My last 6 yrs working was in a nursing home, We had a few that would refuse baths.. usually became an infection problem.. also.. no one wanted to sit anywhere near them in the dining room. game time or any other time.
By most states laws.. yes. they can refuse cares, meds and so on... but can not refuse anything that will adversely affect others.
and if mentally incompetent - they then can not refuse meds and cares. But.. the home MUST have Dr Statement, stating that the person is mentally incompetent.
but I had a girl tell me once..." I bet you would be a cheap date" ticked me off.. so I told her... " hell no I ain't- it would cost you plenty to take me out"
Just for the record.. I would also like to mention.... this is NOT the LDS (regular original Mormon church) It is a crazy offshoot just calling themself Mormons.
In August 2007, the Democratic National Committee voted to strip the Florida Democratic Party of its 210 national convention delegates because the Florida Democratic Delegate Selection Plan violates party rules. These rules state that only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina can start their delegate selection process before 5 February 2008 but Florida has scheduled their primary for 29 January 2008. The DNC gave the Florida Democrats until 29 September 2007 to come up with an alternate delegate-selection plan that complies with party rules.
On 23 September 2007 the Florida Democrats responded: "After months of careful deliberations, your Party's leaders have chosen overwhelmingly to reaffirm our strong commitment to fully participating in the state-run Democratic Presidential Primary on January 29, 2008, despite the penalties from the Democratic National Committee. .... Sincerely, Congresswoman Karen L. Thurman Chairwoman, Florida Democratic Party"
On 30 August 2007, Victor DiMaio filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court (Middle District of Florida) against the Democratic National Committee and the Florida Democratic Party (Case No. 07CV1552). The suit is in regard to sanctions applied by the DNC to the Florida 2008 National Convention Delegation. The Florida Democrats are beginning their delegate selection process before 5 February 2008 in violation of DNC rules. The DNC has indicated that unless Florida changes their process, they will forfeit their entire delegation.
On Saturday 25 August 2007, the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Committee determined that the Florida 2008 National Convention Delegate Selection process, which begins with a 29 January 2008 primary, violates party rules. The DNC RBL voted to strip the Florida Democratic Party of all its 210 delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention unless a new plan is adopted within the next 30 days. DNC rules forbid states from beginning their 2008 Delegate Selection Process before 5 February 2008, except for Iowa (14 January), Nevada (19 January), New Hampshire (22 January), and South Carolina (29 January).
15 September 2007 media report: State Democrats backing down on primary. "Florida Democrats, unable to work out a compromise to avoid harsh sanctions imposed by the Democratic National Committee, appear ready to give in and declare the Jan. 29 presidential primary meaningless."
CS/HB 537, signed by Florida Governor Governor Charlie Crist (Republican) on 21 May 2007, moves the Florida 2008 Presidential Primary from the second Tuesday in March (11 March 2008) to the last Tuesday in January (Tuesday 29 January 2008). Both the DNC and RNC have indicated that Florida will be sanctioned should they hold their primary before 5 February 2008.
On 5 August 2008, the Florida Democratic Party's Executive Committee requested that the Florida legislature move the state’s Presidential Primary from 29 January to 5 February 2008. (end of article)
So you see .. Florida was given 4 months to change their minds and accepted ahead of time that their delegates would be stripped. Crist is the on to blame here!
and it stated previous that 50%-100% could and would be stripped...not just a flat 50% as you suggested.
"They did not have to enforce the rules" --"They did not have to enforce the rules" --"They did not have to enforce the rules"
First of all.. I am many others here do not put much stock into anything you say now, since you have in the recent past( yesterday again) altered quotes to mean what you want it to mean, instead of what was actually said. further..you take quoted news paper articles and alter them. and attempt to change the meaning of what is said in them.
Thats right! but once again you want to play a game with words.
Do you read what you are quoting from? If congress wanted the ability to change rules, it should be done PRIOR to the primary process starting!
Not after the process has started. can't change rules in the middle of the game. and now you want congress to decide ? it is a Dem controlled senate yes.. but if this goes to the senate now, the republican's will also have a say.. So in mid election precess you think you think the rep party should have a say in changing the rules after the process has already started. RIGHT The republicans should have a say in what Dem they are going to run against. again you rant to hear yourself speak, but clearly not listening to what you are saying.
This just keeps getting better and better!!
"They did not have to enforce the rules" --"They did not have to enforce the rules" --"They did not have to enforce the rules"
Thanks for the emails folks!! Glad this is helping expose the con and snow job
like I have said. you still can not read and what you do read... you change to mean whatever you want it to mean. The above quoted from what you just wrote... wasn't what was said. read again....But then.. you don't have to read it again because you know what you just changed.
It was a lawyer/ fund raiser from Florida that said that. after he decided he didn't like the decision of the DNC. just another example of people from Florida thinking they shouldn't have to follow rules.
I got it loud and clear... it is all you keep saying. "They did not have to enforce the rules" on primary date changes--
just because some fund raiser didn't like the decision?!
"They did not have to enforce the rules" --"They did not have to enforce the rules" --"They did not have to enforce the rules"
RE: 'Cave man' must wash
My last 6 yrs working was in a nursing home,We had a few that would refuse baths.. usually became an infection problem..
also.. no one wanted to sit anywhere near them in the dining room. game time or any other time.
By most states laws.. yes. they can refuse cares, meds and so on... but can not refuse anything that will adversely affect others.
and if mentally incompetent - they then can not refuse meds and cares.
But.. the home MUST have Dr Statement, stating that the person is mentally incompetent.