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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
3. Fair enough, Reilly. I agree with you … no politician should be involved.
I just heard on the radio they couldn’t enough people back from recess to vote and sign. Today.
2- But yet you made it switch one way:roll:
7. … ????????????????????????????????
“DeLay no longer”
8- pull your head out of your ass.
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.
10-
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.
12- No kidding. Good point.
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.
“… 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??).
14- Again look at the source.:roll:
15- yes I did and what of it?
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.
Fax = Fox
17- well considring you have all the time in the world, I am sure you can.:roll:
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?
19. Wrong again, peejz. Have a good one!
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.
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.
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.
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.
24/25, see Ellis, you just made a fool of yourself. Why should anyone listen to you at all?
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.
i’ll let your 27 stand for whatever it is on its own.
why do you threaten me?
28, odd you perceive an observation as a threat. You have a persecution complex. Is it something you earned the hard way?
26. No, pcd, I corrected a mistake. You haven’t answered the question in 24. Being evasive?
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)
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.
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.
33- that is such a liberal way to look at it:roll:
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.
35- It was clear enough the first time I wrote it.
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.
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.
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?
39-Again with the liberal way of thinking. If you understood it the first time, why add to it?:roll:
40, maybe if the same thing was said to Ellis by Jesse Jackson, he’d understand it.
41-Or Newsweek:razz:
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.
43-I guess not.
44. Then your posts, peejz, go under the “consider the source” banner. I’m glad I took time to fully understand the unbelievable.
Ellis, you posts go into the “bit bucket”.
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,
Oh,,, to purify America
Sorry for the typos,,, 2 weeks straight training,,,, 16 hours a day.
:shock::shock:
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