Real World Event Discussions

Faux News now broadcasts on every channel

POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 03:47
VIEWED: 1825
PAGE 2 of 2

Monday, March 21, 2005 6:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
My wife and I disagree on whether we should remodel the bathroom or the den first. Do you think we can get Congress to decide for us?

"Keep the Shiny side up"



The real issue is who gets to decide which room to remodel IF your wife is in a coma? You or your wife parents.

Wait this whole line of discussion is crazy, Terri is person, not a piece of property.

Now if you wanted to murder your wife so you could you could own the house and marry a woman who was more agreeable about these decisions, then that analogy would be closer to the present case.

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2005 6:50 PM

As someone once said, logic is the BEGINNING of wisdom. In the end things are a mite simpler than volumes of words make 'em seem.
If you consider the Earth a family that has problems to attend to, chances are your thinkin's right. If it's all about us vs. them, then your probably on Jaynes level.

Peace, brothers and sisters.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2005 7:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
If it's all about us vs. them, then your probably on Jaynes level.
Chrisisall



Its all about us, to hell with them. Guess I aint on Jaynes level after all.

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2005 7:30 PM

"Now if you wanted to murder your wife so you could you could own the house and marry a woman who was more agreeable about these decisions, then that analogy would be closer to the present case."

Careful Hero- your bias is showing. Michael Schiavo took care of Terri every day for eight years. Can you say you've done that, or even know what that entails? Have you ever taken care of a parent who was neuro-compromised and watched them suffer, knowing that recovery was impossible? Have you fought for years for the treatment of a neuro-compromised child, believing that rehabilitation was possible- even when all top-notch neurologists were saying "Give up hope"? Do you have any idea how to tell the difference between hopeful, and hopeless? Been there, done that, more than twice.

So before you start maligning Terri's ex, imagine taking total care of some for eight years- EIGHT YEARS- bathing, feeding, diapering, talking to-and finally, painfully losing hope. Watching someone you love living a what you eventually come to believe is a degraded existance... one that you're sure would not be desired by the person you love... where recovery is impossible and death is the only way out.

Why would Michael fight so hard? If it was just a matter of money- well, hell, he's got the money already. If it was just a matter of convenience, it would be FAR more convenient to let Terri's parents take custody. He's fighting because it's a matter of conviction for him- just as it is for Terri's parents.

But, hell, what do the FACTS matter, eh???

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2005 8:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Knibblet:
What this has shown me is that not matter that my husband and I both have iron-clad DNR's (Do Not Resuscitate), political fucksticks are going to override our wishes to push their own political agenda and suck up to the hardline anti-choice crowd.

How's that for a run-on rant?

"I'm gonna rip you a new puppet hole, bitch!"



Actually, this case is exactly because there was nothing in writing what so ever indicateing Terry's wishes per this matter that's causing all the ruckus. Should you and hubby have an 'iron-clad' DNR....there'd be no issue.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, March 21, 2005 8:10 PM

Well, you do have a way with words.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 10:57 AM

I guess I just wouldn't make a good news director. I don't watch cable news because I don't share their vision of what is important right now. Scott Peterson? Robert Blake? Michael Jackson? Terri Schiavo? I don't get it.

But I will use it as a tangent for a second... To riff on something Jon Stewart said yesterday (that this was the first time Bush had cut his vacation short to return to Washington). I didn't realize the Terri Schiavo legislation was the most important thing to happen in this country over the past five years. It's a good thing that, on the many previous vacations Bush has taken, nothing more serious has cropped up.

The Republican party has some very distinct sub-groups. What has been amazing to me is that, for the most part, these sub-groups subsume their differences in the interest of party unity. (Or maybe it's only amazing because the Democrat sub-groups refuse to subsume). But this is a clear example of the social conservative faction of the Republican party beating up on the states-rights faction. How much can a states-rights conservative take before they cry foul? This is pretty compelling evidence that the social conservatives will throw you to the wolves in a heartbeat.

Or maybe there are some Republicans worried about the social conservatives who get immediate action from the President:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/politics/23repubs.html?pagewanted=pr
int&position
=

I'll also throw out another link that could just be a piece of fluff with unknown lineage. I have no idea if this actually was a memo put out by Rick Santorum. It seems too easy. But if it is legit, it sure does sound like Santorum is playing the social conservatives:
http://dcinsidescoop.blogspot.com/2005/03/exclusive-gops-schiavo-talki
ng-points.html


** editted to add: Okay, this was not from Santorum (or any other Senator). It looks like the content was copied from this site:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2179
I'm glad I was skeptical.
** end edit

Isn't it interesting that the three main players in the escalation of this - Jeb Bush, Frist, and DeLay - have easily transparent motivations. DeLay probably wants to distract everyone from what is going on back in Texas and both Bush and Frist are looking at running for President and eager to nail down the social conservative base of the Republican party.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

RUE
Thursday, March 24, 2005 4:20 AM

Anyway, more Faux News

Quote:

Social Security Said to Go Broke in 2041
Mar 23, 12:22 PM (ET)
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
WASHINGTON (AP) - The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 - a year earlier than previously estimated. Trustees also said that Medicare ... faces insolvency in 2020. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050323/D890QBLO0.html

When I think of broke, I think of a little cartoon-man with his empty pockets turned out. I think of having nothing. Just to be sure, I looked up 'broke':
Quote:

http://www.allwords.com/word-broke.html
1. Having no or very little money.
2. Bankrupt, financially ruined.

I looked up insolvent, since the article characterized SS as going 'broke', and Medicare as merely becoming 'insolvent':
Quote:

http://www.allwords.com/word-insolvent.html
1. Not having enough money to pay debts, creditors, etc.

Without resorting to legal definitions (since insolvent and bankrupt are legally different from each other and common usage) 'broke' - NO money, reads as worse-off than insolvent - not enough money.
In reality, in 204x (you throw the dart), SS will have spent down its reserves as planned, and will then be running on current income.

So why did AP headline the story in such blatantly slanted language?

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

RUE
Wednesday, April 20, 2005 3:47 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/18/international/middleeast/18iraq.html
?th&emc=th



April 18, 2005
Iraqi Kidnapping Tale Combines Perilous Mix of Fact and Rumor
By ROBERT F. WORTH

AGHDAD, Iraq, April 17 - Anyone in Baghdad on Sunday morning could have been forgiven for thinking the country was on the verge of civil war.

Three Iraqi Army battalions had surrounded the town of Madaen, just south of Baghdad, where Sunni kidnappers were said to be threatening to kill hundreds of Shiite hostages unless all Shiites left the town. As the National Assembly met, Iraq's top political figures warned of a sectarian crisis between the majority Shiites and minority Sunnis.

Even Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric and its most notorious terrorist fugitive weighed in on the matter with statements of their own. And the departing prime minister released a statement denouncing the "savage, filthy and dirty atrocities" in Madaen.

But as the army battalions arrived in Madaen, they saw streets full of people calmly going about their business. There were no armed Sunni mobs, no cowering Shiite victims.

After hours of careful searches, the soldiers - assisted by air surveillance - arrested some people suspected of being insurgents, but found no evidence of any kidnappings.

On Sunday evening, a few political leaders were still insisting that some hostages might yet be found. But Iraqi Army officials were reporting that the crisis in Madaen - which had been narrated in a stream of breathless television reports and news bulletins - appeared to be nothing but a tissue of rumors and politically motivated accusations.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME