Congress: We don't need no Constitution

[Lurker]

I'm not sure I get this line of argument. I'm very much for letting the Husband make the decisions for his wife. I think the parents are wrong.

However, those Republicans who are for keeping Terry alive believe that the husband is trying to kill her. How does "sanctity of marriage" trump that?

Why didn't the husband try to kill her over the first seven years? During that time, he did everything in his power to try and save her.

Ooops, that's right. I am responding to RandFan and not a conservative whacko. You are reasonable. I presume you don't join Hannity in his bizarre murder allegations.

Lurker

 

[Lurker]

Material3, a poster on this thread, says he has a clinic full of your so-called "brain dead" people every day, similar to Terry. I think he/she would take issue with your characterization. I'll defer to his/her judgement.

So you choose Maerial3, who has not examined Terri over the seven neurologists who have.

All right, your bias is showing quite plainly.

Lurker

 

[RandFan]

Why didn't the husband try to kill her over the first seven years? During that time, he did everything in his power to try and save her.

Valid argument. BTW, the court found that the husband went to the hospital and spent more time with her than anyone else. That is significant in my book. Perhaps one of the most significant pieces of evidence. Murdering husbands don't act that way IMHO. He has not spared any expense to treat her. His decision came after a long period of working with the parents. I think this man has been shamelessly slandered. The evidence is on his side.

Ooops, that's right. I am responding to RandFan and not a conservative whacko. You are reasonable. I presume you don't join Hannity in his bizarre murder allegations.

I listened to in-Sanniti on Monday. I found myself saying over and over "but that is simply not true"? He set a record on that day for making demonstrably false statements. I resigned myself not to listen to him for awhile. His refusal to look at this issue in an intellectually honest way is shameful. Yes, I'm saying Hannity is being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Cleon]

Yes, I'm saying Hannity is being intellectually dishonest.

Which is a bit like saying Randi has a beard.

 

[RussDill]

Material3, a poster on this thread, says he has a clinic full of your so-called "brain dead" people every day, similar to Terry. I think he/she would take issue with your characterization. I'll defer to his/her judgement.

is it just me, or does easycruise keep refering to posters that don't exist?

Also, I'm curious as to why you would defer to "his" judgement, but not the countless experts who have testified on the husband's behalf.

 

[RussDill]

Yup.

Yup.

Uhhh, no. Kill him.
I'm pretty much for killing across the board.

You make me laugh, I kill you last.

 

[Elind]

You really need to read the previous posts on a thread before making a post like that. .otherwise you look lazy and ignorant about the arguments. Here's what I said previously.....


1. No living will, no coma, no respirator, no terminal disease. Kill her anyway, Husband says. He treats wife badly, withholds any and all treatment, says "When is that bitch going to die" (Nurse testimony)

Liberals want to kill her anyway.

2. Partial birth abortion. Fetus's head is out of the canal, stick a spear up the nostril and destroy the brain.

Liberals OK with that killing.

3. Pedophile confesses to raping and killing little girl and buries her in shallow grave.

Liberals not OK with the death penalty for that killer.

Let's keep it simple. Easycruise loigic is an oxymoron.

 

[davefoc]

Elind said:

Let's keep it simple. Easycruise loigic is an oxymoron

Well, I'm not sure, but Easycruise logic on this topic is parroting what virtually every "conservative" talk show host that I have listened to is doing.

That is, misrepresent and on occasion lie about the situation. Repeat every anti Michael Schiavo accusation without ever noting the questionable credibility of the source. No matter what never discuss the actual specifics of what the court appointed doctors testified to. Do the utmost to couch this issue as the evil liberals versus the righteous conservatives while totally ignoring the fact that there is not one identified demographic group in the country for which polling has been done that agrees with the "conservative" view on this issue including the conservatives.

Truth is not relevant in the public discussion by the "conservative" talk show hosts. Any statement is fair as long as it serves a partisan purpose.

Easycruise might take a look at what the others in this thread have said who agree with his view about Terri Schiavo. The difference is stark. On one hand Easycruise spouts canned partisan rhetoric and on the hand you have people who, while differing with the general consensus, can still discuss the situation with thoughtfulness and respect for others they disagree with.

 

[Elind]

Well, I'm not sure, but Easycruise logic on this topic is parroting what virtually every "conservative" talk show host that I have listened to is doing.

That is, misrepresent and on occasion lie about the situation. Repeat every anti Michael Schiavo accusation without ever noting the questionable credibility of the source. No matter what never discuss the actual specifics of what the court appointed doctors testified to. Do the utmost to couch this issue as the evil liberals versus the righteous conservatives while totally ignoring the fact that there is not one identified demographic group in the country for which polling has been done that agrees with the "conservative" view on this issue including the conservatives.

Truth is not relevant in the public discussion by the "conservative" talk show hosts. Any statement is fair as long as it serves a partisan purpose.

Easycruise might take a look at what the others in this thread have said who agree with his view about Terri Schiavo. The difference is stark. On one hand Easycruise spouts canned partisan rhetoric and on the hand you have people who, while differing with the general consensus, can still discuss the situation with thoughtfulness and respect for others they disagree with.

I agree. I was hoping to get back to a more logical and less emotionally biased discussion. Looks like a non starter.

 

[RandFan]

Truth is not relevant in the public discussion by the "conservative" talk show hosts. Any statement is fair as long as it serves a partisan purpose.

I think some are better than others. I'm not certain that "liberal" talks show hosts are necassarily better.

 

[easycruise]

Yeah, good one. The nurse's testimony was thrown out years ago by the judge. He termed her allegation too incredible to believe. She claimed she contacted Terri's parents yet they never acknoldged it in the court cases. The nurse claimed to witness Terri doing thinsg nobody else has ever seen. Amazing! the nurse claims to have heard Michael Schiavo say things that nobody else has heard him say. The list goes on and on why this nurse is not a credible witness.

But don't let any mitigating facts get in your way, Easycruise. I can tell you have mad eup your mind and the facts be damned! Carry on, Senor Quixote!

Lurker

Be careful claiming things as "facts", Lurker. You and the judge can't prove for a *fact* that she is lying. If so, Judge Greer is now the perfect "lie detector". Send him around to every court in the country, I say! Just because James Randi might say there is no God, doesn't mean it is a *fact*. I happen to agree with Randi, but I am open to the possibility that there *could* be a so-called God. Famed atheist Anthony Flew has now changed his mind about the existence of a God.

Two other nurses also say negative statements about Michael. Granted, they all could be lying, but then again....

 

[Cleon]

Be careful claiming things as "facts", Lurker. You and the judge can't prove for a *fact* that she is lying.

Therefore, she's probably telling the truth, right?

 

[Mycroft]

Be careful claiming things as "facts", Lurker. You and the judge can't prove for a *fact* that she is lying.

The fact that her testimony was thrown out for lack of credibility is not in dispute, is it?

 

[Ladyhawk]

Be careful claiming things as "facts", Lurker. You and the judge can't prove for a *fact* that she is lying. If so, Judge Greer is now the perfect "lie detector". Send him around to every court in the country, I say! Just because James Randi might say there is no God, doesn't mean it is a *fact*. I happen to agree with Randi, but I am open to the possibility that there *could* be a so-called God. Famed atheist Anthony Flew has now changed his mind about the existence of a God.

Two other nurses also say negative statements about Michael. Granted, they all could be lying, but then again....

The fact is that the judge did throw the nurse's testimony out. Lurker is correct.

The fact is that you are not 'the perfect lie detector', either.

The fact is that Anthony Flew has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. (And if that didn't look like a desperate , futile attempt at grasping at straws to make a point, I don't know what is)

The fact that you are open to the possibility of a god is not relevant to this discussion.

The fact is that you have yourself admitted that these nurses could be lying, and yet you constantly cite their statements as one of the reasons to support your argument.

So. Who do you think is the one who needs to get their facts straight?

 

[RandFan]

The fact is that the judge did throw the nurse's testimony out. Lurker is correct.

The fact is that you are not 'the perfect lie detector', either.

The fact is that Anthony Flew has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. (And if that didn't look like a desperate , futile attempt at grasping at straws to make a point, I don't know what is)

The fact that you are open to the possibility of a god is not relevant to this discussion.

The fact is that you have yourself admitted that these nurses could be lying, and yet you constantly cite their statements as one of the reasons to support your argument.

So. Who do you think is the one who needs to get their facts straight?

"You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." --Homer Simpson.

 

[davefoc]

Randfan wrote:

I think some [conservative commentators] are better than others. I'm not certain that "liberal" talks show hosts are necassarily better.

Sorry, I implied something I didn't mean. I was referring to specifically the Schiavo case and specifically the conservative commentators I had heard on this issue.

In particular three stood out as particularly bad:
Hannity
Limbaugh
Guy subbing for Dennis Praeger

The guy subbing for Dennis Praeger was the worst IMHO, as he made up stuff about her talking and how if she could only get some therapy she could be doing really well in three months or so.

Somewhat more even handed
Al Rantel (radio talk show host in LA area)
O'Reilly

I hadn't heard any liberal commentators (there aren't many in my area) on this issue except alan combes (does he count?). I did look up what Susan Estrich had to say (my favorite liberal next to Earthborn). She seemed pretty reasonable to me.
http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=ses

I also looked up Bill Buckley and saw what he had to say. He seemed pretty reasonable also.
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley.asp

 

[RandFan]

In particular three stood out as particularly bad:
Hannity
Limbaugh
Guy subbing for Dennis Praeger

Agreed. I listened to Limbaugh yesterday. Rush can be quite entertaining and on occasion make some valid points. I couldn't count a single one yesterday.

Somewhat more even handed
Al Rantel (radio talk show host in LA area)
O'Reilly

I thought Larry Elder did a reasonable job.

I hadn't heard any liberal commentators (there aren't many in my area) on this issue except alan combes (does he count?).

Alan is very good. He isn't the best for opposing Hannity but his reasoned arguments stand in juxtipositon to Hannity's fallacies. Sadly many if not most people prefer bluster to reason.

I did look up what Susan Estrich had to say (my favorite liberal next to Earthborn). She seemed pretty reasonable to me.

Oh, I like Estrich. Pat Cadell also I think is great. I haven't heard either in these debates but I find them quite good.

 

[kookbreaker]

Be careful claiming things as "facts", Lurker. You and the judge can't prove for a *fact* that she is lying. If so, Judge Greer is now the perfect "lie detector".

As the judge pointed out, for her to be telling the truth, nearly everyone involved in this case would need to be part of a massive coverup, including Terri's parents!. Couple this with the fact that this 'nurse' was dismissed for incompetence makes her testimony less than credible. You need to no magic lie detection to figure this out.

The demonization of the husband in this case is contemptable, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[easycruise]

The fact is that the judge did throw the nurse's testimony out. Lurker is correct.

The fact is that you are not 'the perfect lie detector', either.

The fact is that Anthony Flew has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. (And if that didn't look like a desperate , futile attempt at grasping at straws to make a point, I don't know what is)

The fact that you are open to the possibility of a god is not relevant to this discussion.

The fact is that you have yourself admitted that these nurses could be lying, and yet you constantly cite their statements as one of the reasons to support your argument.

So. Who do you think is the one who needs to get their facts straight?

No, you're wrong. I mentioned they * could* be lying. . Are they all be lying? We'll never know. Want to bet a life (Terry's) on it? Slippery slope is what this case is all about.

 

[easycruise]

The fact is that Anthony Flew has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. (And if that didn't look like a desperate , futile attempt at grasping at straws to make a point, I don't know what is)

The fact that you are open to the possibility of a god is not relevant to this discussion.

Analogies are not allowed for debating purposes in this forum? Wow. I love your debating rules.