Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - grahamers

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16
If HMO's cannot be sued for refusing to pay for recommended treatment, can they be compelled to pay for any treatment?

I think you are confusing the issue.  HMO's can be sued for refusing to pay for recommended treatment, just not in state courts (only federal court).

thank you.  You beat me to it.  Once again, let's all READ the cases instead of the muggle reports from the press who ALWAYS get it wrong.  (We ARE supposed to be future lawyers, right?)  For the latest 2003 decisions, click here:

General Off-Topic Board / Re: McFuck-Up
« on: June 21, 2004, 12:24:03 PM »
If you guys want the real skinny (pun intended) on fast food... read Fast Food Nation.  It will change your lives forever.


The intelligence wasn't clear enough to be completely positive either way.  That's why it is called intelligence not fact.   

Yeah, but on the scale of certainty, we all have different thresholds for action.  Many people propose that things are not of the "fact" level until one is willing to depend upon them in a life or death situation.  (Gravity is a "fact.")  The issue is that Bush's threshhold for action on his belief scale seesm to be extremely low in this case.  Upon that, I think we agree.

However, the administration on more than one occassion justified the Iraq invasion by implying or directly stating that Iraq was tied to the 9/11 attack.  At the very least, they intended or allowed the public to believe that Iraq was part and parcel of a horrible and direct attack on the US.  At the very least, this is dishonorable.  At the most, it is a criminal deception.

Agree 100%  A lie of omission when you hold such power as POTUS is a lie.

All it would have taken is for Bush to say, "Let me make this clear, we have no evidence that Iraq aided in the 9/11 attacks at this time.  However, blah blah blah."  they he wouldn't be saddled with this lie of omission around his neck.

But wait.... if he had said taht, then people might have been less willing to go to war, huh?  Funny how that works! 

read Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward.

Woodward is a punk!   Just kidding.  PoA is on my list for next month!  (A 1.25 hour commute each way every day gives you lots of time to listen to books!

read my post big guy

You and I posted at the same time, bigger guy!   ;D

Well, we know that he did this with Tenet and the CIA.  They went over every piece of info on what they knew and what they didn't know and the president heard it all. 

Actually, we DON'T know that he looked at ALL the evidence CAREFULLY.  If he had, he would have said something like, "Tell me you have more than this... phone calls and footlockers!"  (Sorry, but it is a great quote, but you get the point!) Obviously if he had, he would not have gone to war quoting WMD.  Kinda a Catch 22 for him now huh?

As for the Russian thing, I just love the idea that Bush was sooo hungry that he *might* have been played by teh Ruskies.  He was, after all, played by the Iranians.

I think the "slam dunk" quote is 100% believable. 

That is not the point.  It is irrelevent.  Two scenarios:

1. People are gathered in the Oval Office.  Bush is considering invading a foreign soverign country.  Tenet says his Slam Dunk quote.  Bush even asks, "Are you 100% sure?"  "YES SIR," says Tenet,  bight eyed and bushy tailed.  "OK, let's do it," says Bush.

2. People are gathered in the Oval Office.  Bush is considering invading a foreign soverign country.  Tenet says his Slam Dunk quote.  Bush even asks, "Are you 100% sure?"  "YES SIR," says Tenet,  bight eyed and bushy tailed.  "OK, show me the evidence," says Bush.

Which do you expect your leader to do? 

Hint: Choice one means that you will forever have presidents who hold terrible authority but no responsibility since they always have someone to point at.  PoliSci 101 or Business 101 or even Ethics 101 will tell you this is a horrible combination. 

I prefer a president who lives up to the concept that "the buck stops here."

Especially since George Tenet told him that the case for Sadaam having WMD was a "slam dunk".  Put these two together in Bushie's mind,  WMD + iminent terrorist attack.  He had no choice but to attack.

Uhmmm.....yeah... that's why when he asked people to find out what was behind 9/11 had added that "The answer better contain Iraq." 

I agree with you on his level of responsibility, but in Grahamersopolis where I am president and in charge of declaring war, I don't do it because some guy tells me we have good evidence.  I call them in and say, " me.  Talk to me about this till I understand everything we know and everything we don't know."  Anything less would be a personal abdication of that responsibility of which you speak. 

I propose to you that by NOT doing this Bush shows us one of two things:

1. He truly is an idiot who does not realize the seriousness of war and any of his other actions.

2. He knew that he was not digging to deep and was seeking the ever-famous "plausible deniability." 

We elect a president because we think that HE is the one that will be calling the shots.  HE will decide for HIMSELF when we know enough to go to war.  No-one voted to give Tenent war declaration powers!  To now have Bush say something like, "This guy told me we had enough evidence and based soley on his word and without inspecting said evidence I decided to invade a foreign country with force," is one of the scariest things I have ever heard. 

Who is running our country?

Now that we know that there is and was no real evidence (and alot of counter-evidence) it means that either the inmates are running the assylum that is the White House or the warden is an idiot.

I tend to think it was a little bit of both.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16