• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Bush Tests New Words

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
Bush Tests New Words for Social Security Reform
by Scott Ott
(2005-03-22) -- President George Bush, frustrated by polls which show Americans don't understand his Social Security reform proposals and by Democrats who pronounce the term 'privatize' as if it meant 'poison,' has begun seasoning his standard stump speech with new terminology in an effort to find words more palatable to progressive voters.

"We need to hybridize Social Security," Mr. Bush told an audience in Seattle this week, hoping the association with the ubiquitous gasoline-electric cars would help his case. "My hybridization plan is the perfect blend of market forces and USSR-style centralized government planning. None of your money will actually be in your hands. But we'll dictate a few investment choices for you, so you can have feeling of control without the full risk or benefit."

At the next tour stop, Mr. Bush told a town hall meeting, "We need to euthanize Social Security. It's about 70 years old now, and it's getting in the way of the hopes and dreams of the next generation. It's an inconvenience. We won't kill it. We're just going to stop feeding it so it can peacefully fade away."

At an all-female college, the president said, "I'm pro-choice on Social Security. I support a woman's right to choose her retirement investments. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court discovered your Constitutional right to privacy. If what you do with your fetus is private, why should the federal government dictate what you do with your nest egg?"

At a gathering in San Francisco, Mr. Bush called his plan a "happy marriage" between personal and government-controlled accounts.

"If you love your money," he said. "Then don't let the government limit your freedom to express that love in anyway that seems right to you."
 

ez now

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
At an all-female college, the president said, "I'm pro-choice on Social Security. I support a woman's right to choose her retirement investments. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court discovered your Constitutional right to privacy. If what you do with your fetus is private, why should the federal government dictate what you do with your nest egg?" Need there be more said on this issue, I think not, Seems like he knows exactly what to say to females now to get there support, just like the tape recording had him saying, he knew exactly what to say to the christians before the election to get there vote. SO IN OTHER WORDS LADIES, HE THINKS ROE V. WADE IS A GOOD IDEA, IF YOU DO THEN YOU SHOULD AGREE WITH HIS IDEAS ON SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
LOL!!! I thought everyone would catch on. This is a parody. Simmer down there.
 

ez now

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
You think this is parody, Lets talk about Terry Schiavo and GW saying hes got to side with life, And then find hes signed the advanced directives act in 1999, Which gives hospitals the right to remove life support in cases where there isnt possibility of revival, AND WHEN THE FAMILYS CANNOT PAY, no matter what the family wishes are in the matter. LIKE I SAID, WATCH ALL NEWS NETWORKS ,AND WHAT ,AND HOW,THEY VOTE. These same republicans who pushed for this arrogant, interfering bill, which if used across the board, Would take away everyones right to make there own decisions in these awfull cases,Are the same people who voted to cut medicaid, Which pays for the care of people like Terry Schiavo across the country.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Terri would be completly disabled and more then likely on Medicare,

As she has Money left from the settlement she would be inelgible for medicaid.

When bantering about throwing out accusations try and look up a few of the facts first....


I believe most are upset at the uncaring way her former husband has handled this sad, tragic situation. He is Quoted in court records as saying the only reason he has pursued this is to get back at her parents.

Seems to me the law he just signed asked only for a review of the lower courts decision, to ensure that Terris rights were not violated, and that as President of the United States he must make decisions to Protect each persons rights. not uphold anothers such as her husbands over hers, as in this case.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Which gives hospitals the right to remove life support in cases where there isnt possibility of revival, AND WHEN THE FAMILYS CANNOT PAY, no matter what the family wishes are in the matter. LIKE I SAID,

"The 1999 Advance Directives Act in Texas a patient's surrogate to make end-of-life decisions and spells out how to proceed if a hospital or other health provider disagrees with a decision to maintain or halt life-sustaining treatment.

If a doctor refuses to honor a decision, the case goes before a medical committee. If the committee agrees with the doctor, the guardian or surrogate has 10 days to agree or seek treatment elsewhere.

Thomas Mayo, an associate law professor at Southern Methodist University who helped draft the Texas law, said that if the Schiavo case had happened in Texas, her husband would have been her surrogate decision-maker. Because both he and her doctors were in agreement, life support would have been discontinued.

The Texas law does not include a provision for dealing with conflicts among family members who disagree with the surrogate decision-maker — as has happened in the Schiavo case — although in practice hospital ethics committees would try to resolve such disputes, he said.

The Texas law, Mayo said, tends to keep such cases out of court, allowing life-support decisions to be made privately.

As for the 1999 ADL
http://www.baylorhealth.edu/proceedings/13_2/13_2_fine.html
"CONCLUSION" "Medical futility and the Texas Advance Directives Act of 1999

The new Texas Advance Directives Act brings many important benefits to patients, families, physicians, and medical institutions.



If you read the Law carefully and completly all it did was out line a course of action to resolve complecated issues
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
I'm just shaking my head and trying not to laugh. eznow, you are entertaining. You still think Reagan signed NAFTA as well??

Everyone have a great Easter Weekend!
 

ez now

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Cal said:
I'm just shaking my head and trying not to laugh. eznow, you are entertaining. You still think Reagan signed NAFTA as well??

Everyone have a great Easter Weekend!
I must appologize if I said I thought Reagan signed NAFTA, I was just going on what I saw on fox news right after his death where they was praising this as one of his greatest accomplishments.
 

Bull Burger

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
209
Reaction score
0
Location
Fruited Plains of western SD
ez now said:
I must appologize if I said I thought Reagan signed NAFTA, I was just going on what I saw on fox news right after his death where they was praising this as one of his greatest accomplishments.

I hope you didn't tip your jug over that night...
 

Latest posts

Top