He must despise the very people he is supposed to serve to lie so transparently. What sort of person is capable of such ridiculous deception? Certainly not someone I would want as a friend of mine.
They want the government involved in every tiny aspect of your life with which they happen to disagree. Here is the wording of the bill just for those who might doubt that such an abomination has actually been introduced:. Every bicycle. The flag shall be fluorescent orange in color. I just read about an interesting legal case involving the crime of intimidation. The situation in question involves a young girl who sent a message filled with emoji or emoticons of guns and knives to a school rival.
It is not the first of its kind to reach the court system. Emoji of guns next to emoji of police officers and other such missives have been making their way through the court system of late.
If they have that reasonable fear then it is potentially a crime. We all know that something as simple as a wink or smiley face can completely change the meaning of the written word. These emoji can be used in an intimidating fashion. My opinion on these sorts of legal tangles is fairly straight-forward. It comes down to a case by case examination. If the threat appeared reasonable and credible to the person intimidated they have some recourse, particularly if the intimidation changed their behavior.
Imagine if someone threatened you with death at work. That would be a serious situation and reasonably requiring investigation. The onus is on the person writing the words. Maybe putting a gun next to the head of an emoji of a balding, aging, white fellow that sort of looks like me might seem funny but perhaps I would not take it that way. Particularly if we had a history of troubles.
If the goal was to change my behavior in some way we have a legal situation. I realize people, kids in particular, can say and do stupid things without meaning to threaten at all, I would generally err on the side of having to show a credible theat. But there are more serious situations and just because an emoji was used rather than words is no reason to ignore it. Should Emoji based "threats" be treated with the same seriousness as those written with words?
My question is relatively simple. Who is rightfully against this ridiculous overreach of state power into the lives of citizens? Furthermore I can unequivocally and without hesitation say that should it have been Justice Stephen Breyer who passed away with a Republican president in office the sides would be absolutely reversed. Justice Scalia had a weak heart and high blood pressure. He was 79 years old. The scene of his death had absolutely no sign of criminal activity. Justice Scalia, of all people, defended the Constitution of the United States to his death bed.
What does this prove? It proves that principles simply do not exist anymore. It is political expediency first, second, third, last, and forever. I say it thrice. I say it from the hilltops. You cannot chop up Justice Scalia.
You cannot. Damn you, foul evil. Get thyself from my sight and do it right quick. She was just found guilty of three counts of second degree murder because three of her patients overdosed on those drugs and died. She was sentenced to thirty years on prison. Tseng was not. She was getting rich selling drugs to those who used them for recreational purposes. She was fully aware of this fact. This hypocrisy is easily explained. Those with money influence government policy. This means that the Scales of Justice are so uneven that those on the wrong side become disenchanted with the entire nation.
This is not a recipe for a healthy nation.
The fact that pharmaceutical companies are completely immune to prosecution because of their contributions to the campaigns of our government officials further indicts the system. Because there was money to be made. They are surely the biggest drug manufacturers in the world and doctors are their pushers.
Unscrupulous doctors are their best clients.
They know it, you know it, the police know it, prosecutors know it, and government officials know it. Let us not live in a fantasy world. My next problem is the charge of murder.
Certainly Tseng prescribed drugs that were not needed but she did not force the person to take those drugs. She did not even seek out the client. She merely provided a service to a willing customer. If overprescribing is a crime, charge her with that. You might think that the prosecution of Tseng would make me happy. At last a rich person is being charged the way poor people and drug dealers have long been prosecuted.
You would be wrong. I think all drugs should be legal. Obviously we would not have illegal drug dealers if drugs were not illegal. The vast majority of sales would go through licensed physicians. So, you might well, ask, if you make all drugs legal; what do we do with people like Tseng who prescribe to those without a medical need? Who prescribe to children? Am I advocating distributing drugs to anyone who can afford them at all times?
The Spear of the Hunt (Tales of Corland Book 5) - Kindle edition by Tom Liberman. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. The Spear of the Hunt (Tales of Corland Book 5) eBook: Tom Liberman: Amazon. in: Kindle Store.
In a sense yes, but also in a sense no. Doctors take something called a Hippocratic Oath.
One line of that oath is as follows: I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. Physicians who fail to do so should lose standing with their local medical organization. Physicians who believe patients are using drugs for recreational purposes should recommend treatment centers and do their best to help the patient.
Pharmaceutical companies should have the option to cut off supplies to doctors they believe are not helping their patients but harming them. Is this a perfect solution? Doctors who lose their standing will still be able to prescribe drugs and make money but at least patients will know they are dealing with such physicians. Those bent on abusing drugs will be able to do so and I do not deny that there will be many such.
Food Justice for All? Meanwhile, the cavalry of Guthrum were raiding the country far and wide. This is a unique opportunity to try something new together. Moderators Steve Clow. No great harm was intended. Reich is the author of the instant New York Times bestseller "Nemesis" and its sequel "Genesis," and co-author of the six-volume "Virals" series.
But how is that different than the current system? At least under my plan our law enforcement officers can focus on murder, burglary, rape, and other crimes. The rift between the police and the citizens they purportedly serve will begin to heal. Police will not longer die in shootouts with well-armed and wealthy illegal drug dealers. Why it was so difficult to get Amanda Bynes the help she needed.
Why it was so difficult to get Britney Spears the help she needed. The picture below is a list of reasons why people could be put into insane asylums in the mid to late 19th century. In particular women were put into such institutions simply because they behaved in a way in which male dominated society did not agree.