GW Rushes To Sign Legislation
Bush Hurries to Capital to Sign Legislation on Schiavo
As a deal in Congress was worked out to have federal courts decide Terri Schiavo’s fate, emotions swelled outside the brain-damaged woman’s hospice room Saturday, with protesters arrested after they symbolically tried to smuggle in bread and water on her second day without a feeding tube.
President Bush changed his schedule to return to Washington from his Texas ranch on Sunday to be on hand to sign the legislation.
Congressional leaders announced a compromise between Senate and House Republicans that would allow the brain-damaged woman’s case to be reviewed by federal courts that could restore her feeding tube. Opposition waned after House leaders agreed to give up broader legislation and accept a narrowly crafted bill that applied only to Schiavo’s case.
The Senate convened briefly Saturday evening to give formal permission for the House to meet Sunday, when it otherwise would be adjourned for the Easter recess.
The plan is for the House to act on the two-page bill Sunday or just after midnight Monday morning. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said the Senate then would act on the House legislation, assuming it passes the House as envisioned, and rush the bill to the president for signature into law.
This will not be the cleansweep some think it will be – - there will be those who will try to defeat the bill because they believe and understand this issue does not belong in the Congress and Senate. If this bill passes it will give the federal government the right to intrude into personal family decisions. This would mean that one day folks like Teddy Kennedy or Tom Delay could be calling the shots for you and your family during a painful trying time.
March 20, 2005 - 10:38 AM on March 20th, 2005
I am very unhappy about this. To me it appears that they are saying the courts aren’t capable of doing their jobs. The Supreme Court sent it back. There was no need for them to step in. The Florida courts did their jobs. They upheld the law. The senate has no business doing this. Where is their concern for the child molesters among us? Where is the emergency legislation for the victims of the predator. I just am so irked right now.
March 20, 2005 - 11:41 AM on March 20th, 2005
Reilly and Peejz, I agree with each of you. However, Reilly, the reference to Ted Kennedy was uncalled for. We could just as easily name Tom DeLay (isn’t he intruding today?), or other ultra-right wing conservatives. My point here is not to get into an ideological battle. Rather, this thing that Congress has opened can swing both ways.
March 20, 2005 - 11:58 AM on March 20th, 2005
It wasn’t uncalled for Ellis – - that is the first name that came to mind as I thought about who I wouldn’t want to be calling the shots for me – - And it is any politician, (not just Teddy), I don’t want any of them making decisions like this for me and my family – - so I added Tom Delay to the post (for you) to make that more clear. I just thought it was understood what I meant being my stance on this issue has not changed and that I have spoken out against any and all politicians getting involved.
March 20, 2005 - 12:31 PM on March 20th, 2005
so much for state’s rights.
It’s intrusive and out of place for Bush and Congress to get involved on one person’s life – when it has been battled through the court system for a decade.
A legislative body trumps the judicial system, I guess. This sets a scary precedant, I fear.
March 20, 2005 - 02:14 PM on March 20th, 2005
3. Fair enough, Reilly. I agree with you … no politician should be involved.
March 20, 2005 - 02:15 PM on March 20th, 2005
I just heard on the radio they couldn’t enough people back from recess to vote and sign. Today.
March 20, 2005 - 07:16 PM on March 20th, 2005
2- But yet you made it switch one way:roll:
March 20, 2005 - 07:22 PM on March 20th, 2005
7. … ????????????????????????????????
“DeLay no longer”
March 20, 2005 - 07:22 PM on March 20th, 2005
8- pull your head out of your ass.
March 20, 2005 - 07:40 PM on March 20th, 2005
9. Once again peejz, I have no idea what you’re talking about, question what you meant, and you respond with the typical Rethug approach of insult. Quite ladylike. It’s interesting that you managed to turn agreement on this issue into insults.
March 20, 2005 - 07:50 PM on March 20th, 2005
10-
March 20, 2005 - 08:20 PM on March 20th, 2005
Ellis, sometimes I think that if someone would beat you like a pinata, until candy pours out of your well used arse, you would come to your senses,,,, but then reality sets in. You are a Democrat/Progressive/Marxist, and you only can’t even see you ideas failing.
Do I think that the Republicans have the answers? No. But they are a hell of a lot better that your ilk.
March 20, 2005 - 08:25 PM on March 20th, 2005
12- No kidding. Good point.
March 20, 2005 - 08:26 PM on March 20th, 2005
12. And on that note, JG, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I could easily echo your charming rhetoric back at you. I will agree that no politician has all the answers. The President seems to be spending his “capital” unwisely at the moment, however.
The president, whose approval ratings are down on almost every issue, has yet to sell the country on his plan for Social Security.
March 20, 2005 - 08:31 PM on March 20th, 2005
“… a hell of a lot better that your ilk.”
Is Tom DeLay and his ilk included in your statement? The Dems have had their share of troubles like this, but the hypocrisy of a faith-based platform coupled with DeLay’s actions is troublesome. Before you comment, I believe Byrd has overstayed his welcome but I’m not in WV (Strom did also but that was admitted by someone here – peejz??).
March 20, 2005 - 08:55 PM on March 20th, 2005
14- Again look at the source.:roll:
15- yes I did and what of it?
March 20, 2005 - 10:01 PM on March 20th, 2005
16. Any source other than Fax, Drudge (so aptly named), etc. is ridiculed by you. Such narrow thinking.
Nothing of it. I was merely acknowledging what you said. However, if you want to pick a fight (your wording suggests that you have your back up), I can fight back.
March 20, 2005 - 10:01 PM on March 20th, 2005
Fax = Fox
March 21, 2005 - 06:57 AM on March 21st, 2005
17- well considring you have all the time in the world, I am sure you can.:roll:
March 21, 2005 - 07:38 AM on March 21st, 2005
12. John, if we use shiloh as the pinata, will Ellis show up at a medical facility looking for attention of both the medical staff and the press?
March 21, 2005 - 08:11 AM on March 21st, 2005
19. Wrong again, peejz. Have a good one!
March 21, 2005 - 08:19 AM on March 21st, 2005
When I see “people” like Ellis, shiloh, sandy, etc. put down Fox, WND, Drudge, etc. as sources. It is empty rhetoric. They scream bias because the information destroys the crap that especially Ellis/shiloh spew. Here’s the fact that makes them all look like the fools they are. Most of these stories are links to reporting sources such as the AP, Reuters, NYTimes, LATimes. Times of London, The Independent, The Guardian, etc. Ellis/shiloh look so braindead when they dismiss without seeing that in many cases they are actually dismissing their favorite non-DNC sources.
March 21, 2005 - 08:53 AM on March 21st, 2005
makes them all look like the fools they are/
if we use shiloh as the pinata/ “people”/
do you have more fun expressing opinions or insulting people who don’t agree with them?
i haven’t posted here in a week, yet i seem to be on your mind quite a bit. imagine if i actually engaged you.
March 21, 2005 - 09:13 AM on March 21st, 2005
22. pcd, I have Drudge, RNC, and other conservative sites bookmarked and look at them regularly. Can you say the same about non-conservative sites? It’s known as understanding all sides of an issue.
I generally quote other sources that present the entire story and poll results (or an opposing view) not just what the conservatives want to hear and believe. To dismiss my sources as “oh, look at the source” is the same as dismissing Drudge, etc. as “Oh, look at the source.” True, many of the postings on all sites come from AP, etc. However, does Drudge (for example) post ALL AP stories on point? It strikes me that they choose which ones to link to.
March 21, 2005 - 09:31 AM on March 21st, 2005
24. I did an AP search on Drudge and it seems they link to all stories even if they don’t directly highlight them. That’s fair enough.
March 21, 2005 - 10:17 AM on March 21st, 2005
24/25, see Ellis, you just made a fool of yourself. Why should anyone listen to you at all?
March 21, 2005 - 10:19 AM on March 21st, 2005
23, shiloh, imagine if I actually showed up in your face. I don’t think you’d have the cajones to say to my face what you say here, and I don’t think you’d like the result if you tried.
March 21, 2005 - 10:38 AM on March 21st, 2005
i’ll let your 27 stand for whatever it is on its own.
why do you threaten me?
March 21, 2005 - 10:54 AM on March 21st, 2005
28, odd you perceive an observation as a threat. You have a persecution complex. Is it something you earned the hard way?
March 21, 2005 - 11:10 AM on March 21st, 2005
26. No, pcd, I corrected a mistake. You haven’t answered the question in 24. Being evasive?
March 21, 2005 - 12:07 PM on March 21st, 2005
I posted a long post that Spam Karma ate I will wait to see if the ADMINS post it. otherwise I will be a limited reader and infrequent poster reguards all
Pray for Terri and all others involved today.
Rsspectfully,
Kevin in Portland (Oregon not Maine)
March 21, 2005 - 12:23 PM on March 21st, 2005
My aren’t we nosy, Ellis. You have some notion that “If they’d only look at our ‘evidence,’ then they wouldn’t be Conservatives”? Ellis, I look at DU, at daily Kos (for the paid Dean support) and at the MSM propaganda. I see how you are full of it and how the Left deludes itself.
March 21, 2005 - 12:41 PM on March 21st, 2005
32. “You have some notion that “If they’d only look at our ‘evidence,’ then they wouldn’t be Conservativesâ€?”
No, pcd, I have no such notions. It’s interesting, however, that you can’t post anything without snide comments about folks who disagree with you. I could just as easily say that “I see how you are full of it …”, but I respect your right to think as you shall even though I disagree with most of it.
March 21, 2005 - 12:43 PM on March 21st, 2005
33- that is such a liberal way to look at it:roll:
March 21, 2005 - 12:53 PM on March 21st, 2005
34. As if your rhetoric can’t be dismissed with “that’s such a conservative way to look at it?” What are you suggesting is “such a liberal way to look at it?” Respect for your opinions? If so, that says a ton about how conservatives think. If not, please clarify what you mean.
March 21, 2005 - 12:56 PM on March 21st, 2005
35- It was clear enough the first time I wrote it.
March 21, 2005 - 01:05 PM on March 21st, 2005
36. Then you do not respect other’s opinions. That disdain says it all. You are narrow-minded, and refuse to consider anything that doesn’t agree with you. I might as well just read the RNC, Conservative Weekly, Drudge, and the Washington Times to get what you think. Why subject myself to the inbred thinking and reinforcement of each other that some of you proffer? Although I’d miss the chuckles here that some of you provide with your insults and obtuse verbiage.
The moderators here do a great job of posting material albeit only conservative, but that’s the focus here. They also post responses/comments that are on-point and respectful.
March 21, 2005 - 01:06 PM on March 21st, 2005
35, it was clear enough to me what Peejz said. Maybe if you’d turn off the situational ethics when you read other people’s posts, you might have a shot at understanding.
March 21, 2005 - 01:12 PM on March 21st, 2005
38. pcd, I say I wasn’t clear on what peejz meant. Both of you resp[ond with “it was clear.” Wouldn’t a simple explanatory sentence or two be appropriate and courteous, or is that not how it’s done in your circles?
March 21, 2005 - 01:41 PM on March 21st, 2005
39-Again with the liberal way of thinking. If you understood it the first time, why add to it?:roll:
March 21, 2005 - 01:45 PM on March 21st, 2005
40, maybe if the same thing was said to Ellis by Jesse Jackson, he’d understand it.
March 21, 2005 - 01:46 PM on March 21st, 2005
41-Or Newsweek:razz:
March 21, 2005 - 01:53 PM on March 21st, 2005
40. Perhaps because I was brought up to respect others, and wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing anything in the rhetoric. Obviously I wasn’t.
March 21, 2005 - 02:12 PM on March 21st, 2005
43-I guess not.
March 21, 2005 - 02:20 PM on March 21st, 2005
44. Then your posts, peejz, go under the “consider the source” banner. I’m glad I took time to fully understand the unbelievable.
March 21, 2005 - 02:22 PM on March 21st, 2005
Ellis, you posts go into the “bit bucket”.
March 21, 2005 - 08:30 PM on March 21st, 2005
Ellis, thank you for choosing this time to embarass yourself. You are as nutty a comocrat as dg. I am a man of compassion though,, and I want you to know that I have never,,,,, never looked at anything you have linked. But hell, if it makes you happy, and keeps you from your daily 5 min of hate from the DNC, keep it up.
Cheers,
March 21, 2005 - 08:31 PM on March 21st, 2005
Oh,,, to purify America
March 21, 2005 - 08:32 PM on March 21st, 2005
Sorry for the typos,,, 2 weeks straight training,,,, 16 hours a day.
:shock::shock:
March 22, 2005 - 06:46 AM on March 22nd, 2005
Ellis..
repeat after me…. “Bush Lied” “Haliburton” “Carlysle group” “Bush Lied” “Blood for Oil” “Haliburton”
you’ll feel better.
now go back to the lefty loony bin
March 22, 2005 - 06:58 AM on March 22nd, 2005
UHHH, Mike needs to be on the “list”….
Glad your back dude.
March 22, 2005 - 07:11 AM on March 22nd, 2005
Quit ditching us Mike. Some of us miss you.
March 22, 2005 - 08:42 AM on March 22nd, 2005
sorry fellas! I was in Barbados, see my link below….and I’ve been really busy.
Where are the bloodthirsty Dems? Never met a christian fundamentalist they wouldn’t torch, an invalid they won’t starve to death, an 8 year old cuban boy they won’t abduct…..but god forbid you try and take out a muslim animal..they scream bloody murder (literally)
March 23, 2005 - 05:22 AM on March 23rd, 2005
Imagine the liberals outcry if Michael Schiavo was sentenced to die by starvation,which he deserves.Does anyone on here ever keep up with the news?Former nurses of Terri told their experiences with this monster.Like Carla Sauer Iyer.Michael was an abusive animal of a person that put Terri in this condition.On top of that he denied her therapy and treatment.I believe she would have recovered a long time ago if she was given the chance.I’d like to know why Reilly doesn’t tell the whole truth on this story.I guess some twisted agenda from a pseudo-conservative.Side with Michael and you side with a murderer.I think it is totally insane that the police there will arrest anyone trying to smuggle food to save her life.It sure looks like Nazi Germany.These are the tactics of Hitler,pretending to be compassionate while killing off all the handicap.If they get away with killing Terri you think that it is going to stop there?If you are not for life then you are for death,which makes you a bloodthirsty nazi.Michael Schiavo will rot in hell and so will those who folow his lead.
March 23, 2005 - 07:17 AM on March 23rd, 2005
54- You mean the former nurse that was fired from her job because of false allegations?
Friends that said they never saw abuse? They were upset that Terri spent all her time with the Shaivos. If Terri went shopping with a girlfriend, the girlfriend had to drive so Michael could have the car, the one and only car they owned. You mean them? When Greta questioned them about Terris eating disorder, they were forced to admit that she had dropped from over 200 pounds to about the 120’s in a time period that seemed too rapid to be healthy. Are those the news clips you want us to follow?
March 23, 2005 - 07:24 AM on March 23rd, 2005
“Bloodthirsty Deems”?
If life is so precious, how does this case relate to the death penalty?
March 23, 2005 - 08:31 AM on March 23rd, 2005
it dosent..murderers forfeit their lives.
throw in child rapists with that as well..
March 23, 2005 - 09:51 PM on March 23rd, 2005
Again, Bush and his Republican hypocrites in Congress are grand standing with a private family tragedy.
Bush is again displaying his absolute hypocrisy:
“WASHINGTON – As Texas governor, George W. Bush signed a law that allows hospitals to pull the plug on critically ill patients despite family objections – the kind of court-authorized move the president and fellow Republicans are challenging in the Terri Schiavo case…
“…Just last week, the Texas law resulted in what some call a first in the United States: A Houston hospital cut off life support for a badly deformed 6-month-old baby after his mother lost a court challenge. The baby died almost immediately.”
pro-Life my ass.
March 24, 2005 - 06:48 AM on March 24th, 2005
58- I see Einstein decided to join us. Why don’t you tell us your understanding of the actions the hospital took with this child.
March 24, 2005 - 07:17 AM on March 24th, 2005
And dg dislodges his head from his rectum once again demonstrates he knows no difference between an apple and an orange.
Which probably explains why he is so easily deceived and misled.
March 24, 2005 - 07:19 AM on March 24th, 2005
60-:lol::lol: Now his posts don’t even shock me.
:lol:
March 24, 2005 - 07:27 AM on March 24th, 2005
The mothership needs to come back for that one.
March 24, 2005 - 07:30 AM on March 24th, 2005
62-:lol
h that was a severe slapping he just took:lol::lol:
March 24, 2005 - 08:06 AM on March 24th, 2005
Will somebody remove dg from life support. “He’s Dead, Jim.”
March 24, 2005 - 08:14 AM on March 24th, 2005
64-:lol::lol: