Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Libertas wrote:
Quote:
For better or for worse, the left, and the Democrats in particular have branded themselves as the party that pulled the plug on Schiavo, the party of assisted suicide, the party of euthanasia, and the party of Roe v. Wade.


Awe yes, the Republicans believe in saving the life of Terri Schiavo as long as she has health insurance. Anyone else, fuck 'em.


Truly amazing, huh ? Robert Herring (rich media guy) offered Schiavo's husband $1 million dollars if he turned over gaurdianship. That million dollars could save a bunch of people in the US, or a thousands in Africa. But, nope, he wants to keep a body-without-a-brain alive.

You can see her brain here: (along with a normal one)
[url] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....atscan.jpg [/url]

BTW, the doctor the Right-To-Lifers used was an interesting example of how the Palin crowd can get any "facts" they want.
Take a doctor who is an outcast in his profession. Before Schiavo he already had an entry on "Quack Watch". He was facing ethics problems with the board at the time (he was eventually charged with a bunch of stuff, but eventually aquitted after an appeal).

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Qu.....s/tcd.html

Mainstream medical opinion is that his treatment methods actually make things worse. His theories never made it into peer reviewed literature.

But like Michael Jackson, the Right-To-Lifers were desperate. So, watch what happens.

A representative in the Florida House of Representatives writes a letter to the people who give out the Noble prize "nominating" Dr William Hammesfahr. (Of course, he has as much righ to nominate someone as my dog does....but that don't matter to the people who think Obama is gunning to kill Trig.)

Soon this nomination begins to morph. From Fox.

HANNITY: Imagine being in his position and having a guy like a Nobel Prize nominee like Dr. Hammesfahr, who I'm looking at right now, who spent 10 hours with her and feels that, given the chance, he could rehabilitate this girl.

Websites start refering to him as "Dr. William Hammesfahr, a world-renowned neurologist "

By the time he hits 700 club, he is introduced as having won a Noble Prize.

From Quack to Linus Pauling, just by selling out to the Palin crowd
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Libertas wrote:
As for Sarah Palin and her continued descent into crazytown.

So, how is "being wrong" working out as a career choice for you?

Quote:
The first we heard about Sarah Palin's "death panels" comment was in a conversation last Friday with an acquaintance who was appalled by it. Our interlocutor is not a Democratic partisan but a high-minded centrist who deplores extremist rhetoric whatever the source. We don't even know if he has a position on ObamaCare. From his description, it sounded to us as though Palin really had gone too far.

A week later, it is clear that she has won the debate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/.....01602.html

Rolling on the floor laughing, does not even begin to describe it. Your high school guidance councilor screwed you. You should sue.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Libertas wrote:
As for Sarah Palin and her continued descent into crazytown.

So, how is "being wrong" working out as a career choice for you?

Quote:
The first we heard about Sarah Palin's "death panels" comment was in a conversation last Friday with an acquaintance who was appalled by it. Our interlocutor is not a Democratic partisan but a high-minded centrist who deplores extremist rhetoric whatever the source. We don't even know if he has a position on ObamaCare. From his description, it sounded to us as though Palin really had gone too far.

A week later, it is clear that she has won the debate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/.....01602.html

Rolling on the floor laughing, does not even begin to describe it. Your high school guidance councilor screwed you. You should sue.


Palin said something that was an utter lie. One in an amazing series that could cause her nose to reach across the Bering straight and poke Putin in the head.

The fact that the "end of life counseling" or what ever was removed does not mean she won the debate, it was just removed because she was scaring senior citizens. I hardly call this winning the debate, especially since Palin spoke in favor of it before Obama became president.

BTW, a quote from a Republican Senator from Georgia

"I have no idea. I understand — and you have to check this out — I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts.] You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up"

Not only can she not win the debate within her own party, her position is described as "nuts".

How do you like being wrong ???

The bottom line is that Palin told a bold faced, outragous lie. Sure she may have a gotten some irrelevant item removed (BTW, she came out in support of this idea long before it was in the House Bill), but she is wearing away at the credibility of both herself and the Republican Party.
It may impress the band of home skooled sheeple that form a good portion of whats left of Palin's base, but people who actually read the news are appaled.

Your brand of debating, ignorance and insults is not going to help the Republicans in a general election. Look at Canada. Do you see Harper saying the Liberals want to off people's grandmothers ? Say the Liberals plan to get direct access to everyones bank accounts ?
Guess what, when Harper speaks, people believe him. When Palin speaks, people snicker. BTW, what are Palin's approval ratings right now ?
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Alan A."]
crazymamma wrote:
Alan A. wrote:


Aside from ...snip the blah blah blah

The juicy part:

A freakin' burden for everybody, including herself and her poor mother, for life.

More blah blah blah snipped

quote]

As a parent that has adopted several so called "unadoptables" I find this post offensive in it's selfish inability to see beyond the Norm and all the glory that medium, picture perfect postcard family brings to a humdrum normal life.

Children are aalmost ALWAYS a gift. You may not have the stomach or stuffing required to see it, live it, but be assured there are many who do..


You don't agree, so you insult. As for me being "selfish": you say a child is a gift for you, so it makes you feel good, but YOU are not selfish? Think about it. By the way, I do have my small family too, and they bring me joy so it's perfectly selfish. But I can admit it.


Nope sorry,

You made a statement that this child was a freaking burden to EVERYONE for life. You made that judgment. I apprised you of the reality, that you are not the barometer of everyone for life. You insulted every parent that loves children with so called imperfections and every child that was not ideal.

Deal with it, the mirror may no be pretty but that is you, not me.

Seeing as Autism is now 1 in 100 children instead of just 1 in a 1000, seems to me we had better get working on figuring out just what the environmental issues are associated with this disorder. But I understand since our society finds children expendable selfish possessions much like a goldfish or a designer dog, there will never be interest enough to tackle this ever pervasive problem..



You confuse, equate the reciprocal joys from parenting with selfishness?...curious.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:

Seeing as Autism is now 1 in 100 children instead of just 1 in a 1000

1 in 100 have autism ? I find that really hard to believe. Is that for a certain risk group ? Does it include people with Autism spectrum disorders ?

crazymamma wrote:

, seems to me we had better get working on figuring out just what the environmental issues are associated with this disorder.


I believed that it was mainly genetics. To the best of my knowledge no environmental factor has been accepted by main stream science. (although lots of theories have been proposed, most have been shot down)

crazymamma wrote:

But I understand since our society finds children expendable selfish possessions much like a goldfish or a designer dog, there will never be interest enough to tackle this ever pervasive problem..


There does seem to be a great deal of research and concern going into autism. Certainly society has become much more aware of the problem (hence the rising number of people being diagnosed.)

I think the idea of a "pill" or a "cure" likely doesn't get a lot of interest because it seems unlikely compared to other diseases. Want to fight AIDS ? Kill the aids virus. MS, prevent the immune system from attacking nerve tissue. From my understanding the current consenus is that the brain begins to develop incorrectly right from the begining. Fixing a brain that was damaged at that point is way beyond our science.

Not that money shouldn't go into treatment, but the consensus from my understanding is that a "cure" is impossible.
Libertas





Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 358
Reputation: 14.6
votes: 6
Location: Medicine Hat, AB

PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So, how is "being wrong" working out as a career choice for you?


Listen bud, not all of us have joined the cult yet. You have to stop worshiping Sarah Palin and start to think for yourself. Yes it'll be hard, but once she's out of your mind you can start jacking off to something else.

Quote:
Rolling on the floor laughing, does not even begin to describe it. Your high school guidance councilor screwed you. You should sue.


Oh, kwa. What would we do without your rants that America is close to Nazi Germany because more people are going to get healthcare coverage. Now outside of one blogger claiming Palin won because the President had to counter lies that are being propagated by the nutters in America to a gullible populace, what portion of the healthcare bill would have implement a panel to kill of the old and sick?

The funny thing is that the part of the bill being referenced was about advanced planning, which was not put in by Obama but a pro-life Republican.

Quote:
And as it turns out, the cause of advance planning has been championed especially strongly by a pro-life Republican -- U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
That's a nice strawman, but you know damn well what people mean when they say that. The truth is, under a single payer universal system, access to health care for seniors is heavily rationed, in terms of both quality and quantity. The only way to control costs is to reduce services, and people over 70 require a lot of services. When the government centrally plans and chooses what kind of circumstances allow treatment X, while banning people from going outside the system, they are making decisions that result in people's death, well in advance of decisions made by physicians and patients.

A strawman is attacking an argument that someone didn't make. An argument can not be a strawman when the person is actually trying to make that argument. There are folks on the right, including on this forum, who do think that the government would pull the plug on Grandma. That argument is completely ridiculous. Even in Canada where we have only government funded healthcare I've never seen them pull the plug on anyone without their consent. And the United States isn't even proposing what we have in Canada. If seniors prefer private insurance, then they can stick with that and nothing will change. As for the government cutting costs, you're probably right, I don't trust the government much either....but I don't trust private insurance companies from cutting costs either, and there are a lot of examples of private insurance companies cutting off patients to save money.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Libertas wrote:
If they have no issue with over 10 million children not having healthcare yet cry because of an assisted suicide...

Excellent point!!
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

teenagetory wrote:
I don't personally think that Obama has a secret evil plan to make committees to decide whether Grandma decides to live or die, but the fact that one has to give so much control to the state without the option of using another form of healthcare, lends itself to the possibility of something like that happening sometime further down the line. Even in Canada, those who wish to pay for healthcare can get it if they are willing to travel to the USA and pay for it.

There is still the option of private healthcare. The U.S. is not proposing what we have here in Canada.
Blue Meanie





Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 329
Reputation: 54.7
votes: 3
Location: B.C.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Libertas wrote:

The funny thing is that the part of the bill being referenced was about advanced planning, which was not put in by Obama but a pro-life Republican.

Quote:
And as it turns out, the cause of advance planning has been championed especially strongly by a pro-life Republican -- U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia.


Nice try. Isakson promotes advance planning. But nothing like what's in the Dems plan.
Stop taking everything Obama says at face value. I might start thinking you're nothing but a lefty troll. :wink:

Isakson Denounces White House Comments Connecting Him
To Terribly Flawed House Health Care Bill
‘This Is What Happens When the President and Members of Congress Don’t Read the Bills’

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., today denounced comments made by President Obama and his spokesman regarding Isakson’s alleged connection to language contained in the House health care bill on “end-of-life counseling.”

Isakson vehemently opposes the House and Senate health care bills and he played no role in drafting language in the House bill calling for the government to expand Medicare and incentivize doctors by offering them extra money to conduct “end-of-life counseling” with Medicare patients every five years on an extensive list of required topics.

By contrast, Isakson took a very different approach in July during the Senate HELP Committee hearings on the Senate version of the health care bill. Isakson’s amendment to the Senate bill says that anyone who participates in the long-term care benefit in which they put their own money into a health savings account may use their money in this account – if they so choose -- to obtain legal assistance in formulating their own living will and durable power of attorney. Unlike the House bill, Isakson’s amendment would not expand Medicare and would not prescribe any topics that must be discussed.

Isakson’s amendment, which was accepted unanimously by all Republicans and Democrats on the Senate HELP Committee, empowers the individual to make their own choices on these critical issues, rather than the government incentivizing doctors to conduct counseling on government-mandated topics. Isakson ultimately voted against the Senate health care bill.

“This is what happens when the President and members of Congress don’t read the bills. The White House and others are merely attempting to deflect attention from the intense negativity caused by their unpopular policies. I never consulted with the White House in this process and had no role whatsoever in the House Democrats’ bill. I categorically oppose the House bill and find it incredulous that the White House and others would use my amendment as a scapegoat for their misguided policies,” Isakson said. “My Senate amendment simply puts health care choices back in the hands of the individual and allows them to consider if they so choose a living will or durable power of attorney. The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion, and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice.”
http://isakson.senate.gov/pres.....hcare.html
Libertas





Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 358
Reputation: 14.6
votes: 6
Location: Medicine Hat, AB

PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Nice try. Isakson promotes advance planning. But nothing like what's in the Dems plan.
Stop taking everything Obama says at face value. I might start thinking you're nothing but a lefty troll.


Advanced planning is what's in the healthcare plan.

What's in the healthcare reform plan that will kill off old people and the disabled? Please, I'd love to hear it.

If nutters like yourself think that any attempts to ensure healthcare is universal is somehow going to result in a second holocaust then you're not a "troll," but you are a paranoid schizoid.
Blue Meanie





Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 329
Reputation: 54.7
votes: 3
Location: B.C.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Libertas wrote:
Quote:
Nice try. Isakson promotes advance planning. But nothing like what's in the Dems plan.
Stop taking everything Obama says at face value. I might start thinking you're nothing but a lefty troll.


Advanced planning is what's in the healthcare plan.

What's in the healthcare reform plan that will kill off old people and the disabled? Please, I'd love to hear it.

If nutters like yourself think that any attempts to ensure healthcare is universal is somehow going to result in a second holocaust then you're not a "troll," but you are a paranoid schizoid.

I guess I wasn't clear, so I'll try again. Yes, there is "advanced planning" in the Dems healthcare plan. Just not the version of "advanced planning" promoted by Isakson. So you are mistaken when you defend it by attributing it to a "strongly pro-life Republican". That was the ONLY point I was trying to make. I made no judgement and offered no opinion as to the merits of either version of "advanced planning". And for that you label me a "nutter"?
Craig/Mac
I haven't posted to this forum in awhile. I didn't realize this forum has become the rabble.ca of Canadian conservatism. Pity.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All you people who scoff at the idea of a death panel, you really have no understanding of the issue.

You may want to call it something else, but when a government board meets, and decides that there will only be $3 million worth of heart surgeries this year, what exactly do you think that means? Do you think it means that when they hit $3 million mark, that they wait till next year to do more heart surgeries, or do you think it means that when you need one, they take up a collection out of their own salaries so that you can be treated?

When Flaherty puts a figure of $56 billion say, in the budget for a given year, that means that you have to wait once the money is gone. If it is a matter of life or death, waiting often means death.

PS. http://corner.nationalreview.c.....Y4YjdkODE=
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
Nobody really drafts their own health plan, its too complicated.


Nobody seemed to mind blaming Bush for those details.

The bottom line here is that he didn't even run on the health platform. It wasn't until after he was elected that he even started discussing it. Now he wants to ram it through without even giving Americans or their elected officials a chance to understand it. We discussed fascism in another thread. This is yet another example of it. It is perhaps the biggest policy change in recent American history but he did not run on it. He was not elected with this as a mandate.

In terms of him not writing this. I agree - he shouldn't write it. It is the experts who should write it. But he should at least read it. And by his own admission he hasn't even bothered to do that. I guess they haven't released a teleprompter version of it yet.
Libertas





Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 358
Reputation: 14.6
votes: 6
Location: Medicine Hat, AB

PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You may want to call it something else, but when a government board meets, and decides that there will only be $3 million worth of heart surgeries this year, what exactly do you think that means?


That isn't how it works. If a patient requires a medical service or urgent care the cost will be paid for by the government regardless of the budget.

By the way that isn't in the healthcare bill. All it would do is mandate a public option to compete with private insurers. That's hardly a radical or even socialist program, it sounds more like common sense. If the death profiteers at the insurance companies are afraid it will take away some of their profits they received from recission then tough luck.

Quote:
Do you think it means that when they hit $3 million mark, that they wait till next year to do more heart surgeries, or do you think it means that when you need one, they take up a collection out of their own salaries so that you can be treated?


It's generally preferable to recission where the health insurance company will dig through your medical history and take away your coverage due to an acne outbreak or broken leg you got while skiing. Thus leaving you with no healthcare and if you're lucky a healthcare bill going into the six figures due to lack of coverage.

Quote:
When Flaherty puts a figure of $56 billion say, in the budget for a given year, that means that you have to wait once the money is gone. If it is a matter of life or death, waiting often means death.


Yes, that's why the police and fire department will sometimes shutdown for about a month because responding to any extra calls would be going over budget.

Which planet do you live on?


Last edited by Libertas on Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


I need some help here.

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB