zoocrew

No, that's the Constitution.

Yes, and that swift punishment was done many truly innocent people were executed. The legal system is set up so that every chance is given that a person would be able to not be deprived of the ultimate civil right. Swift and public hangings did not stop crime then and it won't do it now, either. Those "legal technicalities" are intentional to protect innocent people from being wrongly deprived of rights.

I cannot agree any more with this. +10 However, the funding for mental health has been cut to the point where there is, effectively, no mental care in GA apart from private insurance. The people that need the mental health care are not, by and large, going to be in a position to have the private coverage needed to get treatment because, well, they are too sick mentally to get and keep the jobs where that sort of benefit is offered. If America wants to do something to prevent real and tangible that actually works in preventing these sort of events, America has to pay for it. It means t

Self insuring against healthcare risk is for the naive. Evan Warren Buffett has Long Term Care Insurance, something everyone should purchase by their early 50s. A care event such as home health care need, assisted living stay, or a nursing hom event can easily run $80,000 per year, and that is not including the healthcare, just the help/facility.

Jack the Ripper, the Mayans, Hitler, Stalin, et.al, never even played Donkey Kong.

The price of a free society is that we accept that crazy people will do some unspeakable things since we don't control all facets of life in our nation. For the rest of America to be free, the crazy people are free too.

Even mental health patients have rights. The problem is there is not enough money to properly treat these people. The result is the patient is left to fend for themselves and, oftentimes, can't do that, so they end up on the streets. Even worse, they are on the streets without their medications and let loose on an unsuspecting public. Is the taxpayer willing to pay to help these people and protect all of society in the ling run? 200 hundred years ago, long before there was TV, people were hung in public. War meant villages plundered and kids forced to watch their parents murdered.

But back on topic ... more community health and mental health opportunities and assistance would go a long way to prevent the sort of violence we've seen in the mass shootings, as well as the incidence of violence of the less well=known but nonetheless just as serious variety. That does cost money. The taxpayer has to be willing to do this.

Yes, but it is much harder to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time with a sling shot, bow and arrow, or a knife.

Better education for everyone, especially in conflict resolution. Better mental health assessments and care. No guns, no shootings. That is not a political statement nor a call to debate the American Constitution's 2nd Amendment but a statement of the obvious. The rest has to come from families, individuals and local groups that foster involvement in their organisations that promote being better, more compassionate human beings.

I believe Tina Drummond is a highly regarded in the area of Paulding. I would attempt a visit with her.

Dying with dignity should be something we all value.

It does happen but that sordid side of human nature has to do with the character of the minority individual, not the majority.

One day, Dr. Kervorkian will have a formal exoneration issued to him posthumously, and he will be considered a hero.

As I understand this, the law requires the crosswalks be installed at all intersections. The rational is that people do use them now, but it is also much cheaper to install the design concept at construction than it is to add it in the future. It is a business decision, something everyone seems to want to complain the government doesn't do, but when it does, everyone wants to complain because it involves expenditure now. Well, that current expenditure saves money in the future.

One day we served American chili and rice for the Advent meal. It was rather delightful and, I must say, fun!

I have a question about this arrangement and would like to know if wine is included in this? Also, is this a club where members assemble on a regular basis, plan meals and the like? I ask because I've heard of this concept before where the members share the meal preparation/service, while others only share in the recipes. Is this a sit down meal club or an arrangement where the members are more like a lose confederation around a meal carry out?

You seem to have some anger issues. Perhaps a McEwen's or two would help. Really. Disagreement is good for everyone but you should not get this upset over something you have no control over. Politics shan't run a life. I think we all understand the frustration you're feeling, but you're making it political and that is only making a bad situation into something doubly impossible to control.

I shall be more than happy to recommend some wonderful cardiologists in several nearby systems. I'm certain out of the list you should find at least one to your liking.

I'm not so sure a policy needs to be in place. Maybe, but that might be overkill. I think we all recognize that anytime there is an opportunity to abuse a good gesture, public or private, someone will find a way to do it intentionally or unintentionally. In my estimation, it is what it is. Some will take advantage of the generosity, but that is the price of a generous offer. A policy by either the private eatery or the constable's department will only create problems, most likely. Live and let live, even if it means the few take advantage of others. My opinion, for what it's w

Way to jump to a conclusion. I never said I believed anyone is abusing the very generous offer the establishment is giving. I even believe it is a good thing for the eatery and the local constables. I merely said the person who first brought this up is being castigated and rather unfairly. We all know there are people that would abuse it, just as people abuse all generosity that is freely given, and you even mentioned an example of how it may be abused. The person merely starred that she sees, oftentimes, the same person on many occasions, and postulated, as you did, that there could be an

You people are missing the entire point the OP made. Thishas nothing to do with the private organisation but that some may be abusing it. The point is not about the eatery but the recipients.

This is no different than the demonisation of many on welfare or receiving unemployment benefits. No doubt many are abusing those, too, though it is not fair to say all are, but everyone knows there will always be that small minority that do abuse the system.

I do, too. I get what the OP is saying. The OP is not saying the constables shouldn't get the generous benefit from the owner, nor is the OP saying the owner of the particular establishment in any wrong for doing this. The OP is only saying that, in her estimation, there may be some constables who are abusing the generosity, a statement that may or may not be true, but most likely is true due to human nature being as it is. I believe the OP is being unfairly castigated in this instance.

No, I mean s professional that knows the system and can best match the patient to the appropriate facility. Some are paid a flat fee by the patient; others are paid by the facility. There are many means of compensation but a professional can do this much cheaper and better than all it takes from the family to accomplish the task. Also, don't forget to begin the process with the Long Term Care insurance provider as early in the process add possible to get past the elimination period. The elder case specialist from the primary care physician is a good resource, also.