Doctor Threatens To Call Cops On Pregnant Woman If She Doesn’t Have Emergency C-Section
I'd like to know which law she is breaking that would require the use of law enforcement.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
I guess my overall take on this sort of thing is along the lines of our "innocent until proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) guilty principle in criminal law.
The principle ought to be transparent and open until proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) that is needs to be kept secret.
It seems that governments (including and especially the US government) operate under almost exactly the opposite principle: "Hidden and secret until proven that it shouldn't be."
Both of these principles carry an inherent catch-22 though: How do we go about proving that something needs to be kept secret until we know what it is that's being kept secret. To this point the answer seems to "trust us."
As far as the notion that governments (including the US) are not generally using this as a cover and shield to cover criminal, immoral, not reasonably classifiable information and activities or other nefarious and even embarrassing stuff and that this is merely the paranoia and imaginations of a handful of tinfoil hatters reeks of both ad hominem and the secret keeper basically saying "Have I ever lied to you as far as you know?"
In my view if the state is considered a necessity (and I don't agree it is), it should be kept as small as absolutely possible, as open as absolutely possible,and its restriction and infringement upon peoples rights as absolutely minimal as possible.
Granted that whole "as absolutely possible" thing is open for (sometimes very wide) subjective interpretation. For example some today think anything less that the amount of government we have now is or would be tantamount to anarchy and that right now we already have the "absolutely minimal as possible."
Ideally we'd have some more objective means to judge this.
Personally, I think the defaults ought to be maximum liberty and maximum transparency (of the government's actions and information) with infringements to liberty and secrecy having to "fight" their way into society. Sadly I feel we've crossed the liner to being in the more opposite expression of that. Liberty need to be justified to exist in many cases. Transparency needs to be proven to be necessary in many cases.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
White House, Holder respond to Rand Paul: ‘The answer is no’
So...all the president has to do is declare someone to be an "imminent threat" and he can kill them without due process?
Am I misunderstanding this?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
...and the popular misconception that most classified information is protected to hide the governments dirty laundry is a misinformed generalization.
How do you know this? Are there some facts that support your claim? Is this just your gut feeling? Are we to simply take your word for it? Why?
I certainly would not expect you to take my word for it, but, as you might imagine, it's a tricky subject for me to provide supporting material for. The Wikipedia page on this subject is quite comprehensive, giving both the background and method by which classification is originated and derived, and some good references. In particular you should probably read the executive order. I think it also conveys quite well that the primary reason for classification is not to hide government policy decisions.
The general principle of defense should be that lethal response is warranted in the case of an imminent and credible threat to life. Obviously there's room for subjectivity in that. And some situations may need to be judged after the fact and those violating this principle brought to account for it.
The real problem today with the US government over the current and last administrations (particularly, but not exclusively) is that the doctrine being used (at least internationally, and sometimes domestically) is not "imminent and credible" but "possible." Lowering this threshold is dangerous and a recipe for someone running around and preemptively attacking (or jailing or torturing) anyone or anything they think might somehow, someday be a threat.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I certainly would not expect you to take my word for it, but, as you might imagine, it's a tricky subject for me to provide supporting material for. The Wikipedia page on this subject is quite comprehensive, giving both the background and method by which classification is originated and derived, and some good references. In particular you should probably read the executive order. I think it also conveys quite well that the primary reason for classification is not to hide government policy decisions.
I'm not asking about the stated reasons or methods. I'm sure that all these would tell me, with great assurance, that this is proper and necessary and only used when proper and necessary. Trust us.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
White House, Holder respond to Rand Paul: ‘The answer is no’
So...all the president has to do is declare someone to be an "imminent threat" and he can kill them without due process?
Am I misunderstanding this?
Not sure about misunderstanding it, but I think you may be looking for the most extreme slant in an effort to discredit it. Back to the previous discussion, if a police officer determines a subject to be an imminent threat to his life (because he is holding a weapon, making a threat or whatever), and shoots him, is he killing him without due process? If your answer to that is yes, then it would probably be yes to the example you pose above, but that still makes the situation no different to the LE problem.
Furthermore, when that imminent threat judgement call is made it is not without consequence in the form of subsequent investigation to determine if it were reasonable.
I certainly would not expect you to take my word for it, but, as you might imagine, it's a tricky subject for me to provide supporting material for. The Wikipedia page on this subject is quite comprehensive, giving both the background and method by which classification is originated and derived, and some good references. In particular you should probably read the executive order. I think it also conveys quite well that the primary reason for classification is not to hide government policy decisions.
I'm not asking about the stated reasons or methods. I'm sure that all these would tell me, with great assurance, that this is proper and necessary and only used when proper and necessary. Trust us.
Then I can't help you further. Is the system ever abused? Yes. Does that mean the system should be abandoned? I would argue no, just like you argue that the imperfectness of NAP is not a reason not to use it.
Rand Paul’s Filibuster Divides the Left and Right
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
The general principle of defense should be that lethal response is warranted in the case of an imminent and credible threat to life. Obviously there's room for subjectivity in that. And some situations may need to be judged after the fact and those violating this principle brought to account for it.
The real problem today with the US government over the current and last administrations (particularly, but not exclusively) is that the doctrine being used (at least internationally, and sometimes domestically) is not "imminent and credible" but "possible." Lowering this threshold is dangerous and a recipe for someone running around and preemptively attacking (or jailing or torturing) anyone or anything they think might somehow, someday be a threat.
Agreed, but that is a different question to asking whether the principle, if applied reasonably, is itself reasonable. This is essentially the same problem that we are discussing re. classification.
Then I can't help you further. Is the system ever abused? Yes. Does that mean the system should be abandoned? I would argue no, just like you argue that the imperfectness of NAP is not a reason not to use it.
That's a fair point. Part of the problem here is the request to take things on faith from an entity which has violated trust many times, often undiscovered for years or decades.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Rand Paul’s Filibuster Divides the Left and Right
Are you just too lazy to form your own opinions and make your own arguments, or is there something else behind your incessant quoting of other people's work?
MJ - Note the careful loaded question construction that assumes the observation of incessant quoting.
Then I can't help you further. Is the system ever abused? Yes. Does that mean the system should be abandoned? I would argue no, just like you argue that the imperfectness of NAP is not a reason not to use it.
That's a fair point. Part of the problem here is the request to take things on faith from an entity which has violated trust many times, often undiscovered for years or decades.
I cannot deny that is a legitimate issue.
Not sure about misunderstanding it, but I think you may be looking for the most extreme slant in an effort to discredit it. Back to the previous discussion, if a police officer determines a subject to be an imminent threat to his life (because he is holding a weapon, making a threat or whatever), and shoots him, is he killing him without due process? If your answer to that is yes, then it would probably be yes to the example you pose above, but that still makes the situation no different to the LE problem.
Furthermore, when that imminent threat judgement call is made it is not without consequence in the form of subsequent investigation to determine if it were reasonable.
Your subtle claim that I am an extremist notwithstanding, is it not important to consider all the possibilities - even those considered "extreme"?
I believe your police office example is different from the president claiming the authority to be the judge, jury, and executioner.
In the police example, the officer is clearly defending himself from a threat that anyone could see.
The POTUS is claiming the authority to arbitrarily deem someone an "imminent threat", sentence them to death, and carry out the execution, all with the stroke of a pen. Left unchecked, this authority can - and will - be abused.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Are you just too lazy to form your own opinions and make your own arguments, or is there something else behind your incessant quoting of other people's work?
MJ - Note the careful loaded question construction that assumes the observation of incessant quoting.
Why do you hate little children and kittens?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Not sure about misunderstanding it, but I think you may be looking for the most extreme slant in an effort to discredit it. Back to the previous discussion, if a police officer determines a subject to be an imminent threat to his life (because he is holding a weapon, making a threat or whatever), and shoots him, is he killing him without due process? If your answer to that is yes, then it would probably be yes to the example you pose above, but that still makes the situation no different to the LE problem.
Furthermore, when that imminent threat judgement call is made it is not without consequence in the form of subsequent investigation to determine if it were reasonable.
Your subtle claim that I am an extremist notwithstanding, is it not important to consider all the possibilities - even those considered "extreme"?
I believe your police office example is different from the president claiming the authority to be the judge, jury, and executioner.
In the police example, the officer is clearly defending himself from a threat that anyone could see.
The POTUS is claiming the authority to arbitrarily deem someone an "imminent threat", sentence them to death, and carry out the execution, all with the stroke of a pen. Left unchecked, this authority can - and will - be abused.
I'm not claiming that you are an "extremist" - I'm suggesting that you might be making the mistake of looking too hard for faults in what is perhaps just a pragmatic approach to reality. And again I would suggest that you are distorting the claim with your wording of arbitrarily, sentence to death, execution etc., when this authority is probably no different to what LE does day after day, except it uses a drone. If a police marksman takes out an armed subject from a helicopter - is that any different?
Let's go to a simple domestic scenario that is not out of the question - a subject or subjects discovered to be in a building in the process of assembling and arming an IND. Would you not want someone to have the authority to launch a drone and destroy that operation? Or are you going to insist on LE surrounding the building and demanding that they put down the weapon and come out with their hands up?
Doctor Threatens To Call Cops On Pregnant Woman If She Doesn’t Have Emergency C-Section
I'd like to know which law she is breaking that would require the use of law enforcement.
That's actually a really interesting question. Almost certainly she is breaking no law. But from the pro-life perspective isn't there a dilemma here - it's murder if the mother has the foetus (viable or not) aborted, but not if she causes the death of a viable foetus by refusing medical intervention? Is that just a "let nature take its course" argument?
I'm not claiming that you are an "extremist" - I'm suggesting that you might be making the mistake of looking too hard for faults in what is perhaps just a pragmatic approach to reality. And again I would suggest that you are distorting the claim with your wording of arbitrarily, sentence to death, execution etc., when this authority is probably no different to what LE does day after day, except it uses a drone. If a police marksman takes out an armed subject from a helicopter - is that any different?
Let's go to a simple domestic scenario that is not out of the question - a subject or subjects discovered to be in a building in the process of assembling and arming an IND. Would you not want someone to have the authority to launch a drone and destroy that operation? Or are you going to insist on LE surrounding the building and demanding that they put down the weapon and come out with their hands up?
Law enforcement does not (or should not) have the authority to try, convict, and sentence anyone. That is the difference.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
I'm not claiming that you are an "extremist" - I'm suggesting that you might be making the mistake of looking too hard for faults in what is perhaps just a pragmatic approach to reality. And again I would suggest that you are distorting the claim with your wording of arbitrarily, sentence to death, execution etc., when this authority is probably no different to what LE does day after day, except it uses a drone. If a police marksman takes out an armed subject from a helicopter - is that any different?
Let's go to a simple domestic scenario that is not out of the question - a subject or subjects discovered to be in a building in the process of assembling and arming an IND. Would you not want someone to have the authority to launch a drone and destroy that operation? Or are you going to insist on LE surrounding the building and demanding that they put down the weapon and come out with their hands up?
Law enforcement does not (or should not) have the authority to try, convict, and sentence anyone. That is the difference.
OK - but just stating that it is different is not very helpful. In what way is one case legitimate defense and the other case "trying, convicting and sentencing"? And you completely failed even to comment on my suggested scenario. What would would like to see available as a response in that situation?
OK - but just stating that it is different is not very helpful. In what way is one case legitimate defense and the other case "trying, convicting and sentencing"? And you completely failed even to comment on my suggested scenario. What would would like to see available as a response in that situation?
If somebody is shooting at you or threatening to shoot you and wildly pointing a gun at everyone, then of course you have the right to defend yourself, whether or not you're a police officer. Obviously in that situation it is unlikely the shooter will be disarmed and apprehended before harming another person, so the use of lethal force is justified.
In your suggested scenario, the threat is not as imminent, wouldn't you agree? If there is the possibility of preserving an individual's Constitutionally guaranteed right to due process, should it not be pursued?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
OK - but just stating that it is different is not very helpful. In what way is one case legitimate defense and the other case "trying, convicting and sentencing"? And you completely failed even to comment on my suggested scenario. What would would like to see available as a response in that situation?
If somebody is shooting at you or threatening to shoot you and wildly pointing a gun at everyone, then of course you have the right to defend yourself, whether or not you're a police officer. Obviously in that situation it is unlikely the shooter will be disarmed and apprehended before harming another person, so the use of lethal force is justified.
In your suggested scenario, the threat is not as imminent, wouldn't you agree? If there is the possibility of preserving an individual's Constitutionally guaranteed right to due process, should it not be pursued?
Not imminent? How do you figure that? I would characterize that as an imminent and severe threat of widespread destruction and death. About as bad as it gets.
Not imminent? How do you figure that? I would characterize that as an imminent and severe threat of widespread destruction and death. About as bad as it gets.
You'll have to make your scenario more specific. Are they in the process of assembling an IND or have they already assembled it? Have they threatened anyone? How many of them are there? Where, exactly, are they located? What evidence do we have against them? Who has seen and reviewed this evidence? Is it credible? Are there other people with or near the suspects who might be harmed in a drone attack? Have attempts already been made to apprehend the suspects?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Not imminent? How do you figure that? I would characterize that as an imminent and severe threat of widespread destruction and death. About as bad as it gets.
You'll have to make your scenario more specific. Are they in the process of assembling an IND or have they already assembled it? Have they threatened anyone? How many of them are there? Where, exactly, are they located? What evidence do we have against them? Who has seen and reviewed this evidence? Is it credible? Are there other people with or near the suspects who might be harmed in a drone attack? Have attempts already been made to apprehend the suspects?
Oh come on. Do what you do so well and imagine the worst case here - why do you need me to spell it out?
For example - they are in there, we know they have a device, we have surveillance data that indicate it is complete and viable. We believe that if challenged they would not hesitate to sacrifice themselves. Is that enough, or do you need the serial number?
Oh come on. Do what you do so well and imagine the worst case here - why do you need me to spell it out?
For example - they are in there, we know they have a device, we have surveillance data that indicate it is complete and viable. We believe that if challenged they would not hesitate to sacrifice themselves. Is that enough, or do you need the serial number?
You mean the government tells us they have a device and that they have evidence. Like George W. Bush told us they had evidence of WMDs in Iraq to justify attacking and invading them?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Oh come on. Do what you do so well and imagine the worst case here - why do you need me to spell it out?
For example - they are in there, we know they have a device, we have surveillance data that indicate it is complete and viable. We believe that if challenged they would not hesitate to sacrifice themselves. Is that enough, or do you need the serial number?
You mean the government tells us they have a device and that they have evidence. Like George W. Bush told us they had evidence of WMDs in Iraq to justify attacking and invading them?
No - I don't mean that, I'm pretty sure you know I don't mean that, and you are engaging in a particularly pointless form of obfuscation. But that's fine - if what you wish to say is that you cannot imagine any situation where the authority to take that kind of action to prevent the operation of a weapon of mass destruction on US soil would be reasonable and desirable, then we will just agree to differ.
No - I don't mean that, I'm pretty sure you know I don't mean that, and you are engaging in a particularly pointless form of obfuscation. But that's fine - if what you wish to say is that you cannot imagine any situation where the authority to take that kind of action to prevent the operation of a weapon of mass destruction on US soil would be reasonable and desirable, then we will just agree to differ.
What it comes down to is whether or not you trust the government. I do not.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
No - I don't mean that, I'm pretty sure you know I don't mean that, and you are engaging in a particularly pointless form of obfuscation. But that's fine - if what you wish to say is that you cannot imagine any situation where the authority to take that kind of action to prevent the operation of a weapon of mass destruction on US soil would be reasonable and desirable, then we will just agree to differ.
What it comes down to is whether or not you trust the government. I do not.
You seem prone to changing the question - perhaps when you don't like the obvious answer. My preference here does not hinge on whether I trust the Government. It may be influenced somewhat by my trust in the guys who deal with these kinds of threats, but even that is somewhat secondary to the fundamental principle.
So you prefer to let them fire the device rather than risk missing any element of due process. OK.
You seem prone to changing the question - perhaps when you don't like the obvious answer. My preference here does not hinge on whether I trust the Government. It may be influenced somewhat by my trust in the guys who deal with these kinds of threats, but even that is somewhat secondary to the fundamental principle.
So you prefer to let them fire the device rather than risk missing any element of due process. OK.
I believe the government should not be able to do anything you or I cannot do.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
You seem prone to changing the question - perhaps when you don't like the obvious answer. My preference here does not hinge on whether I trust the Government. It may be influenced somewhat by my trust in the guys who deal with these kinds of threats, but even that is somewhat secondary to the fundamental principle.
So you prefer to let them fire the device rather than risk missing any element of due process. OK.
I believe the government should not be able to do anything you or I cannot do.
I rather thought that the purpose of having a military capability was precisely to do what you and I, on our own, cannot do - defend against this kind of threat. Think of all the little children and kittens that would be killed due to your preferred inaction. But anyway - this discussion has clearly run its course with you having wandered back off into the libertarian twilight zone, so we should adjourn.
I rather thought that the purpose of having a military capability was precisely to do what you and I, on our own, cannot do - defend against this kind of threat. Think of all the little children and kittens that would be killed due to your preferred inaction. But anyway - this discussion has clearly run its course with you having wandered back off into the libertarian twilight zone, so we should adjourn.
I assure you more children and kittens have been killed at the hands of the State than anyone else. This is why I am so distrusting of them.
I can understand why you would want to end the conversation.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Hmm. Jobs report came out today.
Jack W will of course call the numbers cooked... and other Republicans will scream and yell.
236,000 added
7.7%
Better. Not great but better. But that will make some people very unhappy, because things can't get better...
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Hmm. Jobs report came out today.
Jack W will of course call the numbers cooked... and other Republicans will scream and yell.
236,000 added
7.7%
Better. Not great but better. But that will make some people very unhappy, because things can't get better...
Treading water is more like it. There's no real news here. This is basically the same story we've seen for 2-3 years. This looks more like stagnation than a healthy or growing economy.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Hmm. Jobs report came out today.
Jack W will of course call the numbers cooked... and other Republicans will scream and yell.
236,000 added
7.7%
Better. Not great but better. But that will make some people very unhappy, because things can't get better...
Treading water is more like it. There's no real news here. This is basically the same story we've seen for 2-3 years. This looks more like stagnation than a healthy or growing economy.
Interesting that, unable to find a single negative statement in that article, you picked on the one caveat mentioned and presented it as a negative. There appears to be consistent job creation - ¼ million last month. What number would you need to see there before you would think it was an improvement?
Interesting that, unable to find a single negative statement in that article you picked on the one caveat mentioned and presented it as a negative.
Those two statements are not negative news? Interesting that you don't see them that way.
It's much easier, when focused on a single number (like the unemployment rate) for things to look better if the denominator keeps going down. That's why it's important to look at all the numbers involved with calculating the percentage. The percentage, especially when compared to previous measures of the percentage is not informative or useful or "good" or "bad" until you know what's being used to compare both numbers being compared and know if you're looking at the same thing.
There appears to be consistent job creation - ¼ million last month. What number would you need to see there before you would think it was an improvement?
Decreasing unemployment rate with increasing labor force participation would be a good start.
Fact is, the economy has been treading water for 2-3 years. Little sparkles of hope hear and there? Maybe. But this is not a robust and healthy economy.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Interesting that, unable to find a single negative statement in that article you picked on the one caveat mentioned and presented it as a negative.
Those two statements are not negative news? Interesting that you don't see them that way.
There appears to be consistent job creation - ¼ million last month. What number would you need to see there before you would think it was an improvement?
Decreasing unemployment rate with increasing labor force participation would be a good start.
Participation rate increase would be nice, but it's a noisy function, and it's strongly affected by population age distribution which is decoupled from economic growth. It was at the same level last August, even though it has been on a gradual decline since around 2000 after climbing from its historically more steady rate of less than 60%. So no, I don't necessarily see a 0.1% one month drop as negative news. I would regard approximately zero job creation as stagnation, and steady job creation as indication of a recovery.
Interesting that, unable to find a single negative statement in that article, you picked on the one caveat mentioned and presented it as a negative. There appears to be consistent job creation - ¼ million last month. What number would you need to see there before you would think it was an improvement?
Any improvement under a Democrat is bad.
And then we have the sequester that is going to furlough thousands, basically caused by whom?
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Any improvement under a Democrat is bad.
Nice straw man. This from a someone who seem unable to find anything good about any Republican in any circumstance and who continues to promulgate the urban legend about Bush and the "god damned piece of paper." This is priceless.
And then we have the sequester that is going to furlough thousands, basically caused by whom?
Both.
But then I don't view laying off government workers a bad thing anyway. So that's actually good news.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I believe the government should not be able to do anything you or I cannot do.
They can't. You are free to become part of the government and do anything they can do. So am I.
There's nothing the government can do that you or I can't do if we become part of the government. No one is stopping you, assuming that you're a US citizen of electable age and not a convicted felon.
