TedG

I love the Second Amendment.

Who has more freedom of speech. Someone who lives in Europe? Or someone who lives in the USA?

I'm looking forward to the parade tomorrow. I hope Ukraine makes it a special day for Putin.

They could at least put a towel over the body.

But part of that duty rests on having done a proper evaluation, according to Dr. David Goldbloom, a psychiatry professor and senior medical adviser for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. “You are intervening to abrogate fundamental civil freedoms,” he said. “You can’t do that from having read an article or watched television.” Armchair diagnosis can also harm trust in the medical profession, according to Brendan Leier, a clinical ethicist at the John Dossetor Health Ethics Centre. Doctors are stewards of an inherited trust. “What you do can undermine that trust,” he said, because diagnosing public figures on cable TV could cause you to be perceived more as a political advocate than a physician. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5809224/

This thread is based on a sleazeball personal attack.

The Goldwater Rule is an ethical guideline for psychiatrists, prohibiting them from offering professional opinions about public figures without first conducting an examination and obtaining proper authorization. This rule was established in response to concerns about psychiatrists making uninformed assessments of public figures' mental health, particularly during the 1964 presidential campaign when there were discussions about Barry Goldwater's mental state. Here's a more detailed breakdown: Purpose: The primary goal was to prevent psychiatrists from offering casual or speculative opinions about public figures' mental health, especially without a proper examination. Scope: The Goldwater Rule applies to all professional opinions, not just diagnoses, and extends to public figures in the media or those who have disclosed information publicly. Ethical Concerns: The rule addresses ethical concerns about the potential for harm to public figures and the integrity of the profession when psychiatrists offer opinions without proper evaluation, says Psychiatry.org. Contemporary Relevance: The rule continues to be relevant, particularly during election seasons or when public figures are subject to intense scrutiny, according to Psychiatric Times. Origins: The rule originated in 1973 as part of the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics.

The DAs in the big blue cities have ignored this behavior. Look at the 2020 summer of love.

What is GQP?

This is an excellent channel.

Speaking of authoritarian. Under the Biden administration, the CDC issued a national eviction moratorium.

How does that compare to the authoritarianism of the Dems during the COVID lockdowns? How does that compare to the authoritarianism of Joe Biden forgiving student loans when he lacked the power to do so? How does that compare to the authoritarianism of Obama killing US Citizens with drones without due process?

Can you cite some examples of this "creeping authoritarianism"?

Try me.

That's a deep thought.

You have zero insight; you have nothing to offer to anyone.

What are you even talking about at this point? All I see is a dumb poster with nothing insightful to add.

OK, thus your post was BS.

What are the Dems running on, other than Trump is bad?

Since you know what the OP wants to post, please let everyone know.

Typical leftie response. The Dems are a party of zero substance.

It's all the Dems have.

The dems have nothing run on but Trump is Hilter. What a sad party.