Campy

I saw her Guardian at Law on NightLine for the full 30 minutes last night. I watched it, but if you feel you need to read it yourself, try google, maybe you'll find a transcript of the program.

Ohhhh, I'm sorry JSP. The correct answer is "HER Guardian at Law (a man with a PhD and a JD, appointed by the Fla legislature) says that there is no life insurance policy." BTW - Facts only suck when they prove you wrong.

I'll answer that by quoting one of my earlier posts:

What exactly is this statement based on? Exactly how is this a "money-issue?" HER Guardian at Law has said that there is NO money, it's been exhausted trying in court and the trust set up to pay for her medical expenses has been exhausted. There is no money, but don't let fact get in the way of your opinion.

The situation is a person in a PVS, not retardation. PVS is signified by a disentegrated cerebal cortex and no cognitive reflex, which is a world away from severe retardation. In part because the man assigned by Fla legislation to protect her rights and ensure she received due process believes those were her wishes too. Either way, it's a personal and private matter and frankly, is none of your (or mine) damn business.

When the attorney's comments coincide with what Theresa's Guardian at Law (appointed by Fla legislation to ensure her rights are protected), then yeah, I tend to believe him. Why don't you?

That's a straw man argument as this only pertains to people in a PVS. Also, keep in mind that the reason the only way to satisfy Theresa's wishes is to remove the feeding tube is because people who know what's better for us than we do have decided that other means (like assisted suicide) are illegal and immoral.

Before I can answer that I'll need to know if that hypothetical baby is in a PVS (persistent vegatative state)?

Nightline had her former Guardian at Law (assigned by Fla legislative ruling to protect her interests) on Monday for the full half hour. He's a PhD and a JD (read: a doc and a lawyer), and his sole job was to ensure that her rights were protected. In no uncertain terms he was quite clear that the 600K has been spent on legal fees and the balance of the malpractice award was placed in a trust to be used to cover medical expenses exclusively, and that money has been exhausted. He also explained how her cerebral cortex had disentegrated, and while she does have very limited reflexive response, she has no cognitive response. That part of her brain is shot. I'm not sure why some are so hung up on this nonexistent windfall. The reality is that she will never get better, and according to Theresa's Guardian at Law, Michael is merely fulfilling a promise he made to her. Frankly, it's nobody else's business. Not yours, and not mine. The courts have spoken - despite legislative intervention from the state and federal level - and right now it's time to let this story go. As they say, there's nothing here to see, move along.

Buffalo/Amherst (Snyder)/LeRoy, NY.

The girl claimed to be 18. TH was what, all of 21 or 22 at the time? A 21 or 22 year old hooking up with an 18 year old is no big deal. The police investigation found that she lied about her age, so no charges were pressed. I think people still raise that in either an attempt at humor or sheer ignornance.

Actually, his attorney said the same in a live interview on the Today show last week. He will not make one cent from his wife's passing - it's all been used to cover medical and legal expenses. Perhaps they really did have a conversation similar to one my wife and I had several years ago. Perhaps the man is truly trying to honor his wife's wishes. No person on this board can say with an iota of certainty that he didn't. There's no money for him to gain, and he could always get a divorce if it was all about the other woman. Perhaps, just perhaps, he's a principled man who is avoiding the easy way out to fulfill a promise made...

Sucks you in too, I see.

Win-win-win!! Woo-hoo!

I knew a guy who used to buy "rehabs" as investment property (he still may, we lost touch). He'd take out a loan for the cost of the house and the costs to repair it. He'd present the highest quotes he could find and sell the bank on the idea that when the house is fixed-up, it'll be worth X amount more than the loan. Then he'd have the contractor with the lowest bid fix it up (he did a lot of work himself too). The difference between the loan (house + high estimates) would give him instant capital to not only start fixing up the place, but to live off of. After having the place worked on for 6 months or whatever it was, he pocketed a significant amount at the sale of the property after paying off the loan. I don't know if those were special investor-type loans (short-term at higher interest) or what, but I do know that he made a killing doing that. I've pretty much shared everything I know, which ain't much, but it may be worth your while to look into picking up a book or two at your local Barnes & Nobles or Borders. If you can get into the rehab for less with money in your pocket to begin repairs, you could find yourself with an awful lot of equity in a hurry, and that can only help when it comes time to sell!

I agree that the fed gov't is too big, but you and I would probably disagree on where the cuts should come from. Cuts for the sake of cuts would be more harmful than beneficial (not that you advocate that), eg, I'm all for a welfare-type program, but it should be fiscally sound and provide a ROI of sorts if not to the government proper, at least to the economy, as opposed to continously throwing good money after bad. Setting arbitrary education standards while underfunding the project seems like another waste of money to me. That's the kind of stuff that tends to get me fired up. Truly.

Sounds like a plan. Damn I wish I voted for you!

But if in response, they cut us off and then their economy collapses, we'll be stuck with Mexican, Canadien, and domestic beer, and I like to drink a good import from time-to-time.

Perhaps I have. Or maybe it's just because I'll always be a PK (preacher's kid), but I really resent others making moral judgments on my behalf, and it seems that there's an awful lot of that going around these days. Well now that's encouraging!

I imagine the money being pumped into NATO is viewed as an investment of some kind. I don't know what dividends it pays - perhaps it's so we can pressure member-nations to back us on certain military or political initiatives? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it's like the post-WWI house of cards where we kept pumping money into Europe so that they could continue to manufacture, sell, and buy (American) products to keep their economies propped up.

I've always pictured myself as being somewhere in the middle. I find myself to the left of many people here, but despite being branded a liberal (I'm not sure how that's really an insult other than it's used as one), I don't think big gov't is a good thing, but a gov't that's too small is unable to provide us with the services we demand. Since those services aren't free, we need to be taxed, and I'm cool with that. In fact, I'd gladly pay more taxes if I had any faith at all that the assclowns in the beltway would spend it judiciously and just stay out of our lives - both of which I no longer believe they're capable of doing... And thank you for the kind words. However, your characterization of me as not being "enamored" with the uber-conservatives currently running things is being awfuly generous. I think we've veered so far to the right that we're in danger of losing some of the rights and liberties that the left are usually accused of wanting to snatch up. Truth be told, I find these to be pretty disturbing times.

Tim McVeigh

Do you consider me a lefty (I'm oftentimes referred to in that manner), or did you really mean "some" lefties?

I read that Titor stuff too. I'm certainly not saying I believe any of it, but it did make for some pretty fascinating reading - until I saw the time machine. That seemed plain funny. But hey, what do I know about astrophysics and wormholes?

I had never even heard of the "Volunteer Army for Korean Supression" until just now (Google's a beautiful thing!) In my post, I should have added "threatened" to "oppressed." I think that's what racist groups thrive on, like the Know-Nothings, KKK, and neo-nazis, they're afraid their way of life is changing, and they take extreme measures to try and preserve what they think should be the status quo. It's possible then, I'd imagine, that VAKS is similarly motivated (ie, threatened as opposed to oppressed)?