1. Comment by NightHawk P. (NightHawk)— November 24,2009 @ 1:36AM
Ratings:-1+34
We were playing combat volly ball. In the Army guys tend to play everything combat, and everything goes. Capt. (I'll use his first name only) Terry got to close to the net, and I slammed him. Later at the clinic they ordered a MRI because they thought he tore a muscle in his chest. Ended up he did, and they found something else. He had cancer. Breast Cancer. After some ribbing at first, and a operation to not only fix the tear. But remove the mass it was a malignant tumor. We learned a lot of new words that most women know. Like metastasize. Meaning it had spread to other parts of his body. Not one and I mean not one man in our Command knew or had heard that a man could get breast cancer. Let me tell you here and now it's true. You can. It doesn't come from smoking, drinking or anything else like that. One day it's just there. Capt. Terry beat his, but the cure cost him, and he had to take Medical Retirement from the Army. Talk to your wife or girlfriend on how to check yourself, and if you find anything. A lump or swelling or anything get your self to your doctor.
2. Comment by Aric M. (Aric)— November 24,2009 @ 5:53AM
Ratings:-25+21
If my sister at age 40 had waited to get a mamogram at age 50, she would not be here today to bake Thanksgiving pies with me. If I had waited until 40 or 50 to get a pap smear every year or two, at age 32, I would have died of cervical cancer or soon thereafter.
I believe these tests are important to women and the old guidelines should be followed. $50.00 for a mamogram is not that much and ditto the annual pap smear.
I think this crap is all part of the new health reform of pelosi /reid/obama care, the cheap bums are trying to save money risking our lives.
We two sisters are alive to enjoy our grandkids and life. Even in these hard economic times, life is still good.
5. Comment by Joseph M. (ClrCrk)— November 24,2009 @ 6:45AM
Ratings:-14+24
Pete Vucurevich has it right.
"Why should this trial be considered one that should be handled by the military, when it, in fact, happened at a time when we were not officially at war?"
It is blatant hypocrisy to preach long and loud about respect for rule of law, then demonstrate by our actions that we can pick and choose which laws to respect.
6. Comment by Joseph M. (ClrCrk)— November 24,2009 @ 6:53AM
Ratings:-8+17
Paul Krugman's column, Mr. Obama, please repeat after me: 'The only thing that we have to fear...' appears in today's ADS hard copy but I am unable to find it in the online edition.
8. Comment by wit w. (Wit)— November 24,2009 @ 7:02AM
Ratings:-5+26
re: Giving Tree has right answer
Well Eileen, at the pearly gates, all truth comes out. Was the charity done for love of the fellow man, or was it to make money ? Did all the money donated for the cause go to help the poor ? Did honest citizens lose their jobs and become poor because the charity helped illegals break the law ?
Charity in Christianity is morally valid if it is done because of love, and not outside of the law. Breaking laws is a sin.
9. Comment by Pat W. (pwalsh)— November 24,2009 @ 7:25AM
Ratings:-12+29
What am i missing here? These are guidelines not the law. You can still get mammograms anytime you like. Now, will the insurance companies incorporate the new guidelines into their policies to save money and prop up their bottom line? Probably
11. Comment by Joseph M. (ClrCrk)— November 24,2009 @ 8:00AM
Ratings:-11+15
I do not believe I have ever lost one wink of sleep over TDs but as a student of human nature it does pique my curiosity a wee bit when a purely informative post such as my # 6 garners a TD.
13. Comment by Lindsey S. (Lindsey TS)— November 24,2009 @ 9:20AM
Ratings:-9+17
"I am opposed to the high taxpayer cost of execution convictions compared with the lower cost of "life without parole."
For example in one recent case, the cost to Georgia was $3 million because of the required appeals."
Kenneth Berry
You have addressed the problem without eve realizing it. The number of appeals should be limited to 1, possibly 2 and that's it.
Of course states are spending too much time and dollars, even going bankrupt, when allowing killers to drag out the appeals process for decades.
States should change their appeals laws. No wonder victim's families believe there is more protection for the murderers than for the victims.
14. Comment by Howard F. (Howwie)— November 24,2009 @ 9:32AM
Ratings:-15+15
#9 - What you are missing is self-evident to most. Under both healthcare proposals, those 'recommendations' won't be 'recommendations'. They will be law. Politically appointed bureaucrats will decide what treatment will be paid for.
15. Comment by mary s. (noone123)— November 24,2009 @ 10:00AM
Ratings:-0+10
#10-I don't know if this is greed or what but I was in a doctor's office yesterday that charges an office call if the doctor calls you back. It is waived if you were there in the last seven days and the call relates to that visit.
16. Comment by Jay B. (mister-jb)— November 24,2009 @ 10:01AM
Ratings:-11+11
Joe Miller if you are so concerned about that injured cheerleader you might be better off sending her an apology or a gift on your own instead of sitting back and telling others what they should be doing
17. Comment by John D. (geostr)— November 24,2009 @ 10:25AM
Ratings:-9+11
"We must remember that we were not in a declared war with terrorist organizations prior to 9/11/"
Pete Vucurevich
================
So, using your logic we should have sought civilian criminal prosecution against the Japanese pilots that bombed Pearl Harbor? After all, no war had been declared...
19. Comment by Roy O. (royv)— November 24,2009 @ 11:20AM
Ratings:-3+6
"I think this crap is all part of the new health reform of pelosi /reid/obama care, the cheap bums are trying to save money risking our lives."
#2 Aric M. - My assessment of the named individuals in your post is probably the same as yours but they have little to do with the way medical treatment is currently dispensed. The insurers decide on treatment and treatment levels. If any health care reform bill does not take the insurance companies out of the equation then it will be further proof that our royalty cares not one wit about those they purport to serve.
As it stands now your life is at risk every time you avail yourself of treatment.
20. Comment by Jay B. (mister-jb)— November 24,2009 @ 11:24AM
Ratings:-10+13
#13 Lindsey I agree with you Forensic science is so good nowadays that it is very hard to wrongfully convict anyone Also after all the witnesses and the victims' family members are dead liberal parole boards are releasing even those who have been sentenced to life without parole I say burn em and get it over with
24. Comment by Lindsey S. (Lindsey TS)— November 24,2009 @ 1:01PM
Ratings:-8+13
"We must remember that we were not in a declared war with terrorist organizations prior to 9/11.
When that tragedy occurred, this was a crime on American soil and was no different from the bombing of one of the World Trade Center buildings in 1993."
Pete Vucurevich
I couldn't disagree more - the second those planes hit their targets, the butchers declared war on us. In my opinion, we were then at war. Trying these killers in civilian court will set another terrible precedent, just as the civilian trial of the WTC killers set a bad precedent.
As far as I am concerned, the only reason for Obama/Holder doing this, is to poke a finger in President Bush's eye and also blacken the eye of the CIA.
25. Comment by Pat W. (pwalsh)— November 24,2009 @ 1:42PM
Ratings:-14+10
Trying these attackers in a military court legitimizes them as enemy combatants and we would then have to treat them with the full letter of the Geneva convention. They don't have to be signatories, we are and must abide by them.
Putting them in civilian court marks them as petty criminals and the whole world can see them for what they are.
The rest of the world has tried terrorists in civilian court and the planet hasn't fallen apart
If the Bush administration or the CIA screwed up in the treatment of them then its just one more reason why Bush being gone is a good thing. Perhaps America can be seen as fair and just again.
26. Comment by Jerrod M. (Sandhill)— November 24,2009 @ 4:06PM
Ratings:-5+9
6 Joseph says: Paul Krugman's column, Mr. Obama, please repeat after me: 'The only thing that we have to fear...' appears in today's ADS hard copy but I am unable to find it in the online edition.
27. Comment by Lindsey S. (Lindsey TS)— November 24,2009 @ 4:25PM
Ratings:-7+8
#25
"if the Bush administration or the CIA screwed up in the treatment of them then its just one more reason why Bush being gone is a good thing. Perhaps America can be seen as fair and just again."
They (the Bush administration) didn't screw up - regardless of how much you hope they did. They did what needed to be done, unlike the ditherer currently in the WH.
As far as America being seen as "fair and just" - forget it. We'll be seen as weak and impotent.
We've added a feature to the comments pages - the ability to easily add paragraph breaks, boldface type and a few other typographical aids to your comments. Launch toolbar
Use single or double carriage returns to put line breaks or paragraph breaks in your comments.
At the same time, we removed the ability to put HTML coding into the comments. People were misusing that feature by pulling in cartoons, photos and other copyrighted materials from publications elsewhere. We won't allow you to use our pages to violate other publications' copyrights.
We've added a story to the site that includes a few tips to resolve common problems. You can use the comment thread attached to that story for practice and testing of the markup tools: Go to story | Go to the practice thread
General Instructions
Welcome to the story comments section of StarNet. Here are some helpful hints with you:
You must be logged in to comment or rate comments. Log in or create an account through our registration system.
All comments are subject to our guidelines (listed below) and our user agreement.
Comment Reporting
You can report other users' comments that are in violation of the StarNet User Guidelines. Users are limited to three (3) reports per day and are not allowed to report their own comments.
Any comment that has been reported will be moderated by StarNet. The comment will either be approved or rejected. Approval or rejection is based solely on the StarNet User Guidelines. Comments are only able to be reported once and are not viewable while awaiting moderation.
If you are a registered site user and are logged in, you can vote thumbs up or thumbs down on the comments.
The total votes of approval and disapproval on that comment will be updated when you vote — including your vote and any other votes that have been cast since your browser last loaded this page.
Votes by users who have been banned from commenting don't count in the totals.
User Guidelines
We welcome your comments on articles, editorials, columns, other topics on StarNet or any subjects important to you. Commentary submitted to StarNet (www.azstarnet.com) may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in www.azstarnet.com's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Star, StarNet, or its parent company. See terms of service for more information.
Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on azstarnet.com.
Don't violate other publications' copyrights.
Do we edit user comments? No. The writers are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. StarNet reserves the right to remove comments that violate our guidelines policy.
Letters to the editor
Tucsonans should say 'sorry' to cheerleaderWe were playing combat volly ball. In the Army guys tend to play everything combat, and everything goes. Capt. (I'll use his first name only) Terry got to close to the net, and I slammed him. Later at the clinic they ordered a MRI because they thought he tore a muscle in his chest. Ended up he did, and they found something else. He had cancer. Breast Cancer. After some ribbing at first, and a operation to not only fix the tear. But remove the mass it was a malignant tumor. We learned a lot of new words that most women know. Like metastasize. Meaning it had spread to other parts of his body. Not one and I mean not one man in our Command knew or had heard that a man could get breast cancer. Let me tell you here and now it's true. You can. It doesn't come from smoking, drinking or anything else like that. One day it's just there. Capt. Terry beat his, but the cure cost him, and he had to take Medical Retirement from the Army. Talk to your wife or girlfriend on how to check yourself, and if you find anything. A lump or swelling or anything get your self to your doctor.
Report this comment
If my sister at age 40 had waited to get a mamogram at age 50, she would not be here today to bake Thanksgiving pies with me. If I had waited until 40 or 50 to get a pap smear every year or two, at age 32, I would have died of cervical cancer or soon thereafter.
I believe these tests are important to women and the old guidelines should be followed. $50.00 for a mamogram is not that much and ditto the annual pap smear.
I think this crap is all part of the new health reform of pelosi /reid/obama care, the cheap bums are trying to save money risking our lives.
We two sisters are alive to enjoy our grandkids and life. Even in these hard economic times, life is still good.
Report this comment
I like what Elisabeth said on The View, it IS female cenocide.
Report this comment
viki - the word is genocide
Report this comment
Pete Vucurevich has it right.
"Why should this trial be considered one that should be handled by the military, when it, in fact, happened at a time when we were not officially at war?"
It is blatant hypocrisy to preach long and loud about respect for rule of law, then demonstrate by our actions that we can pick and choose which laws to respect.
Report this comment
Paul Krugman's column, Mr. Obama, please repeat after me: 'The only thing that we have to fear...' appears in today's ADS hard copy but I am unable to find it in the online edition.
Report this comment
Shame on the fans who threw the bottles
I believe U of A should shut down football for rest of season as a sign of apology and regret
Come on - its a friggin game folks - bunch of big kids playing with a little ball
Sheesh...
Report this comment
re: Giving Tree has right answer
Well Eileen, at the pearly gates, all truth comes out. Was the charity done for love of the fellow man, or was it to make money ? Did all the money donated for the cause go to help the poor ? Did honest citizens lose their jobs and become poor because the charity helped illegals break the law ?
Charity in Christianity is morally valid if it is done because of love, and not outside of the law. Breaking laws is a sin.
Report this comment
What am i missing here? These are guidelines not the law. You can still get mammograms anytime you like. Now, will the insurance companies incorporate the new guidelines into their policies to save money and prop up their bottom line? Probably
Report this comment
"How much does a mammogram cost?"http://www.costhelper.com/cost/health/mammogram.html
Website says $100 to $200, if you don't have insurance -- comments indicate many women are paying $700 or more.
Of course, we don't need healthcare reform because no doctor is greedy and no hospital is concerned about profits.
Report this comment
I do not believe I have ever lost one wink of sleep over TDs but as a student of human nature it does pique my curiosity a wee bit when a purely informative post such as my # 6 garners a TD.
My apologies to anyone who took offense.
Report this comment
#11 I agree with you about the TDs and I can not find one thing to TD # 2s comments. Someone Please explain why they TD her?
Report this comment
"I am opposed to the high taxpayer cost of execution convictions compared with the lower cost of "life without parole."
For example in one recent case, the cost to Georgia was $3 million because of the required appeals."
Kenneth Berry
You have addressed the problem without eve realizing it. The number of appeals should be limited to 1, possibly 2 and that's it.
Of course states are spending too much time and dollars, even going bankrupt, when allowing killers to drag out the appeals process for decades.
States should change their appeals laws. No wonder victim's families believe there is more protection for the murderers than for the victims.
Report this comment
#9 - What you are missing is self-evident to most. Under both healthcare proposals, those 'recommendations' won't be 'recommendations'. They will be law. Politically appointed bureaucrats will decide what treatment will be paid for.
Report this comment
#10-I don't know if this is greed or what but I was in a doctor's office yesterday that charges an office call if the doctor calls you back. It is waived if you were there in the last seven days and the call relates to that visit.
Report this comment
Joe Miller if you are so concerned about that injured cheerleader you might be better off sending her an apology or a gift on your own instead of sitting back and telling others what they should be doing
Report this comment
"We must remember that we were not in a declared war with terrorist organizations prior to 9/11/"
Pete Vucurevich
================
So, using your logic we should have sought civilian criminal prosecution against the Japanese pilots that bombed Pearl Harbor? After all, no war had been declared...
Report this comment
Robert's comment is one of those that makes some sense.
I agree that the program should be shut down until next year. Maybe then the message would get across.
Report this comment
"I think this crap is all part of the new health reform of pelosi /reid/obama care, the cheap bums are trying to save money risking our lives."
#2 Aric M. - My assessment of the named individuals in your post is probably the same as yours but they have little to do with the way medical treatment is currently dispensed. The insurers decide on treatment and treatment levels. If any health care reform bill does not take the insurance companies out of the equation then it will be further proof that our royalty cares not one wit about those they purport to serve.
As it stands now your life is at risk every time you avail yourself of treatment.
Report this comment
#13 Lindsey I agree with you Forensic science is so good nowadays that it is very hard to wrongfully convict anyone Also after all the witnesses and the victims' family members are dead liberal parole boards are releasing even those who have been sentenced to life without parole I say burn em and get it over with
Report this comment
6. Comment by Joseph M.
I believe I've read that New York Times content is only for print version of ADS. The paper is not permitted to post NYT content online.
For that, you'd have to go the NYT's website.
Report this comment
Hey PETA, look what the Hindus are doing!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/hindu-sacrifice-gadhimai-festival-nepal
Report this comment
Thanks # 21, but that restriction is no longer imposed. Krugman's column for today is now included in All headlines online.
What you stated was true in the past.
Report this comment
"We must remember that we were not in a declared war with terrorist organizations prior to 9/11.
When that tragedy occurred, this was a crime on American soil and was no different from the bombing of one of the World Trade Center buildings in 1993."
Pete Vucurevich
I couldn't disagree more - the second those planes hit their targets, the butchers declared war on us. In my opinion, we were then at war. Trying these killers in civilian court will set another terrible precedent, just as the civilian trial of the WTC killers set a bad precedent.
As far as I am concerned, the only reason for Obama/Holder doing this, is to poke a finger in President Bush's eye and also blacken the eye of the CIA.
Report this comment
Trying these attackers in a military court legitimizes them as enemy combatants and we would then have to treat them with the full letter of the Geneva convention. They don't have to be signatories, we are and must abide by them.
Putting them in civilian court marks them as petty criminals and the whole world can see them for what they are.
The rest of the world has tried terrorists in civilian court and the planet hasn't fallen apart
If the Bush administration or the CIA screwed up in the treatment of them then its just one more reason why Bush being gone is a good thing. Perhaps America can be seen as fair and just again.
Report this comment
6 Joseph says: Paul Krugman's column, Mr. Obama, please repeat after me: 'The only thing that we have to fear...' appears in today's ADS hard copy but I am unable to find it in the online edition.
Count your blessings, Joseph.
Report this comment
#25
"if the Bush administration or the CIA screwed up in the treatment of them then its just one more reason why Bush being gone is a good thing. Perhaps America can be seen as fair and just again."
They (the Bush administration) didn't screw up - regardless of how much you hope they did. They did what needed to be done, unlike the ditherer currently in the WH.
As far as America being seen as "fair and just" - forget it. We'll be seen as weak and impotent.
Report this comment
#25 They killed over 3000 Americans and you classify them as petty criminals not enemy combatants ?
Report this comment
re: What you stated was true in the past.<<
And still true. Rights are made available through a variety of authorized mediators when it involves syndicated content.
Report this comment
Survival of the fittest applies here, too!
Report this comment