When anesthesia was becoming common in medicine some theologians objected on the grounds that it robbed people of the dignity of suffering. Evidently, senseless and preventable pain was very pleasing to the almighty now that animal sacrifices had gone out of fashion. This is a good law, so expect churches to voice their opposition.
Theologians and religious fanatics have refused to stay in their lane since forever, constantly head-butting their way into areas like medicine, science, education, and human bodily autonomy, where they have no knowledge, no expertise, no standing, and absolutely no business being there. They see themselves as the designated adults of the world, charged with dictating how people will live their lives and interfering with their ability to make their most personal and private decisions. In medicine especially, time and time again, they have objected to any progress or development that offends them or threatens their power; anesthesia and stem cell research to name but two, and there are many more. What they can't control outright, they start buying up and taking over, not because they care about people and want to bring them quality healthcare, but because they want to control the choices and the kind of healthcare people can access.
I could go on, but then I would find it hard to stop.
It is "the lane" of all citizens of a democracy to advocate for the laws that they wish to live under. So that should always be allowed; it's the core of freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for change.
...So long as they recognize the 'sauce for the goose' principle, and continue to be law abiding citizens when the rules we choose for our government do not adhere to their religious restrictions.
When it comes to government everyone should have a say. But when it comes to providing services, they really should stay in their lanes. Like hospitals, religious hospitals often ignore best medical practices to shoehorn their dogma into medical care that ends up killing people. But they don’t consider that ending an innocent life somehow. Or education, religious schools can be excellent, but lately they’ve been underwhelming, while they promote their mythology over observable facts, and teach on the superficial rote memorization level rather than promoting critical thinking.
Yes, exactly. When these moral busybodies start petitioning the government to abridge the rights of other citizens to make their own decisions about their lives, they are out of their lane and free speech does not apply. It is no longer free speech but a threat that could cause untold suffering, IMHO, and we all know damned well they don't believe in the "sauce for the goose" principle. It's "rules for thee but not for me" because they get offended that someone wants to determine their own fate in a manner that will upset their sadistic god.
My local paper used to have a local columnist who frequently wrote about how wonderful Catholicism is. The paper alway has at least one cranky old man columnist. Good for web hits! Maryland considered death with dignity legislation at the time and this guy would go on and on about how important and wonderful it was to suffer. I like to think that he contributed to the gradual decrease of Catholics in the area. At least one of their area churches has closed.
He’s dead now. Apparently he did not have the opportunity to suffer much.
ETA: I’m rewriting that last sentence: His obit in the paper suggested that God did not grant him the opportunity to suffer much.
Like Mother Theresa, for example. She scooted to avoid the "dignity of suffering" by getting medical treatment in the US. Towering example of hypocrisy, and her church sanctified her for it.
Not to mention after the acceptance of general anesthesia, there was a movement to keep it out of labor and delivery so that women feel the pain and get the punishment they deserve for Eve’s sin. Some might couch it in phrases like “natural delivery” or ideas of drugging up the baby, but it’s all the same idea. You are supposed to feel the pain of childbirth to be a real woman.
The Disease Industry also objects vehemently. They make their best money on prolonging life in its final breaths. Lawmakers will be threatened by the loss of "good paying jobs in the Healthcare industry."
I had to make that choice for Aria. Did I want to keep her longer ? Yes. Was I entitled to keep her, at the price of her suffering ? No, and I decided to let her go as hard as it was.
I held on to Shadow too long. I didn't want to give up hope, but she took the decision out of my hands. I came home one afternoon to find her limp and not moving. I rushed to the vet who told me her body was shutting down anyway, so I let them give her the shot. I was supposed to take her to the vet the next day for a follow-up and make a decision, but like I said she took it out of my hands.
Edit: I really should have said scheduled to take her.
I’ve had to make the choice for all of the pets I’ve had and I made it when they stopped eating. It was a sure sign that quality of life was at an end. They all had lived to a ripe old age. No guilt.
We called the vets at least once a month for Rhapsodie in her last 6 months of life. If they had told us there is no more hope, we would have done the same we did with Aria.
Aria's case was different. At 15, she was able to make me fall. And she still ate her 2 pounds of food a day. She swallowed an enormous diner a few hours before our last call to the vet.
I`ve made that choice thrice for my cats. I am not ever gonna do that again, so no more pets for me. I take care of my neihbours or daughters pets once in a while, but I will never be in a position to decide life or death for pets.
One of my my cats lost an entire litter in utero a few months ago. It poisoned her. Her kidneys failed and I held her while the vet ended her suffering. She was two. It wasn't the first time I've had to do that for one of mine but it was kinder than having a dear family member beg me to kill him when when he was in the last few weeks of a terminal illness. That's what I think of whenever one of these savages flaps their self righteous gums.
I hear ya. I once spent $12,000 on a kitty who was my baby. Yes, I should have let go sooner. But I was very young and very heartbroken at the thought of losing her. I did not think straight.
In my defense, the pain meds were quite effective, and it was only two months before I realized it was hopeless, and that she would be better off if I let her go quietly before it got worse. I still want to cry when I think of her.
Control who lives, control who dies - the ultimate power trip. Aren't the nay-sayers the same ilk who have proposed the death penalty for any number of offenses to them and their petty tyrant god''s sensibilities? Pay close attention to the man behind the "affront to God/let nature run its course" curtain, and you will see a hate-filled, rabid control freak salivating over the prospect of so much power to coerce, control, dictate other's choices, and punish disobedience with suffering, i.e., torture. This is their god, created in their image.
As a stage 4 breast cancer patient, I am so glad my state has this law already. Hopefully I won't need it for a few years, but it is a comfort knowing I have the option if I need it.
Senator Baumbach thank you! It's a small step only for people with less than 6 months to live who are terminally ill but it's a step in the right direction. I hope by the time I'm 80 it will apply to all people in constant pain who may or may not recover or whose life or body for whatever reason has failed them. I want to be the one who says what happens with my life. I will not suffer longer than I physically or mentally have to.
Mom spent week after week dying slowly of cancer. She was getting morphine mixed with other s for pain. Had there been any religion in my heart at that time that would have driven me to murdering a bishop. The ex-wife kept insisting we should tube feed her. Luckily cooler heads said that would just stretch the agony for months more. That made me think suicide would be preferable to that suffering. The religious claim that suffering brings you closer to jeezus is pure fucking bullshit.
Not that I've watched many of the debates between a Christian and an atheist, but when the Christian is inevitably asked to explain the suffering in the world, it seems the best he can come up with is: " it's part of God's plan" or " we can't possibly understand God's will". Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
"The Diocese of Wilmington, on the side of prolonging the suffering, issued a statement saying “there is no justification to take an innocent life.”
What does that even mean?
Aren’t all people sinners to them? Aren’t the wages of sin death? People die, all people die, the guilty and the innocent alike, the problem is the way we die, do we die from anger and hatred or do we die from empathy and mercy? There is no justification to take any life out of malice, punishment, hatred, though the RCC defends all of that. But the easing of death through mercy when there’s no alternative is justified. It’s pretty telling when the church opposes that. And when it’s the dying that does the life ending for themselves, there’s no good justification to deny that.
AIUI, the Catholic Church does oppose the death penalty as well. They seem to believe the ending of a life by anyone other than "God" is a sin. It doesn't seem to bother them that "God" can be a pretty sadistic couchfucking asshole.
It's less that they oppose the death penalty, so much as the fact that all those modern laws against torture and other cruel and unusual punishments took all the 𝘧𝘶𝘯 out of executions.
Precious, yes, and rare- often wonderful, sometimes horrible- but it is not sacred.
To be sacred is to belong to something or someone beyond oneself, but no one's life is owed to a deity, or to a society, nor even to a family; rather, it is owed, ultimately, to the person living it. And that person should, barring a lapse of reason or sanity, be the one to decide how it ends.
As Ron White said of Texas, "other states are abolishing the death penalty, mine is putting in an express lane." Of course, he also decried a decision that a man was insane so it would be cruel to put him to death. His premise was that people would sleep better knowing this guy was gone.
Religion is the #1 cause of war, the world over. No surprise that their misguided & misinformed cultism & belief in a SkyDaddy would lead them to oppose that good legislation. I'm glad every day to live in Oregon, where bible-thumpers do NOT dictate these and other personal choices.
I wonder how many of those "religious conservatives" have have been in the position of those needing this bill. How many of them have had debilitating, chronic conditions for which there is no satisfactory resolution, short of death? I rather suspect that they are much like Republicans, in that they oppose any such proposition ... UNTIL IT IMPACTS THEM. Which has yet to happen, to my knowledge.
All that said, this is great news, and I hope the bill can finally be brought to the governor's desk for signature.
“There is an endless pattern of Trump’s hideous degree of just spleen and hatred for them, because he thinks they are desperate to be in the military because of their socioeconomic circumstances. He thinks it’s like a welfare program that they should be ashamed of.”
Wilson described Trump’s relationship to the military as one “where he thinks that his bluster makes him a leader,” noting that he joked in 2016 about wanting to receive the Purple Heart.
Even generals were, technically, his subordinates- and to him, that made every single person in the military 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘦𝘭𝘱. He built his whole public-facing image around being an awful boss who toyed with underlings for shits and giggles; no surprise that he'd treat our armed forces as badly as anyone else he's ever held an ounce of power over.
Well, there is some truth that many enlistees do so for financial benefits rather than a burning desire to protect the foreign financial interests of American companies. Or battle for the freedoms of people who hate and resent them and try to kill them.
Edit: I don't think they should be ashamed of their desire for a better life for their families. I think the government should be ashamed of its abysmal treatment of them.
I have – sorry had – seven great uncles who were in the military simply because it was the only way in the 1930s they could get a square meal and some sort of wage. Why on earth would I judge them for that. They paid their debt by putting their lives on the line in two world wars. No GI bill for them either, although if they served long enough they got a small pension.
I joined because I didn’t have anything else to do, I was unable to resist my societal condition as a woman to say no, and we didn’t have any money for me to pay for college. I am not ashamed of my situation at the time. Trump is beneath me. Has always been no matter how much money he has.
If he had been 'hit in the ear by an assassin's bullet' while still POTUS, he'd have awarded himself the Purple Heart.... because his ego would have him believing that being CinC means he's military. Hell, he'd likely issue himself the MoH.
Tell me, righty Christians: Where was this god's outrage over the Holocaust? Oh, that's right. The Nazis were your god's own followers who sincerely believed they had a holy cause to wipe out the Jews of Europe as well as others they deemed subhuman.
Outrage? Were your god real, he'd have a lot to answer for for enabling genocide. For once, he'd be on the receiving end of justified outrage.
Religion has no say-so over my life while I'm still breathing and in relatively good health. They sure as shit have no say-so if my life suddenly takes a disastrous turn.
Same. Ending it all for me involves a car in a garage and a massive dose of morphine. If one don't get me, t'other will! No government or religion is going to tell me what to do.
That could be a long wait, but there are plenty to choose from. Surprisingly, Texas has gone heavily into wind power. In the northern half and west of the state, wind farms seem to occur every 30-40 miles along the highways
When anesthesia was becoming common in medicine some theologians objected on the grounds that it robbed people of the dignity of suffering. Evidently, senseless and preventable pain was very pleasing to the almighty now that animal sacrifices had gone out of fashion. This is a good law, so expect churches to voice their opposition.
Theologians and religious fanatics have refused to stay in their lane since forever, constantly head-butting their way into areas like medicine, science, education, and human bodily autonomy, where they have no knowledge, no expertise, no standing, and absolutely no business being there. They see themselves as the designated adults of the world, charged with dictating how people will live their lives and interfering with their ability to make their most personal and private decisions. In medicine especially, time and time again, they have objected to any progress or development that offends them or threatens their power; anesthesia and stem cell research to name but two, and there are many more. What they can't control outright, they start buying up and taking over, not because they care about people and want to bring them quality healthcare, but because they want to control the choices and the kind of healthcare people can access.
I could go on, but then I would find it hard to stop.
They keep trying to shoehorn the universe into their Magic book.
Their god is too small for the universe.
It is "the lane" of all citizens of a democracy to advocate for the laws that they wish to live under. So that should always be allowed; it's the core of freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for change.
...So long as they recognize the 'sauce for the goose' principle, and continue to be law abiding citizens when the rules we choose for our government do not adhere to their religious restrictions.
When it comes to government everyone should have a say. But when it comes to providing services, they really should stay in their lanes. Like hospitals, religious hospitals often ignore best medical practices to shoehorn their dogma into medical care that ends up killing people. But they don’t consider that ending an innocent life somehow. Or education, religious schools can be excellent, but lately they’ve been underwhelming, while they promote their mythology over observable facts, and teach on the superficial rote memorization level rather than promoting critical thinking.
Yes, exactly. When these moral busybodies start petitioning the government to abridge the rights of other citizens to make their own decisions about their lives, they are out of their lane and free speech does not apply. It is no longer free speech but a threat that could cause untold suffering, IMHO, and we all know damned well they don't believe in the "sauce for the goose" principle. It's "rules for thee but not for me" because they get offended that someone wants to determine their own fate in a manner that will upset their sadistic god.
A most accurate observation, we need to get them the hell out of hospitals.
There is no dignity in suffering, except for those who like to watch it. They would be the first to demand relief if it were them.
My local paper used to have a local columnist who frequently wrote about how wonderful Catholicism is. The paper alway has at least one cranky old man columnist. Good for web hits! Maryland considered death with dignity legislation at the time and this guy would go on and on about how important and wonderful it was to suffer. I like to think that he contributed to the gradual decrease of Catholics in the area. At least one of their area churches has closed.
He’s dead now. Apparently he did not have the opportunity to suffer much.
ETA: I’m rewriting that last sentence: His obit in the paper suggested that God did not grant him the opportunity to suffer much.
That's too bad. ;)
Thank God.
Like Mother Theresa, for example. She scooted to avoid the "dignity of suffering" by getting medical treatment in the US. Towering example of hypocrisy, and her church sanctified her for it.
She allowed people to die from curable illnesses because she would have to do it for everyone if she saved one. She was a horrible person.
Mother Theresa certainly did.
She was evil incarnated.
Exactly.
Yes, who knew their true religion is sadism?
Not to mention after the acceptance of general anesthesia, there was a movement to keep it out of labor and delivery so that women feel the pain and get the punishment they deserve for Eve’s sin. Some might couch it in phrases like “natural delivery” or ideas of drugging up the baby, but it’s all the same idea. You are supposed to feel the pain of childbirth to be a real woman.
Fuck unnecessary suffering, and fuck those who promote it.
The Disease Industry also objects vehemently. They make their best money on prolonging life in its final breaths. Lawmakers will be threatened by the loss of "good paying jobs in the Healthcare industry."
I see no reason to refuse to sign this bill. Unless you are incredibly selfish.
"The Diocese of Wilmington, on the side of prolonging the suffering, issued a statement saying “there is no justification to take an innocent life.”
Say the anti-abortion bigots.
"The Diocese of Wilmington, on the side of prolonging the suffering, issued a statement saying “there is no justification to take an innocent life.”
Except the women dying of sepsis and hemorrhaging from a pregnancy gone terribly wrong. Then they need to die if God wills it.
By the way, how many of the pro suffering crowd would euthanize a sick pet ? And I don't mean with a bullet in the head.
I know one pro-suffering type who spent over $80,000 to keep an 11 year old dog alive… a breed which usually checks out at 12.
I had to make that choice for Aria. Did I want to keep her longer ? Yes. Was I entitled to keep her, at the price of her suffering ? No, and I decided to let her go as hard as it was.
I held on to Shadow too long. I didn't want to give up hope, but she took the decision out of my hands. I came home one afternoon to find her limp and not moving. I rushed to the vet who told me her body was shutting down anyway, so I let them give her the shot. I was supposed to take her to the vet the next day for a follow-up and make a decision, but like I said she took it out of my hands.
Edit: I really should have said scheduled to take her.
Unlike with Aria we knew we were losing Rhapsodie. Her immune system was letting her down. She finally died in her sleep.
I’ve had to make the choice for all of the pets I’ve had and I made it when they stopped eating. It was a sure sign that quality of life was at an end. They all had lived to a ripe old age. No guilt.
We called the vets at least once a month for Rhapsodie in her last 6 months of life. If they had told us there is no more hope, we would have done the same we did with Aria.
Aria's case was different. At 15, she was able to make me fall. And she still ate her 2 pounds of food a day. She swallowed an enormous diner a few hours before our last call to the vet.
I`ve made that choice thrice for my cats. I am not ever gonna do that again, so no more pets for me. I take care of my neihbours or daughters pets once in a while, but I will never be in a position to decide life or death for pets.
One of my my cats lost an entire litter in utero a few months ago. It poisoned her. Her kidneys failed and I held her while the vet ended her suffering. She was two. It wasn't the first time I've had to do that for one of mine but it was kinder than having a dear family member beg me to kill him when when he was in the last few weeks of a terminal illness. That's what I think of whenever one of these savages flaps their self righteous gums.
I hear ya. I once spent $12,000 on a kitty who was my baby. Yes, I should have let go sooner. But I was very young and very heartbroken at the thought of losing her. I did not think straight.
In my defense, the pain meds were quite effective, and it was only two months before I realized it was hopeless, and that she would be better off if I let her go quietly before it got worse. I still want to cry when I think of her.
Control who lives, control who dies - the ultimate power trip. Aren't the nay-sayers the same ilk who have proposed the death penalty for any number of offenses to them and their petty tyrant god''s sensibilities? Pay close attention to the man behind the "affront to God/let nature run its course" curtain, and you will see a hate-filled, rabid control freak salivating over the prospect of so much power to coerce, control, dictate other's choices, and punish disobedience with suffering, i.e., torture. This is their god, created in their image.
🎯You are on the money!
As a stage 4 breast cancer patient, I am so glad my state has this law already. Hopefully I won't need it for a few years, but it is a comfort knowing I have the option if I need it.
I am sad to hear that you may have to take this option, but glad it is available to you, if and when you want/need it.
Small suffering and good years...
Virtual hug. My mother is fighting this saloperie too.
Senator Baumbach thank you! It's a small step only for people with less than 6 months to live who are terminally ill but it's a step in the right direction. I hope by the time I'm 80 it will apply to all people in constant pain who may or may not recover or whose life or body for whatever reason has failed them. I want to be the one who says what happens with my life. I will not suffer longer than I physically or mentally have to.
Mom spent week after week dying slowly of cancer. She was getting morphine mixed with other s for pain. Had there been any religion in my heart at that time that would have driven me to murdering a bishop. The ex-wife kept insisting we should tube feed her. Luckily cooler heads said that would just stretch the agony for months more. That made me think suicide would be preferable to that suffering. The religious claim that suffering brings you closer to jeezus is pure fucking bullshit.
Not that I've watched many of the debates between a Christian and an atheist, but when the Christian is inevitably asked to explain the suffering in the world, it seems the best he can come up with is: " it's part of God's plan" or " we can't possibly understand God's will". Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
FAKE NEWS! That's like, one of three explanations. They also have "free will" and "Satan!"
Stephen Fry talked to Gay Byrne about god and suffering
youtu.be/-suvkwNYSQo
EDIT Gay Byrne, not Malcom Muggeridge
Malcolm Muggeridge was a pompous old prick. At least about religion. But actually that's not Malcolm Muggeridge I don't think. Some Irish bloke.
You're right. My bad. It was Gay Byrne. Have edited to get the correct pompous old prick.
"The Diocese of Wilmington, on the side of prolonging the suffering, issued a statement saying “there is no justification to take an innocent life.”
What does that even mean?
Aren’t all people sinners to them? Aren’t the wages of sin death? People die, all people die, the guilty and the innocent alike, the problem is the way we die, do we die from anger and hatred or do we die from empathy and mercy? There is no justification to take any life out of malice, punishment, hatred, though the RCC defends all of that. But the easing of death through mercy when there’s no alternative is justified. It’s pretty telling when the church opposes that. And when it’s the dying that does the life ending for themselves, there’s no good justification to deny that.
AIUI, the Catholic Church does oppose the death penalty as well. They seem to believe the ending of a life by anyone other than "God" is a sin. It doesn't seem to bother them that "God" can be a pretty sadistic couchfucking asshole.
Currently their politics is to oppose the death penalty, their history and dogma show otherwise.
It's less that they oppose the death penalty, so much as the fact that all those modern laws against torture and other cruel and unusual punishments took all the 𝘧𝘶𝘯 out of executions.
"Malleus Malificarum" the torture guide for Inquisitions.
They always hypocritically opposed the death penalty. Once they judged someone guilty, they delivered them to civilian authorities to kill them.
https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/456427743_1739154500204238_2188471318283916832_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=bd9a62&_nc_ohc=Xa7x4uq8iEsQ7kNvgGu0Yap&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AYCtPSvvcJyVFUCrH9etXmSWT1y11FtLWO68MNJsIRS5_w&oe=66C943AF
What kind indeed?
The kkkatlik kind. The evilest, cruelest assholes any god ever devised.
https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/456197273_1739169753536046_2471024525827584693_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=bd9a62&_nc_ohc=iZel3qVlCZ0Q7kNvgF4bv8G&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-1.xx&oh=00_AYAOB6uY1eXxkpiN7BN3wxo-Atw6Or6VfZRCWOf9w76T-Q&oe=66C96381
Suffering is kkkrist-like. Pure cockswaddle. (I think I got that right.)
I am pretty sure it's "Codswallop" (and my spellcheck agrees with me), but what the heck? 😁
Cockswaddle is cromulent, though.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cock%20swaddle
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=codswallop
There are a few cocks I'd like to swaddle. :)
I know one I’d like to have swaddled.
Life is not sacred.
Precious, yes, and rare- often wonderful, sometimes horrible- but it is not sacred.
To be sacred is to belong to something or someone beyond oneself, but no one's life is owed to a deity, or to a society, nor even to a family; rather, it is owed, ultimately, to the person living it. And that person should, barring a lapse of reason or sanity, be the one to decide how it ends.
https://youtu.be/Oaa1EihAAxo?si=iB0T5wiklg7Cqwq_
How many of these people that oppose death with dignity are actively protesting the death penalty?
You need not look any further than which states execute prisoners. They are red states.
As Ron White said of Texas, "other states are abolishing the death penalty, mine is putting in an express lane." Of course, he also decried a decision that a man was insane so it would be cruel to put him to death. His premise was that people would sleep better knowing this guy was gone.
You know…the “pro-life” states.
I guess it's all in the timing....
Oooh, snap! Good one!
Religion is the #1 cause of war, the world over. No surprise that their misguided & misinformed cultism & belief in a SkyDaddy would lead them to oppose that good legislation. I'm glad every day to live in Oregon, where bible-thumpers do NOT dictate these and other personal choices.
𝑌𝑒𝑡 𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑡. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒, 𝑛𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛, 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝐺𝑜𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑚𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑟𝑢𝑛 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒—𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑦𝑜𝑢’𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑖𝑙𝑙, 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑛, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑛𝑜 ℎ𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦.
I wonder how many of those "religious conservatives" have have been in the position of those needing this bill. How many of them have had debilitating, chronic conditions for which there is no satisfactory resolution, short of death? I rather suspect that they are much like Republicans, in that they oppose any such proposition ... UNTIL IT IMPACTS THEM. Which has yet to happen, to my knowledge.
All that said, this is great news, and I hope the bill can finally be brought to the governor's desk for signature.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-gop-strategist-reveals-why-064141866.html
“There is an endless pattern of Trump’s hideous degree of just spleen and hatred for them, because he thinks they are desperate to be in the military because of their socioeconomic circumstances. He thinks it’s like a welfare program that they should be ashamed of.”
Wilson described Trump’s relationship to the military as one “where he thinks that his bluster makes him a leader,” noting that he joked in 2016 about wanting to receive the Purple Heart.
Even generals were, technically, his subordinates- and to him, that made every single person in the military 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘦𝘭𝘱. He built his whole public-facing image around being an awful boss who toyed with underlings for shits and giggles; no surprise that he'd treat our armed forces as badly as anyone else he's ever held an ounce of power over.
3 generals learned it the hard way. Kelly, McMaster, Mattis.
Well, there is some truth that many enlistees do so for financial benefits rather than a burning desire to protect the foreign financial interests of American companies. Or battle for the freedoms of people who hate and resent them and try to kill them.
Edit: I don't think they should be ashamed of their desire for a better life for their families. I think the government should be ashamed of its abysmal treatment of them.
I have – sorry had – seven great uncles who were in the military simply because it was the only way in the 1930s they could get a square meal and some sort of wage. Why on earth would I judge them for that. They paid their debt by putting their lives on the line in two world wars. No GI bill for them either, although if they served long enough they got a small pension.
I went cuz I was drafted. I considered Canada, but I hate cold.
And yet you live near Chicago.
I joined because I didn’t have anything else to do, I was unable to resist my societal condition as a woman to say no, and we didn’t have any money for me to pay for college. I am not ashamed of my situation at the time. Trump is beneath me. Has always been no matter how much money he has.
If he had been 'hit in the ear by an assassin's bullet' while still POTUS, he'd have awarded himself the Purple Heart.... because his ego would have him believing that being CinC means he's military. Hell, he'd likely issue himself the MoH.
Amazing how his ear healed but his bone spurs didn't.
🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Taking my own life would "outrage God?"
Tell me, righty Christians: Where was this god's outrage over the Holocaust? Oh, that's right. The Nazis were your god's own followers who sincerely believed they had a holy cause to wipe out the Jews of Europe as well as others they deemed subhuman.
Outrage? Were your god real, he'd have a lot to answer for for enabling genocide. For once, he'd be on the receiving end of justified outrage.
Minor details. Don't ruin the narrative.
When I was 10 years old sitting in Hebrew School, one of my classmates asked the Rabbi "why did God kill six million Jews during the Holocaust?"
The Rabbi gave a very long-winded explanation that could be summarized "free will."
That moment helped shape my view of organized religion.
Ever see this? Powerful stuff.
youtu.be/dx7irFN2gdI
Religion has no say-so over my life while I'm still breathing and in relatively good health. They sure as shit have no say-so if my life suddenly takes a disastrous turn.
Same. Ending it all for me involves a car in a garage and a massive dose of morphine. If one don't get me, t'other will! No government or religion is going to tell me what to do.
My car is electric. I'll have to figure out another way if it comes to that.
Use the Trump method.. Drive the electric car into a shark tank. Either the battery will zap you , or the shark will eat you 0_o
Stand under a wind turbine.
My god, man. Do you want Cozmo to kill a whale by doing that?
That could be a long wait, but there are plenty to choose from. Surprisingly, Texas has gone heavily into wind power. In the northern half and west of the state, wind farms seem to occur every 30-40 miles along the highways
Yeah, you're right. It might take 3 or 4 falling eagles to kill you.