Crap Throwing Monkey

That's not precisely the same. OBGYN's don't require a script from another health care provider to perform a procedure. Pharmacists, on the other hand, need to be "authorized" by a prescribing doctor to "dispense treatment". Therein lies what concerns me about the idea of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions...doesn't that then put them in the position of in effect overriding the medical judgement of the prescribing doctor? Is it really appropriate for pharmacists to override doctors' medical judgement based on their personal ethical beliefs? An OBGYN refuses to perform a procedure on personal moral grounds, it more likely than not only involves the OBGYN. A pharmacist refuses to dispense properly prescribed medication on personal ethical grounds...that's controverting another party's medical judgement on purely non-medical considerations - even more, non-medical considerations having NOTHING directly to do with the patient. If a pharmacist can dispense a given medication, he should not have the option of declining on strictly personal grounds. IF he can dispense the medication. Pharmicists can determine their own stock, I assume. Most pharmacies don't stock every medication; I've not infrequently had to go to specialty pharmacies for some odd or obscure formulations. If a pharmacist is morally opposed to a medicine, he should simply refuse to stock it, not refuse to prescribe it.

Yeah. That's what we said.

And yet, voter turnout increased by about 15% over the 2000 election, and was the highest since 1968. Try again, you cheeseball. *SPLAT*

Really? Given that the prescription medication industry is a regulated and licensed one, I wouldn't count on that. It may very well be that a licensed pharmacist is required by whoever licenses him to fill all prescriptions as they come in. I don't really know...but my point is, I don't think you do either, and saying that pharmacists have a choice in filling prescriptions is a pretty big assumption to be making.

No, Catholics don't bash themselves. Protestants do, because they want to be Catholic. Ergo, when Catholics bash Protestants, they're actually bashing Catholic wanna-be's, and in effect bashing their own religion and hence themselves. Didn't you read beausox's posts? It's all in there. Of course, maybe it only makes sense to me as a crap-throwing monkey.

Oooh, sh---throwing fight! *SPLAT* *SPLAT* *SPLAT* *SPLAT*

But Protestants are so obsessed with the Catholic Church that to bash Protestants is to bash Catholics. Or something...

*SPLAT*

"New stevestojan"? As opposed to the old stevestojan?

But at least she didn't have her homework graded in red.

When you're sitting in court, throw your own feces at the attorneys and judge. Works for me.

Best reason in the world to keep Korea divided right here.

Yeah, tell that to Dan Rather. The election was inherently nasty on both sides of the aisle. Screaming about left wing victimization by right wing smear tactics while ignoring the reverse simply masks the fact that Kerry was a piss-poor candidate, to such a degree that he couldn't beat another piss-poor candidate. And the simple fact that the Democratic Party put on their ticket a candidate who couldn't beat the most politicall vulnerable candidate in 25 years is in itself pretty clear evidence of how undirected and bereft of true leadership the Democratic Party is right now. Again. Still.

Very, very nice.

Sounds like my mother. Bottom line: there's only so much you can do (i.e. virtually nothing) to change a person, but that doesn't mean you have to allow them into your life. Ultimately, the only thing I've ever found that works in these situations is distance.

Big problem being that this witness testimony does NOT speak directly to the charges against him. He's not charged with being a "sick freak", he's charged with specific instances of abusing a child who, for example, is NOT Macaulay Culkin. There's a very good case to be made that such testimony as "He molested Culkin", in not speaking directly to the actual charges, is very good grounds for appeal on the basis that such testimony is not evidence of the actual crime he's charged with but merely serves to prejudice the jury. (And don't argue "It establishes a pattern of behavior" with me, as he's not charged for a "pattern of behavior", he's charged with specific instances of a crime.) Reasonably, Michael Jackson is a seriously messed up freak who should be locked up...and the prosecution is running such a weak case chock full of BS that he could and probably should legitimately be found "not guilty. The buffoons running this case are making OJ's prosecutors look like geniuses...take an easily impeachable complainant, and build a case around him that's SO weak that they have to introduce testimony not directly related to the charges to cover up their fear that they can't get a guilty verdict on the case itself. It'll be a miracle if they get a guilty verdict that stands up on appeal...and the prosecution ought to be slapped silly for butchering this case.

That strikes me as something that would worry China as much as us. Chinese economic growth is to a great degree fuelled by the imbalance of trade we have with them. Were a trade war to occur, China arguably has more to lose than we do. Hell, given that oil prices are being driven up by increasing consumption by the Chinese economy, slowing down or even reversing Chinese economic growth, and hence oil consumption, might even provide an economic stimulus to the US. Probably not...but stranger things have happened.

Clearly this woman is the result of having one's homework graded in red and not purple as a child...

Screw it. Grade homework in blood, I say.

Do "we" kill people? This, like the Schiavo case, is a family matter...perhaps one to be adjudicated in the courts to determine what the proper course of action is for a divided family to take, but a family matter nonetheless. "We" should stay the hell out of it.

You make it sound as though we should be surprised at all this. It's called "politics". You also make it sound as though only Republicans were manipulated. EVERYONE politicized this issue to manipulate the public. Hell, you're still doing it with this post.

Kerry did do something about it...he told the American people that he had "a plan" to reverse the demonization of liberals. Really, Kerry isn't the cause of Democrats' inability to get their message across so much as symptomatic of it. If the party had any real coherence to its platform, it would have chosen a viable candidate. That it chose a total lame-ass like Kerry, who somehow managed to lose the election to a startlingly beatable incumbent, is evidence of the Democratic party's - and by extension, liberalism's, as Kerry's nomination was arguably more due to the far left than the party moderates - relatively pronounced lack of direction.

Robot arms for the space shuttle and space station. And beer.

"I know what you're thinking. Did he give me herpes or not? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as I am Michael Vick, the most powerful quarterback in Atlanta, and am also known at the clinic as Ron Mexico, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?"' Although actually...that wasn't a hell of a lot better...

Right. Because that's the clinical definition of sociopathy. Someone who lies about cosmetic surgery.