kbordson

Not giving an opinion or voting... as it is not my place to tell ya'll what to do. But I do have some questions to try to understand this a little better, so do pardon this poor lil Yanks ignorance... Is the BBC a PUBLIC service or a private one? (wondering if it would be equal to our NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX networks or more paralleled to PBS) Do the political parties have to pay for air time? Is it a set rate for all political parties? What are your laws about freedom of speech? about speech in public venues (like on air)? What are the fines/penalties for breaking those laws? How enforceable are those laws?

Yes, really. How does that differ from what I wrote? I did write that property destruction, or as I wrote, 'tearing up property' I think it was, was ok to PETA. Not sure how your point opposes what I wrote. PETA's rules are for not injuring people or animals. Just because fire does injure people doesn't mean it has to. Has PETA ever injured anyone? I checked and couldn't find anyone they've injured. They're pretty careful, as that would tarnish their agenda. You wrote "And what does let's say PETA do? They might throw paint on a fur coat, tear up an animal lab or protest on a ship like Greenpeace. Libs ruin property, conservs kill people." I'm arguing that by condoning arson, they are stepping over the line. You are right, their "policy" isn't about intentionally harming humans. But there are some levels of property destruction that are more violent and people do die. PETA is not "innocent" ... they just justify their violence and attempt to hide behind the "It wasn't us... it was the ALF" argument, while supporting the ALF Eleven Defendants Indicted on Domestic Terrorism Charges Ingrid Newkirk and the support of the ALF To deny any wrong on the part of PETA or it's leaders is intellectually dishonest. It's like saying that the person that paid the hitman wasn't guilty.

Sorry, Chiquita. I'm going to go against most of the recommendations in this thread. Pay the ticket. If there was truly and extenuating circumstance, go and discuss it with the judge. Don't try to "game" the system. The rules are there for a reason. I'm not saying that I don't speed. I'm not saying that I haven't been livid when I got a speeding ticked for "just" going 5 miles over or when I thought I had a valid "excuse." But... part of breaking the law means accepting consequences of that action. It might mean higher rates on insurance if you try to change policies or get a new vehicle (although typically they don't catch them as the ticket comes off your record in 3 yrs, I believe). It might mean loss of license (if you get too many or the points are too high) Driving is not a right. It is a privilege with responsibilities. It's your responsibility to know the laws, which (in theory) were made to protect... like AggieDave said... speeding does kill. So we (as a society) decided to limit that. If you do the crime, do the time.

Really? source People get killed in arson. Allowing that, as an "acceptable crime", is NOT just a simple demonstration for rights. It's violence. Accept it and don't say "but... they're innocent." No, they're not. They just think that their crimes are justified. Ok, I'll stay out. Yeah... and I'm blond. (wait a sec while I go and find a youtube video to appropriately fit what I think of you - not who you are or even a comment on your beliefs... but to fit "what I think") JK (yeah... doesn't work for me, either....)

Between this thread and the one in SC... I was wondering In a battle between a Klingon and a Vulcan, who would win? Braun v. Brain (I mean a TNG Klingon... don't ask why there's a difference, the do not discuss that with outsiders.... and a full Vulcan, not a "humanized" version like Spock, but we can NOT allow it to be during pon farr.)

Is this you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8XmerZEyHE Not funny. Not amused. I am NOT blond.

It's not that I "like" or "don't like" him. I don't "hate" or "love" him. I do NOT know him. I don't trust him. But that's not because he's "President Obama" - rather because he's a politician and has shown that he will do what he had to to get elected. (I think the infomercial directly prior to the election was an underhanded attempt to spend money to get elected. It wasn't the "right thing to do".... and it didn't help me get to "know him" at all.) He has also made comments that has increased the divide between Republicans, not that the Republicans have been trying to play nice either. I just don't really trust politicians.

Good post. (I only made one minor correction - no flame)

The "intent to sway opinion" is a correct conclusion. Why is it a bad thing that the stories formerly NOT covered by any form of mainstream media are now being covered? Do you have a problem with the with the exposure of "the usual tactics", when it comes to insurance companies and their business methodology? Is your preference that these facts should continue to be withheld from the public knowlege? Does this new information outrage you? Why not? Is there something rotten in the "health insurance industry"? It is time for thr USA to join the rest of the first world and move to single payer. Sooner than later. Losing 30-40% of revenue to administrative costs, excessive compensation for insurance industry executives, and profits for shareholders is not working out for us, the people of the USA. There is no logical argument that the situation is fine as it is. Major reform is needed. Lets not screw around with tiny steps that do nothing maningful. Single payer NOW. Not "NOW".... I would like it done RIGHT. There are BIG problems with the insurance business. But I don't know that I believe that the government will manage it much better. Those are tragic examples of exclusions... but those individuals can then go to a different carrier and apply for a different plan. If it's a government only situation...you might not be "excluded" but your treatment might be. The system IS broke. (Trust me, I know... it was easier for me to just pay some bills that the insurance company "claimed" was excluded - which after re-reading the policy, I could prove that it wasn't - than it was to deal with the paperwork of resubmitting with re-coding of "proper" ICD-9 and blah blah blah.... It is broke) But let's take the time to do it RIGHT.

The only bloodless coup that I would support is through the free election of politicians that had the interests of the country as the primary motivator. But to have that, we would need the PEOPLE to become more aware, more educated, and less apathetic. They will need to be less able to be bribed or sold by slick commercials. THE PEOPLE need to understand what is being done AND WHY. The government has to become more transparent... infact, it SHOULD be completely transparent. The actions of America are done in the name of all American. I believe that there were many acts of the last administration weren't correct and brought dishonor to "Mr Smith" and "Mrs Johnson". Likewise, there are acts with THIS administration aren't correct. I understand the challenges with full disclosure ... it takes time to explain, to teach, to educate. It's MUCH easier to just pass something that no-one has read and make it the law of the land. But that doesn't make it an honorable House. "Politics" is too powerful, is too big, is too arrogant. PEOPLE have to be willing to INSIST on less of that and on more of personal freedoms, personal responsibility and acceptance that others have the same.... but the way that we SHOULD do that is to vote. And to vote based on the capabilities and views of that candidate, not based on party line or sound bites. I hope there is a "bloodless coup"... in the form of an educated population that can, once again, become "We, the People" and can self rule within the Constitution of the United States of America.

My thoughts Obesity IS a MAJOR problem, here in the States and abroad. Childhood obesity is an even sadder problem that ideally wouldn't exist... but neither should any of the eating disorders. Some of those ARE caused by abuse and neglect. Some are caused by SOCIETY. As a society, I think that we value the WRONG things. We have commercials and ads with models having a BMI of under 19 - which can either motive a child to be too thin or can destroy hope of "being pretty" when the BMI is over 25. We have inventions of convenience because our lives are too "busy"... but don't have time to enjoy life. We tell children "sit down and be quiet".... but then are shocked when all they want to do is play video games. AS A CULTURE, we should change. We need to become more HEALTH aware - with a focus on healthy diets, active lifestyles, and give people an awareness of what being a couch potato truly does to the body. But the society is made of individuals that have rights... and those include exercising personal choices. I have a choice to make breakfast EITHER a can of Mt. Dew OR a whole grain cereal. I have a choice to EITHER walk to the grocery store or drive the 2.5miles. As INDIVIDUALS, we make choices... but as a culture, we need to encourage the healthy ones. But... as a set of parents.... it is a tough call to say "take away those children." It could warrant an inspection of the living environment - is the house a healthy place, are the parents competent and willing to parent, is it safe for the child to be there? But removing just because the child is obese ... I don't think I would support that.

Oooohhhhhh! I would LOVE to be a Pretender!! Let's see... I could be Lawrocket and protect the undefended as he does. I could be Nerdgirl and use that intellect to save humanity as she does. I could be [a] TrophyHusband... but I wouldn't want to insult him by focusing his value on his VERY NICE appearance... He's more than just a pretty body - he's also GREAT DNA and a wonderful dad!! I could be HH... but that would be just to walk around "my (subleased) house" nekkid. I could be hasbn1.... to learn about what happens next. I could be so many of you just to see life from your WONDERFUL perspective... But... today, I think that I will be me: Sitting at home, enjoying my 2w of unemployment by relaxing on my couch on a beautiful rainy fall day.

This is a very concerning situation. There are several things to consider 1. Was this an appropriate complaint to the State Board of Healing Arts? I would argue "yes" - I can definitely see a conflict of interests on the part of the physician (recommending a therapy that... coincidentally... he has "right here") source 2. Was it appropriately submitted? I would argue "no." My comments here would be with respect to the use of the patients medical record number (HIPPA - personal identifier), but I don't know that the nurses should be charged with felony convictions BY a third party (ie NOT the patient that had the HIPPA violation) I have to agree with Clair Jordan: “This whole criminal case is just outrageous” -edit to add accidentally deleted words

SERIOUSLY!! In 2009!! This isn't 1959! I honestly thought we had moved beyond this RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (AND YES, you are a racist - not you, Andy... I'm yelling through the computer to that Justice of the Peace.)

Wow. And he's "one of the few that have nothing wrong with him" To a small part toward his defense.... At least he was direct and she knew RIGHT UP FRONT where he stood.

agree. and there is the access to health care- look at EMTALA or public health clinics/ county hospitals. But not everyone has access to the health care they WANT. Likewise, not everyone has access to the food that they WANT, nor the housing they WANT, nor the clothing they WANT. Access is available in this country (except for the provided clothing topic) ... but if you WANT more.... agree agree. And it HAS agreed to a limited extend. BUT... here you SHOULD state "In my opinion." And I think, in MY opinion, that it would be better to caulk up the cracks... rather than tear up the sidewalk.

I disagree. The steps you listed that we have taken are not sufficient to meet the requirements (i.e. Article 25 of the UDHR uses the word the word everyone). So then we, as a nation, should provide FOOD to everyone. And CLOTHING to everyone. And HOUSING to everyone. And MEDICAL CARE to everyone. And NECESSARY SOCIAL SERVICES to everyone. And so should EVERY country that signed that document. If you're saying that, then I think you jumped the shark. -edit to add the definition: You had a great argument (show) going but went over and now... it's going down.

Seems macabre but somehow fitting to resurrect this thread with the new reports on the lil 6 year old that might have made some not so well thought out decisions without appropriate (or any) supervision (NOTE: this does not mean that I am laughing at the young boy, Falcon... just noting that we've ALL done stupid shit... but get away with it most of the time...) As I hadn't added to this thread previously: 6 years old - missed my bus and had to walked home from school 4 miles AND accepted a ride from a stranger. (wasn't really that "dangerous"... just got me in a LOT of trouble) 16 years old - 2 week vacation where I drove down to Florida with a girlfriend of mine... and made it back home with 2 cents and a bag of fortune cookies in the car. No credit cards, No checkbook, Slept in the car most nights, otherwise in the barracks of guys that I didn't know (but she did)

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that the examples you used are not, in reality, indicative of our responsibilities, and that Congress would not be acting in a manner contradictory to the Constitution to remedy that situation (i.e. meeting the prerequisite for an international treaty to be the supreme law of the land). I'm sorry if my wording wasn't clear on that point. But I believe that we HAVE met the requirements of that treaty with respect to health and medical care. We are providing, within a specified scope, the basic rights (with the exception of clothing and better coverage for widows/widowers) as defined by the UDHR. Now... if you think that as a country with a National Income (I was going to use GDP, but lets keep it to just what the Government plays with as collected under authority of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution) of "x" - that we, as a nation, should prioritize health care over military.... that's an different discussion. But it is being provided... just not, in your opinion, enough. (and for the record - I am not arguing against that. Rather on the how to correct it)

The SWAPPED family was the safety couple

There are many people in the US that do not qualify for government heathcare, nor can they afford coverage at current prices. (Even if they qualified but aren't signed up, signing them up would result in funding shortages, leaving the problem to remain.) That needs to be remedied. Congress has the power to remedy that, with or without the UDHR under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. So now it seems that you're backpedaling from using the UDHR as support and instead going with "I beleive that there needs to be MORE medical coverage." So to do that, why not work to change the qualifications for existing programs instead of scraping it all and trying to pass a 1000+ page document that no one is allowed to read? - on a side question on "rights" - Miranda Warning: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?" Why is that clause "if you cannot afford an attorney" in there... I don't think it needs to be. Having never been in that position, I don't know for sure if it is a "those that qualify" situation. I think that anyone... if they didn't WANT to pay for an attorney, can still get a public defender... EVEN IF you're a millionaire. Might not be considered the "smartest" decision... but I think they can still ask for public defense, can't they?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a constitutive document of the United Nations Charter. As signatories of the United Nations, a legally binding treaty, the United States is legally bound to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You'll find that the two covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, are separate from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Actually, you seem right on that... and looking at JUST the UDHR, this is the ONLY mention of health or medical care Lets look at where we, as a country, NOT fulfilling that commitment? food - government assistance for those that qualify whether it is food stamps, or HUGE blocks of cheese. But you can't just walk into Micky D's and demand your rights to a Big Mac clothing - HERE... we lack. The government does NOT provide basic clothing to those in need, but there are lots of charities that cover this need. housing - we have Section 8 assistance if you qualify. But, you are limited to where that housing is... you don't get a Mansion in Beverly Hills. medical care - Medicaid and Medicare. Yes, you have to qualify, but it is a provided government system But this is limited...you don't get Zofran if you're nauseated and throwing up... nope. Just phenergan. And even without ANY coverage, you have the right due to EMTALA to not be denied emergency services due to lack of ability to pay. necessary social services - not exactly sure what this entails... Police, Fire, news? and the right to security in the event of unemployment - covered under unemployment benefits - mostly a state program. Not federal - but the Department of Labor does offer Unemployment Insurance sickness, disability - this is covered with Medicaid and Medicare widowhood - this is NOT covered old age - Medicare and Social Security or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. - Not sure what this includes... but I don't think we cover it. So... if you really want to be honest about the US breaching that "treaty", then you should be arguing for the rights to clothing and the rights to widow/widowers. There you would have a better argument.

That's rich, coming from someone who demonstrated a lack of basic writing skills in her post. I replied to post #22. How am I supposed to know what document you're referencing if you don't mention it in your post? What basic writing error? I was replying to your post #21, where you states "Have that many people really not read the Constitution closely enough to know that it explicitly recognizes international treaties to be "the supreme Law of the Land," provided they did not contradict the Constitution or state law?" And my answer was "BUT by my reading, there was a division in the rights granted by that document." Although I did not specifically state in that post which document I meant, IF you look at post #20 (right above your insult... scroll up... it's easy... ) I was pointing out the two separate covenants. Yes, it requires some assumption.... but so does using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as an argument for health care - because you are assuming that we agreed to ALL covenants of that nonbinding agreement, and thus that should guarantee all residents of the U.S to "free" or "universal" or "whatever term is thrown" health care.

My husband has tinnitus so he likes having background noise to drown the ringing. We typically have the TV in the dining area on... and usually watch it. But, we don't have cable, so if there isn't anything really on basic programming, then we either let it just babble in the background or turn to HULU

Of which document are you speaking? So, it's easy to throw out insults on the need for civics classes, but... what about BASIC READING - look at post #20