drmiler

The top Fl Court has ruled his records may be opened to see if he committed a crime. He got four prescriptions from four different doctors during the same period and had then all filled at the same drug store. He got almost 2,000 pills and is an admitted drug user. There is every reason why his medical records should be open to see if he was "Doctor Shopping".

#18 by COL Gene Wednesday, June 08, 2005 drmiler The top Fl Court has ruled his records may be opened to see if he committed a crime. He got four prescriptions from four different doctors during the same period and had then all filled at the same drug store. He got almost 2,000 pills and is an admitted drug user. There is every reason why his medical records should be open to see if he was "Doctor Shopping".

Sorry but that is just wrong! Unless you give "written" authorization you med records are suppossed to be sealed! Rush has NOT given the authorization so therefore they are/will be in violation of Florida's constitutional right of privacy and doctor-patient confidentiality! Christ even your right hand believer dabe says it's wrong.

However, having said that, I think that doctors should not be releasing his medical records unless rush approves it. If the feds have specific evidence, then use that. They should never be given carte blance to go on fishing expeditions to nail anyone. This is a basic example of a police-leaning state, and totally unacceptable. Not for rush, not for anyone.

And like my previous post states: The ACLU is already on this.

*sighs* You expect us to automatically see the disclaimer and realize that you're not referring to all leftists, but again yell at us when we generalize. I'm not trying to pick a fight with this- it's completely the wrong topic, but I still don't appreciate it. In the tone you were writing, it appeared to the public that you were referring to all liberals. I'm sorry that I don't know you well enough, or have not read enough of your posts, or whatever that I cannot discern the difference between your comments about all leftists and some leftists.

Righty: "N. Korea shouldnt have nukes!" Lefty: "Well, WE have them!" Righty: "N. Korea would use them, though!" Lefty: "OH YEAH? WELL WE ALREADY DID!"

We have already used them, and I don't believe it's particularly fair of us to say we're allowed to use our weapons, but N. Korea, an independant country with its own laws, can't.

Is there something wrong with America looking out for her own interests above all others? Isn't that what our leaders are supposed to do? I suppose you'd rather see us as some sort of global nanny/benevolent world cop, spreading our resources so thin in an effort to make the world right for all that we ourselves end up living in far worse conditions than we have now? It's only fair, right?

I didn't say that. And no, I wouldn't. I would rather we stayed out of everyone's business and got on with our own lives- instead of trying to mess up governments elsewhere. Terrorists attacked us, yes, but not an entire country. So, why are we going to war with the ENTIRE country, then? Because we believe something is bad there. That's fine. We can believe it all we want, but we have no right or place going in and screwing everything up just because we don't like it. I don't want America to to be starving in order to help other people, I want us to just leave all the other people alone. We can participate in global affairs, of course, and be an active country, but going gallavanting off on our own adventures won't help the world. America isn't the only country out there, and I'd be a lot more comfortable living in it if I knew that we discussed things calmly and agreed to take actions only when they were in the general interest of the global population in general versus just what we want.

tried to find my article entitled "War For Oil? Time To Prove It!" but JU is so retardedly slow this morning the page keeps timing out, but go take a look at your leisure. I have NO intention of getting into that tired old argument again here, it was disgusting enough when it occured on that thread, but just to answer your question about source, I used current statistics from the American Petroleum Institute, which can be found here. Link

Thank you.

I'm sorry, but I hardly call merely hearing the words "Our Lord Jesus Christ" spoken is shoving religion down your throat. Propriety aside, you were still free to leave if you were that offended. If they required you to profess a faith in Jesus Christ in order to attend this Birthday Ball, that would be shoving it down your throat.

I have nothing against hearing the words "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" spoken in public. What I don't appreciate is that they oriented these words- and therefore, the Christian religion- with our FLAG. The flag is the symbol of our country- which is supposed to be nondenominational as a whole. However, when you start associating Jesus with the flag, that makes our country not so "free religion" as it could be. It's symbolism. Symbolism that is directly contradicting what our country stands for.

This is a prime example of lefty intolerance towards Christians. The mere utterance of a religious phrase at any public event is seen as some sort of effort to force conversion upon all who hear it. Did you convert, DH? Did you feel you would miss out on some governmental benefit if you didn't? Are you being denied any civil rights due to your lack of conversion?

No, I'm not being denied civil rights. But I am seeing my country going down the drain and saying directly the opposite of what it's supposed to stand for. People are trying to integrate religion into most everything now- places where religion should be kept completely separate. The point of a public school is to ensure that everybody gets an equal opportunity to learn without having any strict guidelines as to what they're learning, or how, or the environment in which they do. But when the schools starts holding morning prayers for everyone, then that starts to go against our right to free religion. I'm sorry, I can't just walk out of school without having to suffer consequences. And why should I have to suffer consequences for protecting my first amendment right?

Give it a rest, lefties. If you want to see what having religion shoved down your throat really looks like, you need look no further than the middle east, where one can be beaten on the streets for showing a lock of hair, or executed for adultery

And this has what to do with religion again...

Sudan has oil.

But do they sell it to us?

Cheers, Pads
~The Grim~

Sudan has oil. But do they sell it to us? Cheers, Pads ~The Grim~

Actually, yes they do.

Sudan has oil. But do they sell it to us? Cheers, Pads ~The Grim~ Actually, yes, they do

Then I won't bring it up anymore. I apologize.

Cheers, Pads

The US becoming a police state is not the sole domain of the liberals. We are not yet a police state, but I assure you, that to some people in America, there is little difference.

Have you ever been detained because you weren't carrying "papers"? I have (in many communities, no ID and no money on your person is grounds for you to be locked up for vagrancy). Ever been threatened with a 48 hour detention without cause if you refused a consent search? Again, I have. Ever had to flee from one community in the middle of the night because an overzealous individual used CPS as a weapon to try to remove your children from you because of a conflict in values? Once again, I have (ironically, however, by a militant member of the left).

If you travel between cities in this country using any form of public transportation, photo identification is required and you are subject to random searches and/or ID checks (don't believe me? Try Albuquerque, New Mexico, where on our most recent move, we were stopped and our ID's were checked and we were searched before reboarding the bus).

No, we are not a police state...YET. But the fact remains, those who claim we aren't a police state are ignoring the fact that we are fast becomming a police state because the majority of the American public refuses to be diligent.

And I am NOT a liberal!

Why? because there are a lot more small states than big states, and if the vote was popular, besides having 50 Florida 2000s, the candidates would ignore the small states.

News flash: many candidates ALREADY ignore the small states precisely BECAUSE of the electoral college. In 1992 (being young and foolish), I wanted to work on the Clinton campaign in Oklahoma. Long story short, there WAS no Clinton campaign in Oklahoma; the dems didn't want to even try for those votes. There are liberal states that the Republicans likewise ignore.

This is one of those arguments where I DEFINITELY see both sides. Because the interests of the people within each states vary so widely, however, this is a MAJOR reason I advocate for a minarchist federal government; a federal government of a country with such varied demographics cannot be reasonably expected to represent the interest of all, or even most, in their legislation. So most laws should be left to the STATES ro decide.

(incidentally, and oddly enough, my "perfect" world would consist of a Libertarian federal and state government, and a democratic socialist local government).

When does anything that dabe has to say have anything to do with the topic at hand?

--When its his tpoic....

I have nothing against hearing the words "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" spoken in public. What I don't appreciate is that they oriented these words- and therefore, the Christian religion- with our FLAG. The flag is the symbol of our country- which is supposed to be nondenominational as a whole. However, when you start associating Jesus with the flag, that makes our country not so "free religion" as it could be. It's symbolism. Symbolism that is directly contradicting what our country stands for.

--Our country (USA) was founded by religous (don't freak out,its just a word) followers,christian,catholic,whatever, they believed in a faith.....namely christianity...it is engrained in our history and culture, no one realizes that...

(NOTE: the comments in () are sarcastic.)

I'm terribly sorry that you feel our country is going down the drain because Christians dare to speak and act on their beliefs in public

If that is truly what he believes, then he is hypocritical when he says he believes in rights...

I'm terribly sorry that you feel our country is going down the drain because Christians dare to speak and act on their beliefs in public If that is truly what he believes, then he is hypocritical when he says he believes in rights..

No, that's not what I believe. I believe our country is going down the drain because many people are trying to force their beliefs on us when that is nothing like what our country stands for.

Our country (USA) was founded by religous (don't freak out,its just a word) followers,christian,catholic,whatever, they believed in a faith.....namely christianity...it is engrained in our history and culture, no one realizes that...

I realize that. I also realize that those same people were the ones who founded our country under the belief that everyone should be free to practice their own religion, etc, regardless of what other people are. And, for the most part, that's true. It's starting to become less true, but the basis of it is still there. ...mm, and I'm not going to freak out. i haven't freaked about anything people have said yet, and religious has been used many times.

Now I really have to ask what planet you've been living on. Public schools are SO forbidden from prayer that even Christian Student Groups have been barred from holding prayer meetings outside the building before or after classes, away from other students

Same planet as you. But my school has morning prayers around the flagpole {again with the symbolism}, and maybe three Christian clubs. of course, the Focus on the Family Headquarters is also right across the street from us, so that could be some influence, I suppose.

How can you be so wrong? No strict guidelines as to what they're learning? Ever hear of curriculum? Tests? Meeting state and federal guidelines? No strict guidelines on school environments? Is that why kids get expelled nowadays for carrying a nail file to school or wearing 'offensive' clothing? Public school is one of the most regulated environments in America!

True. My wording above was horrible. I think {looking back on it I'm not entirely sure what I was trying to say} I meant that public school is free of guidelines in that you can believe what you want and in most places, to an extent, wear what you want. As long as it doesn't infringe upon other people's rights, etc. School environment was also referring to personal beliefs. If you go to a private schol, they have a more set way of thinking, I believe. I can't back anything up with that statement; I've never been to a private school. But my experience with them {indirectly at least} is that many of them can focus a lot on personal beliefs as well as "normal school stuff." Or something.

I also find it hypocritical that you express concern for Sudan, implying if not directly stating that we should intervene there, and also implying that the only reason we don't is because they don't have oil. (they do.) If we are to go back to the days of isolationism, it has to apply across the board. While you may see intervention in Sudan as a humanitarian effort, many see our intervention in Iraq in a similar light.

Again- horrible wording on my part. I was not implying that we should intervene in Sudan, I was commenting that we hadn't. I personally don't think that we should, like I said, I think we should stay out of other people's business.

Not to the extreme of isolationism, however. I'm pretty sure that I put somewhere up there that we can and should interven if it becomes a global interest, not just something we're doing as an individual country. If it's a global interest, and multiple countries- the UN and so forth- then the cause is likely to be better thought out or at least discussed, and the margin of error is less, and the benefits are for many countries, not only us.

Cheers, Pads

Tex W. and Diseased Humanity, I think you may be more moderate than you think. Great article, ID...LW, great input.

And that's all our Constituion requires.

And that's the head of the nail...the Constituion says that we can have no officially sanctioned national church or faith, and that's all. And we don't.
It's the interperetation of a left-leaning Supreme Court that screwed it all up.

No, we are not a police state...YET. But the fact remains, those who claim we aren't a police state are ignoring the fact that we are fast becomming a police state because the majority of the American public refuses to be diligent.

Having your ID checked before getting on public transportation is not a police state, nor is it close to one. I have traveled many places in this country, and it's nothing like a police state.

No, that's not what I believe. I believe our country is going down the drain because many people are trying to force their beliefs on us when that is nothing like what our country stands for.

Who are these "people"? You do realize that most people are relgious and people believe that this country was founded in Christianity.

Link

Having your ID checked before getting on public transportation is not a police state, nor is it close to one. I have traveled many places in this country, and it's nothing like a police state.

Your logic is flawed here. You are, in fact, saying we should willingly surrender our freedoms because we're not yet a police state. That is EXACTLY how a police state comes about.

It is not a stretch to envision agents at these terminals running background checks to apprehend criminals and "subversives" before they board; it would take only a slight modification of current procedure to put such a system in place.

I said outright that we're not yet a police state. But when I see a family detained by bus station authorities because they failed to carry identification with them (they may have been criminals, they may not have; failure to carry papers should not constitute an assumption of guilt, however), as well as some of the other constitutionally questionable practices I have seen (a few of which were detailed above), I seriously wonder how much longer we can continue to hold off becoming a police state.

Your logic is flawed here. You are, in fact, saying we should willingly surrender our freedoms because we're not yet a police state. That is EXACTLY how a police state comes about.

Please tell me how showing your ID is giving up a freedom.

People are required to have ID sometimes so people like law enforcement know who they are dealing with. Just because someone was "detained" at a bus station because they had no ID does not assume guilt. It's within local law enforcements or the company who runs the station to know who these people are.

I have stopped many people before and needed to check their ID's. It wasn't because "the man" instructed me to. It was because I needed to know who these people were. Let me tell you in my experience, people who refuse to show ID, or play stupid about their ID's, usually have something to hide, such as a warrant.

Showing identification to someone such as a local law enforcement agent is nothing. The government already knows who you are anyways. They are not gaining nothing additional than they already know.