Boom!!!! Scott Brown Pulls Ahead

[Maple]

Wow Pajamas.....................I am just to tired to BLAST A MASSIVE HOLE in more of you poll DATA. For anyone who is interested I started disecting Sinatra's poll "data" on page 21-22 I think anyone with a mind will find it quite humorous.

I thought you were the one who did not care about the polls??? We will see come Tuesday, and I am still praying very hard for a Scott Brown win.
I saved that crow for you in my freezer.

 

[Maple]

there is no link because that statement is a flat out lie.

Brown is opposed to forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. He is not opposed to offering medical aid to rape victims.

No it is not a lie. In 2005 he proposed an Amendment to a Bill that would allow healthcare workers the right to deny emergency contraceptive to rape victims. That is advocating denying medication to rape victims on the grounds of religion. Apparently the Coakley campaign put out an ad about it that was misleading in some ways, but the fact remains he advocated healthcare workers should have the right to deny EC to rape victims. You can read the text of his amendment here:

Bay State Battle | FactCheck.org

I'm with Curve on this one as I KNOW the law that he tried to get passed as it was tried here in Idaho. Why only Catholics? Isn't that putting ONE religion ahead of another? And it is NOT repeat NOT about not forcing doctors to perform ABORTIONS it is about allowing CATHOLICS to not prescribe MEDICATION and although I don't like slippery slope arguments I think this bill would lead to ALL SORTS OF GROUPS not wanting to prescribe ALL SORTS of MEDICATIONS.

No it wouldn't, because there are many, many pro-choicers out there. In fact, I think that the pro-choice outnumber the pro-lifers.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

If Brown can stay strong and focused he should win. The Democrat personal smear campaigns are now heating up and i expect them to hit a fever-pitch by Tuesday. The Liberal hate groups like Moveon.org are spending $Millions trying to smear Brown. He wins pretty easily on issues and beliefs and the Liberal wing nuts know this. They'll have to try and 'Palin' him now. Look for their smears to get pretty ugly. He just needs to weather the storm because he does have a real chance of winning. I guess we'll see.

Sorry Lib but I KNOW you are too smart to buy this poll data. If you have ANY intellectual honesty you will admit that this data is FATALLY FLAWED. Is Brown running a FAR superior campaign? YOU BET HE IS. Is he likely to WIN? Not really and this poll data does VERY little to change that.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Wow Pajamas.....................I am just to tired to BLAST A MASSIVE HOLE in more of you poll DATA. For anyone who is interested I started disecting Sinatra's poll "data" on page 21-22 I think anyone with a mind will find it quite humorous.

I thought you were the one who did not care about the polls??? We will see come Tuesday, and I am still praying very hard for a Scott Brown win.
I saved that crow for you in my freezer.

I DON'T care about poll data except for the fact that people are trying to use it to say something is DOESN'T or CAN'T reasonably say. I find it odd that you show up just now since you were posting so late last night. It supports my contention that you are indeed a sock puppet.

 

[namvet]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJEEQHOnI2Q[/ame]
​

 

[CurveLight]

No it is not a lie. In 2005 he proposed an Amendment to a Bill that would allow healthcare workers the right to deny emergency contraceptive to rape victims. That is advocating denying medication to rape victims on the grounds of religion. Apparently the Coakley campaign put out an ad about it that was misleading in some ways, but the fact remains he advocated healthcare workers should have the right to deny EC to rape victims. You can read the text of his amendment here:

Bay State Battle | FactCheck.org

I'm with Curve on this one as I KNOW the law that he tried to get passed as it was tried here in Idaho. Why only Catholics? Isn't that putting ONE religion ahead of another? And it is NOT repeat NOT about not forcing doctors to perform ABORTIONS it is about allowing CATHOLICS to not prescribe MEDICATION and although I don't like slippery slope arguments I think this bill would lead to ALL SORTS OF GROUPS not wanting to prescribe ALL SORTS of MEDICATIONS.

No it wouldn't, because there are many, many pro-choicers out there. In fact, I think that the pro-choice outnumber the pro-lifers.

Why don't you tell us again how Brown was right to propose the Amendment because the US didn't do anything to those who refused the Draft based on religion in WW1?

 

[CurveLight]

No it is not a lie. In 2005 he proposed an Amendment to a Bill that would allow healthcare workers the right to deny emergency contraceptive to rape victims. That is advocating denying medication to rape victims on the grounds of religion. Apparently the Coakley campaign put out an ad about it that was misleading in some ways, but the fact remains he advocated healthcare workers should have the right to deny EC to rape victims. You can read the text of his amendment here:

Bay State Battle | FactCheck.org

I'm with Curve on this one as I KNOW the law that he tried to get passed as it was tried here in Idaho. Why only Catholics? Isn't that putting ONE religion ahead of another? And it is NOT repeat NOT about not forcing doctors to perform ABORTIONS it is about allowing CATHOLICS to not prescribe MEDICATION and although I don't like slippery slope arguments I think this bill would lead to ALL SORTS OF GROUPS not wanting to prescribe ALL SORTS of MEDICATIONS.

No it wouldn't, because there are many, many pro-choicers out there. In fact, I think that the pro-choice outnumber the pro-lifers.

Brown didn't cite Catholics only. His Amendment would have allowed any person of any religion to refuse the treatment. In a weird way he was not prejudiced against those whom he supported on the option of bigotry.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

No it is not a lie. In 2005 he proposed an Amendment to a Bill that would allow healthcare workers the right to deny emergency contraceptive to rape victims. That is advocating denying medication to rape victims on the grounds of religion. Apparently the Coakley campaign put out an ad about it that was misleading in some ways, but the fact remains he advocated healthcare workers should have the right to deny EC to rape victims. You can read the text of his amendment here:

Bay State Battle | FactCheck.org

I'm with Curve on this one as I KNOW the law that he tried to get passed as it was tried here in Idaho. Why only Catholics? Isn't that putting ONE religion ahead of another? And it is NOT repeat NOT about not forcing doctors to perform ABORTIONS it is about allowing CATHOLICS to not prescribe MEDICATION and although I don't like slippery slope arguments I think this bill would lead to ALL SORTS OF GROUPS not wanting to prescribe ALL SORTS of MEDICATIONS.

No it wouldn't, because there are many, many pro-choicers out there. In fact, I think that the pro-choice outnumber the pro-lifers.

BULLSHIT that is EXACTELY what it would do. The FACT is that a doctor wouldn't have to prescribe ANY medication they had a problem with, a pharmacist wouldn't have to FILL any prescription they had a problem with, and ANYONE could use this legislation to make a claim that they don't have to do ANYTHING that conflicts with their "MORALS".

 

[Navy1960]

Yes, rape is a horrible crime and those that are victims of it should be given the treatment that they need. However, to force a treating healthcare worker to administer contraceptives to those victims would be the same as forcing a person to go to war and kill if their religion forbids it. As there is no lack of healthcare workers willing to give such treatment to force all of them is not consistant with how our nation has recognized religious matters and conscientious objetion issues related to that. So the Ad itself is leaving the impression that conscientious objetion has no place in society and attempts to tie that to the terrible crime of rape and leave the impression that Scott Brown is somehow not supporting these rape victims. The fact is by supporting the ability for treating healthcare workers to do so Scott Brown is upholding a long held tradtion in this nation of conscientious objetion and at the same time recognizing that the victims of this awful crime have a right to seek whatever healthcare they wish. Something that the Coakley campaign has not considered nor has thought, of because they are too busy creating attack ads, rather than actual solutions. If I were an advisor to the Coakley campaign I would advise her to be very careful on this sort of path because, she herself can be called into question for her lackluster prosecution of some of those who committed violent crime.


United States v. Seeger

We have concluded that Congress, in using the expression "Supreme Being" rather than the designation "God," was merely clarifying the meaning of religious training and belief so as to embrace all religions and to exclude essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views. We believe that under this construction, the test of belief [380 U.S. 163, 166] "in a relation to a Supreme Being" is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of their respective holders we cannot say that one is "in a relation to a Supreme Being" and the other is not. We have concluded that the beliefs of the objectors in these cases meet these criteria, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgments in Nos. 50 and 51 and reverse the judgment in No. 29.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

If killing in combat can be objected to on the grounds that a persons relegion does not permit such an act and in doing so does not prevent others from doing so, so to then can a healthcare worker do the same when it comes to the denial of contraceptives, as it does not prevent the victim from getting that elsewhere. Again, the Ad by the Coakley campaign is another in a series of attack ads by a campaign that seems to have nothing positive to say about their own candidate.

 

[Liability]

Yes, rape is a horrible crime and those that are victims of it should be given the treatment that they need. However, to force a treating healthcare worker to administer contraceptives to those victims would be the same as forcing a person to go to war and kill if their religion forbids it. As there is no lack of healthcare workers willing to give such treatment to force all of them is not consistant with how our nation has recognized religious matters and conscientious objetion issues related to that. So the Ad itself is leaving the impression that conscientious objetion has no place in society and attempts to tie that to the terrible crime of rape and leave the impression that Scott Brown is somehow not supporting these rape victims. The fact is by supporting the ability for treating healthcare workers to do so Scott Brown is upholding a long held tradtion in this nation of conscientious objetion and at the same time recognizing that the victims of this awful crime have a right to seek whatever healthcare they wish. Something that the Coakley campaign has not considered nor has thought, of because they are too busy creating attack ads, rather than actual solutions. If I were an advisor to the Coakley campaign I would advise her to be very careful on this sort of path because, she herself can be called into question for her lackluster prosecution of some of those who committed violent crime.


United States v. Seeger

We have concluded that Congress, in using the expression "Supreme Being" rather than the designation "God," was merely clarifying the meaning of religious training and belief so as to embrace all religions and to exclude essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views. We believe that under this construction, the test of belief [380 U.S. 163, 166] "in a relation to a Supreme Being" is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of their respective holders we cannot say that one is "in a relation to a Supreme Being" and the other is not. We have concluded that the beliefs of the objectors in these cases meet these criteria, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgments in Nos. 50 and 51 and reverse the judgment in No. 29.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

If killing in combat can be objected to on the grounds that a persons relegion does not permit such an act and in doing so does not prevent others from doing so, so to then can a healthcare worker do the same when it comes to the denial of contraceptives, as it does not prevent the victim from getting that elsewhere. Again, the Ad by the Coakley campaign is another in a series of attack ads by a campaign that seems to have nothing positive to say about their own candidate.

Well said and well reasoned position.

I confess that I see at least some merit on both sides of this debate. But I think this post comes the closest to capturing my views on the matter.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Navy. Actually it would be more like someone JOINING the military and THEN saying they won't kill anyone. If you become a doctor you have a "MORAL" obligation to give your patient the care THEY ask for. Tell me this Navy where does it stop? Like I posted a few pages ago what is to stop a Mormon from selling booze or cigarettes? Or a Seventh Day Adventist to REFUSE to prescribe ANYTHING. Or a Scientologist to refuse Psychotropic drugs. These people need to just GET THE **** over themselves and give the woman the ******* PILL!!!!

 

[Full-Auto]

Navy. Actually it would be more like someone JOINING the military and THEN saying they won't kill anyone. If you become a doctor you have a "MORAL" obligation to give your patient the care THEY ask for. Tell me this Navy where does it stop? Like I posted a few pages ago what is to stop a Mormon from selling booze or cigarettes? Or a Seventh Day Adventist to REFUSE to prescribe ANYTHING. Or a Scientologist to refuse Psychotropic drugs. These people need to just GET THE **** over themselves and give the woman the ******* PILL!!!!

Since this conflict involves emergency care.

Could you explain how an emergency contraceptive is an actuall life threatening emergency.

It is my understanding they have 5 days for maximum effectiveness.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I am going to start a religion that says I am "MORALLY" opposed to paying taxes. The fact you are refusing to acknowlege is that the "Social Contract" supercedes your CHOICE of religion, because if it didn't then you would have people claiming that their religion prevents them from serving on a jury or any NUMBER of other "MORAL" objections that allow them to stand OUTSIDE society.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Navy. Actually it would be more like someone JOINING the military and THEN saying they won't kill anyone. If you become a doctor you have a "MORAL" obligation to give your patient the care THEY ask for. Tell me this Navy where does it stop? Like I posted a few pages ago what is to stop a Mormon from selling booze or cigarettes? Or a Seventh Day Adventist to REFUSE to prescribe ANYTHING. Or a Scientologist to refuse Psychotropic drugs. These people need to just GET THE **** over themselves and give the woman the ******* PILL!!!!

Since this conflict involves emergency care.

Could you explain how an emergency contraceptive is an actuall life threatening emergency.

It is my understanding they have 5 days for maximum effectiveness.

I am pretty sure a woman who has the fetus of her RAPIST growing inside her would be more prone to commit suicide. And as far as I know the MAXIMUM effectiveness is within 24 HOURS!

 

[Maple]

Yes, rape is a horrible crime and those that are victims of it should be given the treatment that they need. However, to force a treating healthcare worker to administer contraceptives to those victims would be the same as forcing a person to go to war and kill if their religion forbids it. As there is no lack of healthcare workers willing to give such treatment to force all of them is not consistant with how our nation has recognized religious matters and conscientious objetion issues related to that. So the Ad itself is leaving the impression that conscientious objetion has no place in society and attempts to tie that to the terrible crime of rape and leave the impression that Scott Brown is somehow not supporting these rape victims. The fact is by supporting the ability for treating healthcare workers to do so Scott Brown is upholding a long held tradtion in this nation of conscientious objetion and at the same time recognizing that the victims of this awful crime have a right to seek whatever healthcare they wish. Something that the Coakley campaign has not considered nor has thought, of because they are too busy creating attack ads, rather than actual solutions. If I were an advisor to the Coakley campaign I would advise her to be very careful on this sort of path because, she herself can be called into question for her lackluster prosecution of some of those who committed violent crime.


United States v. Seeger

We have concluded that Congress, in using the expression "Supreme Being" rather than the designation "God," was merely clarifying the meaning of religious training and belief so as to embrace all religions and to exclude essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views. We believe that under this construction, the test of belief [380 U.S. 163, 166] "in a relation to a Supreme Being" is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of their respective holders we cannot say that one is "in a relation to a Supreme Being" and the other is not. We have concluded that the beliefs of the objectors in these cases meet these criteria, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgments in Nos. 50 and 51 and reverse the judgment in No. 29.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

If killing in combat can be objected to on the grounds that a persons relegion does not permit such an act and in doing so does not prevent others from doing so, so to then can a healthcare worker do the same when it comes to the denial of contraceptives, as it does not prevent the victim from getting that elsewhere. Again, the Ad by the Coakley campaign is another in a series of attack ads by a campaign that seems to have nothing positive to say about their own candidate.

Well said and well reasoned position.

I confess that I see at least some merit on both sides of this debate. But I think this post comes the closest to capturing my views on the matter.

Exactly my point, if you can be exempted from killing in combat due to religious convictions, why not this??? If you can be exempted from a draft, why not this??Why can't you be exempted from giving a morning after pill or performing an abortion after a rape or incest due to religious convictionst??? That is in direct violation of their religious freedom and even though many have taken this exemption on combat, we still have had plenty of willing people to go and defend our county.

Coakley blew it, with her statement on Catholics working in an emergency room, I don't think that she knows that 40% of the voters in Massachusetts are Catholics. Stupid!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

IM laughing reading these posts............the back and forth bs on these micro issues................

Nobody cares except the internet k00ks.....................

Heres the poop...........the fact that Brown is dead even with the Democrat in the Peoples Republic of Massacheusetts = epic fail of the radical public policy agenda's being proposed by the far left leaning Democrat party of 2009................specifically, its the people saying, "THIS HEALTH CARE STUFF IS A FRAUD!!!" Independents in Mass are cutting out in boatloads by the day.............this is not the sh!t they at all expected back in November of 2008. The fact that Coakley is a naive dummy ( see comment on AlQueda completely leaving Pershian lands ) is secondary in importance.

Who could have ever guessed that somelike Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and his staff would have major skid marks in their shorts by Jan 2010 with respect to their re-election in November = nobody.

Let me tell those more clued into the big picture...........America is rejecting liberal big government public policy just like they always have in the last 50 years.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Why can't I be exempt from paying taxes? In my religion I am "MORALLY" opposed to ANY law that restricts MY freedom. I don't recognise the right of my Gov't to overide the will of MY God that I be free to act in ANY way I see fit. If my God wishes me to I will KILL or STEAL any time I WANT to.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

IM laughing reading these posts............the back and forth bs on these micro issues................

Nobody cares except the internet k00ks.....................

Heres the poop...........the fact that Brown is dead even with the Democrat in the Peoples Republic of Massacheusetts = epic fail of the radical public policy agenda's being proposed by the far left leaning Democrat party of 2009................specifically, its the people saying, "THIS HEALTH CARE STUFF IS A FRAUD!!!" Independents in Mass are cutting out in boatloads by the day.............this is not the sh!t they at all expected back in November of 2008. The fact that Coakley is a naive dummy ( see comment on AlQueda completely leaving Pershian lands ) is secondary in importance.

Who could have ever guessed that somelike Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and his staff would have major skid marks in their shorts by Jan 2010 with respect to their re-election in November = nobody.

Let me tell those more clued into the big picture...........America is rejecting liberal big government public policy just like they always have in the last 50 years.

the fact that Brown is dead even with the Democrat in the Peoples Republic of Massacheusetts


Sorry Skook but that's NOT a fact as I proved on pages 21-22. The poll if FATALLY FLAWED even as far as polls go. FIVE HUNDRED PEOPLE Skook FIVE HUNDRED PEOPLE. That gives you a magine of error FAR TOO wide to be taken seriously, add to that the OBVIOUS bias of the questions, which I CLEARLY pointed out on pages 21-22, and you have NOTHING. The OP claimed that 90% are DECIDED which I proved was a BOLD FACED LIE!!!


So come on Skook use you mind I know you are inteligent enough to see through these "POLL" results.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Hey Skook would you remind us here what you prediction for the Presidential election was.

 

[Navy1960]

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.


Therapeutic nihilism is a contention that curing people, or societies, of their ills by treatment is impossible.

In medicine, it was connected to the idea that many "cures" do more harm than good, and that one should instead encourage the body to heal itself. Michel de Montaigne espoused this view in his Essais. This position was later popular, among other places, in France in the 1820s and 1830s, but has mostly faded away in the modern era due to the development of provably effective medicines such as antibiotics, starting with the release of sulfonamide in 1936.

Objecting to giving contraceptives is NOT incosistant with that oath nor is does it deny a patient the ability to aquire them should they so choose. What some are advocating here is that a healthcare worker should have no MORAL right to deny a contraceptive on sound moral grounds. A. by not doing so it does NOT endanger the life of the victim. B. the victim has the ability to seek that service form any avialable source. So it seems that the Borwn campaign is correct as this legislation in my opinion was seeking middle ground on this issue , because it did not deny the use of contraceptives to anyone and still sought to respect the beliefs of healthcare workers and the wishes of rape victims.