Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Maybe Scalia secretly likes PPV topless Foxy Boxing and will go our way.

No, that is Thomas' thing.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I think she is an Atticus tribute sock

I would never be the tribute sock of someone so lame as to list his location as cock!.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The Southern GOP should be cross-examined on this. So the War Between the States shouldn't have been waged because slavery was a dying institution and the states should have worked it out amongst themselves, hmmmmm?

You are getting close to an uncomfortable truth that people would rather not hear. These issues are more intertwined than you might think. The actual conflict between North and South stemmed from the movement to give gay slaves the right to marry. The issues were reduced to a simpler cause in public discourse due to the sensibilities of the times.

[Atticus Grinch]

Had a "partial birth" abortion recently? John Ashcroft wants to talk to you.

Actually, he wants your medical records. Not so much the talking part.

Don't worry; it's for impeachment of the plaintiff in a constitutional challenge to a new federal law.

I love the fact that the DOJ doesn't comment on ongoing litigation. Being a spokesperson for them must be a sweet gig.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Don't worry; it's for impeachment of the plaintiff in a constitutional challenge to a new federal law.

Curious what arouses your ire on this one. I've had occasion to request (and get) med recs of non-parties (with id info wiped, of course) for suits involving facilities and procedures. What part is objectionable to you?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Had a "partial birth" abortion recently? John Ashcroft wants to talk to you.

Actually, he wants your medical records. Not so much the talking part.

If they blank out all the personally identifiable information and just refer to them as patient #1 - 7, I don't see what the problem is. Just redact the personally identifiable information and that is in-line with HIPAA.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Curious what arouses your ire on this one. I've had occasion to request (and get) med recs of non-parties (with id info wiped, of course) for suits involving facilities and procedures. What part is objectionable to you?

It is because it involves abortion and abortion is a sacred cow to AG and the other liberals. Nothing must ever be done that might ever cause a woman to think twice before having an abortion.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Curious what arouses your ire on this one. I've had occasion to request (and get) med recs of non-parties (with id info wiped, of course) for suits involving facilities and procedures. What part is objectionable to you?

The "of course" part is the rub. Since the DOJ doesn't comment on pending litigation, I assume that the DOJ's contention that it wasn't seeking patient-identifying information in these 40 files was an argument made to the court, not just to the press. And yet the judge found that it would have violated HIPAA.

I've read medical files, too. It's hard to redact all of the identifying info, esp. when a complete medical history is taken before a procedure involving anesthesia.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
And yet the judge found that it would have violated HIPAA.

Right 'cuz no district court judge has ever incorrectly interpreted the law.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I've read medical files, too. It's hard to redact all of the identifying info, esp. when a complete medical history is taken before a procedure involving anesthesia.

Right 'cuz there is probably only one woman in all of chicago who has had a family history of heart disease, doesn't smoke, drinks occasionally, had an appendectomy as a child, her gallbladder out, and an abortion. Right. I think I know her.

[Not Me]

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154/...83006_101.html

Here is an article to enrage the "I-hate-GWB" crowd.

"This was a government issue. It's acceptable practice to socialize with executive branch officials when there are not personal claims against them. That's all I'm going to say for now. Quack, quack."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
An oldie but a goodie.

Am I the only Repub that feels sorry for Dean? I always disagreed with his positions and didn't care for his demeanor, but was that one speech so bad that the Dems had to turn on him like that? He was their champion and they just kicked him to the curb for what seems to me to be a forgiveable mistake.

I feel sorry for him too, but I think it's more out of self-interest because Bush would have beat him in a landslide.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I feel sorry for him too, but I think it's more out of self-interest because Bush would have beat him in a landslide.

I agree, but wasn't that apparant before the speech? I guess the speech came after the defeat in Iowa, so maybe the speech wasn't the real reason.

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
I feel sorry for him too, but I think it's more out of self-interest because Bush would have beat him in a landslide.

I'm hoping that the Deaniacs are able to persuade him to go out and run as a third party candidate.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm hoping that the Deaniacs are able to persuade him to go out and run as a third party candidate.

Speaking of being persuaded to run, I wonder if Clark is just kicking himself for listening to the Clintons?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm hoping that the Deaniacs are able to persuade him to go out and run as a third party candidate.

A Dean/Nader ticket? Music.