices. Congress has changed the number to prevent a sitting president to appoint justices, as in the case of Andrew Johnson. Recall Andrew Johnson was impeached.

I stated obama can appoint two per term..yes you are
correct if all died ..however I have a better chance of you being a human before that happens ,

so in a sense you are correct .... bet you and I will never see it

as in every rule there is always an exception...

[Tiger Lilly]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, and they would be screaming we must ban rocks.

Rocks, kitchen knives, gardening tools, on and on and on.....

[Tiger Lilly]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Wouldn’t be in name of the almighty dollar in the case presented. The case at hand was Fort Hood. Read the story and decide how the almighty dollar was involved http://abcnews.go.com/WN/fort-hood-officer-ki...
If someone breaks into my home, or yours. We have the legal right to use deadly force. Wouldn’t you then in fact be playing the roles of judge and jury? Add to that executioner.

My post was also addressing a post that talked of letting someone die because it would cost the taxpayers money to keep him alive and take him to trial and house him in prison.

That is why I said someone would be police office, judge and jury by letting the person die instead of saving his life and doing what our laws are set up to do. Step by step thus including a judge and jury.

You have now changed up the whole situation by talking about a situation where you or I have to defend ourselves and anyone in our home against an intruder.

OK, lets work with that and take it back to what was being discussed before. The person breaks in and go into self defense mode and I shoot and the perp falls to the floor. I call 911 and while they are on the way I can chose to render aid to the person if I did not shoot to kill or my aim was not true due to whatever. I'm not a doctor but I do what I can and let's say my next door neighbor is and I call him to help till more help arrives. At that point we might save the persons life and now he will go into the system and then our taxes dollars are now back into the picture again.

[Tiger Lilly]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Normally I don’t bother with offbeat. Seldom is there a serious discussion. I believe the Second Amendment is worthy of serious discussion.
There's nothing wrong with having some fun. There's also a time for serious discussion.

And that is the very reason I am at Offbeat. I'm really not here for serious discussion and that is not what you usually get on a public forum.

Most people can't discuss politics without getting upset. I belong to some RW clubs where the topic is off limits.

Name calling, insults and people who would rather die than yield a point even when the facts are presented to them. That is what I see here at the threads that are supposed to be about serious discussion.

Funny, I can actually talk to people about the subject and not get upset but I mostly don't as so many others take it to heart. Some want to talk about it and they are mad within a few minutes.

Not saying you are that type. I just see way too much name calling no matter what the sujbect of the thread might be. Why a person feels that calling the other person an ugly name makes a good talking point I will never know.....

[Ferrerman]

I'm just curious as to why Dirty Doctor punked out. He started the thread. I guess he couldn't hang.

[38 Special]

Shhhhh, it's bad enough Sam trolls 24/7, don't wake up Ducks R Us out of southern Oregon.

[Genos Trolling]

38 Special wrote:

Shhhhh, it's bad enough Sam trolls 24/7, don't wake up Ducks R Us out of southern Oregon.

Ferrerman wrote:

I'm just curious as to why Dirty Doctor punked out. He started the thread. I guess he couldn't hang.

^^^ Fhags R Us ^^^