Congress: We don't need no Constitution

wahrheit said:
...But I think if I was a religious person, I would find it even more disturbing watching some of these guys abusing my deity for mundane affairs.[/I]
Click to expand...

...Do I run from this person with common sense who's in this part of the forum in shock and fear or do I love him/her?
 
Let's see, court affidavits, (liars!),
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, and affidavit is not immune to lies or fabricated testimonies.

doctor's testimony (quacks!)
Click to expand...

Yes, they were. They didn't have any evidence to support their quack theories and rhetoric. The leading doctor on the parent's side of the issue is an alternative medicine advocate and he's only published his finding in the peer-reviewed journal "National Enquirer".

many videos (edited!) and ThaistickKen is seemingly smoking another one when he says that anyone who presents evidence contrary to his point of view doesn't have any facts.
Click to expand...

The videos have been shown to be just clips, or snapshots of a larger picture. Sure, Terri looks like she's nodding and smiling to people that interact with her, the funny thing is, she keeps smiling and nodding even when people AREN'T there!!



Apparently, you know something that over 20 different judges don't know, Easycruise. :rolleyes:
 
davefoc said:
easycruise, why do you see this as a liberal/conservative issue?

There are many folks on this board that hold more or less conservative positions on a lot of issues. Of the ones who I have seen express an opinion on this issue all but one of those think that withdrawing care from Terri Schiavo is correct.

My mother-in-law that has never voted for a Republican in her life and who disagrees with just about every political view of her son-in-law (that would be me) thinks that care should be continued for Schiavo indefinitely.

Is it possible that you have adopted your view of this issue because conservative commentators and politicians have attempted to polarize the country on this issue for their own gains and you have bought into their schtick. In case you haven't noticed many of these commentators have resorted to flat out lying to hype this issue as much as possible for their own gain. Yesterday I heard one of them talking about the words that Schiavo was saying and how with just some therapy she could begin to get better. I haven't heard one straightforward honest statement of her condition from any of the ones I listen to.
Click to expand...

Let's not get confused here. Conservatives are in favor of letting her die with dignity. And as of now, we are winning. It is religious loonies who have this bizarre fetish with keeping her "alive".
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Let's not get confused here. Conservatives are in favor of letting her die with dignity. And as of now, we are winning. It is religious loonies who have this bizarre fetish with keeping her "alive".
Click to expand...

That's what happens when you take fundies to bed with you.
 
Is it just me - or is anyone else becoming TERRIFIED with the current Bush administration/congress? I thought that dismantling Social Security was about as far as they could possibly go. Now this obscene intrusion on both States rights and the sanctity of marriage. Whats next? Freedom of the Press is certainly under assault in a very clever/subtle way. I guess that I need to reread Orwells 1984 or maybe watch a little more Hitler/History channel.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Let's not get confused here. Conservatives are in favor of letting her die with dignity. And as of now, we are winning. It is religious loonies who have this bizarre fetish with keeping her "alive".
Click to expand...
So are you saying every Republican (along with Many Democrats) in Congress and the president are "religious loonies"?
 
DavidJames said:
So are you saying every Republican (along with Many Democrats) in Congress and the president are "religious loonies"?
Click to expand...

Another option would be that they're catering to the religious loonies, which is almost certainly the case with regard to the Republicans.
 
wahrheit said:
This religious endorsement is only optional in our constitution when taking the oath of office, not a requirement.

Though churches lobbying fiercely, the new European Constitution (Nov 2004) does not contain a reference to God or Christianity, only a general reference to religious and cultural tradition of Europe. The separation of state and church is especially strong in France, they would have never accepted a deity being mentioned in such a secular affair.
Click to expand...
Religious oaths are also optional in the US (although I find merely asking for one to be offensive- there is a clear implication that atheists can't be trusted), and the US Constitution is also void of references to God. While I think that the US often doesn't live up to the promise of the First Amendment, France doesn't even have it to begin with, which is evident from their outlawing Islamic dress in public schools. I would be shocked to see such a thing in the US.

easycruise said:
Ken said that Terry should be killed because she only has half her brain. Period. I said, wait, here's another person with half a brain, (should we execute them too?) You missed the point.
Click to expand...
You are either a liar or an idiot, and quite probably both. I "missed" the point because it exists only in your imagination. At no time did Ken state that all people missing half a brain should be killed, and if you honestly believe that he did, you have some serious reading comprehension problems.
 
There a question that I think is central to this entire issue, and yet everyone seems to be dancing around it. I don't know if that's because it's so obvious that people don't think it needs to be mentioned, or it really hasn't occurred to them. But here it is:

Is there a problem with current law?

If the answer is no, then they shouldn't be changing it. If the answer is yes, then they should change it. In neither case does it make sense to change it for just one person. Is there some universal principle that Congress wishes to enshrine in law, or is there some reason why another person in her position should not get this special treatment? If Congress thinks that federal courts should be allowed to overrule state ones on such matters, why don't they just say so?
 
Art wrote:
Is there a problem with current law?
Click to expand...

I think, playing devil's advocate here, it could be argued that in this particular case, it appeared to some in congress that it was possible that Schiavo was being killed unjustly and that the congress in order to err on the side of caution wanted the federal judiciary to review the case and provide another safeguard for Schiavo.

The problem for the court with what congress wanted them to do, it seems to me, is that the applicable law in this case would be Florida state law and what reason is there to believe that the federal courts would find that the Florida courts had ruled incorrectly. I think the federal courts found that it was insufficiently likely that they would find differently to justify reinserting the tube and going through years of federal lititigation to find out.

Assuming that congress decided that it wanted to save Schiavo what it could do to accomplish that? Could it explicitly order a federal court to retry the case? Could it pass either a special law or a general law the would keep Schiavo alive in some other way? My suspicion is that the reason they were able to get the bill passed that they did was that it was ambiguous enough that people could vote for it without getting directly involved with the decision to prolong this ordeal. I suspect that a more straightforward keep Schiavo alive bill would not have passed even if there was a constitutional way to accomplish that.
 
wahrheit said:
I am quite new to the forum so please allow me a brief personal note: As a non-U.S. resident I am not to post smart comments on U.S. politics, I only wanted to reply to your question in this thread. However, reading U.S. news and boards daily I might say that I am quite puzzled at the strong influence religion has in everyday political statements, or even decisions. It seems to me that "faith", "God" and "bless ..." etc. are thrown in every other sentence quite nonchalantly. An atheist myself, I find this rather disturbing, naturally. But I think if I was a religious person, I would find it even more disturbing watching some of these guys abusing my deity for mundane affairs.
Click to expand...

I think that to a great extent they are playing it safe. That is to say, if you are in NY you say that you have always been a Yankees fan. Religion is important to a lot of Americans so polititions, being weasels, pay homage to that fact. Not a biggie, sort of like saying "bless you" if someone sneezes.

I think, though, that if you talked to a person who takes their religion seriously and is a bit thoughtful, you would find that they see right thru this crap and are more than a bit nervous about the separation issue.
 
On a purely religious front,

"Her MORTAL soul"? If such a thing exists, isn't it supposed to be IMMORTAL ? If the tube remains removed, SHE didn't remove it, so it isn't suicide. Shouldn't such devout/devoted parents, who apparently admit that she is PVS, wish to release her "immortal soul" to heaven?
 
joe1347 said:
Is it just me - or is anyone else becoming TERRIFIED with the current Bush administration/congress?
Click to expand...
Terrified? Absolutely not. Angry and disappointed? Yes.

I thought that dismantling Social Security was about as far as they could possibly go.
Click to expand...
Assumes facts not in evidence. In any event I agree with changing Social Security.

Whats next? Freedom of the Press is certainly under assault in a very clever/subtle way. I guess that I need to reread Orwells 1984 or maybe watch a little more Hitler/History channel.
Click to expand...
Well of course. Godwin predicted you would compare Bush to Hitler. Thank you for proving him correct.
 
joe1347 said:
Is it just me - or is anyone else becoming TERRIFIED with the current Bush administration/congress? I thought that dismantling Social Security was about as far as they could possibly go. Now this obscene intrusion on both States rights and the sanctity of marriage. Whats next? Freedom of the Press is certainly under assault in a very clever/subtle way.
Click to expand...

My primary concern through this whole ordeal has, indeed,been around the ability of politicians to call Congress from recess and manipulate a hearing, for the benefit of but one individual, at their whim . The usurption of State law and sanctity of marriage (both of these being platforms that the Republican Party purports to support) is somewhat frightening to me. There can be no question that political aspirations were a focus. (This evidenced by the GOP memo that was leaked).

I presume your reference to the FOP issue concerns the discovery of Bush folks planting stories on FOX news, et al. This concerns me as well, though not to the same extent. Frankly, my guess is that this has been going on for years, with both the Dems and the Reps.

As regards Social Security, there is no question that something must be done and soon. I have concerns with privatization, only to the extent that disability income may be affected...but that's another thread, another time. I don't know of any Democrats who have introduced a better plan, but I'm admittedly not on top of this issue.
 
Ladyhawk said:
The usurption of State law and sanctity of marriage (both of these being platforms that the Republican Party purports to support) is somewhat frightening to me.
Click to expand...

Yes, me too. We have a lot of laws based on the spouse having "control" over theirr spouse in these sorts of cases. I guess they need to be rewritten now.


As regards Social Security, there is no question that something must be done and soon. I have concerns with privatization, only to the extent that disability income may be affected...but that's another thread, another time. I don't know of any Democrats who have introduced a better plan, but I'm admittedly not on top of this issue.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the projected cost of Bush's plan ($15 trillion over 30 years) concern you at all? I'll stop the derail here though.

Lurker
 
LostAngeles said:
...Do I run from this person with common sense who's in this part of the forum in shock and fear or do I love him/her?
Click to expand...
Choose love! And thanks for the common sense part, assuming there was no irony here :D
 
I don't know of any Democrats who have introduced a better plan, but I'm admittedly not on top of this issue.
Click to expand...

you do realize, of course, that Bush hasn't really introduced a plan either...the devil being in the details and the cost, and he has avoided the details, save for personal accounts (which everyone agrees will not save the system, nor get you very close to saving the system, but which will cost trillions...).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom