Shady

Yeah, what a jerk, she didn't wanna die. How selfish. Anyways, she was definitely blinded by the misdiagnosis of the Canadian healthcare system, which told her she had a brain tumor.

So you agree that I'm right? Or is this another bait and switch, like when you asked about what part of the end of life provisions were dropped, instead of admitting your initial mistake. You're the classic liberal shell-gamer.

But I'm not wrong about what I post. I make sure I have the facts, unlike you.

I agree that she's relevant. But I disagree that she's the runaway favourite for the Republican nomination. I think that title goes to Mr. Romney. Especially seeing how economically irresponsible the Obama administration has been with spending and deficits and debt. Republicans will want a fiscal conservative with a strong economic and business background.

All one has to do is look at the polls. Obama's facing an almost 60% disapproval rating related to how he's handled healthcare reform. It's no wonder people are protesting. And most of the protests are grass roots, without any adverisements on craigslist.

How many threads are you going to post the same information in? Anyways, so is Sarah Palin relevant? Can you admit that you were wrong? Completely and utterly wrong. About as wrong as one can be on a subject.

Which of these facts is wrong? 1) She was told by our healthcare system that she had a brain tumor. 2) She was then told by our healthcare sytem that it would be 5 - 6 months for further treatment. But the bigger question is still, why should the government have any business telling us how and when we get treated for sickness or disease? Especially when one is willing to pay for their own care.

But is she relevant? You said she wouldn't be. Answer the question.

Exactly. She had to have the Mayo Clinic diagnose it correctly. But until then, she was under the impression she had brain cancer. Which is why she left for treatment immediately, instead of waiting 5 - 6 months. I'm not sure how those facts help your ridiculous argument.

I did. In fact, I read a link posted by you. Her family doctor in Canada ordered an MRI, and a brain tumor was detected. But it would take months for her to get on the appointment calendar of a neurologist or endocrinologist in Canada. Maybe it's you who needs to learn to read. However, the real question, is why should the government dictate when anybody receives treatment for a serious medical issue? Socialized medicine costs us our freedoms, and gives the government much too much power over our lives. Literally.

I figured we'd hear crickets.

A tumor is the name for a swelling or lesion formed by an abnormal growth of cells. By definition, a tumor is cancer. And a tumor is what she had.

And I suppose these people lied as well... Top court strikes down Quebec private health-care ban As a result of delays in receiving tests and surgeries, patients have suffered and even died in some cases Take your McCarthyism elsewhere.

Yep, she should be a good Canadian, keep quiet, and roll the dice. Vision loss, seizures, diabetes insipidus, no big deal. She shouldn't have the choice to have it taken care sooner than 5 - 6 months, even if she wants to pay with her own money. We need to spread the misery equally, and make her wait, and give her no other options. Who cares if there's a 22% chance that some symptoms won't be reversable, even with surgery. Who cares if the longer the tumor's in place, the increased chance of it leading to other problems. We're trying to preserve the great Tom Douglas' health scheme, which is to be totally subservient to the government for your healthcare, and therefore, your life.

And another thing. I'm sick and tired of the Nazi like attitude that seems prevelant in Canada, when it comes to discussing our healthcare system. A type of McCarthyism that takes place toward those of us who criticize the deficiencies which exist. As if you're not patriotic if you don't stand up and blindly defend the Canadian healthcare model, no matter if the criticism is deserved.

Exactly! It's the most retarded argument I've ever heard. And it's retards like these who keep real reform from taking place. All for ideological reasons. She's suppose to sit down, and shut up, and live with her brain tumor. And keep quiet about any of our healthcare problems. Well, the last I checked, free speech in our country was still a right. And the last I checked, she's a tax paying citizen, who partly funds the healthcare system. And if she wants to talk about her experiences, she has every right too, and it's you people, you ideologically driven a-holes, who can sit down and STFU.

How was I lying about a lie? I simply asked you if she was relevant. You said she wouldn't be. She changed the face of the debate which led to a certain provision being dropped from the proposed reform. I'm just asking if you were wrong? Completely and utterly wrong. About as wrong as one can be on a subject. Because she's more than relevant as a political force, and you have more than just egg on your face.

It makes me curious as to why you have to bend the truth in order to defend your position. Is it that weak? There are major problems with our healthcare system, and it's people like you who stand in the way of real progress in fixing them. All for ideological reasons that go far beyond healthcare. It's abhorrent, and it needs to stop.

But these honor killings are all about being Muslim. That's the reason these particular women were killed. Specifically because they were Muslims, and because they weren't being "good" Muslims. And no, it doesn't necessarily apply to Black, Jews, or Indians, etc.

I thought you said she wasn't going to be relevant anymore?

And you're equating that with wanting all Jews hanged?

What does that have to do with Guthrie lying? Once again. Source?

Yes they are. It's a different culture, but that doesn't equate with your premise that North America is "puritanical." Try watching an episode of Desperate Housewives. You're stuck in a 1950's time warp. That's pure projection. Maybe that's how you instantly feel. But stop speaking for everyone else. It seems to me, you have your own prejudices to work out. Not necessarily the rest of society. Because that's not the connection I instantly come to, and it wouldn't be from most of the people I know.

I think that's an outdated stereotype. Perhaps in the 1950's that was true.

That's what living wills provide for. That is a very dangerous proposition. and unnecessary, since living wills can provide for pain free deaths following a natural course.