Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 11 Nov 2006 17:24 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:eNp5h.7027$yl4.5770(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > "Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message > news:e96cl2tviek822ftetj8rtphkkoold1oqe(a)4ax.com... >> >> (or if >> immobile, I ask to be visited at home), > > Is this a standard form of care in the UK? We haven't had doctors in > general make house-calls here in the US for at least 40 years. Where I live it is very common place, but there is a high percentage of older people in this village. Generally speaking though doctors will make house calls as required - it has been a couple of years since I last needed one, but there was no difficulty. My wife phoned the Health Centre and told the receptionist I was unable to get out of bed, three hours later the doctor was round to treat me. The health centres also have nurse practitioners (extra trained nurses) who spend a lot of time doing home visits.
From: T Wake on 11 Nov 2006 17:26 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45564091.D091A51D(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> Another example is the recent trial of Nick Griffin (the leader of the >> BNP), >> in which a court has acquitted him of race hate. Now personally I find it >> shocking to acquit the likes of Griffin and it is somewhat similar to >> saying >> the Pope isn't Catholic but at the end of the day, whether I like it or >> not, >> he has been acquitted. Following this John Reid says current laws may >> need >> reviewing. Surely this is madness. John Reid has judged Griffin guilty >> and >> intends to change the laws until he can get a jury to think the same. > > From what I've heard of the Griffin case it seems to me that he was being > critical of Islam. Which is reasonable enough. > Because (a) he wasn't singling out a group by ethnicity as such and (b) > because > I'd hate to see some forms of criticism made illegal, I'm very glad he got > acquitted. I agree. It is a sad day, though, when I find myself hoping a racist bigot will be let off...
From: T Wake on 11 Nov 2006 17:27 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45562DD8.81F15036(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> JoeBloe wrote: >> > On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:53:05 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >> > >> >> You may not, but I expect better of my >> >>president and of the leader of the free world. >> > >> > All of our current operations are only the start. Yes, it was >> > needed, and yes it is going to continue until all of the remaining >> > harbingers of hate and destruction are themselves put down. >> >> "We've only just begun...." > > And let me see..... > > To 'them' you yourselves must seem like " harbingers of hate and > destruction ". > > Can you even begin to see the logical and inevitable outcome of this ? Bet neither of them can.
From: unsettled on 11 Nov 2006 17:58 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > I wasn't thinking of that in an international sense. (Sorry I did not > see this before, but only just noticed it.) I was thinking in an > 'internal to the US' sense. I wasn't clear. I worry that Cheney is > working on a way to use our own military to control the populace > _here_. > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/27/1027497418339.html > http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/sp030311.shtml > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html > http://www.thevillager.com/villager_184/talkingpoint.html > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20061108/cm_ucru/ourlongnationalnightmarehasjustbegun > Big difference. > Sorry for not being clearer. Good discussion is to be had here, thanks. The entire business of passing a law that allows martial law to be declared legally is sort of a moot point because the realities are that in an emergency any administration in any country will do whatever is necessary to maintain security, whether it is allowed by law or not. Passing a law is only a nicety. Take a look at one of the situations mentioned in the web pages you've thoughtfully cited, that of the Japanese- American internment during WW2. The government does whatever it thinks is necessary in the that of the moment, and then apologizes later as it is forced to. That's usually the way it works. A lawsuit made its way to the US Supreme Court regarding the internment, and the court held it legal at that time. There was no neatly packaged law allowing it, but it was done anyway, and approved by the Judicial Branch. I wouldn't get excited about what any new law permits the government to do, because they'll pretty much do as they want anyway. Take a look at the FSU constitution and the similarities to our own. Then compare how business was done in that day. The law is a guide to what coercive powers the state will exercise should the populace violate the written laws. A congressional authorization to do things not permitted by the constitution isn't valid. Google the phrase "void ab initio." A group or an individual may have to press federal lawsuit to enforce their constitutionally guaranteed rights. You have direct acess in the federal courts to constitutional protections under 42 USC 1983. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=42&sec=1983> Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
From: Ben Newsam on 11 Nov 2006 17:03
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:47:22 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message >news:e96cl2tviek822ftetj8rtphkkoold1oqe(a)4ax.com... >> >> (or if >> immobile, I ask to be visited at home), > >Is this a standard form of care in the UK? We haven't had doctors in >general make house-calls here in the US for at least 40 years. "In general", they don't, but doctors will of course visit those patients who genuinely cannot get to the surgery. I had a doc visit me when I was prostrate with gastro-enteritis and vomiting bile all over (eeeuw). I would imagine they get rather shirty with those who abuse the system. There are other health workers who visit homes too. |