Anyone else sick of hearing about Terry Schaivo?

[SelArom]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: SelArom

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: SelArom

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
So what is the compelling argument from the parents that required an act of congress?

i think it has something to do with the fact that if her feeding tube was removed she would effectively starve to death... but i think they just don't want her to die..

That was already brought up in state courts, where there is a forum and process for cases like this. The judge that signed the order to enfourced the husband's wishes to remove the tube he knew that... Heck the order itself said to remove the tube... Also, congress did not order the tube replaced.

So again, what' the compelling reason for congress to get involved.

they want to pass a bill to keep her alive so her case can be tried in a federal court. I think it's to decide who has the right to decide her fate, husband or family.

It has been determined NUMEROUS times in previous cases, that the right to die is up to the states to decide, not the federal gov't. So what's new? What's the NEW information that this case sheds light on that others haven't and why is that new information compelling enough to create a new law? I'm still not seeing it.

oh oh oh I see what you're asking. (i think). the answer is that there is no difference. this just happened to get blown out of proportion and some people see it as an opportunity to get legislation passed to further enhance the governments control over us. at least that's what I'm getting from all this. I see nothing that would give the government the right to intervene other than the parents begging them to because they don't have any other way to influence the decision.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Phokus
GG invading the privacy of individuals to further your own political goals, republicans. FVCK the religious right.

This is not a party issue. If it were, the votes would have been split down the party lines, and they weren't. Unless of course the democrats are pulling the "I voted for it, but I didn't agree" which is kinda like "I voted for it before I voted against it"...

Either you vote for it, because you agree, or you vote against it because you don't. Those voting because of "politics" and not voting their concious should be shot for treason (j/k but only barely).

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Phokus
GG invading the privacy of individuals to further your own political goals, republicans. FVCK the religious right.

This is not a party issue. If it were, the votes would have been split down the party lines, and they weren't. Unless of course the democrats are pulling the "I voted for it, but I didn't agree" which is kinda like "I voted for it before I voted against it"...

Either you vote for it, because you agree, or you vote against it because you don't. Those voting because of "politics" and not voting their concious should be shot for treason (j/k but only barely).

preslove pretty much summed it up:

Originally posted by: preslove
This is rich.

'ABC News obtained talking points circulated among Senate Republicans explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them, that it is an important moral issue and the "pro-life base will be excited," and that it is a "great political issue -- this is a tough issue for Democrats." '

The only reason why there were democrats voting for it is because the republicans forced their hand. They don't want to look like 'murderers' and lose even more seats.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: SelArom

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
It has been determined NUMEROUS times in previous cases, that the right to die is up to the states to decide, not the federal gov't. So what's new? What's the NEW information that this case sheds light on that others haven't and why is that new information compelling enough to create a new law? I'm still not seeing it.

oh oh oh I see what you're asking. (i think). the answer is that there is no difference. this just happened to get blown out of proportion and some people see it as an opportunity to get legislation passed to further enhance the governments control over us. at least that's what I'm getting from all this. I see nothing that would give the government the right to intervene other than the parents begging them to because they don't have any other way to influence the decision.

Yep, that's where I'm going with this. I see no reason why it's an issue. 🙂

Anyone else care to try to explain this logically?

 

[SelArom]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: SelArom

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
It has been determined NUMEROUS times in previous cases, that the right to die is up to the states to decide, not the federal gov't. So what's new? What's the NEW information that this case sheds light on that others haven't and why is that new information compelling enough to create a new law? I'm still not seeing it.

oh oh oh I see what you're asking. (i think). the answer is that there is no difference. this just happened to get blown out of proportion and some people see it as an opportunity to get legislation passed to further enhance the governments control over us. at least that's what I'm getting from all this. I see nothing that would give the government the right to intervene other than the parents begging them to because they don't have any other way to influence the decision.

Yep, that's where I'm going with this. I see no reason why it's an issue. 🙂

Anyone else care to try to explain this logically?

there's also the fact that it's all over the news because apparently PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW. and what politician isn't going to whore themselves on THAT opportunity?

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: SelArom

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
It has been determined NUMEROUS times in previous cases, that the right to die is up to the states to decide, not the federal gov't. So what's new? What's the NEW information that this case sheds light on that others haven't and why is that new information compelling enough to create a new law? I'm still not seeing it.

oh oh oh I see what you're asking. (i think). the answer is that there is no difference. this just happened to get blown out of proportion and some people see it as an opportunity to get legislation passed to further enhance the governments control over us. at least that's what I'm getting from all this. I see nothing that would give the government the right to intervene other than the parents begging them to because they don't have any other way to influence the decision.

Yep, that's where I'm going with this. I see no reason why it's an issue. 🙂

Anyone else care to try to explain this logically?

It is an issue because Jeb Bush thought it would look good to "save" a local Tallahasee woman. It's been a political battle for over a year.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Phokus
The only reason why there were democrats voting for it is because the republicans forced their hand. They don't want to look like 'murderers' and lose even more seats.

See my above comments about elected officials not voting their conscious. At the very least they should not be elected to office if they can't maintain some level of consciousness.

That's the LAMEST excuse in the world to vote for something your against. If your against, VOTE AGAINST IT OR STFU. Otherwise your kinda forfeit your right to bitch (and the right of your constituents when they re-elect them), no?

The Dems didn't abstain, they voted FOR it. Don't like the reasons for your officials vote? Take that up with your elected officials, you voted them in.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Phokus
The only reason why there were democrats voting for it is because the republicans forced their hand. They don't want to look like 'murderers' and lose even more seats.

See my above comments about elected officials not voting their conscious. At the very least they should not be elected to office if they can't maintain some level of consciousness.

That's the LAMEST excuse in the world to vote for something your against. If your against, VOTE AGAINST IT OR STFU. Otherwise your kinda forfeit your right to bitch (and the right of your constituents when they re-elect them), no?

The Dems didn't abstain, they voted FOR it. Don't like the reasons for your officials vote? Take that up with your elected officials, you voted them in.

That would be great. Yeah. Now back to the real world.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: Brackis
It's pretty clear that religious conservative groups made an issue of this and the republicans tried to capitalize on it by looking like compassionate. There was then really no choice for a lot of Democrats who are clearly going to go along with it rather than be branded or appear "evil" in the eyes of the media and the public if they were to advocate for her being removed from life support.

Are you saying that Democrats lack the backbone to stand by their convictions? To me, it reads like you're saying that the Big Bad Republicans are bullying the Democrats into voting yes on this issue. If that is the case, your prescious Democrats should not be in office - sometimes you have the make the right decision, not the one that looks the best.

Governing by poll, wasn't that what sunk John-John?

 

[Phokus]

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: Brackis
It's pretty clear that religious conservative groups made an issue of this and the republicans tried to capitalize on it by looking like compassionate. There was then really no choice for a lot of Democrats who are clearly going to go along with it rather than be branded or appear "evil" in the eyes of the media and the public if they were to advocate for her being removed from life support.

Are you saying that Democrats lack the backbone to stand by their convictions? To me, it reads like you're saying that the Big Bad Republicans are bullying the Democrats into voting yes on this issue. If that is the case, your prescious Democrats should not be in office - sometimes you have the make the right decision, not the one that looks the best.

Governing by poll, wasn't that what sunk John-John?

Why, republicans have never voted against their conscience! (medicare bill, farm bill, education bill, etc. etc.) 🙂

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: Brackis
It's pretty clear that religious conservative groups made an issue of this and the republicans tried to capitalize on it by looking like compassionate. There was then really no choice for a lot of Democrats who are clearly going to go along with it rather than be branded or appear "evil" in the eyes of the media and the public if they were to advocate for her being removed from life support.

Are you saying that Democrats lack the backbone to stand by their convictions? To me, it reads like you're saying that the Big Bad Republicans are bullying the Democrats into voting yes on this issue. If that is the case, your prescious Democrats should not be in office - sometimes you have the make the right decision, not the one that looks the best.

Governing by poll, wasn't that what sunk John-John?

Why, republicans have never voted against their conscience! (medicare bill, farm bill, education bill, etc. etc.) 🙂

Thats because republicans don't have a conscience.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: Brackis
It's pretty clear that religious conservative groups made an issue of this and the republicans tried to capitalize on it by looking like compassionate. There was then really no choice for a lot of Democrats who are clearly going to go along with it rather than be branded or appear "evil" in the eyes of the media and the public if they were to advocate for her being removed from life support.

Are you saying that Democrats lack the backbone to stand by their convictions? To me, it reads like you're saying that the Big Bad Republicans are bullying the Democrats into voting yes on this issue. If that is the case, your prescious Democrats should not be in office - sometimes you have the make the right decision, not the one that looks the best.

Governing by poll, wasn't that what sunk John-John?

Can't you read?

Originally posted by: preslove
This is rich.

'ABC News obtained talking points circulated among Senate Republicans explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them, that it is an important moral issue and the "pro-life base will be excited," and that it is a "great political issue -- this is a tough issue for Democrats." '

No one is voting for their "convictions." This is a prefabricated political freight-train that crazy conservative christian organizations, republicans, and fox news have designed to paint democrats as "murderers." The dems are wisely not getting involved because they know that that train will run them over. Every talking point, response, and counter-response in this circus has already been planned by republican professionals and their fox news counterparts. The dems would just be overwhemed if they stood up.

 

[Heifetz]

So my question is, is the evangelical conservative base really as strong as it seems, or is it only because everyone else is so apathetic towards politics? The evangelical conservative population is a minority percentage of the population, but why do they make so much more noise on issues like this, when imo, larger percentage of the population support pulling the tube?

Are there polling results for this?

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Heifetz
So my question is, is the evangelical conservative base really as strong as it seems, or is it only because everyone else is so aphathetic towards politics? The evangelical conservative population is a minority percentage of the population, but why do they make so much noise?

Taking a wild guess here (=I could quite easily be wrong), but I would think it's because of most people being apathetic towards politics, as you mentioned. They (the conservative base you're talking about; not the "common person") see an opportunity and go with it, perhaps? That's the thought I had, anyway.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Heifetz
So my question is, is the evangelical conservative base really as strong as it seems, or is it only because everyone else is so aphathetic towards politics? The evangelical conservative population is a minority percentage of the population, but why do they make so much noise?

Unfortunately, they wield a lot of clout. Karl Rove said that bush almost lost the first election to al gore because millions of religious conservatives stayed home and didn't vote for bush.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: presloveThe dems are wisely not getting involved because they know that that train will run them over.

Incorrect. They could have abstained and chose not to.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: presloveThe dems are wisely not getting involved because they know that that train will run them over.

Incorrect. They could have abstained and chose not to.

Most of them did i think (couldn't make it back to vote on time). And i think the vote was about 50-50 with the dems.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: presloveThe dems are wisely not getting involved because they know that that train will run them over.

Incorrect. They could have abstained and chose not to.

Most of them did i think (couldn't make it back to vote on time). And i think the vote was about 50-50 with the dems.

So then I guess you could say that the 50% that voted yes wanted to vote yes? They wern't pressured by the Republicans to vote yes?

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: NFS4
PULL THE DAMN PLUG ALREADY.

 

[Mayfriday0529]

I wonder what type of huge medical bill all of this must take?

 

[Bryan]

Oh, my. I seem to have wandered into the wrong forum. The topic was alright, but all I see is a bunch of left-speak and right-speak. I thought P&N was over there....

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: Heifetz
So my question is, is the evangelical conservative base really as strong as it seems, or is it only because everyone else is so apathetic towards politics? The evangelical conservative population is a minority percentage of the population, but why do they make so much more noise on issues like this, when imo, larger percentage of the population support pulling the tube?

Are there polling results for this?

They helped re-elect Bush, despite his 50% approval rating. They absolutely have political clout in this administration.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: presloveThe dems are wisely not getting involved because they know that that train will run them over.

Incorrect. They could have abstained and chose not to.

Most of them did i think (couldn't make it back to vote on time). And i think the vote was about 50-50 with the dems.

203-58 with a handfull of republicans voting against. 50-50 on the dems side is pretty close. That make this FAR from a Rep-Dem issue. You don't see "voting down party lines" associated with this vote, because it's not.