Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Well you could possibly charge Exxon under the RICO act because they knew about global warming since the 70s and paid shill scientists to say it isnt true.
Frazzled wrote: Mmm and the Democrats push for DA Abuse in their party platform:
Climate Change and Clean Energy: Moving beyond the “all of the above” energy approach in the 2012 platform, the 2016 platform draft re-frames the urgency of climate change as a central challenge of our time, already impacting American communities and calling for generating 50 percent clean electricity within the next ten years. The Committee unanimously adopted a joint proposal from Sanders and Clinton representatives to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and supporting the ambitious goals put forward by President Obama and the Paris climate agreement. Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.
How would weather predictions constitute corporate fraud? Commissioning a study isn't a crime and the confirmation bias that can be inherent in scientific studies commissioned by entities with an economic and/or political stake in findings of the study isn't illegal. That seems to be some kind of attempt to treat the fossil fuel companies like the cigarette companies hiding the fact that smoking causes cancer.
Anyone who calls it "Texit" is a moron who doesn't know history. The name you call Texas over the issue of Secession is...Texas. We've always wanted to secede. Its in our blood. if we aren't eating barbeque we're trying to secede from someone.
So when Texas leaves, can you take Florida with you? Thanks
No it isn't. It's not like the corporations know that fossil fuels pollute and are trying to hide that from the public, that's always been known and has been regulated for decades. Commissioning studies that end up supporting their own agenda isn't illegal. Different studies and opinions doesn't add up to deliberate malicious intent on hiding objective facts from the public.
If a company is producing a product and knows that the using the product can cause the side effect of contracting a deadly disease and deliberately hides that fact for decades in order to keep the public ignorant and continuing to buy their product is different from paying scientists to do a study. There are a plethora of climate studies out there, the fossil fuel corporations aren't hiding data from anyone. The public knows the dangerous of pollution and fossil fuel companies have been following government regulations, and being punished when they don't, for a long time.
A political party shouldn't use federal agencies to manufacture criminal cases against industries just because they're unpopular with the party's voting base. That's an obvious abuse of power.
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
How is it desperate? Tom Ridge is quoted in the article as saying that preventing people on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List wouldn't have prevented the Orlando night club shooting because the person who did the shooting wasn't on either list. That is factually correct.
No law is going to stop a determined terrorist or criminal. I'm not naïve and accept that. But using that logic as reason for the stone walling of sensible Gun Legislation which will work to cut down on legal access to individuals who shouldn't have access...and I'm a gun owner...is pathetic!
How is the proposed gun legislation "sensible"? Do you have any data on how many, if any, mass shootings or gun homicides have been commited by anyone on the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how a person gets placed onto the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how many people on those lists alreadly lawfully own firearms? Do you have any data on how a person can appeal being on either list, if anyone has successfully appealed and how many people have been removed for the list?
Do you think all US citizens are entitled to the right to Due Process?
Are you ok with the US govt not having enough evidence to charge a US citizen with any crime but still labelling that person as "dangerous" and violating their constitional rights?
You're actually asking how is gun legislation "sensible" when it seeks to prohibit gun ownership to individuals deemed to dangerous to get on an airplane and a threat to aviation(No Fly List) or are suspected of some involvement with terrorism(Terror Watch List)? Are you kidding?
Here's some stats for you...In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law," and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns. According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).
Individuals on the Terrorism Watch List, et al, succeeded in purchasing guns and explosives 1,321 in just the above mentioned 6 year period. Sleep well tonight, pookie.
Why wouldn't I sleep well tonight? That information is 6 years out of date and nothing has happened in that intervening time to make me sleep any less well. Again, do you have any data on what is required for the govt to put people on those lists in the first place? If the govt can't find enough evidence to charge anyone on the list with any crimes why are they dangerous? How many acts of terrorism have been committed by US citizens who are on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List?
If the people on the No Fly List are dangerous why are they allowed on any mass transit at all? They're too dangerous to be allowed on a plane but it's perfectly fine for them to be on buses and trains? Terrorists have killed a lot of people on buses in Israel and on trains in Japan, why are we ok with letting people on the No Fly List get on buses and trains? People on the lists are also free to attend large events, games in huge stadiums, fairs, schools, etc. People on the No Fly List are too "dangerous" to be allowed onto a comercial flight but are "safe" enough to be allowed to do literally everything else that somebody not on the No Fly List can do. If the govt believes them to be safe enough to do all that then I'm fine with them owning guns.
The numbers you posted show that the people on both lists passed a federal background check (NICS) 94.3% of the time so if they're clean enough to pass the background check I'm not going to waste my time being afraid of them. If the people on the list haven't done anything to warrant any criminals charges currently and haven't done anything in the past that would prevent them from passing a NICS check why should I fear them? Because the govt decided to put them on an arbitrary and ineffectual list?
It's not that the information is "out of date", it's simply the sampling I offered up. Stats are stats, they're not milk, they don't go out of date. As for individuals being on a "watch" list and not charged, is that really your criteria for what poses a threat? The fact that they haven't been charged or committed a terrorist act, that's the litmus test for a threat? You do understand the definition of "threat"? It's more of a perceived thing based on intention, study and observation. You see when a crime, terrorist or otherwise gets committed, it's no longer a perceived threat but reality. I'm neither a fan nor detractor of government, it is what we elect it to be, but when the FBI, et al, say "Hey, bit of a concern with this one.", I probably listen and probably don't want that person to have access to a gun or explosives. I'm funny that way. I'd rather do the whole "stitch in time" thing, especially when lives are at stake. As far as the whole stadium, bus, etc. deflection...it doesn't warrant reply. And yes, the lists are obviously arbitrary and ineffectual. I can see the Homeland Security Agents now, sitting around, throwing darts at a giant montage of names, races, addresses, etc...I'm sure that's how it's done.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/27 20:18:36
No it isn't. It's not like the corporations know that fossil fuels pollute and are trying to hide that from the public, that's always been known and has been regulated for decades. Commissioning studies that end up supporting their own agenda isn't illegal. Different studies and opinions doesn't add up to deliberate malicious intent on hiding objective facts from the public.
If a company is producing a product and knows that the using the product can cause the side effect of contracting a deadly disease and deliberately hides that fact for decades in order to keep the public ignorant and continuing to buy their product is different from paying scientists to do a study. There are a plethora of climate studies out there, the fossil fuel corporations aren't hiding data from anyone. The public knows the dangerous of pollution and fossil fuel companies have been following government regulations, and being punished when they don't, for a long time.
A political party shouldn't use federal agencies to manufacture criminal cases against industries just because they're unpopular with the party's voting base. That's an obvious abuse of power.
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
Actually... the distinction is if you believe abortion procedures are synonymous to going to an outpatient podiatrist to take care of your hangnail... sure. That Texas law is odious.
However, if you view these abortive procedures as medically serious... then mandating these clinics to be regulated the same as hospitals and requiring providers to have hospital admit privileges... is fething common sense.
Whembly, you're forgetting one extraordinarily important detail: it's Texas. The vast majority of hospitals in this state wouldn't grant admitting privileges to abortion doctors (remember, almost every hospital here has words like Methodist, Presbyterian, Baylor, etc, in the name). That's why this law was a backdoor way to outlaw abortion. If getting admitting privileges wasn't a problem, then the requirement wouldn't be an issue.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Ustrello wrote: Well you could possibly charge Exxon under the RICO act because they knew about global warming since the 70s and paid shill scientists to say it isnt true.
Their financial statements always said they didn't know the impact of potential global regulations.
Anyone who calls it "Texit" is a moron who doesn't know history. The name you call Texas over the issue of Secession is...Texas. We've always wanted to secede. Its in our blood. if we aren't eating barbeque we're trying to secede from someone.
So when Texas leaves, can you take Florida with you? Thanks
Hey don't blame us for Florida. Thats on you Yankee retirees.
Hy don't blame us for Flo
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Didn't see this coming more southern states wasting money over something they know will be struck down
In a dramatic ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Texas abortion access law in a victory to supporters of abortion rights who argued it would have shuttered all but a handful of clinics in the state.
The 5-3 ruling is the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades and could serve to deter other states from passing so-called "clinic shutdown" laws.
In joining with the liberal justices, perennial swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy helped deliver a victory to abortion rights activists and signaled the court's majority in their favor could continue regardless of the presidential election and the filling of the empty seat on the bench left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Kennedy. Breyer wrote that despite arguments that the restrictions were designed to protect women's health, the reality is that they merely amounted to burdening women who seek abortions.
"There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure," Breyer wrote. "We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so."
I saw it coming. Good ruling by the court. If you're going to have SCOTUS make up a private right, at least they are consistent in protecting that right against made up medical regulations designed to eliminate it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/27 19:04:11
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
How is it desperate? Tom Ridge is quoted in the article as saying that preventing people on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List wouldn't have prevented the Orlando night club shooting because the person who did the shooting wasn't on either list. That is factually correct.
No law is going to stop a determined terrorist or criminal. I'm not naïve and accept that. But using that logic as reason for the stone walling of sensible Gun Legislation which will work to cut down on legal access to individuals who shouldn't have access...and I'm a gun owner...is pathetic!
How is the proposed gun legislation "sensible"? Do you have any data on how many, if any, mass shootings or gun homicides have been commited by anyone on the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how a person gets placed onto the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how many people on those lists alreadly lawfully own firearms? Do you have any data on how a person can appeal being on either list, if anyone has successfully appealed and how many people have been removed for the list?
Do you think all US citizens are entitled to the right to Due Process?
Are you ok with the US govt not having enough evidence to charge a US citizen with any crime but still labelling that person as "dangerous" and violating their constitional rights?
You're actually asking how is gun legislation "sensible" when it seeks to prohibit gun ownership to individuals deemed to dangerous to get on an airplane and a threat to aviation(No Fly List) or are suspected of some involvement with terrorism(Terror Watch List)? Are you kidding?
Here's some stats for you...In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law," and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns. According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).
Individuals on the Terrorism Watch List, et al, succeeded in purchasing guns and explosives 1,321 in just the above mentioned 6 year period. Sleep well tonight, pookie.
Why wouldn't I sleep well tonight? That information is 6 years out of date and nothing has happened in that intervening time to make me sleep any less well. Again, do you have any data on what is required for the govt to put people on those lists in the first place? If the govt can't find enough evidence to charge anyone on the list with any crimes why are they dangerous? How many acts of terrorism have been committed by US citizens who are on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List?
If the people on the No Fly List are dangerous why are they allowed on any mass transit at all? They're too dangerous to be allowed on a plane but it's perfectly fine for them to be on buses and trains? Terrorists have killed a lot of people on buses in Israel and on trains in Japan, why are we ok with letting people on the No Fly List get on buses and trains? People on the lists are also free to attend large events, games in huge stadiums, fairs, schools, etc. People on the No Fly List are too "dangerous" to be allowed onto a comercial flight but are "safe" enough to be allowed to do literally everything else that somebody not on the No Fly List can do. If the govt believes them to be safe enough to do all that then I'm fine with them owning guns.
The numbers you posted show that the people on both lists passed a federal background check (NICS) 94.3% of the time so if they're clean enough to pass the background check I'm not going to waste my time being afraid of them. If the people on the list haven't done anything to warrant any criminals charges currently and haven't done anything in the past that would prevent them from passing a NICS check why should I fear them? Because the govt decided to put them on an arbitrary and ineffectual list?
It's not that the information is "out of date", it's simply the sampling I offered up. Stats are stats, they're not milk, they don't go out of date. As for individuals being on a "watch" list and not charged, is that really your criteria for what poses a threat? The fact that they haven't been charged or committed a terrorist act, that's the litmus test for a threat? You do understand the definition of "threat"? It's more of a perceived thing based on intention, study and observation. You see when a crime, terrorist or otherwise gets committed, it's no longer a perceived threat but reality. I'm neither a fan nor detractor of government, it is what we elect it to be, but when the FBI, et al, say "Hey, bit of a concern with this one.", I probably listen and probably don't want that person to have access to a gun or explosives. I'm funny that way. I'd rather do the whole "stitch in time" thing, especially when lives are at stake. As far as the whole stadium, bus, etc. deflection...it doesn't warrant reply. And yes, the lists are obviously arbitrary and ineffectual. I can see the Homeland Security Agents now, sitting around, throwing darts at a giant montage of names, races, addresses, etc...I'm sure that's how it's done.
I referenced the date because you seem to be very concerned that 1,321 firearms were purchased by people on the lists over 6 years ago. If those guns were bought by really dangerous people then they've had 6 years to do something bad with them. Did that happen? You don't offer any evidence of that happening yet you seem to believe it should of tantamount concern to me to the point of inhibiting my ability to sleep.
Yes, my litmus test for a person being punished by the government is for them to actually do something wrong first. I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is the foundation upon which our legal system is built. Ifthe government wants to punish a citizen and inhibit their rights then the government is obligated to show just cause for doing so, that's Due Process. If the government doesn't have the evidence to charge somebody with a crime, let alone convict them, then the government can't punish them.
If the government thinks somebody is a dangerous then they can investigate and see if there is evidence to warrant criminal charges. It does not give the government the right to create secret lists of people to punish them. How do the lists protect me? The lists aren't publicized, even the people on the lists aren't notified that they've been put on a list, the people on the list aren't kept under surveillance, the people on the list aren't restricted from doing anything other than using commercial air travel, the people on the list don't have an appeal process to be removed from the list, the people on the list don't have a mechanism to prove they don't belong on the list before the government adds them to the list. You don't know who's on the list or why they're on the list but you're certain that they all belong on the list even though the list doesn't actually inhibit them from doing anything dangerous (other than boarding a plane) so you want the government to make the list even more punitive even in the absence of any evidence that it actually makes any kind of difference.
No it isn't. It's not like the corporations know that fossil fuels pollute and are trying to hide that from the public, that's always been known and has been regulated for decades. Commissioning studies that end up supporting their own agenda isn't illegal. Different studies and opinions doesn't add up to deliberate malicious intent on hiding objective facts from the public.
If a company is producing a product and knows that the using the product can cause the side effect of contracting a deadly disease and deliberately hides that fact for decades in order to keep the public ignorant and continuing to buy their product is different from paying scientists to do a study. There are a plethora of climate studies out there, the fossil fuel corporations aren't hiding data from anyone. The public knows the dangerous of pollution and fossil fuel companies have been following government regulations, and being punished when they don't, for a long time.
A political party shouldn't use federal agencies to manufacture criminal cases against industries just because they're unpopular with the party's voting base. That's an obvious abuse of power.
See link above, they did know about it
All that link says is that Exxon did a study that showed that the developing the Natuna gas fields would involve venting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere and they chose not to do the development because of the potential for increased costs from some form of carbon tax or emissions penalty/regulation. It doesn't prove that Exxon had conclusive proof to a degree of scientific certainty that fossil fuels were the direct cause of anthropomorphic global climate change because the global community of scientists hadn't made any such declaration back in 1981. The idea that CO2 emissions would be regulated and expensive doesn't prove that fossil fuel development changes global climate and weather patterns.
Contrast that to the tobacco industry where the medical community already knew that cancer was lethal and the industry knew that smoking greatly increased your odds of contracting cancer. The concept of anthropomorphic global climate change wasn't anything near a scientific certainty in 1981, regardless of what one in house impact study done by Exxon might have said. I fail to see how the US govt could prosecute Exxon because they decided not to develop the Natuna gas fields because the amount of carbon emissions generated by the extraction could incur excessive additional costs.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/27 20:19:36
Ustrello wrote: Still waiting on that sweet whembly flip around this fall I got a DCM riding on it
Never gunna happen.
Besides... I'm going to see if I can bring a phone with me to the voting booth for a selfie proof.
If you never flip, I might have to send the DCM money to the Hillary Clinton reelection fund
You basterd*.
*purposely spelt wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Well you could possibly charge Exxon under the RICO act because they knew about global warming since the 70s and paid shill scientists to say it isnt true.
Not really.
RICO was designed to address organized crime.
It was specifically designed to help with some of the difficulty that prosecutors traditionally had in cracking big organized crime rings... mafia families, drug trafficking organizations, that sort of thing.
And I hope to god Democrats put that on their platform... they'll look ridiculously dumb.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/27 20:17:39
Friendly reminder: it's polite to either just quote what you need to respond to, or to at least hide gigantic quotes behind a spoiler tag. Basic rule of thumb: if your post is shorter than the text you quoted, you're probably doing it wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/27 20:21:10
Using your First Amendment rights is not RICO. RICO is racketeering via wires (aka phones-yes its that old). Arguing about the methodology, causes, and timing of global warming (which used to be global cooling) is not RICO. It is however, an excellent way to shut down dissent. Be careful what you wish for Democrats. You may not like what happens when you get your wish.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: However, if you view these abortive procedures as medically serious... then mandating these clinics to be regulated the same as hospitals and requiring providers to have hospital admit privileges... is fething common sense.
Except abortion isn't "medically serious" most of the time. The rate of problems is very low, and the rate of "OH GOD EMERGENCY" problems where a patient needs to go directly to the hospital is even lower. Regardless of what emotional or moral ideas you have about the subject of abortion the procedure itself is an incredibly low-risk thing that should be regulated the same way as other minor low-risk medical procedures. The only reason for treating abortion like dangerous surgery was to make it more difficult and expensive for providers of abortions to stay open.
Asterios wrote: so are you saying that he was not the former homeland security boss? or are you saying he did not say those things? i'm a bit fuzzy on what you are trying to say.
He was the former homeland security boss under whose authority the TSA was established. I think this is a pretty good reason to consider him laughably unqualified to comment on anything related to security.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: However, if you view these abortive procedures as medically serious... then mandating these clinics to be regulated the same as hospitals and requiring providers to have hospital admit privileges... is fething common sense.
Except abortion isn't "medically serious" most of the time. The rate of problems is very low, and the rate of "OH GOD EMERGENCY" problems where a patient needs to go directly to the hospital is even lower. Regardless of what emotional or moral ideas you have about the subject of abortion the procedure itself is an incredibly low-risk thing that should be regulated the same way as other minor low-risk medical procedures. The only reason for treating abortion like dangerous surgery was to make it more difficult and expensive for providers of abortions to stay open.
Exactly. And under those circumstances where somebodies life is in danger surely no hospital is allowed to turn that person away anyway, regardless of if they have admit privileges? If that isn't the case then the problem is not with the abortion clinics lacking these privileges but with the way your hospitals are being run that they can apparently deny care to peoples whose life depends on it.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
whembly wrote: However, if you view these abortive procedures as medically serious... then mandating these clinics to be regulated the same as hospitals and requiring providers to have hospital admit privileges... is fething common sense.
Except abortion isn't "medically serious" most of the time. The rate of problems is very low, and the rate of "OH GOD EMERGENCY" problems where a patient needs to go directly to the hospital is even lower. Regardless of what emotional or moral ideas you have about the subject of abortion the procedure itself is an incredibly low-risk thing that should be regulated the same way as other minor low-risk medical procedures. The only reason for treating abortion like dangerous surgery was to make it more difficult and expensive for providers of abortions to stay open.
Asterios wrote: so are you saying that he was not the former homeland security boss? or are you saying he did not say those things? i'm a bit fuzzy on what you are trying to say.
He was the former homeland security boss under whose authority the TSA was established. I think this is a pretty good reason to consider him laughably unqualified to comment on anything related to security.
The El PAso entity cited had done tens of thousands of procedures without referral to a hospital. You are correct.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The claim that it was "to protect the women" was also severely damaged by the argument that it doesn't restrict access because they can go to all the 'unsafe' and 'dangerous' clinics in neighboring states.
whembly wrote: However, if you view these abortive procedures as medically serious... then mandating these clinics to be regulated the same as hospitals and requiring providers to have hospital admit privileges... is fething common sense.
Except abortion isn't "medically serious" most of the time. The rate of problems is very low, and the rate of "OH GOD EMERGENCY" problems where a patient needs to go directly to the hospital is even lower. Regardless of what emotional or moral ideas you have about the subject of abortion the procedure itself is an incredibly low-risk thing that should be regulated the same way as other minor low-risk medical procedures. The only reason for treating abortion like dangerous surgery was to make it more difficult and expensive for providers of abortions to stay open.
I had general anesthesia to have all my wisdom teeth removed at once while sitting in a chair at the local dentist office. That procedure probably was much riskier than the vast majority of abortions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/27 21:44:35
Peregrine wrote: He was the former homeland security boss under whose authority the TSA was established. I think this is a pretty good reason to consider him laughably unqualified to comment on anything related to security.
This actually got me thinking. Does the TSA suck simply because it exists, or does the TSA suck because it's so horribly managed? Never really thought about before. On the basic level, having someone to check bags, and do basic security seems simple and practical. Why then is the TSA such a monumental pain in the butt for travelers everywhere, and why can't the TSA even pass tests of their search procedures? An inventive terrorist or madman might get creative and find ways around them to be sure, but even when we have people go undercover and test the TSA they fail more often than not.
So why the hell is the TSA so ineffective at the job it has, let alone whatever hypothetical security concerns may arise in the future?
d-usa wrote: I had general anesthesia to have all my wisdom teeth removed at once while sitting in a chair at the local dentist office. That procedure probably was much riskier than the vast majority of abortions.
This. Anesthesia is one of the most dangerous "basic medical practices" on the planet, and we let that happen basically anywhere a "certified technician" happens to be standing.
d-usa wrote: The claim that it was "to protect the women" was also severely damaged by the argument that it doesn't restrict access because they can go to all the 'unsafe' and 'dangerous' clinics in neighboring states.
And that's very true... however, at some point the states can only control what happens within the state.
whembly wrote: However, if you view these abortive procedures as medically serious... then mandating these clinics to be regulated the same as hospitals and requiring providers to have hospital admit privileges... is fething common sense.
Except abortion isn't "medically serious" most of the time. The rate of problems is very low, and the rate of "OH GOD EMERGENCY" problems where a patient needs to go directly to the hospital is even lower. Regardless of what emotional or moral ideas you have about the subject of abortion the procedure itself is an incredibly low-risk thing that should be regulated the same way as other minor low-risk medical procedures. The only reason for treating abortion like dangerous surgery was to make it more difficult and expensive for providers of abortions to stay open.
I had general anesthesia to have all my wisdom teeth removed at once while sitting in a chair at the local dentist office. That procedure probably was much riskier than the vast majority of abortions.
Goalpost... wazzat?
Tell you what... look at the video:
Spoiler:
So what happens here is that people in general form opinions and arrive at conclusions based on partial or erroneous information all the time.
It's what we do. No one is an expert of all things... (unless, they stayed at the Holiday Inn! )
So... when people arrive at a conclusion, then they start becoming vested in that conclusion. Initially, no one wants to be wrong... so, they will put up barriers to defend that from anyone who challenges that conclusion.
Right? I mean... if we're talking about the divergence in our views in politics... that is how we all can arrive with different conclusions/opinions.
What we see here in the above video is that interviewers are circumventing those barriers by asking a very simple, straight-forward question, then offering to show a video. They aren't openly challenging beliefs so are able to slip in an opposing viewpoint that the subjects, for whatever reason, have obviously never thought about.
What happened here is that the viewers had to re-evaluate their conclusions again, faced with different information.
Here's the videos that the viewers saw:
Spoiler:
...then tell me with a straight face that these procedures couldn't go awry and isn't as dangerous than general anesthesia.
Peregrine wrote: He was the former homeland security boss under whose authority the TSA was established. I think this is a pretty good reason to consider him laughably unqualified to comment on anything related to security.
This actually got me thinking. Does the TSA suck simply because it exists, or does the TSA suck because it's so horribly managed? Never really thought about before. On the basic level, having someone to check bags, and do basic security seems simple and practical. Why then is the TSA such a monumental pain in the butt for travelers everywhere, and why can't the TSA even pass tests of their search procedures? An inventive terrorist or madman might get creative and find ways around them to be sure, but even when we have people go undercover and test the TSA they fail more often than not.
The answer can be summed up in one word: money. Considering what the average TSA person has to deal with on an average day, it simply doesn't pay enough to hire and retain good people.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
d-usa wrote: I had general anesthesia to have all my wisdom teeth removed at once while sitting in a chair at the local dentist office. That procedure probably was much riskier than the vast majority of abortions.
This. Anesthesia is one of the most dangerous "basic medical practices" on the planet, and we let that happen basically anywhere a "certified technician" happens to be standing.
Huh?
You have to be a licensed practitioner (ie, MD) to administer anesthesia.
O.o
Edit: I was incorrect, in most states, nursing can take further accrediation (Anesthesist... I think) to be able to administer. I've never been around a practice where the Anesthesiologist (the MD) wasn't around. Point being... this isn't the equivalent as a "certified technician".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/27 23:20:57
whembly wrote: You have to be a licensed practitioner (ie, MD) to administer anesthesia.
No you don't. An MD can administer anesthesia (MD's specializing in it are called anesthesiologists). So can a DDS (a dentist) if they are certified. However, especially in surgery rooms and large hospitals a lot of anesthesia is administered by a CRNA, which is basically a nurse specifically trained in Anesthesia. Becuase that's how dangerous Anesthesia is. They actually bring in someone whose sole job in surgery is to manage it. With that said, there's an entire shady field of anesthesia out there, filled with people credentialed to apply anesthesia, but who are not remotely trained to a level that you should be comfortable with. They tend to be the kind of people with portable machines who go around to small clinics, hospitals, and dentists offices that don't have a machine of their own, or someone certified to manage it on staff.
Changing gears, here. Something I heard on the radio and I did a little looking on the Internet about. Apparently, Ted "Net-Neutrality-is-Obamacare-for-the-Internet" Cruz is now fighting to "keep the Internet free". From what little I've gathered, as there hasn't been much major coverage on this, is that he doesn't want the evil ICANN to be in charge of DNS instead of the US, because apparently the US owns the Internet? I'm very fuzzy on the details (posting from my phone, too, so it's hard to do much in the way of research), but has anybody else heard anything more informative? I just find the principle of Cruz somehow trying to keep the net free, after his previous statements regarding net neutrality, to be laughable in the extreme.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
...then tell me with a straight face that these procedures couldn't go awry and isn't as dangerous than general anesthesia.
The good news about the SCOTUS ruling on this matter is that they actually paid attention to the science, rather than their own opinions. When both the AMA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (and a slew of other actual experts) all come down on one side of the issue, it doesn't actually matter what your opinion (or mine, or Breyer's, or Alito's) is on the "health and safety of the women" argument is; the facts are clear. The question is simply whether those facts should be considered when determining if the legislation is constitutional. (And, apparently, whether res judicata applies.)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/27 23:35:45
...then tell me with a straight face that these procedures couldn't go awry and isn't as dangerous than general anesthesia.
The good news about the SCOTUS ruling on this matter is that they actually paid attention to the science, rather than their own opinions. When both the AMA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (and a slew of other actual experts) all come down on one side of the issue, it doesn't actually matter what your opinion (or mine, or Breyer's, or Alito's) is on the "health and safety of the women" argument is; the facts are clear. The question is simply whether those facts should be considered when determining if the legislation is constitutional. (And, apparently, whether res judicata applies.)
My favorite was Thomas (?) calling out the court's hypocracy:
The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate. A law either infringes a constitutional right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to invent tolerable degrees of encroachment.
The only thing hypocritical there is Thomas if he really thinks the Court has no business creating "tolerable degrees of encroachment." What does he think the legal definition of "undue burden" is? Half the courts decisions throughout its history have involved deciding where rights end and where they begin, because only a fool argues that rights are absolute. Laws against inciting riot have stood up in court time and time again, because you do not have an absolute right to free speech.
3000
4000 
