Why is Congress so anxious to keep Terri Schiavo alive? - Page 8

Brad · #**106** Mar 21, '05, 10:04 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac6yver

Ok Brad, quiz me in regards to this case. Lets see how "unfamiliar" I am with the facts.

You do understand the points posted in #51?

Mac6yver · #**107** Mar 21, '05, 10:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

You do understand the points posted in #51?

Judge Greer's court has not been the only one to hear this case. Are you going to claim a conspiracy on every court that does not rule in your favor?

**AlanFromWichita** · #**108** Mar 21, '05, 10:13 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholicvegan

Seeing as every single court case has revealed that she didn't want to be kept on life support, why should her wishes be ignored?

First, by your use of the word "revealed" you imply that they have infallibly read her mind. If that isn't your claim, please allow me to reword your question a bit:

"Since the court cases have ruled that Terry did not wish to have life support, why should her wishes be ignored?"

Second, what do you mean by "should?" Do you mean in a legal sense or in a moral sense? In a legal sense you obey the law, but if you believe it has ruled against her wishes then by obeying the law you are ignoring her wishes. Therefore, the reason for ignoring her wishes is that this is a nation of laws and your are following the law even though you think it is wrong (unless you believe God is calling you to civil disobedience against a murderous ruling).

Quote:

A note to everyone else:

None of you answered my question. You, as conservatives usually do, gave me irrelevant answers because you refused to accept the facts I presented. Come back, and give decent answers that are actually answers to my questions, and then I'll reply.

What questions? Do you mean why is Congress acting the way they are?

It is good that you asked for a conservative to explain this to you because I'm sure you've never heard an honest answer from your own crowd.

Anyway, try this answer on for size. All politicians -- liberal, conservative and otherwise -- act the way they do by factoring in some combination of poll results and other public and private feedback, party agenda and loyalty, political ambitions, emotional responses, personal opinions and beliefs, special interests, political debts owed, opinions of people they trust, image considerations, and numerous other factors.

We'd like to think they have some altruistic view of how the world should be and are driven to reach it. To some small degree, that may even be the case -- I suspect most of them get over that quickly in their freshman year. Some may delude themselves into thinking they stay that way, while in fact they have just become so "programmed" in an agenda that they start believing what they say.

Alan

Genesis315 · #**109** Mar 21, '05, 10:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

Technically, it is the HoR's job to put forth the views of their constituency. That is why they're called Representatives. The Senate's job is SUPPOSED to be defending the integrity of State's rights. That is why there are two senators per state regardless of capitization, i.e. each state is equal in the eyes of the Constitution. But, since the floating interpretation of the Constitution for the last 60 or so years, the work of the founding fathers is coming to naught.

Back in the day Senators were chosen by the state government (right?) but now they are elected by popular vote. They basically are just glorified reps nowadays so I treat them as such

. Sorry for the civics hijack.

**AlanFromWichita** · #**110** Mar 21, '05, 10:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by fix

Truth by poll?

a.k.a. Mob Rule

Lisa4Catholics · #**111** Mar 21, '05, 10:17 am

Catholicvegan

I can not even believe the way your thread is presented

Let me ask you something......What is a life worth?Should life be in the hands of an estranged husband and a Judge?

Why do you have a problem with them intervening?

Scott_Lafrance · #**112** Mar 21, '05, 10:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac6yver

Judge Greer's court has not been the only one to hear this case. Are you going to claim a conspiracy on every court that does not rule in your favor?

I'll tell you fair. Assign Terri Schiavo a guardian ad litem who's only job is to fight for what Terri wants. It is obvious that Michael's interests concerning Terri are compromised. In fact, if Florida is a common-law marriage state, he should be guilty of bigamy. Is it conspiracy to seek justice? The injustice of this case has reached around the world, I wonder why you can't see it. You must not be looking very hard, or you are seeing what you want to see.

Brad · #**113** Mar 21, '05, 10:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac6yver

Judge Greer's court has not been the only one to hear this case. Are you going to claim a conspiracy on every court that does not rule in your favor?

Greer's court has been the only court willing to hear arguments related to the alternate witnesses regarding the key notion that Terri would want to die under these cirumstances. Greer's court has been the only court to even partially hear arguments regarding malicious intent of Michael Shiavo.

Vast conspiracy? That's a Clinton term. I simply say the judicial branch in Florida is broken, either through incompetence, laziness, or idealism. Apparently, the WSJ agrees with me.

Again, your presumption that because the case has gone through a series of judges that the case was farily considered represents a simplistic view of the legal process. All "facts" are not re-considered upon appeals and all errors of judges cannot necessarily be appealed.

Scott_Lafrance · #**114** Mar 21, '05, 10:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genesis315

Back in the day Senators were chosen by the state government (right?) but now they are elected by popular vote. They basically are just glorified reps nowadays so I treat them as such

. Sorry for the civics hijack.

I would have elaborated in my post, but essentially, yes, today's Senators are essentially elite representatives, no more, no less.

**AlanFromWichita** · #**115** Mar 21, '05, 10:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisa4Catholics

Catholicvegan

I can not even believe the way your thread is presented

Let me ask you something......What is a life worth?Should life be in the hands of an estranged husband and a Judge?

Why do you have a problem with them intervening?

For real. I guess we should follow the law when it rules the way we want it to, and quickly. We should NEVER ask the people whose job it is to write the laws to become interested in how they get enforced. Once they pass them, by golly, it's out of their hands forever and it's just an enforcement issue. That would work, maybe, if Congress was infallible with each law they have ever passed in the past.

Alan

Lilyofthevalley · #**116** Mar 21, '05, 10:25 am

Catholic Vegan, you are the hypocrite, you fret about circus animals and their treatment, yet you believe a disabled human being should be starved to death....
I will eat my range fed home grown steak tonight in your honor.

Lilyofthevalley · #**117** Mar 21, '05, 10:26 am

.What is a life worth?Should life be in the hands of an estranged husband and a Judge? Why do you have a problem with them intervening?
=====================
save the chicken kill the lady. Makes sense doesn't it???

Scott_Lafrance · #**118** Mar 21, '05, 10:28 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilyofthevalley

.What is a life worth?Should life be in the hands of an estranged husband and a Judge? Why do you have a problem with them intervening?
=====================
save the chicken kill the lady. Makes sense doesn't it???

Maybe it would make more sense to CV if we shoved Terri in a cramped chicken coup with hundreds of other disabled people and threatened to skin them and make coats out of them.

**AlanFromWichita** · #**119** Mar 21, '05, 10:32 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

Vast conspiracy? That's a Clinton term.

Please endulge another sidetrack...

Not only is is a Clinton term, but it is Hillary's.

Remember when she unleashed that word? It was while she was telling the whole world that the allegations her husband was cheating on her are false and are part of a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy to smear his image.

Whenever I hear of Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, I think of the "smartest woman in the world" that aspires to have her finger on the button, but who lets her husband make a total fool out of her. It was easy because she has such a skewed worldview that she can easily ignore mountains of intelligence information if it doesn't fit her agenda.

Alan

Faustina · #**120** Mar 21, '05, 10:38 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholicvegan

Well, I guess no one here does care that republicans manipulate you all to get votes. But they've never taken such an interest in a case of this nature before...elections are in November...

How do you figure the Republicans are manipulating the votes? It is more like the Republican party answering the call of their constitutients.