• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fueling the religious right

thaiboxerken

Penultimate Amazing
thaiboxerken
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
34,530
Well, it looks like the Terri Schiavo circus has added fire to religious right's fight to put the bible into government. Here are some highlights.

One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America," DeLay told the crowd.

"This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," DeLay said. He
complained that "the other side" was leading the attack, with a goal "to defeat the conservative movement."

According to DeLay, a "whole syndicate" of "do-gooder" forces are arrayed against him in "a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in."
Click to expand...


http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=7277&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=press_audio

The second link has audio and full transcript of the meeting.

More lovely quotes from the meeting:

.Monday’s terrible decision in California reminded us of the stakes. We’ve got activist trial-court judges and their allies on the left who will not stop until they have imposed their vision of marriage on every state in the union. And let me just say that we have got to, we will, take action to preserve, and protect, and defend the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

And let me just finish with this. This is exactly the issue that’s going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others. The point is, the other side has figured out how to win and defeat the conservative movement, and that is to go after people personally, charge them with frivolous charges, link that up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros, and then get the national media on their side.
Click to expand...
 
Monday’s terrible decision in California reminded us of the stakes. We’ve got activist trial-court judges and their allies on the left who will not stop until they have imposed their vision of marriage on every state in the union. And let me just say that we have got to, we will, take action to preserve, and protect, and defend the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

Does he mean the sanctity of marriage that allows a husband to make medical decisions for his wife if she's incapacitated?

Oops.
 
'Activist judges' has become code for 'we didn't get the ruling we wanted'...
But some of these politican's comments are just ludicrous.

And there is no logical consistency...apparently these clowns want popular sentiment fueled by media hype to supercede any legal precedent, or rational decision making.

The fact that we already have 2 branches of government that make decisions based on political expediency isn't good enough apparently.
 
Once again, "objecting to attempts to use the government to control our lives" are considered "attacks against the conservative movement"

It's just like how "not allowing christians to use the government to force their religion" is "persecuting christians."
 
Tony said:
Keep it up ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, the more you talk, the more your true colors show.
Click to expand...

Are you talking to us, or are you referring to Frist, Delay and their mob?
 
thaiboxerken said:
Are you talking to us, or are you referring to Frist, Delay and their mob?
Click to expand...

You should know me better than that, but, for the record, I was talking about the theocrats you mentioned.
 
I just like how they said everyone who doesn't like the court's answer will go before congress. Think it will happen?

They also had something on a law Bush passed while in Texas. It allows the doctors to override the family's choice on plug or unplug.
 
merphie said:

They also had something on a law Bush passed while in Texas. It allows the doctors to override the family's choice on plug or unplug.
Click to expand...

Yea, but that doesn't count because... well, just because.
 
Does he mean the sanctity of marriage that allows a husband to make medical decisions for his wife if she's incapacitated?

"Sanctity of marriage", so far as I know, never meant the right to kill your spouse. Even by starvation when she's unconsious and you can claim that's what she would have wanted.
 
This report from AP and Yahoo shows that DeLay is twerked off an he is trying to get his buddies to help him.

The allegations against him are all because of his ideology, and the people making the allegations are all "liberals."

During the Watergate era, this sort of B.S. was called the "non-denial denial." Resort to name-calling, hide the ball, try to throw up procedural hurdles, make outrageous allegations of your own... anything to avoid having to actually face up to the issues like a man.
 
Skeptic said:
Does he mean the sanctity of marriage that allows a husband to make medical decisions for his wife if she's incapacitated?

"Sanctity of marriage", so far as I know, never meant the right to kill your spouse. Even by starvation when she's unconsious and you can claim that's what she would have wanted.
Click to expand...

What does Sanctity of Marriage mean, Skeptic?
 
Now the judiciary is riddled with liberals, to go with the media, the science establishment, education, medicine and the intelligentsia generally. I wonder if this lot have learnt enough from McCarthy's fate not to turn on the Army?
 
merphie said:
They also had something on a law Bush passed while in Texas. It allows the doctors to override the family's choice on plug or unplug.
Click to expand...
Not just the family's choice. It also allows doctors to pull the plug against the clearly expressed wishes of a concious and alert patient who is begging to be allowed to live.

Here is the statute in question. The magic phrase is buried under subsection 166.046, Subsection (e):

(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic, I've seen you make reference to the fact that you think the feeding tube shouldn't have been pulled on Schiavo in several places.

Would you mind a few questions about that?

Assuming the answer to the above is no:

What was your personal appraisal of her condition?

Was your opposition to removing her feeding tube based partly on a view that there was still some chance for her to recover at lest partially?

Assuming that you were in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of recovery (assume this for this question even if you disagree that this was Schiavo's condition) would you want your life to be sustained? Would it make any difference if your condition was diagnosed as a minimally concious state instead of a Persistent vegetative state?

If Schiavo had had a living will stating explicitly that she didn't want her life sustained under the condition that she was in would you still have opposed removing the feeding tube?

If the husband and the Parents had agreed that the feeding tube should be removed would you still have been opposed to the removal of the feeding tube?

Would your feelings about the case have been different if Schiavo had been on a ventilator and a feeding tube?

Would you favor changing the law so that responsibility for right to die type decisions moved from the husband to the parents or perhaps the husband and the parents?
 
Random said:
Not just the family's choice. It also allows doctors to pull the plug against the clearly expressed wishes of a concious and alert patient who is begging to be allowed to live.

Here is the statute in question. The magic phrase is buried under subsection 166.046, Subsection (e):
Click to expand...

That kind of stuff makes me ill.
 
merphie said:
That kind of stuff makes me ill.
Click to expand...

Not too ill, I hope. They'll turn you into soylent greens on the 11th day, and served as an appetizer at the Culture of Life Annual Fundraiser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom