Steele may be a moron

[youtube:www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE2qwi7q-s%5D
Michael Steele, Chairman of the RNC says, on FOX News that the so-called “Death Book” encourages our vets to commit suicide. What he is referring to is the pamphlet titled Your life, Your Choices which actually answers the question of Assisted Suicide.

Q: Can I specify that I want assisted suicide in my directive?

A: No. Assisted suicide is currently illegal. However, even if it becomes legal, the person making the request would have to be competent and able to change their mind at the time of the suicide. Advance directives only go into effect when you are no longer competent to make decisions.

It seems to be clearly NOT in favor of suicide.
Why would he say such a thing? Did someone just tell him this nonsense and he didn’t even bother to fact-check it?

More details here.

3be765f3839eb2031da28bdf07a07de2 Steele may be a moron

9 thoughts on “Steele may be a moron

  1. And also there was another part where he said it told old people to “consider their value to their community” or some shit like that. But they pulled it out of context in a way that it sounded like pro-suicide garbage. But its not, its saying consider it because you are valued you stupid old republican bastard.

  2. “Advance directives only go into effect when you are no longer competent to make decisions.”

    I think that is what set him off, i mean that is kinda scary that the government has that kind of power ( i am anti-death penalty btw).

    1. Doesn’t matter. Clearly he had no idea what he was talking about. It’s ok if I don’t know, but it is NOT ok for our political leaders to use ignorance as an excuse. They’re supposed to actually research, or have their minions do so, on whatever subject they’re speaking about. They carry authority w/ them and people believe what they say. This makes it incumbent upon them to make sure they actually know what they’re talking about.

      1. Well yeah, i can agree with that. I think steele should have presented it as a possibility instead of a definite outcome. I mean think about it. How is the government going to rule that you are “mentally competent?” is it going to be limited to highly specific criteria such as a person in a persistent vegetative state or is it going to encompass a plethora of vague guidelines? I mean the thing palin, steele and the other repubs are getting on about ( albeit in an exaggerated manner mind you) is that you could easily rule a person as mentally unfit. For example i like to use cannabis. The government could easily rule me as unfit because mind has been “damaged” by marijuana use. From a cold hard physical perspective they would have to run a series of expensive and ultimately time consuming tests in order to get a full diagnosis of my brain. From a psychological perspective they could easily say “He uses drugs he has problems and is therefore unfit to make decisions for himself” when in reality i just like to smoke pot to play video games or go to sleep. It doesn’t matter how functional i can prove myself to be, if a doctor or other “credible” source deems me unfit the government and enforcers of law will act accordingly. You would be deemed unfit because you need to take painkillers which utilize the opiate receptor in your brain which would render your brain “physically unfit” for “proper decision making”. But this isn’t the first time we have had an issue like this because at one point in this nation there was mandated sterilization for criminals. In 1914, Harry Laughlin ( A prominent eugenicist) published a Model Eugenical Sterilization Law that proposed to authorize sterilization of the “socially inadequate” – people supported in institutions or “maintained wholly or in part by public expense. The law encompassed the “feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf; deformed; and dependent” – including “orphans, ne’er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers.” By the time the Model Law was published in 1914, twelve states had enacted sterilization laws. Flat out it was an attempt at bloodless genocide. Now these laws had existed since 1907 in indiana but it wasn’t until the 1920’s that they gained widespread political acceptance.

        Now obviously genetics is different than coming down with a brain injury or non genetic medical condition but the principle is the same. A person deems you unfit to decide whether or not you can live.

        1. It cannot even be a possible outcome in a statistically significant percentage of patients. Is it remotely possible (w/in .01% of affected people)? Yes. But we don’t make rules based on such numbers. If we did, there’d be no guns, regardless of the 2nd Amendment.
          I don’t vote based on my (as of yet non-existent) grandchildrens’ possible decisions. Awareness, yes, but they’ll deal w/ their lot as I deal w/ mine. I’ll go so far as to care about the world I leave my children, but after that, they’re on their own. It’s rather presumptuous of us to assume we know what the next generations will want.
          So much paranoia and zero faith in future generations.

Leave a Reply