Boom!!!! Scott Brown Pulls Ahead

[Cold Fusion38]

Maine is more rural than Mass, and here it would be only in the most remote areas someone would be more than an hour away from a hospital

The geographical argument is a distraction from the problem. There is a reason for separation of State and Religion. Would you support anyone's position to do or not do an action based on their religious claims?

yes, i would, but then, i'm an american.

Ah so we ALL get to refuse WHATEVER we WANT to right? I can make up a religion RIGHT NOW that would allow me to avoid ALL SORTS of things I don't like. The FACT is that your "social contract" as an AMERICAN suspercedes your DESIRE to avoid things you find objectionable.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

depends on how you define small, i suppose. there isn't a city or town in mass that isn't within an hour of a hospital, though. they generally have doctors there. sometimes even non-christian ones, too.

There isn't a CITY or TOWN that is not within an HOUR of a hospital? PROVE IT! I find your claim to be HIGHLY SUSPECT!

you do know that massachusetts is small right?

Google Image Result for http://cometoourhospital.com/CTOH-Map-HP_op_734x411xxx.jpg

not only are we small we are the hospital capital of the country.

BTW it takes about 2-3 hours to drive the long way across our state .

 

[del]

The geographical argument is a distraction from the problem. There is a reason for separation of State and Religion. Would you support anyone's position to do or not do an action based on their religious claims?

yes, i would, but then, i'm an american.

Ah so we ALL get to refuse WHATEVER we WANT to right? I can make up a religion RIGHT NOW that would allow me to avoid ALL SORTS of things I don't like. The FACT is that your "social contract" as an AMERICAN suspercedes your DESIRE to avoid things you find objectionable.

no, it doesn't. my social contract with america requires me to obey the laws of america. period.

do you have a carbon monoxide monitor where you are?

 

[Sinatra]

And make no mistake - Obama is avoiding going to Mass on behalf of Coakley due to his recent losses in both Virginia and New Jersey.

The more Coakely attempts to align herself with Obama, the more she drops in the polls.

When that is taking place in Massachusetts, the White House is in BIG trouble...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

» Martha’s Greatest Hits III: Coakley Unaccountable to Laws She’s Sworn to Enforce - Big Journalism

» Martha’s Greatest Hits II: Candidate Coakley and the ‘Pedophile Priest’ - Big Journalism

» Martha’s Greatest Hits: The Things the Democrats Would Like You to Forget About Candidate Coakley - Big Journalism

 

[DiveCon]

REALLY? I don't know Mass that well but I assume they have SOME rural areas.

Maine is more rural than Mass, and here it would be only in the most remote areas someone would be more than an hour away from a hospital

So there ARE examples of a patient having only ONE option for health care! Thakns for PROVING my point.

no, being more than an hour away from a hospital doesnt mean you would only have one option
just it would take longer to get to those options

 

[DiveCon]

Maybe being a Christian doctor is a poor choice. As a doctor YOU don't get to decide for the PATIENT!

but they get to decide for THEMSELVES
you can not force me to do something i refuse to do

What if it's a Jewish doctor who REFUSES to operate on a Muslim patient. You can't FORCE him do something he REFUSES to do RIGHT?

thats right
and it would be more likely that a muslim patient would refuse treatment from a jewish doctor than the other way around

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Maybe being a Christian doctor is a poor choice. As a doctor YOU don't get to decide for the PATIENT!

but they get to decide for THEMSELVES
you can not force me to do something i refuse to do

What if it's a Jewish doctor who REFUSES to operate on a Muslim patient. You can't FORCE him do something he REFUSES to do RIGHT?

Thats not the same topic as the abortion thing with brown. Brown supported the sepearation of church and state by voting in favor of not forcing doctors to perform abortions if it goes against their morals.

Your argument about jewish doctors has nothing to do with the original issue you were discussing, it is an effort to distract away from the fact that what scott brown did was actually in line with the seperation of church and state.

IMO

 

[DiveCon]

» Martha’s Greatest Hits III: Coakley Unaccountable to Laws She’s Sworn to Enforce - Big Journalism

» Martha’s Greatest Hits II: Candidate Coakley and the ‘Pedophile Priest’ - Big Journalism

» Martha’s Greatest Hits: The Things the Democrats Would Like You to Forget About Candidate Coakley - Big Journalism

sheeeesh
she clearly has major problems all her own

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Well I see that there are 5 hospitals in Berkshire county, is that right?

 

[uscitizen]

If a Dr refused to operate on a relative of mine on religious grounds and my relative died as a result that Dr. Had better be prepared to meet his maker.

 

[Big Fitz]

Maybe being a Christian doctor is a poor choice. As a doctor YOU don't get to decide for the PATIENT!

but they get to decide for THEMSELVES
you can not force me to do something i refuse to do

What if it's a Jewish doctor who REFUSES to operate on a Muslim patient. You can't FORCE him do something he REFUSES to do RIGHT?

Under this bill, you probably can. It does enslave the people.

The real question is, how many will prefer dead first?

 

[Sinatra]

but they get to decide for THEMSELVES
you can not force me to do something i refuse to do

What if it's a Jewish doctor who REFUSES to operate on a Muslim patient. You can't FORCE him do something he REFUSES to do RIGHT?

Thats not the same topic as the abortion thing with brown. Brown supported the sepearation of church and state by voting in favor of not forcing doctors to perform abortions if it goes against their morals.

Your argument about jewish doctors has nothing to do with the original issue you were discussing, it is an effort to distract away from the fact that what scott brown did was actually in line with the seperation of church and state.

IMO

You are quite correct - Brown's stance on the abortion issue is actually among the most common sense of any politician. Protect the woman's right for choice, as well as the medical person's right to not have to engage in the practice as well.

It is the stance that most protects individual freedom.

Massachusetts voters understand this, and so, Coakleys attempts to raise the "Oh no he's a Republican he will take away your right to choice" is simply not working this time around.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Well I see that there are 5 hospitals in Berkshire county, is that right?

List of Massachusetts Hospitals - Board of Registration in Medicine

There is a list of all our hospital for you cold fusion

 

[Cold Fusion38]

5 in Franklin county?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

5 in Franklin county?

Franklin County Hospitals on a map

 

[Sinatra]

Check out this headline from this morning:


Coakley losing it in Massachusetts, Dems in panic mode

With the election Tuesday, Democrats are marshaling money and personnel toward the race -- if only because Coakley represents the 60th Senate vote for healthcare. Democrats are so worried they have cooked up a Plan B for healthcare -- if Brown gets sworn in, the House would just attempt to pass the Senate version of healthcare without any changes.

You could tell Coakley was losing it the other day when she derided her opponent by disdaining the most sacred of Boston icons -- the Red Sox. Criticized for taking a vacation during the campaign, Coakley defended herself and dissed Brown for an ad showing him shaking hands with voters at Fenway Park. “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?” Coakley was quoted saying.


Coakley losing it in Massachusetts, Dems in panic mode | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

 

[Sinatra]

And Mark Stein offers this scathing commentary on the chaos that surrounds not only the Coakley campaign, but by default, the Democrat Party as well...

___

Even if you're a Democrat, somewhere deep down you know that Martha Coakley wasn't what your party needed at this stage in the political cycle — a grim hack career pol embarrassingly stupid and inarticulate on matters domestic (if you're religious, don't work in an emergency room) and foreign (my sister can see the Middle East from her house) who reacts to awkward questions by complaining the press is stalking her and standing by as aides send them crashing to the sidewalk, and whose entire campaign has no rationale other than hereditary entitlement.



How Now? Brown Wow! - Mark Steyn - The Corner on National Review Online

 

[Cold Fusion38]

What if it's a Jewish doctor who REFUSES to operate on a Muslim patient. You can't FORCE him do something he REFUSES to do RIGHT?

Thats not the same topic as the abortion thing with brown. Brown supported the sepearation of church and state by voting in favor of not forcing doctors to perform abortions if it goes against their morals.

Your argument about jewish doctors has nothing to do with the original issue you were discussing, it is an effort to distract away from the fact that what scott brown did was actually in line with the seperation of church and state.

IMO

You are quite correct - Brown's stance on the abortion issue is actually among the most common sense of any politician. Protect the woman's right for choice, as well as the medical person's right to not have to engage in the practice as well.

It is the stance that most protects individual freedom.

Massachusetts voters understand this, and so, Coakleys attempts to raise the "Oh no he's a Republican he will take away your right to choice" is simply not working this time around.

BULLSHIT TOTAL BULLSHIT!!! It has NOTHING to do with PERFORMING abortions it has to do with PERSCRIBING medication. What if the doctor is a SCIENTOLOGIST and a SEVERELY depressed person comes in seeking HELP. A Scientologist will NEVER prescribe ANTI-DEPRESSANTS and so the SEVERLY depressed person goes home and kills himself. There is NO END to the services that could be REFUSED under "MORAL" objections. If you have a problem with ANY aspect of your job that you MAY be required to perform then you have NO RIGHT to be in that position.

 

[Meister]

each state should be able to elect THEIR OWN representatives to the congress without interference from any other state.

We would have more diversity and less 2 party partisanship that way.

Each state does elect their own to represent them. But, your missing the point I'm making. The elected official of each state does have impact on the rest of the nation.
What they vote on effects me, so I should be able to send donations to the person of my choice.

But you keep missing the point I am making. States rights. MOre in line with what our founders envisioned and set up.

States rights used to be a republican plank. What happened with that?

I'm not missing your point...my donations to another state does no impede that states rights.