A ultrasound is a violating invasive procedure now?

Please explain.
It appears that you simply don't understand basic procedures.

Specifically, what procedures are you speaking of, and how are they "demanding" it?

I assume the procedure he's referring to comes once a year in the middle of April.

Tail and ZR, you support this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57392796-503544/virginia-gov-bob-mcdonnell-signs-virginia-ultrasound-bill/ 

I thinks it intrusive. No.



But I don't condone murder either.

Doesn't answer the question.

I certainly do,,,
Killing a baby is murder.

God forbid if a woman would decide not to kill her baby after seeing it on an Ultrasound...

It's a great law...

If short concise sentences don't work for you, I got nothing for ya.


Its not my state so my opinion is just that an opinion. The feds need to stick to their enumerated powers and leave the states to their business.

In addition to paying for liberal sluts birth control, i'll offer up another fiver if any of them want to lick my balls...

Hate to tell you this Rick, but companies are fleeing to China faster under Idi Amin Jr. than they were Bush.

Your Master (that is: Idi Amin Jr.) is actually helping US companies move operations to China.

Oh, and by the way, the US is swapping Euros with the IMF to keep Europe afloat. So basically, you're not just paying for illegal aliens to go on welfare here, you're also paying for all of the welfare deadbeats in Europe as well.

All courtesy of Idi Amin Jr. You remember him: the guy you voted for because of his skin color.




Frankly, Rick, your gross ignorance is pretty dangerous to the welfare of this country.

Ah, I thought you forgot the ? in the first sentence and meant something like do I think it's intrusive? no.

Then ok, no support. So you think it's non-invasive, but intrusive so a bad law.

This always confuses me. He was born to a white mother, raised by white grandparents, went to white schools, but he is celebrated for his black father who abandoned his wife & child, fled to Africa, lost his legs driving drunk, and then lost his life driving drunk (with no legs) a few months later.

:-k

How is he 'celebrated' for being the son of a black man?

Now that's real gangsta **** right there homie!!

Non evasive was directed at Ricks comment as to shoving a metal devise up a moist crevasse. That isn't the law its a ultrasound. Simple as that.

I support that states rights but I don't like that decision.

I should point out the following:

1) His father, a wife-beating alcoholic, abandoned him.

2) His mother dragged him along as she traipsed across the globe after any number of liberal causes, giving him no secure home.

3) At one point, his mother abaondoned him too, so that she could go "find herself" in some innane liberal crusade.

4) His grandparents, who were Marxists, were the people who eventually raised him.

5) He lives in a country where he is able to excel to the Presidency based on his ambitions, hard work, and good nature of its citizens.

What does he do?

1) Writes a glowing book extolling his father.

2) Speaks glowingly of his mother.

3) Condemned his grandmother (you know, the only real mother-figure in his life) with the notorious "typical white woman" remark.

4) Craps all over America, dismisses it's accomplisments, and relegates to to the same playing field as other countries like Syria, and Iran.

5) Denonces other people who achieve success based on ambition and hard work.

6) Pushes an agenda that benefits people who don't work and have little-to-no ambition.




Either he is one of the DUMBEST people on the face of the earth, or he is so completely f**ked up in the head as to be beyond hope.

I might read this later, but based on the link name it's aimed at Virginia so I don't really care.

If you'd like to offer the cliffs notes version, I'd happily offer a more informed decision.

GM is mostly in Mexico already. Close enough?

Hey Fuzzy since were asking eachother questions, how do you feel about this :


The Obama administration believes that executive branch reviews of evidence against suspected al-Qaeda leaders before they are targeted for killing meet the constitution’s “due process” requirement and that American citizenship alone doesn’t protect individuals from being killed, Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech Monday.

“Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security,” Holder said. “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

Broadly outlining the guidelines the Obama administration has used to conduct lethal drone stikes overseas, Holder said the U.S. government could legally target a senior operational al Qaeda leader who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans if the individual (1) posed an imminent threat of violence; (2) could not feasibly be captured; and (3) if the operation was conducted in line with war principles.

Such a use of lethal force against that type of individual, Holder said, wouldn’t violate the executive order banning assassinations or criminal statues because such an act would be in “self defense.” In remarks delivered at Northwestern University Law School in Chicago, Holder also said that targeted killings are not “assassinations,” adding that the “use of that loaded term is misplaced” because assassinations are “unlawful killings” while targeted strikes are conducted lawfully.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has so far refused to release a copy of a legal memorandum justifying the targeted killing of the U.S. born Anwar al-Awlaki, who allegedly inspired several attacks or attempted attacks on the U.S.

While not mentioning Anwar al-Awlaki by name — Holder said he “cannot discuss or confirm any particular program or operation” — he arguably referenced his killing by using the example of a U.S. born al Qaeda leader. Holder said that “citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted.”

Holder also argued that the due process clause of the Constitution did not mean that federal judges had to review decisions to kill individuals the U.S. government claimed were terrorists.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that the Due Process Clause does not impose one-size-fits-all requirements, but instead mandates procedural safeguards that depend on specific circumstances,” Holder said.

“In cases arising under the Due Process Clause - including in a case involving a U.S. citizen captured in the conflict against al Qaeda - the Court has applied a balancing approach, weighing the private interest that will be affected against the interest the government is trying to protect, and the burdens the government would face in providing additional process,” Holder said. “Where national security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat.”

Holder said that any decision to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen is “among the gravest that government leaders can face” and that the American people deserve to be assured that actions taking place on their behalf are consistent with values and laws.”

Holder said that the “imminent threat” evaluation had to take into account what would happen if the U.S. missed its window of opportunity and said the Constitution did not require the President to “delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning.”

The question of whether the capture of a terrorist is feasible is “a fact-specific, and potentially time-sensitive, question,” said Holder, adding that the “nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide” meant capture wasn’t always possible.

Holder also said that the administration informs members of Congress about counterterrorism activities and the legal framework for targeting individuals for killing, which he said was part of a system of “robust oversight”

“The Constitution’s guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential - but, as a recent court decision makes clear, it does not require judicial approval before the President may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war - even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen,” Holder said.

Hina Shamsi of the ACLU said ahead ahead of Holder’s speech that the question was whether Holder would offer “meaningful transparency both about the legal standards that the Obama administration uses to determine who can be killed as well as basic facts about who can be targeted.”

Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First called the question of whether al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen “sort of a red herring.”

“You cannot arbitrarily kill individuals that you decided secretly are your enemies, even if they are U.S. citizens,” Eviatar said. “It’s not as if due process only applies to U.S. citizens. The bigger question is what made al-Alwaki targetable, was he an operational leader of al-Qaeda with whom were were at war?”

Anti American, anti constitution. Just like Bush limiting Habeas Corpus, the Patriot Act, Sneak and Peek searches, the drug war etc. Same stuff, different occupant. Obama is far from liberal, much to my disappointment.