Foley's follies

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 5 2006, 12:05 PM) [snapback]328469[/snapback]</div>

Thanks, I was pretty dazzled for a second.

As a lesser mortal I never considered DocVijay as a title but just a screen/poster name. He doesn't use Dr. in his signature either. I vaguely remember him mentioning he is studying to be an attorney. You seem to be trying to attack a screen name to discredit something he said. Most of DocVijay's posts are about the mods he's done to his Prius where Prius Mechanic would be more impressive than doctor.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Oct 3 2006, 04:34 AM) [snapback]327213[/snapback]</div>

Because no one judges the Democratic Party by the actions of a few people.

Like Clinton.

Or Gore.

Or Kerry.

Or Dean.

No. That's just ridiculous.

Clinton = impeachable offense!

Foley = poor judgement?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Oct 3 2006, 11:18 AM) [snapback]327330[/snapback]</div>

Please look up definition of fetus.

A blastocyst is not a baby.

A zygote is not a baby.

The church doesn't recognize a baby as having a soul or being a person until there is brain function. Look that up while you're at it.

 

At the risk of beating a dead horse, all the republicans' talk about "family values" and the "rights of the unborn" is pure hypocrisy. If they really cared about children and families they would support paid maternity/paternity leave, birth control, universal health insurance and every worker's right to a month's annual vacation, as they have in Europe. Talk is cheap - doing the things listed above would cost real money, money which is presently being wasted on the military, drug companies, oil companies and anyone else who can bribe polititians.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 4 2006, 10:43 PM) [snapback]328304[/snapback]</div>

True, so true. And here you have it:

'Brian Ross of ABC News said he learned about the e-mail messages in August but was too busy with Hurricane Katrina and the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue them immediately. None of the organizations seemed to anticipate how big the story would become.'

'Mr. Ross dismissed suggestions by some Republicans that the news was disseminated as part of a smear campaign against Mr. Foley.'

'“I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party,” Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans.'

Full story

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sluggo42 @ Oct 4 2006, 06:43 PM) [snapback]328204[/snapback]</div>

Couldn't agree with you more sluggo42.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(koa @ Oct 5 2006, 11:26 AM) [snapback]328535[/snapback]</div>

You know, you could be right. (Berman got me thinking this way.) If Vijay isn't a doctor, I apologize for my picky-ness. If he is a DOCTOR, I stand by my remarks. I don't discredit what he says because of his screen name. I try to answer his remarks point by point. What I object to is people sneaking in their job description to appear more qualified in an unrelated subject.

I think of Linus Pauling who won a Nobel Prize in chemistry and then felt he was qualified to prescribe massive doses of Vitamin C to everyone. One had nothing to do with the other, as medical doctors (using their title in the proper medium) explained over and over. People were turning orange because of him!

I have a couple of mutually unrelated titles: Captain and Professor. If I used them here to make a point about morality or politics, I'd be laughed off the net. As it is, I insist my students call me by my first name and my former crew members did the same. The guys I flew with who insisted they be addressed as Captain were usually the worst pilots. If I did either of my jobs poorly, the title wouldn't help. DOCTORS, some of them anyway, seem to have to let you know, immediately and often.

You're right. On this forum, mechanic has far more import than DOCTOR.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ari @ Oct 3 2006, 04:24 PM) [snapback]327542[/snapback]</div>

Please look up defiinitions for blastocyst, zygote, fetus and baby.

When a baby is 8 months it's viable outside the womb whether it's been born or not. If Peterson's wife had had a caesarian that baby would live. That makes it murder. Cause a miscarriage at an earlier point the pregnancy would not hold the same legal weight.

A few cells that don't even have brain function are not a baby.

How interesting that people that are anti-abortion always call a fertilized egg a baby just so they can use the "murder" rhetoric. It's also why they call themselves Pro-Life instead of Anti-Abortion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(koa @ Oct 5 2006, 11:26 AM) [snapback]328535[/snapback]</div>

In his own words:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Jan 21 2006, 06:42 PM) [snapback]194963[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Jan 15 2006, 08:09 PM) [snapback]190959[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Jan 13 2006, 06:48 AM) [snapback]189140[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Dec 28 2005, 12:36 PM) [snapback]180029[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Oct 4 2006, 06:03 AM) [snapback]327751[/snapback]</div>

Oh, really. The only California court whose rulings can be appealed to the United States Supreme Court is the California Supreme Court. Since 1986, it has been dominated by Republican appointees. For at least the past ten years, its membership included only one Justice who is/was a registered Democrat. While I am not claiming that the U.S. Supreme Court has never reversed the California Supreme Court, in the last couple of decades such rulings have been few and far apart.

If, on the other hand, you are referring to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, that is a federal court whose members are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate. While it is headquartered in San Francisco (with divisions in Pasadena, CA, Portland, OR, and Seattle, WA), its jurisdiction covers eleven western states and territories: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. I would hardly consider it to be a "California" Court.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 6 2006, 02:53 AM) [snapback]328554[/snapback]</div>

Beat me, beat me!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Oct 3 2006, 12:45 PM) [snapback]327351[/snapback]</div>

I am vomiting at this comparison........

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 4 2006, 10:32 AM) [snapback]327796[/snapback]</div>

Nope , adultery is not a crime. Sex w/ a minor is not a "major" crime unless child is typically under 13. Haven't you been paying attention to the loss of social morals over the past several decades?????

Typically, a 17 yr old who "consents" rarely results in an adult prosecution.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Oct 4 2006, 08:44 PM) [snapback]328208[/snapback]</div>

God Bless you for this statement. Well said!!!!

It doesn't matter what laws on fornication/adultery/positions are on the books. The Supreme Court ruled most of them void a few years ago in a Texas case I think. Are you sure those aren't lists of "old" laws?????

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Oct 5 2006, 03:47 PM) [snapback]328590[/snapback]</div>

I dislike seeing bad info. In Ohio, and I am sure other states, feloniously ending a PREGNANCY is homocide. Does not mention "being able to live outside the body". This type of thing is our laws way of having their cake and eating it too.

The final showdown is still to come on the abortion issue.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Oct 5 2006, 05:15 PM) [snapback]328647[/snapback]</div>

Why let a few facts get in the way of a perfectly good opinion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Oct 5 2006, 08:43 PM) [snapback]328799[/snapback]</div>

The unlawful killing of a fetus, whether viable or not, is a homicide under California law.