R's Using the Law to Force "Religion" Down Peoples' Throats AGAIN

[strandinthewind]

September 19, 2008

Op-Ed Contributor

Blocking Care for Women

By HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and CECILE RICHARDS

LAST month, the Bush administration launched the latest salvo in its eight-year campaign to undermine women’s rights and women’s health by placing ideology ahead of science: a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would govern family planning. It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.

Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception.

Health and Human Services estimates that the rule, which would affect nearly 600,000 hospitals, clinics and other health care providers, would cost $44.5 million a year to administer. Astonishingly, the department does not even address the real cost to patients who might be refused access to these critical services. Women patients, who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to care.

The definition of abortion in the proposed rule is left open to interpretation. An earlier draft included a medically inaccurate definition that included commonly prescribed forms of contraception like birth control pills, IUD’s and emergency contraception. That language has been removed, but because the current version includes no definition at all, individual health care providers could decide on their own that birth control is the same as abortion.

The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified “other medical procedures” that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.

Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of “other medical procedures.” Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?

The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider’s conscience. But where are the protections for patients?

The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25. Everyone who believes that women should have full access to medical care should make their voices heard. Basic, quality care for millions of women is at stake.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Democratic senator from New York. Cecile Richards is the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/opinion/19clinton.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[strandinthewind]

This is another example of someone's personal religious beliefs being forced onto the general public. For those who think this is no big deal, just imagine if you went to the doctor and they refused you treatment of any kind based on their religious beliefs. Better yet, imagine if you took your kid and then the doctor refused and your kid died. Under this law, that is perfectly acceptable.

What is it going to take for people to see these wolves in not so subtle sheeps' clothing and that this is a very dangerous road to go down?

Is all this worth the fake promise of on average a few hundred dollars more a year that you really are never going to see?

Once again, I think religion is great if it works for the individual and it dos for me. I just cannot see how people advocate puting their own personal beliefs into law and then forcing people to adhere to them. That violates the very basis on which this country was founded.

[David]

I support this new law.

[ashton]

After David's thought-provoking and deep explanation of his support for the law, I thought I would provide another view. This law is bizarre in many fashions. One of the most often heard answers that opponent's of a minium wage hike provide is that if an employee does not like their job or their pay, they are free to quit it and find another one. In fact in all matters regarding employment or employee's rights, the underlying rationale is that the government should play no role as the employee is employed at the pleasure of the employer and is free to leave or be terminated for any issue that may arise. This is one of the central tenants to Employment-at-will on any level.

The Federal Government has long held that employees are not required to have equal pay, health care, guaranteed overtime or other often raised issues based on the philosophy that it is up to the employer to provide and that this is not a serfdom, in which the employee is required to stay at the job if they are unhappy. Again, if you don't like it, you are free to leave.

This law is a complete about face. Under this law, employees have more power than the employer, but only for such issues as the Federal Government deems appropriate. If an medical worker does not agree with something, the employee is required to continue to pay them, not allowed to reprimand the employee and is essentially stuck with an employee who will not perform their job simply based on their disagreement with an issue. Particularly alarming is that this is specific to the healthcare industry. Ignore hot button issues and this is a rather shocking take on things. If a person is dying and someone disagrees with reviving them, the bill allows for that. If a person needs emergency procedures for any reason and a worker objects, on any basis, this too would be acceptable. The employer is faced with accepting liability for employees whose sole excuse for not performing procedures is that they don't agree with the procedure. While you can interpret to be religious, it allows for far more than that.

This law would require employers to have no say in what their employees are supposed to do or any recourse if the employee refuses to do something. It is a complete reversal and I would imagine that most employers are not going to be thrilled. This is the government providing a means by which employees can refuse to do their job all based on their opinion and renders the employer helpless in having any say over the employee in such cases.

[vivfox]

The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified “other medical procedures” that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.

The rule wouldn't stop with women's issues. It would be against gays too. HIV patients and people with infectious diseases might suffer as well. The list could go on and on. How do we prevent this from happening?

[David]

After David's thought-provoking and deep explanation of his support for the law, I thought I would provide another view. This law is bizarre in many fashions. One of the most often heard answers that opponent's of a minium wage hike provide is that if an employee does not like their job or their pay, they are free to quit it and find another one. In fact in all matters regarding employment or employee's rights, the underlying rationale is that the government should play no role as the employee is employed at the pleasure of the employer and is free to leave or be terminated for any issue that may arise. This is one of the central tenants to Employment-at-will on any level.

The Federal Government has long held that employees are not required to have equal pay, health care, guaranteed overtime or other often raised issues based on the philosophy that it is up to the employer to provide and that this is not a serfdom, in which the employee is required to stay at the job if they are unhappy. Again, if you don't like it, you are free to leave.

This law is a complete about face. Under this law, employees have more power than the employer, but only for such issues as the Federal Government deems appropriate. If an medical worker does not agree with something, the employee is required to continue to pay them, not allowed to reprimand the employee and is essentially stuck with an employee who will not perform their job simply based on their disagreement with an issue. Particularly alarming is that this is specific to the healthcare industry. Ignore hot button issues and this is a rather shocking take on things. If a person is dying and someone disagrees with reviving them, the bill allows for that. If a person needs emergency procedures for any reason and a worker objects, on any basis, this too would be acceptable. The employer is faced with accepting liability for employees whose sole excuse for not performing procedures is that they don't agree with the procedure. While you can interpret to be religious, it allows for far more than that.

This law would require employers to have no say in what their employees are supposed to do or any recourse if the employee refuses to do something. It is a complete reversal and I would imagine that most employers are not going to be thrilled. This is the government providing a means by which employees can refuse to do their job all based on their opinion and renders the employer helpless in having any say over the employee in such cases. I agree with this post.

[ashton]

The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified “other medical procedures” that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.

The rule wouldn't stop with women's issues. It would be against gays too. HIV patients and people with infectious diseases might suffer as well. The list could go on and on. How do we prevent this from happening?

Something tells me it won't make it. Imagine the CEOs of hospitals who now have to worry about an employee not treating someone based on a moral issue. That can really be just about anything and certainly doesn't limit the hospital's liability. I am sure that most of the Medical lobbyists will be all over this thing just on the basis of liability alone.

Imagine if someone at a hospital fails to treat a heart attack victim because they are morally opposed to gays. The man dies because of the delay or lack of treatment. His wife then sues the hospital for negligence and malpractice. The moral opposition is rather hard to pin down during an emergency as it would allow people act on assumptions. You really couldn't tell if someone on a gurney hooked up to monitors was gay or straight. That moral objection could cost the hospital millions. The only person protected is the employee, even if they are wrong about the issue that they claimed to be morally against.

I am sure that hospitals understand this quite well. You could be morally opposed to anything. Ironically, if you ever saw cases in which parents claimed to be morally opposed to medical treatment of any kind for their child, it is rather common that one or both of those parents work in health care.

[ajmccarrell]

Wow! This is an easy one! GO TO ANOTHER DOCTOR!!!! You are not forced to go to any one doctor and you are free to walk down the road to a different one if one refuses treatment. This isn't Canada, this isn't western Europe either. You are not "assigned" doctors here. Rather this is a clear cut case of doctors being forced into taking political positions or being forced by libs into doing things against their wills. Doctors, like anyone else, should be allowed the freedom to choose what kind of medicine they will practice. It is YOU, not the Republican party, that are using the government into forcing people to do anything. This just disgusts me how you could object to doctors having basic rights. :(:distress: As far as the issue of not treating gays, we already have laws on the books to treat emergency care patients regardless of status, we don't need more laws. There isn't even a case of this happening that you can point to, so your concern in that case is unfounded.

Besides, there is a LIE circulating that Palin is against contraception. She is actually for it. She just doesn't want the government to pay for it. I disagree there. Paying for contraception now prevents 18 years of welfare being paid out.

[rubytuesday]

This isn't Canada, this isn't western Europe either. You are not "assigned" doctors here. ?????? People aren't assigned doctors in europe. Some peoples understanding of public health is hilarious.

[ashton]

Wow! This is an easy one! GO TO ANOTHER DOCTOR!!!! You are not forced to go to any one doctor and you are free to walk down the road to a different one if one refuses treatment. This isn't Canada, this isn't western Europe either. You are not "assigned" doctors here. Rather this is a clear cut case of doctors being forced into taking political positions or being forced by libs into doing things against their wills. Doctors, like anyone else, should be allowed the freedom to choose what kind of medicine they will practice. It is YOU, not the Republican party, that are using the government into forcing people to do anything. This just disgusts me how you could object to doctors having basic rights. :(:distress: As far as the issue of not treating gays, we already have laws on the books to treat emergency care patients regardless of status, we don't need more laws. There isn't even a case of this happening that you can point to, so your concern in that case is unfounded.

Besides, there is a LIE circulating that Palin is against contraception. She is actually for it. She just doesn't want the government to pay for it. I disagree there. Paying for contraception now prevents 18 years of welfare being paid out.

I would say that your explanation is more simple than easy.

If you are taken to an ER with injuries, you are certainly free to hobble, hitchhike or roll your gurney to another hospital. This is Amerca, afterall.

As to where in the world one is assigned a doctor, I can only imagine. Perhaps I should read a book about China or rent Mulan.

[BombaySapphire3]

Again?!At what point in recent history did they ever stop?

[strandinthewind]

Again?!At what point in recent history did they ever stop?

Well, it seemingly is worse with the nomination of Palin. Again, I do not think Cheney and W actually believed all the religious BS. I think they were, instead, using the far religious right as a means to their ends. Plain, however, is a nutcase.

And, what gets me is seemingly moderate people can't see this for what it is. Instead, they say things like "well, what's wrong with a little religion," etc.

[BombaySapphire3]

Well, it seemingly is worse with the nomination of Palin. Again, I do not think Cheney and W actually believed all the religious BS. I think they were, instead, using the far religious right as a means to their ends. Plain, however, is a nutcase.

And, what gets me is seemingly moderate people can't see this for what it is. Instead, they say things like "well, what's wrong with a little religion," etc.

I agree and have said as much..As creepy as he is in other ways I particularly don't see Cheney as hyper -religious they used the fundies for their own political gain..Palin is a true believer ,an evangelical cultist that would make one of her own daughters carry the baby if she were raped or knocked up by Track Palin.I have talked to self described" social liberals" out here that are planning to vote McCain/Palin for "fiscal " reasons..When I attempted to explain how crazy she is they did not diagree but shrugged it off..I just don't get it.:shrug:

[ajmccarrell]

?????? People aren't assigned doctors in europe. Some peoples understanding of public health is hilarious.

They are in Canada and in some places, they actually are assigned in Europe. :laugh:

[ajmccarrell]

I would say that your explanation is more simple than easy.

If you are taken to an ER with injuries, you are certainly free to hobble, hitchhike or roll your gurney to another hospital. This is Amerca, afterall.

As to where in the world one is assigned a doctor, I can only imagine. Perhaps I should read a book about China or rent Mulan.


You apparently didn't read all of my post. I did say that we already had laws protecting emergency cases in ER's. Also, despite your worries, there has NEVER been a recorded case of an ER doc not treating someone because they're gay or anything like that. There are already laws against that kind of crap. I already asked you to cite an instance where it happened and all you could do is make a personal taunt about Mulan. Again with the personal attacks and no effort in finding a case where something like you mentioned ever happened. LOL! Too predictable anymore. :lol:

[ajmccarrell]

I agree and have said as much..As creepy as he is in other ways I particularly don't see Cheney as hyper -religious they used the fundies for their own political gain..Palin is a true believer ,an evangelical cultist that would make one of her own daughters carry the baby if she were raped or knocked up by Track Palin.I have talked to self described" social liberals" out here that are planning to vote McCain/Palin for "fiscal " reasons..When I attempted to explain how crazy she is they did not diagree but shrugged it off..I just don't get it.:shrug:

Probably because you come off as a foaming at the mouth hysteric at times. I don't mean any offense by that. No offense meant here either, but your communication style often is perceived as hostile and just short of violent; I picture you in a real life as one of those people with lots of liberal bumper stickers, with a perpetual scowl that cuts people off in traffic. I generally just shrug off any point you make also, as most of it comes from really fringy places and makes a good soundbyte but doesn't really stand up to further analysis. The places you repeat things from are the left wing equivalent of Alex Jones. If you'd tone it down and stop the personal attacks, I might listen to you. Crazy far right religious nuts like my mother get the same response, as both parties have fringies. You just happen to be a left-wing one. No offense or insult meant, but it would be a stretch to call you a moderate. :D Try a different approach and you might actually get me to listen too! :)

[BombaySapphire3]

Probably because you come off as a foaming at the mouth hysteric at times. I don't mean any offense by that. No offense meant here either, but your communication style often is perceived as hostile and just short of violent; I picture you in a real life as one of those people with lots of liberal bumper stickers, with a perpetual scowl that cuts people off in traffic. I generally just shrug off any point you make also, as most of it comes from really fringy places and makes a good soundbyte but doesn't really stand up to further analysis. The places you repeat things from are the left wing equivalent of Alex Jones. If you'd tone it down and stop the personal attacks, I might listen to you. Crazy far right religious nuts like my mother get the same response, as both parties have fringies. You just happen to be a left-wing one. No offense or insult meant, but it would be a stretch to call you a moderate. :D Try a different approach and you might actually get me to listen too! :)

Nah more of a laid back surfer type in real life here albeit a bit intimidating looking probably because I'm tall, have a shaved head and tats.I'd say you're handily as fringy as I am only at the other end of the spectrum ..I think being in the cult has really affected you adversely and as I have suggested you should look into some deprogramming and why bother couching obviously offensive remarks by stating 'no offense ..very lame..:laugh:As far as me seeming to come off as hostile and almost violent in my communication style who is the one that was temporarily banned for a vile and twisted homophoic rant? pot. kettle .black.

[ajmccarrell]

Nah more of a laid back surfer type in real life here albeit a bit intimidating looking probably because I'm tall, have a shaved head and tats.I'd say you're handily as fringy as I am only at the other end of the spectrum ..I think being in the cult has really affected you adversely and as I have suggested you should look into some deprogramming and why bother couching obviously offensive remarks by stating 'no offense ..very lame..:laugh:As far as me seeming to come off as hostile and almost violent in my communication style who is the one that was temporarily banned for a vile and twisted homophoic rant? pot. kettle .black.

Okay fine. I thought you were banned before too? I was saying "no offense" because I didn't want to get banned again, LOL! I knew full well what I was saying was going to be taken as offensive, I just couldn't think of any other way to say it, so I thought I should put a caveat out there. :) I did look at deprogramming, and did a full program, however I'm still a conservative. I am just not a conservative because I think "God demands it", I don't think that the antichrist is a democrat LOL, and I'm not hiding in a bunker waiting for raids by federal agents. I'm a conservative because that's the philosophy that I think would work the best and give everyone the most amount of rights and the largest share of the fruits of their own labor.

I think you misunderstood my rant. It wasn't to be offensive as much as it was to make accusations that weren't disprovable online. Many accusations at the time, such as making up relatives (that really do exist BTW) were not possible to prove or disprove online despite calls to do so. So, I made a series of accusations that I thought would upset the other person and make them stand in my shoes for a bit. I actually do have very good friends that are gay. I'm not homophobic at all.

[BombaySapphire3]

Okay fine. I thought you were banned before too? I was saying "no offense" because I didn't want to get banned again, LOL! I knew full well what I was saying was going to be taken as offensive, I just couldn't think of any other way to say it, so I thought I should put a caveat out there. :) I did look at deprogramming, and did a full program, however I'm still a conservative. I am just not a conservative because I think "God demands it", I don't think that the antichrist is a democrat LOL, and I'm not hiding in a bunker waiting for raids by federal agents. I'm a conservative because that's the philosophy that I think would work the best and give everyone the most amount of rights and the largest share of the fruits of their own labor.

I think you misunderstood my rant. It wasn't to be offensive as much as it was to make accusations that weren't disprovable online. Many accusations at the time, such as making up relatives (that really do exist BTW) were not possible to prove or disprove online despite calls to do so. So, I made a series of accusations that I thought would upset the other person and make them stand in my shoes for a bit. I actually do have very good friends that are gay. I'm not homophobic at all.
Nope I havn't been banned yet although some really cool people have been .Good for you for looking into the deprogramming ..I would say the only thing I have ranted kind of aggressively about since you have been around here is Palin..I'll admit the thought of having her in the White House brings up some serious emotion for me .It is just so wrong in so many ways.

[ajmccarrell]

Nope I havn't been banned yet although some really cool people have been .Good for you for looking into the deprogramming ..I would say the only thing I have ranted kind of aggressively about since you have been around here is Palin..I'll admit the thought of having her in the White House brings up some serious emotion for me .It is just so wrong in so many ways.

Okay, let's strike a peace then. I will be nothing but respectful to you for the same in return. Cool? I won't post any more sarcastic smileys at you either. :laugh: This one is real. :)

[BombaySapphire3]

Okay, let's strike a peace then. I will be nothing but respectful to you for the same in return. Cool? I won't post any more sarcastic smileys at you either. :laugh: This one is real. :)

Cool no problem although a little sarcasm or verbal sparring does not bother me .Really at no time in any of our interactions have I been upset with you .Consider the profession I work in. It takes a hell of a lot to tip me.:laugh:

[ajmccarrell]

Cool no problem although a little sarcasm or verbal sparring does not bother me .Really at no time in any of our interactions have I been upset with you .Consider the profession I work in. It takes a hell of a lot to tip me.:laugh:

My mom's dad used to work at Camarillo. He had a schizophrenic patient who was convinced that the government was after him and he used to walk the grounds picking up garbage, claiming it was "evidence" and he would give the bags of it to my grandfather. So, in typical Carl McCarrell humor, he started leaving notes for the guy with messages that he was being watched. He said the guy took a few days in isolation to calm down. :laugh: Since you're also a mental health worker, I thought you might appreciate the humor there.

[estranged4life]

Nope I havn't been banned yet although some really cool people have been .

and some very intellects at that. Some also just grew bored with the constant agreements/disagreements and decided to leave (ie Dissention - Truly one of the cool ones). I wished MIA Ledgies would drop in every once in awhile though...Some are sorely missed.

[BombaySapphire3]

My mom's dad used to work at Camarillo. He had a schizophrenic patient who was convinced that the government was after him and he used to walk the grounds picking up garbage, claiming it was "evidence" and he would give the bags of it to my grandfather. So, in typical Carl McCarrell humor, he started leaving notes for the guy with messages that he was being watched. He said the guy took a few days in isolation to calm down. :laugh: Since you're also a mental health worker, I thought you might appreciate the humor there.

Yeah I know some older guys most of them retired who would do things like that ..I currently work forensic psych which is the "criminally insane " so probably not such a good idea for that population.

[ajmccarrell]

Yeah I know some older guys most of them retired who would do things like that ..I currently work forensic psych which is the "criminally insane " so probably not such a good idea for that population.

Oh fun! I can't imagine what dealing with those people would be like. Do you have trouble sleeping after work?

I took some electives in deviant psychology and social psychology. I thought it might help out, since I was planning on taking the Certified Fraud Examiner's test at the time. It was fairly interesting. I love that whole field and love TV shows that involve it, like SVU especially. I did my final essay on Charlie Sheen. I figured why just study one form of deviancy when I can study a guy who has all of them?! :laugh: That's about the extent of anything I know on the subject. I'd imagine you might have a very rotten view of humanity.

[BombaySapphire3]

and some very intellects at that. Some also just grew bored with the constant agreements/disagreements and decided to leave (ie Dissention - Truly one of the cool ones). I wished MIA Ledgies would drop in every once in awhile though...Some are sorely missed.

Oh yeah diss really kept things rocking around here ..those times were The Golden Age of the Ledge IMHO.

[BombaySapphire3]

Oh fun! I can't imagine what dealing with those people would be like. Do you have trouble sleeping after work?



Nah I have the wonderful ability to stop thinking about it the minute I walk through the third locked gate out of the facility.

[estranged4life]

Oh yeah diss really kept things rocking around here ..those times were The Golden Age of the Ledge IMHO.

Diss had the same opinion as myself of the 'infamous' Stevie Nicks "master reel" seller and his online (Predatorial at that) practice of charging too much for a compact disc that may contain only up to 20 minutes of material.

That, and our opinions of another former member who would brag how they 'contributed so much to the SN/FM trade community' while at the same time SELLING compact discs that were FREELY traded to this person.

[ajmccarrell]

Diss had the same opinion as myself of the 'infamous' Stevie Nicks "master reel" seller and his online (Predatorial at that) practice of charging too much for a compact disc that may contain only up to 20 minutes of material.

That, and our opinions of another former member who would brag how they 'contributed so much to the SN/FM trade community' while at the same time SELLING compact discs that were FREELY traded to this person.

Makes me wonder what I could have gotten for the BN live tracks! :D I hadn't even thought of selling them.

[estranged4life]

Makes me wonder what I could have gotten for the BN live tracks! :D I hadn't even thought of selling them.

BN tracks you had, there's ton of those tracks floating around, some in a great quality and some that sound like garbage. I laughed when I saw my master disc of the following listed on eBay awhile back (A good way to make enemies is to sale stuff that one traded FREELY for in the FM/SN trading circles) :


Buckingham/Nicks-The Raw Demos

1. Without You (Vocals & Bass)
2. Candlebright (Vocals & Guitar)
3. That's Alright (Acapella w/Bass guitar)
4. Garbo (Vocals & Bass)
5. Cathouse Blues (Vocals & Bass guitar)
6. Sorcerer (Vocals, Bass & Banjo)
7. After the Glitter Fades (Vocals, Drums, Bass & Slide Guitar)
8. Kind of Woman (Percussion mix)
9. Without You (Vocals & Acoustic guitar)
10. Candlebright (Vocals & Guitar)
11. Garbo (Vocals & Acoustic guitar)
12. Cathouse Blues (Vocals & Acoustic guitar)
13. After the Glitter Fades (Vocals, Drums, Bass & Slide Guitar)
14. Kind of Woman
15. Sleeping Angel

If I was interested in making $$$$ I could sell my Beatles collection (Over 800 compact discs) but I'm not about $$$$ or profits.

[ajmccarrell]

Lotta Beatles!!!! I didn't know they had so much catalog.

I couldn't really appreciate their sound much for some reason. I know it resonated with a lot of people, I just didn't care for it. I'm an uncultured swine, I know.

[estranged4life]

Try looking at the website bootlegzone.com to see how many Beatle bootlegs and releases there are currently in circulation - Makes Fleetwood Mac related material look amateurish (The Beatle vinyl sourced releases by Dr.Ebbett's were of such a great quality that Apple/EMI decided to remaster their earlier recording to compete with the fan produced bootlegs which were of a better quality than the officially released compact discs.)

As for massive catalog, there is one set of Beatle Bootlegs itself which consists of 76 cd's (basically a majority of the "Let it Be" session work) - "The Beatles - Day By Day Series Vol.1-38" (2 Discs per volume)

[ajmccarrell]

All I can say is WOW!!!

[rubytuesday]

They are in Canada and in some places, they actually are assigned in Europe. :laugh:well I'm from europe and have never been assigned a gp. I don't know what your laughing at.

[strandinthewind]

well I'm from europe and have never been assigned a gp. I don't know what your laughing at.

It happens freely, without provocation, and usually with drool :cool:

[estranged4life]

one is a "Native American" (Such as I - though I prefer the Non-PC term "Indian") and has the need to seek medical treatment through "IHS" (Indian Health Services, aka "Incompetence at its best" - Trust me, I suffered TWICE from their mistakes) you are assigned a doctor, you do not get to request or choose a MD.

[trackaghost]

well I'm from europe and have never been assigned a gp. I don't know what your laughing at.

Neither have I but, you know, AJ also lectured me about the newspapers in my country so I guess he knows better than us.

[David]

Neither have I but, you know, AJ also lectured me about the newspapers in my country so I guess he knows better than us.Sarah Palin is the next QUEEN OF THE UNIVERSE, Sharon!!! Here she is being interviewed. SHUN THE NONBELIEVER!!!!!!!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pxv4uUQ5Smw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pxv4uUQ5Smw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[ajmccarrell]

Sarah Palin is the next QUEEN OF THE UNIVERSE, Sharon!!! Here she is being interviewed. SHUN THE NONBELIEVER!!!!!!!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pxv4uUQ5Smw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pxv4uUQ5Smw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I could only love her more! :)

My point was less that doctors are assigned, as this point is only relavent to the effect that people are not assigned doctors here, but more that we are free to choose our own doctors. If you think you might need contraception or an abortion, I would hope you would have interviewed your doctor or had these kinds of conversations long before you wind up on his door with an emergency. I mean, at some point people have to take responsibility for their own health care, which means having a GP that you go to that you feel comfortable with. Make sure your doctor has similar views to your own and there shouldn't be a problem, as we already have laws protecting people in emergencies. If you want contraception and your doctor says no, get a different doctor or go to planned parenthood as most of them will give you free contraception. They have saved me on many successful dates! LOL!

Basically, the liklihood that you will ever be turned away by your GP for needing an emergency abortion is nill if you checked out your doctor ahead of time. Vice versa, if you hate abortion, go to a pro-life doctor. The doctor should be free to choose what sort of medicine they practice. We shouldn't force them to do something they may or may not consider a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

[ajmccarrell]

Neither have I but, you know, AJ also lectured me about the newspapers in my country so I guess he knows better than us.

Well, Pravda has reported that The Washington Post was a "state run" newspaper, despite the fact that we don't have any state run newspapers in this country. This is especially ridiculous considering that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein worked under Ben Bradlee for The Washington Post to take down the Nixon Administration. Last I checked, state run newspapers didn't take down the President. I mean, do you think we should take newspapers that report that kind of crap seriously! :lol:

Besides, a survey was taken last year of Europeans who roundly believed that Sherlock Holmes was real and that Winston Churchill was a myth. I'm sorry, but considering the results, I can't take much of Europe seriously. I mean, come on now, Biggles was real?! :) Naw, I'll stick to reality rather than social constructs, thank you.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/winston_churchill_a_myth_sherlock_holmes_real/

[rubytuesday]

Besides, a survey was taken last year of Europeans who roundly believed that Sherlock Holmes was real and that Winston Churchill was a myth. I'm sorry, but considering the results, I can't take much of Europe seriously.

Trust me you don't want to compare average general knowledge between europeans and americans. you'd be in for a major embarassment.

But apparently I've been given no choice and assigned doctors without my knowledge. I don't recall it happening but if you say its so then I guess it was a conspiracy against me and the rest of the population.

[strandinthewind]

Trust me you don't want to compare average general knowledge between europeans and americans. you'd be in for a major embarassment.

But apparently I've been given no choice and assigned doctors without my knowledge. I don't recall it happening but if you say its so then I guess it was a conspiracy against me and the rest of the population.

He does not really care about what you said because he has not refuted it with anything having to do with it. Rather, he insults you by asserting that some article says some alleged survey says that Britons in general were mistaken about literary figures, etc. Therefore, you must also be an idiot and anything you say about your own personal healthcare choice is incorrect because of the results of this survey, which have nothing to do with you.

[mylittledemon]

This is another example of someone's personal religious beliefs being forced onto the general public. For those who think this is no big deal, just imagine if you went to the doctor and they refused you treatment of any kind based on their religious beliefs. Better yet, imagine if you took your kid and then the doctor refused and your kid died. Under this law, that is perfectly acceptable.

What is it going to take for people to see these wolves in not so subtle sheeps' clothing and that this is a very dangerous road to go down?

Is all this worth the fake promise of on average a few hundred dollars more a year that you really are never going to see?

Once again, I think religion is great if it works for the individual and it dos for me. I just cannot see how people advocate puting their own personal beliefs into law and then forcing people to adhere to them. That violates the very basis on which this country was founded.

I don't see it that way. Just as if a woman should have the right to choose said options; then those medical professionals now have the right to choose whether or not to perform those procedures. And if you can't get it done by one person (an abortion for example), then go somewhere else. Nothing wrong with that.

Not that I work in the medical field, but I also maintain a certain right to choose within my line of work. If a "customer" gets out of line, curses, or is abusive in any way it's my decision on whether or not to walk away from that situation. I get to use my own better judgement. This seems like the same thing in my book.

[strandinthewind]

What amazes me most about this new rule is that it will case an estimated $44.5 million a year to administer when there already are laws on the books to enforce the laws that allow a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion. I personally do not think doctors should be forced to perform abortions. But, this law is far broader than that one issue.

[strandinthewind]

I don't see it that way. Just as if a woman should have the right to choose said options; then those medical professionals now have the right to choose whether or not to perform those procedures. And if you can't get it done by one person (an abortion for example), then go somewhere else. Nothing wrong with that.

Not that I work in the medical field, I maintain a certain right to choose within my line of work. If a "customer" gets out of line, curses, or is abusive in anyway it's my decision on whether or not to walk away from that situation. I get to use my own better judgement. This seems like the same thing in my book.

I agree a doctor should not be compelled to perform an abortion ande there are many laws already stating that. So why is there a need for this new rule. Well, giving the option re abortions was not enough for the far religious right. They want their control go way beyond that. Moreover, imagine for a moment if you lived in a small town in a mostly rural state and were poor. You go to the doctor to get some procedure done (again, the new rule is limitless) and the one doctor in the town says no based on a moral objection and so do the doctors in the closest towns. The only way to get the medical attention you want is to go out of state and at a cost you cannot afford. What do you do then?

Again, this is not a small issue limited to abortion.

Finally, let's say you live in a state full of wiccans. Would you want their religious tenets controlling your medical care? Of course you wouldn't.

In the end, this is just another tactic by the far religious right to infiltrate and then dominate American life all while taking away autonomy.

[strandinthewind]

. . . If a "customer" gets out of line, curses, or is abusive in any way it's my decision on whether or not to walk away from that situation. I get to use my own better judgement. This seems like the same thing in my book.

For starters, no one is going to die without your advice (as a rule that is ;) )

[Musicman408]

It frustrates me when people are like this....forcing religion on people.....:distress:

[David]

Moreover, imagine for a moment if you lived in a small town in a mostly rural state and were poor. You go to the doctor to get some procedure done (again, the new rule is limitless) and the one doctor in the town says no based on a moral objection and so do the doctors in the closest towns. The only way to get the medical attention you want is to go out of state and at a cost you cannot afford. What do you do then?Start the car!

[mylittledemon]

For starters, no one is going to die without your advice (as a rule that is ;) )

Well, like I said "not that I work in the medical field"...haha...and yes, people won't die. Although they ACT like they might. People act like their flat panel TVs are the be-all, end-all. On a daily basis I come across the most spoiled, thankless, rude people you can possibly imagine.

[strandinthewind]

Well, like I said "not that I work in the medical field"...haha...and yes, people won't die. Although they ACT like they might. People act like their flat panel TVs are the be-all, end-all. On a daily basis I come across the most spoiled, thankless, rude people you can possibly imagine.


I know - - I cannot imagine working in customer service. Personally, I think you should all be called a supervisor as that certainly would steal the thunder of the people you mentioned :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Start the car!

I my scenario, there is no car, though a bicycle could be a possibility.

[ajmccarrell]

I my scenario, there is no car, though a bicycle could be a possibility.

In that case, the person chose not to have a car. Cars are not expensive and not hard to come by, neither is public transportation.

Although, you'd have to say that your fictitious person wouldn't have any friends with cars either, as well as no social workers in the area and no one else in the entire area that believes in abortion and no one with any sympathy at all. Oh yeah, this person must have no thumbs to hitchhike with, no family and no telephone. So, I guess this person must be a real loner with no social skills, no money at all, no means of transportation and no public transit system, in which case I would wonder how this person got pregnant in the first place. :shrug: We must be talking about Ted Kaczynski then.

[ajmccarrell]

He does not really care about what you said because he has not refuted it with anything having to do with it. Rather, he insults you by asserting that some article says some alleged survey says that Britons in general were mistaken about literary figures, etc. Therefore, you must also be an idiot and anything you say about your own personal healthcare choice is incorrect because of the results of this survey, which have nothing to do with you.

I gues you must be confused too. Churchill was not a "literary figure". Also, I cited the survey. I also cited an example of Pravda misreporting things. But, to agree with him, I think the general education of level of BOTH Europeans and Americans is deplorable. This "Chit Chat" section, as well as your post, is a great melting pot of just that. Ypou've demonstrated the Western Cultural phenomenon known as selective reading, where you read one sentence of my post and disregarded where I cited an actual example.

Again, i cited something and you made the post aboue me instead of about what I said. Too predictable.

[ajmccarrell]

I agree a doctor should not be compelled to perform an abortion ande there are many laws already stating that. So why is there a need for this new rule. Well, giving the option re abortions was not enough for the far religious right. They want their control go way beyond that. Moreover, imagine for a moment if you lived in a small town in a mostly rural state and were poor. You go to the doctor to get some procedure done (again, the new rule is limitless) and the one doctor in the town says no based on a moral objection and so do the doctors in the closest towns. The only way to get the medical attention you want is to go out of state and at a cost you cannot afford. What do you do then?

Again, this is not a small issue limited to abortion.

Finally, let's say you live in a state full of wiccans. Would you want their religious tenets controlling your medical care? Of course you wouldn't.

In the end, this is just another tactic by the far religious right to infiltrate and then dominate American life all while taking away autonomy.


One of the reasons for this law was a therapist who was sued because she said she didn't have appropriate expertise to deal with gay relationships and referred her gay patient elsewhere. Apparently, a guy came into a therapists office and asked for help with his gay relationship. She didn't know how to deal with the dynamics and referred him elsewhere. He ended up suing her and her church membership became an issue. THAT is a case of someone assuming a religious objection, when none may have existed at all. My understanding was that she was Methodist, which allows gays for membership.

No doubt, you'll say I'm not addressing the issue, despite giving an example directly on point as to why the rule may be necessary, and you will make your response all about me. Heck, I've been able to post this prediction and have it come true.

[David]

Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of “other medical procedures.” Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription? I answer Yes to all these -- as long as the service or procedure has not yet been paid for. Once the patient pays, it's a contract & it's binding.

I support prayer in schools. Kids are supposed to learn how to read, write, & cipher. That's pie-in-the-sky for millions nowadays. So if I were in school for twelve years & still hadn't learned how to read & write, I'd pray, too.

[ajmccarrell]

I answer Yes to all these -- as long as the service or procedure has not yet been paid for. Once the patient pays, it's a contract & it's binding.

I support prayer in schools. Kids are supposed to learn how to read, write, & cipher. That's pie-in-the-sky for millions nowadays. So if I were in school for twelve years & still hadn't learned how to read & write, I'd pray, too.

I'd add something else here too. INTERVIEW YOUR DOCTOR BEFORE YOU PICK ONE?! What the hell happened to personal responsibility! :shrug:

[estranged4life]

I'd add something else here too. INTERVIEW YOUR DOCTOR BEFORE YOU PICK ONE?! What the hell happened to personal responsibility! :shrug:

I decided to (Easily) seek a "second opinion" when my ASSIGNED (By IHS) doctor (or Quacks as I refer to their host of "doctors") looked at my MRI results (Which confirmed the tumor in my head) and told me "Nothing to worry about, I wont need to see you again for this".

The physician I saw the next day was shocked when I told him HOW the IHS ASSIGNED "doctor" told me not to worry, his response was "you SHOULD be concerned". I was, which was why I IMMEDIATELY saught a second opinion on the matter.

How can a person be told NOT to worry when they have a growth in their head is beyond me. But not surprising either, Unless you are ASSIGNED a quality physician through IHS (A quality physician available through the IHS are ALWAYS medical staff of the US Armed Forces who are serving their country by treating civilians as well as soldiers - IHS Lawton used the US Marine Corp., Unfortunately I was assigned a non-military "quack") you are literally and figuratively F**KED!

[trackaghost]

Well, Pravda has reported that The Washington Post was a "state run" newspaper, despite the fact that we don't have any state run newspapers in this country. This is especially ridiculous considering that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein worked under Ben Bradlee for The Washington Post to take down the Nixon Administration. Last I checked, state run newspapers didn't take down the President. I mean, do you think we should take newspapers that report that kind of crap seriously! :lol: ]

Wow. I called you xenophobic before but I guess you really are. One mistake in a Russian newspaper. Big deal.


Besides, a survey was taken last year of Europeans who roundly believed that Sherlock Holmes was real and that Winston Churchill was a myth. I'm sorry, but considering the results, I can't take much of Europe seriously. I mean, come on now, Biggles was real?! :) Naw, I'll stick to reality rather than social constructs, thank you.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/winston_churchill_a_myth_sherlock_holmes_real/

What's that got to do with anything? Some crappy survey that shows a few Europeans in a poor light means that I don't know anything about my own country and you who live in America knows better than me? Wow, could you be any more patronising? That's not the first time you've mentioned that survey, so obviously you've got this view of Europeans being stupid that you love to keep touting with this "evidence". You get yourself in a little hissy fit if anyone calls you stupid but then bring out this crap.

Btw, what that link fails to mention is that it was a survey by a TV channel in the UK only where only 3,000 people were surveyed, so not exactly a large number of Europeans (out of around 700 million who live in Europe). You obviously want to believe that people in Europe are stupid.

Trust me you don't want to compare average general knowledge between europeans and americans. you'd be in for a major embarassment.


Amen to that.

He does not really care about what you said because he has not refuted it with anything having to do with it. Rather, he insults you by asserting that some article says some alleged survey says that Britons in general were mistaken about literary figures, etc. Therefore, you must also be an idiot and anything you say about your own personal healthcare choice is incorrect because of the results of this survey, which have nothing to do with you.

I know. For someone who hates being called an idiot he sure loves to call other people stupid. Besides that poll is throwaway at best. It was done by UKGold who wanted to get some press for their channel. A news release stating "Britons know Sherlock Holmes wasn't real" wouldn't exactly get much attention in the press.

[ajmccarrell]

Wow. I called you xenophobic before but I guess you really are. One mistake in a Russian newspaper. Big deal.



What's that got to do with anything? Some crappy survey that shows a few Europeans in a poor light means that I don't know anything about my own country and you who live in America knows better than me? Wow, could you be any more patronising? That's not the first time you've mentioned that survey, so obviously you've got this view of Europeans being stupid that you love to keep touting with this "evidence". You get yourself in a little hissy fit if anyone calls you stupid but then bring out this crap.

Btw, what that link fails to mention is that it was a survey by a TV channel in the UK only where only 3,000 people were surveyed, so not exactly a large number of Europeans (out of around 700 million who live in Europe). You obviously want to believe that people in Europe are stupid.



Amen to that.



I know. For someone who hates being called an idiot he sure loves to call other people stupid. Besides that poll is throwaway at best. It was done by UKGold who wanted to get some press for their channel. A news release stating "Britons know Sherlock Holmes wasn't real" wouldn't exactly get much attention in the press.

Again, you post was mostly personal attacks. Maybe cite something that says that Europeans do well on math tests or something to support your position?

The Pravda quote was not just one occasion, but was illustrative of something that they routinely do. It was the one occasion that I could think of off the top of my head that was plainly a lie that REALLY stuck with me as truly ridiculous. I mean, who doesn't know that Putin controls the press in Russia anymore? It is nothing more than government spin. They have no compunction about reporting lies. I used to read the dispatches sent by a guy in another group from the foreign press, but they reports usually bore no resemblance to what was actually going on here. They were full of anti-American bias and slant, yet, you call me xenophobic?! Europeans tend to be the most hostile to Americans, snobbish, and condescending people. Try going somewhere in Paris as an American without running into someone being rude because you are American. Me xenophobic? Whatever?! :laugh:

[Zombie]

They were full of anti-American bias and slant, yet, you call me xenophobic?! Europeans tend to be the most hostile to Americans, snobbish, and condescending people. Try going somewhere in Paris as an American without running into someone being rude because you are American. Me xenophobic? Whatever?! :laugh:

Allow me to paraphrase - "Oh yeah? Well, <i> tu quoque</i>!"

I think that's much easier. Saves time typing. ;)

[ajmccarrell]

Allow me to paraphrase - "Oh yeah? Well, <i> tu quoque</i>!"

I think that's much easier. Saves time typing. ;)

Actually, just writing "you too" would be easier than saying "tu quoque". Yet, still no one has addressed the principal argument! :laugh:

[Zombie]

Actually, just writing "you too" would be easier than saying "tu quoque". Yet, still no one has addressed the principal argument! :laugh:

Doing it in the Latin makes you sound smarter. Duh.

As for the principal argument, I might address it, but I forgot what it was after the second or third post.

Oh wait - I remember. Whether or not we should let medical professionals deny care based on personal feelings, yeah?

Here's the problem with it:

You can't legislate morality.

One of the points of a "free" society is to let <i>everyone</i> have enough room to have their own beliefs and lead their lives how they see fit in certain respects.

The way we uphold that lofty goal is to allow <i>everyone</i> that courtesy - and those we don't agree with, especially. I may not like what you say, but I like my own First Amendment rights, so I am not going to tell you that you can't say it.

If we are to attempt to legislate morality in the medical sector, where does it end? Does it end after refusing to dispense contraception, or does it end after denying a child a blood transfusion because someone has a bee in his or her bonnet?

Further, how do we make sure it's being enforced "correctly," and not used as a weapon against those we don't like? How do we make sure it doesn't cause harm, even if the doctor in question believes he's doing the right thing and sticking by his idea of what the Hippocratic Oath means? People all over the world, every day, hurt others because of their personal ideas of what's right and what's wrong.

Obviously, it's a good idea to check out your healthcare provider beforehand, but it is an overly simplistic generalization to assume everyone has the realistic means to suss that out and choose another, more ideal doctor before the doctor's legislated morality comes into play.

[ajmccarrell]

Doing it in the Latin makes you sound smarter. Duh.

As for the principal argument, I might address it, but I forgot what it was after the second or third post.

Oh wait - I remember. Whether or not we should let medical professionals deny care based on personal feelings, yeah?

Here's the problem with it:

You can't legislate morality.

One of the points of a "free" society is to let <i>everyone</i> have enough room to have their own beliefs and lead their lives how they see fit in certain respects.

The way we uphold that lofty goal is to allow <i>everyone</i> that courtesy - and those we don't agree with, especially. I may not like what you say, but I like my own First Amendment rights, so I am not going to tell you that you can't say it.

If we are to attempt to legislate morality in the medical sector, where does it end? Does it end after refusing to dispense contraception, or does it end after denying a child a blood transfusion because someone has a bee in his or her bonnet?

Further, how do we make sure it's being enforced "correctly," and not used as a weapon against those we don't like? How do we make sure it doesn't cause harm, even if the doctor in question believes he's doing the right thing and sticking by his idea of what the Hippocratic Oath means? People all over the world, every day, hurt others because of their personal ideas of what's right and what's wrong.

Obviously, it's a good idea to check out your healthcare provider beforehand, but it is an overly simplistic generalization to assume everyone has the realistic means to suss that out and choose another, more ideal doctor before the doctor's legislated morality comes into play.

We DO legislate morality. I mean, all of our laws are someone's morality. There are some that exist for purely moral reasons, such as laws against public nudity, public drunkenness, prostitution, slavery, et al. To say a doctor has to do something IS legislating morality. You cannot divorce morality from law. Take a look at financial law, such as Sarbannes Oxley, there are a bunch of rules there that are in existence simply because they are supposed to be fair to all parties, such as laws about what payments to owners can be loans or distributions, which are of no consequence to anyone in the public sphere. Take a look at the tax law and see if there is no sense of morality there. By definition laws are public morality agreed upon by our collective representatives.

Also, I'd rather BE smarter than simply sound smarter. Saying things in latin when most people don't understand it just makes you look like you're trying to put on airs.

[Zombie]

By definition laws are public morality agreed upon by our collective representatives.

Okay, you can look at it that way.

However, giving the doctors the means to use their own, personal morality to deny care is not the same thing. I imagine most people on the planet can agree killing someone is wrong, so that's "public morality agreed upon by our collective representatives" that is common and more likely to be something everyone can agree on. It is also something we can enforce in a more or less blanket, uniform way - you kill someone, away you go (unless it was an accident, blah blah, and leaving out civil charges for our purposes here).

Denial of emergency contraception is something completely different. Leaving it up to the individual preferences of medical professionals means it can't be enforced in a blanket, uniform way and someone is going to get trampled because of it.

And that still doesn't address the issues of how to structure things so that people have access to realistic alternatives should a doctor say no.

Also, I'd rather BE smarter than simply sound smarter. Saying things in latin when most people don't understand it just makes you look like you're trying to put on airs.

That was a joke, son.

[rubytuesday]

He does not really care about what you said because he has not refuted it with anything having to do with it. Rather, he insults you by asserting that some article says some alleged survey says that Britons in general were mistaken about literary figures, etc. Therefore, you must also be an idiot and anything you say about your own personal healthcare choice is incorrect because of the results of this survey, which have nothing to do with you.
lol it's so ridiculous when you actually say that. Someone surveyed a few idiots in Britain (every country has them) so our health system is bad and anything we say otherwise is irrelevant. wtf?

I gues you must be confused too. Churchill was not a "literary figure".

lol you're so desperate! He never said anything about thinking Churchill was a literary figure. I'm sure he knows exactly who he was. You've gone nuts and lost any credibility.

Actually, just writing "you too" would be easier than saying "tu quoque". Yet, still no one has addressed the principal argument! :laugh:
I don't think anyone knows what your arguing about anymore.

[ajmccarrell]

His sentence was written in such a way that would indicate that Churchill was a literary figure, as were other people mentioned in the article. As to whether or not he does, I cannot assume. This is the guy who says the key to fixing the economy is bringing back tax increases. So, I wouldn't assume he knows anything unless he states it. As far as the rest of it, you can say "I've lost credibility" all you want, but chances are I never had it with you anyway. I frankly don't care if you find me credible or not.

[rubytuesday]

His sentence was written in such a way that would indicate that Churchill was a literary figure, as were other people mentioned in the article. As to whether or not he does, I cannot assume. This is the guy who says the key to fixing the economy is bringing back tax increases. So, I wouldn't assume he knows anything unless he states it. As far as the rest of it, you can say "I've lost credibility" all you want, but chances are I never had it with you anyway. I frankly don't care if you find me credible or not.


He does not really care about what you said because he has not refuted it with anything having to do with it. Rather, he insults you by asserting that some article says some alleged survey says that Britons in general were mistaken about literary figures, etc. .......You mentioned sherlock holmes didn't you? I think he was referring to that. Churchill was shortened to "etc". Come on don't be daft he didn't indicate at all that churchill was fictional of course the guy knows who Churchill was. Apart from a couple idiots that were surveyed everyone knows who he was.

[trackaghost]

Again, you post was mostly personal attacks. Maybe cite something that says that Europeans do well on math tests or something to support your position?

The Pravda quote was not just one occasion, but was illustrative of something that they routinely do. It was the one occasion that I could think of off the top of my head that was plainly a lie that REALLY stuck with me as truly ridiculous. I mean, who doesn't know that Putin controls the press in Russia anymore? It is nothing more than government spin. They have no compunction about reporting lies. I used to read the dispatches sent by a guy in another group from the foreign press, but they reports usually bore no resemblance to what was actually going on here. They were full of anti-American bias and slant, yet, you call me xenophobic?! Europeans tend to be the most hostile to Americans, snobbish, and condescending people. Try going somewhere in Paris as an American without running into someone being rude because you are American. Me xenophobic? Whatever?! :laugh:


I already showed to you that the "survey" you love to cite as proof was incredibly lightweight. Where are your stats and figures to prove that Europeans are stupid? Again you didn't address why you would be more qualified to speak about another country's health system over someone who actually lives there, which was the original point. But you know, keep deflecting if you must.

Btw here's your maths stats from a US newspaper no less http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400730.html
Please note a European country, Finland, came top.


And yes, the Russian press and the UK press, for instance, are exactly the same thing :rolleyes:

And if this is your attitude towards European people than no wonder people in Paris didn't welcome you with open arms. I'm sure there are plenty of American people here who have had positive experiences in Paris (which is just one city in the whole of Europe). I bet Strand, who is well travelled, would back me up here. I wouldn't dismiss the whole of the US just because of one bad experience but that's just me (and I've been to the US many times). Obviously you want to think badly of people outside of the US.

[strandinthewind]

. . . He never said anything about thinking Churchill was a literary figure. I'm sure he knows exactly who he was. You've gone nuts and lost any credibility . . . .

You mentioned sherlock holmes didn't you? I think he was referring to that. Churchill was shortened to "etc". Come on don't be daft he didn't indicate at all that churchill was fictional of course the guy knows who Churchill was. Apart from a couple idiots that were surveyed everyone knows who he was.

I know. I said:

Rather, he insults you by asserting that some article says some alleged survey says that Britons in general were mistaken about literary figures, etc.

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/etcetera (affectionately referred to my me as the big red dic. :cool: ) :

Main Entry: et·cet·era
Pronunciation: \et-ˈse-tə-rə, -ˈse-trə also it-, ÷ek-, ÷ik-\
Function: noun
Date: 1597
1: a number of unspecified additional persons or things
2plural : unspecified additional items : odds and ends

So, clearly I was not just referring to literary figures like Sherlock Holmes. Rather I used "etc." to represent the logical continuation of the series of examples used in the cited survey, which I specifically referred to in the same sentence.

Whatever :rolleyes:

Also "tu quoque" is Latin for "You, too" or "You, also" - but it is used to mean an accusation of hypocrisy, which I believe was the intent in this case.

[strandinthewind]

. . . I bet Strand, who is well travelled, would back me up here. I wouldn't dismiss the whole of the US just because of one bad experience but that's just me (and I've been to the US many times). Obviously you want to think badly of people outside of the US.

I was there about three weeks ago and had a great time.

I was also in London, Bilbao, La Coruna, Lisbon, Seville, and Barcelona. Everyone I encountered was friendly in all those places. In my opinion and based on my experience (which includes four of the five continents) - you have to be open minded and willing to try to fit in if you want to be accepted. If you are unwilling to do that or show up with some "America is the greatest country in the whole world and/or I have more money than you" attitude, etc., then of course you will be treated poorly anywhere. But that does not mean the people treating you poorly are jerks at heart as a matter of fact. It actually means you are a jerk. But, I am sure there are actual jerks everywhere though, but that does not mean everyone is a jerk :shrug:

Note - I am not saying anyone here is a jerk. I am speaking in general terms based on my experience.

Of course, when I was in London drunk out of my mind on Old Compton St. and started yelling "YOU'D ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN IF IT WEREN'T FOR ME!!!!!!!!!" -- I wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms :wavey: :xoxo:

[shackin'up]

Also, I'd rather BE smarter than simply sound smarter. Saying things in latin when most people don't understand it just makes you look like you're trying to put on airs.

Being smart and sounding smart are as unseperable as Law and Morality. You, my dear, are the most conventional and selfabsorbed cyberpersonality I've ever met. You are the summary of The Typical American we love so much in Europe. Rude, full of himself, patriottic, tunnelview,ehhh Bush's son?

Note - I am not saying anyone here is a jerk. I am speaking in general terms based on my experience on this board.

[shackin'up]

Of course, when I was in London drunk out of my mind on Old Compton St. and started yelling "YOU'D ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN IF IT WEREN'T FOR ME!!!!!!!!!" -- I wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms :wavey: :xoxo:

But you spoke the truth, Strand. Do you still have your teeth?

[trackaghost]

Of course, when I was in London drunk out of my mind on Old Compton St. and started yelling "YOU'D ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN IF IT WEREN'T FOR ME!!!!!!!!!" -- I wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms :wavey: :xoxo:

I so wish I could have seen that :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

But you spoke the truth, Strand. Do you still have your teeth?

I so wish I could have seen that :laugh:

Not even I am that brave :laugh: Actually, the fun part was the bar hopping, the subsequent 20 Euro McDonald's food orgy, and then the bicycle ricksaw ride home at like 2 A.M. during which I was belting who the hell knows how many showtunes and Stevie tunes on the way from Soho to Notting Hill. That I was not arrested and/or beaten to within an inch of my life in Mayfair alone is repayment for whatever part America played in WWII :D

[rubytuesday]

Not even I am that brave :laugh: Actually, the fun part was the bar hopping, the subsequent 20 Euro McDonald's food orgy

Bar hopping! Go to edinburgh? Rose Street is the ultimate. If your gonna get pissed go its worth travelling the world for rose street.

[strandinthewind]

Bar hopping! Go to edinburgh? Rose Street is the ultimate. If your gonna get pissed go its worth travelling the world for rose street.

It is on my list! Actually, I plan in the next year or two to fly ro Edinburgh and drive all over Scotland Wales and England. I did that once before, but flew into London and drove to Stonehenge, Bath, Cardiff, Stratford on Avon, Chipping Campden and the Cotswolds, Windsor, and then returned to London. It was a fabulous time!

I also need to make it to Melbourne before my friend who is living there leaves. Sadly, it may not happen, but I'll get Down Under one of these days!

[rubytuesday]

Scotland and Australia! Best places on earth.! Also the best places to get pissed in. I've been in melbourne for a few years now - love it!

[Zombie]

Also "tu quoque" is Latin for "You, too" or "You, also" - but it is used to mean an accusation of hypocrisy, which I believe was the intent in this case.

Strandinthewind for the win! ;)

Sadly, my rapier sharp wit is not as much fun if the target doesn't get it, but it is the cross I must bear for being smart and sounding smart at the same time. Le sigh.

[gldstwmn]

His sentence was written in such a way that would indicate that Churchill was a literary figure, as were other people mentioned in the article.

Only to you dear. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Of course, when I was in London drunk out of my mind on Old Compton St. and started yelling "YOU'D ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN IF IT WEREN'T FOR ME!!!!!!!!!" -- I wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms :wavey: :xoxo:

So sorry I missed that. :lol:

[ajmccarrell]

I was there about three weeks ago and had a great time.

I was also in London, Bilbao, La Coruna, Lisbon, Seville, and Barcelona. Everyone I encountered was friendly in all those places. In my opinion and based on my experience (which includes four of the five continents) - you have to be open minded and willing to try to fit in if you want to be accepted. If you are unwilling to do that or show up with some "America is the greatest country in the whole world and/or I have more money than you" attitude, etc., then of course you will be treated poorly anywhere. But that does not mean the people treating you poorly are jerks at heart as a matter of fact. It actually means you are a jerk. But, I am sure there are actual jerks everywhere though, but that does not mean everyone is a jerk :shrug:

Note - I am not saying anyone here is a jerk. I am speaking in general terms based on my experience.

Of course, when I was in London drunk out of my mind on Old Compton St. and started yelling "YOU'D ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN IF IT WEREN'T FOR ME!!!!!!!!!" -- I wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms :wavey: :xoxo:

I'm talking more about the contempt you get if you don't speak french or aren't bilingual. But the last sentence is REALLY funny.

[ajmccarrell]

I already showed to you that the "survey" you love to cite as proof was incredibly lightweight. Where are your stats and figures to prove that Europeans are stupid? Again you didn't address why you would be more qualified to speak about another country's health system over someone who actually lives there, which was the original point. But you know, keep deflecting if you must.

Btw here's your maths stats from a US newspaper no less http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400730.html
Please note a European country, Finland, came top.


And yes, the Russian press and the UK press, for instance, are exactly the same thing :rolleyes:

And if this is your attitude towards European people than no wonder people in Paris didn't welcome you with open arms. I'm sure there are plenty of American people here who have had positive experiences in Paris (which is just one city in the whole of Europe). I bet Strand, who is well travelled, would back me up here. I wouldn't dismiss the whole of the US just because of one bad experience but that's just me (and I've been to the US many times). Obviously you want to think badly of people outside of the US.

Yay! I get an actual argument here. Those seem to be so few and far between here. And to you, my friend, I concede defeat. :nod:

[ajmccarrell]

Being smart and sounding smart are as unseperable as Law and Morality. You, my dear, are the most conventional and selfabsorbed cyberpersonality I've ever met. You are the summary of The Typical American we love so much in Europe. Rude, full of himself, patriottic, tunnelview,ehhh Bush's son?

Note - I am not saying anyone here is a jerk. I am speaking in general terms based on my experience on this board.

Frankly, I think you're off your rocker. I said something in another post about not liking Lindsey's funny percussion sounds and that I would have preferred a real drummer in those cases, despite the fact that I LIKE GOS, and you went off calling me a bunch of names for several pages. Dude, I think you need to look in the mirror before calling someone else a bunch of names. Yes, I have an ego and I don't pretend I don't. I would just prefer that people, like the guy above that just won the argument, use something besides the very predictable and overused insults of calling someone stupid or crazy. If you think I'm self-absorped, I can't help it if all of the discussions are turned around as personal insults I have to defend myself against. You'd frankly see a lot less of "me" in the arguments if you didn't bring "me" up and stuck to the issue. :laugh:

[trackaghost]

Yay! I get an actual argument here. Those seem to be so few and far between here. And to you, my friend, I concede defeat. :nod:

I'm quoting this before you change your mind! Btw, I'm not a guy, just so you know.

[ajmccarrell]

Nope, you win. I'll say it a few times more, you win, you win, you win. :laugh:

Naw, it isn't that hard, it's just that instead of calling me names, you actually addressed my argument. There's a first for everything! :woohoo:

[shackin'up]

Nope, you win. I'll say it a few times more, you win, you win, you win. :laugh:

Naw, it isn't that hard, it's just that instead of calling me names, you actually addressed my argument. There's a first for everything! :woohoo:

I wasn't calling names dude, I just pronounced a my reception of your behaviour over here. Your ego is as big as America. You didn't say you didn't like the rythmtracks on GOS, you called them amateuristic cheap unfinished tracks due to his financial situation. That is something else. That's the most respectless attitude one can show towards an artist you were so horny for to share a picture with. That, and your attitude towards Europeans in these threads and your homophobic attitude in a thread a while ago forced me to point out how I look at you.
Not an opinion, just the result of an observation analysis.

[ajmccarrell]

I wasn't calling names dude, I just pronounced a my reception of your behaviour over here. Your ego is as big as America. You didn't say you didn't like the rythmtracks on GOS, you called them amateuristic cheap unfinished tracks due to his financial situation. That is something else. That's the most respectless attitude one can show towards an artist you were so horny for to share a picture with. That, and your attitude towards Europeans in these threads and your homophobic attitude in a thread a while ago forced me to point out how I look at you.
Not an opinion, just the result of an observation analysis.

Um, I do think the bad rhythm tracks make what would have been great tracks otherwise sound cheap and amateurish. I am allowed to have an opinion. There has already been a great deal of speculation about his financial situation here and on Nancy's board long before I said anything, due to his house sale, his raw deal on SYW, etc. I thought there might have been a link between the two and was speculating. I never said for sure that was the problem. That's what these boards are for: speculation. I mean, everyone here speculates on Stevie and Lindsey being together, what is so different about what I said besides the fact that it was me saying it and not Nancy? Had someone else said it, you'd have reacted completely differently. Besides, that isn't the worst insult you can give an artist. I'm an artist and there are much worse things you could say. So what?! I don't appreciate the unfinished sound he was going for, but really like the material. Maybe it'll grow on me. Great Day already has.

I already explained what was interpreted as a homophobic post, but you probably didn't read my explanation.

I'm well aware I have a huge ego. If you don't like it, ignore me. You don't have to read my posts or respond to them.

[shackin'up]

Great Day already has.



Then just listen first before you pull the opiniontrigger. Only a few days ago you were going to record a Great Day-parody, because you thought that track was laughable. You even stated that if I heard that parody I would have less respect for LB's work on it. It's a spectacular sonic experience, that almost has a third dimension. You'll hear that in a few months, if you keep opening up. This quote means that I actually broke your tunnelview open for a bit. I will not ignore you. I'm saving you.

Again: still that financial position reason for "cheap production" is ridiculous, simply because he had the same mindset during the recording of his songs for Tusk. Or you have to believe that he lost his Rumoursfortune within a year or two.
And for Nancy: she may have said the same thing, but never held it against his productionstyle. She really listens. And she would have adressed it a lot more polite and respectful than you did dude. It's the selfabsorbed tone, too, that communicates.

[ajmccarrell]

Then just listen first before you pull the opiniontrigger. Only a few days ago you were going to record a Great Day-parody, because you thought that track was laughable. You even stated that if I heard that parody I would have less respect for LB's work on it. It's a spectacular sonic experience, that almost has a third dimension. You'll hear that in a few months, if you keep opening up. This quote means that I actually broke your tunnelview open for a bit. I will not ignore you. I'm saving you.

Again: still that financial position reason for "cheap production" is ridiculous, simply because he had the same mindset during the recording of his songs for Tusk. Or you have to believe that he lost his Rumoursfortune within a year or two.
And for Nancy: she may have said the same thing, but never held it against his productionstyle. She really listens. And she would have adressed it a lot more polite and respectful than you did dude. It's the selfabsorbed tone, too, that communicates.

I still may record the Great Day parody. I never said I thought the song was laughable, it was just that a parody got stuck in my head and the style of the song is really easy to emulate and do at home without anyone else but yourself. I thought I'd record some goofy percussion from 80's video games and punctuate it with a fart noise once in a while or a weird scream, tap on my mics and throw in minor-pentatonic licks with over the top 80's chorus guitar effects, while singing things to the Great Day melody like "Really bad percussion", "snaky, snaky reverb", "lots of goofy noises", and "a lot of roaches burnin'" "It was a bad take, bad take, bad take...." I thought it'd be really funny. Sorry if you don't see the humor. I see it is an affectionate tribute more than an insult.

Don't credit yourself too much, I already liked the song when I heard the 20 second sample a month ago, I didn't dislike it before. If anything, you made me detest the album for a couple of days because you were so over the top.

I'm not a polite or respectful person. Sorry if that offends you but I am not patient with people AT ALL.

[shackin'up]

I'm not a polite or respectful person. Sorry if that offends you but I am not patient with people AT ALL.

Then I was right after all. Why should I be respectful to you then? I'm glad I had some influence on you a few days. That makes my day. Great day. Great day.

[ajmccarrell]

Then I was right after all. Why should I be respectful to you then? I'm glad I had some influence on you a few days. That makes my day. Great day. Great day.

You don't have to be respectful, just enough so you aren't banned. Just be prepared to be called on it when you make personal attacks over substance. Okay, go be right then. :nod::p

[David]

You don't have to be respectful, just enough so you aren't banned. Just be prepared to be called on it when you make personal attacks over substance. Okay, go be right then. :nod::pIf you two sat down at Sushi Amai over a plate of hamachi & several cups of hot sake, you'd be friends ere long.

[ajmccarrell]

If you two sat down at Sushi Amai over a plate of hamachi & several cups of hot sake, you'd be friends ere long.

I hate hot sake, I'd stick with a diet Coke. Also, depending on if the sushi was kosher. :) :angel:

[David]

I hate hot sake, I'd stick with a diet Coke. Also, depending on if the sushi was kosher. :) :angel:Hey! That's an idea for a business! Want to go into business? A kosher sushi restaurant! No clam or uni or abalone or chicken/steak teriyaki, but all the scaly fish is OK. Of course, we'd need to keep a kosher kitchen in back. What an idea!

I get these great ideas all the time, but never follow through on them.

[ajmccarrell]

Hey! That's an idea for a business! Want to go into business? A kosher sushi restaurant! No clam or uni or abalone or chicken/steak teriyaki, but all the scaly fish is OK. Of course, we'd need to keep a kosher kitchen in back. What an idea!

I get these great ideas all the time, but never follow through on them.

I just had this discussion with a fellow Jewish co-worker who likes sushi. They have these kinds of restaurants all over New York.

[shackin'up]

Listen AJ, There are a lot of people banned from here that didn't go as far as you did sometimes. The banningpolicy over here is impossible to follow, so I don't know what can be said or not. If you want me banned, go ahead. I'm respectful. Just not towards disrespectful people, and towards inconsistant moralism.

[vivfox]

Your homophobic attitude in a thread a while ago forced me to point out how I look at you.

I am sure he is NOT homophobic. ajmccarrell, you are one cool dude in my book.

[shackin'up]

I am sure he is NOT homophobic. ajmccarrell, you are one cool dude in my book.

I know......:shrug::shrug::shrug:

[ajmccarrell]

I know......:shrug::shrug::shrug:

Thanks Viv! I don't want anyone banned. I like to argue. I actually started a theology group once where anything goes because too many people were getting banned on other sites. Full contact theology, yes! :woohoo:

[rubytuesday]

I'm talking more about the contempt you get if you don't speak french or aren't bilingual. But the last sentence is REALLY funny.
I can kind of understand it though. If someone walked up to you in America and started speaking french or german or whatever and expected you to be able to respond you'd find them arrogant. It's only us that expect other cultures to speak english even just by saying "do you speak english?". If you reverse that into another language in your country it would get a really strange response.

[ajmccarrell]

I can kind of understand it though. If someone walked up to you in America and started speaking french or german or whatever and expected you to be able to respond you'd find them arrogant. It's only us that expect other cultures to speak english even just by saying "do you speak english?". If you reverse that into another language in your country it would get a really strange response.

I wouldn't think they were arrogant, I would assume they didn't speak English and attempt to find someone who spoke French and gesture at them in such a way to let them know that I don't understand them.