Thank you Mr. President.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Let one of us unfair double standard mods step in and tell everyone to chill out a bit. Lets stick to the topic which is how grateful we are that the Government is taking away all those nasty decisions we used to have to make.

Thank God for the Republicans, the party of Freedom


I know Terri would probibly agree that these 15 years of suffering were worth it if it could give them a few more percentage points at the polls.




posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Let one of us unfair double standard mods step in and tell everyone to chill out a bit. Lets stick to the topic which is how grateful we are that the Government is taking away all those nasty decisions we used to have to make.

Thank God for the Republicans, the party of Freedom


I know Terri would probibly agree that these 15 years of suffering were worth it if it could give them a few more percentage points at the polls.


With all do respect Amuk since the motto of ats is to Deny Ignorance, isn't also proper to point out when a select group have been had?

Read this transcript from Larry King live

As you can see it is not about her life it is about money which is contrary to what her family is now claiming.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Dear god, let that vegetable die. The woman's legal and legitimate guardian has noted that she had a verbal and binding agreement to be taken off life support in sucha situation. She is a vegetable. Look at her brain scans, her brain is almost entirely destroyed. Terri Schiavo died a long time ago. That living corpse sitting in the hospital is not her.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Cmon now, lets give this lady a chance! She's been denied a TV in her room and any other stimuli that might help her condition.

Any one of us would turn in to a vegetable when locked up in a hospital room with those ghouls....I spent 4 days once in the hospital and after 6 hours in one of those rooms, I thought I was going insane.

Even her condition is suspect, who's to say she was not poisioned?


Maximu§



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
It is odd how a great number of people will rally around someone that they do not know, and even though the person is in a coma and shows no brain activity they feel they need to get involved. How long has the hospital system kept this womans body alive?...I work with an athiest and he surprised me. He said it is so stupid watching all the supposed christians rallying around her, praying for the courts to keep her alive. And when the judge said "pull the tube", the same christians said pull the judges tube. Then the athiest said, " you would think the supposed christians would be happy the judge is allowing her body to die, because the Lord already has her spirit in heaven and she already is home. How does anyone know that God did not move in a strange and wonderful way allowing the judge to make a decision? Saving the family the grief of watching a body age and die of "natural" causes." He then scoffed at the whole notion and laughed saying it was all just stupid.....I am now wondering? Who is right in this instance? Is it right for the hospital to keep her body alive for ever to age until the heart goes out? For the workers in the hospital to keep her body clean and bed sore free and change her when she goes to the bathroom? Keeping her hair and nails clipped and doing everything they can to make this comatosed body seem alive? When the mind is not. I only pray I am not kept alive when in the future a hospital can keep you from growing old as well. The bills piling on my decendents, and them knowing great great great great grandpa is being kept alive because the president felt the need to overturn a judges decision.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Yeah walhallamarbil, but who the hell is that Judge to over rule the will of the people? When (1) judge can over-ride the will of the majority, than this is no longer a democracy.


Maximu§



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
what do you suggest? keep every dead person's heart beating and exhaust all resources and new inventions hoping somehow the dead will become alive again? What do you suggest? Take a poll on nation tv? "The who is going to die next? channel". Give us all a break. If the law says let her die and someone higher up steps in saying no let her live...how far up the poll will it go?



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
My hearts go out to her family, but I don't think the government should get involve. Now i read an earlier post about how democrats will fight for a man on death row, but not in this situation. Maybe its because democrats believe in the right to die. I mean would you want to be a vegetable all these years, and most likely until the very end of your life? I know I wouldn't want that, so I hope they don't reinsert that feeding tube, this woman has suffered enough. Just let her die in peace and be with God.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
When I first read the title of this thread 'Thank you Mr President', I expected sarcasm. The last thing I expected was that it was a serious thread. That said, I have to agree with RANT as far as the current adminstration is concerned.


Originally posted by RANT
The result: Hospitals can pull life support if patients unable to pay!
...
Bravo Mr. President you hypocritical bastard! And lo the masses rallied to turn over more individual rights to corporations and government. :shk:

Hypocrisy indeed. Bush is happy to send thousands of troops to Iraq to fight and die for his cronies, so people shouldn't suddenly start calling him an angel for wanting to save Terri - the only reason he's doing this is for the political milage.


Originally posted by krt1967
How come the mods can use words like that "bastard" but members get warnings and banned?

I'm not a mod and have never been warned or banned for calling someone a bastard. Admittedly I only use the word to describe Blair, Bush and pedophiles but even so, I have used the word - sparingly - and have suffered no untoward consequences.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Cmon now, lets give this lady a chance! She's been denied a TV in her room and any other stimuli that might help her condition.

To pretend that a television would make a difference is foolish.

Any one of us would turn in to a vegetable when locked up in a hospital room with those ghouls
This is just plain stupid. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? She's a vegetable. HER BRAIN IS NON FUNCTIONAL, it has nothing to do with 'ghouls'. THe only ghouls are the people clamouring to
'save' her who have nothing to do with her.



ven her condition is suspect, who's to say she was not poisioned?

Who the hell is to say she was? No court has found that there was a murer attempt. No police forces have any reason to suspect murder. No doctor has found any signs of being poisoned and no hospitals or investigators have arrived at that conclusion either. Rather, everyone involved in the case, who is in any position to know, can clearly state that she is brain damaged because of brain damage, brought on by a heart attack, caused by her being an anorexic. This was not a murder attempt.

Yeah walhallamarbil, but who the hell is that Judge to over rule the will of the people?

You do. And so does the rest of the american public. And so does the entire american system. This judge has jurisdiction over the matter. Her parents and the preists do not.


When (1) judge can over-ride the will of the majority, than this is no longer a democracy.

Preposterous. If that was how democracy worked, then there would be no need for judges. We'd just have polls. What you are talking about is the ravening rule of an ignorant mob.


rant and pisky's article
A patient's inability to pay for medical care combined with a prognosis that renders further care futile are two reasons a hospital might suggest cutting off life support, the chief medical officer at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital said Monday.

Indeed, pure hypocrisy. THe schiavo case is infamous, its a hot button issue and can be used to make vote gaining political stances on either side of the spectrum. The very same congressmen who disgustingly and flamboyantly supenoed schiavo to go to congress (she is a freaking vegetable, she's not 'healthy but disabled') are not making sure that dying people get life saving treatment. Hypocritical and disgusting.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Rant- Thanks for enlightening me. Bush is NOTHING but a hypocrat.

I must learn to keep on top (i thought i was) of the news before i go jumping to conclusions. Here i was almost thankful to Bush for doing 1 thing right.....


I should have known better....

[edit on 20-3-2005 by dgtempe]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
RANT, do you have a link that says this law came into being under Bush? From what I've seen on the Internet it appears this existed in Texas before Bush was ever governor.

Thanks



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Just look at this thread. Here is a fine group of people that are trying to deny ignorance, but cannot understand what this thread was about, so I vote we end this thread now so new commers will not think of this site as one for total nuts that just need a place to argue with someone.
Before we kill it...somebody please post that bush bashing thread here so all these folks can have somewhere to resume the arguements.
While I can understand everyones beef with the President, this was not about him at all. It was a THANK YOU ONLY.
And even if you don't agree with keeping this lady alive, believe me there are plenty of threads about that too. So show me some intelligence people. Post where that topic is being talked about.
And I posted the link to the rules of using "WORDS" , was'nt my rule. Unlike most...I read and try to obey what the site rules are. It did'nt take a dime out of my pocket to create or keep this site up and running. So in all fairness,i'm just trying to do what is in the rules.
Now i'm off to a subject worth participating in.
Regards,
krt1967



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
RANT, do you have a link that says this law came into being under Bush? From what I've seen on the Internet it appears this existed in Texas before Bush was ever governor.

Thanks


There's all kinds of discussions about it now, but this appears to be the actual 1999 Texas Law Change everyone is linking to as where the slippery slope came from. The change just allowed hospitals to decide after due notice they weren't getting paid, and the patient had to be moved or pulled. It's in legalese of course. Who knows if Bush even knew what it would result in when signing it (but the prior news article I posted makes it pretty clear what it did result in), but I'm thinking the Medical PAC's pushing it in the Texas legislature should have made it pretty plain what the point was, and Bush isn't a stupid man. He just plays one on TV.

And to the crazy lady that keeps complaining people are talking in her "thank you note" to Bush. He's not a member here. Get over it. :shk:

You're right though the duplicate thread should have never been started, but I'm rather enjoying your frustration now.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Hmm, well I'm no lawyer and don't really know about the Texas case. However, in this case the money to take care of her exists due to a malpractice case, yet the husband refuses to use it for any further tests or therapy. If she dies, he'll get the remainder of the trust.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Hmm, well I'm no lawyer and don't really know about the Texas case. However, in this case the money to take care of her exists due to a malpractice case, yet the husband refuses to use it for any further tests or therapy. If she dies, he'll get the remainder of the trust.


Okay.
Sorry, for playing the conservative here, but money is good. Privacy is good. Witch hunts as to motive are not. They need to indict this man with a crime before they intervene here IMHO.

There's no "suspicion of motive" as to excercising your legal rights as far as I know. The folks who take that tact already presume she should live and he's making the wrong choice. That's not their right.

Anyway, since you asked about the other... here's some more pertinant testimony as to Bush and Saving Brains.

Bush Administration Zero's Out TBI Act Funding For Brain Damaged Vets

I'm really not looking to make this about Bush at all. But since the entire arguement against Mr. Schiavo is to "motive" why not look at the motives of the "Save Schiavo" people?

In the case of Bush, I can't see a heart felt anything for the brain damaged, the suffering, nothing. This is rather a new twist, eh?

In the case of people made to feel involved in private citizens lives by hyped media coverage... :shk: no comment.

As to the Pro-Life anti Roe v Wade people at the center of this... Duh? Motive. Is that Bush's too? What about President Jeb '08? It is an awfully hyped local Florida case all things considered. Motive?

I don't know. It stinks all around to me. Not that my sympathies don't lie with Terri and her parents. I want both their forms of suffering to end. As to the husband my sympathies begin and end with the rule of law. Well, maybe more now that he's got a bunch of fanatics after him, digging in his trash, threating him, and a new Fed investigation based on absolutley nothing but a whiney tiny minority of hand wringing busy bodies that can't BELIEVE the courts these days.


Not good precedent for civil liberties.



[edit on 20-3-2005 by RANT]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   

from WyrdeOne
Hmmmm....

I think now, on top of being a cry baby and a partisan, you're a liar.

Sucks to be you dude.

And what does this do to further the discussion?


Originally posted by RANT
Thank you for your tirelessly hypocritical efforts to remove all automony of the individual.

First as Governer of Texas in 1999 you signed the bill into law allowing hospitals to withdraw life support from patients, over the objections of the family, if hospital decision makers consider the treatment to be nonbeneficial.

The result: Hospitals can pull life support if patients unable to pay!

And fiscal conservatives cheered!

Now you've wrangled and rode more suffering to a further end... not only does the hospital have more say than the family (in this case the spouse and legal guardian), but Congress and you have more control over private decisions than ever!

Bravo Mr. President you hypocritical bastard! And lo the masses rallied to turn over more individual rights to corporations and government. :shk:

Is it a better idea to allow the government to force hospitals to exhaust all precious resources to keep someone alive, someone who medical doctors have decided have no chance of recovery? This will, of course, result in other people who would have a chance of survival dying because of a lack of resources.

Isn't it a better idea to leave that decision up to the families and the hospitals if they can afford to pay for the care?

In your scenario, who will pay for the patient with no hope for recovery?

Don't you see that it is better to put the decision-making power back in the right hands, and take it out of the government's hands?



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
*DGtempe gets the popcorn and sits and waits*

Hi Jsobecky, i missed you.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
In your scenario, who will pay for the patient with no hope for recovery?


I didn't realize I had a scenario. Bush does. Quite a few. Some down right contradictory.


Don't you see that it is better to put the decision-making power back in the right hands, and take it out of the government's hands?


Uh, yes. Isn't that what I've argued consistently in this Shiavo circus?



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Hmm, well I'm no lawyer and don't really know about the Texas case. However, in this case the money to take care of her exists due to a malpractice case, yet the husband refuses to use it for any further tests or therapy. If she dies, he'll get the remainder of the trust.


That is incorrect. He has stated all along the balance will go the charity. Well, that is if any is left over after atty fews.





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join