Obama
Moderator: Available
The only view I can see he changed was on whether or not pot should be illegal. A minor issue, and one that also happens to coincide with being a libertarian. He may very well think pot is Satan's temptation, but as long as he leaves the decision to others, it's all good. If you can find any other positions topics his view changed on after being a lobbyist, I'd love to hear.
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
Here is what he had to say on the matter (by the way it's from one of your goddam lib'ral media sources you mentioned in another thread! Yay for finding it.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-barr/ ... 06249.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-barr/ ... 06249.html
No, it means nothing. Do you know why Clinton had impeachment hearing to begin with?Jason Rees wrote:So the fact that he tried to get Clinton impeached as he himself cheated on two of his wives means nothing? The man is a hypocrite of the first order, TSD. I know he's currently representing your favorite party and all, so I won't bother trying to convince you. I've stated my reasons.
And since you seem to be only quoting info you got from the wiki article, here's the quote from there:
Barr is best known for his role as one of the House managers during the Clinton impeachment trial. It was Barr who first introduced a resolution directing Judiciary Committee to inquire into impeachment proceedings[65]—months before the Monica Lewinsky scandal came to light. Foremost among the concerns Barr cited at the time was apparent obstruction of Justice Department investigations into Clinton campaign fundraising from foreign sources, chiefly the People's Republic of China.[66]
After the Lewinsky scandal came to light, Barr was the first lawmaker in either chamber to call for Clinton's resignation.[67] During debate on the impeachment resolution on the House floor, Barr argued that Clinton's attempt to interfere with Lewinsky's testimony in the Paula Jones case endangered the Constitution. In doing so, Barr said, Clinton violated what Barr called a "fundamental right" of any American citizen--"the unshakable right each one of us has to walk into a courtroom and demand the righting of a wrong."[68]
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
I don't share your obsession with that character.
Obama and abortion: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212611 ... federation
Obama and abortion: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212611 ... federation
Wow. And Palin's extreme? Really... This is the guy who says he's going to be bi-partisan.To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess." And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.
CXT, you're mixing discussions about how people treat their relatives and whether they're off limits for attacks. No one has yet posted any information whatsoever that Obama treated his GM shabbily. We know she lives in Kenya. Ok. I happen to have had bunches of friends from India, Pakistan, and several nations in Africa and they didn't transport their entire families here. I'm not sure that's an expectation anyone outside of the US has. Nothing, nothing, has been presented that shows Obama failed to meet a request or an obvious need, so let's focus on the other issues. "Attacks" about Palin's family heading duties I still have not seen; her faith is a legitimate issue for some. If we atheists have to be forcefed piety every election cycle because that's what the majority wants, I don't have any boohoos for people who want every mention that unquestioning confidence in certain areas might be a problem with leadership.
Jason's answering tough questions about healthcare, so props for that. Really. Here are some complications:
1) professional societies do not permit you to turn your patient in. You are their provider, not an arm of INS, and conflicts of interest are not permitted because the patient population will no longer trust their doctors.
2) Your patient is going to have a dying baby sometimes. Baby ends up on life support. You can't just drop them off in TJ. You have to kill the baby first.
3) It is virtually impossible to change laws requiring necessary care in the US; if one did, doctors would still generally provide the care; it will come from somewhere. We are not going to say some dude with pneumonia or gangrene is just going to have to die in agony in the parking lot. So those people will get care. And they might as well get preventive care and potentially save some money anyway. We are also stuck treating anything and everything that might be spread--think of TB. An analysis in NEJM suggested we could save money by going INTO Mexico to reduce TB there to reduce it here*. That means EXPANDING care for mexicans in some situations. We COULD ration by cost effectiveness grounds, that is, your base national insurance gets you some cheap and effective medicines but not a bone marrow transplant. *I* plan to refuse shot in the dark or cost ineffective medicines and treatments when they are proposed to me (hopefully I'm 95 then). For example, I'm not getting chemo to extend my life another 3 months at 75k cost. THAT isn't fair to the system (especially if tobacco cessation efforts were available to me and I got lung cancer instead of nicorette).
As for Obama's abortion record, I would like to see the whole speech and the key parts of laws supported or vetoed. As we know, sometimes people support comprehensive sex ed for kindergarteners and sometimes it's just McCain lying about a bill that aimed to reduce child sex abuse by telling little kids they had private and off limits areas of their bodies (presumably part of what Karl ROVE said when he took off his Vader mask to say McCain went too far with some ads). Frequently and especially with abortion law, legislation is written with unacceptable details, for example, a gruesome abortion procedure is written without an exemption for health or life of mother. Veto? Bing--babykiller.
*interesting analogy: we can invade other countries to support our goals, so maybe we can treat them to support our goals as well?
Jason's answering tough questions about healthcare, so props for that. Really. Here are some complications:
1) professional societies do not permit you to turn your patient in. You are their provider, not an arm of INS, and conflicts of interest are not permitted because the patient population will no longer trust their doctors.
2) Your patient is going to have a dying baby sometimes. Baby ends up on life support. You can't just drop them off in TJ. You have to kill the baby first.
3) It is virtually impossible to change laws requiring necessary care in the US; if one did, doctors would still generally provide the care; it will come from somewhere. We are not going to say some dude with pneumonia or gangrene is just going to have to die in agony in the parking lot. So those people will get care. And they might as well get preventive care and potentially save some money anyway. We are also stuck treating anything and everything that might be spread--think of TB. An analysis in NEJM suggested we could save money by going INTO Mexico to reduce TB there to reduce it here*. That means EXPANDING care for mexicans in some situations. We COULD ration by cost effectiveness grounds, that is, your base national insurance gets you some cheap and effective medicines but not a bone marrow transplant. *I* plan to refuse shot in the dark or cost ineffective medicines and treatments when they are proposed to me (hopefully I'm 95 then). For example, I'm not getting chemo to extend my life another 3 months at 75k cost. THAT isn't fair to the system (especially if tobacco cessation efforts were available to me and I got lung cancer instead of nicorette).
As for Obama's abortion record, I would like to see the whole speech and the key parts of laws supported or vetoed. As we know, sometimes people support comprehensive sex ed for kindergarteners and sometimes it's just McCain lying about a bill that aimed to reduce child sex abuse by telling little kids they had private and off limits areas of their bodies (presumably part of what Karl ROVE said when he took off his Vader mask to say McCain went too far with some ads). Frequently and especially with abortion law, legislation is written with unacceptable details, for example, a gruesome abortion procedure is written without an exemption for health or life of mother. Veto? Bing--babykiller.
*interesting analogy: we can invade other countries to support our goals, so maybe we can treat them to support our goals as well?
--Ian
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020:IJ wrote:
As for Obama's abortion record, I would like to see the whole speech and the key parts of laws supported or vetoed.
http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/22/o ... annive.php
Last edited by Jason Rees on Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
I was given a hypothetical, and answered it the way I thought it should work based on the hypothetical.IJ wrote:
Jason's answering tough questions about healthcare, so props for that. Really. Here are some complications:
1) professional societies do not permit you to turn your patient in. You are their provider, not an arm of INS, and conflicts of interest are not permitted because the patient population will no longer trust their doctors.
Frankly, I still find it fascinating that Americans (and apparently Mexicans) think healthcare is a god-given right. And that suing physicians for not stopping them from doing something stupid is also somehow a god-given right. It's simple. Medicine is a profession. Professionals practice medicine. If they can't feed their families, they can't help anyone. Stop expecting them to spend all their time trying to help you if you can't cough up anything in return but pghlem and bodily fluids! Yeesh. Frankly, I think the medical community shoots itself in the foot when it doesn't turn illegals in to the cops. They report child abuse. They report possible rape. They report gang shootings, and just about everything, in fact... except illegals. That just doesn't fly.
"They won't trust us anymore!" And the average inner-city hood does?
2) Your patient is going to have a dying baby sometimes. Baby ends up on life support. You can't just drop them off in TJ. You have to kill the baby first.
Not a legal citizen? Can't pay? Stay in your own country. God forbid if I went to Mexico illegally and needed medical attention and couldn't pay. I'd be screwed. And rightfully so.
3) It is virtually impossible to change laws requiring necessary care in the US
*sigh* Tell me about it. Wait, you did. Anyway, I can dream.
WOW.
"Frankly, I still find it fascinating that Americans (and apparently Mexicans) think healthcare is a god-given right."
Some at least view it as an entitlement. Can't blame the people for that completely when that's what the government calls medicare/medicaid. And I've met many people who expect nothing these days. On the other hand, we COULD provide a lot, and we do provide some, and I guess people are of the mindset, WWJD?
"And that suing physicians for not stopping them from doing something stupid is also somehow a god-given right."
To what are you referring? I've never heard of a doctor being sued for failing to stop self injurious behavior, other than the case of suicide, when the doctor is evaluating their depression and risk of suicide.
"If they can't feed their families, they can't help anyone."
Doctors don't pay for the uninsured, so I don't know what you mean. I saw some recent data on salaries and the median (or mean, can't remember) for psych, internal medicine, and family was in the 150-180 range, and rads, derm, and cardiology was 450. Don't cry for me, Argentina. I don't like to hear doctors boohoo about how they're not paid like Michael Jordan. We ARE supposed to have a calling. We DO publish BS statements in JAMA about how our first priority is our patients' care--when was the last time you saw a doctor feed or medicate his or her patients before buying a stereo? New grads may face crushing debt and that's one thing. But I live in one of the most expensive towns in the US and I've been doing great--that was BEFORE my other half got an attending position.
"Frankly, I think the medical community shoots itself in the foot when it doesn't turn illegals in to the cops. They report child abuse. They report possible rape. They report gang shootings, and just about everything, in fact... except illegals. That just doesn't fly."
Ok, you may be surprised to learn that LAW governs what we report. Bullets from crimes are police evidence, by law. Suspicious deaths must be autopsied, by law. Suspected child and elder abuse must be reported, by law. Gonorrhea must be reported, by law. Having an illegal patient is not a situation that puts anyone in immediate risk nor is it a public health concern. And before anyone gets the idea doctors report everything but lack of documentation, the fact is the most criminal activity is private--for example, we call no one when you show up to the ER completely blasted out of your mind on coke, E and heroin. How does not turning these people in shoot us in the foot?
"They won't trust us anymore!" And the average inner-city hood does?"
Trust is not an all or nothing state, and when people start reporting the documentation status of patients to the police, or their drug use, then they stop seeking care for their diabetic foot, or their pregnancy. And in general, while relations with some minority groups are not perfect (some tie physicians to the authorities and assume we turn people in; some have a distrust of establishment in general, knowing full well our past is not innocent with respect to issues like tuskeegee) most in fact do trust their doctors to be their advocates. The vast majority seem to have no difficulty understanding I don't report drug use to anyone or premarital underage sex to their parents. Just this week there was more data that not everyone tells their HIV risk factors to their doctors, and there is definitely an issue with hospital error rates / supposed coverups / our litigious society--but that is no call to make it all worse.
"Not a legal citizen? Can't pay? Stay in your own country. God forbid if I went to Mexico illegally and needed medical attention and couldn't pay. I'd be screwed. And rightfully so."
In other words, you kill the baby. That's one way to solve a financial problem, but it's a safe suggestion to make. No one is going to do that. Right now it's illegal; no matter what it'll be abhorrent to the staff and hospital and won't occur. But props for speaking your mind. ....I hope you never lose your health insurance. Oh and I expect you never to accept assistance if you do.
"Frankly, I still find it fascinating that Americans (and apparently Mexicans) think healthcare is a god-given right."
Some at least view it as an entitlement. Can't blame the people for that completely when that's what the government calls medicare/medicaid. And I've met many people who expect nothing these days. On the other hand, we COULD provide a lot, and we do provide some, and I guess people are of the mindset, WWJD?
"And that suing physicians for not stopping them from doing something stupid is also somehow a god-given right."
To what are you referring? I've never heard of a doctor being sued for failing to stop self injurious behavior, other than the case of suicide, when the doctor is evaluating their depression and risk of suicide.
"If they can't feed their families, they can't help anyone."
Doctors don't pay for the uninsured, so I don't know what you mean. I saw some recent data on salaries and the median (or mean, can't remember) for psych, internal medicine, and family was in the 150-180 range, and rads, derm, and cardiology was 450. Don't cry for me, Argentina. I don't like to hear doctors boohoo about how they're not paid like Michael Jordan. We ARE supposed to have a calling. We DO publish BS statements in JAMA about how our first priority is our patients' care--when was the last time you saw a doctor feed or medicate his or her patients before buying a stereo? New grads may face crushing debt and that's one thing. But I live in one of the most expensive towns in the US and I've been doing great--that was BEFORE my other half got an attending position.
"Frankly, I think the medical community shoots itself in the foot when it doesn't turn illegals in to the cops. They report child abuse. They report possible rape. They report gang shootings, and just about everything, in fact... except illegals. That just doesn't fly."
Ok, you may be surprised to learn that LAW governs what we report. Bullets from crimes are police evidence, by law. Suspicious deaths must be autopsied, by law. Suspected child and elder abuse must be reported, by law. Gonorrhea must be reported, by law. Having an illegal patient is not a situation that puts anyone in immediate risk nor is it a public health concern. And before anyone gets the idea doctors report everything but lack of documentation, the fact is the most criminal activity is private--for example, we call no one when you show up to the ER completely blasted out of your mind on coke, E and heroin. How does not turning these people in shoot us in the foot?
"They won't trust us anymore!" And the average inner-city hood does?"
Trust is not an all or nothing state, and when people start reporting the documentation status of patients to the police, or their drug use, then they stop seeking care for their diabetic foot, or their pregnancy. And in general, while relations with some minority groups are not perfect (some tie physicians to the authorities and assume we turn people in; some have a distrust of establishment in general, knowing full well our past is not innocent with respect to issues like tuskeegee) most in fact do trust their doctors to be their advocates. The vast majority seem to have no difficulty understanding I don't report drug use to anyone or premarital underage sex to their parents. Just this week there was more data that not everyone tells their HIV risk factors to their doctors, and there is definitely an issue with hospital error rates / supposed coverups / our litigious society--but that is no call to make it all worse.
"Not a legal citizen? Can't pay? Stay in your own country. God forbid if I went to Mexico illegally and needed medical attention and couldn't pay. I'd be screwed. And rightfully so."
In other words, you kill the baby. That's one way to solve a financial problem, but it's a safe suggestion to make. No one is going to do that. Right now it's illegal; no matter what it'll be abhorrent to the staff and hospital and won't occur. But props for speaking your mind. ....I hope you never lose your health insurance. Oh and I expect you never to accept assistance if you do.
--Ian
From his website:
"Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women's health."
This is what the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology believes, actually, and they're the experts.
I read the bill... not as scary as what I figured I was in for. It calls for reducing unwanted pregnancies, mentions the unsafe abortions women resorted to before Roe, references a series of SCOTUS decisions, and says that a woman should be able to choose until viability and after that the state can restrict abortion with exceptions for mother's life and health. I would support getting rid of BS "health" issues like mental health = not wanting a baby. There is time before viability to make those decisions. It's basically just a prochoice bill, preserving current law in the USA--doesn't mean babies have to be sacrificed in pentagrams or anything.
Anyway... here's a key question: did you know, Jason, in a series of posts, you just attacked Obama for permitting the abortions of fetuses before liability and for health reasons that the SCOTUS permits, and then said, if a BORN and viable baby were poor, that we should kill it and send her mom back where she came from? It's really not about human life or it's relative worth across the gestation if the only time you can kill a baby is when it's an American citizen, a full person under the law and per every human I've ever met, but mom is poor. For consistency sake, shouldn't you let poor moms kill their fetuses, or let those with funds decide before and after birth?
"Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women's health."
This is what the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology believes, actually, and they're the experts.
I read the bill... not as scary as what I figured I was in for. It calls for reducing unwanted pregnancies, mentions the unsafe abortions women resorted to before Roe, references a series of SCOTUS decisions, and says that a woman should be able to choose until viability and after that the state can restrict abortion with exceptions for mother's life and health. I would support getting rid of BS "health" issues like mental health = not wanting a baby. There is time before viability to make those decisions. It's basically just a prochoice bill, preserving current law in the USA--doesn't mean babies have to be sacrificed in pentagrams or anything.
Anyway... here's a key question: did you know, Jason, in a series of posts, you just attacked Obama for permitting the abortions of fetuses before liability and for health reasons that the SCOTUS permits, and then said, if a BORN and viable baby were poor, that we should kill it and send her mom back where she came from? It's really not about human life or it's relative worth across the gestation if the only time you can kill a baby is when it's an American citizen, a full person under the law and per every human I've ever met, but mom is poor. For consistency sake, shouldn't you let poor moms kill their fetuses, or let those with funds decide before and after birth?
--Ian
IJ
Sorry if what you think I'm doing is "mixing" things----what I "thought" I was doing was asking if family should be off limits for personal attacks.
My question was more 2 fold:
A-Is how people families act and behave "fair game" for the media?
B-Is how they act a fair question for a somebody elses abilty to lead?
And my real point was essentially----"Lets keep it fair---if its judged "ok" to question Palin leadership abilties on the basis of her families actions---then we need to make that a standard question for everybody.
I'm ok either way--I just want some consistancy in the questions and the "weight" people give them.......if Palin is being singled out while others are given a pass...then that is, IMO, not only seriously unfair but duplictious and dishonest........I don't mind "realpolitik" I mind when people pretend that is not what they are doing.
My personal opinion is that Obama treated the Grandmother whom raised him, worked hard to put food on the table, keep him in cloths etc in a shabby fashion by conflating her very personal admission to the level of Wrights "God Damn America" and other statements in a similar fashion.
You seem to be the only one on the forum that that has not heard of Palin being attacked thu her family or that people have been attacking her religion---you could google "attacks on Palins family" or "attacks on Palins religion" and I bet you would find tons of stuff.
As to her religion--I watched a state rep from TN get on camara and do 2 things that made me cringe:
1-He compared "community organizer" Obama to Jesus Christ--by name and direct comparision
2-He compared Palin to Pontius Pilot by reminding everyone that it was a "governer" that had Jesus killed.
Again, elected State offical speaking at the podium at the State House.
I agree that people should be forced to endure hard pointed questions about their relgion--should they choose to make use of it in their campaign......and they all do.
Again, I'm leaning toward making it a consistant question in terms of weight and whom gets asked about it.
Questioning Palins Chrisitanity while Obama whom used his pastors sermon as the catalist for a best selling book seems disjointed.......or if you prefer, people taking umbrage at Obama been cast most inaccuratly as a Muslim yet feel no twinge of guilty over Palin being cast as relgions extemist are being intellectually dishonest.
BTW--Jason said no such thing.
He very clearly said he'd deliver the baby then hand them over to the LEO's for a nice trip to mexico.
Sounds fair and resonable to me---save the mother and child then then remove them from a place they had no legal right to be.
Not all that different than you would do should you find the same mother hiding in your home.......my guess is that you would get them the help they needed then have them removed from a place they had no legal right to be ie your home...or in a larger sense a nation.
Again, sounds fair and resonable to me......resources are finate....and if the system collapses then we can help nobody.
Sorry if what you think I'm doing is "mixing" things----what I "thought" I was doing was asking if family should be off limits for personal attacks.
My question was more 2 fold:
A-Is how people families act and behave "fair game" for the media?
B-Is how they act a fair question for a somebody elses abilty to lead?
And my real point was essentially----"Lets keep it fair---if its judged "ok" to question Palin leadership abilties on the basis of her families actions---then we need to make that a standard question for everybody.
I'm ok either way--I just want some consistancy in the questions and the "weight" people give them.......if Palin is being singled out while others are given a pass...then that is, IMO, not only seriously unfair but duplictious and dishonest........I don't mind "realpolitik" I mind when people pretend that is not what they are doing.
My personal opinion is that Obama treated the Grandmother whom raised him, worked hard to put food on the table, keep him in cloths etc in a shabby fashion by conflating her very personal admission to the level of Wrights "God Damn America" and other statements in a similar fashion.
You seem to be the only one on the forum that that has not heard of Palin being attacked thu her family or that people have been attacking her religion---you could google "attacks on Palins family" or "attacks on Palins religion" and I bet you would find tons of stuff.
As to her religion--I watched a state rep from TN get on camara and do 2 things that made me cringe:
1-He compared "community organizer" Obama to Jesus Christ--by name and direct comparision
2-He compared Palin to Pontius Pilot by reminding everyone that it was a "governer" that had Jesus killed.
Again, elected State offical speaking at the podium at the State House.
I agree that people should be forced to endure hard pointed questions about their relgion--should they choose to make use of it in their campaign......and they all do.
Again, I'm leaning toward making it a consistant question in terms of weight and whom gets asked about it.
Questioning Palins Chrisitanity while Obama whom used his pastors sermon as the catalist for a best selling book seems disjointed.......or if you prefer, people taking umbrage at Obama been cast most inaccuratly as a Muslim yet feel no twinge of guilty over Palin being cast as relgions extemist are being intellectually dishonest.
BTW--Jason said no such thing.
He very clearly said he'd deliver the baby then hand them over to the LEO's for a nice trip to mexico.
Sounds fair and resonable to me---save the mother and child then then remove them from a place they had no legal right to be.
Not all that different than you would do should you find the same mother hiding in your home.......my guess is that you would get them the help they needed then have them removed from a place they had no legal right to be ie your home...or in a larger sense a nation.
Again, sounds fair and resonable to me......resources are finate....and if the system collapses then we can help nobody.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
Sorry if I missed something here. The grandmother Jason originally mentioned didn't raise him. Skimming back a couple pages I didn't see anything mentioned about his maternal grandmother. His paternal grandmother had little to do with him.My personal opinion is that Obama treated the Grandmother whom raised him, worked hard to put food on the table, keep him in cloths etc in a shabby fashion by conflating her very personal admission to the level of Wrights "God Damn America" and other statements in a similar fashion.
CXT, obviously your comments about fairness should apply. If you think that one wingnut form TN establishes much, it doesn't, at least to me. The MEDIA should be slaughtered if they don't either report fairly OR state that they're not reporters, merely critics, or attack dogs (eg, Coulter).
"And my real point was essentially----"Lets keep it fair---if its judged "ok" to question Palin leadership abilties on the basis of her families actions---then we need to make that a standard question for everybody."
And what actions of which other candidates might bear fruit? I remember some troubles with the Bush girls, and Gore junior getting pulled over in a Prius going 100mph. But I haven't been informed about what the others are up to. Do you know? Further, again, I think we're mixing issues. With Palin's family, the question is did she do a bad job mothering that led to her daughter's bad behavior. I think that's a totally inappropriate question to ask, BUT it does raise the issue of her policy that would promote abstinence only education, which we know, fails. THAT issue should be discussed SOLELY on the basis of her policy however. With Obama's family, the question is about his care of grammy, not about her actions. THAT is actually more relevant, IF anyone were to establish that he abandoned a close relative. Being a staunch republican, I of course oppose anyone looking for a handout just because they have remote contact with someone rich, and believe aid for destitute countries just makes them dependent on us
No, seriously, the reason it doesn't matter is because we still haven't heard she isn't delighted with her relationship with Obama or that she has any serious needs. *I've* been robbed and I never faulted my dad for it, you know?
You have issues with some very inappropriate sounding comments from a state legislator. And.... what shall we do? Ask both parties to behave? It would be nice. But there are nuts on both sides. Where was the fuss here about Jesse Helms?
You have issues with people talking about Palin's religion and not caring that Obama used a quote from his pastor for the title of his book (do I have that right)? The issue people had with Palin was NOT that she was religious, it was that she appeared to state she thought the Iraq war was God's plan. Since we just had 8 years of uncompromising, unshakably selfcertain leadership from a leader who declared a mandate with a hair lengths victory and then charged into a war he thought was God's plan, people will care about that; they're right to. People have also raised concerns about Obama's pastor being a wingnut. Hard to argue he isn't or Obama didn't know. Seems fair to me. I haven't heard her called an extremist (once again, ANY references for these claims?), just possibly fundamentalist or evangelical, and hello, that is the Republican core. Ask THEM if they mind the characterization. Regardless, Obama is NOT muslim--so... that's just a bald faced lie, capitalizing on peoples fear of terrorism, the campaign strategy from last cycle, right? I have issues with those statements, yeah.
Jason said he'd return the mother and baby to Mexico. Other than violating professional ethical standards about looking after your patient and not trying to enforce immigration law, that's quite reasonable.
If you missed it, I then clearly asked what happens if the baby is stuck on life support and mom can't pay. Here is the crystal clear exchange:
Me: 2) Your patient is going to have a dying baby sometimes. Baby ends up on life support. You can't just drop them off in TJ. You have to kill the baby first.
JR: Not a legal citizen? Can't pay? Stay in your own country. God forbid if I went to Mexico illegally and needed medical attention and couldn't pay. I'd be screwed. And rightfully so.
He doesn't come out and say he kills the baby, correct, but he answers a question about killing a baby, in which I clearly state you either have to give free care or take the baby off life support, by saying it is "rightfully so" that illegal immigrants are denied care. He goes on to say he dreams about changing "laws requiring laws requiring necessary care in the US." The only reason to do that is so you don't have to provide necessary care.
I just want to know if its about babies or dollars. If dollars, then we are better off halping to end unwanted pregnancies, which will reduce pregnancy related costs, education costs, and future run ins with the law (see interesting chapter in "Freakonomics"). If babies, then we have to take care of the icu baby poor or not. IF there is a logical out (eg, when pro life people say abortion is wrong because it ends a human life, but they support the death penalty, but this is ok because the baby is innocent, then they can still be consistent: it is wrong to take innocent human life), then I am all ears.
"And my real point was essentially----"Lets keep it fair---if its judged "ok" to question Palin leadership abilties on the basis of her families actions---then we need to make that a standard question for everybody."
And what actions of which other candidates might bear fruit? I remember some troubles with the Bush girls, and Gore junior getting pulled over in a Prius going 100mph. But I haven't been informed about what the others are up to. Do you know? Further, again, I think we're mixing issues. With Palin's family, the question is did she do a bad job mothering that led to her daughter's bad behavior. I think that's a totally inappropriate question to ask, BUT it does raise the issue of her policy that would promote abstinence only education, which we know, fails. THAT issue should be discussed SOLELY on the basis of her policy however. With Obama's family, the question is about his care of grammy, not about her actions. THAT is actually more relevant, IF anyone were to establish that he abandoned a close relative. Being a staunch republican, I of course oppose anyone looking for a handout just because they have remote contact with someone rich, and believe aid for destitute countries just makes them dependent on us
No, seriously, the reason it doesn't matter is because we still haven't heard she isn't delighted with her relationship with Obama or that she has any serious needs. *I've* been robbed and I never faulted my dad for it, you know? You have issues with some very inappropriate sounding comments from a state legislator. And.... what shall we do? Ask both parties to behave? It would be nice. But there are nuts on both sides. Where was the fuss here about Jesse Helms?
You have issues with people talking about Palin's religion and not caring that Obama used a quote from his pastor for the title of his book (do I have that right)? The issue people had with Palin was NOT that she was religious, it was that she appeared to state she thought the Iraq war was God's plan. Since we just had 8 years of uncompromising, unshakably selfcertain leadership from a leader who declared a mandate with a hair lengths victory and then charged into a war he thought was God's plan, people will care about that; they're right to. People have also raised concerns about Obama's pastor being a wingnut. Hard to argue he isn't or Obama didn't know. Seems fair to me. I haven't heard her called an extremist (once again, ANY references for these claims?), just possibly fundamentalist or evangelical, and hello, that is the Republican core. Ask THEM if they mind the characterization. Regardless, Obama is NOT muslim--so... that's just a bald faced lie, capitalizing on peoples fear of terrorism, the campaign strategy from last cycle, right? I have issues with those statements, yeah.
Jason said he'd return the mother and baby to Mexico. Other than violating professional ethical standards about looking after your patient and not trying to enforce immigration law, that's quite reasonable.
If you missed it, I then clearly asked what happens if the baby is stuck on life support and mom can't pay. Here is the crystal clear exchange:
Me: 2) Your patient is going to have a dying baby sometimes. Baby ends up on life support. You can't just drop them off in TJ. You have to kill the baby first.
JR: Not a legal citizen? Can't pay? Stay in your own country. God forbid if I went to Mexico illegally and needed medical attention and couldn't pay. I'd be screwed. And rightfully so.
He doesn't come out and say he kills the baby, correct, but he answers a question about killing a baby, in which I clearly state you either have to give free care or take the baby off life support, by saying it is "rightfully so" that illegal immigrants are denied care. He goes on to say he dreams about changing "laws requiring laws requiring necessary care in the US." The only reason to do that is so you don't have to provide necessary care.
I just want to know if its about babies or dollars. If dollars, then we are better off halping to end unwanted pregnancies, which will reduce pregnancy related costs, education costs, and future run ins with the law (see interesting chapter in "Freakonomics"). If babies, then we have to take care of the icu baby poor or not. IF there is a logical out (eg, when pro life people say abortion is wrong because it ends a human life, but they support the death penalty, but this is ok because the baby is innocent, then they can still be consistent: it is wrong to take innocent human life), then I am all ears.
--Ian
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
IJ wrote:From his website:
I read the bill... not as scary as what I figured I was in for. It calls for reducing unwanted pregnancies, mentions the unsafe abortions women resorted to before Roe, references a series of SCOTUS decisions, and says that a woman should be able to choose until viability and after that the state can restrict abortion with exceptions for mother's life and health. I would support getting rid of BS "health" issues like mental health = not wanting a baby. There is time before viability to make those decisions. It's basically just a prochoice bill, preserving current law in the USA--doesn't mean babies have to be sacrificed in pentagrams or anything.
I don't think you and I read the same bill, Ian. It would wipe out any and all restrictions on abortion. Every single one. Parental consent? Not applicable anymore. 'Partial Birth'? Not applicable anymore. Any statute limiting abortions in any way, shape or form. Gone. Everything the pro-life folks have been working on since Roe v Wade to stem the tide of abortion: undone. There's nothing else to call that except: extreme.
Even worse, it would allow women to sue doctors and hospitals that refuse to perform such a procedure.
Anyway... here's a key question: did you know, Jason, in a series of posts, you just attacked Obama for permitting the abortions of fetuses before liability and for health reasons that the SCOTUS permits, and then said, if a BORN and viable baby were poor, that we should kill it and send her mom back where she came from?
Key difference, Ian: Obama says okay for infants born from lawful citizens to die unneccessarily. Second key difference, and I didn't take the time to make the distinction earlier, and you raised it after my post: if a baby being born has issues requiring life-saving treatment, then yes, that should be rendered. Once the infant is safe and healthy, the baby and mother should be shuttled back to their own country, sans Social Security Number, birth certificate, etc. Rewarding these people for breaking our laws is assinine.
Another thing, I didn't say our own poor shouldn't be given any treatment, and if that's how it came across, then it was my failure to communicate clearly. I think standards need to be set that prevent the poor from taking up resources for costly non-emergency services unecessarily.
"Ok, you may be surprised to learn that LAW governs what we report."
I'm aware of that. That's why I think Congress should mandate that illegals be reported. Sure, some (maybe even alot of) doctors may refuse to report, but admin and nurses will.
