GOP should change the party name

[musicman]

I don't know, folks. Isn't the House's action more in the nature of a "stay" than a baldfaced overruling of the state courts?

This issue is one tough son of a bitch.

Wow. I'm a HUGE help.

 

[MyName]

I think that you enjoy seeing just how much havok you can wreak.
Damn dude.

Like you tell me, it IS possible to say what you have to say without being so acidic....and if you do, generally it will stand a better chance of being received.

 

[theim]

Get a grip on reality. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT SHE WANTED. PERIOD. NOT EVEN YOU. the only person who CLAIMS to know is her husband, who has ANOTHER WOMAN AND TWO KIDS BY HER AND STANDS TO GAIN MONEY UP THE ASSLOAD FROM TERRIS DEATH. Here you show the classic, childlike naivete common among liberals when you say this man's word is enough.

How do you know its torture? You don't. But what the hell. Kill her. Release her from her own tortured existance. All those old people in nursing homes too. Who would want to be a --what was it? Oh yeah -- a "human waste machine" who has to be spoon fed and wets their pants all the time? Kill the old people. Just a burden on the tax payers. And those disabled people too. Kill em. But numb them first so they won't feel pain. That will make it OK.

Guess what imbecile. Slavery was legal. Was slavery right? It was illegal for women to vote. Was that right? According to you they must have been, seeing as how they are THE LAW.

You are a fool and an imbecile.

 

[Annie]

would anyone that isn't trying to obfuscate the issue like to debate or honestly deny the original post?

So much for your assertion that you do not ‘generalize’ a group from the positions of some members. The GOP should change its name? Hellloooo? I’ve posted a bit differently than fellow conservatives. I think some are losing sight of why Roe V Wade is bad law, which would be for the same reason that Congress getting involved with this is bad-not wrong, but bad. These are state issues.

I don’t think you would appreciate if I said that the DNC should change their name to RETARDS SHOULD DIE, based on what some have written on a message board or what some of the democrats from Congress have said.

As far as your last sentence, getting awful close to joining the Bush=Hitler analogy, thought you were brighter than that.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Get a grip on reality. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT SHE WANTED. PERIOD. NOT EVEN YOU. the only person who CLAIMS to know is her husband, who has ANOTHER WOMAN AND TWO KIDS BY HER AND STANDS TO GAIN MONEY UP THE ASSLOAD FROM TERRIS DEATH. Here you show the classic, childlike naivete common among liberals when you say this man's word is enough.

and here you show the classic childlike spoiledness of the world not being exactly the way you want it. the courts RULED that the husband was CORRECT in that terri didn't want to live like this. ALL sides were taken and viewed and ruled upon. You're emotional outburst is ruled by the fact that you FEEL Michael schiavo lost his guardianship because he has another woman and kids and has MONEY coming. disregard all the other FACTS of the case and base your BS on emotions. just like a liberal.

How do you know its torture? You don't. But what the hell. Kill her. Release her from her own tortured existance. All those old people in nursing homes too. Who would want to be a --what was it? Oh yeah -- a "human waste machine" who has to be spoon fed and wets their pants all the time? Kill the old people. Just a burden on the tax payers. And those disabled people too. Kill em. But numb them first so they won't feel pain. That will make it OK.

done ranting the stupid shit? the slippery slope argument does not apply here as this has been precedent for centuries. get over it.

Guess what imbecile. Slavery was legal. Was slavery right? It was illegal for women to vote. Was that right? According to you they must have been, seeing as how they are THE LAW.

You are a fool and an imbecile.

and you're an infantile idiot. let me know when you get past the name calling. otherwise your rants are just rants.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

So much for your assertion that you do not ‘generalize’ a group from the positions of some members. The GOP should change its name? Hellloooo? I’ve posted a bit differently than fellow conservatives. I think some are losing sight of why Roe V Wade is bad law, which would be for the same reason that Congress getting involved with this is bad-not wrong, but bad. These are state issues.

I don’t think you would appreciate if I said that the DNC should change their name to RETARDS SHOULD DIE, based on what some have written on a message board or what some of the democrats from Congress have said.

As far as your last sentence, getting awful close to joining the Bush=Hitler analogy, thought you were brighter than that.

will you denounce ann coulter the next time her op/ed comes out with vitriolic hatred of 'liberals'?

 

[Annie]

will you denounce ann coulter the next time her op/ed comes out with vitriolic hatred of 'liberals'?

I've never been a big fan of hers, on the other hand, why would I wish to 'denounce' her? As far as I know, she writes opinion pieces.

Kind of off track here, aren't we?

 

[Yurt]

someone explain to me how the people of georgia or texas or massachussetts have get a right to determine the laws in the state of florida or anywhere else.

They don't. However, there is a group called the congress, officials elected from those states that make the laws of the land. Their law is supreme.

Another area is the "full faith and credit clause." However, this clause has come under serious scrutiny since Mass made gay marriages legal. It is not per se "determining" the laws of other states, however, most states passively accept the laws of another state, more acutely, after a court of law ruling.

You are showing complete ignorance in this case. The medical opinions are mixed, the families doctors have stated she could improve(obviously biased), the husbands doctors have said theres no hope(obviously biased), but the court appointed witnesses and doctors have said theres no hope(unbiased so i'm going with this one).

Your last sentence amazed me. You present a fairly decent argument/response most of the time, however, here, you end that you (in your opinion) believe that the court witnesses and doctors and "unbiased." This is a big leap of faith Smarted. Where is your proof? This is an ASS U MPTION on your part. You don't witnesses have their own agenda? Those doctors appointed by the court don't have their "beliefs" or "medical OPINIONS?" Kindly reconsider.

strawman argument. my argument is wholly logical and legal. your's is based on emotion, one that you've lost. my wife says "smooch", btw.

Wrong. Your argument is also based on emotion. As to logical, well, you do ok. As to legal, you are in limbo and have no right to critize others. Emotion, most of what you say deals with what she wants. What she would have wanted. What she should not have to go through. Do you know what she goes through? Do you know what she wants? Did she tell you? I don't know, maybe you have some 9th sense because you are "smarter than us."

You need to take a step off your high horse and wipe that shite eating grin off your face. I respect some of your questions and replies, however, overall, you seem to live in a world where your replies are absolute. Read my sig.

As to the right to chose life or death. Absolutely up to the patient. Period. The problem in this case is not enough physical evidence to determine her desire. Point, make sure you put your desires in writing.

 

[theim]

and here you show the classic childlike spoiledness of the world not being exactly the way you want it. the courts RULED that the husband was CORRECT in that terri didn't want to live like this. ALL sides were taken and viewed and ruled upon. You're emotional outburst is ruled by the fact that you FEEL Michael schiavo lost his guardianship because he has another woman and kids and has MONEY coming. disregard all the other FACTS of the case and base your BS on emotions. just like a liberal.

done ranting the stupid shit? the slippery slope argument does not apply here as this has been precedent for centuries. get over it.

and you're an infantile idiot. let me know when you get past the name calling. otherwise your rants are just rants.

"the courts RULED that the husband was CORRECT in that terri didn't want to live like this."

Did you even read what I wrote? Thought not. Read this. Out loud if it helps.

She never wrote her wishes down.
No lawyer or judge heard her say what she wanted.
You didn't hear her say what she wanted.
The only man who says he did stands to gain lots of money, and has since moved on with his life. This makes hist testimoney extremely suspect. That is logic, not emotion.

"done ranting the stupid shit? the slippery slope argument does not apply here as this has been precedent for centuries. get over it."

Coming from the same person who claims the GOP will take awat everyones righte by preserving this woman's life, your rejection of slippery slope arguments is amusing.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I've never been a big fan of hers, on the other hand, why would I wish to 'denounce' her? As far as I know, she writes opinion pieces.

Kind of off track here, aren't we?

only so long as you couldn't understand that mine was written with the same intent, to be an opinion piece.

 

[Annie]

only so long as you couldn't understand that mine was written with the same intent, to be an opinion piece.

and where was an implication or statement that it wasn't?

Originally Posted by Kathianne
So much for your assertion that you do not ‘generalize’ a group from the positions of some members. The GOP should change its name? Hellloooo? I’ve posted a bit differently than fellow conservatives. I think some are losing sight of why Roe V Wade is bad law, which would be for the same reason that Congress getting involved with this is bad-not wrong, but bad. These are state issues.

I don’t think you would appreciate if I said that the DNC should change their name to RETARDS SHOULD DIE, based on what some have written on a message board or what some of the democrats from Congress have said.

As far as your last sentence, getting awful close to joining the Bush=Hitler analogy, thought you were brighter than that.

 

[Yurt]

We know each other pretty well. You just haven't done the math yet.

First off, the other day you made a sarcastic comment that you expected me to know was sarcastic, so I "blushed." Never again. You were new, your comments were so erratic that one could not be sure where you stood. Your acerbic comments since makes me question where you stand still.

Your wonderful posts:

Who's the hypocrite again? We can't hang, fry, shoot or gas those sentenced to death because it's cruel and unusual punishment. As I stated before, you can't even starve your dog without facing punitive action, and last I checked, dogs aren't capable of conscious thought. Yet starving them is considered cruel and abusive.

You miss the point with "cruel and unusual punishment." It is not that the dog has thought like you or I, it is that YOU have thought like the common man (person). The reason we use syringes on those in death row is because it is believed to be less painful. In Terri's case, she would most likely be let go in a manner like this. Trust me, she would not be hanged or shot. To suppose otherwise is stupid.

Starving your dog is given punitive action because YOU must make a conscious effort to not feed your dog. If not concious, then you are insane. You then go on to state that the dog is not capable of "consious" thought, yet starving them is cruel. I think you mean to say that how can we get punished for starving dogs and not punished for starving humans. This case is different.

Here, you have a woman in a vegatative state. In all liklihood has little, if any, cognitive awareness. She lives on tubes. Tubes. She is fed thought tubes. She is given water though tubes. Tubes. How does she take car of her other daily needs? If one pulls the feeding tube, would she know? Would she suffer?

Hard to say. But I have been in a hosptital for five days. For the first 2 I had no clue what was happening. I still have dreams of some gorgeous nurse.... JK. In all liklihood, she would not feel a thing. She may even welcome it.

My point is simply that those of you clamouring for this woman's death need to grow some damned stones and euthenize her since she has been deemed unworthy of life in your mind

Stones? If you have those, then you should see a doctor, quick!

I do not deem her life unworthy. Do you? If she told you that she did not want the plug, would keep it in her because you have the "stones" man? Would you?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"pure socialism" = slavery to the state.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

They don't. However, there is a group called the congress, officials elected from those states that make the laws of the land. Their law is supreme.

Another area is the "full faith and credit clause." However, this clause has come under serious scrutiny since Mass made gay marriages legal. It is not per se "determining" the laws of other states, however, most states passively accept the laws of another state, more acutely, after a court of law ruling.

the difference between the gay marriage ruling in Mass and this issue in florida is that the florida law does not affect all 50 states like the Mass law will. the US constitution states that all 50 states must honor all legal contracts made within other states. Marriage, gay or not, is a contract where as a right to die ruling is not a contract and affects only that state.

Your last sentence amazed me. You present a fairly decent argument/response most of the time, however, here, you end that you (in your opinion) believe that the court witnesses and doctors and "unbiased." This is a big leap of faith Smarted. Where is your proof? This is an ASS U MPTION on your part. You don't witnesses have their own agenda? Those doctors appointed by the court don't have their "beliefs" or "medical OPINIONS?" Kindly reconsider.

ok, it took me a few minutes to understand what you were trying to point out, but I got it now. As you say, it IS an assumption but I believe that its the only logical choice to make considering that the only other two diagnosis are coming from extremely biased viewpoints.

Wrong. Your argument is also based on emotion. As to logical, well, you do ok. As to legal, you are in limbo and have no right to critize others. Emotion, most of what you say deals with what she wants. What she would have wanted. What she should not have to go through. Do you know what she goes through? Do you know what she wants? Did she tell you? I don't know, maybe you have some 9th sense because you are "smarter than us."

it has nothing to do with any ESP. For centuries we have had legal precedent that the spousal responsibility is the final say in marital issues such as this. My ire is raised because most everybody wants to dismiss the husbands spousal responsibility because they think he has ulterior motives due to something the feel 'hinky' about. Just spouting off about his standing to gain from her death because of an insurance policy is not proof of an ulterior motive, otherwise we should do away with life insurance and just have burial insurance.

You need to take a step off your high horse and wipe that shite eating grin off your face. I respect some of your questions and replies, however, overall, you seem to live in a world where your replies are absolute. Read my sig.

I've eaten my fair share of crow on this board, both under this name and my former one. I may have a moniker that says 'smarter than you' but that doesn't prevent me from realizing that there are others on this board that know more about certain subjects than I ever could.

As to the right to chose life or death. Absolutely up to the patient. Period. The problem in this case is not enough physical evidence to determine her desire. Point, make sure you put your desires in writing.

A living will is not a mandate, it is only a guideline to delineate what that persons wishes are. That living will can still be challenged and with the current bill that congress wants to pass, this will happen evermore. Someone said that it was assinine to predict a future legal argument, but I always thought that it was better policy to prevent future legal arguments than it was to solve an immediate problem leaving those doors open to be fixed later.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

and where was an implication or statement that it wasn't?

maybe I misunderstood the implication of your statement. My apologies if I did.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It is funny when libs make states rights arguments to kill the innocent.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Libs make a federal argument to kill fetuses, and now a states rights arguments to kill the immobilized. the common denominator is death worship.

 

[Annie]

maybe I misunderstood the implication of your statement. My apologies if I did.

Well since you're unsure, tell me where you may have misread? Then I can address.

 

[sitarro]

I am not a parent , probably never will be , but from what I have been told seeing the death of your child is the worst torture imaginable . If Terri knew that her parents would be comforted by keeping her alive and taking care of her , I wonder if she would have told her husband that (if she told that slimey piece of shit anything in the first place ). If she has no or very little thought from her damaged brain , what would it matter to her . It also sounds like something she said in passing after a movie when she was in her early 20s , how would she feel now ? If it was me I would do anything for my parents including letting them keep me alive so they could care for me .
It is too bad she didn't rape and kill an old man , the liberal world would be clamoring to not only keep her from this death penalty but also to give her an extra right to vote .

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Well since you're unsure, tell me where you may have misread? Then I can address.

sure. I read this post from you.

So much for your assertion that you do not ‘generalize’ a group from the positions of some members. The GOP should change its name? Hellloooo? I’ve posted a bit differently than fellow conservatives. I think some are losing sight of why Roe V Wade is bad law, which would be for the same reason that Congress getting involved with this is bad-not wrong, but bad. These are state issues.

I don’t think you would appreciate if I said that the DNC should change their name to RETARDS SHOULD DIE, based on what some have written on a message board or what some of the democrats from Congress have said.

As far as your last sentence, getting awful close to joining the Bush=Hitler analogy, thought you were brighter than that.

and thought that you were taking the whole of my post literally. thats why I replied with this

will you denounce ann coulter the next time her op/ed comes out with vitriolic hatred of 'liberals'?

then you posted this...

I've never been a big fan of hers, on the other hand, why would I wish to 'denounce' her? As far as I know, she writes opinion pieces.

thats where I got confused. I thought you would have already known that I was writing an opinion piece.