Skip to comments.
Bush to screen population for mental illness
WorldNetDaily.com ^
| June 21, 2004
Posted on 06/21/2004 10:19:15 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 1,081 next last
To: texasflower
The initiative does NOT say what the writer says it does. The hell it doesn't.
Next time, try READING it before popping off on it, OK?
221
posted on
06/22/2004 3:26:20 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: JohnHuang2
President Reagan would NEVER have done anything like this.
Regards, Ivan
222
posted on
06/22/2004 3:28:58 AM PDT
by
MadIvan
(Ronald Reagan - proof positive that one man can indeed change the world.)
To: DCPatriot
What in the hell is wrong with giving a person the chance to break out of a mental depression that has robbed one of his or her life? Right. And what better way to help them, than to FIND them, and offer them help? (Voluntary, at first, of course.)
And how can you possibly hope to find them unless you screen everyone?
Hence, The Program.
Isn't it beautiful when a plan comes together?
Now, you were saying about how you felt about your mother when you were growing up?
223
posted on
06/22/2004 3:29:30 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: texasflower
I HATE his articles with a passion. He is too emotional. IRONY_FLAG
224
posted on
06/22/2004 3:30:53 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: primeval patriot
225
posted on
06/22/2004 3:34:27 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: texasflower
226
posted on
06/22/2004 3:36:32 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: Howlin
We haven't had a conservative candidate who tried to limit the federal government in my life time, why would we have one now? Dang. Sure, I could make that fit on a bumper sticker, but I'd get rear-ended every time someone tried to read it.
227
posted on
06/22/2004 3:38:16 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: Howlin
I noticed you skipped my post about Reagan. Interesting. I noticed you attempted to spin this from its topic -- a draconian soviet-style mental "health" system -- to a rant about plagiarism. Interesting.
228
posted on
06/22/2004 3:40:02 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: California Patriot
Bad as this proposal probably is, there is no plan, as I see it, to REQUIRE mental-health screening. Then keep reading. It's in there. I gave the link two or three times already in this thread.
229
posted on
06/22/2004 3:41:48 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: Bella_Bru
I really hope this isn't true. If it is, I am sure someone here will find a way to spin it as a good thing. Sure, why not. Here, I'll give it a shot.
If you don't like The Program, that's evidence of... a disorder. And once you're screened, and "treated", you will like the program.
It's like Catch 22, but even nicer!
Do you feel better yet?
230
posted on
06/22/2004 3:44:02 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: JohnHuang2
how about screening the "conservative" who came up with this idea?
To: musicman
Don't you realize how this would help our country ?? Once someone is "diagnosed" with a "mental illness", you can NO LONGER purchase a firearm (or in some cases, never be allowed to own one) because that question is on the form you have to fill out to purchase one.
Falsifying info needed on the form?=JAIL....FELONY .....Get charged with a FELONY??...NO FIREARM PURCHASES OR OWNERSHIP !!
. . .
By golly, you're right!
This could really be good for the country -- and, for the RKBA, too!
With enough people listed with some disorder or other, there'll be no reason to continue with all those restrictive firearm regulations!
Just think! No more draconian restrictions on the Second Amendment! No reason to renew the AWB! Etc! Etc! Etc!
Ooops... I just did the math.
Oh, well. At least we'll all be happy. (They did say free drugs, didn't they?)
232
posted on
06/22/2004 3:51:38 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: Howlin
I'm not trying to discredit WND. I AM discrediting them with their own web site. Oh, please.
You're trying to discredit the article, by reframing the discussion.
233
posted on
06/22/2004 3:52:46 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: Don Joe
Sorry, but I still don't see it that way. It says it's goal is to reach "Every adult WITH a serious mental illness or child WITH a serious emotional disturbance".
It does NOT say anything about drugging up normal people. A person with a serious mental disturbance is often in a situation where they can be evaluated fairly easily. Like presenting to the hospital, a doctor or often presenting first to a police officer with unusual or dangerous behavior.
They are not going to go door to door looking for nutcases. No random traffic check points to round us up or anything.
We have rights that absolutely prevent something like this from occurring. So, you have to believe that the government thinks everyone should be tested against their will and they are willing to take away everyone's rights in order to accomplish it.
That will not happen and you know that. So, if you think it through just for a minute you can see that mandating psych evals cannot be the goal of the government. To do so would destroy this country. Do you really think that is something that George W.Bush (let's spread democracy across the world, because freedom is God's gift to humanity) is going for?
This is not something President Bush would do. Since this article specifically blames President Bush and it is not in the President's character, nothing about this makes sense.
Thinking it through shows it to be BS as far as I can see it.
I have been reading medical material like this for twenty years. There doesn't seem to be one single secret plan in there. No secret codes or anything.
There is no provision in there for forcing anyone to do anything that isn't already law. Physicians will still be able to have someone held for eval for twenty four hours against their will, but they have strict guidelines. They absolutely cannot do it without cause.
A psychiatrist can hold you for three days. After that a judge has to uphold an involuntary commitment.
This initiative is merely designed to streamline mental health coverage and treatment.
Right now it is exceptionally hard to get the proper treatment for mentally disturbed individuals.
This will help to get people treated properly and will reduce unnecessary hospitalizations and with proper treatment, many more people would live more productive lives.
In many cases, become working productive members of society.
People on this thread are panicking without thinking this through.
That ticks me off. We are supposed to be intelligent people, yet an article from WND is enough to send people over the edge, convinced that we are all going to be put into a stupor so that the government can control us all.
We usually make it a policy to disbelieve the media at face value, yet so many here believed this BS and reacted to it. Since when is the media on our side? Especially that whack job, Farah.
That knee jerk conspiracy theory bulls*** belongs on DU. Not here.
All I was suggesting is that people think for their selves and do their own research. Most of all wait for more information. To do otherwise is extremely irresponsible.
234
posted on
06/22/2004 3:54:47 AM PDT
by
texasflower
(in the event of the rapture.......the Bush White House will be unmanned)
To: Howlin
anybody who votes for anybody except Bush this year is crazy. Riiiight.
This program merely serves to codify that idea. :)
235
posted on
06/22/2004 3:54:47 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
I really like that graphic and it is most appropriate on this thread.
236
posted on
06/22/2004 4:00:47 AM PDT
by
texasflower
(in the event of the rapture.......the Bush White House will be unmanned)
To: texasflower
He probably didn't recommend this. Ah, I see that you're guessing. "Probably", eh? Tsk tsk. If you don't know, then don't say.
Do you ALWAYS accept things that you read at face value?
Do you ALWAYS chide people for failing to yield to your guesses?
237
posted on
06/22/2004 4:01:38 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: JohnHuang2
Bush cannot be serious... this is just crazy.
238
posted on
06/22/2004 4:03:30 AM PDT
by
rintense
(Screw justice. I want revenge.)
To: texasflower
Farah is always jumping the gun and you are very correct when you say he hates George Bush. Care to back that up with some evidence?
I can't read his articles.
Oops, I guess not.
239
posted on
06/22/2004 4:04:26 AM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: Don Joe
Hmm.. I'd have to agree "routine and comprehensive" screening certainly does seem to indicate that you're right. What's gonna happen if this gets implemented is there's gonna be a lot of unnecessary medicating. I would bet on it..
240
posted on
06/22/2004 4:05:00 AM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 1,081 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson