vol_scouter

Gern, Rush was hoping that Bush would fail in the bailouts. If Obama steers a course away from socialism, then Rush and many others will applaud him and support his efforts. If he continues down a path set by Bush hurtling into socialism, then Rush and many of us will oppose the course. As the left correctly pointed out in regards to the current war, it is patriotic to dissent in a constructive manner. It is not patriotic to support our troops in a conflict but it is always OK to question whether we should be in the conflict to begin with. Obama will have his way for awhile at le

Gern, Or do as the left has done, scream, yell obscenties, protest, spit on the military, make up lies about the right and stand by them even in the face of evidence until it has been said so much that people believe the lie, destroy the careers of anyone opposed, etc. I think to calmly engage in discussions bringing alternative solutions are better for the country. I don't intend to leave but as long as we have free speech I will speak out against those policies that I see as bad. I hope others on both sides of the aisle will do the same.

The title of the document is dependent upon the individual state. What I described was the description of the process in Hawaii at the time. A birth certificate is a state issued document that is filled out in the hospital by the attending physician and witnessed. It is a legal document generated at the point of birth. Death certificates are the same. Someone not born with an attending physician would not have the same document. They are filled out by the physician who declared the patient dead on a state form. The state of Hawaii should have on file the original paper birth certificate

Merlyn, That is the point. The First Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from forcing the states to change their state sponsored religions from one denomination to another. Liberals like to point to Madison helping his home state of Virginia to disestablish the state supported Angelican church. He did so because the Baptists and Presbyterians were growing resulting in a desire for them to be treated better. What liberals do not like to acknowledge is that on the same day that Madison introduced the disestablishment bill in the Virginia legislature, he also intr

Before providing the following explanation, I wish to say that I do not feel that there is necessarily a issue here. A birth certificate is signed by the delivering physician and a witness (usually a nurse). The time and place (a hospital) is likewise recorded. Hawaii had only been a state for a couple of years when Obama was born. Many children were still born in homes at the time. Those births were not recorded as a true birth certificate. Those children could be issued a Certificate of Live Birth but would not have a true Birth Certificate. Thus, a mother with an infant could app

Rush points out that socialism has not worked in other countries. He also cites learned economists who have studied the great depression and have concluded that the New Deal served only to prolong the depression. So the conclusion is that massive government spending will in the long run only make the economy worse. Thus, Rush is wanting the country to do well but he believes that Obama's policies will only make things worse not better. Which is more patriotic. To support presidential policies that you believe will make things worse but you support them for the benefit of the president or

Merlyn, Like all liberals, you only wish to quote part of the first amendment to the constitution which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Thus, there should be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. We are not to be free from religion. The amendment was to prevent the federal government to force the states to adopt

Beavah, Two comments. First, I tend to agree that most conservatives do not agree with unfettered executive power. It is clearly wrong to fire someone whose job is to investigate crime in the executive branch. Similarly, if congress passes a law with which the President does not agree, then the President should not appoint persons who will not carry out the will of the congress because theoretically that is the will of the people. At the same time, the President should be able to demand some degree of loyalty and release those who do not support presidential policy. The extremes

manoj87, The implication from your post is that you have bad news after mammography. Hopefully, that is not the case. If the mammogram is suspicious, the biopsy may reveal a non-malignant process. Also, the treatments are improving both in life expectancy and side effects from the chemo-therapy. Try to have a positive outlook. Your mom's fate does not have to be your fate. I would encourage everyone to be screened for breast, prostate, and colon cancers as is appropriate to you. All can be cured early in the disease.

Merlyn, SSSCout is right. If the land is leased, the group leasing it have the access. Your last post does not address that. The correct analogy would be for the bus to be leased by a private group and for someone to be offended by that without ever asking to ride the bus. If the bus is leased for a private event, then the public has no right to access at that time. This is a clear case of discrimination - those who do not like the BSA membership criteria are discriminating based only upon that issue including the judiciary as noted by some of their opinion. To compare t

Merlyn, There is something in your post where we might agree though for slightly different reasons. I did not understand when I read the original articles on this subject why the city ever gave any organization control over part of a public park. Perhaps, when it was first done the property was considered far away, undesirable, or both. If the city wished to say that a public park should not have exclusive use for large periods of time by any organization, then I would absolutely support the decision (assuming a reasonable and equitable relocation plan in this case since they have

Merlyn, Then I assume that you and other atheists would never consider booking a public space because it could offend everyone who believes in a deity. As to the other groups discussed above, those who do not have enough money to contribute are left out. The point is being offended should not be sufficient to change public policies because someone is always offended by others actions. Sitting at the back of the bus is an analogy that makes no sense in this setting.

Merlyn, I copied and pasted the following: The Barnes-Wallaces and the Breens have standing to pursue their claims because uncontroverted evidence shows that they suffered injury-in-fact traceable to the Scout defendants conduct, and that a favorable decision is likely to redress their injuries. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61. The Barnes-Wallaces and the Breens submitted declarations asserting, without contradiction by the Scout defendants, that they would like to use Camp Balboa and the Aquatic Center, but that they avoid doing so because they are offended b

The dissenting judge is correct, that if this ruling stands, anyone offended can seek restitution in court. It is a disgrace. Sensibility and justice are rapidly leaving our political and judicial systems. Would someone walking down a San Francisco street with their young children be able to sue if offended by a homosexual pride parade? I doubt that they would have standing because they would not be on the politically correct side. Political correctness will destroy this country.

Eagle 1982, The defendant in this case may not have acted properly. The issue that is disconcerting is that the court parsed rescue and emergency medical care into two different things rather saying that both were the intent of the law. The court could have ruled that if the defendant followed appropriate rescue and first aid procedures she would be protected. Most states require that some accepted rescue and first aid guidelines be reasonably followed. That would have protected appropriate rescues but still allowed this suit to go forward with it being decided on whether proper g

Emergency Medical care usually refers to a reasonably equipped emergency room where a seriously injured or ill patient can be possibly stabilized prior to definitive treatment. It does not refer to a health lodge even if staffed by a physician (because the equipment and help does not exist to stabilize seriuously ill patients).

In Tennessee, if a physician fails to render care, they can be sued. However, they effectively have no Good Samaritan coverage because a professional can vary from Red Cross First Aid based upon their judgement. Then when EMS arrives, they cannot direct the care provided by the EMS who can only follow the orders of an ER physician who is always in an ER and not present on scene. Most physicians have coverage in the range of 1-5 million dollars. Any judgement in excess of that amount will be paid by the individual. Most physicians cannot afford the liability that an accident scene entails

The California Supreme Court has interpreted the state's Good Samaritan law in a narrow manner. A description may be found at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/12/18/state/n134850S58.DTL Essentially, a woman pulls her friend out of a car that the rescuer believes is going to explode. The victim suffered a C-spine injury resulting in paraplegia (though when the paraplegia occurred is contested). The court ruled that pulling the victim from a car about to explode is a rescue and not covered by the Good Samaritan Law which covers emergency medical care.

My state law recognizes "fighting words" that can incite the use of force toward someone else. I see the youth with whom we work and adults as different issues. As adults, we should have more understanding and restraint. We should realize when it is appropriate to curb our comments because of the level of agitation that someone else is displaying. We also should be better able to read someone's body language to sense when an attack is perhaps imminent and decrease or halt the rhetoric. Our youth are learning these skills. So if they misjudge or over react, we should devise an appropr

NJCub, I know of some numbers but I do not have a reference so I will not quote the number. Recruitment is a common practice. As I said before, for all but small age differences, adult child sexual relations cause significant suffering to the minor. Homosexual relations can result in severe problems in later life. We can not ban all adults. However, just as few would OK two adult males taking girls camping, we should not allow two homosexual males from taking boys camping. The protection actually goes both ways. The problem is that it is usually easy to determine the sex of an

Dan, People in the forties and fifties would have never dreamed that homosexuality would become first tolerated and now in some communities accepted. We make excuses for murderers where they used to hang in the town square. To deny that as a society we have become more tolerant to all sorts of crimes or former crimes is to put one's head in the sand. I am not arguing that acceptance of homosexuality good or bad. I am saying that the homosexuals provide a study on how to go from a crime to acceptance and others groups will try the same thing. NAMBLA is a good example of an organiz

NJCub, My point was that society determines what is legal and illegal. Homosexual relations were at one time considered immoral in the US and illegal in most if not all states. Due to efforts of the homosexual community, they have won acceptance in most states and new rights have been established in a very few states. The momentum makes it likely that this will spread to other states as well. This is due to society willing to accept their behavior and lifestyle. Pedophilia is actually well defined and it is the name applied to people who desire or have sexual relationship

NJCub writes: Yeah, I know. Imagine those uppity gays, demanding rights and stuff. You'd think they were human beings or something. So by using that argument, one could substitute for gays pedophiles who are working hard for acceptance. If you wish to bring out a genetic argument, then consider multiple chromosome Y syndrome that produces males that are aggressive often committing violent crimes. We should then excuse them because it is genetic. Whether any group of individuals who are a small minority (the CDC estimates that the actual number of long term homosexuals is less t

If on peruses the BSA Legal issues website and reads the Cradle of Liberty council's lawsuit, the issue seems to be that Philadelphia is not enforcing the law uniformly. Other discriminatory organizations have similar agreements. A government is obligated to uniformly enforce a law. That seems to tbe the crux of the issue. The BSA was singled out because of Dale.

Merlyn, I did not know about the ability for either party to end the relationship unilaterally with a year's notice. If there are no other requirements to complicate the issue, then Philadelphia can terminate the relationship and has done nothing wrong. Do you happen to have a link to the agreement? I usually do not agree with you on these subjects but it sounds like the Cradle of Liberty Council must accept the decision. Some of us may not like the decision but it is not right to only enforce certain parts of a contract.