Gem said:
So Democrats have used the Congress, the judicial system, ect, for years in numerous ways to effect people and issues that should be left up to the states...but the Republicans (with NUMEROUS Democratic votes, mind you) decide to intercede in the Shiavo case NOT by saying that a feeding tube should be re-inserted, NOT by saying that the FL legislature was wrong, NOT by saying that guardianship should be transferred, but ONLY by saying that Judge Greer did not examine the wide variety of information that presently exists on the case (i.e. numerous board-certified, nationally respected neurologists that disagree with the original doctor, sworn affidavits from nurses that state that Terri would have been, and was before her husband stopped it, improving through rehabilitation, etc.) and therefore the court should take another look at the case fresh, with all the information (not by a judge who sits on the board of the hospice Shiavo is in, along with Michael Shiavo's lawyer), and that Terri Shiavo, the actual person being ruled on, should have legal representation that is not interested in earning money from either Michael Shiavo or the Schindler family.
And THAT is too much for you...THAT decision...that a court should look at ALL the information...is enough to make you vote Democrat...
Give me a break.
Bullshit.
Spin it till you're dizzy for all I care if that makes you happy. I for one am sick of arguing this. The Republicans prostituted the Constitution and that is unforgiveable - period. Perhaps that's not one of your priorites, but it certainly is mine. And if you are incapable of seeing the harm and the danger in this situation, then I suspect it is simply that you are choosing to ignore the truth.
Next, kindly point to the passage where I said I'd vote Democrat. If you're going to engage in exaggeration, at least have something factual on which to base your inflated statement. Not voting for a Republican is not the same as voting for a Democrat - and please don't try to hand me any crap that it amounts to the same thing.
Then you resort to the same tired old trick of reversing blame. It was the Republicans in the House who attempted to foist a bogus "investigation" on the courts. If they feel that what they did has solid legal footing, then explain to me why there are no charges being filed against the trial judge who ignored this sleazy tactic. Your other assertion doesn't hold water either. Republicans attempted to bully the courts into a new trial. They don't have that authority. They ordered a federal judge to review the case. Some of those idiots thought they had the authority to order the federal judge to issue a directive to have the feeding tube reinserted. They bitched and moaned about wanting a quick decision. Then they got all livid because the judge wouldn't issue an immediate ruling. Now they're bitching that the judge denied their ruling after considering the case for "only and hour and a half".
As I see it, you are basing your opinions on your desire to save Terri Schiavo. While I have no criticism of that, I tend to believe that if saving Ms. Schiavo comes at the price of our Constitution, then the price is too high.
And now let's talk about why I'm not too happy with Pres. Bush. Certainly recent events have caused me some worry. But there are other considerations such as:
1. Lack of a coherent and effective energy policy. Continued degradation of the CAFE standards on American automobiles.
2. Unwillingness to get control of the illegal immigrant situation and the obvious conclusion that this continues at the behest of American employers who profit from paying substandard wages.
3. Unwillingness to address stem cell research question or to seek viable alternatives.
4. We're still in the UN.
5. What the hell was that European ass kissing festival all about?
6. Failure to control rampant spending, even when one does not consider the cost of the Iraq war.
I've got a few more, but those are the high points.
On balance, I still support Pres. Bush, but that doesn't mean that I approve of all of his policies. That doesn't mean that I won't consider voting for a third party candidate in the next election if the performance of the Republican party continues along the same lackluster record that they have amassed thus far. If you're comfortable with your blinders, that's your business. But don't criticize me for looking beyond party loyalties to assess a candidate or a President.
So there. :tng:
