By "hate speech," I don't mean the sharp put-downs that are an inevitable part of vigorous public debate. What I have in mind are the disgusting calumnies and malicious demonizations that should have no place in political discourse.
Like Ann Coulter's "My only regret about Tim McVeigh was that he didn't go to the New York Times building"?
If I recall correctly, you have said that it's ok for a parent to sell their childs urine to avoid drug detection.
in the first place, he don't think he recalls correctly... but let's suppose he did... how would selling your child's urine to someone for the purpose of beating a drug test be "immoral"?
let's see if Torpedo can actually explain how he gets immorality out of that.
personally, I find requiring someone to submit a bodily fluid for any reason to be immoral.
Then I'm wrong about that, but there are a dozen other things that Torpedo, or anyone that frequents this place, can question about your morality.
That goes for me as well.
If I question someone's/anyone's morality, I open myself up for scrutiny.
Shit, my kids have done it to me. I've said things and they've come back and said "But what about this? You did this!". And I had to say, "Yep, you're right".
So what crabweed is saying, is that if a Dr. takes a small blood sample from him or anyone else for testing, it's immoral. That's just plain stupidity.
What he said was that he had no problem with a parent or anyone else taking a child's urine by any means to beat a drug test.
So what crabweed is saying, is that if a Dr. takes a small blood sample from him or anyone else for testing, it's immoral
No... a doctor can't TAKE a sample... I have to GIVE it to him... with my consent. And he would have to use it for only what I agreed to. Now, if the doctor denies me his services because I won't GIVE him a sample... I would begin to question his morality, absolutely.
Now maybe you think it's okay for someone to TAKE something from your BODY without your consent, but I don't.
What he said was that he had no problem with a parent or anyone else taking a child's urine by any means to beat a drug test.
you really don't need me to have an argument with me... you just make up what I say and argue with it.
still waiting for you to come up with anything remotely intelligent to say, Torpedo.
in the case of a DUI, it would have been the person who was DUI whose action caused the need for the blood to be taken... and therefor it was given by way of an action, not taken.
cause and effect. it's not a hard concept to grasp.
No, Torp, I was splitting hairs on WHOtakes your blood when there have been injuries due to suspected DUI. In legal terms, a suspect has been arrested, and a BAC is a search of the suspect's person.
A doctor make take a blood sample if you are unconscious and it is deemed neccessary to diagnosis & treatment, otherwise, you must give your consent to have blood drawn.
Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, peter is wrong yet again.
Conscious or unconscious a blood draw can be forced on an individual involved in a DUI accident when there is death or great bodily harm. Consent does not need to be given.
Hmmmmmmmmmm, how about "we nuked Tokyo". That's right from YOUR mouth. That MUST be saying something intelligent, right???
nope... sorry.
I used it in a hypothetical scenario and so I used something that didn't happen to illustrate that it was hypothetical instead of a real event. Your making it something real isn't intelligent, it's stupid.
because of this, the act of driving under the influence is an action that provides consent. you can choose not to give your blood by simply choosing not to drive under the influence. no one makes you drive under the influence. by driving under the influence, you give consent.
you are still batting .000 on saying anything intelligent, Torp.
"hypothetical scenario" It took you 2 years to come up with that shit? You are truly a pathetic little fuck.
Quit while you're behind.
Â
"You can choose not to give your blood by simply choosing not to drive under the influence"...Wrong yet again, crabhole. A person does have the option of refusing a blood, breath or urine test on a DUI. IF death and/or great bodily harm are involved, there is no option. It's taken, without consent, by force, if necessary.
the driver does not have to give his blood or take a breathealyzer. He can still refuse. There are consequences for the refusal. Such as using the refusal in court.
peter is wrong yet again. Conscious or unconscious a blood draw can be forced on an individual involved in a DUI accident when there is death or great bodily harm. Consent does not need to be given.
I said that, jackass. When someone is involved in an acident and DUI is suspected, the blood draw (known as a BAC, blood alcohol content) is part of the search of the person of the arrestee. pieter b 12/31/05 1:42pm
The reference to a doctor doing a blood draw from an unconscious person for diagnosis and treatment refers to non-arrest situations; if the patient is conscious and not in custody of law enforcement, consent is required for a blood draw. If you're going to insist on hairsplitting accuracy, let me add "adult" to those criteria. PArental consent is required for a minor; some states make exceptions for life-threatening situations, and the parental-consent requirement can sometimes be overriden if they refuse.
Chalk up another piece of brilliance for the Hobby Journalists.
He needs to stop brooding and go bowling once in awhile.
Yeah! I haven't been bowling in a long time.
From the Jacoby column:
Like Ann Coulter's "My only regret about Tim McVeigh was that he didn't go to the New York Times building"?
he participated in the obstruction of justice by firing the person investigating crimes done by his boss.
this is not behavior that shows any moral character whatsoever.
Yes, Mr. child urine broker.
say something intelligent, Torpedo
I dare you.
"this is not behavior that shows any moral character whatsoever".
I think that Torp was able to point that out shows a level of intelligence.
Aren't they debating Bork's morals, not Crabs's morals?
Who is that immoral Crabgrass to judge Bork?
"If you're debating someones morals, shouldn't your own be open for debate?"
Why?
"I don't think it was Crabby that originally made it personal."
No, it was torpedo.
Why?
Because who is that immoral Crabby to call anyone else immoral?
It's like a slut calling a slut a slut.
I'm not saying that I personally think Crabby is immoral, but once he started questioning Borks morals, he opened himself up too.
No, it was torpedo.
I know. It went down a bad path yet again.....
in the first place, he don't think he recalls correctly... but let's suppose he did... how would selling your child's urine to someone for the purpose of beating a drug test be "immoral"?
let's see if Torpedo can actually explain how he gets immorality out of that.
personally, I find requiring someone to submit a bodily fluid for any reason to be immoral.
If Crabs is peddling child urine and boasting about it, then I suppose you could do that.
But otherwise it's just an opinion on a topic.
in the first place, he doesn't recall correctly
Then I'm wrong about that, but there are a dozen other things that Torpedo, or anyone that frequents this place, can question about your morality.
That goes for me as well.
If I question someone's/anyone's morality, I open myself up for scrutiny.
Shit, my kids have done it to me. I've said things and they've come back and said "But what about this? You did this!". And I had to say, "Yep, you're right".
but what does any of this have to do with Bork?
"Who the hell are you (you immoral bastard) to judge Borks morality?"
"You wouldn't know morality if it bit you in the ass".
This isn't my personal opinion of you, I'm just saying.....
I don't think it does.
my own morality doesn't not change Bork's.
a slut can recognize a slut just as easily as a virgin.
You got a point there Crabby.
I'm still waiting for Torpedo to say anything intelligent... and no THX, saying a variation of "I know you are but what am I?" doesn't count.
So what, so are you, so am I.
Move along.....
explain that to bodine and Torpedo.
So what crabweed is saying, is that if a Dr. takes a small blood sample from him or anyone else for testing, it's immoral. That's just plain stupidity.
What he said was that he had no problem with a parent or anyone else taking a child's urine by any means to beat a drug test.
No... a doctor can't TAKE a sample... I have to GIVE it to him... with my consent. And he would have to use it for only what I agreed to. Now, if the doctor denies me his services because I won't GIVE him a sample... I would begin to question his morality, absolutely.
Now maybe you think it's okay for someone to TAKE something from your BODY without your consent, but I don't.
you really don't need me to have an argument with me... you just make up what I say and argue with it.
Go on... say something intelligent. I dare you.
I didn't make anything up.
A Dr. or nurse can TAKE a blood sample from you under certain conditions, dummy.
Which are . . . .?
DUI involving death or great bodily harm.
Killing someone while DUI would fall under "giving consent".
let us know when if you ever come up with just one thing intelligent to say.
Jesus Christ you're a fucking idiot.
Actually, it's not the doctor or the nurse that takes your blood then, it's the state.
still waiting for you to come up with anything remotely intelligent to say, Torpedo.
in the case of a DUI, it would have been the person who was DUI whose action caused the need for the blood to be taken... and therefor it was given by way of an action, not taken.
cause and effect. it's not a hard concept to grasp.
And you're about the dumbest. Funny how things come full circle. I knew a liberal would come up with a schoolyard response to 10600.
peter is splitting hairs on the word "take". One legally. One physically.
crabwasted is so far off (as usual) it's amazing.
whereas Torpedo can come up with a schoolyard response pretty much every post he makes.
go on Torpedo, say something even remotely intelligent... just once.
No, Torp, I was splitting hairs on WHOtakes your blood when there have been injuries due to suspected DUI. In legal terms, a suspect has been arrested, and a BAC is a search of the suspect's person.
A doctor make take a blood sample if you are unconscious and it is deemed neccessary to diagnosis & treatment, otherwise, you must give your consent to have blood drawn.
there it is Torp, your big chance to say something intelligent... don't blow it
Hmmmmmmmmmm, how about "we nuked Tokyo". That's right from YOUR mouth. That MUST be saying something intelligent, right???
Â
Â
Â
Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, peter is wrong yet again.
Conscious or unconscious a blood draw can be forced on an individual involved in a DUI accident when there is death or great bodily harm. Consent does not need to be given.
nope... sorry.
I used it in a hypothetical scenario and so I used something that didn't happen to illustrate that it was hypothetical instead of a real event. Your making it something real isn't intelligent, it's stupid.
Try again.
because of this, the act of driving under the influence is an action that provides consent. you can choose not to give your blood by simply choosing not to drive under the influence. no one makes you drive under the influence. by driving under the influence, you give consent.
you are still batting .000 on saying anything intelligent, Torp.
"hypothetical scenario" It took you 2 years to come up with that shit? You are truly a pathetic little fuck.
Quit while you're behind.
Â
"You can choose not to give your blood by simply choosing not to drive under the influence"...Wrong yet again, crabhole. A person does have the option of refusing a blood, breath or urine test on a DUI. IF death and/or great bodily harm are involved, there is no option. It's taken, without consent, by force, if necessary.
Â
Quit while you're behind.
nope... those aren't intelligent statements.
those are white flags you are waving.
I accept your surrender, dumbass. White flags and fetal position pacifists go hand and hand.
and still nothing that remotely resembles an intelligent comment from Torpedo.
the driver does not have to give his blood or take a breathealyzer. He can still refuse. There are consequences for the refusal. Such as using the refusal in court.
That is correct.
I said that, jackass. When someone is involved in an acident and DUI is suspected, the blood draw (known as a BAC, blood alcohol content) is part of the search of the person of the arrestee. pieter b 12/31/05 1:42pm
The reference to a doctor doing a blood draw from an unconscious person for diagnosis and treatment refers to non-arrest situations; if the patient is conscious and not in custody of law enforcement, consent is required for a blood draw. If you're going to insist on hairsplitting accuracy, let me add "adult" to those criteria. PArental consent is required for a minor; some states make exceptions for life-threatening situations, and the parental-consent requirement can sometimes be overriden if they refuse.
It's amazing what a retarded backtracker you can be. After I corrected you, you come back with, "I said that".
Are you tired, again?
uh...huh?
What part of that statement do you not understand? The next paragraph deals with a different subject; that's why there's a break before it.